Wednesday, January 6, 2010

Former Bush Team Member Says WTC Collapse Likely A Controlled Demolition - Part 5

R90245
5 years ago
whateveryousay

welcome to page 15


R90249
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

Thanks.


R90290
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

If you want to see collapse videos on 9-11 Research

Go here

Clik on Evidence at the top left to get here

Clik on videos under Evidence to get here

Post Modified: 10/17/05 12:30:34

R90301
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

The first video on the list, South Tower collapse from the East, under Videos of the South Tower Collapse here

check out the still frames just below right here

especially frames 147

and 203

What do we see below the grayish black smoke line? What are those lines of white smoke?

Post Modified: 10/17/05 12:28:00

R90304
5 years ago
cortez

Another 9/11 Smoking Gun?

Emergency personnel tapes released in August contain the following statements concerning “flashes” in the world trade centers prior to their collapse:

The captain of emergency medical services said somewhere around the middle of the world trade center there was this orange and red flash coming out … initially it was just one flash then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode … and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides … as far as could see these popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger going both up and down and then all around the building (page 15 — pdf file; Google’s web version is here)

Similiarly, the Assistant Fire Commissioner stated I thought . . . before . . . No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. . . . I . . . saw a flash flash flash . . . [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they . . . blow up a building. . . ?” . In the same statement, the Assistant Commissioner recounts how a lieutenant firefighter he spoke with independently verified the flashes.

Compare these two videos from a leading controlled demolition company:

Can you see orange flashes all over the near-side of this building in this authenticated video of a controlled demolition?

Do you see orange flashes at the base of this building in this demolition video by the same demolition company? (both videos are posted at the World Records section of Controlled Demolition’s website)

Does the above-described evidence tend to prove that controlled demolition explosives were used in the twin towers? Or could a series of orange and red flashes accompanied by popping sounds immediately prior to the collapse of the towers have been caused by something else?


R90370
5 years ago
whateveryousay

referring back to the article, Explosion Sounds and the World Trade Center – Twin Tower Collapses
there’s been an update.

another clip has been added and evidence of explosions pointed out.

it also demonstrates that the intervals between explosion sounds on the different clips are the same. one camera almost under the tower, the other camera about a mile away and they both record the same sequence of sounds. some of which are so intense they cause the mile away camera to shake.


R90380
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

Vely vely interesting!


R90853
5 years ago
fennec

Post Modified: 10/19/05 18:00:22

R91008
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

Leading Theologian Speaks Out On 9/11 in NYC

Excerpts

“He included excerpts from the firemen’s tapes which were recently released as a result of a prolonged court battle led by victim’s families represented by attorney Norman Siegel and reported in the NY Times. He also included statements by many witnesses. These sources gave ample testimony giving evidence to explosions going off in the buildings. A 12 minute film was shown for the audiences, who saw for themselves the undeniable details which were presented.”

“Dr. Griffin received standing ovations following both events, which were filled to capacity. With presentations like this, it’s getting increasingly difficult for the naysayers to ignore the actual evidence that the events on 9/11 were far different from what the public has been told. Now its time for the public at large to objectively view this research and seek to learn all they can about the alternative views on the attacks of 9/11, since the US government continues to use that fateful day to further its agenda in so many ways. To understand our current political reality, understanding 9/11 is required.”

9-11 Truth

Post Modified: 10/20/05 15:44:45

R91009
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

Post Modified: 10/20/05 15:51:41

R91095
5 years ago
zark

To understand our current political reality, understanding 9/11 is required

agreed. Pentagon/FAA/NORAD running drills on september 11th 2001 which mirrors the actual terrorist strike on the same day, at the same time. The co-incide-nce of theory and practice.
Deleuze wrote about lines-of-flight and tracing. The former being free flowing movement, the latter a manufactured reclamation of a line-of-flight. I propose that on 11th september 2001 in New York the two lines co-incide-d.
Baudrillard exposed the simulacra as a functioning system that is replacement for ‘the real’ and functions to reconstitute reality in order to retain the death-of-the-real. When the real is given chance to appear, the simulacra brings into operation any tool it requires to maintain the death-of-the-real. Politics, Power, Control, Ideology are all used to perform this.
The co-incide-nce of theory and practice exposes the real but immediately the simulacra re-constitutes and brings in its required tools to survive. 11/9/2001 exposed ‘the real’, yet immediately singularity was developed. Osama bin laden did it. NWO did it. Neo-Cons did it. Power, control and ideology was re-asserted and re-invested thus protecting the real from being discovered.
This co-incide-nce occured again on 7th july 2005 in London; Visor consultants and Subway bombs. Al-qaeda cell did it.
What can be understood about our political reality? Its function is that of simulacra. Simulacra is the functioning of the state. Beaurocracy gave simulacra life within the state, a life of dominance.
Foucault said that history is not telelogical instead therE are different periods of history where one system is more dominant that others. He calls them epistemes. Each system is always there, always waiting to dominate but only 1 can dominate in each episteme. Our period is dominated by Simulacra.
The simulacra is internalised, this is what Foucault was talking about. Bio-power is only a part of it. The body is information, and as such is Simulacra.
Understanding 9/11 is vital to understanding our reality. Theory and practice co-incide.

Post Modified: 10/21/05 01:31:08

R91707
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

December 25, 2001: Experts: WTC Collapse Investigation “Inadequate”

The New York Times reports that “some of the nation’s leading structural engineers and fire-safety experts” believe the investigation into the collapse of the WTC is “inadequate,” and “are calling for a new, independent and better-financed inquiry that could produce the kinds of conclusions vital for skyscrapers and future buildings nationwide.” Experts critical of the investigation include “some of those people who are actually conducting it.” They point out that the current team of 20 or so investigators has no subpoena power, inadequate financial support, and little staff support. Additionally, it has been prevented from interviewing witnesses and frequently prevented from examining the disaster site, and has been unable to obtain basic information like detailed blueprints of the buildings that collapsed. The decision to recycle the steel columns, beams, and trusses from the WTC rapidly in the days immediately after 9/11 means definitive answers may never be known. (New York Times. 12/25/01) Incredibly, some of the steel is reforged into commemorative medallions selling for $30 apiece. (Associated Press 1/30/02)

THE TERROR TIMELINE, p. 507
Year by Year, Day by Day, Minute by Minute:
A Comprehensive Chronicle of the Road to 9/11 – and America’s Response
Paul Thompson and the Center for Cooperative Research.

Post Modified: 10/23/05 09:22:20

R91944
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

My free DVD Confronting the Evidence arrived in the mail. This is the video that I talked about back on page 10.

And for our resident experts, here is your chance to win a million dollars.

Post Modified: 10/24/05 12:11:07

R91952
5 years ago
Chickenma1

His million is safe.


R92003
5 years ago
whateveryousay

for those of you who didn’t realize that the moon was a hoax:

The $100,000 challenge… This website now proves the nonexistence of Winnipeg. and other nice stories


R92004
5 years ago
whateveryousay

R92090
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

This is an interesting page. You can watch the advertisements that were made for television, including one with William Rodriguez.

Confronting the Evidence is available to watch here.

Post Modified: 10/25/05 09:10:10

R92620
5 years ago
renwald

Wow 15 pages, nice work. I thought I might revist this post in light of the recent claims made by some previous administration officials. Along with other claims about operation “Able Danger” etc..

Sure it may be hard to prove the Towers were a controlled demolition, and while I love being told by Shogo that i’m stupid, i’m not going to attempt to push that point any further. As usual I have more questions than answers but if anyone wants to take a stab at them be my guest.

1) If the Shrub Administration really did orchestrate this attack(as I believe), would it not have been a better cover story to claim that there were “safety systems” (in the form of wired explosives) installed to prevent the towers from falling in a much more lethal fashion (ie sideways). Surely this would have provided an air tight explanation of events, and really eliminated any doubt about the collapses. “Dey flew them birdy things into our lego blocks and now dey fell down! but we did it to save lives!”

2) Isn’t there a creepy nature to the way the US administration seems to benefit from every single disaster that hits them?

With 9/11 we had Afghaniraq, endless contracts for the guys that Cheney has been sleeping with. Doesn’t he still own 466,000 Halliburton shares? Iraqies die in the tens of thousands but who cares? to me they are all humans, even those that volunteer to go kill others retain some human like qualities.

With the Hurricanes there was a population decrease of the less afluent citizens, a boon for large construction companies able to pay below minimum wage, security contractors, it was like Iraq 2 without the Islam. Not to mention the way Bush has managed to turn a complete fuckup into an excuse for more wide reaching powers for the military in emergency situations.

With Bird flu, turns out our good mate Rumsfeld has his own little money spinner on the side (asif a fat government paycheck isn’t enough money). Sure it’s manufactured by Roche (for the moment) but all royalties are owned by the Gilead Sciences Inc, which gave exclusive manufacture rights to Roche 10 years ago.

As confirmed in a company press statement in 1997, Donald H. Rumsfeld assumed the position of Chairman, of GILEAD

and

Finally, the pieces of the puzzle start to add up. Not long ago, President Bush sought to instill panic in this country by telling us a minimum of 200,000 people will die from the avian flu pandemic, but it could be as bad as 2 million deaths in this country alone.

This hoax is then used to justify the immediate purchase of 80 million doses of Tamiflu, a worthless drug that in no way shape or form treats the avian flu, but only decreases the amount of days one is sick and can actually contribute to the virus having more lethal mutations.

Wouldn’t be the first time I heard of a company creating business for itself (like a glass cleaner going around scratching windows) but if true, would surely be the most depraved thing I have heard of a human resorting to.

Scarey much? Is there any pie the current administration doesn’t have their dicks in? I wonder what magical disaster is in store for Condi Rice? oh wait that’s right, they only keep her there to provide a smoke screen, she isn’t a player she is being played(female version of Colin Powell).

Sorry to distract from the point of the post, but in this case i’m more interested in what you all believe, not what you can prove with pictures and arrows. Surely if you have trouble believing the WTC collapsed by non Al-Qaeda causes, then the idea of a company engineering a virus and it’s antidote will make your head explode no?

(nice work by quite a few of you, ive read almost all the pages at one time or another, and aside from a few, really awesome collection of supporting media clips)
Globalresearch.ca has more info on Gilead.


R92645
5 years ago
whateveryousay

but in this case i’m more interested in what you all believe, not what you can prove with pictures and arrows.

i like pictures and arrows!


R92748
5 years ago
Doc

I’m sorry, but there’s nothing mysterious or conspiratory about the WTC’s collapse. Not to anybody who’s ever worked steel, anyway.

The buildings were constructed to maximize internal space, so their main support structure was located in the outer walls, which were the primary vertical loadbearing elements for the buldings. The imapct of the aircraft and resultant fires damaged and weakened the internal bracing which tied the outer elements together. With those elements now free-standing and gradually being weakened and softened by fire, it was only a matter of time until they collapsed. The now-isolated loadbearing elements only had to deform by a tiny amount to fail totally.

It only took the collapse of one floor in each building to bring them down. The gravitational constant is 33 feet/second per second. Let’s say that the eightieth floor’s structure fails and the twenty-plus floors on top of it fall straight down to the seventy-ninth. You’ve got thousands of tons of metal and concrete moving downwards very quickly onto floors that themselves have been damaged by the impact and fire. Nothing could withstand that.

Besides, how in the world could preplaced demolition charges withstand the crashes and fires and survive undetonated to reliably cut the main elements of the buildings? How could the detonation systems survive to detonated any demolition charges in an organized enough manner to uniforimly cut the steel? How could the supposed planners of this event reliably pilot a plane, a multi-ton jetliner fully loaded with fuel and cargo, into the exact floor needed to conceal the supposed demolitions? Pilot it via remote at that? Jetliners fly like pigs. Especially at low altitude.

So what is more likely?

A: That a vast, and heretofor unexposed government agency managed to expertly place several tons of super-hardened demo charges on a specific floor of a skyscraper without being noticed, fly a remotely piloted anvil with wings into a particular floor of a skyscraper without damaging those charges AND THEN manage to detonate those charges on the outer walls of the building without spreading debris for a half mile in all directions or leaving several hunderd pieces of industrial steel lying about with obviously cut edges?

Or:

B: That a group of Wahabbist-inspired and taught jihadis financed by one of the world’s richest men exploited our natural tendency to sit down and shut up when confronted with hijackers and flew jetliners into preselected, obvious targets?

If you chose “A”, you’re pretty much in the same boat with those people who refute the moon landings and jack off over grainy photos of live oak branmches hanging over the grassy knoll.

Doc


R92770
5 years ago
renwald

I wanna be there on the day this whole mess dawns on you Doc and see the look on ur face.

Remote control/Computer controlled aircraft are much more accurate than a supposed Islamic “jihadist” with training on a cessna. Jetliners fly like pigs you say? Actual pilots have come out and said that the flight paths of the planes were more the work of a piloting ace (especially the Pentagon one I believe) on a simulator, or a programmed flight path using avionics.

Eyewitness reports, video and stills all support the suggestion there was nothing natural about the collapse. Weak arguments like “With those elements now free-standing and gradually being weakened and softened by fire, it was only a matter of time until they collapsed.” leave the taste of shit in my mouth. Why was there no significant sideways motion? I find it equally bullshit that they would not lean as random supports collapsed beneath it (probably towards the side of the impact seems most likely to me). Oh what they did lean a little bit? then how would they provide enough downward inertia to trigger the spectacular theories you are peddling today.

What happens when you aren’t sure about something? you investigate the crime scene perhaps? No thats crazy, let’s get it all out of there before anyone can look at the sheared steel and the explosives residue.. lets melt it all down and make tanks out of the steel!

So what is more likely? Who gives a fuck, likely and reality are rarely the same.

Post Modified: 10/27/05 17:36:42

R92779
5 years ago
Doc

Actually, Likely and Reality are usually the same.

There was no significant sideways motion because the weakening of structural elements occurred on a more or less horizontal plane. Actually, each building probably only suffered a single floor failure. That’s all that was really necessary. Remember that the WTC buildings were not constructed like most other skyscrapers. They were built with the majority of their vertical load bearing elements concentrated on their exteriors. Unlike more conventially constructed buildings, which have their vertical load bearing elements spread uniformily throughout their interiors. The lateral bracing which tied those elements together in the WTC buildings were contained within the interior floors. With those elements missing and/or caving in on one another, the exterior vertical elements were left freestanding. In conjunction with heat effect from the fires, it would only take the removal of a few lateral braces to sufficiently weaken the exterior members to the point of failure. That’s basic engineering. Very, very simple physics. Steel gets hot, steel weakens, steel is unable to hold a multi thousand-ton vertical load, steel fails. Since the interior fire, and therefor the damage, were largely contained on a few floors, it’s no surprise that the upper floors collapsed fairly uniformily. The exterior wall design probably exacerbated that trend if anything else.

But let’s talk about your charges for a minute. How much TNT, detcord and linear shaped charge does it take to drop a building the size of the WTC? How many tons of explosive? How much prep work does that take? Bear in mind that controlled explosive demolitions projects take literally months to prepare for. Months that are spent removing cement and other materials away from major structural elements in order to both weaken those elements and to reduce the amount of explosive needed to completely sever them. You’re not going to drop a building the size of the WTC with paltry amounts of high explosive secreted in inside somebody’s briefcase. Nor are you going to do it without removing several tons of various building components. It would take tons of explosives to knock down the WTC buildings. How did “they” get that much explosive into the buildings? How did “they” clear around and preweaken major structural elements without being noticed? How did “they” set off a series of blasts powerful enough to sever massive structural elements on the OUTSIDE of a building without showering everything within a five mile radius with debris?

And the one thing you’ve completely overlooked:

Why would “they” bother with a picture perfect controlled demolition that “they” know will be scrutinized over and examined by half-baked conspiracy crackpots for the next five centuries? Why not make it look as random as possible? Why stage something as unpredictable as an intentional plane strike and then follow it up with an outwardly artificial-looking demolition?

Conspiracy theoriers are generally the product of ignorance mixed with self importance and a smidgen of stupidity thrown in for flavor.

Doc


R92792
5 years ago
cortez

Not sure how relevant this is for the discussion at hand,

George Bush Freezes when Asked About Accusations of 9/11 Foreknowledge

link to video

9/11 Blogger


R92795
5 years ago
whateveryousay

doc,

on one hand you describe the collapses as horrible accidents brought on by the failure of one floor. on the other you describe them as “picture perfect” demolition jobs. so what does it look like to you anyway?

the “months of prep” is not an argument because it doesn’t have to take months of on site prep to do the job. much of the time is generally spent on pr and safety issues. it should be noted that if the tower were ever to be brought down in a legitimate and safe manner, explosive demolition would almost certainly be out of the question… a far more time consuming and expensive deconstruction would be the only way to legally pull it off.

tnt is pretty old-school, much more stable compounds exist and are used these days. remote control detonation rather than cords is also used for some structures.

the biggest explosions seem to have come from the mechanical floors of the towers. besides not having windows and offices, these floors had dedicated freight elevators running down to the basements. no one would need to notice anything.

you assume that because most of the load was handled by the exterior columns, they would have had to have been cut with charges… but without the rather important central columns, the building would come down… quite possibly in a similar manner to that observed.
if the core failed and all the vertical load was transferred to the outer columns and interior floors, the outside structure would fail… due to the fact that the whole outer tube was interlined it would fail first at the weakest point, ie. the crash zone.

Nor are you going to do it without removing several tons of various building components. —doc

that’s simply not an argument… if the building can collapse in such a way from the failure of only one upper floor, a demo team/terrorist group wouldn’t have to really do all that much now would they?

it is my opinion that the tower could have been dropped as was seen to happen through the following: (call it a conspiracy theory if you wish)

basement bombs take out enough core columns to stress out the rest of the building. the outer walls and their floors first fail at the damaged crash zone, causing the section above to start falling. the mechanical floors with their extra strong construction are blown out with explosives so as not to impede the momentum of the collapse. the most robust core elements at the lower parts of the building are blown up later in the collapse.
subterranean explosions would not be heard on the street, but shaking would be felt, as was reported. sounds of explosions in the upper parts of the building would be more or less masked by the roar of the already falling structure above and within.
i think it possible that the outer tube could be shredded as such from the weight of the core pulling everything down… common sense tells me that something would have had to have shattered the core in stages all the way down or facilitated a telescoping effect at the base… maybe a really really hot fire which could just keep melting the steel as it comes down.


R92800
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

Doc,

Don’t waste your time trying to prove the absence of explosives here, because you can win a million dollars if you prove it here.

Also,

How many tons of explosive?

CALCULATIONS SAY AT LEAST 14 TONS OF HIGH EXPLOSIVE NEEDED TO BRING DOWN EACH WTC TOWER.

Post Modified: 10/27/05 19:53:15

R92804
5 years ago
Doc

The buildings COULD have been dropped by the shockwaves from passing UFOs. That doesn’t mean they were. It just doesn’t add up. The conspiracy theories just don’t make sense when compared to common sense and just a little knowlege.

But, maybe that’s what “they” want us to think….

Doc


R92842
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

How did “they” get that much explosive into the buildings?

That question does not preclude the possibility that “they” did.
Here is an excerpt posted on page 9 of this thread.

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.

Source: Tarpley piece on Reopen 9/11.org

Post Modified: 10/29/05 18:51:50

R93293
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

R93384
5 years ago
Continuity

DOC:

The buildings were constructed to maximize internal space, so their main support structure was located in the outer walls, which were the primary vertical loadbearing elements for the buldings .

Remember that the WTC buildings were not constructed like most other skyscrapers. They were built with the majority of their vertical load bearing elements concentrated on their exteriors .

I take issue with your generalizations. The WTC towers were built expertly. Yes, the buildings were built to have ample office space. Then again, if you were to read how and why the architects had the towers built the way they were, you might not be so immediately dismissive and throw in your Ad Hominem junk.

The ‘majority’ of the vertical load bearing elements were not concentrated on their exteriors or outer walls as you say, and if you have links to prove they were, please offer them. Instead it was a mixed system, an eloquent balancing act, where the outer walls could actually sway in the wind, while the core mostly held the building firm. Second, the outer walls, like the WTC architects said, were designed to receive not one but several impacts.

Below, you see that rectangular mass of huge steel girders and concrete that takes up roughly 1/3 of the WTC area, from top to bottom? You know, the rectangle where there is no office space, but massive support instead? The core which was fastened to bedrock by steel girders bigger than any of us have ever seen in our lives?

You might want to read up about that. The WTC towers were hollow tubes built around these solid, super-redundant structures.


R93484
5 years ago
Wombat

Is that the silly little core that should have been left standing 100ft in the air if the “pancake” theory had any merit at all.


R93486
5 years ago
Chickenma1

Excellent picture, Continuity. Just that alone on a poster along with the caption, “Could this building pancake?” would almost make the case of this entire 15 page thread.


R93487
5 years ago
whateveryousay

100ft ?


R93490
5 years ago
whateveryousay

tribute in light had 44 lamps for each tower

and the towers had 44 columns each.

coincidence?

now all of use here at gnn know that hanukkah candles come in packs of 45, you know, one extra just in case…

ergo

this points to an obvious plot on behalf of the jews for jesus who are cheap-skates and expect you to make do with only 44.


R93520
5 years ago
reprehensor

R93542
5 years ago
fennec


R93546
5 years ago
reprehensor

Col. Robert Bowman, USAF (Ret.): 9/11 Was Treason

I want to start with a scary thought: Can you imagine what would have happened if George W. Bush had been President during the Cuban missile Crisis.

You people who are out here protesting, you are the shock troops battling to preserve our cherished freedoms. You know our freedoms are not under attack from the remnants of Saddam Hussein’s Bathist Party. They’re under attack by the likes of John Ashcroft. They’re trampled by Donald Rumsfeld, they’re disdained by Dick Cheney, and they’re not even understood by George W. Bush.

The battle to preserve our freedoms is not taking place in Baghdad and Tikrit and Falluja. It’s taking place in peace marches and demonstrations in Ghiradeli Park in San Francisco, in Memorial Park in Oklahoma City, and in Lafayette Park in Washington, DC.

The front lines are right here. You are preserving our cherished freedoms by exercising them in spite of ridicule and opposition. The battle to preserve our freedoms is you.

You are the foot soldiers protecting our civil rights.

You are the Minutemen sounding the alarm against tyranny.

You are upholding the spirit of the American Revolution.

You are preserving the freedoms that the troops in the desert have a right to come back to.

The troops getting shot at in Iraq are not protecting us, we are protecting them and their honor and their freedom. We my sisters and brothers are protecting this nation by speaking truth to power.

We’re speaking truth to a pack of liars.

We must do it loudly and fearlessly and courageously and joyfully, for we are the Patriots. And when we speak, this is the truth that we proclaim:

This war in Iraq has nothing to do with National Security or freedom or democracy or human rights or protecting our allies or weapons of mass destruction or defeating terrorism or disarming Iraq. It has to do with money, it has to do with oil, and it has to do with raw imperial power. And it’s based totally on lies.

Those that forced this war on an unwilling world are guilty of violating the US Constitution, the UN Charter, the Nuremburg Principles and International Law. What they have done is illegal, immoral, unconstitutional and treason!

Before this war started, we knew it would fracture NATO, split the United Nations, seperate us from our allies destroy the great nation we inherited from our fathers who died in World War II, and it has.

We knew it would make our beloved country feared and hated and outcast among the world community, a pariah among the peoples and the number one rogue nation on Earth, and it has.

This is nothing but treason.

We knew this sadistic corporate war would incense the Arab world, provide thousands of new Osama bin Ladens and enormously increase the terrorist threat, and it has.

We knew it would further endanger the American people and the British people and destroy our National Security, and it has.

This cabal of neoconservatives from PNAC who planned this war, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Libby, Perle, Jeb Bush – even before Dubya became President – they told us why they had to do it, they said we need to occupy Iraq permanently in order to dominate Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and the southern Russian Republics around the Caspian Sea. We need to control the entire Middle East and all it’s oil.

This is nothing but treason.

As other speakers have said, they knew the American people wouldn’t stand for it, and they said so in their documents, and they said, unless there’s that new Pearl Harbor. Well 9/11 did supply that. And we’ve been lied to not only about the war, but about 9/11 itself.

The Bush administration was warned. They were warned by the Clinton Administration during the transition period, they were warned by the intelligence agencies of eleven other nations, they were specifically warned by one FBI agent that Moussawi was planning on flying a hijacked airliner, “into the World Trade Center.”

They ignored the warnings, more than that, we have mounting evidence that at least, they made it impossible for those planes to be intercepted.

If our government had merely done nothing – and I say that as an old interceptor pilot and I know the drill, I know what it takes, I know how long it takes, I know what the procedures are, I know what they were and I know what they changed them to – if our government had merely done nothing and allowed normal procedures to happen on that morning of 9/11, the twin towers would still be standing and thousands of Americans would still be alive. My sisters and brothers, that is treason!

As a combat veteran, I will not stand idly by watch our security destroyed by a President who went AWOL rather than serve in Vietnam. As one who has devoted his life to the security of this country. I will not stand by and watch an appointed President send our sons and daughters around the world to kill Arabs for the oil companies.

Patriotism demands that I speak out and call it by it’s name. It is treason.

I joined the Air Force a long time ago to protect our borders and our people, not the financial interests of Folgers, Chiquita-Banana, Exxon and Halliburton. We’ve had enough corporate wars. No more Iraqs, no more Kosovos, no more El Salvadors, No more Columbias.

These are not isolated incidents of stupidity, they’re part of a long bloody history of foreign policy being conducted for the financial interests of the wealthy few. It is a new form of colonialism, all the benefits and none of the responsibilities. It violates our Constitution, it endangers our people and it is treason.

As a pilot who flew 101 combat missions in Vietnam, I swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and that includes a renegade President. It’s time for George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleeza Rice and the whole Oil Mafia to be removed from office and indicted for treason.

We owe it to the men and women serving in Iraq to end the occupation, restore our credibility and honor and bring them home, and it could be done if we had a President who would go to the UN and say we made a horrible mistake, it was wrong and we make you three committments:

1. We give up all rights to Iraqi oil
2. We give up all rights to the rebuilding contracts- if Halliburton wants a contract from you, they have to bid on it like anybody else, and they have to hire Iraqis to do the work for a change.
3. We give up all rights to those 14 permanent military bases we’re building in Iraq at this time.

And the people in the Whitehouse are not going to make those committments and so they have to go and all the puppeteers with them.

You know we are the people and we are sovereign. We are the patriots and the whole world is with us. Everywhere in the country that they have a free press, all over the world people know the facts and they are with us. Not the people out there, not the deadheads, not the know-nothings, not the chickenhawks, they’re with us.

Don’t let anybody intimidate you into silence, it’s time for all of us to speak truth to power. Our sons and daughters are being killed, they’re being maimed by the tens of thousands, they’re being poisoned by Depleted Uranium by the hundreds of thousands. They’re children are being born with birth defects, horrible birth defects, at an alarming rate. We’re being lied to about all that as well.

Our sons and daughters in uniform are being dehumanized, emotionally damaged, psychologically destroyed, they’re being made not just to kill, but to hate. Those who return are prone to domestic violence, divorce and suicide. The lies, the killing and the destruction of our young sons and daughters must not continue. We must end it. Patriotism demands that we speak truth to power, and that we support what’s left of our troops by bringing them home now.

Together we can do it. We can get the truth out there to the American People, we’re on the verge. We’ve got half the people with us, we’ve got to go after the other half. And together we can take back our country and get the liars the heck out of there.

God Bless America, and God grant us regime change in Washington DC. Thank you very much.


R93561
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

This war in Iraq has nothing to do with National Security or freedom or democracy or human rights or protecting our allies or weapons of mass destruction or defeating terrorism or disarming Iraq. It has to do with money, it has to do with oil, and it has to do with raw imperial power. And it’s based totally on lies.

Next best paragraph to the old interceptor pilot paragraph. This guy has a way of making it simple.

Post Modified: 10/31/05 19:17:37

R94646
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

“In light of this situation and the facts discussed in this lecture—-as well as dozens more problems in the official account of 9/11 discussed elsewhere—-I call on the New York Times to take the lead in finally exposing to the American people and the world the truth about 9/11. Taking the lead on such a story will, of course, involve enormous risks. But if there is any news organization with the power, the prestige, and the credibility to break this story, it is the Times. It performed yeoman service in getting the 9/11 oral histories released. But now the welfare of our republic and perhaps even the survival of our civilization depend on getting the truth about 9/11 exposed. I am calling on the Times to rise to the occasion.”

Theologian Says Controlled Demolition of WTC Is Now a Fact, Not a Theory

Post Modified: 11/05/05 20:54:25

R94867
5 years ago
fennec


R95895
5 years ago
Suitcaseman

Physics Professor Concludes Bombs, Not Planes, Toppled WTC

By Elaine Jarvik
11/10/2005

The physics of 9/11 — including how fast and symmetrically one of the World Trade Center buildings fell — prove that official explanations of the collapses are wrong, says a Brigham Young University physics professor.

In fact, it’s likely that there were “pre-positioned explosives” in all three buildings at ground zero, says Steven E. Jones.

In a paper posted online Tuesday and accepted for peer-reviewed publication next year, Jones adds his voice to those of previous skeptics, including the authors of the Web site www.wtc7.net, whose research Jones quotes. Jones’ article can be found at www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.htm.

Jones, who conducts research in fusion and solar energy at BYU, is calling for an independent, international scientific investigation “guided not by politicized notions and constraints but rather by observations and calculations.

“It is quite plausible that explosives were pre-planted in all three buildings and set off after the two plane crashes — which were actually a diversion tactic,” he writes. “Muslims are (probably) not to blame for bringing down the WTC buildings after all,” Jones writes.

As for speculation about who might have planted the explosives, Jones said, “I don’t usually go there. There’s no point in doing that until we do the scientific investigation.”

Previous investigations, including those of FEMA, the 9/11 Commission and NIST (the National Institutes of Standards and Technology), ignore the physics and chemistry of what happened on Sept. 11, 2001, to the Twin Towers and the 47-story building known as WTC 7, he says. The official explanation — that fires caused structural damage that caused the buildings to collapse — can’t be backed up by either testing or history, he says.

Jones acknowledges that there have been “junk science” conspiracy theories about what happened on 9/11, but “the explosive demolition hypothesis better satisfies tests of repeatability and parsimony and therefore is not ‘junk science.’ “

In a 9,000-word article that Jones says will be published in the book “The Hidden History of 9/11,” by Elsevier, Jones offers these arguments:

The three buildings collapsed nearly symmetrically, falling down into their footprints, a phenomenon associated with “controlled demolition” — and even then it’s very difficult, he says. “Why would terrorists undertake straight-down collapses of WTC-7 and the Towers when ‘toppling over’ falls would require much less work and would do much more damage in downtown Manhattan?” Jones asks. “And where would they obtain the necessary skills and access to the buildings for a symmetrical implosion anyway? The ‘symmetry data’ emphasized here, along with other data, provide strong evidence for an ‘inside’ job.”

No steel-frame building, before or after the WTC buildings, has ever collapsed due to fire. But explosives can effectively sever steel columns, he says.

WTC 7, which was not hit by hijacked planes, collapsed in 6.6 seconds, just .6 of a second longer than it would take an object dropped from the roof to hit the ground. “Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum, one of the foundational laws of physics?” he asks. “That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors — and intact steel support columns — the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass. . . . How do the upper floors fall so quickly, then, and still conserve momentum in the collapsing buildings?” The paradox, he says, “is easily resolved by the explosive demolition hypothesis, whereby explosives quickly removed lower-floor material, including steel support columns, and allow near free-fall-speed collapses.” These observations were not analyzed by FEMA, NIST nor the 9/11 Commission, he says.

With non-explosive-caused collapse there would typically be a piling up of shattering concrete. But most of the material in the towers was converted to flour-like powder while the buildings were falling, he says. “How can we understand this strange behavior, without explosives? Remarkable, amazing — and demanding scrutiny since the U.S. government-funded reports failed to analyze this phenomenon.”

Horizontal puffs of smoke, known as squibs, were observed proceeding up the side the building, a phenomenon common when pre-positioned explosives are used to demolish buildings, he says.

Steel supports were “partly evaporated,” but it would require temperatures near 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit to evaporate steel — and neither office materials nor diesel fuel can generate temperatures that hot. Fires caused by jet fuel from the hijacked planes lasted at most a few minutes, and office material fires would burn out within about 20 minutes in any given location, he says.

Molten metal found in the debris of the World Trade Center may have been the result of a high-temperature reaction of a commonly used explosive such as thermite, he says. Buildings not felled by explosives “have insufficient directed energy to result in melting of large quantities of metal,” Jones says.

Multiple loud explosions in rapid sequence were reported by numerous observers in and near the towers, and these explosions occurred far below the region where the planes struck, he says.

Jones says he became interested in the physics of the WTC collapse after attending a talk last spring given by a woman who had had a near-death experience. The woman mentioned in passing that “if you think the World Trade Center buildings came down just due to fire, you have a lot of surprises ahead of you,” Jones remembers, at which point “everyone around me started applauding.”

Following several months of study, he presented his findings at a talk at BYU in September.

Jones says he would like the government to release 6,899 photographs and 6,977 segments of video footage for “independent scrutiny.” He would also like to analyze a small sample of the molten metal found at Ground Zero.


Nov 10, 2005 9:42 pm US/Mountain

source


R95924
5 years ago
Continuity

The Brigham Young University physics professor is cited in many articles now.

Another article featuring Professor Jones

Click on the video box for a quick soundbite

_
_

Post Modified: 11/12/05 18:34:50

R95990
5 years ago
neverknwo

Another Official Pre-9/11 Image of the WTC Being Targeted

This variation of the image below has been located in another official document. It occurs in Air Force Manual 10-100: Airman’s Manual, Aug 1999 version. The manual is here and here [PDF format, 6.6 meg]. The illustration appears on page 45 of the manual, which is page 49 of the Acrobat file. (Note that the image doesn’t appear in the heavily reworked current version of the manual, published in June 2004, here.)


R95991
5 years ago
neverknwo


R95992
5 years ago
neverknwo


Prior Knwoledge Participant manual

It’s getting hard to keep track of all the ways in which one of the biggest 9/11 lies—that the government just didn’t foresee, couldn’t have forseen, an attack on the World Trade Center—has been exposed. Add another one to the list. The image above is from the cover of the manual “Managing Weapons of Mass Destruction Incidents: An Executive Level Program for Sheriffs.” The manual was given to people who participated in the training program of the same name, which taught local law enforcement how to deal with terrorist attacks. Notice that the cover is imprinted with the seal of the US Justice Department (and the seal of the National Sheriffs’ Association). In the bottom right corner, the date is a little hard to read; it says: “Version: June 2000.” The full 250-page manual—with “law enforcement sensitive” at the bottom of each page—was given to me by someone who participated in the training in 2000. (The program is now sponsored by the Office of Homeland Security, according to this page at the National Sheriffs’ Association.)


R95993
5 years ago
neverknwo


LOOK AT DATE IN TOP RIGHT CORNER!


R95994
5 years ago
neverknwo

R95995
5 years ago
neverknwo

R96003
5 years ago
whateveryousay

kneverknwo! we totally had those pictures, like, pages ago man. chill.


R96006
5 years ago
neverknwo

So sorry, I didn’t see them.


R96043
5 years ago
neverknwo

The Untold Story of the Woolworth Building Incidents on 9-11-01

Additional Important Sightings of the 9-11 Attacks

Quotes Relating to a Missile Firing Off the Roof of the Woolworth Building


R96093
5 years ago
whateveryousay

R96152
5 years ago
Schneibster

I’m getting tired of the latest site that’s selling 9/11 conspiracy theory fodder. It’s almost as hypocritical as the music industry.

Post Modified: 11/14/05 10:47:31

R96158
5 years ago
whateveryousay

I’m getting tired of the latest sight that’s selling 9/11 conspiracy theory fodder. It’s almost as hypocritical as the music industry.

yeah man, skepticism used to be so cool when it was punk-rock, now everyone’s doing it.

but seriously,

the review :

Striking new video footage of the Twin Tower collapses from across the Hudson River

Internet video producer Richard Siegel was able to capture high quality digital video and audio from a riverside pier in Hoboken, New Jersey. Beginning with the intact, burning towers and extending through both collapses, his footage offers a clear record of explosion sounds in both collapses, which he analyzes quite convincingly. These sounds began as much as 17 seconds before the start of any visible collapse in the case of the North Tower, and are accompanied by ground-level dust clouds.


R96271
5 years ago
Badger_Semen

R96269
5 years ago
Schneibster

Neat… where the hell are the videos?


R96307
5 years ago
whateveryousay

here

well. there’s not much to say about that clip.
except that the frequency response says “these sounds are what domlition explosions look like from such a distance”.

here:


R96387
5 years ago
fennec


R96400
5 years ago
Schneibster

From HOBOKEN? So I have this innocent question: how can the sounds be synchronized with the events in the video? And even given the obvious calculations, are you aware that distant sounds may be propagated at different speeds in different directions, and that the speed of sound through the ground is different from the speed of sound through the air? And that sound reflects off things (things we cannot see, since the camera is so far away from the sound source and its field of view so narrow as a result)? They call these, you know, “echos.”

I think it’s worthless. But thanks for posting a link.


R96409
5 years ago
nark

Just the Facts

The Facts are:
Osama Bin Iraqen orchestrated the whole thing from his underground base that he borrowed from one of the Villains of a 007 movie. There he plotted the whole thing with the aid of his wackenhut dialysis machine.

Dialysis machine = pure evil!

The facts surrounding 911

19 hardcore Muslim fanatics traveling in a combi while reading “the idiots guide to flying Jumbos” and “Teach yourself how to hijack in 24 hours” arrived at the airport, they then proceeded too hijack 4 planes with rusty tea spoons carefully hidden in their Korans…*FACT!*

terrorist vehicle of choice!

DA VILE ADOLF COMBIE

used by Terrorists and Dirty Hippies world wide!

Scientific Facts! about the towers:

MORE FACTS: Tower 1&2

Suffered gaping holes caused by these Islamitetiet’s TM.
The jet fuel/fire and hot air (scientific fact: hot air and fire travel down!) caught elevators down to the ground floor and started blowing out windows and destroying furniture.

Start snippet.

WTC witness and survivor: I was about to catch the elevator when Mr. Fire shoved me aside and stole my spot, He was very rude.

End snippet.

These large/huge/gargantuan gaping holes left by the islamo fascists who want to take our freedoms, caused an influx of air, this excess of air (scientific fact: air weighs more than lead!) caused the fragile eco system of the lower levels of the towers built from marshmallows and tooth picks, therefore rendering them with the inability of not being able to support the stresses, and caused a cascade of disintegration….FACT!

Tower 7 was so traumatized by what occurred that it committed hari-kari…FACT!

I HAVE SEEN THE LIGHT!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.

FACT


R96426
5 years ago
neverknwo

See the Professors Research Report

Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?

By Steven E. Jones

Department of Physics and Astronomy

Brigham Young University

Provo, UT 84604

ABSTRACT

In writing this paper, I call for a serious investigation of the hypothesis that WTC 7 and the Twin Towers were brought down, not just by damage and fires, but through the use of pre-positioned explosives. I consider the official FEMA, NIST, and 9-11 Commission reports that fires plus damage alone caused complete collapses of all three buildings. And I present evidence for the explosive-demolition hypothesis, which is suggested by the available data, testable and falsifiable, and yet has not been analyzed in any of the reports funded by the US government.

Let’s start with the collapse of the 47-story WTC 7, which was never hit by a jet. I ask you to take a minute to look at the collapse of this building as a basis for discussion.

(Snip…...........)


R96453
5 years ago
whateveryousay

From HOBOKEN? So I have this innocent question: how can the sounds be synchronized with the events in the video?

by estimating silly.

And even given the obvious calculations, are you aware that distant sounds may be propagated at different speeds in different directions, and that the speed of sound through the ground is different from the speed of sound through the air?

thanks professor. btw how do these 2km/second sounds transmitted through the ground get converted into something we can actually hear?
and what are you actually trying to say anyway?

And that sound reflects off things (things we cannot see, since the camera is so far away from the sound source and its field of view so narrow as a result)? They call these, you know, “echos.”

once again. what are you trying to say?

I think it’s worthless. But thanks for posting a link.

whatever


R96514
5 years ago
Wombat

“Tower 7 was so traumatized by what occurred that it committed hari-kari”

Now THAT in a great line. I laughed so hard I coughed up a furball. The best description Ive ever heard.


R96678
5 years ago
whateveryousay

now THAT in a great line. I laughed so hard I coughed up a furball. The best description Ive ever heard.

werd.


R96788
5 years ago
Schneibster

Well, basically what I’m trying to say is that the “estimates” fail to take all kinds of really important factors into account. As for how sound travelling in the ground can affect things, the speed of sound in the ground is a LOT higher than it is in air, and if the ground is vibrating, what precisely is the air above it doing? Hey, maybe it’s vibrating too- I think they actually have, like, this NAME for such vibrations. IIRC, it’s called “sound.” What do you know about that. Isn’t that incredibly curious. /sarcasm

We haven’t even started to discuss the fact that the speed of sound varies with temperature or humidity, by 10% or more. Which, considering the distance, is quite a lot- could throw your estimate off by quite a bit. In fact, by more than enough to make you THINK that the boom was prior to the building falling down, when it actually was not.

Again, I think it’s worthless, and I have good reason to think so. Care to actually technically refute anything I’ve said, or are you just going to ask more silly questions and pretend it doesn’t prove anything?


R96843
5 years ago
whateveryousay

the camera is about 3km away. the estimate of 17 seconds before the collapse in fine. it’s rounded to the second. temperature would only change your estimate by a half second at the most. humidity isn’t even worth calculating for this. the air would be cooler over the water so we might lean to a slower speed of sound in this case

the ground to sound question was a legit question. i’m generally curious. haven’t experienced any earthquakes myself. just wondering what they would sound like, typical frequency response and the like. it’s always been my assumption that most of the energy transmitted through the ground would be in the very subsonic ranges.
(you knjow, the “brown notes” and lower)

the theoretical speed of waves through the ground would be 1.5 seconds for this camera?

Which, considering the distance, is quite a lot- could throw your estimate off by quite a bit. In fact, by more than enough to make you THINK that the boom was prior to the building falling down, when it actually was not.

you seriously have GOT to lay off the crack dude. last time it was all, “yeah the sun shines from the north and south at the same time”, and this time it’s, “in hobokon sound travels faster than light but only through the ground”.

?!

sound does some pretty neat things, but it doesn’t tend to travel back in time from what i know about. i.e. the boom is at 8 seconds, the collapse starts at 16.

could throw your estimate off by quite a bit. In fact, by more than enough to make you THINK that the boom was prior to the building falling down, when it actually was not.

time moves in the other direction schneib.


R96921
5 years ago
cortez

Here’s a chunk from the video

1:05 duration,
first explosion at ~8 seconds. Allowing
for the distance and the speed of sound,
this means the explosion happened 17
seconds before the start of the collapse.
Note: the radio sounds in the background
were from a radio at the scene, and were
not dubbed in later.

divx link 7mb

link


R96976
4 years ago
Schneibster

Well, it’s the scariest shit you’ve ever heard; like listening to the train when you’re tied on the tracks. It’s a really, really deep rumble, and it makes your guts churn. In some ‘quakes, it’s almost high enough pitched you’d call it a “hum.” But really, it’s too deep for that. Combined with the ground moving, believe you me, it’s adrenaline time.

Huh, I was under the impression it was farther away- my bad. Where precisely in Hoboken? Mapquest is everywhere…

Meanwhile, I have a question: if the sound of an explosion preceeded any movement at all of the building, how is it that everyone in the entire area didn’t report it? Because that just doesn’t dovetail either with the close videos with sound that I’ve seen, or with witness descriptions. The news guys would have been ALL OVER that shit, like… well, flies on shit. It’s an apt description. And I don’t like the news guys much. But that would have been a SENSATION, and you know how news guys are about that kind of thing.

As far as the speed of sound in the body of the Earth, it’s the same speed as earthquake waves, specifically P-waves, because it’s exactly the same as P-waves: longitudinal waves transmitted through the body of the Earth. From the seismic studies on 9/11 Research, looks like somewhere between 1.2 and 3 km/s. I picked the low one, to be conservative. Since I knew you’d ask. 3 works for me. :D


R96980
4 years ago
sisyphus

Did anyone change anyone else’s mind yet?


R96984
4 years ago
Schneibster

You got a point, sis.


R97000
4 years ago
whateveryousay

if the sound of an explosion preceeded any movement at all of the building, how is it that everyone in the entire area didn’t report it? -schneib

they did. in news land, such reports didn’t make the cut to join the merry-go-round of endlessly repeated details.

do you think it’s possible that the first boom was heard across the hudson but not right next to the tower? result of seismic activity? seems a bit far fetched. the boom sounds more like thunder than anything to me, a rumble precedes the boom.
still, there’s an angle where the camera starts shaking about the same time prior to the collapse.

Post Modified: 11/17/05 05:44:33

R97003
4 years ago
whateveryousay

Where precisely in Hoboken?

link


R97027
4 years ago
whateveryousay

the article:

Explosion Sounds and the World Trade Center – Twin Tower Collapses

has been udated.

it now compares the sound of the crash of the jet-plane / explosion / fireball at the south tower to the loudest explosion sounds recorded at the collapse of the south tower… as recorded by the same camera from the same distance.

this is the plane crash / exlosion:

this is during the collapse of the south tower:


R97356
4 years ago
whateveryousay

oops:


R97543
4 years ago
Schneibster

The camera shaking shows precisely what I’m talking about.


R97917
4 years ago
cortez


R98198
4 years ago
Schneibster

OK, since we’re spamming the thread anyhoo, I guess I’ll post the recent photos of NON-POWDERED concrete from the WTC tower collapses that I just saw posted on that thread over on physorg that somebody pointed me at in a derivative thread of this one. By the way, they’re losing big time; nothing but a bunch of horseshit. The latest guy has “endothermic fires” that absorbed all the heat that Hoffman waved his magic wand and made disappear. That’s a great one; fires that ABSORB heat instead of EMITTING it; you know, a fire that would make you COLDER! Heh.

Here we go:









I’d say that should pretty much put the “but the concrete was all powdered” people away, right along with the “pod” people.

I really have to thank y’all for pointing me to that forum.


R98251
4 years ago
Schneibster

And the icing on the cake:

There can be no denying this. It’s right there in the foreground of the shot, right there in front of your nose. There’s nowhere to hide, no argument about what the material is, and no question of whether it’s powder or not, nor of where it came from: look at the piece of steel above the orange crawler’s shovel. Look at the piece of steel the guy in the blue hard-hat is apparently leaning over and inspecting. No question what those are.


R98253
4 years ago
neverknwo

R98255
4 years ago
whateveryousay

wow. them some nice sized chunks in that last picture.
guess that proves… well it doesn’t disprove demolition of course.
large portions of the outside columns weren’t totally shredded and remained standing at the base.
the larger chunks of floor would also not have been involved in the pyroclastic flow which spilled all over lower manhattan. the observations of totally powdered concrete would have more to do with the material which was light enough to travel a fair distance from the pile… larger chunks not making it too far.

regarding the flows themselves:

this video gives comparison of what the dust clouds looked and behaved like.

it would be interesting to know what the temperatures within the dust clouds were.

seems they were hot enough to cause cars to explode:

gasoline auto ignites at 257C i’m told.
paper closer to 350C. i guess a fireman’s coat even hotter than that:

—=======================================
—=======================================
And Vesey, yeah. I was still on Vesey, cause the building that blew up on
me was on Vesey, it was on the corner next to the West Side Highway. Cause I know I
was running west, I didn’t run that way. Thank God, I would have been dead had I run
the other way. But I ran towards the West Side Highway, and I kept running up Vesey.
As I was running up Vesey, the first car blew up on me on the corner of Vessey and the
West Side Highway. That set my turnout coat on fire, that set my hair on fire, and that
set my feet on fire. I kept running. I got news for you, those turn out coats need to be
called burn out coats, cause this thing caught up in flames. They cut two inches off my
hair in less that two minutes, my coat was completely engulfed, and that was the only
way I could see where I was running at that point, because I had a glow from my coat.
There’s hundreds of cops all running up there, and I ended up running through this park,
and I couldn’t even see where I was running anymore. I kept running North.
Q: Through North Park?
A: I guess that’s North Park. It’s a big green, grassy area, and there’s nothing
there. As I was running up here, two or three more cars exploded on me. They weren’t
near any buildings at that point, they were just parked on the street. The traffic guys
hadn’t gotten a chance to tow anything yet, cause this was all during the first hour I guess
of this thing happening. So there were still cars parked on the street that were completely
independent of that. Three cars blew up on me, stuff was being thrown. I went home all
bruised that day. Thank God it was only bruises. I just ran into this park along with a
bunch of other people, and stuff was still blowing up, I don’t think I looked back, but you
couldn’t see anything, everything was just black. I was running and I was falling over
people, cause people were crawling on the ground cause they couldn’t see anymore. I
just kept on running north. I could smell water, so I just kept on running towards the
water, cause I knew that my coat was on fire, and I figured well, if I can see a boat over
the water, I’m just gonna jump onto the boat and take that thing to Jersey, cause no one
wants to blow up Jersey. Stuff is still blowing up behind me, as I’m running. I can hear
stuff exploding. I could hear rumbling, the street under me was moving like I was in an
earthquake.

EMT PATRICIA ONDROVIC
Interview Date: October 1 1, 200 1

—=======================================
—=======================================

Q. ITS PROBABLY MURRAY STREET JUST NORTH
OF MURRAY STREET AND JUST WEST OF WEST STREET

A. RIGHT THATS EXACTLY WHERE IT WAS
ENTERED WHAT APPEARED TO BE THE OUTFIELD WAS
TRYING NOT TO LOOK BACK WAS JUST TRYING TO
RUN BUT FELT LIKE WASNT GETTING ANYWHERE
COULD START SEEING THIS CLOUD COMING AT ME
WAS JUST ABLE TO TAKE MY HELMET OFF
AND GET MY FACE PIECE ON AND JUST GET MY HELMET
BACK ON WITHOUT SNAPPING IT AND FELT BLAST
IT MIGHT HAVE KNOCKED ME TO MY KNEE AND THEN
GOT UP IT WAS ALL ORANGE IT WAS PAPERS ON
FIRE COULD SEE IT WAS PAPERS ON FIRE
COULD FEEL LITTLE HEAT ON THE BACK OF MY NECK
AND MY EARS IT SURROUNDED ME AND THEN ALL OF
SUDDEN IT JUST TURNED BLACK BLACK ASH...

FIREFIGHTER WILLIAM GREEN
INTERVIEW DATE DECEMBER 26 2001


R98256
4 years ago
whateveryousay

oh. okay, not hot enough for a coat to light up, that was from a car. but maybe hot enough for paper.


R98257
4 years ago
Schneibster

Enough heat to cause a vehicle to explode would fry you alive in a heartbeat- as soon as you breathed, your lungs would cook. You’d be instantly dead, whatever. There just plain flat ain’t no fuckin way anybody was running around in a 1,300F cloud of anything for more than a second or two, and no way they lived to tell about it if they were. Every vehicle you showed had impact damage.


R98258
4 years ago
Schneibster

By the way, the guy is welding, I noticed when I was looking the picture over some more. Nice high-res shot, that one is.


R98266
4 years ago
whateveryousay

Every vehicle you showed had impact damage. —schneib


there’s plenty of descriptions of cars just exploding.

Enough heat to cause a vehicle to explode would fry you alive in a heartbeat- as soon as you breathed, your lungs would cook… There just plain flat ain’t no fuckin way anybody was running around in a 1,300F cloud of anything for more than a second or two, and no way they lived to tell about it if they were.

i don’t know. where’d you get 1300F from anyway?

enough moments of 500 degree F tempurature, perhaps combined with all the ground shaking could cause a fuel tank to explode could it not? i’m not really sure but it’s not that crazy an idea.
the guy who saw the flaming paper had his face piece on btw, so his lungs wouldn’t be cooking. he also reports getting knocked over by a blast, so that shockwave might have something to do with it also.

but really, what would likely cause cars to explode? i mean i don’t think it’s only debris.
extreme pressure change from blasts, ground shaking, heat, lots of tiny dust… i don’t know.

By the way, the guy is welding,

looks like “cutting” to me.

Post Modified: 11/23/05 05:05:26

R98548
4 years ago
Schneibster

“Cutting:” Entirely possible; doing something with a torch, anyway. I said “inspecting,” and that was wrong, so I amended it.

Breathing fire is deadly. Even if it’s only 500F. There simply weren’t that many people who died like that, and simply too many people too close to the tower to have been exposed to that. You don’t have skin in your lungs, and if you burn them, you can’t absorb oxygen any more, not to mention cooking a bunch of your blood. Nobody who breathes fire lives. If you find an exception, it’s rare to say the least; it would be like the number of people who lived after eating cyanide.

I have no idea where those cars were, or whether they got burned by something else. If you have evidence to show what caused them to burn, I’d like to see it. Shaking has nothing to do with gasoline being ignited; fuel, oxygen, and a spark or enough heat are what’s required. Gasoline is volatile (i.e. it vaporizes easily), and gasoline vapor (when mixed with an appropriate concentration of oxygen) is flammable and even explosive, but neither is shock-sensitive. Liquid gasoline doesn’t burn or explode; it’s the vapors that do both. A gasoline fire burns above the liquid, heating and vaporizing it and burning where the vapor comes into contact with the oxygen and heat TOGETHER. You can “blow the fire” off the top of a gasoline fire, and if there’s no sufficient source of heat or a spark, it will stay out; but normally, the fire has heated something nearby enough to reignite it when the vapors reach it, and this is called “reflash.” Foam fire retardants work by sealing off the surface of the liquid gasoline to prevent more flammable vapors from coming into contact with oxygen and heat.

1,300F came from Hoffman’s paper; he claims that the dust cloud was at over 700C; the conversion is (C + 32) * 9/5 = F. 700C is 1300F. No one caught in such a cloud who breathed would be alive. Other considerations aside.


R98583
4 years ago
reprehensor

Some screen caps from ’9/11 Eyewitness’;







Some video excerpts here:
TVNewsLies.org

In the video there is audio from a local DJ talking about people hearing explosions, and then… collapse.

There are many, many accounts from different people, some of them firefighters, of various explosions of various degrees occuring in both towers prior to collapse.

Many quotes


R98638
4 years ago
whateveryousay

a heat-flash could set lots of shit on fire but humans with protective clothing could be spared. sudden shocks will not have the same effect on humans, notably because they don’t walk around with highly volatile materials in their stomachs.
my point about ground-shaking was simply that agitation of a fuel tank which has been suddenly heated may aggravate a situation where petrol vapour is coming in contact with a surface hot enough to cause auto-ignition in an enclosed space causing explosion. the sudden pressure changes due to blast shockwaves could further influence the environment within a car’s fuel-tank. i really don’t know much about this but it’s not beyond realm of reasonable imagination… but mainly, there’s not really a lot of other possibilities for the spontaneous explosions of cars… debris? sure but not too likely given the witness descriptions and photos… numerous bombs under the cars would do the trick but that seems a bit more far fetched.

hoffman’s 700C? well i’m not sure where it comes from but do bare in mind that all the people were on street level and the clouds reached hundreds of meters in height… the heat going in the general direction of “up”, as heat tends to do. seems to me more like shockwave and heatflash on the street level rather than sustained temperatures of in the neighbourhood of 700C.
it’s recorded that an atomic bomb at 18 miles would cause a heat flash which would light a house on fire and would blister exposed skin… not sure what that does to someone wearing protective fire gear with their back turned…
this all of course has nothing to do with breathing fire as you should well know.

reprehensor,

that documentary has some really sound points and it’s really the only place you can find several minutes of unedited footage preceding each collapse.
their audio analysis, though carefully done, only deals with amplitude levels over time. this is unfortunate because spectrum analysis (linked here inthe thread) clearly shows the unique nature of the blast sounds: the low-frequency content.

just looking at the finalcutpro audio waves-forms (as they do) for the north tower is fine because the unobstructed line of sight provides clearly defined peaks in amplitude. combined with just listening to the audio, they perform a rather convincing analysis.
the same type of analysis doesn’t work for their south tower footage because the blast sounds are not loud enough to cause spikes in the background audio.
i’ve seen a spectral analysis of their south tower footage and it’s very clear where the explosions are because nothing else registers that low. it may be interesting to note that the “voice print” of the south tower explosions from 9/11 eyewitness match other audio recordings of the event taken from different locations.


R99204
4 years ago
cortez

Interview with Scott Forbes

Scott Forbes, who worked in the South Tower of the world trade center, witnessed a power-down of the tower in the weekend before 9/11.

I spoke with Scott Forbes by telephone for around a half hour in late 2004. I also arranged a video interview. However, due to delays by a third person in releasing that video, Scott and I agreed to post a written interview now to fill in some of the details of Scott’s experience.

GENERAL BACKGROUND

GW: In 2001, you were working as an information technology specialist for Fiduciary Trust. Were you the main IT person for Fiduciary Trust, or were you an assistant IT person?

SF: I worked within an IT department of around 100 as a senior DBA [database administrator] and team leader.

GW: Fiduciary Trust had floors 90 and 94-97 of the South Tower at that time. Did you work on a specific floor, or did your duties normally keep you roaming on several floors?

SF: I and my technology colleagues worked on the 97th floor … in the course of the day we would have meetings or give support on other floors but most our time would have been spent on the 97th floor.

THE WEEKEND OF SEPTEMBER 8TH AND 9TH

GW: You’ve previously stated that on the weekend of September 8 and 9, 2001, there was a “power down” condition in world trade center Tower 2, the South Tower, and that this power down condition meant there was no electrical supply for approximately 36 hours from floor 50 up. Do you know what time the power-down started?

SF: All systems were shutdown on Saturday morning and the power down condition was in effect from approximately 12 noon on Saturday September 8, 2001.

GW: When did it end?

SF: Approximately 2PM on Sunday 9/9.

GW: How do you know that there was no electricity from floor 50 up, if Fiduciary Trust was on much higher floors — starting at the 90th floor?

SF: I can’t absolutely verify that there was no power on lower floors … all I can validate is that we were informed of the power down condition, that we had to take down all systems and then the following day had to bring back up all systems …

GW: You’ve previously stated that you were aware of the power down since you worked in the IT department and had to work with many others that weekend to ensure that all systems were cleanly shutdown beforehand … and then brought back up afterwards. How many other Fiduciary Trust folks were you working with? Can any of them verify your story?

SF: Many, many people worked on the power down, both from the IT department and from the business, revalidating systems when they were available again. Other people can validate my information. Some people do not remember the circumstances, some people will not revisit that time … but others acknowledge the power down freely and can validate my information.

GW: You said the reason given by the World Trade Center or Port Authority for the power down was that cabling in the tower was being upgraded. Do you know what parts of the building or how extensive the area would have been for upgrading cabling? In other words, would the area being worked on have been near the outer walls of the tower? Near the core? In the middle?

SF: I have no knowledge about this and can’t comment …

GW: You also stated that, without power, there were no security cameras. How do you know that? Could there have been backup generators which powered the security cameras?

SF: Within my company security cameras were monitored and videos retained for reference. They were powered from the usual power supplies so they would ave been out of action like all other electrical appliances.

GW: You also stated that, without power, there were security locks on doors. Are you just referring to outside doors, or also office doors? Were the locks electrical or key? If electrical, were they battery-operated?

SF: I was referring to the secure doors accessing my companies floors (and other companies). I do not believe there were any battery operated doors.

GW: You also stated there were many, many ‘engineers’ coming in and out of the tower. Did you see any of these folks yourself?

SF: Yes. By “engineers” I mean there were workmen on site, in overalls.

GW: Did these folks look “middle eastern”?

SF: No, not particularly, I mean I don’t recall registering that the
guys were of one racial group or another.

GW: Did you recognize any of them from previous “work” in the tower?

SF: No.

THE MORNING OF 9/11

GW: You were home on the shore of Jersey City on the morning of 9/11, and — according to what you have said previously — you were “convinced immediately that something was happening related to the weekend work”. Why did you think that?

SF: When the South Tower collapsed, like a pillar of sand, it seemed unreal and inconceivable and I immediately thought something weird was going on. I became more suspicious several months later when the power down condition was never acknowledged and in some instances was denied by authorities.

THE 9/11 COMMISSION

GW: Finally, you’ve stated that you gave your information to the 9/11 Commission, but it took no interest. How did you get the info to the Commission (phone, email, letter?)

SF: I contacted the commission through their website and by mail. But I was never acknowledged nor contacted.

GW: Did the Commission ever follow up with you?

SF: No

GW: Anything else you wish to tell us?

SF: I have another piece of interesting information … after 9/11 my company, along with others, was in disaster recovery mode at a location in New Jersey. At that site were literally hundreds and hundreds of eye witnesses to the events of 9/11. As a British National I was contacted by Scotland Yard in London to interview me on the events … but I’ve often wondered why us authorities, like the New York police or FBI, did not interview all those witnesses available altogether in New Jersey. It seems like incompetence to me at best … negligence at worst.

Postscript: Scott did not wish to speak with me concerning reports of explosions above the impact zone in the tower, perhaps because of privacy concerns for the family members of those who died in the tower. Scott told me that he was recently interviewed for a Dutch TV Documentary. So stay tuned: 2 videos of Scott should be coming out soon. .


R100719
4 years ago
Schneibster

a heat-flash could set lots of shit on fire but humans with protective clothing could be spared. A 1300F cloud of dust and gas is not a “heat flash.” You don’t know the difference between temperature and heat, which is not an insult; it’s quite common. I suggest you find it out. Wikipedia is a great resource for such things.

sudden shocks will not have the same effect on humans, notably because they don’t walk around with highly volatile materials in their stomachs. Nor will they have any effect on cars, since gasoline is not vulnerable to physical (as opposed to electrical) shocks. Nor is any concentration of gasoline vapor in air vulnerable to physical shocks.

my point about ground-shaking was simply that agitation of a fuel tank which has been suddenly heated may aggravate a situation where petrol vapour is coming in contact with a surface hot enough to cause auto-ignition in an enclosed space causing explosion. There would already have to be enough heat; and if there were, it would be enough to burn everyone who was inside the cloud alive.

i really don’t know much about this Yes, you don’t. I’d suggest dropping it.

well i’m not sure where it comes from but do bare in mind that all the people were on street level and the clouds reached hundreds of meters in height… the heat going in the general direction of “up”, as heat tends to do. No, hot AIR rises; heat radiates and conducts in all directions open to it. Convection, being based on the movement of heated material rather than direct conduction or radiation, moves upward as well. I’d be interested in seeing your opinion of the pyroclastic clouds emitted during the Mount Saint Helens disaster, but I’m afraid to ask, considering how little knowledge of physics you’ve shown so far.

this all of course has nothing to do with breathing fire as you should well know. No, standing in the MIDDLE OF A 1300F CLOUD has nothing to do with breathing fire, does it? My goodness, how could I ever have missed that? /sarcasm

Whatever, try to stick to territory where you know what you’re talking about. This ain’t it.


R100797
4 years ago
whateveryousay

first of all, the “1300F” has little to do with this particular car exploding issue.

A 1300F cloud of dust and gas is not a “heat flash.”

i was talking about the explosions silly.

Nor is any concentration of gasoline vapor in air vulnerable to physical shocks.

now, to quote someone who knows what they are talking about:

“The flammability temperature range of such vapors
varies with the type and properties of the fuel, the ambient pressure
in the tank, and the amount of dissolved oxygen released from the fuel
into the tank. The amount of dissolved oxygen in a tank will also vary
depending on the amount of vibration and sloshing of the fuel that
occurs within the tank. “

but really. what’s your explanation anyway? debris?
even though that would be less likely to cause a car to explode and more likely to kill the eyewitnesses…

you might as well say it was high-power microwave beams causing the fuel tank metal to spark.

you’ve blown a lot of smoke and failed to address the main point i was making…
(or question really) :

is it possible for people to survive certain heat conditions that could cause cars to explode? (nuclear bomb tests say yes btw)

.. my assumption that a 2.3 scale earthquake is going to make explosions more likely? not such a crazy idea.

Post Modified: 11/29/05 21:50:47

R100906
4 years ago
Schneibster

I already asked you what you thought caused it. I haven’t heard anything credible yet, nor have you responded to my request to tell me the locations of the cars; if we knew that, we might have some means of guessing.

No heat that will cause a car’s gas tank to explode will fail to kill a person who is nearby, even if they are far enough away not to be caught in the fireball of the gasoline.

Gasoline, whether liquid or vapor, whether mixed with air or not, does not explode as a result of being shaken, period. Ever. It’s MADE not to; if it explodes inside the cylinder, it’s called “knocking,” and the octane number is the measure of its ability to resist it. Even the 87 octane regular is pretty resistant to it.

Please give a reference to a nuclear weapon test that caused cars to explode that had people in the immediate vicinity that were exposed but not killed.


R100929
4 years ago
whateveryousay

the bus pictured above is quite obviously next to building 7.
one of the eyewitnesses above clearly says the corner or vasey and west-street, and then “north park” a bit further away. north park is a grassy area by one of the piers i’m told.

Gasoline, whether liquid or vapor, whether mixed with air or not, does not explode as a result of being shaken, period. Ever.

i’m not saying that! (hello?! anyone in there?)
i’m proposing that it was the heat, and that ground shaking plus air pressure changes and maybe all the dust contributed.

No heat that will cause a car’s gas tank to explode will fail to kill a person who is nearby, even if they are far enough away not to be caught in the fireball of the gasoline.

that’s one of your physics laws is it? perhaps you should get a prize for that one. maybe you should be in all the books next to newton. or maybe you’re just a fucking moron.

Please give a reference to a nuclear weapon test that caused cars to explode that had people in the immediate vicinity that were exposed but not killed.

it’s a theoretical distance, they weren’t putting real people so close.

Post Modified: 11/30/05 10:40:26

R101668
4 years ago
whateveryousay

hmm, maybe fires were just sort of hopping from car to car…


R102301
4 years ago
Schneibster

So basically, you were wrong when you said gasoline blows up when you shake it, you don’t know enough about heat or human physiology to understand what the implications of an environment that can heat a car’s gas tank (which is, as I’m sure you’re aware, UNDERNEATH the car) to the point where it can explode are in terms of human survival in such an environment, and you don’t in fact have any references to support any of this. And, of course, that means that I’m a fucking moron? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Sure do hope they put an ignore feature on this site soon. Bye now.


R102381
4 years ago
whateveryousay

So basically, you were wrong when you said gasoline blows up when you shake it

i never said that.

And, of course, that means that I’m a fucking moron —schneib

hey, i said maybe. quit jumping to conclusions.

anyway. why don’t you read this thing about how rookie fire-fighters get to sit in a box so they can experience 600 degree F flash-overs.

http://www.firetactics.com/FIRE-ENGINEERING-2.htm

it might make you hungry:

No heat that will cause a car’s gas tank to explode will fail to kill a person who is nearby, even if they are far enough away not to be caught in the fireball of the gasoline. —schneib

daniel joyeux or joël kruppa research has details about cars and fires:

“A surprising finding
of Joyeux was that a car fire in a parking
garage can ignite an adjacent car.”

now we’re not talking about a parking garage but then again, we couldn’t really call it out-doors in those dust clouds.

they also have some very interesting conclusions and recommendations based on the response of structural steel to fires.

Post Modified: 12/02/05 21:24:26

R102572
4 years ago
whateveryousay

experiments showed that fire will jump from car to car at a distance of 0.7 meters (Kruppa 1998). newer cars radiate heat more quickley than older ones because of the new polymer type materials (mangs 2004). first ignited parts were tires and rubber around doors, in some cars varnish and plastic parts. time for one car’s fire to jump to another car was 8.5 minutes in some experiments (kitano 2000), 12 – 52 minutes in others (steinert 1999, 2000a, 2000b).

also check zhao(2001)

so there you have it. could have been heat all along eh?
looks like Schneibster’s Law which states: No heat that will cause a car’s gas tank to explode will fail to kill a person who is nearby, even if they are far enough away not to be caught in the fireball of the gasoline
is in question here.

now maybe that doesn’t explain cars exploding but it does lend the “gee, maybe it was heat” assumption a bit of support.

on a side note, which also happens to be on topic:

“Researches sponsored by ECSC have just demonstrated that in case of fire in car parks or in
high buildings it is generally not necessary to insulate steel sections (beam and/or columns) to
obtain a satisfactory level of safety.”

...

“Consequently, these large-scale tests have shown
that a strong fire localised at the ground level in a large single storey compartment is not able
to lead to the collapse of a building.”

link


R102587
4 years ago
Chickenma1

“Did anyone change anyone else’s mind yet?”

Yes. I came to this thread suspecting only #7 had been “pulled” and wanting to know more about that. Schneib held up his end of the debate by himself for awhile (Shogo being not much help), but finally lost my vote toward the end. He cherry-picks and side-tracks his arguments, leaving tantalizing – nay, telltale – tidbits unanswered such as the sonic info, the elevator shafts, the freefall. Then there is the powerdown and eyewitness accounts which Schneib doesn’t address because they’re not “science”. Sorry, Schneib, Whateveryousay has really done his research and you have not. It showed in some silly responses about which way the sun shines and people next to exploding cars that sounded even sillier when combined with the sarcasm. I think your ego has finally gotten in the way of your science. Whateveryousay and Continuity, you’ve been invaluable – thanks.

The finality of my comments is an illusion, I love this thread and hope there are many more posts.


R104229
4 years ago
whateveryousay

here’s the hoboken sound recording of the south-tower collapse and the 4 minutes preceding… it has the video and a running sound analysis. a number of specific sounds are marked.

video link

decent speakers or headphones needed to hear the important stuff here.

this first 4 minutes certainly raises some big questions…
you might look to what happened at mt st. helens and perhaps the ’93 wtc bombing for answers to probably the biggest sound related question here.


R105282
4 years ago
Schneibster

I have decent speakers. I note that the building collapse is not IMMEDIATELY preceded by explosions as I believe you have been maintaining; instead, there are explosions preceding the collapse by MANY MINUTES. This is hardly evidence for controlled demolition. I also note that I heard echoes of the collapse, but didn’t hear any echoes of the “explosions” early in the clip. I believe that these “explosions” may actually be wind noise, amplified and rendered in the bass; OTOH, they may actually be explosions, but I fail to see how they are directly material to the collapse. Considering that the WTC buildings presumably were plumbed for gas, and may have had any number of different flammable, volatile, or explosive chemicals on hand for any number of legitimate reasons, and considering there were fires burning in them, I fail to see the relevance. The evidence you claimed for these tapes is, like all the other evidence that supposedly supports demolition fantasies, slowly but surely turning out to be nothing of the kind. I see no questions to be raised, what I do see is more obfuscation.

Ma, I’m sorry you believe that sufficient repetition of a point that is proven incorrect can overcome the proof without ever addressing it, but there’s little I can do to change it, nor was it ever my intention to do so for your benefit. Whatever you choose to conclude you will choose to conclude, and if you think the most often repeated argument is the most salient, I can’t help you.


R105341
4 years ago
Derek

This has been and probably will be the only time I will have ever been able to say that I completely agreed with Shogo


R105343
4 years ago
Chickenma1

“I’m sorry you believe that sufficient repetition of a point that is proven incorrect can overcome the proof without ever addressing it”

Most of the points on this thread were new to me, and “proven incorrect” is a bit of a stretch – I don’t think anything’s been “proven” yet. The “repeated points” support the pancake theory, which is why we’re having this thread. There are many points which you (and officialdom) haven’t addressed and which hang ominously unanswered. I’m still open. The explosions may have been gas, but please don’t say there weren’t explosions – they sounded exactly like the across-the-water fireworks displays I watch on 4 July. Is your point that they are happening too early to be connected/causal to the collapse? It’s hard to evaluate because of the time delay speed-of-sound, but the timing may be something to consider.


R105346
4 years ago
CIAlien

BUILDING A BETTER MIRAGE:

NIST’s 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-Up of the Crime of the Century

by Jim Hoffman
Version 1.0, Dec 8, 2005”:http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html


R105351
4 years ago
Chickenma1

Thanks Alien.


R105355
4 years ago
Shogo

Sorry, Schneib, Whateveryousay has really done his research and you have not.

Um yeah.

As a 40-something ex-hippie acid-head chicken farmer, your opinion on this one isn’t worth a bucket of warm piss.


R105361
4 years ago
Chickenma1

Almost 60, and been around long enough to know you have to question everything.


R105387
4 years ago
Schneibster

Ma, you never said you were a witness! That’s a horse of a different color. Did you hear explosions yourself well prior (minutes like in that tape) to the first collapse?

As far as whether they’re related to the initiation of the collapse, I’d have to say that as far as any demolition theory, they can’t be; demolition isn’t a couple charges go off, nothing happens for five minutes, and then the building falls down. I’m disappointed with whatever’s (IMO) misrepresentation of these explosions as IMMEDIATELY preceding the collapse- because they don’t IMMEDIATELY precede it. I’m also disappointed in yet another site that’s selling something. There’s already plenty of people selling something and taking a lot of liberties with the truth to do it. I’m instantly suspicious of anybody who’s got something for sale; it takes a fair bit to get over that hump. If you want my opinion, the only one who’s made it thus far has been Ruppert- primarily because he actually followed the evidence instead of being sensationalist. He clearly saw that he didn’t need to embellish anything, it was explosive enough on its own without needing hyperbole.


R105393
4 years ago
Chickenma1

I agree with you about Ruppert. He’s about the only one I site outside of these research threads.


R105397
4 years ago
Schneibster

Please do tell me more about what you saw and heard. Did you hear explosions at the times they were purported to have occurred on that tape? My working hypothesis was that they were wind blowing on the microphone, but if you heard it, then it wasn’t wind. Please let us know.


R105449
4 years ago
Number5Toad

I agree with you about Ruppert. He’s about the only one I site outside of these research threads

it’s worth noting, then, that ruppert takes the same tack i do, in insisting there’s enough inflammatory hard evidence to focus on without dealing with unproveable speculation.

and with that, i’m outta this thread!


R105569
4 years ago
emissary71

Two trailer park shills go ‘round the out side ‘round the out side ‘round the out side
Two trailer park shills go ‘round the out side ‘round the out side ‘round the out side

As a 40-something ex-hippie acid-head chicken farmer, your opinion on this one isn’t worth a bucket of warm piss.

What’s shillgo blabbering about now? People like Chickenma could be called for jury duty next week, clearly someone values their opinion. That’s just lame bullshit you trot out like the good little shill you are.

That is teh funny tho’, and hardly surprising coming from you, O shillLord of double standards

That’s not the first time chickenma has told her age, what’s up with your attention span, shillgo? How could anyone take you even half serious, you have trouble remembering even the most basic details, which naturally makes you dangerously unreliable. As a lying sack of shillshit, your shillyness is fully exposed….

Also, shillgo, don’t think people can’t see your stinky hypocrisy – see we have prof. shillingstein confessing to hallucinogenic drug use in this thread.

Shillblister says: I’ll probably never get to do any hallucinogens again; with the state of my health, it would likely kill me. Certainly, white powders are never going to form a part of my life again, and that considerably predates my health problems; they’re simply too hard on the pocketbook; I don’t want to wind up on the street. I’ll likely never be seriously drunk again, either. It just fucks me up too much any more. Pot is really all I have left, when you get right down to it.

But conveniently you’ll accept its ‘anal-alysis’ as gospel because it fits with your contrived dribble. Not to mention it’s only an armchair shill, something you’ve had numerous digs at other people for doing/being with regard to investigations. Wha’d a fucking chump.

shillblister says: Smell ya – smell ya? yeah ok Ralphy, good one. It did make me smile so I guess I should say thanks for that. But instead I feel compelled to say, bawwwhahahaha. Shillhopper – you’re embarrassing yourself.

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

Get a fucking room and shill each other to death for Pete sake.

Shillblister
Shillgo
Sitting in a tree
s-h-i-l-l-i-n-g


R105763
4 years ago
fennec

How ‘bout them Golden State Warriors?


R105772
4 years ago
Chickenma1

“The explosions may have been gas, but please don’t say there weren’t explosions – they sounded exactly like the across-the-water fireworks displays I watch on 4 July. Is your point that they are happening too early to be connected/causal to the collapse? It’s hard to evaluate because of the time delay speed-of-sound, but the timing may be something to consider.”

Relax Schneib, I heard them on the tape just like you did – sorry.


R105823
4 years ago
whateveryousay

“I also note that I heard echoes of the collapse, but didn’t hear any echoes of the “explosions” early in the clip. I believe that these “explosions” may actually be wind noise, amplified and rendered in the bass; OTOH, they may actually be explosions,

naw, wind sounds different. looks different also. i’ve always found wind noise to also go into the higher frequency ranges. echoes in the video tend to arrive as a tight group of similar sounds at this angle and this would make sense given the relatively longer distance over the hudson than between the tower and any other buildings which would cause an echo.

“have decent speakers. I note that the building collapse is not IMMEDIATELY preceded by explosions as I believe you have been maintaining;”

i my previous posts about other angles (which don’t show the 4 minutes preceding the collapse) i note that the rumble and blast immediately precede the collapse. but i wouldn’t suggest that this was more than a few seconds at most. i did earlier note that eye witnesses’ descriptions paint a picture of explosion(s) then collapse. in the hoboken clip, it’s hard to see exactly when the collapses starts exactly and the estimate of sound delay is not exact enough to be certain whether the sound begins a second before the top of the tower moves or a second after… but it’s quite obviously happening before any of the top of the tower is hitting the ground, so we can rule that out.

“they can’t be; demolition isn’t a couple charges go off, nothing happens for five minutes, and then the building falls down. I’m disappointed with whatever’s (IMO) misrepresentation of these explosions as IMMEDIATELY preceding the collapse- because they don’t IMMEDIATELY precede it.”

i’ve see a number of demo’s on tape where the first blasts go off and they just leave the building standing. the thing doesn’t fall until they set off the next series of charges. this can be see in the j.l hudson demo clip. also that weird ‘space-needle’ looking hotel in las-vagas… they blast it and just leave it standing there for a bit.
nist said that 75% of the tower’s columns had to fail before the outside would get pulled down…

if i may float a theory: the sound tower collapse is preceded by 4 minutes of explosions. the north tower not; it just comes down in a shower of blasts, with no prelude, but its collapse caused a larger earth quake than the south (it’s 2.3 vs 2.4 or something?)
perhaps if the building was explosively demolished, they sort of had bets going as to how many blast it would take to cause the top to start falling. they just kept knocking out columns until it started to go under its own weight and then they just brought the whole thing down after they got the top to lean a bit or start falling.
after getting the data on how well the building survived the abuse, they could just drop the north tower all at once.
it’s just a theory of course but we should remember that it’s only slightly more evil to use the event as a little experiment in building performance than to just blow it up to get rid of the buildings.

schneib or shogo have failed to ask what i consider to be the most obvious and puzzling questions regarding 4 minutes of explosions preceding the south tower collapse.


R105826
4 years ago
Schneibster

In a 110 story office building? Are you kidding? Have you ever worked in an office building, whatever?


R105883
4 years ago
whateveryousay

“In a 110 story office building? Are you kidding? Have you ever worked in an office building, whatever?” —shneib

what are you referring to? what are you asking?

i should point out the reverberance of the single explosions. listen for it. i could try to emulate it with a reverb unit… compare the single explosions with their reverberance to things like handling noise or even the car-door type sounds which are more flat.

shneib said he heard the “echo” of the collapse but i think he’s just hearing the second group of explosions within the collapse.


R105908
4 years ago
Schneibster

What I’m asking is, do you know what’s in there? What HAS to be there in order for it to BE an office building?


R105920
4 years ago
whateveryousay

that would be offices in order for it to BE an “office building”.

your point is…..


R105962
4 years ago
Schneibster

Ever seen a Kodak high-speed copier? How about a Versatec V80 electrostatic printer? Are you aware that the toner for both of these systems uses kerosene?

What precisely do you suppose they do to heat a building the size of a WTC tower? Any idea how they get hot water for the bathrooms? Do you suppose the building might be plumbed for gas?

That’ll do for starters.


R105983
4 years ago
whateveryousay

exploding photo-copiers. of course. why didn’t i think of that before? it’s so obvious.

as for the gas story you pulled out of your ass.
there was no natural gas in the twin towers.
gas was used in the vista hotel kitchens, some restaurants on the concourse of wtc5 and the coffee tasting room in wtc4. maybe a couple of other places. wtc7 has a low pressure line.

i you want to know how i know this: it’s because i read The World Trade Center Complex by The Port Authority Risk Management Staff chapter of the FEMA / United States Fire Administration / National Fire Data Center report and analysis which deals with the wtc bombing.

your starters were sort of awful… doesn’t inspire a lot of confidence in the the main-course now does it?


R106040
4 years ago
Schneibster

Seems like you’ve kind of glossed over the question of the origin of the “explosions” early in that tape. I have a question about them.

1. What other witnesses described “explosions” a minute or more prior to the collapse of the South Tower? I have heard of none.

I think I require that you provide some additional proof that such explosions actually occurred, particularly considering the “In Plane Sight” hoax; I am no longer sanguine that what I am seeing has not been manipulated in one way or another, whether with or without the knowledge of the person from whom I, or you, or they, got it. A second, independent source will eliminate this uncertainty.


R106079
4 years ago
Chickenma1

Schneib, your arguments are only accessible to the limited number of people who have studied physics to any extent. Were you to be the technical witness for the prosecution (or in this case, the defense) and having to appeal to an unschooled jury, you would need to be able to translate your findings with more regard to how common sense interprets what it sees and hears. This requires people skills (some degree of willingness to understand how they’re seeing and hearing it). For instance, you are right to question whether the tape was doctored, but not until you’ve acknowledged for those who went to the trouble of finding it, that at face value it is intriguing. Otherwise, you come across as knee-jerk and agenda-driven.


R106093
4 years ago
whateveryousay

i’ve compared the sound of the collapse to other angles of the collapse.
it matches but with a rather startling delay which introduced halfway through.


R106098
4 years ago
Chickenma1

Evidence, that’s what the jury likes. Thanks, Whatever.


R106101
4 years ago
Schneibster

I’m not interested in convincing anyone. I’m interested in determining if there is any relevant evidence I have not seen. Whether you come out convinced is your look-out; if you have questions about my opinion of the meaning of evidence, or about why I’ve come to a conclusion, or whether a particular conclusion is something I believe, feel free to ask.

Whatever, NOTHING introduced a delay of over a minute; in fact, since sound travels at 1/5 of a mile per second, more or less, nothing introduced a delay of more than a couple seconds. If you’re curious, the speed of sound at sea level at 0% humidity and 15C (59F) is 340m/s, or 761mph, or 1115.77ft/sec. Since a mile is 5280ft, the fraction is 0.21131mi/sec, and since .20mi is a fifth of a mile, it’s pretty close. You can estimate the distance to a lightning strike by counting seconds between the flash and the thunder and dividing by five.


R106108
4 years ago
whateveryousay

Whatever, NOTHING introduced a delay of over a minute

yeah, well, duh…
i was talking about the collapse only.
sorry, my second post on the subject i clicked out by mistake. was doing something else.
the delay i’m talking about is almost 2 seconds.
besides that 2 seconds, the collapse in this hoboken clip matches the collapse sounds in the other angle taped from spring street.

i’m curious. anyone know what the official initiation of the collapse is in minutes, hours, seconds?

Post Modified: 12/13/05 16:48:50

R106112
4 years ago
whateveryousay

i’d maybe put it at 09:59:02.

give or take a second.

the dramatic low-frequency sounds on this clip at such a distance…?

one major reason: blast sounds loose less energy when travelling over water than when travelling over ground. ground is porous and absorbs sound where as water refracts it.


R106118
4 years ago
Chickenma1

Schneib, you said in relation to the Hoboken video, “Well, it’s the scariest shit you’ve ever heard; like listening to the train when you’re tied on the tracks. It’s a really, really deep rumble, and it makes your guts churn. In some ‘quakes, it’s almost high enough pitched you’d call it a “hum.” But really, it’s too deep for that. Combined with the ground moving, believe you me, it’s adrenaline time.”

Then you went on to talk about cars exploding. Now you’re back to the Hoboken thing, “As far as whether they’re related to the initiation of the collapse, I’d have to say that as far as any demolition theory, they can’t be; demolition isn’t a couple charges go off, nothing happens for five minutes, and then the building falls down. I’m disappointed with whatever’s (IMO) misrepresentation of these explosions as IMMEDIATELY preceding the collapse- because they don’t IMMEDIATELY precede it.”

What I heard, and what I assume you heard that gave you the adrenaline rush, was certainly not 5 minutes beforehand. Am I misunderstanding you here? Yeah, my look-out, and I’m trying to get some expert opinion from an expert (you) – could you please explain the timing of the low booms I’m hearing in the Hoboken tape? Do they not preceed the collapse by seconds rather than minutes?


R106129
4 years ago
Schneibster

whatever, just so you don’t worry about it, it just occurred to me you might be: speed of light delay is five times completely around the world in a second; it’s about a foot per nanosecond, about five microseconds per mile. A laser beam- or sunlight glinting off a mirror, or a bright flashlight beam, or whatever- could bounce back and forth between the camera and the tower about a MILLION times in the time it takes the sound to get there ONCE. You can essentially treat the light propagation as instantaneous unless your time resolution is better than twenty microseconds.

Just so you don’t waste your time.


R106137
4 years ago
whateveryousay

yeah. i guess i heard something about light going real fast.
you know, different colours of light goes at different speeds?

i’m more in the give or take a 100th of a second zone here.
sometimes just give or take 1 second depending.


R106146
4 years ago
Schneibster

ma, you misunderstood me to be referring to the video. I was referring to what a really big earthquake is like. Whatever said,

i’m generally curious. haven’t experienced any earthquakes myself. just wondering what they would sound like, typical frequency response and the like. it’s always been my assumption that most of the energy transmitted through the ground would be in the very subsonic ranges
and my response was
Well, it’s the scariest shit you’ve ever heard; like listening to the train when you’re tied on the tracks. It’s a really, really deep rumble, and it makes your guts churn. In some ‘quakes, it’s almost high enough pitched you’d call it a “hum.” But really, it’s too deep for that. Combined with the ground moving, believe you me, it’s adrenaline time.

What I heard, and what I assume you heard that gave you the adrenaline rush, was certainly not 5 minutes beforehand. Am I misunderstanding you here? Yes, you are. I was asking you about the booms several minutes before the collapse of the South Tower. If you had been there, we would know for sure that they could not be wind; similarly, if whatever can find a witness or two who described the sort of string of explosions minutes apart that we seem to hear in that record, that would also confirm it. Having taken pictures of the Grand Canyon and had one of them come back with a pretty amazing-looking “UFO” in the middle of it, only to find a crease in the negative when I looked it over, I have little faith in single-sourced audio or video records, and this impression has been considerably reinforced by the “In Plane Sight” hoax. I’m also skeptical if not downright suspicious when I go to the site and find that they have a major sales operation going and that they’ve been playing audio games with the announcer’s voice. Listen to their flash; they’re slowing the announcer’s voice by about 5-10%. It’s a fairly standard trick to get that sonorous-sounding voiceover.

Either I overlooked what you are talking about, or it is not there; or perhaps I was looking closer at the video than you were. I just don’t hear any booms “a few seconds” before the collapse appears to start, and I have to ask: since you are looking at the North Tower and the South Tower is behind it, how do you know when the top of the South Tower began to move? You can’t even SEE the top of the South tower clearly. The radio is an unreliable timing device, because broadcasters often introduce a delay so that they can edit out any involuntary untoward comments- swearing and so forth- that might occur. The only trustworthy time index is the actual movement of the tower in the picture. As nearly as I can make out, the delay from the first movement I see to the first sound is about nine seconds; this would be appropriate for a distance of about one and four-fifths miles, or about 10,035 feet. The first movement of the tower precedes the woman saying “Oh… wait… oh, my God!” and so forth by about 2-3 seconds. I note with interest that this appears to be consistent with the straight-line distance between the camera and the tower, to the available resolution (which is certainly no better than 1 second, and might be as bad as 2- all +, no minus. IOW, the building could have started falling as early as eleven seconds before the sound recorded on the camera, or as short as nine seconds, with a resolution of about 2-3 tenths of a second.

There is also an assumption that the audio track and the video track are in sync. This could have been confirmed by taking pictures at some point of someone talking, but unfortunately, there is no such footage in that section; in addition, I was alarmed to see an apparent “skip” in the record about a minute before the collapse.

Does that answer your questions, ma?


R106147
4 years ago
sisyphus

popsicle sticks


R106148
4 years ago
Schneibster

you know, different colours of light goes at different speeds?
Not in a vacuum, and not appreciably in gases at 14PSI either. There’s enough difference to tell in glass, though.


R106162
4 years ago
Chickenma1

Thank you Schneib. Forgive my testiness. I really didn’t understand how you could be having adrenaline rushes from the Hoboken video and then start blasting Whatever about cars blowing up. I agree about needing another source and hey, that voice did destroy a lot of credibility right off the bat – no argument from me there. No way it was “wind”, though.


R106176
4 years ago
Schneibster

Ma, perfectly all right- I’ve been a bit more than testy, I’ve been downright nasty over the last few weeks. I’m really pretty fed up with having to explain the same dumb things over and over and over- not to you, you seem to get it the first time ;) but to the latest idiot who has decided I’m a “shill,” whatever the hell they mean by that when as far as I can tell the majority of them are pimping somebody’s pay site or DVD and related products (bumper stickers, T-shirts, whatever).

I hope I haven’t been nasty to you, and I hope if I have inadvertently, you’ll accept my apologies and forgive it and chalk it up to an inflammatory atmosphere and my frustration surrounding the bad behavior I’m having to put up with in order to try to put this matter to bed, one way or the other.

OTOH, I am fully serious about really not being invested in what you believe- you are and should be free to believe whatever you like. I would prefer to be a conduit of information for you, rather than a conduit of opinion, if there were any question about it (and I don’t believe there is, you seem quite independent in your judgements, and well you should be). If I give you any advice at all, it’s take your time, sift carefully, ask about everything twice, and make up your own mind. But I don’t think you need me to tell you any of that.


R106226
4 years ago
zark

i am back and still i have not been given substantial evidence in order to believe the Official Theory.

Rodriguezs’ eye witness account, who had 14 people with him who state that an explosion occured in the basement before the plane hit the tower. Then a man appeared who had his skin burned off, saying that fire shot up from the elevator shaft.
As we know the towers had 3 separate blocks, one ontop of the other, therefore it is impossible that jet fuel passed down through the elevator shafts.

There was an explosion in the basement and there are witnesses.
Full stop.

Full and open public investigation is needed.


R106241
4 years ago
Schneibster

There was one freight elevator, which one would expect to have an outlet in the service areas of the basement, which went to almost all floors.

You have not done sufficient research on this matter to make a definitive statement; note the following:
“In addition to normal freight service one freight elevator in each of the towers will serve a total of 112 stops from the fifth basement to the 108th floor.” This from the website of the Otis elevator company, the supplier for the elevators in the WTC towers, and the oldest elevator company in the world, named for its founder, Elisha Graves Otis, the inventor of the elevator safety brake that made elevators practical in 1853.
Link


R106249
4 years ago
zark

fair enuff, but doesnt refute the witness’ to the explosion in the basement before the plane hit

William asks: “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?”..

interesting point and yes this information was given to the 9/11 Commission and yes they didnt include it in the report.

Philipe David was 400 feet from the office yet arrived in the office seconds after the plane hit. What gives?
fuels travels down shaft, ignites sb5, travels up shaft, burns david, he then travels 400 feet in a matter of seconds. yeah yeah yeah

22 people in SB2 witnessed the first explosion
14 people and Rodriguez witness the first explosion in sb1 office

38 people admit that an explosion occurred in the basement before the plane hit.

Post Modified: 12/14/05 04:01:35

R106258
4 years ago
Schneibster

Got a link to this? A second source, perhaps?


R106305
4 years ago
whateveryousay

the rodriguez story:

i’ve got 2 audio recordings of the north tower plane hit. both would support the story because they can be seen to show two explosions, 9 seconds apart, the second one being the crash.

timing the collapse shouldn’t be so difficult. there must be some official collapse times floating around.
on the hoboken clip the radio marks 10:00am with a 1KHz tone. i mean, what more do you want?
it’s exactly 5:11 on the clip. go back to when the collapse sound starts and minus 9 seconds for the delay and voila: 09:59:02


R106324
4 years ago
Schneibster

Uh-huh. You still haven’t produced a witness who directly describes what you say they do. Rodriguez is not it. He has been caught in perjury, and there is no second confirming witness despite the fact that there were other people in the office with him. The only other CLAIMS that anyone heard the same thing are Szymanski’s, and the supposed “witnesses” are “unavailable for comment,” and what they said supposedly was said in Columbia and there is no confirming source from Columbia.

Post Modified: 12/14/05 10:04:15

R106400
4 years ago
zark

Witness’
Anthony Saltamachia in the room with Rodriguez

Felipe David
“The building started shaking after I heard the explosion below, dust was flying
everywhere and all of a sudden it got real hot”

Jose Sanchez
“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

Salvatore Giambanco
“We heard the explosion and the smoke all of a sudden came from all
over. There was an incredible force of wind that also swept everything
away. Later they told me it was an airplane that hit the towers, but how
could it just be an airplane? I know all the newspapers were saying
that, but it was just too incredible to believe if you heard and
experienced what I did. It had to be a bomb”

Stationary Engineer Mike Pecoraro
“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.

“There was nothing there but rubble, “Mike said. “We’re talking about a 50 ton hydraulic press – gone!”

The two made their way to the parking garage, but found that it, too, was gone. “There were no walls, there was rubble on the floor, and you can’t see anything” he said.

thats the ones named who have come out into the spotlight and should be sufficient for a Full and Open Independant Investigation of all the evidence available. Then you can drag in all the firefighters and police

On the morning of Sept. 11, 2005, New York City auxiliary fire lieutenant Paul Isaac Jr. asserted, yet again, that 9-11 was an inside job. “I know 9-11 was an inside job. The police know it’s an inside job; and the firemen know it too,” said Isaac.

Researcher Vincent Sammartino, who was also at the WTC “open grave site” on the afternoon of Sept. 11, 2005, wrote the following on the on-line news web site APFN: “I just got back from Ground Zero. People know the truth. Half of the police and firemen were coming up to us and telling us that they know that 9-11 was an inside job. They were told not to talk about it. But they were supporting what we were doing. I had tears in my eyes.”

Post Modified: 12/14/05 12:38:47

R106410
4 years ago
Schneibster

I do not see support in that testimony for Rodriguez’ statement that the explosion preceded the plane strike, and that is what I need to see. In the presence of a lawsuit that makes numerous already disproven claims, and a complete lack of direct corroboration of the most important claim, I still cannot accept this as hard evidence.

And I have a question: if Rodriguez was in the basement, how does he know when the plane hit the building? Please read this which describes the experience of one Steve McIntyre, in an office 3 stories below the impact site:
“Just three floors below the impact zone, not a thing budged in Steve McIntyre’s office. Not the slate paperweight shaped like a sailing ship. Not the family snapshots propped up on a bookcase. Mr. McIntyre found himself in front of a computer that was still on.

Then came the whiplash.” Emphasis mine.

If someone three stories below the impact did not directly feel it, how could Rodriguez have felt it? What Rodriguez felt was the arrival of the shock wave, which according to the above well-corroborated testimony took some three to four seconds to arrive at the bottom of the tower- as opposed to the fireball propagating down the freight elevator shaft whose existence I have documented above, which would have arrived in the basement at the hundreds of miles per hour characteristic of a blast pressure wave, meaning within less than a second from the impact.

I may have misspoken above- “perjury” is probably too harsh a word to use for this. Rodriguez may simply be mistaken in his interpretation of the events he witnessed.


R106912
4 years ago
whateveryousay

i’m still waiting on some collapse times… anyone?

here’s the seismic recording of the south tower collapse with some estimates marked from the hoboken recording. top of the hour tone in the clip is used. first “x” on the left is the sudden start of the collapse sounds in the hoboken clip minus 9 seconds for the delay estimate. the second “x” in the middle is the 22 and a half seconds delay estimate added.

why?
well why not?


R106920
4 years ago
Schneibster

I know where you got that picture, and I also know that on that page it discusses the fact that the speed of such tremors through the ground is not constant. The fact that you discuss anything that implies precision beyond the decimal point in a conversation involving such data implies accuracy that is simply not present. In properly done scientific analyses, every data point is accompanied by error bars. Where are yours?


R106993
4 years ago
whateveryousay

i’m going by the estimates which were discussed above. the audio was +/-1 second. the seismic estimate, i believe you brought that one up earlier.


R107501
4 years ago
Strangegloved

Has anybody seen this yet?

Police Found Suspected Bombs In WTC On 9/11

Seems like there has been a ton of this kind of evidence lately, doesn’t it?

Post Modified: 12/18/05 15:45:11

R107513
4 years ago
Strangegloved

William Rodriguez said this

A fellow worker Felipe David came into the office. “He had been standing in front of a freight elevator on sub-level 1 about 400 feet from the office when fire burst out of the elevator shaft, causing his injuries.” The skin on his face had been peeled away by the heat of the blast and he was horribly burned on thirty-three percent of his body. “He was burned so badly from the basement explosion that flesh was hanging from his face and both arms.” William asks: “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?” William led Felipe David outside to safety. William continued to hear people screaming and returned to the building in spite of police orders. There were people encased in elevators. There were people who needed help.

How come the 9-11 Commission did not put his testimony in its report?

William spent hours testifying before the 9-11 Commission behind closed doors. His testimony as an eye witness does not appear anywhere in the 576 page report.

William Rodriguez, a 9-11 Survivor

Post Modified: 12/18/05 19:44:52

R107565
4 years ago
Strangegloved

We see from the photograph above that solid metal slag existed at salmon-to-yellow-hot temperature (approx. 1550 – 1900 oF, 845 – 1040 oC.) The temperature is well above the melting temperatures of lead and aluminum, and these metals can evidently be ruled out since they would be runny liquids at much lower (cherry-red or below) temperatures. However, the observed hot specimen could be structural steel (from the building) or iron (from a thermite reaction) or a combination of the two. Additional photographs of the hot metal could provide further information and advance the research.

By Steven E. Jones, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84604

Are there any examples of buildings toppled by fires or any reason other than deliberate demolition that show large pools of molten metal in the rubble? I have posed this question to numerous engineers and scientists, but so far no examples have emerged. Strange then that three buildings in Manhattan, supposedly brought down finally by fires, all show these large pools of molten metal in their basements post-collapse on 9-11-2001. It would be interesting if underground fires could somehow produce molten steel, for example, but then there should be historical examples of this effect since there have been many large fires in numerous buildings. It is not enough to argue hypothetically that fires could possibly cause all three pools of molten metal.

Post Modified: 12/18/05 20:21:18

R107567
4 years ago
neverknwo

R107568
4 years ago
neverknwo

R107569
4 years ago
neverknwo

R107570
4 years ago
neverknwo

R107986
4 years ago
Schneibster

I have news. Please read this thread

You can start with the page that link will bring up, and walk forward two pages. You’ll find two posts by actual shills, working for the assholes who are preying on the “9/11 truth” movement. It’s quite clear, and there’s little place to hide. There will be numerous claims, and if necessary I am prepared to produce copies of the incriminating pages BEFORE they got edited or deleted.

I don’t see much reason to continue this charade. Having now found individuals who are engaged in conversations like this one in order to promote their web sites and make more money, I think the demonstration of cynicism needs no further words of mine. Judge for yourselves. My work with 9/11 is DONE. I have other fish to fry. This is obviously a dead end search for information that does not exist being promoted by unscrupulous individuals who are stealing money from the credulous.

Again I say, the deed was long done by the time the towers fell. There is no evidence there. The evidence is,
1. Osama bin Laden is a proven CIA asset.
2. No attacking planes were shot down.
3. An exercise that involved fake planes was scheduled for the same day. This prevented pilots who were not “in on it” from exercising their own initiative.


R108007
4 years ago
whateveryousay

i don’t see what the social dynamic of your other thread has to do with anything here.

all your stuff about the supposed gas-lines and various other blunders here sort of illustrates how much you actually know what you’re talking about.


R108014
4 years ago
Schneibster

Hey, who am I to prevent them from making a living? Believe anything you want.


R108021
4 years ago
whateveryousay

being a loud-mouth, talking stupid shit, and trying to make money off anything & everything is more american than apple pie and football. one is hardly surprised. it’s not even worth looking at. why not summarize some of your favourite quotes and write a little piece on it if you find it interesting.


R108653
4 years ago
fennec


R108658
4 years ago
sisyphus

Judge for yourselves. My work with 9/11 is DONE. I have other fish to fry

Sweet! Now can we get to work on the goddamn time machine already?


R110075
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

Did the Bush Administration Lie to Congress and the 9/11 Commission

One of the more puzzling mysteries of 9-11 is what ever happened to the flight recorders of the two planes that hit the World Trade Center towers. Now it appears that they may not be missing at all.

Counterpunch has learned that the FBI has them.

Flight recorders (commonly known as black boxes, though these days they are generally bright orange) are required on all passenger planes. There are always two-a flight data recorder that keeps track of a plane’s speed, altitude, course and maneuvers, and a cockpit voice recorder which keeps a continuous record of the last 30 minutes of conversation inside a plane’s cockpit. These devices are constructed to be extremely durable, and are installed in a plane’s tail section, where they are least likely suffer damaged on impact. They are designed to withstand up to 30 minutes of 1800-degree heat (more than they would have faced in the twin towers crashes), and to survive a crash at full speed into the ground.

All four of the devices were recovered from the two planes that hit the Pentagon and that crashed in rural Pennsylvania. In the case of American Airlines Flight 77, which hit the Pentagon, the FBI reports that the flight data recorder survived and had recoverable information, but the voice recorder was allegedly too damaged to provide any record. In the case of United Airlines Flight 93, which hit the ground at 500 mph in Pennsylvania, the situation was reversed: the voice recorder survived but the flight data box was allegedly damaged beyond recovery.

But the FBI states, and also reported to the 9-11 Commission, that none of the recording devices from the two planes that hit the World Trade Center were ever recovered.

There has always been some skepticism about this assertion, particularly as two N.Y. City firefighters, Mike Bellone and Nicholas De Masi, claimed in 2004 that they had found three of the four boxes, and that Federal agents took them and told the two men not to mention having found them. (The FBI denies the whole story.) Moreover, these devices are almost always located after crashes, even if not in useable condition (and the cleanup of the World Trade Center was meticulous, with even tiny bone fragments and bits of human tissue being discovered so that almost all the victims were ultimately identified). As Ted Lopatkiewicz, director of public affairs at the National Transportation Safety Agency which has the job of analyzing the boxes’ data, says, “It’s very unusual not to find a recorder after a crash, although it’s also very unusual to have jets flying into buildings.”

Now there is stronger evidence that something is amiss than simply the alleged non-recovery of all four of those boxes. A source at the National Transportation Safety Board, the agency that has the task of deciphering the date from the black boxes retrieved from crash sites-including those that are being handled as crimes and fall under the jurisdiction of the FBI-says the boxes were in fact recovered and were analyzed by the NTSB.

“Off the record, we had the boxes,” the source says. “You’d have to get the official word from the FBI as to where they are, but we worked on them here.”

The official word from the NTSB is that the WTC crash site black boxes never turned up. “No recorders were recovered from the World Trade Center,” says the NTSB’s Lopatkiewicz. “At least none were delivered to us by the FBI.”; He adds that the agency has “always had a good relationship” with the FBI and that in all prior crime-related crashes or flight incidents, they have brought the boxes to the NTSB for analysis.

For its part, the FBI is still denying everything, though with curious bit of linguistic wiggle room. “To the best of my knowledge, the flight recording devices from the World Trade Center crashes were never recovered. At least we never had them,” says FBI spokesman Stephen Kodak.

What the apparent existence of the black boxes in government hands means is unclear.

If the information in those boxes is recoverable, or if, as is likely, it has been recovered already, it could give crucial evidence regarding the skill of the hijacker/pilots, perhaps of their strategy, of whether they were getting outside help in guiding them to their targets, of how fast they were flying and a host of other things.

Why would the main intelligence and law enforcement arm of the U.S. government want to hide from the public not just the available information about the two hijacked flights that provided the motivation and justification for the nation’s “War on Terror” and for its two wars against Afghanistan and Iraq, but even the fact that it has the devices which could contain that information? Conspiracy theories abound, with some claiming the planes were actually pilotless military aircraft, or that they had little or nothing to do with the building collapses. The easiest way to quash such rumors and such fevered thinking would be openness.

Instead we have the opposite: a dark secrecy that invites many questions regarding the potentially embarrassing or perhaps even sinister information that might be on those tapes.

Dave Lindorff is the author of Killing Time: an Investigation into the Death Row Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal. His new book of CounterPunch columns titled “This Can’t be Happening!” is published by Common Courage Press. Information about both books and other work by Lindorff can be found at www.thiscantbehappening.net.

He can be reached at: dlindorff@yahoo.com

Post Modified: 12/28/05 11:21:47

R110084
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

What the hell. Might as well post this again.

World Trade Center Collapse Forensics

What don’t we know and why don’t we know it?

Post Modified: 12/28/05 11:20:29

R110103
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

Firefighters, law enforcement officers, and other extremely credible witnesses have also discredited the Administration’s version of why the world trade center buildings collapsed on 9/11:

Reporter for USA Today stated that the FBI believed that bombs in the buildings brought the buildings down

NY Fire Department Chief of Safety stated there were “bombs” and “secondary devices”, which caused the explosions in the buildings.

NYC firefighters who witnessed attacks stated that it looked like there were bombs in the buildings.

NYC firefighter stated “On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there was bombs set in the building”

MSNBC reporter stated that police had found a suspicious device “and they fear it could be something that might lead to another explosion” and the police officials believe “that one of the explosions at the world trade center . . . may have been caused by a van that was parked in the building that may have had some kind of explosive device in it, so their fear is that there may have been explosive devices planted either in the building or in the adjacent area”

NYC firefighter stated “the south tower . . . exploded . . . At that point a debate began to rage because the perception was that the building looked like it had been taken out with charges . . . many people had felt that possibly explosives had taken out 2 World Trade” (pages 6 & 7)

Assistant Fire Commissioner stated “I thought . . . before . . . No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. . . . I . . . saw a flash flash flash . . . [at] the lower level of the building [not up where the fire was]. You know like when they . . . blow up a building … ?” — and a lieutenant firefighter the Commissioner spoke with independently verified the flashes (see possible explanation below)(when, as here, there are no page numbers in the original firefighter transcript, you can locate the text using the “find” function in your web browser)

A firefighter said “[T]here was just an explosion. It seemed like on television [when] they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.”

Another firefighter stated “it almost sounded like bombs going off, like boom, boom, boom, like seven or eight” (page 4; original is .pdf; Google’s webpage version is here)

Paramedic said “at first I thought it was — do you ever see professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear pop pop pop pop pop — thats exactly what because thought it was” (page 9)

Police officer noted “People were saying, ‘There’s another one and another one.’ I heard reports of secondary bomb explosions . . .” (page 61, which is page 3 of a hand-written memorandum)

Firefighter stated “there was an explosion in the south tower, which . . . just blew out in flames . . . One floor under another after another and when it hit about the fifth floor, I figured it was a bomb, because it looked like a synchronized deliberate kind of thing. I was there in ’93” (referring to 1993 bombing of world trade center; pages 3 & 4)

A firefighter stated “it looked like sparkling around one specific layer of the building . . . Then the building started to come down. My initial reaction was that this was exactly the way it looks when they show you those implosions on TV.”

Dan Rather said that collapse was “reminiscent of those pictures we’ve all seen [when] a building was deliberately destroyed by well-placed dynamite to knock it down” (CNN’s Aaron Brown and a Fox News reporter also made similar comments)

British newspaper stated “some eyewitnesses reported hearing another explosion just before the structure crumbled. Police said that it looked almost like a ‘planned implosion’ “

One ABC reporter stated it looked like a controlled demolition; another ABC reporter stated “anyone who has ever watched a building being demolished on purpose knows that if you’re going to do this you have to get at the under-infrastructure of the building to bring it down”

A reporter for WNYC radio said “The reporters were trying to figure out what had happened. We were thinking bombs had brought the buildings down”(page 203 of Running Toward Danger: Stories Behind The Breaking News of 9/11)

A Wall Street Journal reporter said “I heard this metallic roar, looked up and saw what I thought was just a peculiar site of individual floors, one after the other exploding outward. I thought to myself, “My God, they’re going to bring the building down.” And they, whoever they are, HAD SET CHARGES . . . . I saw the explosions” (page 87)

A facilities manager in the north tower “was convinced that there were bombs planted all over the place and someone was sitting at a control panel pushing detonator buttons”

Indeed, Larry Silverstein, the leaseholder of the World Trade Center, said in a PBS documentary that Building 7 was “pulled” on September 11th. “Pulling” is a construction industry term for “intentionally demolishing”, as shown in this PBS interview discussing the demolition of world trade center building 6 many weeks after 9/11.

Moreover, there is evidence that substantial explosions occurred well BELOW the area impacted by the planes, and — according to some witnesses — they occurred BEFORE the plane had hit:

9/11 hero, who was the last person out of the north tower, said that there was a massive explosion in the North Tower BEFORE the plane hit (see also this interview and also this interview)

A police report states World Trade Center “Police Desk reporting an explosion on the lower level” 8 minutes after plane crash (page 17, which is page 2 of the Chronological Report of the WTC Radio Transmissions on 9/11/01)
NYC firefighter stated “It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit. . . [W]e originally had thought there was like an internal detonation, explosives, because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down.”

Police Officer described events which occurred inside Tower One after the second plane hit and well before that tower collapsed: “We went back up to the sixth floor . . . . Then there was an eerie silence and it was like you knew something was going to happen. There just seemed to be one explosion after another. I was separated from the guys from the bridge . . . by another explosion, massive again, sucking the air out of your lungs and then just a wind more intense this time with larger pieces of debris flying.” (pages 94 & 95, which is page 2 & 3 of a hand-written memorandum)

Firefighter states “this, huge incredible force of wind and debris actually came UP the stairs, knocked my helmet off, knocked me to the ground”

Similarly, employee of an insurance company in south tower heard an explosion from BELOW the impact of the airplane, an “exploding sound” shook the building, a tornado of hot air, smoke and ceiling tiles and bits of drywall came flying UP the stairwell, and the wall split from the bottom UP

Firefighter stated “my lieutenant said he looked down at the first floor, and he could see the first floor of the south tower like exploding out” (page 5; Google’s web version is here)

Firefighter said “I was distracted by a large explosion from the south tower and it seemed like fire was shooting out a couple of hundred feet in each direction, then all of a sudden the top of the tower started coming down in a pancake . . . It appeared somewhere below [the area where the plane had hit]. Maybe twenty floors below the impact area of the plane” (pages 3 & 4)

Paramedic “heard ground level explosions” (page 29)

Detective for the Port Authority reported, long before the collapse of the tower, “When we reached the 15th floor, the building began to vibrate and shake. I heard loud explosions and rumblings in the background. The stairwell shifted and gave out a large metal on metal groan. The stairwell then twisted back into place with another loud groan. The lights went out. At that point the stairwell became filled with smoke and dust.” (pages 58 & 59, which is page 2 & 3 of a memo from the Office of Inspector General)

A fire department batallion chief stated “it actually looked — the lowest floor of fire in the south tower actually looked like someone had planted explosives around it because the whole bottom I could see (redacted) I could see two sides of it and the other side, it just looked like that floor blew out” (what was in the redacted portion?)

Firefighters discover that the lobby of one of the twin towers suffered explosive damage with blown-out windows

Firefighter stated “the Maydays started coming in to vacate the north tower . . . we started going down. At that point, we proceeded down . . . Made it down to the lobby. There were about maybe 30 firefighters that were with us. Made it to the lobby, and the lobby was like a war zone. All the windows were blown out, and the command post wasn’t there. We made it to the corner of West and Vesey when the building came down.” (pages 5 & 6)

World trade center employee stated “the bottom of our building was blown out”

Janitor who worked in the basement of north tower witnessed explosion in basement at around the same time the plane hit far above
CBS News reporter stated “All of a sudden I heard a roar and I saw one of the towers blow … I saw from street level as though it exploded up, a giant rolling ball of flame…”. (same reporter stated “I hear simultaneously this roar and see what appears to be a gigantic fireball rising up at ground level . . . I remember seeing this giant ball of fire come out of the earth as I heard this roar” (pages 119 & 239))

A Port Authority Police Department officer, who was intimately familiar with the World Trade Center from his years of police duties patrolling there, described how the hallway began to shudder as a “terrible deafening roar” swept over him, then a giant fireball exploded in the street seconds before the south tower collapsed

Worker in one of the twin towers discusses explosion on the 8th floor

Another worker in the twin towers states “when we get to the lobby, there was this big explosion”

Stationary engineer who worked in world trade center one described tremendous damage in the basement of the building more consistent in nature and timing with a bomb than with damage from an airplane

Construction worker discusses explosions in the sub-basement of tower 1; same worker talks about explosions in the basements of tower 2

Firefighter describes elevators “blown off the hinges” which only went to lower floors (page 7)

In addition, there are many eyewitness accounts of phenomena consistent with the use of explosives in the world trade center buildings:

Paramedic captain stated “somewhere around the middle of the world trade center there was this orange and red flash coming out initially it was just one flash then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode the popping sound and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as could see these popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger going both up and down and then all around the building” (pdf file; Google’s web version is here). Compare this authenticated tape of a controlled demolition by a leading demolition company — can you see the orange and red flashes on the near side of the building? How about at the base of this building, the Kingdome? Both of these tapes are posted at the “World Records” section of Controlled Demolition, Inc.‘s website)

Police office stated “you would hear a loud boom go off at the top of tower one. As the building continued to burn and emergency equipment kept on responding stirring up the dust and debris in the streets. After approximately 15 minutes suddenly there was another loud boom at the upper floors, then there was a series of smaller explosions which appeared to go completely around the building at the upper floors. And another loud earth-shattering blast with a large fire ball which blew out more debris and at that point everyone began to run north on West Broad Street.” (page 5, which is page 2 of a hand-written memorandum)(what caused loud explosions many minutes apart, a series of smaller explosions going “completely around the building”, and a “large fire ball”?)

hief of NY Fire Department (Citywide Tour Commander) said “there was what appeared to be at first an explosion. It appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides, materials shot out horizontally. And then there seemed to be a momentary delay before you could see the beginning of the collapse” (page 4) (why was material shooting out from all four side before the collapse?)

Police offer stated “we kept hearing explosions that would shake the whole room”

Police sergeant said “Within a short period of time (approximately ¾ of an hour) one of the buildings to the World Trade Center collapsed. During this time period there were numerous explosions, causing us to leave and re-enter the incident area” (page 88, which is page 1 of a memorandum)

Fire department batallion chief said “You could see the windows pop out just like in the picture, looked like a movie. I saw one floor of windows pop out, like poof, poof. I saw one and a half floors popout. It looked almost like an explosion” (pages 7 & 8)

Firefighter stated “the collapse hadn’t begun, but it was not a fire any more up there. It was like — it was like that — like smoke explosion on a tremendous scale going on up there” (page 17)(what caused the “smoke explosion on a tremendous scale” before the collapse?)

Fire chief from a nearby town heard a “high-pitched noise and a popping noise” right before the collapse of the South Tower

MSNBC reporter stated “I heard a second explosion … And then a fire marshal came in and said we had to leave, because if there was a third explosion this building might not last”. The same reporter stated that the force of the explosion overturned cars and set them on fire

Paramedic said “Shortly before the first tower came down, I remember feeling the ground shaking. I heard a terrible noise, and then debris just started flying everywhere. People started running” (pages 5 & 6) (why was there ground shaking before the collapse?)

Same paramedic stated “by the time the debris settled from the first collapse we started to walk back east towards west street and few minutes later – really don’t remember the time frames because we were so busy in trying to account for who was in the staging area and who wasn’t we basically had the same thing the ground shook again and we heard another terrible noise and the next think we knew the second tower was coming down and again we were running for our lives . . . . .” (pages 6 & 7)(why did the ground shake before the start of the “terrible noise” of the collapse?)

Reporter mentioned explosion and the fact that “the whole building bellied out” (why did the building “belly out”, as opposed to falling over?)

CNN producer stated “every few minutes you’ll hear like a small sort of a rumbling sound, almost like an explosion sound and another chunk of it will come flying down into the street”; same producer stated “there was just a huge … [explosion? word apparently erased from original CNN video] and enormous pieces of debris just falling – one right after the other” (what caused the “rumbling sounds” and the chunks flying down every couple of minutes)

Highly-reputable astrophysicist wrote in an email that, immediately before the collapse of each of the twin towers, he heard explosions and low-frequency rumbles (he also uses the phrase “demolition-style implosion”)

Unknown witness interviewed on television stating “it sounded like gunfire . . . . bang bang bang bang bang . . . and then three big explosions”

See also these tape recordings of firefighters showing that they thought fires in the south tower were small and easily containable, even immediately before the collapse; this overview of the collapse of trade center building 7; this short video discussion on collapses; and compare this footage of a controlled demolition and also this footage of controlled demolition with this footage of the start of the collapse of tower 1 (it is also interesting how the world trade centers are pulverized in mid-air into massive dust clouds, similar to controlled demolitions); this short essay about why and how bombs might have been planted in the Twin Towers; this contest offering a million dollars to anyone who can prove that the trade centers were brought down without explosives; and this video containing additional evidence (made by a 21-year old, so you’ll have to ignore the music; also contains some speculative opinions by the filmmaker).

link

Note: All this stuff about witnesses reminds me of a scene from the movie Rush to Judgment, by Mark Lane, which he put together shortly after the Warren Commission released its work of fiction, in which it stated that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin of JFK. At one point, Lane is shown talking to a witness, who was in Dealey Plaza the day JFK was killed. The witness said, that originally he thought the shot that killed Kennedy came from behind the picket fence, up on the grassy knoll, but he said, he had changed his mind and then thought the shot came from the book depository, because, as he said, that is where the Warren Commission said the shot came from.

Post Modified: 12/28/05 12:57:46

R110189
4 years ago
Chickenma1

Thank you, thank you, Schneib, for the info on the freight elevator shaft. Finally! Good research. But no matter, I still don’t see the core melting to the point where it wouldn’t leave sagging metal supports still standing after the floors pancaked down around it, and I would expect to see a less complete collapse on the backside away from the impact. It would leave an eery partially collapsed skeletal silhouette like other burnt out highrises. Certainly one of the 3 buildings would have matched that description. What I can’t buy is all three doing a free-fall uniform leveling.

You are right though about NORAD, war games, and bin Laden’s CIA affiliation being enough – you are no shill. If that is as far as you want to go with it, it’ll do. This jury looks at “preponderence of the evidence” which is overwhelming for “inside job”, demolitions or no. Sorry if you’re fading on this, though, it is your excellent questioning that has spurred the research and offered an alternate view.


R110194
4 years ago
neverknwo

R110204
4 years ago
Chickenma1

Interesting neverknwo. Thank you. But please don’t take my having read your post as invitation to throw out a voluminous mess of art bell/national enquirer possibly related but definitely overwhelming stuff. I’ve liked your reserve in this thread.


R110253
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

Excellent neverknwo, I’m glad somebody is paying attention to the Oklahoma story. I followed those trials so closely that 911 was no surprise. This Oklahoma stuff, Alex Jones put in his Tyranny film, has been used quite readily, and always with the in your face attitude that it deserves. Ain’t no foolin that woman out there, what’s her name, Jayna Davis, a lot of those people around there know the story.

Post Modified: 12/30/05 09:08:38

R110261
4 years ago
Number5Toad

interesting video, and i admit that it raises some very interesting questions.

however, it’s also full of its own pure conjecture, bad information, and unanswerable questions.

in the OKC bombing, just like the WTC bombing, there is a mountain of hard evidence pointing to the involvement of larger groups than just McVeigh, and suggesting possible government complicity, that is consistantly ignored – either in favor of the official story or intangible possibilities which will never be proveable.


R110328
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

The following testimony concerned Geary Lake State Park. Charles Farley worked for Outdoor Recreation Center at Fort Riley. He testified about seeing a Ryder truck next to a farm truck, with a flatbed on the back with stakes on the side, loaded with white bags, prior to the Oklahoma bombing. Part of his job he said was to give out hunting and fishing information. He decided go down to Geary County State Lake the evening of April 18, 1995, after somebody asked him how the fishing was at Geary Lake.

Charles Farley – Direct
the 18th. I had actually gone into town—Q. Let me stop you there. Did you go during your work hours,
or after work hours?
A. No, sir. After work hours.
Q. And was that—did you go immediately—when did your
work end?
A. I got off at 5:00. 1700 hours.
Q. And when did you arrive at Geary State Lake?
A. Well, it would have been probably 15 minutes to the store,
probably spent another 15 or 20 minutes in the store. And then
the drive 5 or 6 miles down to Geary. I was probably at Geary
10 to 6, 6:00. Right in that area.
Charles Farley – Direct
A. The first vehicle that I observed was the farm truck, and
it was—the rear end of the farm truck was almost even with
the road coming out of the park, itself.
Q. With the—with the eastern end of the gate area?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. That end of the park?
A. Right.
Q. Okay. Now, can you describe that what you’re calling a farm truck to the jury?
A. 2-ton, stake bed.
Q. What do you mean by—what do you mean by stake bed?
A. It had a flatbed on the back with stakes on the side, a
wooden fence on the side, wooden rails. Loaded, completely
loaded. White bags sticking up even above the—the fence,
the rails. It looked like it was completely weighted down.
That was my initial thought was that it had—that it had
broken down and it was just bottomed out on the spring, and I
thought the thing had been broken and hence the Ryder truck and
they were just going to unload the thing and—
Q. Did you see any individuals at that time when you got up
there to the gate?
A. Yes, sir. Initially, when I got to the gate, there was one
individual standing at the back of the farm truck, at the back
left corner of the farm truck.
Q. Okay.
A. I had to kind of inch my way out because I didn’t know if
there was traffic coming from the other way. That’s how close
that farm truck was parked to the gate. And as I inched my way
out, you know, kind of looking to my right to see if there were
vehicles coming, I looked to the left, also, to make sure there
wasn’t anything coming that way. I seen three individuals
standing down between the Ryder truck and the brown car, one of
them standing in the—in the road just a little bit, one of
them leaning against the front of the Ryder truck and the other
one just kind of standing between them.
A. One other individual. As I rounded the truck, the farm
truck, coming out, I also turned to the east. When I come out
the gate here, I turned and came this direction. As soon as I
was out, I seen an individual walking alongside of the farm
truck. He was probably at the cab when I first seen him. And
I was really going slow. I mean, I was just creeping. And I
was going to roll the window down and ask him if he needed some
help. And—give me kind of a dirty look and I decided, well,
if you’re going to be that way, me too, and I’m just going to
leave; so I just drove away.
Q. Okay. Did you get a clear look at that individual?
A. Yes, sir, I did.
Q. It was still light out enough for you to—A. Yes.
Q. —view him. Let me come back to the stake-bed truck. You
said it was heavily loaded down with white bags?
Charles Farley – Direct
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you—from prior experience, did you recognize those
bags?
A. I believe so, sir.
Q. What did you think at the time when you saw them?
A. I thought it was ammonium nitrate fertilizer.
Q. Okay. And what did you base that on?
A. Well, as a kid, I grew up in Iowa on a farm, and we used to
use them—use ammonium nitrate fertilizer to make stock ponds
with.
Q. To make stock ponds with?
A. Stock ponds.
Q. What—what do you mean by that?
A. Water ponds. To feed—you know, to water cattle, pigs,
what have you.
Q. And how did you—how did you use ammonium nitrate to make
stock ponds?
A. Back then, you know, the average farmer didn’t have a
bulldozer.
MR. GOELMAN: I’m going to object to this answer and
question as irrelevant. THE COURT: Overruled. Go ahead. THE WITNESS: Back then, you know, the farmer didn’t
have a bulldozer or bucket loader or skid loader or any of
that. He just used what he had. And ammonium nitrate Charles Farley – Direct
can you tell them what you saw that caused you something to
make you decide to go ahead and call the FBI.
A. I had—I hadn’t really placed the fact that—you know,
that it had taken place at Geary County or what I’d seen. I
didn’t realize, you know, what it was, probably like everybody
else. And when they came out on the news and said that the
bomb had possibly been mixed at Geary County State Fishing
Lake, I started putting two and two together immediately. And
that same day, we were watching—and I can’t remember what
channel it was. It was a channel out of Topeka. We had cable
at the time. I seen the individual again on TV.
Q. Okay. Now, if you saw a photograph of that individual,
would you recognize him?
A. Yes, sir.
MR. THURSCHWELL: I would like to show the witness
what has not been admitted but marked as Defense Exhibit D1884.
This has not been previously admitted. Sorry. I didn’t
realize—BY MR. THURSCHWELL:
Q. Mr. Farley, do you—do you recognize the individual
depicted in this picture?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And who is that individual?
A. That was the individual that was standing at the door of
the truck, the individual that gave me a dirty look. transcripts

Post Modified: 12/29/05 10:04:45

R110330
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

Very few people know the details of Oklahoma or let’s say the 93 Trade Center attack, but those who do, know that they were government ops.

It is clear, there were many witnesses in Oklahoma and NYC, who heard, felt, or saw explosions, or saw evidence of explosions. What they need is a forum.

As far as the technical evidence is concerned, battle of the experts and a jury are all we have, but we need a forum.

The media won’t investigate, because it is controlled. The same goes for our congress. I doubt Philip Berg will ever get to trial with his case, because of the same reasons. Lack of federal court jurisdiction will ultimately do the case in.

Post Modified: 12/29/05 11:51:43

R110362
4 years ago
Chickenma1

Which is why, sadly, getting rid of the Bush administration could be the worst thing we could do in terms of people thinking that the larger problem is therefore solved. However, if Bush isn’t got rid of, the larger problem is condoned. What a dilemma!


R110416
4 years ago
neverknwo

Ok everyone,

Another must see highlighted Presentation of another famous tragedy that wil haunt ya

IS IT A COINCEDENCE THE GOVERNMENT CAN DECIEVE, CHANGE, AND OBSTRUCT EVENTS THROUGH NEWS, CHANGING WHAT WE ARE TOLD TO SEE, 3 TIMES?

Post Modified: 12/29/05 14:31:23

R110437
4 years ago
Chickenma1

Neverknwo, please don’t go off topic. The clip was a teaser, went nowhere. We have a chance to see how you interconnect all your conspiracy theories on your website and your own threads, so please be judicious in what you offer here.


R110438
4 years ago
neverknwo

Yes Chickenma1,

Wasn’t trying to go off topic, this is about another Classic government cover-up.

I Cut the part out to show ya the spot in the clip where the ATF Agents intently Kill thier own and blame it on the Davaidians, who where former Clinton Body gaurds.

If you want to see the entire 1 hour Documentary I can hook you up?

Post Modified: 12/29/05 15:06:30

R112220
4 years ago
CIAlien

Ma, if you’ve got a hankerin’ for Da Schneib be sure to check out his incredible work on this very topic over at PhysOrg.

The thread is up to 197 pages now.


R112240
4 years ago
whateveryousay

here is a radio show which discusses the details of BUILDING A BETTER MIRAGE: NIST’s 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-Up of the Crime of the Century by Jim Hoffman

link to m3u audio stream

show starts about a minute and a half in.


R112245
4 years ago
Chickenma1

Seems to me that a good deal of the weight of the pancaking floors was transferred to the cloud of dust early on. Don’t think that was mentioned before.

Is Schneib Andrew Johnson? I got kinda lost at phys.org, not cause of the physics, cause of the website layout. One thing I like about gnn, it’s real easy to figure out.


R112255
4 years ago
CIAlien

Andrew Johnson is the thread’s originator. It’s not too hard to navigate – page numbers are linked at the top and bottom of the page.


R112279
4 years ago
Chickenma1

Thanks, Alien, I’m getting the hang of it now. (Thank goodness gnn doesn’t have ads!) I scrolled through the end and saw comments about Schneib, but no posts by him. I certainly don’t want to read through all that as I’m sure all relavant points have been posted here.


R112283
4 years ago
CIAlien

A lot of the flim-flammery he managed to pass off here without criticism gets shot down on the physics board. So much so that he “leaves” around page 150 and is immediately replaced by a replica called CommonSense. Other posters ignore the name change and continue to address him as he was previously known.


R112286
4 years ago
Chickenma1

Heh…


R112594
4 years ago
Continuity

Wow, I read a few pages of the back-and-forth later in the thread. Sad stuff. It’s pretty clear that a certain person or two are so entrenched in their positions that they can’t see out of the holes they’ve dug.

Whatever happened to just looking at each controversy and unsolved item on its own, without building a dogmatic monolith of an argument at the risk of having a spazzout nervous breakdown?


R112620
4 years ago
fennec

Post Modified: 01/06/06 19:50:16

R112643
4 years ago
lday

Well, on it’s own,
defence contractor SPC subsidiary Tri-data,
having the fire defence contract for the post-‘93 WTC towers,
and the real blueprints, eh?

A google on ~ “System Planning Corporation” fire wtc asbestos ~
produces some interesting entries.

Note that Shillmaster Schneibster’s programming
deletes any reference to fire-protection insulation.
The steel melting point is blah-blah.. distracting..
that’s the obvious point

IF Schneibster’s numbers are correct,
THEN the SPC/Tri-data security consultants ripped off the Port Authority with supposed
‘defence precautions’ against fire.

Oh, and thanks fennec,
a couple of large irrelevant graphics
were just what this thread needed to slow it down.
But hey,
this is page 16,
only the long-term attention span reader
is still standing.

fire defence protection.


R113479
4 years ago
Schneibster

Having shown that the major figures in the 9/11 “truth” movement are monetarily motivated, I see little sense in arguing about it further. Not interested in viewing anyone’s pay-per-view advertising or buying their T-shirts, either.

Larry turns to a typical strategem: bring up another “unanswered” question that was actually answered a long time ago, and pretend there is no answer to it.


R113612
4 years ago
lday

27,200 entries under a google on ‘spc fire proofing wtc’.


R113618
4 years ago
Schneibster

One is certain that sprayed-on asbestos insulation is completely immune to 500 mph aircraft impacts. /sarcasm


R113628
4 years ago
Shogo

This is where I’d post goatse.


R113634
4 years ago
Schneibster

I guess that’s the same idea as a fifty-hitler post.


R114200
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

R114265
4 years ago
Schneibster

Suitcase, repeating the same old same old tired already disproven arguments on a new web page doesn’t help.

Steel frame buildings cannot collapse at virtually the speed of gravity, symmetrically, straight down into a relatively small pile of rubble due to fire or any other natural occurrence.

“virtually the speed of gravity:” First, gravity is not a speed; it is an acceleration. Second, an object free-falling from the very tip-top of the tallest tower would hit the ground in 9.23 seconds, whereas the buildings fell in 12 to 15 seconds, and that extra three to six seconds gives time for that object to fall anywhere from one-and-a-half to three-and-a-half times the height of the building. And the collapse didn’t start at the top; it started at the 97th floor. So the collapse didn’t happen at the acceleration of gravity, nor is it anywhere close.

“symmetrically:” The collapse of 2 WTC was nothing like symmetrical; in fact, the top 39 stories bent over, as is clearly visible in the video tapes of its collapse.

“straight down:” Beams from the collapsing buildings damaged or substantially destroyed no less than six other buildings surrounding the towers. This is not “straight down,” and in fact the size of the rubble and dust cloud was more than nine times the size of the building when it reached the ground, and this also is easily visible in the video tapes.

“due to fire:” The buildings were hit by planes prior to the fire.

“or any other natural occurrence:” Being hit by a plane is not a “natural occurrence.”

Steel cannot remain in a molten state for weeks due to a hydro-carbon fire.

“Steel cannot remain in a molten state for weeks:” There is no proof any of it remained molten for weeks. Without having been in the rubble pile, no one can know whether the molten steel had been molten for the entire time, or only for a few hours preceding its discovery.

“due to a hydro-carbon fire:” Having presented extensive evidence documenting the facts that a) the building was full of paper, plastic, wood, and cloth, only one of which is even close to being a “hydro-carbon,” and that the energy of the collapse was huge, I have to say that this seems disingenuous at best.

I don’t see any reason to continue.

Post Modified: 01/11/06 12:59:13

R114512
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

The Destruction of the World Trade Center:
Why the Official Account Cannot Be True
David Ray Griffin

2. Testimonies about Explosions and Related Phenomena in the 9/11 Oral Histories

Most of these 11 features—-all but the slicing of the core columns and the molten steel in the basements—-are features that, if they occurred before or during the collapses of the towers, could have been observed by people in the area. And, in fact, testimonies about some of these phenomena have been available, since shortly after 9/11, from reporters,[36] fire fighters,[37] police officers,[38] people who worked in the towers,[39] and one prominent explosives expert, Van Romero, [40] who said on that very day after viewing the videotapes, that the collapses not only resembled those produced by controlled implosions but must, in fact, have been caused by “some explosive devices inside the buildings” because they were “too methodical” to have been chance results of the airplane strikes (Uyttebrouck, 2001).[41] Some of these testimonies were very impressive. There were, however, only a few of them and they were scattered here and there. No big body of testimony was readily accessible.

But this situation has dramatically changed. Shortly after 9/11, the New York Fire Department recorded over 500 oral histories, in which firefighters and emergency medical workers recounted their experiences of that day. [Emergency Medical Services had become a division within the Fire Department(Dwyer, 2005a).] Mayor Bloomberg’s administration, however, refused to release them. But then the New York Times, joined by several families of 9/11 victims, filed suit and, after a long process, the New York Court of Appeals ordered the city to release the bulk of these oral histories, which it did in August 200542 (Dwyer, 2005b). The Times then made them publicly available (NYT, 2005).[43]

These oral histories contain many dozens of testimonies that speak of explosions and related phenomena characteristic of controlled demolition. I will give some examples.

Explosions

Several individuals reported that they witnessed an explosion just before one of the towers collapsed. Battalion Chief John Sudnik said: “we heard . . . what sounded like a loud explosion and looked up and I saw tower two start coming down” (NYT, Sudnick, p. 4).

Several people reported multiple explosions. Paramedic Kevin Darnowski said: “I heard three explosions, and then . . . tower two started to come down” (NYT, Darnowski, p. 8).

Firefighter Thomas Turilli said, “it almost sounded like bombs going off, like boom, boom, boom, like seven or eight” (NYT, Turilli, p. 4).

Craig Carlsen said that he and other firefighters “heard explosions coming from . . . the south tower. . . . There were about ten explosions. . . . We then realized the building started to come down” (NYT, Carlsen, pp. 5-6).

Firefighter Joseph Meola said, “it looked like the building was blowing out on all four sides. We actually heard the pops” (NYT, Meola, p. 5).

Paramedic Daniel Rivera also mentioned “pops.” Asked how he knew that the south tower was coming down, he said:

It was a frigging noise. At first I thought it was—-do you ever see professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear ‘Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop’? . . . I thought it was that. (NYT, Rivera, p. 9)

Collapse Beginning below the Strike Zone and Fire
According to the official account, the “pancaking” began when the floors above the hole caused by the airplane fell on the floors below. Some witnesses reported, however, that the collapse of the south tower began somewhat lower.

Timothy Burke said that “the building popped, lower than the fire. . . . I was going oh, my god, there is a secondary device because the way the building popped. I thought it was an explosion” (NYT, Burke, pp. 8-9).

Firefighter Edward Cachia said: “It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit. . . . [W]e originally had thought there was like an internal detonation, explosives, because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down” (NYT, Cachia, p. 5).

The importance of these observations is reinforced by the fact that the authors of the NIST Report, after having released a draft to the public, felt the need to add the following statement to the Executive Summary:

NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001. . . . Instead, photos and videos from several angles clearly showed that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward.

Firefighters Burke and Cachia presumably now need to ask themselves: What are you going to believe, your own eyes or an official government report?

Flashes and Demolition Rings

Some of the witnesses spoke of flashes and of phenomena suggestive of demolition rings. Assistant Commissioner Stephen Gregory said: “I thought . . . before . . . No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. . . . I . . . saw a flash flash flash . . . [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building?” (NYT, Gregory, pp. 14-16).

Captain Karin Deshore said: “Somewhere around the middle . . . there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. . . . [W]ith each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building” (NYT, Deshore, p. 15).

Firefighter Richard Banaciski said: “[T]here was just an explosion. It seemed like on television [when] they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions” (NYT, Banaciski, pp. 3-4).

Deputy Commissioner Thomas Fitzpatrick said: “It looked like sparkling around one specific layer of the building. . . . My initial reaction was that this was exactly the way it looks when they show you those implosions on TV” (NYT, Fitzpatrick, pp. 13-14).

Horizontal Ejections

A few witnesses spoke of horizontal ejections. Chief Frank Cruthers said: “There was what appeared to be . . . an explosion. It appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides, materials shot out horizontally. And then there seemed to be a momentary delay before you could see the beginning of the collapse” (NYT, Cruthers, p. 4).

This testimony is important, because the official theory holds that the ejections were produced by the floors collapsing. So listen to firefighter James Curran, who said: “I looked back and . . . I heard like every floor went chu-chu-chu. I looked back and from the pressure everything was getting blown out of the floors before it actually collapsed” (NYT, Curran, pp. 10-11).

Battalion Chief Brian Dixon said, “the lowest floor of fire in the south tower actually looked like someone had planted explosives around it because . . . everything blew out on the one floor” (NYT, Dixon, p. 15).[44]

Synchronized Explosions

Some witnesses said that the explosions seemed to be synchronized. For example, firefighter Kenneth Rogers said, “there was an explosion in the south tower. . . . I kept watching. Floor after floor after floor. One floor under another after another . . . [I]t looked like a synchronized deliberate kind of thing” (NYT, Rogers, pp. 3-4).[45]

Why Does the Public Not Know of These Reports?

If all these firefighters and medical workers witnessed all these phenomena suggestive of controlled demolition, it might be wondered why the public does not know this. Part of the answer is provided by Auxiliary Lieutenant Fireman Paul Isaac. Having said that “there were definitely bombs in those buildings,” Isaac added that “many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings, but they’re afraid for their jobs to admit it because the ‘higher-ups’ forbid discussion of this fact” (Lavello, n.d.). Another part of the answer is that when a few people, like Isaac and William Rodriguez, have spoken out, the mainstream press has failed to report their statements.

Post Modified: 01/11/06 21:54:41

R114530
4 years ago
Schneibster

Firefighters Burke and Cachia presumably now need to ask themselves: What are you going to believe, your own eyes or an official government report?

No, I have to ask myself, what am I going to believe, my eyes or the accusations of another anonymous ‘Net poster? C’mon, suitcase, I’ve spent HOURS lookin at those videos. Those guys had seconds. I’ve seen the collapses from many different angles, they saw them from only one. I’ve heard what every nutter on the ‘Net claims are explosions, and never ONCE heard ANYTHING that sounded like a controlled demolition, and I’ve watched tapes of about fifteen or twenty of THEM, too!

And I’ve seen videotape of the collapses that shows those jets of material, and you know what? They aren’t “puffs-” they’re PLUMES. That’s right, shit KEEPS COMIN OUT. Not just a little puff one time like an explosion, it’s like a RIVER of dust or smoke or somethin comin outta there, man. Ain’t no WAY that’s an explosion.

To top it all off, some of the stuff these people describe just plain flat ain’t on the videotape. Tell me, you got a video tape shows one thing, and a witness says something else, what do you believe?

This just isn’t convincing, suitcase.


R114560
4 years ago
whateveryousay

—- I’ve spent HOURS lookin at those videos. Those guys had seconds. I’ve seen the collapses from many different angles, they saw them from only one. —schneib

^ what a retard!

i suppose “lookin” at the same postage-stamp sized net-porn clips for hours has made you an expert on sex also… you know… as opposed to actually having a real sex partner.

face it. the collapses were explosive events. the photographs and the videos prove it, the audio proves it, and the eyewitness testimonies prove it. taken together, all this material suggests the buildings were blown up.


R114669
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

I’ve spent HOURS lookin at those videos. Those guys had seconds. I’ve seen the collapses from many different angles, they saw them from only one.

Who are you? Do you mean to say that because, in your opinion, there were no explosions, that there were none. Opinions are like assholes right. Everybody has one. This argument will go on and on despite your attempts to say that it is over.

Personally, the Rodriguez story alone tells me that there were explosions.

William Rodriguez, a 9-11 survivor

Excerpt

As he was discussing the day’s tasks with others, there was a very loud massive explosion which seemed to emanate from between sub-basement B2 and B3. There were an additional twenty-two people on B2 sub-basement who also felt and heard that first explosion.

At first he thought it was a generator that had exploded. But the cement walls in the office cracked from the explosion. “When I heard the sound of the explosion, the floor beneath my feet vibrated, the walls started cracking and everything started shaking.” said Rodriguez, who was crowded together with fourteen other people in the office including Anthony Saltamachia, his supervisor for the American Building Maintenance Company.

Just seconds later there was another explosion way above which made the building oscillate momentarily. This, he was later told, was a plane hitting the tower at about the 90th floor. Upon hearing about the plane, he immediately thought of the people up in the restaurant. Then there were other explosions just above B1 and individuals started heading for the loading dock to escape the explosion’s resulting rampant fire. When asked later about those first explosions he said: “I would know if an explosion was from the bottom or the top of the building.” He heard explosions both before and after the plane hit the tower.

A fellow worker Felipe David came into the maintenance office. “He had been standing in front of the freight elevator on sub-level 1 about 400 feet from the office when fire burst out of the elevator shaft, causing his terrible injuries.” The skin on his face had been peeled away by the heat of the blast and he was horribly burned on thirty-three percent of his body. “He was burned so badly from the basement explosion that flesh was hanging from his face and both arms.” William asks: “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?” William carefully led Felipe David outside to safety and medical assistance. William continued to hear people screaming and returned to the building in spite of police orders. There were people encased in the many elevators. There were frantic people who needed help.

There was a swooshing sound coming from the freight elevators on B2 and B3. Water from the fire sprinklers from all of the floors had gone into that elevator shaft. There were two individuals trapped below who were in danger of drowning. Rodriguez was able to secure a long enough ladder to extend into the shaft to facilitate their escape from a certain watery grave.

He had possession of just one of the five master keys that opened all of the stairwell doors at each of the floors in the 110 story building. The other four key holders were trained for emergencies. They had already left the building. Firemen from New York City Unit Six arrived. Each fireman, in addition to their heavy protective clothing, had about 70 pounds of equipment. William, who now had the only key, led the firemen up stairwell B. Firemen were struggling up the stairs as victims were hastily descending.

The firemen made it up to the 27th floor but were exhausted from the burden of their equipment. As William had ascended the stairwell he, as well as the firemen, had heard explosions from the 20th through the 30th floor. Chunks of the building were falling down all around them and they could literally hear the creaking in the building. Yet, the firemen continued to climb — to give aid, support and direction to the lost and the terrified. The firemen rightfully assumed, from past experience, that the fire was isolated at the location where the plane entered. This rupture and the resulting damage would not affect the integrity of the rest of this well designed steel building. That assumption, and unknown factors, probably related to the explosions, would cost the lives of many of these dedicated firemen.

On the 33rd floor, William was able to procure some dust masks from a maintenance office. The air was thick with suffocating smoke. On the 33rd floor he found a woman laying on the floor in a fetal position. She didn’t know where to go or what to do. They had fire drills twice a year but because of employee turnover, not everyone had a clear view of emergency procedures. While some individuals intuitively respond appropriately in an emergency, others are absolutely paralyzed by their fears.

Strangely, while William was on the 33rd floor he heard lots of very loud noise as if someone was moving heavy equipment and furniture around on the 34th floor. The reason this is interesting is that the 34th floor was empty. Elevators did not stop at the 34th floor. It was off limits due to a construction project. The new security chief, John O’Neill had his new office on this floor. William said that this was the first time that he felt fear.

They continued to ascend to the 39th floor. This is as far as William got before he was turned back by the firefighters. As he began his descent he heard the second plane hit the south tower.

He made it back down to the chasm where the large metal framed front doors were before they were blown out. Just the bottoms of the elevator doors were blown partially open indicating the source of the powerful pressure — from beneath. The large ornate pieces of marble that covered the walls were now resting where they landed. It resembled a war zone. He couldn’t breath, his eyes burned, his leg was burned. Someone yelled: “Don’t look back!” William, like most of us would, looked back momentarily. The building was coming down. He then raced for the first cover he saw — a fire truck. That is where he was found, under the truck and buried in rubble. Pulverized concrete mixed with asbestos and smoke created a dark pervasive cloud of doom. Flashlights were necessary. William received temporary medical assistance and then went to work trying to find other survivors.

The mangled bloodied bodies of the jumpers blanketed the ground. William will never forget the anguish he felt or the sight of this senseless horrific carnage. This was evidence of desperation — people desperate to escape possible death by suffocation or by fire chose death by jumping. The fire created by the jet fuel was contained and isolated yet the building came down. Something else had occurred in that building. Much of the initial flame actually burned outside of the building instantly upon impact. The fire was spent — even at the giant gaping hole where the plane breached the building where people worked, talked with friends and felt relatively safe.

William Rodriguez saved lives that day. Currently he is attempting to alert the public to what actually happened. He is a courageous witness to those terrible events. The controlled censored media doesn’t really appear willing to report the real news but rather they promote whatever the propaganda ministry wants the masses to believe. It takes continuous courage to go against such opposition but that is the kind of man he is. He says that he owes it to his friends — those that were slaughtered for some covert political agenda.


R114672
4 years ago
neverknwo

I think the testimony from the Fireman in People Magazine claiming bombs were going off on the 25th floor, was enough to convince me.

Post Modified: 01/12/06 12:14:04

R114723
4 years ago
Schneibster

Whatever can’t handle the truth and resorts to insults. Try again, whatever. Your insults prove that you have abandoned logic and critical analysis and descended to insult. You have nothing left but to fling shit at the facts you cannot handle. This is referred to as “cognitive dissonance.” It is a sure sign that you can’t handle the truth, and can’t deny it.


R114724
4 years ago
Schneibster

Rodriguez’ testimony proves only that the exploding jet fuel fireball reached the bottom of the freight elevator before the sound and shaking of the airplane impact did, which is unsurprising considering the physics of fuel air explosions in confined spaces, a fact which has been discussed before this, and another case of tired repetition of refuted conclusions being repeated over and over as if it makes any difference to the fact that they have been refuted.

Suitcase, are you ever going to stop recycling the same old same old and pretending it has never been addressed?

Who are you? Do you mean to say that because, in your opinion, there were no explosions, that there were none. Opinions are like assholes right. Everybody has one. This argument will go on and on despite your attempts to say that it is over.

The only reason the argument will go on is because you and others like you insist your conclusions are supported by the evidence in the face of evidence that disproves them which you continue to ignore. I am beginning to agree with Shogo’s conclusions, though I don’t agree with hir methods: y’all are delusional.

It’s worth noting that the fact that your opinion that there were explosions is of no more utility than mine that there were not, however, anyone is free to get the videos for themselves and do their own analysis.

Post Modified: 01/12/06 14:20:42

R114739
4 years ago
sisyphus

Schneibster, I thought you were done with this thread? Is it time for an intervention?


R114752
4 years ago
Schneibster

Heh, sis, I just can’t resist it.

Here is another little piece of food for thought:

http://www.stupidcollege.com/items/Electric-Transformer-Explosion

Ever hear the sound of a transformer explosion? Do you suppose there might have been some transformers inside the towers? Do you think that GIANT CABLES were strung to carry 110VAC a quarter mile up to the top floor? Or would it be more reasonable to presume that those cables were smaller and carried higher voltage electricity to transformers in the building that then distributed 110VAC to nearby floors?


R114821
4 years ago
whateveryousay

“transformer explosions”. that’s cute.
that’s almost up there with your “gas mains explosion” which emanated from your back-orifice. however, this time, it should be noted that there actually was electricity in the towers. substations were located on floors b1, 7, 41, 75, and 108.

so yeah. go nuts with your “transformers” theory. soundwave and megatron would be proud. but try not to overlook the obvious when you start your calculations please.

—wys


R114832
4 years ago
Schneibster

Still having that cognitive dissonance problem, aren’t you, whatever? That’s a shame. Maybe you should be examining your assumptions.


R114871
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

Anybody heard from emissary71 lately?

Post Modified: 01/12/06 23:36:03


R114872
4 years ago
Schneibster

What’s the matter, suitcase, having trouble coming up with an argument that hasn’t been refuted yet? Looking for someone to get a little down and dirty for ya ‘cause realizing that you don’t have any evidence to support your position makes ya mad? How cute. Maybe you and penissary oughta shack up.


R114878
4 years ago
whateveryousay

...realizing that you don’t have any evidence to support your position makes ya mad? How cute. —shcneib (2 minutes ago)

“transformer explosions”. that’s cute. —-wys (6 hours ago)

you totally just ripped off my belittling, sarcastic insult.

fuck you!


R114879
4 years ago
Schneibster

I assume that means that you concede my point because the “conversation” part is over. If not, make with the evidence; if you don’t, the obvious conclusion is that you don’t have any more, and that none of it was good enough.


R114890
4 years ago
whateveryousay

monetarily motivated —schneib

sorry. they happen to be american. making-money off of anything and everything is the name of the game there. that’s hardly a critique of the actual info… just the packaging. your ‘argument’ is based on slight miss-readings of slight ambiguities in terminology.
try to remember certain qualifiers such as “in a vacuum”. like the inside of your head for example.


R114904
4 years ago
Schneibster

Plain and simple, it’s a conflict of interest. Anyone actually looking for the truth should beware of conflicts of interest. When those conflicts are NOT STATED IN ADVANCE, then we’ve got a whole new situation: now, deceit has ALREADY OCCURRED BEFORE THEY SAID A SINGLE WORD. So how likely is it that they will hew to the path of truth, after they ALREADY LIED?

Now, the situation here isn’t just someone misrepresenting themselves and not revealing in advance that they stand to make money off it; after they had not only failed to announce that they stood to make money off it, but had actually been caught LYING about matters of fact in the situation other than their unrevealed interest, the next thing they do is start outing people.

This is despicable behavior.

So now what you appear to be telling me is that YOU are one of these assholes. Certainly you’re trying to justify behavior that would contaminate the reputation of a cockroach.

I’d say that would be about the end of your cred here. Bye, asshole. Go sell your horseshit somewhere else; we’re onto you here.


R114922
4 years ago
whateveryousay

what on earth are you talking about?

and who are you talking about?

try to be specific instead of fuming over abstract concepts… and back up your claims with examples perhaps.

who is supposed to be “lying” and about what?

—I’d say that would be about the end of your cred here. Bye, asshole. Go sell your horseshit somewhere else; we’re onto you here. —schneib

oh. so i’m ‘selling’ something now am i? and what would that be? please elaborate.
you appear to be running out of insult material. typical for an ignorant slut such as yourself. funny that you try to give a little science lesson with each post, but can’t seem to grasp some basic concepts (like which way the sun shines).

you’ve been asked to support your ‘transformers’ claim. i even gave you a head-start and told you what floors they were on. so lets can the silly insults and get to business. you might just be onto something there. maybe there is some evidence.
i should perhaps note that transformer explosions are not uncommon in high-rises.

now let me get your positions straight:

you would claim first that there were no explosions, even though they can be seen and heard on video/photo/audio evidence. but if there were explosions, then it had to be from electrical transformers exploding because it absolutely couldn’t be bombs (even though it was a terrorist attack which makes bombs far more likely).

am i correct in assuming that that is where you stand?


R115008
4 years ago
Schneibster

Sorry, I’m not wasting any more time on an actual shill for scumbags who are ripping off people who honestly want to know what’s going on, and apparently have a bunch of people going around posting on forums trying to drum up support so they can sell more T-shirts. To make it clear, I’ll show what it was tipped me off:

sorry. they happen to be american. making-money off of anything and everything is the name of the game there. What you’re saying here is that cherry-picking the evidence, lying about significant observable features of the collapse, and doing so in order to make money off “marks” is OK because they’re “marks” and because “it’s the name of the game.”

that’s hardly a critique of the actual info… just the packaging. What you’re saying here is just because they lie, cheat, and steal, doesn’t mean we can’t trust what they say.

What a complete waste of time. I am extremely disappointed in you, whatever. You’ve sold out.


R115036
4 years ago
meowmixremix

those are some crazy pictures joe. did you take those?


R115075
4 years ago
whateveryousay

schneib,

my point is simply that americans + commercialism should hardly be a surprize (you might have trouble finding any actual support for such a thing from myself there).

osamawipe Price: $6.95 Shipping Weight: 0.62 lbs

get over it.
still, i guess you’d rather not get over it since this is obviously your pathetic last ditch effort to paint everyone with the same “discredit brush” by suggesting some sort of nefarious-commercialist agenda lurking behind any words of skepticism (at least the skepticism which goes further than you’d like).

i’m actually still not sure who you’re talking about. perhaps you’ve got your boards mixed up.

meowmixremix,

velcom to page 17;)


R115076
4 years ago
Schneibster

OK, kiddies, here it is: proof positive that the cores were still standing after the rest of the buildings had fallen down.

First, the South Tower:

See that? It’s the core. And there’s the North Tower on the right, so there’s no question. You can see the concrete floor pads inside the core, but it’s a little difficult because the Sun is destroying the contrast. The advantage is, you can also see some of the broken interconnections between the columns in the core sticking out. This ain’t perimeter column material, either. There’s no question what you’re looking at. It’s right there in living color.

Now, the North Tower:

The contrast on the core section sticking up above the dome is better, so in this one, you can see the floor slabs inside the core but not the transverse beams. But there it is- and if you’ll look, it’s sixty stories high. Look 7 WTC in the foreground.

So:
1. The “pancake theory” is right.
2. There were no “bombs in the basement.”
3. The collapse happened from the top down, not from the bottom up.

Any questions?

ETA: You’ll have to use “view image” to see the entire second picture (hey Jesse, you gonna fix it so this stuff works right sometime soon? If you’re gonna make the images conform to the background, you gotta scale ‘em. It’s just HTML, man.).

Post Modified: 01/13/06 13:49:21

R115093
4 years ago
Schneibster

still, i guess you’d rather not get over it since this is obviously your pathetic last ditch effort to paint everyone with the same “discredit brush” by suggesting some sort of nefarious-commercialist agenda lurking behind any words of skepticism

Hey, you defend ‘em, you own ‘em. Y’all try to make me own NIST; eat your own medicine. As far as “pathetic last-ditch efforts,” this looks like yours. Tell me some more fairy stories about “mini-nukes in the basement,” I need a good laugh right now. Be sure to let me know how the “mini-nukes in the basement” managed to leave a 60-story spire of core columns standing when the rest of the building was lying on the ground.


R115134
4 years ago
whateveryousay

nist?
i always thought you bought the fema theory (bare in mind, the nist and fema proposals are contradictory theories).

it’s pretty well known that a part of the north tower core was standing for a little while after everything else was down. that doesn’t disprove explosives by a long shot.


R115146
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

Wasn’t there a big blow-up somewhere in this blog about disinformation agents. Somebody was ranting and raving about knowing everything, where was that? Or was it some other blog?


R115149
4 years ago
lday

I’m not interested in convincing anyone. I’m interested in determining if there is any relevant evidence I have not seen. -‘Schneibster’

Was that a rhetorical question?
Wouldn’t you like to see the video recordings from the Pentagon hit?
Or hear testimony from the gagged fireman, policemen, air traffic controllers, Sybil Edmunds et al?
How about the black boxes?

The ‘relevant evidence’ seems to be, uh, suppressed.
So your saying “Show me the evidence” is clear evidence
of where your allegiences lie.

‘Lie’ being the operative word, Schillster.


R115157
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

On The Record: The Controlled Demolition Of The WTC

Propaganda Matrix | July 6 2005

This is a clip from the new documentary Loose Change, which features firefighters and other eyewitnesses discussing explosions at the World Trade Center and examines the physical evidence.


R115176
4 years ago
Schneibster

Suitcase, account for a 60-story spire of core, essentially intact, but about to fall because it’s no longer supported, existing after the remainder of the building fell, in a controlled demolition. No controlled demolition in the history of the world has ever been done that did not cut the supporting columns at the bottom FIRST. Controlled demolition is DEAD. I’ve got the stake and the hammer right here. The stake looks an awful lot like a spire.


R115177
4 years ago
Schneibster

The gagged firemen don’t exist, there was one single judge who issued one single gag order that covered one single individual who was filing suit against George Bush for 9/11 and that single individual was barred from talking to the press by the judge in the case. Period. It’s another lie, larry.


R115196
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

R115197
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

Re-Packaging The 9/11 Fairytale
Hollywood gears up in 2006 to bolster the crumbling official state approved paradigm

Paul Joseph Watson | January 13 2006

Post Modified: 01/13/06 22:56:01

R115203
4 years ago
whateveryousay

The gagged firemen don’t exist —sch

then why did it take 4 years and a lawsuit to get their statements released to the public.

No controlled demolition in the history of the world has ever been done that did not cut the supporting columns at the bottom FIRST —sch

there you go talking out of your ass again. you can demolish a building in any number of ways and it’s been done “top-down” with explosives before. it’s also been done “middle-over”, “like-a-tree-in-the-forest”, and any number of different ways you can imagine.
and besides; if it would take 75% of the core-columns failing to bring the structure down as nist asserts, then you could demolish the building and still have bits of the core sticking out… sort of odd that the ‘spire’ fell straight down in the end though.

your first picture of the south tower schn: it’s pretty smokie and hard to tell, how can you be sure that’s the core you are seeing?


R115263
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

You gotta check Schneibster on his statements. I traced the development of his theory about Building 7, on page 14 of this thread. When he started out in this thread, he said that Building 7 came down with explosives, until he found an article in Firehouse Magazine, that was published in 2002.

The statements of four firemen convinced Schneibster that “7 WTC fell down because of mechanical damage due to the flying steel from 1 hitting it, plus the resulting fires”. Then he said that, “None of these buildings fell because of the fires alone”. It is on page 14 three-quarters of the way down.

On the previous page, Schneibster took issue with something that Les Jamieson said, on 911 Truth, about the collapses of the wtc buildings, particularly that Jamieson said

Steel frame buildings cannot collapse at virtually the speed of gravity, symmetrically, straight down into a relatively small pile of rubble due to fire or any other natural occurrence.

Schneibster said gravity is not a speed, I guess taking issue with the phrase speed of gravity

But, if you google speed of gravity, you will find that apparently there is such a thing as the speed of gravity.

I think we all know what Jamieson meant when he said

“Steel frame buildings cannot collapse at virtually the speed of gravity, symmetrically, straight down into a relatively small pile of rubble due to fire or any other natural occurrence.”

Post Modified: 01/14/06 09:21:38

R115301
4 years ago
Schneibster

OK, whatever, let’s see links to prove it “[took] 4 years and a lawsuit” to “get their statements released to the public.” Or is this just another picture where the interesting parts are covered with smoke and you claim there’s nothing there?

How about a link showing a CD where the supporting structure isn’t destroyed at the bottom? You got any? This looks like a lie to me. I think anyone who thinks about the goal of a CD is going to see that this is not merely a lie, but a STUPID lie.

Go ahead, whatever, let’s see some evidence here. Remember, my claim is that there IS NONE. I don’t have to prove a negative; and all you have to do is provide a link that shows its existence, from a credible source (let’s stay away from Alex Jones’ massive confidence game, shall we?), unequivocally (and let’s also stay away from pictures with smoke covering the area of interest combined with claims there’s “nothing there,” too, OK?).

Lemme ask you something, if the south tower pic ISN’T the core, then what IS it? It sure ain’t perimeter columns. Are you maintaining that there’s any other structure in the building many stories tall that can withstand the collapse of the rest of the building?

By the way, on the hole in 7: I’ll warn you in advance that I have seen a claim that there are pictures taken aerially from inside or across the WTC site that actually show the damage. I do not yet know whether these are available on the ‘Net, but if they are, it’s going to place you in a rather sticky situation. I have requested them; we’ll see whether a response is forthcoming. I am, of course, searching for them now that I have an idea what to look for. I had not thought to check for such aerial photographs before.

If you google speed of gravity, you will find that apparently there is such a thing as the speed of gravity
Yes, numbnutz, and it’s the same as the speed of light, and has absolutely not one fucking iota of relevance to the speed at which a building collapses, which is the speed of free-fall. And my point is, if someone is dumb enough both to claim that it does, and to claim that something collapsed at the same rate as an object in free-fall when a few moments’ calculation using very simple algebra will show that there was time for an object to free-fall more than one-and-a-half times its height, they are either lying or so stupid that there is no point in reading what they have to say.


R115308
4 years ago
Continuity

My opinion on monetary motives. It’s pure Ad Hom to say someone or some group spreading information is automatically wrong or untrustworthy because they are making money off spreading the information.

Most every form of media is produced for profit (or at least to cover overhead costs). It’s a fact of life. GNN produces media to make money in order to survive. It literally puts food on their table, buys bandwidth, and helps with all the costs of continuing their operations. I myself would like to write about the things that interest me, and make money from it — so I can literally buy food, pay my mortgage, and dedicate more time to media.


R115310
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

I am beginning to agree with Shogo’s conclusions, though I don’t agree with hir methods: y’all are delusional.

take that second statement, though I don’t agree with hir methods

I guess there is plenty of evidence that that statement isn’t true.

Post Modified: 01/14/06 12:47:32

R115311
4 years ago
Continuity

Schn,

Where did you get your first jpeg? Is it from a page with written context or commentary? Is it absolutely the core , or the whole building coming down? I just see a crumbling gray structure, in motion, and the exterior of the structure bears some resemblance to the lattice exterior of the WTC building next to it.

Post Modified: 01/14/06 12:51:06

R115324
4 years ago
Schneibster

Continuity, I don’t object to anyone making a buck- but participating in a debate in which one has a personal stake without revealing that stake in advance is disingenuous at best and most likely dishonest. That is not ad hom, it is fact. Have you heard the saying, “not merely propriety but the appearance of propriety?” It does not mean fooling everyone into thinking you’re honest; it means not merely being honest but taking the trouble to make sure you don’t do things that might look dishonest. If you have a stake in the matter under debate, that principle dictates that you at minimum reveal that stake before participating, if not completely abstain from participation. I don’t necessarily require hewing to the second, it is after all a free ‘Net (so far), but I certainly am alarmed if I see someone not adhering to the first.

I got the link to the picture from an individual on another board, and don’t know its provenance; fairly critical examination, however, tends to indicate that it is not photoshopped (pixel density, lighting, sharpness variations) and there is testimentary evidence that supports it for BOTH buildings’ collapses . Its distance from the North Tower and its composition IMO support the contention that it is the core of the South Tower; while I see evidence of vertical features, they are not IMO close enough together to support the contention that it is a view of the inside of the perimeter columns on the opposite side of the building, much less a view of the outside of the perimeter columns on the near side. I see only four or five vertical features, in a space that (looking at the adjacent North tower) should contain ten or twenty if it were perimeter columns, and these four or five are consistent with the number of core columns at the outside of the core.

BTW, I have found another picture of the South Tower spire, judging from the picture it is from the same source as the North Tower spire picture above, apparently the cameraman has moved to the right between the two collapses.

Looking at this URL, I note that it is similar to the URL of the picture of the North Tower spire above. The link I found was on this page

Make of it what you will.

Post Modified: 01/14/06 14:02:47

R115325
4 years ago
Schneibster

Suitcase maintains that I’m lying because I was nasty to him ROFL. Welcome to GNN. You’ll note that Shogo talks smack just about from the word “go,” having become frustrated dealing with people who

repeat the same stupid disproven things over and over;
refuse to acknowledge when a point they have made is overturned;
assert dumb ideas like directed energy weapons that don’t exist to explain something that is far more easily and credibly explained;
maintain that some testimony is unquestionable and other testimony is compromised without either acknowledging that in the first case NO testimony that draws a conclusion is unquestionable, or that in the second case testimony that is supported by photographic or video evidence can hardly be lies,

for starters. If I am caustic in denegrating such obvious fantasies, at least I deign to address them rather than dismissing the entire bunch of you as insane. You’ll have to take your chances, I guess.


R115327
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

I knew I saw this somewhere,

Shit-lips shows up again. Listen shit-lips, does your mama know you eat shit? Does she know that you suck stinking hobo cum through cutsie clear plastic straws with little knots and stuff in them so you can watch the cum from a hobo’s balls slide down your throat? Does she ever tell you to take a shower? I guess not, because I can smell you from here. What am I thinking- of course she knows, she TAUGHT you! And that’s where you CAME from! Well, it’s good to know your origins, I guess.
Shit-lips, you didn’t listen- and now, I’m gonna call you shit-lips every single time I see you contaminating a thread I’m on from now on. And I’m just getting good and started on the insults- we haven’t had a look at your umfriend yet.
Schneibster @ 12/12/05 13:43:14

Who were you talking to here? Is this what gnn is all about? We are bloggers asking questions and expressing opinions.

It’s just amazing that somebody who has your reputation keeps coming back and coming back and coming back.


R115329
4 years ago
fennec


R115331
4 years ago
Schneibster

Who were you talking to here? emissary, who had decided it might be a good idea to start a flame war. It turned out not to be such a good idea after all.

Is this what gnn is all about? GNN is about free expression, and flame wars are part of that. It is unavoidable, and questioning one or another person’s responses in such a situation indicates a remarkable lack of respect for the freedom of expression that is at the root of the site. I am ALWAYS willing to make peace, though I will be reserved if there has been a long period of wrangling preceding it; I am open, honest, and reserve the right to change my opinion for any reason or no reason at all. I will apologize if I make a mistake, and withdraw accusations if they are challenged on grounds I honestly evaluate as being sufficient to prove them wrong. This is easily shown on several occasions, some of which are on this very thread.

What do YOU think GNN is all about? Would you like to see GNN become another moderated site with milquetoast content? Would you like to propose rules for it? Perhaps you’d like to enforce them. Perhaps you think my point of view should be suppressed because you don’t like it. At least, that’s what you’re implying here. I don’t think there’s any necessity to discuss THAT point any further.

We are bloggers asking questions and expressing opinions. Yep, and here is me expressing mine, and here is you questioning my right to express it. Good move. Not.

It’s just amazing that somebody who has your reputation keeps coming back and coming back and coming back. My reputation? Oh, really? What an interesting proposition: you now get to dictate what my reputation is. Lovely. Pardon me if I question whether you are either competent or honest in doing so.


R115334
4 years ago
Continuity

Schn,

I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt on your 3 jpegs posted. The relevance of the last 2 jpegs escapes me, however. As for the important first jpeg, I’ve had my nose to the screen, studying the alleged “exposed core”. So far, I’m just not seeing this structure in the way you do. It appears to be the top 30 or so storeys about to complete its fall, with dust and smoke pouring upward to indicate rapid movement.

In the between smoke and dust, is it exposed core or vertical lattice rectangles that correspond with the other WTC tower’s exterior?


R115335
4 years ago
Schneibster

Continuity, the second jpg shows the north tower spire, and the recently posted one shows a second view of the south tower spire.


R115339
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

What did you mean when you said about emissary?

It turned out not to be such a good idea after all.

Second, the kind of behavior you exhibited, when you lashed out against emissary, is not acceptable anywhere.

Post Modified: 01/14/06 15:27:54

R115342
4 years ago
Schneibster

Suitcase, who the fuck died and made you arbiter of what’s acceptable and unacceptable? Who precisely the fuck do you think you are, anyway? What makes you think that I or anyone else would give a flying fuck at a rolling donut what your opinion of a matter that did not involve you in the first place is?

Basically, all I see here is you squirming to try to get out of a corner the evidence has backed you into by attacking the person who brought said evidence to everyone’s attention.

Nobody likes a whiner. And that’s what you are being.

Are you going to answer a single other one of the things I said? Or just cherry-pick, like you do with the “evidence” you present?


R115346
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

Basically, all I see here is you squirming to try to get out of a corner the evidence has backed you into by attacking the person who brought said evidence to everyone’s attention.

Better change that to thinks he brought that evidence to. Have you ever noticed how many people do not agree with you on this thread?


R115348
4 years ago
Schneibster

Bad move. If we’re gonna go there, you ever notice the number of people out there in RL who DO agree with me?

But quite frankly, I don’t care who agrees with me; that’s YOUR statement. I’m interested, as I said, in as much of the truth as I can get my hands on.

Are you going to address anything I said, or keep cherry-picking like you do with the “evidence” you present? And are you ever going to stop trying to divert attention from the actual evidence above, to which you have no response and for which your weird theories have no explanation?


R115361
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

You should write a book.


R115382
4 years ago
branw

Continuity, if you examine the last two pictures (right click and save them, then view them) you will notice that in the third picture (south tower) it is noticably narrower than the still standing north tower. This is how you know it is the core. As for the north tower, in the second picture, just above the dome you can see in the distance the top of a building. This building is blocked in the third picture by the still standing north tower. You can see it in the second picture because the perimeter of the tower has fallen away leaving the visible core.


R115386
4 years ago
Continuity

Thank you, branw. I’m going to study this.

I saw on the Nova special that this exposed core event happened briefly on one of the towers. When it was exposed, during the violent disintegration, the core was markedly shorter than its original height.

What this proves or disproves, I don’t know. I’ll hit some vids of the collapse later.


R115405
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

Photo Taken Immediately After North Tower Collapse showing the massive dust cloud from the North Tower collapse with the spire still standing..

Nothing new, if you must know
I linked up this 9-11 Research site a long time ago. I think it is one of the most interesting sites around from the standpoint of navigating your way around.

The picture with the spire is under Evidence

Evidence to dust clouds will get you here
scroll down to the North Tower and you got the photo

Post Modified: 01/16/06 16:54:16

R115409
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

3 months ago, on page 15, I directed people here
lots of videos and pictures from different angles

Post Modified: 01/15/06 08:58:36

R115416
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

This section on Molten Steel takes you interesting places
the writer takes you to basement bombs to dispute that theory

Excerpt

Flashes suggest explosive devices detonating. However, there is no credible photographic, video, or eyewitness evidence supporting the notion that large explosions low in the building preceded the descents of the exploding rubble from around the crash zones down to the ground. Instead, the flashes are consistent with a theory of demolition in which thermobaric devices are detonated in a sequence from the crash zones downward

Post Modified: 01/15/06 09:54:35

R115419
4 years ago
Schneibster

Suitcase, there is more than plenty of evidence to show that there was sufficient energy in the office contents plus the energy of collapse to melt steel under the rubble pile. You don’t need thermobaric devices to account for that.

You also don’t need them to account for the perimeter columns collapsing; there’s plenty of momentum in a falling floor to create enough force to do that, too.

There’s a principle that says, “the simplest explanation that fits all the facts is the most likely to be true.” It’s called “Occam’s Razor.” You might have heard of it.


R115430
4 years ago
whateveryousay

There’s a principle that says, “the simplest explanation that fits all the facts is the most likely to be true.” It’s called “Occam’s Razor.” You might have heard of it. -schn

the simplest explanation is that the buildings were blown up with bombs. it was, after all, a terrorist attack. you don’t need some complicated unprecedented, unrepeatable “sagging-zipper angle-clip progressive-collapse” theory when bombs is the most plausible.

if you’re looking for pictures and you find one called: “http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc31.jpg”
it’s usually good to try different numbers in sequence to see if there are more pictures.

you can also try to see if there is an index:
http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/
in this case there is an index with thumbnails and useful info on the photos.

looking at a sequnce of the south tower collapse, there is indeed some structure which would appear to persist.

click to see whole image:







R115431
4 years ago
whateveryousay

it’s mainly pictures 18, 19, and 20 which show what’s up


R115446
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

Explosions Reports of Sights and Sounds of Explosions in the Oral Histories

The oral histories released on August 12, 2005 contain many recollections of the sights and sounds of explosions. The excerpts on this page describe perceptions of the South Tower collapse, except where noted otherwise.

Post Modified: 01/15/06 21:51:53

R115476
4 years ago
branw

Schneibster, I am new here, how do I pm you?


R115555
4 years ago
Chickenma1

I don’t understand why the core(s) wouldn’t have remained standing. Schneib, you said it fell because it was no longer supported – supported by what? Wasn’t the core self-supporting? (Interesting pic of core, btw.)


R115588
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

R115591
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

Under Eyewitness Reports, the writer says

Theories that basement bombs were causative in the collapses should not be confused with theories that bombs damaged the basements and lobbies of the Towers at around the times of the plane crashes.

Then the writer says

The body of oral histories of emergency responders has dozens of accounts of perceptions of explosions high in the building coinciding with or slightly preceding the initiations of the South and North Tower collapses.

Then he goes on to say

Apparently absent from the accounts are recollections of large explosions low in the Towers at the outsets of these events.

Then the writers says

That should not be confused with the perception of flashes.

Then he quotes Stephen Gregory

I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes.

I know about the explosion on the upper floors. This was like at eye level. I didn’t have to go like this. Because I was looking this way. I’m not going to say it was on the first floor or the second floor, but somewhere in that area I saw to me what appeared to be flashes.

Then the writer concludes

Flashes suggest explosive devices detonating. However, there is no credible photographic, video, or eyewitness evidence supporting the notion that large explosions low in the building preceded the descents of the exploding rubble from around the crash zones down to the ground. Instead, the flashes are consistent with a theory of demolition in which thermobaric devices are detonated in a sequence from the crash zones downward. Since such devices may employ a small charge to disperse the fuel, followed by a secondary explosion to ignite the mixture and produce a large structure-shattering explosion, the flashes seen by Gregory may have been the dispersal charges preceding the main explosions by ten or more seconds.

another oral history

Karin Deshore — Captain (E.M.S.)
Somewhere around the middle of the World Trade Center, there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building.

Post Modified: 01/16/06 08:45:58

R115745
4 years ago
Schneibster

the simplest explanation is that the buildings were blown up with bombs.

No, because that requires:
1. The assumption that bombs were necessary,
This is unjustifiable in the face of the fact that airplanes full of jet fuel were flown into the towers at five hundred miles an hour, an action that no engineer on the planet could tell you the results of (beyond the assertion that they would most likely fall down afterward- curiously enough, precisely what happened).
2. The assumption that someone set the bombs, and detonated them,
This is unjustifiable in the face of the fact that airplanes were (at the time such explosives would have had to be set) going to be flown into the towers, with no reason to suppose that they would not be utterly destroyed instantly; denial leads the the further unjustified assumptions that
2a. An aircraft full of fuel flying into the buildings would not destroy them, and
2b. This information was available to the plotters, yet it took nearly four years for the most technologically advanced culture on the planet to account for how it happened.
3. The assumption that the buildings would not have fallen down all by themselves after being run into with fuel-laden aircraft at 500 miles an hour, an assumption belied by the fact that although it did take 4 years to do so, NIST was eventually able to produce an explanation that satisfied the majority of the engineers competent to analyze the situation in detail. While this is not conclusive, it inserts a more-than-reasonable doubt.

That’s just off the top of my head.

Controlled demolition of buildings with explosives is a delicate, complex, and even now not particularly well-known engineering discipline. It has been repeatedly stated that no demolition company in the world would have been likely to accept a contract to do it for any price. Yet, here you have the US Federal Government, a notoriously inept bureaucracy (Katrina? Enron? Iran-Contra? Bay of Pigs? Hello?) undertaking it without even the certainty that it would be necessary, because they knew what no engineer on the planet could have told them: that the buildings wouldn’t fall over after being hit with airplanes full of fuel at 500 miles an hour.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight.


R115747
4 years ago
Schneibster

Suitcase, please provide pictures of flashes “popping all the way around the building.” Please provide pictures of orange or red flashes coming out of the building and going all the way around, at more than one level, or of later ones bigger than (supposed) earlier ones.

There aren’t any.

Please show why the testimony of one individual, not merely unsupported but actively contradicted by hours of video coverage of the event, should be believed over that coverage.

You can’t.

What should one conclude from a single piece of testimony that contradicts not only all the other testimony offered, but also all the video records of the event?

Nothing.

And here you are again, offering the same, refuted evidence over and over again as if repeating it makes up for its deficiencies.

This is dishonest. Answer the original objections to this testimony or stop repeating it.


R115766
4 years ago
whateveryousay

The assumption that bombs were necessary,

no one thought the buildings would fall, even after being hit by planes. your 20/20 hindsight that “of course they fell” didn’t help any rescue workers.

... yet it took nearly four years for the most technologically advanced culture on the planet to account for how it happened.

...

Yet, here you have the US Federal Government, a notoriously inept bureaucracy (Katrina? Enron? Iran-Contra? Bay of Pigs? Hello?) undertaking it without even the certainty that it would be necessary

so we go from “the most technologically advanced culture“ to “a notoriously inept bureaucracy” in the same breath. okay, whatever

and once again you assume the u.s. gov would be hiring some demo company directly. in this century, you can bet that creating a new pearl harbour is something you leave to outsourcing.

the buildings were designed to stay up. they were also engineered against jetplane strikes. planes that could fly faster (600mph) and thus hit harder than 767s btw.


R115770
4 years ago
Schneibster

Actually, that has been repeatedly debunked as well; they were engineered to withstand an aircraft (a 707) considerably less massive than a 767, flying at approach speeds of less than 200 mph (flying in fog and lost on approach to the airport). 500 mph is hardly top speed for either a 707 or a 767.

I don’t see what the scientific culture (and IMO that culture extends far beyond the US, and it might not even be either fair or correct to state that it originated there) has to do with the efficiency of the US bureaucracy, but you being the conspiracy theorist type I guess you think it’s all one thing.

As for the US government hiring a demolition company, no, I don’t see where you got that from. I made no such assertion; I merely asserted that the world’s foremost experts have stated repeatedly that they would not attempt to bring the towers down for love nor money.

And I’d like to see you prove that if you collected 50 architectural engineers prior to 9/11 and asked them what the effect of flying a 767 loaded with jet fuel into a WTC tower would be, they’d say it would stay up. Especially considering the number of such engineers who are on record as having said, “The buildings performed very well,” and so forth. What they’re saying is they didn’t fall down IMMEDIATELY when they were struck by 767s full of jet fuel at 500 mph, and that was “good performance.”


R115773
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

As for photos, there are tons of photos to go through, and whether you go to a site like this, or any other site, which has photos, there are plenty of photos to be analyzed. Plenty of claims pro and con to analyze, to examine. Nothing yet dispositive on the issues of whether the photos or videos show explosions.

As far as the witnesses are concerned, Karin Deshore described a flash popping all the way around the building and Rich Banaciski, a fireman, said that it seemed like the explosion was going all the way around like a belt, and Frank Cruthers, firechief, said an explosion appeared at the very top, and, he said, that simultaneously from all four sides, materials shot out horizontally, a variation but another way of saying there were explosions all around the building.

So we have one witness then another and another saying the same thing, and a picture emerges, and there are many witnesses, who saw explosions, many witnesses heard and felt them, this has become obvious.

Post Modified: 01/16/06 18:34:19

R115778
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

I’m glad you said video coverage and not investigation. What we need is a public forum, like a trial, or a real investigation, which the 911 Commission did not conduct. These issues have not been resolved. What you really mean to say has everything to do with Maintaining the Official Story in the Face of Glaring Contradictions.

Post Modified: 01/16/06 18:46:01

R115783
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

EVIDENCE OF EXPLOSIVES IN THE SOUTH WTC TOWER COLLAPSE

This Article Claims Evidence of Explosives In The South Tower Collapse. What do you think?.

Post Modified: 01/16/06 20:10:37

R115800
4 years ago
Schneibster

Suitcase, I don’t give a shit about the official explanation and I never did, and saying I did is imputing motives to me that are not merely ridiculous but insulting (considering my known political opinions). As far as I’m concerned, Shrub and Prick either set bin Laden up to do it or knew he was gonna and stood back and watched; it doesn’t really matter which to me. But the fact of the matter is that anybody with two brain cells to rub together and two days of vacation in the last five years and any interest at all in spy thrillers read the Clancy book where the guy crashes the plane into the US Capitol building at the end, and anybody with the imagination of the average goldfish would put that together with bin Laden and the ’93 bombing and come up with exactly the plan that got executed.

What’s REALLY interesting is that none of the planes got shot down (except perhaps the one that crashed in Pennsylvania), and, wait for it, that was because they were running a hijack exercise that same day and had multiple aircraft flying that had hijack transponder signals activated- just to make sure that some hot-dog pilot didn’t shoot the real hijacked planes down before they were finished doing their business, because said hot-dog couldn’t tell which planes were really hijacked.

Blowing up the buildings is overkill- a complete waste of time, and something that didn’t need to be done to get what Shrub wanted, which was an excuse for a war so he could fix his lackluster performance in the polls (if you’ll recall, at the time, his numbers were steadily dropping because the economy was going in the shitter and because everyone was suspicious about Enron being from Texas).

I’m going to point out that when the collapse of each tower began, the floors where the fires were sent flames billowing out as they collapsed, and this is clear from the video evidence. I’m not sure what else you expect the fires to do when this happens, and I see little value in discussing yet another item that has been extensively covered, and extensively refuted, with no response to the refutation. What your star witness describes isn’t visible in videos taken from ANY direction, at best it is a misinterpretation of what she actually saw and at worst attention whoring in front of a camera, and saying it is true based on photographs that cannot show motion when it is denied by the video evidence skirts very close to the line of lying, if not crosses it. Again, all of these things have been said over and over and over again.

Finally, not one piece of evidence you have presented has turned out to be new.

Tell me why you are worth talking to any more. Come up with something new that has not been answered fifty million times and stop insulting me. Stating in a public forum that I am “supporting the official position” when the above is my stated position, far prior to now, is over the line. It is a lie, and I challenge you to take it back; if you don’t, I don’t see any point in talking to you any further, since all you can think of to do is spout long-disproven theories and lying insults.


R115805
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

There you go again, stating that these issues have been resolved. What is needed is demolitions experts, not people who build the buildings, people who destroy them. By opposing investigation, you condone what little investigation has been done.

Your proposition about fires sending the flames billowing out does not preclude the possiblility that explosives were used. Sorry, I disagree, there has been no official refutation of anything to do with explosives. That may be your opinion but that’s all.

Your opinion about what is true or not true about a witness statement does not dispose of the argument. But feel free to stop arguing any time you like.

Post Modified: 01/16/06 22:43:09

R115811
4 years ago
whateveryousay

Blowing up the buildings is overkill- a complete waste of time, and something that didn’t need to be done to get what Shrub wanted,

there you go! it’s all about what the shrub wants again. seems like any explanation that doesn’t lead directly to the whitehouse is what you can’t handle.

and at worst attention whoring in front of a camera,

you are really out to lunch. why don’t you bother to read the whole interview if you have doubts.

I merely asserted that the world’s foremost experts have stated repeatedly that they would not attempt to bring the towers down for love nor money.

we’helll. that would certainly be new info to me. bring it up.

This Article Claims Evidence of Explosives In The South Tower Collapse. What do you think

when you synch that video footage with audio of the blasts…
well i guess you’d have to see it.


R115821
4 years ago
Continuity

Blowing up the buildings is overkill- a complete waste of time, and something that didn’t need to be done to get what Shrub wanted

I don’t necessarily agree with that at all, but your opinion on that is as good or bad as anyone else’s without proof. One must admit that the psychological impact of the event alone was colossal, giving the Bushies enormous license. Nevertheless, I try to keep away from that kind of talk.

My only opinion on the matter when it comes to demolition & Bush goes like this: Even if the buildings were demolished, Bush and his cabinet people were probably not directly involved at all, in ordering the event or orchestrating it. Instead, they altered some doctrines, obfuscated some records, looked the other way, and played dumb for the camera. There’s more to this story than whacky terrorists and politicians.


R115822
4 years ago
whateveryousay

here’s 4 video clips for y’all

first, the “woolworth” video from suitcase above:
link1

now the clip from trinity church of the same event (this one has audio)
link2

now the trinity-clip audio synched with the woolworth picture:
link3

here’s the 2 synched to picture and sound:
link4


R115826
4 years ago
whitey

crikey!


R115862
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

Yeah, way too much emphasis on Bush. Schneibster knows the Bush administration is not powerful enough to pull off 911, at least I think he knows. But for people, who do believe that the Bush administration is responsible for 911, I refer them to Webster Tarpley.

Post Modified: 01/17/06 09:30:19

R115904
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

What’s up with links one and two wys? Link one sends me here, which is ok, but link 2 seems like it is going to take forever. Of course you would have to authenticate the films, but that’s some pretty scary synchronization on links three and four.

Post Modified: 01/17/06 10:40:53

R115912
4 years ago
whateveryousay

the second link is an AVI

this is the link it came from

this is the page

obviously a better copy of this footage and its audio is in order. not sure what it was from but i figured it’s from some tv special like nova or pbs or something.
do note that they got the time written on the screen wrong.


R115926
4 years ago
Schneibster

Forget it. I have no time for people who are in denial.


R115941
4 years ago
branw

Schneibster,

Re:
“Actually, that has been repeatedly debunked as well; they were engineered to withstand an aircraft (a 707) considerably less massive than a 767, flying at approach speeds of less than 200 mph (flying in fog and lost on approach to the airport). 500 mph is hardly top speed for either a 707 or a 767. “

Do you have a source for this fact, I have some fool arguing that they were designed to withstand a 707 at cruise speed.


R115946
4 years ago
branw

Nevermind, I found one.


R115957
4 years ago
CIAlien

Our top scientist has joined the “blurry jpeg” school of research???


R116069
4 years ago
whateveryousay

Nevermind, I found one. -branw

let’s see!


R116103
4 years ago
Snark

Your proposition about fires sending the flames billowing out does not preclude the possiblility that explosives were used.

It does, however, preclude the idea that the fires from the jets and any possible demolition charges could have coexisted in the same general area- for obvious reasons.


R116108
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

Just as an example of what is possible

thermobaric devices could have been installed entirely in discretely accessed portions of the towers’ cores, such as elevator shafts and cable shafts. The number of devices could also be much smaller — perhaps just one on each floor. The devices could have been encased in impact- and heat-resistant containers similar to those used to protect aircraft voice and data recorders, so as to prevent accidental detonation from the aircraft impacts and fires.

Post Modified: 01/18/06 09:05:22

R116118
4 years ago
truthRises

I got a message from someone about this thread… I quit posting here because I made my point… that Schneibsters “energetic-fall-melting-the-steel” theory was bunk. I see you’re still holding on to that one Schneib. So much for science.

Interesting pictures, but I really don’t see anything conclusive. The so-called “intact cores” look like the perimeter columns to me. You can see that the buildings are not on the same plane in the pictures, so a size comparison of those columns to the other building’s columns would have to be scaled accordingly. The other picture could just be a column of smoke… I can’t really see anything structural about it.

Schneib man, seriously, if we’re so crazy, give up. You think you’re right, isn’t that enough? Your evidence is not really evidence, it’s grainy pictures and so-so science. Other than that all you bring to the table is a foul mouth. Either settle down or stfu.

People, the point is not what exactly happened. The point really is that we can’t really know and the official story is not good enough. We need a real investigation not appointed by Bush and Co. I think most of us can agree on that.

Let’s stop kicking this horse and focus on what needs to be done. How about a story on all the possible scenarios complete with all criticisms of each theory? We can start here.

Please don’t bother going over the facts, we all know the arguments, just state the main points.

Here’s my theory:

1. Bush + CIA + al qaeda either planned together, or Bush + CIA knew about al qaeda’s plans.

2. The military exercises provided neccessary cover for the operation, although many other hiijack attempts that day were foiled. The planes that flew were allowed to fly.

3. The passenger jets hit the towers and pentagon. Probably remote controlled since the manuevers to hit the pentagon were so difficult.

4. The buildings were “pulled”, using explosives to bring them straight down so that the black boxes would never be recovered, or at least to claim they weren’t recovered.

5. The steel was quickly shipped out of the country to avoid closer inspection that would have revealed the explosives used.


R116179
4 years ago
Chickenma1

truthRises – I only disagree with you on the first point: It’s the Octopus Conspiracy, not Al Quaida.


R116275
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

A vast, interlocking network of criminal conspiracy that reaches into every branch and agency of the U.S. government, many other national governments, and every sector of our societies.


R116293
4 years ago
Chickenma1

Yep, that’s the one.


R116344
4 years ago
Schneibster

truthRises, what you think you know about physics could fill a whole website- you know, like “Bad Astronomy,” only for physics.

Then there’s the fact that you “made [your] point… that Schneibsters [sic] ‘energetic-fall-melting-the-steel’ theory was bunk.”

You might want to have a look at the actual thread before you run your mouth too much- you never responded to the things I pointed out, which means you “made” no “points” at all. I have to assume that it was because you don’t know enough physics to understand the conservation of energy. Certainly anyone who thinks energy just “goes away” has no business in a serious conversation.

Post Modified: 01/18/06 23:33:19

R116594
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

Explosive Testimony: Revelations about the Twin Towers in the 9/11 Oral Histories

by David Ray Griffin

excerpt

I will begin by summarizing some of those previously available reports. Readers will then be able to see that although in some respects the newly released oral histories simply add reinforcement, they also are revelatory documents: Some of the testimonies are quite stunning, even to people familiar with the earlier reports; and there are now so many testimonies that even the most skeptical reader is likely to find the cumulative effect impressive.

Under the title
Other Indications of Controlled Demolition.
you will find more discussion of flashes and demolition rings

Post Modified: 01/19/06 21:32:33

R116634
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

Why Testimony about Explosions Has Not Become Public Knowledge

Excerpt

Firefighter Louie Cacchioli, who was quoted earlier, testified in 2004 to members of the Commission’s staff. But, he reported, they were so unreceptive that he ended up walking out in anger. “I felt like I was being put on trial in a court room,” said Cacchioli. “They were trying to twist my words and make the story fit only what they wanted to hear. All I wanted to do was tell the truth and when they wouldn’t let me do that, I walked out.”58

That Cacchioli’s experience was not atypical is suggested by janitor William Rodriguez, whose testimony was also quoted earlier. Although Rodriguez was invited to the White House as a National Hero for his rescue efforts on 9/11, he was, he said, treated quite differently by the Commission: “I met with the 9/11 Commission behind closed doors and they essentially discounted everything I said regarding the use of explosives to bring down the north tower.”59

When reading The 9/11 Commission Report, one will not find the name of Cacchioli, or Rodriguez, or anyone else reporting explosions in the towers. It would appear that the Commission deliberately withheld this information, as it apparently did with regard to Able Danger60 and many other things that should have been included in “the fullest possible account of the events surrounding 9/11.”61

The definitive report about the collapse of the towers was to have been provided by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). According to Rodriguez, however, this investigative body was equally uninterested in his testimony: “I contacted NIST . . . four times without a response. Finally, [at a public hearing] I asked them before they came up with their conclusion . . . if they ever considered my statements or the statements of any of the other survivors who heard the explosions. They just stared at me with blank faces.”62


R116699
4 years ago
whateveryousay

this article gives some good points i think:

Possible Evidence Suggesting The Use Of Explosive Devices At The World Trade Center On 9/11

eg:
====================================================================================
“Arturo (Griffith) was running 50A, the big freight car going from the six-level basement to the 108th floor. When American Airlines Flight 11 struck at 8:46 a.m., Arturo and a co-worker were heading from the second-level basement to the 49th floor.

Like his wife, who had just closed the doors on a passenger elevator leaving the 78th floor, Arturo heard a sudden whistling sound and the impact. Cables were severed and Arturo’s car plunged into free fall.
...
The emergency brakes caught after 15 or 16 floors.”

http://www.usatoday.com/life/sept11/2002-09-10-surivivor-griffiths_x.htm
====================================================================================

what that says about the ‘fire which shoots down the elevator shafts to the basement’ thing i’m not sure…


R117028
4 years ago
Suitcaseman



WHAT ABOUT DEM SQUIBS?

Post Modified: 01/21/06 08:37:40

R117416
4 years ago
Schneibster

Do you even know what a “squib” is? It ain’t a puff of smoke.


R117504
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

From Confronting the Evidence, there is a presentation by Jeff King, who studied physics at MIT, did electrical engineering for about 8 years. King said, that when he first saw the collapses, he was absolutely convinced that they were not spontaneous. King said he showed videos of the collapses to a retired army corp of engineers person, who immediately pointed out that there were squibs, which, he said, represent little puffs of smoke essentially that were coming out of the buildings.

Jeff King’s presentation is available here

Also the Brighan Young University professor, Steven Jones, who said that bombs, not planes, brought the towers down, said “horizontal puffs of smoke, known as squibs, were observed proceeding up the side the building, a phenomenon common when pre-positioned explosives are used to demolish buildings”.

That article is available here.

There is also discussion of squibs at 9-11 Research, where it explains that

Squibs are “blasting caps (initiators) used in the explosive industry to set off high explosives.” 1 In discussions of the collapses of the WTC skyscrapers, the term has been appropriated to describe the physical appearance of puffs or jets of dust emerging from buildings during a demolition, caused by the detonation of explosive charges. Several such “squibs” can be seen in videos and photographs capturing the collapses of the North and South Towers.

Post Modified: 01/23/06 09:35:03

R117507
4 years ago
Schneibster

Translation: no, you have no idea what a squib is.


R117508
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

Of course I do.


R117533
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

When you go to Confronting the Evidence, you will see a notice which says: “The DVD Confronting the Evidence also includes special selections from Eric Hufschmid’s DVD on 9/11, Painful Deceptions.”

The problem is that you can’t watch that part of the DVD, so I found something else Painful Deceptions: An Analysis of the September 11 Attack, which is 40 minutes.

The part that is most relevant is the last 12-13 minutes of the video, the part entitled The Towers Did Not Simply Fall Down, some important information in there about the construction of the towers, and the strength of the buildings, and about the fires.


R117536
4 years ago
Schneibster

Nice edit, suitcase; of course, using the term “squib” in such a context is incorrect.

Not to mention the fact that anyone actually viewing video of the collapse of the twin towers and then viewing video of a controlled demolition cannot help but remark upon the fact that the “squibs” emerging from a CD are one-time, quick puffs, whereas the puffs of smoke and dust emerging from the collapsing towers keep on coming until the collapse reaches the site of the plume. The conclusions to be drawn from this are obvious to a three-year-old.

And again, you spout yet another long-discredited speculation supported only by cherry-picked facts.


R117562
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

The conclusions to be drawn from this are obvious to a three-year-old.

Really, I’d like to see an example of that. And I did not hear any such conclusions from Jeff King or Steven Jones or Eric Hufshmid. And, as I have said before, where have these claims been officially discredited?

Post Modified: 01/23/06 12:34:37

R117588
4 years ago
Schneibster

I’m not doing your research for you, suitcase. I did it and stated what I found. Anyone else is free to look at what I looked at, and probably already has if they had the gumption god gave the average ant. As I have previously stated, I have no time for people in denial.


R117597
4 years ago
Chickenma1

Boy, you are totally by yourself here, Schneib. Everyone else who’s looked beyond the appalling omissions in the official version has reached other conclusions. And I mean everyone. As Steven Jones pointed out, having (perhaps rightfully) concluded that the towers would fall, the reports didn’t address how they fell – they did not fall down like a plane (or not) had nicked them on one side and started a fire. These are professional physicists, Schneib, give them their due.


R117599
4 years ago
Joe

not totally by himself.. some people just got tired of arguing in circles. Not Schneibster though, he’s a machine.


R117619
4 years ago
whateveryousay

some people just got tired of arguing in circles. —joe

or got tired of being wrong? ; )

you were careful and interested enough to point out “exploded” vs “imploded”... a rather astute observation.

but you also claimed that the north and south towers collapsed in “completely different” ways. shcneib would claim the twin towers fell in an almost identical way and i would probably have to agree with him on that point. he was talking about the persistence of the core-structures and i was noting how the tops of both towers basically fell off to the side in much the same way and the similar collapse duration.

the ‘squibs’ thing? i just don’t like the word very much and would prefer ‘plumes’ or ‘jets’ for what you can see on the twin towers. could be both you know… and you can get both with conventional explosive demolitions.
the squibs example from s. e. jones reproduced above is talking about the top corner of wtc7.

regarding the twin-towers, jones refers to the puff of smoke, also as “plumes”:

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html


caption: North Tower during top-down collapse.
Notice mysterious horizontal plumes far below pulverization region.

those who bothered to read the article would probably know this by now.

Post Modified: 01/23/06 15:50:37

R117636
4 years ago
Joe

“but you also claimed that the north and south towers collapsed in “completely different” ways”

I wasn’t wrong, but I did post the wrong pics and didn’t feel like sorting it out. They did collapse in different ways, it’s obvious from the videos and the pictures. If you know something I don’t, maybe you should update the wikipedia entry for us because even it points out:

“The two towers collapsed in markedly different ways, indicating that there were in fact two modes of failure. The north tower collapsed directly downwards, “pancaking” in on itself, while the south tower fell at an angle during which the top 20 or so stories of the building remained intact for the first few seconds of the collapse.”


R117638
4 years ago
Joe

“These are professional physicists,”

Who are just too good to submit to appropriate peer review.

Steven Jones also believes that there is evidence that Christ visited America

“Thus, the marked hand symbol is connected to Deity-in particular with Itzamna, who died, went to the world of spirits and then was resurrected. All of this is reminiscent of Jesus Christ, supporting the claim of the Book of Mormon that New World inhabitants knew of Jesus long before Columbus arrived.”

Post Modified: 01/23/06 17:42:41

R117644
4 years ago
Snark

Just exactly what the fuck is being accomplished here? Nobody’s convinced anybody, nobody will convince anybody, everybody’s convinced that anybody who disagrees with them is a shill- what’s being accomplished with 17 pages of the same people repeating the same bullshit ad nauseaum? Cue “opinions are like assholes” cliche.


R117666
4 years ago
Chickenma1

I think we’re just going for a record. What is the record, anyway?


R117702
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

First this from Wikipedia. Recently, Steven E. Jones has been the first academic (PhD physics professor at BYU) to publish a peer-reviewed paper on his theory of pre-planned demolitions of the WTC. He especially askes for an investigation of the molten metal found underneath WTC 1, 2, and 7.

Also, don’t forget the other side of the story
BYU Professor Has Plenty of Company in the Academic Community, Including 60 Faculty Members from Two Utah Universities who Concur a Controlled Demolition Most Likely Brought Down the WTC

Second, here is a paper that reviews and compares some of the initial media coverage and criticisms of BYU physics professor Steven E. Jones’ research paper, written by Victoria Ashley, Research Consultant, for 9-11 Research, in which she lauds the work of Jones, particularly considering some of the so-called research that is out there available to the public.

Quote

Jones’ work contrasts with the propagandistic productions which rely on theatrical antics, hip sound tracks, and sleights of hand. The style of such productions is mirrored in their content — a mixture of sensational claims (pods, missiles and aircraft other than commercial jets impacting the buildings) mixed with real unanswered questions. Such unsupported claims, while designed to excite naive viewers, are inevitably debunked with time, and thus serve to inoculate the public against taking 9/11 truth efforts seriously.

Third, Jones is a mormon, who apparently believes that the Book of Mormon is correct with its teachings that Christ visited America. Do we want to get into individual religious beliefs? Does that have anything to do with his argument?

Fourth, I would concentrate on what Jeff King said about not having a meaningful explanation for what happened to the buildings, no convincing and detailed account, the fact that the sight was scrubbed thoroughly, that only 240 pieces of the towers were preserved, and that in smaller incidents like the TWA 800 crash, the government, instead of destroying the evidence, did a complete reconstruction of the TWA 800 plane by retrieving the pieces from the bottom of the sea, so it could conduct a detailed analysis.

Finally, as I said above, King and Jones used the term squibs, and 9-11 Research explained why.

Quote

Squibs are “blasting caps (initiators) used in the explosive industry to set off high explosives.” 1 In discussions of the collapses of the WTC skyscrapers, the term has been appropriated to describe the physical appearance of puffs or jets of dust emerging from buildings during a demolition, caused by the detonation of explosive charges. Several such “squibs” can be seen in videos and photographs capturing the collapses of the North and South Towers.

Post Modified: 01/23/06 20:06:12

R117703
4 years ago
Snark

I think we’re just going for a record. What is the record, anyway?

Methinks it was the original OMFG, which got to 30-odd pages. That was cooler; fecal explosions are far more entertaining than dry talk of architectural failures.


R117705
4 years ago
Chickenma1

This is from Victoria Ashley’s paper, referenced above:

In an effort to accommodate administration and others, Jones said he has modified his paper, and submitted it to another journal and another round of peer reviewing. He said he feels “a bit awkward” that some colleagues now question the peer review process his paper initially passed through. “My paper was peer-reviewed and accepted for publication before being made available on the Web with the editor’s approval,” Jones said. “The reviewers included a physicist and an engineer, I now understand. The review has not been shown to have been inappropriate and I believe it was appropriate.”

Now, on to page 18!


R117710
4 years ago
Schneibster

“No account you are capable of understanding” != “no convincing and detailed account.”


R117718
4 years ago
Chickenma1

Schneib, how fitting you should be the one! Didn’t you “quit” this thread back on page, er, what was it?


R117732
4 years ago
JustLurking

so, Liberals 104 some odd seats, Conservatives 125, NDP give or take 29, the Bloq 50, Belinda Stronach manages to hang onto…. hmmm ? WTC pancakes while pentagon waffles over missile debate ZZZZZZzzzzZZZzzz snizznx##!... wha ? The Liberals could form a new coalition with the NDP robbing the Conservatives of their newly elected government Ottawa !!

oh snap !


R117740
4 years ago
Joe

“Do we want to get into individual religious beliefs? Does that have anything to do with his argument?”

Yes. And Yes.

“These discoveries have provided me a deeper appreciation for the reality of the resurrection of Jesus and of His visit to “other sheep” who heard His voice and saw His wounded hands as did Thomas. My hope is that these new insights will encourage you to seriously consider the Book of Mormon, Another Testament of Christ. Why don’t you start reading right away?”

So he’s a physicist (and not a structural engineer or architect) that uses his research to promote his religion. Oh, but don’t believe physicists who say the buildings collapsed because a plane hit them, because they’re brainwashed or in on it. :-P


R117742
4 years ago
fennec

Creepy.


R117749
4 years ago
Chickenma1

Joe, that is the most narrow-minded statement you’ve made. Shame on you! His science stands on its own. Your tactic of discrediting someone’s knowledge based on personal stuff is decidedly REPUBLICAN (as in ‘Scott Ritter’s lying about WMD’s because he’s a pervert’.) Especially your totally unsupported claim that Jones “uses his research to promote his religion.”

(BTW, for those who are bored, Jones’ article on Jesus in America is quite interesting, and way off the subject of this thread.)


R117753
4 years ago
fennec

_your totally unsupported claim that Jones “uses his research to promote his religion._”

“These discoveries have provided me a deeper appreciation for the reality of the resurrection of Jesus and…”

Totally unsupported claim…? He actually makes it pretty plain. Can you not read good?


R117766
4 years ago
Chickenma1

The “discoveries” he’s referring to have nothing to do with physics, but with his contemplation of Mayan art. Why don’t you guys just go into the swift boat spin biz, and leave this thread to intelligent discussion.

“Several years ago, an idea popped into my head: Would people in the New World who also saw Jesus Christ leave memorials of this supernal experience by showing marked hands of Deity in their artwork? So I began a search with the following hypothesis-to be tested: Ancient artwork portraying a deity with deliberate markings on his hands will be found somewhere in the Americas. A crazy idea, maybe – but wait till you see the artwork of the ancient Maya!”

Does that sound like he’s presenting a physics paper?! Does it sound like his subject is the WTC collapse?!


R117796
4 years ago
whateveryousay

heh.
figures that only a mormon would be crazy enough to publish a ‘bombs did it’ paper.
what now.

If you know something I don’t, maybe you should update the wikipedia entry for us —joe

look. i posted:

this video).avi

already before in which you can see the top of the north tower fall off and to the side (much like the south tower).
i can give other angles showing the same thing if you like. watch them and then you can update the wiki for us.

that the top of the south tower was on an angle initially as it fell doesn’t really mean “markedly different” IMO; considering all the significant similarities. they collapse actually in much the same way with slight differences.

Steven Jones also believes that there is evidence that Christ visited America “Thus, the marked hand symbol is connected to Deity-in particular with Itzamna, who died, went to the world of spirits and then was resurrected. All of this is reminiscent of Jesus Christ, supporting the claim of the Book of Mormon that New World inhabitants knew of Jesus long before Columbus arrived.”

everyone is insane and everyone has aids.


R117799
4 years ago
zark

just watched teh north tower go down again.

collapse

the official story IS bollocks.

What falls first? The damaged floors or the roof?

The collapse was instant. watch the collapse again, the entire top floors of the tower drop as a whole, which indicates that all the beams surrounding the central columns weakened at exactly the same time and fell together.

now re-watch the clip again, see the mast and roof fall intact. hmmmm

if the floor beams weaken, at the points of fire how does this affect the upper portion of the central columns?

the floor beams wouldn’t initially affect the upper central columns, yet as shown in the video the upper central columns falls at the same time – the mast and top floor should remain for at least a few seconds while the falling floors damage the central columns, or even for half-a-second, but no, the collapse is instant.

what the clip shows is that the central columns, all of them and the floor beams lost integrity at exactly the same time. These are linked events. The question whether pancacking floors destroyed the central columns is now not even logical.

The central columns were destroyed and thus the floors fell at exactly the same time.

Explosives were inside the buildings, they caused the collapses.

Moreso, if the central columns were damaged by the plane, the collapse would be progressive, yet it isnt, the upper floors fall as one piece as if the entire central column around the impact floor DISAPPEARED.

watch the footage again. The upper portion falls into space. A whole section, 2 floors in height, disappears from the building, totally vanishes and the upper section falls into it.

if the pancake theory WAS true, the weakened floors would collapse down, then damage the central columns and then the floors above the weakened floors would fall.

watch the lowest line of fire floor, it doesnt move as the upper section falls onto it. instead, it acts as a plateau. This line doesnt get damaged first by the weakened floors falling, which it should if the Official story is true.

Post Modified: 01/24/06 02:53:55

R117803
4 years ago
whateveryousay

The question whether pancacking floors destroyed the central columns is now not even logical. —zark

it’s actually hard to visualize what you are getting at. perhaps you could make a drawing or something. it would also be good to have a summary of what the official story is in regards to what you are saying.

many people might only be familiar with the old angle clip failure story from fema.
it’s already in the history books that those pesky “angle-clips” failed, causing the floors to flapjack (oops, sorry, pancake). it’s the essence of the fema version.
in contrast, the nist version claims the connections between floors and columns held so well that the sagging floors pulled the columns down.

now. cue the schneb scientific methodology theme-song


R117806
4 years ago
whateveryousay

was at parents house.

got a bit bored and played a game of jenga:


Post Modified: 01/24/06 03:45:57

R117810
4 years ago
zark

the official story has it, that the floor beams were weakened and it caused a ‘pancake’ effect on the floor below.

what i am drawing attention to is that when the north tower began collapse the floors at impact didnt fall first – these are the ones that were apparently weakened.

officially once the collapse began, the falling floors then damaged the central columns.

Instead the video footage shows that the roof, not the weakened floors, moves first.

here is the wtc design.

if heat did in fact weaken these floor supports, then how do we explain the fact that the mast and roof moves first in the collapse?

the mast is directly above the central columns.

The collapse shows that the roof and the mast fall first. This proves that the central columns were falling first, all of them, not just one side or a couple, all of them failed at exactly the same time and exactly at the same floors. Falling into what? A ‘plateau’.

A plateau indicated by the fire line. This is not the base of the third section, this is the floors that were supposedly weakened by fire.

The weakened floors are acting as a base at the start of the collapse. The central columns are falling through a ‘gap’ into this base.

the pancake theory states
Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor -Pop mECH

once each tower began to collapse

well i am talking about the beginning of the collapse, not the after effects.

and moreso, ‘pulverizing force on the hightest intact floor’?

does that include the roof and mast?

yeah, get schneb back in

oh and finally – WHO CARES? i think, without being rude, that once accustomed with all the videos, evidence, eye witness reports, the blatant ommission of ‘central columns’ by the 9/11 Commission, the shipping of the steel away from analysis, you would have to be a complete and utter retard to believe the official story.


R117821
4 years ago
whateveryousay

i’m still not entirely clear on that myself…
and the actual mechanics of the collapse are still rather mysterious.
nist, of course, doesn’t go there…they just point to “inevitable progressive collapse” (as if that’s a real repeatable phenomena) and stop their report at the onset of the collapse.

it’s seems to me that it may be useful to categorize the collapse of each tower as 4 or 5 or 6 distinct events in their own right:

  1. pre-collapse
  2. sudden onset of collapse
  3. falling down/over of the upper structure
  4. collapse / explosion of the middle
  5. collapse of the bottom
  6. collapse of the remaining core structures

side note:

i’ve been harbouring a theory for a while that multiple, essentially unconnected groups could have blown the building:

like if it was oem’s job to drop the tower straight down, like if it looked like it was going to fall over like a tree and crush the financial district for example. then maybe another group (of terrorists) with inside info would just have to nudge the structure enough to get them to push the self-destruct button.
...

one thing i find interesting about the video nark posted is the vacuum effect which can be seen on the lower right hand of the frame. a whole bunch of material is ejected to the right (pretty far) and then is just sort of sucked back into the center.

what is that?

do you think that it has something to do with the big heat plume which erupts in the top-right of the image? (watch for it again, it’s quite dramatic)
or is that something else going on?


R118043
4 years ago
Schneibster

So, are we using our X-ray vision to determine whether floors inside the building are falling or not? I’m assuming so, since it’s kinda covered up by the, you know, OUTSIDE OF THE BUILDING.

Maybe it’s just me.


R118048
4 years ago
Snark

His science stands on its own.

Is it peer-reviewed, then?

Post Modified: 01/24/06 17:58:59

R118062
4 years ago
Chickenma1

Steven E. Jones
This is from Wikipedia

Steven E. Jones, a professor of physics at Brigham Young University has investigated the hypothesis that the World Trade Center Twin Towers and WTC 7, which all collapsed nearly symmetrically on September 11, 2001, were brought down by pre-positioned explosives, as explained in his paper Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?. Jones appeared on the Tucker Carlson show on MSNBC to explain his hypothesis and is the first 9/11 researcher to have a paper peer reviewed. Although the term cold fusion was coined by Jones, his experimental work was significantly different than the more controversial cold fusion experiments of Pons and Fleischmann.

Post Modified: 01/24/06 19:08:33

R118064
4 years ago
Chickenma1

Snark, we have referenced two places that assert Jones’ paper has been peer reviewed. So yes, it has been peer reviewed.


R118065
4 years ago
Joe

“the first 9/11 researcher to have a paper peer reviewed”

Apprently he’s only submitted his paper to a publication called Research in Political Economy.


R118068
4 years ago
Joe

from the link I posted earlier:

“Professor Jones’s department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review. The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones.”


R118070
4 years ago
fennec

“Research in Political Economy has played a very positive role in developing the
scientific Marxist agenda for the last 25 years” — Ajit Sinha, Science & Society

I’m convinced.


R118102
4 years ago
Joe

heh.. I’m arguing about an obscure, unpublished article soon to be released in an obscurer marxist political publication, written by a cold fusion expert & mormon who believes science can prove Jesus’ existance in America. I need a girlfriend.

Post Modified: 01/24/06 21:05:54

R118108
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

It is not surprising that the college administration would not support Professor Jones’ theory.

What is being offered in response to the reaction by the institution is an article entitled BYU Professor Has Plenty of Company in the Academic Community, Including 60 Faculty Members from Two Utah Universities who Concur a Controlled Demolition Most Likely Brought Down the WTC and Further Investigation Is Needed

Jones did a presentation in front of 60 faculty members from BYU and Utah Valley State College, and he claims that, “after presenting scientific arguments in favor of the controlled demolition theory, that everyone in attendance from all backgrounds, conservative and liberal, were in total agreement further investigation was needed.”

Jones also said: “I was quite surprised how my conclusions were received,” and said he wanted to give more lectures telling the public how he came to his startling conclusions and said that “the contingent of faculty members at the September seminar were all in agreement that the government needed to come clean and release more that 6,900 photographs and close to 7,000 segments of video footage, now being held from independent investigation by the FBI and other agencies.

Now he does not have any names down and it does not look like he got any signatures, but here is a good place to begin. Obviously people are going to be reluctant to go public with their support, especially faculty members of BYU, since the administration has already distanced itself from Jones. So we are in the midst of a developing story.

I recommend that people read On the Trail of the Assassins, especially Chapter 13, entitled The Assault, to see how much flak District Attorney Jim Garrison had to endure, in the midst of his investigation of assassination of JFK. We are in the early stages of the 911 investigation.

Post Modified: 01/24/06 21:00:30

R118110
4 years ago
Chickenma1

Below is typical of newspaper coverage, respectful because of his standing as a noted physicist and conservative. (The disrespect he’s getting from this forum is, again, reminiscent of swift boat smeers.)

‘Physics prof backs WTC demolition theory’
Vermont Guardian
http://www.vermontguardian.com/dailies/112005/1122.shtml

In a paper posted online Nov. 7 and accepted for peer-reviewed publication next year, Brigham Young University (BYU) physics professor Steven E. Jones claims that the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings contradicts the official explanations and points to “pre-positioned explosives.”


R118112
4 years ago
Chickenma1

Joe, I don’t see Dr. Jones in your Political Economy link.

Post Modified: 01/24/06 21:07:54

R118120
4 years ago
Joe

“were in total agreement further investigation was needed.”

Big deal – I think further investigation is needed, and to me his paper looks like typical controlled demo crap.

“Joe, I don’t see Dr. Jones in your Political Economy link.”

I know, it may be because it’s not published. But if you bother to do the googling, that is the publication he says it’s being published in (same editor, date, etc). There is a link to the upcoming issue that’s supposed to be in, but I don’t see it listed. Maybe it’s not getting published after all? I don’t know.

Post Modified: 01/24/06 21:19:51

R118130
4 years ago
Continuity

Guys, enough with the ad hom about the Mormon guy.

Newton was an obsessed religious guy who invented complex mathematic formulas so as to further his studies into bible prophecy. He obviously developed amazing ideas about physics too, writing secretly later that his work suggested proof in the active and constant intervention of a supreme being, whom Newton absolutely believed in.

So maybe Newton was iffy about the religious stuff, but his science was quite valid. Therefore, talk about Jone’s science. Or do I have to bring up 40 other examples of how people can have questionable ideas in one area and yet produce entirely valid arguments in other areas?


R118131
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

Big deal – I think further investigation is needed, and to me his paper looks like typical controlled demo crap.

You are obviously hostile to the idea that explosives were used to bring down buildings 1, 2, and 7. Why do you bother with it? Rasputin said many months ago, not to you, but to somebody else, and others have said it also, if you don’t like the argument move on.

For others, who might be interested, take a look at the number of researchers, who are questioning the official account of 9-11, and you might be surprised how many of these suspect that explosives were used to bring the buildings down. And the list is not complete, there are others, such as former military officers Colonel DeGrand-Pre and Joel Skousen. Think about the attack, is it such a stretch to think that explosives were used in addition to the planes. They were used in Oklahoma and in the 1993 Trade Center attack.

Post Modified: 01/24/06 22:13:48

R118133
4 years ago
Joe

“Why do you bother with it?”

I’m stoned and bored. Sorry, I’ll take it somewhere else.

I found an interesting site though, http://www.911myths.com/

Maybe you should check it out, if it hasn’t been posted already (I hadn’t seen it before, it tackles some of the conspiracy theories).

Post Modified: 01/24/06 21:51:28

R118137
4 years ago
Continuity

Whateveryousay:

one thing i find interesting about the video nark posted is

A careful frame-by-frame view of that video shows WTC’s antenna plunge slightly before the rest of the building as a whole. Keep your eye on the line of the roof as a point of reference.

Which brings us back to page 1, full circle, where I said this phenomenon suggests that the core itself gave out all at once and probably first. The antenna sat atop the core, so it is worth watching as a gauge of at least some importance. It doesn’t prove a massive point, but it is interesting.

Post Modified: 01/24/06 21:58:36

R118173
4 years ago
Number5Toad

nice link Joe, some really interesting stuff on that site.


R118175
4 years ago
Joe

Yeah, I wish I’d found it YEARS AGO. ;-)

edit: just noticed that it mentioned my good friend Steven Jones

Post Modified: 01/24/06 23:45:20

R118177
4 years ago
Number5Toad

heh yeah, i have to admit to some ignorance on my own part after perousing that site…many things i took for granted turn out to be not such a big deal after all.

edit: noticed that too, mr. Jones seems to have been rather intellectually dishonest in his quoting practices.

Post Modified: 01/24/06 23:50:55

R118179
4 years ago
Shogo

That’s a great site Joe.

Unfortunately, it will mostly be read by eyes too fogged over with conspiracy nonsense to see.

Rather than admit that maybe their ignorant armchair analyses (based on the half-baked and ill-informed notions of others) are wrong, they’ll fight tooth and nail to defend their flimsily supported assertions.

Spewtin, Cuntingency, and Ms. Hippie-Chicken-Farmer/Demolitions-Expert will be unpersuaded, but I for one am glad to see such a nicely compiled and organized debunking of 9/11 hokum.

Post Modified: 01/25/06 00:13:29

R118183
4 years ago
Shogo

This is a good one:

Dr Asif Usmani, a structural engineer at the University of Edinburgh, proposed a new theory in 2003 suggesting that thermal expansion could have explained the collapse of the World Trade Centre towers ( http://technology.nzoom.com/technology_detail/0,1608,196263-113-380,00.html ). We’re not qualified to say whether he’s correct or not, but it’s an interesting idea, and as some time has passed since his original paper we decided to send him an email question or two:

Have the last two years left you more or less sure that your hypothesis was correct? And what has helped to confirm your opinion, or change your mind?

The following day, Dr Usmani replied. This is the full text of his response.

Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 11:33:13 +0000
From: Asif S Usmani
To: Mike Williams
Subject: Re: WTC Query

Dear Mike,

I and my students and co-workers have written a few more papers since the original FSJ paper and the conclusions derived from the FSJ paper have only been strengthened. In all our work our aim has simply been to understand how the WTC1&2 towers structural system would have responded to a large fire (ignoring any aircraft impact damage). Our computational analyses have repeatedly shown that it was possible for the towers to have collapsed simply because of a large fire of moderate temperatures (600-800C). Here large means in extent, i.e simultaneously over whole floors and over 3 or more stories (as was roughly the case on 9/11). Most analyses of the fire also show that the temperatures were not very high.

So the results of the analyses and the fact that the structure had sustained significant damage lead to a very strong case that the impact damage coupled with the subsequent fires were the only causes of collapse that rational minded people should need consider. The vertically downward collapse (which looks like a controlled demolition) is simply because once a large enough mass starts moving (accelerating because of gravity), it does not change direction unless met by a very large resisting force. The forces generated by a large moving mass are orders of magnitude larger than its weight (called dynamic amplification in engineering). Professor Bazant of Northwestern University (Illionois) explained this well in his paper soon after 9/11.

Behaviour of structures in general and structures in fire in particular is a complex and very specialist engineering mechanics field that requires years study and research to understand well. It is unlikely that any of the conspiracy theories emanate from people who understand these issues.

Our results were initially surprising to us as all our previous research had shown that in general steel frame structures respond very well to fire. 9/11 is the first ever and the only occasion when large steel structures collapsed mainly because of fire (and in case of the 46 storey WTC7 building, only because of fire). However, these structures were quite different from ones we had studied earlier and this was demonstrated by the analyses quite clearly.

Unfortunately structural design of structures to resist fire has been predicated entirely on “protecting” the structure from it, i.e. insulation. No attempt is made to quantify the response of the structure if subjected to fire. This is entirely different from how structures are designed to resist other loads, such as furniture/people, high winds, earthquakes etc. Protecting structures from fire in general leads to very conservative (over-safe) designs, but as no quatification of response is undertaken, no one really knows if a tall building is really safe from fire or not. This in my opinion
is a very dangerous practice and it is only good fortune that more large building failures have not occured because of fire.

I wish you success in your endeavours
Regards
Asif Usmani


R118185
4 years ago
Shogo

Sounds like the creator of that site has been reading GNN:

“Why spend so much effort on this, though?

Why do you ask? Oh, I know. It’s the old one where anyone who spends a lot of time promoting a particular 9/11 theory is A Fearless Seeker After Truth (even if their site is packed with “Donate” buttons and invitations for you to “buy the book/ DVD/ video”), but anyone who spends the same amount of time on the other side of the argument is A Government Shill/ Paid Disinformation Agent, right?”


R118186
4 years ago
Continuity

I did hit that site, and the first 9/11 issue I randomly read was about the FBI. What the site said was not fuzzy-whuzzy-not-exactly true, and suggests that the FBI was not selectively leashed before and after 9/11. Fucking around with a Palast quotation, which is slightly different than in his book, does not slam the FBI issue shut by any stretch. There were massive, plentiful controversies regarding the FBI and 9/11.

But I’m not about to judge based on only one item. I’m sure other articles are more persuasive.

Next, if some 9/11 stuff is crap, logically speaking, it doesn’t make all 9/11 stuff crap, even though Shogo would like it that way for reasons I still don’t understand.

Anyway, Shogo, thanks for coming out. Again.


R118187
4 years ago
Chickenma1

Shogo, I thought you were of the LIHOP persuasion. Looks like your site debunks a lot of that, too. While I don’t think their logic is all that impressive (though there was some good information), it does give weight to Schneib’s argument (and yours, I suppose – in fact this whole thread’s) that this explosives theory is not going to be a convincing smoking gun (though it certainly beats the pods and missiles stuff). However, there is no excuse for not reopening the issue and putting all the evidence on the table, which is all Jones is saying. And BTW, that wasn’t bin Laden in the mea culpa video, regardless of how hard your website tries to make us believe it is.


R118188
4 years ago
Number5Toad

Continuity: check out the stuff about the steel being “rushed” off-site, that was one item that flew in the face of what i beleived happened.

if some 9/11 stuff is crap, logically speaking, it doesntt make all 9/11 stuff crap

i’m in total agreement with that statement. the problems arise from confusing crap for non-crap, and vice-versa.

Shogo would like it that way for reasons I still dontt understand

unless i’m drastically mistaken, Shogo, like myself, sees many facets of 9/11 which could easily be used against its architects going ignored in favor of much less tangible postulations.

I thought you were of the LIHOP persuasion. Looks like your site debunks a lot of that, too

if you read the mission statement, he clearly states that he’s not interested in taking sides nor in presenting another theory. his purpose is to add often overlooked (and in some cases deliberately removed) information to the debate, and i applaud him for it.

my beliefs aren’t set in stone, so they aren’t in danger.

that wasn’t bin Laden in the mea culpa video, regardless of how hard your website tries to make us believe it is

ok, first off it’s not the personal website of anyone in this thread. second, do you have proof? he offers some thought provoking material that suggests it might have been. i pretty much would have agreed with you before that website forced me to compare two different screenshots from the same tape.

Post Modified: 01/25/06 00:49:03

R118193
4 years ago
Number5Toad

from the FAQ

I began to realise that, despite the many claims of “finding the truth”, that’s not what most people really wanted to do. They thought they knew the truth already, and were simply seeking to prove it. As such they’d collect stories that seem to prove what they already believe, and republish them, without making any checks at all.

So I decided to begin looking into these claims for myself, and began to realise just how big this problem was. I found many stories that were entirely false, others distorted, more that left out important information. Soon I’d amassed a library of rarely heard qualifications to the usual conspiracy claims, more than I’d seen anywhere else, and eventually I decided this needed to be shared with others. And so here it is.

Post Modified: 01/25/06 00:54:03

R118195
4 years ago
Chickenma1

“if you read the mission statement, he clearly states that he’s not interested in taking sides. “

Who he? Shogo has a mission statement? Anyway, we’ve all said that at one point or another.


R118198
4 years ago
Number5Toad

do i really have to repost myself??

ok, first off it’s not the personal website of anyone in this thread

Post Modified: 01/25/06 01:26:20

R118215
4 years ago
whateveryousay

so jones is a “scientific-marxist-mormon”?!
that’s great!
are there more of them?


R118216
4 years ago
whateveryousay

asif usmani should be reminded that wtc7 had 47 floors not 46.
i’m sure it’s just a typo though.

the 911myths site is interesting and all, and i’m sure i’ll check it out a bit more. it’s a bit “car-sales-man-like” in it’s presentation. sort of, “hey, there’s another take on it…” all the time but not bothering to actually research its claims in a meaningful way.

for example:

Let’s also not forget … the explosion reports are spread from (just before) impact right up to the collapse itself. Is it characteristic of controlled demolition to set of bombs apparently randomly over about an hour? Or does it make more sense to believe that accounts of explosions some time before collapse were related to impact damage, the fire, fractured gas mains or whatever?

it just insinuates that explosion reports are equally distributed at random across the timeline and makes no attempt to quantify reports. it asks if observed events are “characteristic” of a building demolition… it’s a bit like asking if flight 11 made a “characteristic landing” into the tower.
but yeah, maybe it wasn’t bombs it was just “fractured gas mains or whatever” as the author suggests. (remembering of course that there were no gas lines)


R118218
4 years ago
zark

??So, are we using our X-ray vision to determine whether floors inside the building are falling or not? I’m assuming so, since it’s kinda covered up by the, you know, OUTSIDE OF THE BUILDING??

hahhaha from the person who claims that jet fuel dropped down the elevator shafts. thats brill schneb.

are you suggesting that ‘floors falling hidden from view’ damaged the central columns and then caused the roof and mast to fall?


R118219
4 years ago
whateveryousay

A careful frame-by-frame view of that video shows WTC’s antenna plunge slightly before the rest of the building as a whole. Keep your eye on the line of the roof as a point of reference. —cont

i’m not totally convinced on that point. look to me like it could be the whole top (antenna included) tilting to the south slightly before falling… hard for me to say one way or the other, it’s all split-second enough to be on the level of simultaneous.

that said, i would like to see some theoretical models (animations) which cover what may be going on behind the façade. with or without bombs.

Post Modified: 01/25/06 05:51:03

R118241
4 years ago
Shogo

While I don’t think their logic is all that impressive

It’s OK ChickenLady, I don’t think your illogic is all that impressive either.


R118242
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

Like I said, take a look at the list of people researching 911

3.1 9/11 Family Steering Committee
3.2 Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed
3.3 James Bamford
3.4 Robert Bowman
3.5 Kristin Breitweiser
3.6 Andreas von Bülow
3.7 Michel Chossudovsky
3.8 Tom Flocco
3.9 David Ray Griffin
3.10 Rodger Herbst
3.11 Jim Hoffman
3.12 Daniel Hopsicker
3.13 Jared Israel
3.14 Alex Jones
3.15 Steven E. Jones
3.16 John Judge
3.17 Peter Lance
3.18 Jim Marrs
3.19 Michael Meacher
3.20 Peter Meyer
3.21 Thierry Meyssan
3.22 Don Paul
3.23 Michael C. Ruppert
3.24 Peter Dale Scott
3.25 Webster G. Tarpley
3.26 Paul Thompson
3.27 Barrie Zwicker

As I said above, this list is not complete, and also, this particular list does not include everybody or group, who has a website, although Wikipedia does provide a list of sites.

I don’t think you have to worry about us. We are not children. We are capable of distinguishing between what is serious research and what is not.

The attack on the World Trade Center was pretty far out to begin with, it is not such a stretch to add explosives to the scenario. What about the oral histories? They are quite extensive aren’t they? Evidence of bombs in the lobby, the Rodriguez story, do we just ignore these? How many firemen told about explosions? How many more firemen would have been able to tell what they saw, if over 300 of them did not die on 9-11?

Remember explosives were used in Oklahoma and in the 93 attack on the WTC. There is nothing far out about explosives, after all whoever is responsible for the attack on 911 used airplanes to fly into the buildings, that is more far out than using explosives.

Take a look at Alex Jones’ Road to Tyranny and watch the newscasts from Oklahoma. There were many reports of other explosions. There are just some things that the perpetrators cannot control. Same thing happened in NYC on 9-11. How many reports of explosions were there right there that day on television?

How much evidence is the government sitting on? How many video segments? How many pictures? Wouldn’t it be interesting if demolitions experts could have a look at these?

Post Modified: 01/25/06 08:12:04

R118253
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

Explosive Testimony: Revelations about the Twin Towers in the 9/11 Oral Histories

In June of 2002, NBC television played segments from tapes recorded on 9/11. One segment contained the following exchange, which involved firefighters in the south tower:

Official: Battalion 3 to dispatch, we’ve just had another explosion.
Official: Battalion 3 to dispatch, we’ve had additional explosion.
Dispatcher: Received battalion command. Additional explosion.11

Routine evidence, which has not been explained.

Post Modified: 01/25/06 08:44:12

R118256
4 years ago
Shogo

Alex Jones is a conspiracy nutter.


R118257
4 years ago
Shogo

There is nothing far out about explosives

You obviously haven’t even read anything that challenges your preconceived notions.


R118259
4 years ago
Shogo

Nutcaseman, Dr. Usmani is only about a million times more qualified than Alex Jones.


R118260
4 years ago
Shogo

3.21 Thierry Meyssan

LOLOLOLOL

The same fucking tool that thinks a missile hit the Pentagon!

SWEEET

Your list has just about every foil-hatted nutter out there. I notice you forgot David Icke, better add him to the list too.


R118273
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

The author of the article I cited above Explosive Testimony: Revelations about the Twin Towers in the 911 Oral Histories is David Ray Griffin. Here is a video taken from Confronting the Evidence, in which Griffin talks about the omissions from the 911 Investigation by the 911 Commission. See for yourself. Is Griffin a conspiracy nutter?


R118281
4 years ago
Shogo

“David Ray Griffin (b. 1939) was a professor of philosophy of religion”

Clearly that makes him an expert on demolitions!


R118282
4 years ago
Shogo

Seriously Nutcaseman, you guys got nothing but innuendo and conjecture. It’s pretty classic conspiracy bullshit. Just like the fake moon landing story, and any number of other batshit-zany conspiracy theories.


R118293
4 years ago
Briefcaseman

I found an interesting site though, http://www.911myths.com/

I did a who is search on this site. The site is registered to 15111 N Hayden Rd. Suite 160 PMB353 Scottsdale AZ 85260 US …

I then came across this page which I found interesting. The British Army Intelligence Corps website and name has been taken over by a former British agent.


R118298
4 years ago
Schneibster

One thing that the conspiracy theories all have in common is that they take a foregone conclusion, that CD occurred, and cherry-pick evidence to support that contention while ignoring evidence that contradicts it. That modus operandi seems eerily familiar looking at this thread…

Maybe it’s just me.


R118311
4 years ago
Shogo

Nutcaseman, have you always been such a goddamn moron?

That address is for a company called Domains By Proxy, not British Intelligence. Domains By Proxy is a reseller of domain registration services (you can tell by the name, you see).

The British Intelligence domain was registered with Global Registration Services, which is a UK-based domain registrar.

The 911myths.com domain name was registered with dynonames.com, a company that sells $1.99 domain registrations.

All that information can be easily found via WHOIS.

Post Modified: 01/25/06 11:22:35

R118320
4 years ago
Chickenma1

“One thing that the conspiracy theories all have in common is that they take a foregone conclusion, that CD occurred, and cherry-pick evidence to support that contention while ignoring evidence that contradicts it. That modus operandi seems eerily familiar looking at this thread…”

Not at all. The side against explosives has argued that since it’s possible that the buildings fell down without explosives, then that has to be what happened – they have tried to prove the possibility with some success. The side for explosives has cited unlikelihoods and anomalies that are not explained by the ‘it is mathematically possible that three buildings just fell down’ scenario that the first side proposes. Citing those anomalies and unlikelihoods is not “cherry-picking”, nor does evidence for a possible no-CD scenario contradict other possible scenarios.


R118323
4 years ago
Number5Toad

not bothering to actually research its claims in a meaningful way

funny that the entire site is built on that same premise as applied to the conspiracy websites. he’s dispelled or at least strongly discredited a number of the popular theories with a simple google search, something most websites have failed to do.

also, if you bother to read the FAQ, he very clearly urges you to fact check his own statements, saying that none of them should be considered conclusive – a far cry from the kind of this evidence clearly proves blah blah statements you find on the conspiracy sites.


R118325
4 years ago
Briefcaseman

I feel that this thread is being rundown by such agents that’s all. Feel free to call me what you will, and I’m sure it can get worse, but there is no reason for a site like that to exist with no option whatsoever to contact them.

My favorite part though is this…

Pah! Plainly you’re just a shill/ Government stooge/ neo-con/ psyops site.

Yawn. Yes, I’ve heard that before, usually because it’s much easier to smear people than dealing with the points they’re making. But hey, if you believe that, then run along now, it’s fine with me. There are plenty of other 9/11 sites that will tell you what you want to hear, and never even think of challenging any of your views.

Post Modified: 01/25/06 12:03:21

R118327
4 years ago
Number5Toad

there is no reason for a site like that to exist with no option whatsoever to contact them

read the goddamn FAQ people.

right at the top, there’s a link where you can email the site’s owner.

he also invites you to compile your own evidence and send it to him.

it is mathematically possible that three buildings just fell down

oh man…what a misrepresentation…swift boat tactics i think you called it?

a better summary would be “it’s not hard to imagine that an impact at 500+ mph, followed by jet fuel fires, followed by debris fires, could weaken the steel-based core of the buildings enough to knock them down”


R118330
4 years ago
Chickenma1

I said three buildings – and there’s that cherry-picking, ie. addressing two when I clearly said three.

BTW, many of my posts are meant to be conciliatory, but you’re too riled up to see it – this is the first time I’ve granted some credence to your side’s math, but it all still seems unlikely to me and doesn’t negate other scenarios, which is all I said. Hardly a swift boat smear.


R118335
4 years ago
Chickenma1

BTW, Rasputin started this thread – whatever happened to him?


R118339
4 years ago
Number5Toad

if i’m riled up, it’s because people are ignoring lots of plain and simple facts. whether this is willful ignorance or just plain ignorance is up for debate.

yes, i did deliberately refer to two buildings and not three – because pretty much all of us on what you call “my side” of this argument have conceeded in the past that WTC7 is pretty suspect, also because your claim that “our side” claims that two of those buildings “just fell down“ is cherry picking in its own right.

i find it hard to believe that you’re trying to be concillatory and not inflammatory when you use that kind of language…seems to be pretty specifically designed to get a reaction to me. consider that this follows closely on your assuming Shogo was responsible for the website we’re discussing now, and persisting in that assumption even after it was demonstrated to be false…and yeah, i’m a little riled up.

congrats, it’s hard to get me that ruffled.

Rasputin sadly retired from GNN some months ago.

Post Modified: 01/25/06 12:25:33

R118348
4 years ago
Chickenma1

OK, my apologies. We seem to have miscommunicated at this juncture:

“Shogo, I thought you were of the LIHOP persuasion. Looks like your site debunks a lot of that, too. While I don’t think their logic is all that impressive (though there was some good information), it does give weight to Schneib’s argument (and yours, I suppose – in fact this whole thread’s) that this explosives theory is not going to be a convincing smoking gun (though it certainly beats the pods and missiles stuff). “

By “your site” I meant Joe’s linked site which Shogo had referred to and then I said something I considered conciliatory, ie. that there probably wasn’t a smoking gun in the explosives argument. I was not impressed with the site in part because they try to debunk all arguments, even LIHOP arguments, and I wondered how Shogo felt about that. Your response about the ‘he’ of the site having a mission statement seemed like you hadn’t accurately read what I’d said. I’m sorry if I was snide about it as it seems like what I wrote may have been confusing.


R118349
4 years ago
Shogo

I feel that this thread is being rundown by such agents that’s all.

I’m sure you do.

That’s why I call you Nutcaseman.


R118350
4 years ago
Shogo

because pretty much all of us on what you call “my side” of this argument have conceeded in the past that WTC7 is pretty suspect

the 911myths guy deals with that one pretty well, too, IMO.

Post Modified: 01/25/06 13:14:41

R118351
4 years ago
Number5Toad

fair enough. i gladly accept your apology, and humbly offer my own for being needlessly snide in return.

i actually want to say a lot more on this but i don’t have the time right now, i’m going to come back to this thread later. thank you, Chickenma, for having the decency and honesty to make your above post.


R118352
4 years ago
Joe

speaking of wtc 7, I found this pdf last night that I found kind of interesting – it has a bunch of stuff on the collapse, including some pics I hadn’t seen before.

Appendix L


R118356
4 years ago
Shogo

Interesting find Joe. You paid government disinfo shill, you!


R118358
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

How much time you guys spent on this thread? Have you read everything, for example, on this thread?


R118359
4 years ago
Shogo

I’ve read every variation of the conspiracy nonsense that there is to read. It’s all based on three-things: conjecture, dubious ear-witness testimony, and ignorance.


R118360
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

I know you’ve been involved, what about Joe and Number 5?


R118362
4 years ago
Joe

I’ve followed the thread, but can’t be sure that I read everything. It’s eight months long. It’s not the first time I’ve argued about it though.

Post Modified: 01/25/06 13:48:01

R118365
4 years ago
Chickenma1

Great stuff, Joe!


R118368
4 years ago
whateveryousay

these? How many firemen told about explosions? —suit

in the oral histories alone, about 50. in an unambiguous way regarding the collapses specifically.
there’s more on top of that which don’t deal with the collapses specifically or can be a bit more ambiguous in interpretation.

funny that the entire site is built on that same premise as applied to the conspiracy web-sites. —toad

well yeah. funny. or maybe, just, dumb.
if his site is really just a testament to lazy half-assed research then his conclusions could at least be a bit more entertaining

he’s dispelled or at least strongly discredited a number of the popular theories with a simple google search, something most websites have failed to do. —toad

“most” websites? well…
“good” websites haven’t failed to do so and have featured quite heavily the discussions of how dis-info and dubious myths detract attention from real issues.

i don’t see how the 911myths does much more than make the waters cloudier and add more myths by utilizing the very methods it supposedly critiques. adding a “maybe” or a “perhaps” or an “actually i don’t care” faq is hardly an excuse.


R118383
4 years ago
Schneibster

about 50

That would be, 50 firemen who used the word “explosion” to describe loud percussive noises or clouds of dust and flying debris, no matter how it was otherwise qualified in their statements (“sounded like explosions,” “looked like explosions,” “thought at first it was explosions,” without including the later statements like, “but of course, now I realize/know/found out that…” Cherries, anyone?). This is precisely the point: produce fifty links to testimony that these WERE explosions, not MIGHT HAVE BEEN explosions, not SOUNDED LIKE explosions, not “I THOUGHT they were explosions at the time, but…”

You can’t. Yet, you claim it, based on statements that contain the word explosion, whether it is actually a claim that there were demoloition explosives involved or not. That’s cherry-picking.


R118386
4 years ago
Shogo

Arguing with conspiracy nutters is like trying to teach algebra to dogturds.


R118413
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

Joe, I guess you have been in on this thread here and there, Number 5, I don’t think he has, but just curious, cause there has been quite a bit of discussion about the Popular Mechanics article. So, nothing new really with this other site you put up.


R118417
4 years ago
Schneibster

Arguing with conspiracy nutters is like trying to teach algebra to dogturds

Yep.


R118419
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

Oh great, we’re stuck with the two guys with reputations.

Post Modified: 01/25/06 17:09:43

R118423
4 years ago
Schneibster

I guess I’d rather have a reputation for being an asshole than one for being a liar.


R118424
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

Part of your reputation is that if people do not agree with you, you start calling them names and swearing at them.


R118428
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

Does this sound like people who are unsure of what they are claiming?

Firefighter Louie Cacchioli, who was quoted earlier, testified in 2004 to members of the Commission’s staff. But, he reported, they were so unreceptive that he ended up walking out in anger. “I felt like I was being put on trial in a court room,” said Cacchioli. “They were trying to twist my words and make the story fit only what they wanted to hear. All I wanted to do was tell the truth and when they wouldn’t let me do that, I walked out.”58

That Cacchioli’s experience was not atypical is suggested by janitor William Rodriguez, whose testimony was also quoted earlier. Although Rodriguez was invited to the White House as a National Hero for his rescue efforts on 9/11, he was, he said, treated quite differently by the Commission: “I met with the 9/11 Commission behind closed doors and they essentially discounted everything I said regarding the use of explosives to bring down the north tower.”59

source


R118431
4 years ago
Continuity

One thing that the conspiracy theories all have in common is that they take a foregone conclusion, that CD occurred, and cherry-pick evidence to support that contention while ignoring evidence that contradicts it

I think Chickenma made an adequate and succinct reply to Schneibster’s charge, but I’d also add that earlier in the thread Schn said WTC7 was demolished because it contained damning & critical information. He offered no proof of that, mind you. He just said that’s what happened. Then he changed his story after looking at an article.

I don’t care at all about any conclusions or theories at this point. Shogo’s rhetoric — and let’s face it, it’s pure ad hom rhetoric, with aimless attempts at character assassination — is just as tiring as a poster who expounds about an elaborate conspiracy, the details of which they don’t really have or need to know.

All that said, no one has convinced me that all these anomalies have been properly explained.

Post Modified: 01/25/06 17:22:12

R118435
4 years ago
Joe

“Does this sound like people who are unsure of what they are claiming?”
“Firefighter Louie Cacchioli”

Found at 911myths.com

from Arctic Beacon

excerpt:

“Four years later, Cacchioli hasn’t talked much about the nightmare he lived on 9/11. First, he really didn’t want to talk about. Next, he got tired of having his words twisted by the 9/11 Commission and finally, the New York media basically never sought him out to get the true account of what he saw and heard in the north tower right before the building collapsed.

Originally, on September 12, 2001, People Magazine ran a few short paragraphs about the 20-year veteran New York fireman hearing what sounded like bombs exploding in the north tower.

Short and sweet, that was it. A few short words about bombs exploding, but words that were repeated over and over again in story after story by writers and broadcasters who never even bothered to talk to him in the first place.

Furthermore, Cacchioli was upset that People Magazine misquoted him, saying ‘there were bombs‘ in the building when all he said was he heard ‘what sounded like bombs‘ without having definitive proof bombs were actually detonated.”

Cacchioli at one point describes a series of “huge bangs”, and says he later figured out it was the floors “pan caking.”

Post Modified: 01/25/06 17:27:23

R118437
4 years ago
Joe

“Although Rodriguez was invited to the White House as a National Hero for his rescue efforts on 9/11, he was, he said, treated quite differently by the Commission: “I met with the 9/11 Commission behind closed doors and they essentially discounted everything I said regarding the use of explosives to bring down the north tower.”59”

911myths.com also looks at Rodriguez’s story.


R118448
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

Yes, I recall that now, the 911 websites say he strangely changed his story. He was pancakes all of a sudden. I wonder why? But caught watching something right now, it is good to look at these. Mark Lane’s Rush to Judgment years ago down in Dallas interviewing people who saw the shot from the grassy knoll, about the fifth person he interviewed or so said yes to Mr. Lane, I thought the shot came from the grassy knoll, Lane asked what do you think now? and he said I guess it came from the Book Depository, and Lane asked why he thought that, and he said , well that’s what those Warren Commission people said, they said it came from the Depository.


R118469
4 years ago
Joe

His story’s there – a twenty year vet of the fire department, in the midst of it all, says he heard what sounded like bombs & explosions, but doesn’t give any indication that he actually thinks there were bombs planted, and he was quite upset when he was widely quoted as saying so. Bombs were undoubtedly in his mind during the rescue attempt, as it was a terrorist attack, and he was a fireman when terrorists bombed the building in 1993.

His story didn’t change – he was misquoted.


R118476
4 years ago
Chickenma1

Toad, I really wasn’t trying to be inflammatory by saying the buildings “just fell down.” The reason I’ve engaged in this thread is because I remember staring at the TV on 9/11, watching the buildings burn and people jump. Then suddenly, the buildings ‘just fell down’. We all saw it – I don’t know how else to put it. So my question, after I calmed down enough to think about it, was how is that possible? (Which is what this thread is about – not whether they fell down, but how is that possible?) It did look like a planned demolition, especially when the third building went down in a similar way. I’m speaking now about what I saw at the time that has motivated me to find out more.

Initially, I bought everything as everyone else did, and prayed Bush would suddenly mature and step up to the plate. (I even put a flag in my yard, a little one at Kwan Yin’s feet in my garden.) My suspicions about an inside job came later, from what I can only call weird behavior from the Executive.

It seems we’re almost all at least LIHOP here, so LIHOPs are arguing with MIHOPs. The goal for me was to find the smoking gun of an inside job that I could use to convince those that were not yet on board with even a LIHOP perspective.

Schneib said early on that this discussion wouldn’t produce that smoking gun and I guess he’s right. What with impeachment and doom looming for other reasons, 9/11 has perhaps even lost some of its importance. But it’s been an interesting and informative discussion.


R118482
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

Joe, did you read that story. Amazing. Sounds like explosives to me. And sounds like the 911 Commission did not want to hear about it. He knows what happened that day and he knows the whole truth has not come out yet.

When he finally entered the North Tower 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.

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.

“I somehow got into the stairwell and there were more people there. When I began to try and direct down, 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.

“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 there 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 falling 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.

Cacchioli was called to testify privately, but walked out on several members of the committee before they finished, feeling like he was being interrogated and cross-examined rather than simply allowed to tell the truth about what occurred in the north tower on 9/11.

“My story was never mentioned in the final report and I felt like I was being put on trial in a court room,” said Cacchioli. “I finally walked out. They were trying to twist my words and make the story fit only what they wanted to hear. All I wanted to do was tell the truth and when they wouldn’t let me do that, I walked out.

“It was a disgrace to everyone, the victims and the family members who lost loved ones. I don’t agree with the 9/11 Commission. The whole experience was terrible.”

“Nobody has bothered me. I don’t think I should be bothered. I know what happened that day and I know the whole truth hasn’t come out yet. I have my own conscience, my own mind and no one, I mean no one, is going to force Lou Cacchioli to say something that didn’t happen and wasn’t the truth.”

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

Post Modified: 01/25/06 22:58:08

R118485
4 years ago
Joe

So even though he said he didn’t believe there were bombs in the building, you believe he believes there were bombs in the building?

Post Modified: 01/25/06 20:32:01

R118492
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

Just take a look at the title, plus some real contradictions in the story. He tried to tell the Commission about explosives, he said the whole truth has not come out.

And, you can’t be at the level of the 23rd floor of the North Tower hearing floors pancake. It is too early.

When Cacchioli entered the 23rd floor, he found a “little man” 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 descent 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.

Post Modified: 01/25/06 20:46:59

R118496
4 years ago
Shogo

Seriously Nutcaseman, you guys got nothing but innuendo and conjecture.


R118497
4 years ago
Schneibster

I’d still rather have a reputation as an asshole than as a liar.


R118502
4 years ago
fennec


R118507
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

It has been three months since we have seen a cat.


R118511
4 years ago
Number5Toad

Suitcaseman: i’ve followed this thread since the beginning, alternating between following it really closely and ignoring it alltogether. i haven’t read every post in the thread, but i find it hard to believe anything’s been presented here that i haven’t read and examined elsewhere, on this site and others. i have participated, to some extent, mostly in the last two pages.

i’ve participated in countless discussions about 9/11 here and elsewhere as well.

good websites haven’t failed to do so

then, please point me to a “good” website. i’ve followed links presented in this thread in the past and found many of the same lazy conclusions 911myths is discrediting. for example, the whole issue of steel being rushed away from the crash site. i’d heard it so many times that i assumed it was true, even ignoring what i saw with my own eyes at ground zero almost a year later – a giant cross built out of two of the destroyed support beams standing where the towers used to. even GNN and True Lies wrote about the failure of fighter jets to intercept any of the flights and reached conclusions that 911myths discredits. is GNN not a “good” site?

dis-info and dubious myths detract attention from real issues

heh, meanwhile discussing missiles at the pentagon, pods on airplanes, remote controlled airplanes, etc.

i’ve said it before and i’ll repeat myself here – to me, controlled demolition at the WTC is one of those dubious myths. there are at least a dozen issues that can be easily proven without the aid of grainy photographs and questionable testimony. for example, nobody can deny that the chief of pakistan’s ISI was identified as the money man behind 9/11 and was casually dining with Bush administration officials that same morning. we could, and SHOULD be demanding answers about that little soiree instead of debating about what a squib is or is not. the mere fact that we can spend months presenting evidence and counter evidence about this one issue makes it damn near useless as a “smoking gun” – Ahmad’s presence in DC on the morning of 9/11 is a matter of public record.

if his site is really just a testament to lazy half-assed research then his conclusions could at least be a bit more entertaining

i’m truly sorry it doesn’t entertain you. i think the point, tho, was less about keeping people amused and more about pointing out just how sloppy the independant investigations into 9/11 have been up to this point.

and again, the site’s author urges you to fact check his own fact checking if you disagree – which pretty much no other website that claims to know WHAT REALLY HAPPENED does.

Chickenma: again, thanks for clarifying, and again i’m sorry for being short with you. i was watching in horror on 9/11 too, because i had a friend who worked at the south tower and an uncle who worked at the pentagon. neither made it out. my uncle, i’m told, died trying to help people out…terrible as it sounds, i never bought that explanation. it always sounded like something we were just told to gloss over the reality of him being blown to pieces where he sat.

i wasn’t half as close to my uncle as i was to my friend at the south tower. my uncle mike was in the military his whole life, and jumped right into pentagon work when he left active service. the most i ever talked to him was when he’d call me about once a year to try and talk me into joining up because of my background in martial arts. this may sound callous – but he was a member of the military, at a military installation, so in my mind, he was fair game as far as targets go. my friend thomas in NYC, however, was a janitor, a civilian, and struggling to feed himself and his son. i can accept mike’s death but i’ll never accept what happened to thomas.

it’s hard to discuss this in a rational manner for pretty much everyone. we’ve all got some emotional connection to what happened that morning. the reactions of most of us here are different from the reactions of the rest of the country, however – we want to know what happened and why. it’s disheartening to me to see so much effort put into fruitless endeavors, and even moreso to see it put into fighting amongst ourselves.

i’m quite sure there are things we can all agree on and focus on in an effort to make a change or to bring the real culprits to justice. i respectfully submit that we find that common ground instead of spending another 8 months in this thread.

Post Modified: 01/25/06 22:23:08

No comments:

Post a Comment