Wednesday, January 6, 2010

Former Bush Team Member Says WTC Collapse Likely A Controlled Demolition - Part 6

R118514
4 years ago
whitey

It’s not even 2000 posts yet.


R118515
4 years ago
whateveryousay

That would be, 50 firemen who used the word “explosion” to describe loud percussive noises or clouds of dust and flying debris —schneibtard

no. you are way off. nice try though.
it’s about 50 personal accounts of explosions preceding or during the collapses. a number of people don’t actually say “explosion” at all, rather they just describe what they experienced with other words.

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?

don’t try to pretend that firemen/ems live in some kind of political vacuum. everybody knows the official story.
that your personal memories don’t add up with the official story isn’t so weird, you just tell it like you remember, and the bits that don’t add up with the whole official account, you just qualify with: “but i later learned that must have been…”, or “later i was told…”, or “but now we all know that…”, or whatever.

to quote the ‘audio article’:

The official dogma of what actually happened doesn’t leave any room for there to be any explosions during the collapse of the towers.. It is interesting to note that many of the accounts acknowledge the official story with something to the effect of, “we heard, saw, and felt explosions but given the official version of events I guess that it must have been something else”.

For example:

I should say that people in the street and myself included thought that the roar was so loud that the explosive – bombs were going off inside the building. Obviously we were later proved wrong. ... As I said I thought the terrorists planted explosives somewhere in the building. That’s how loud it was, crackling explosive, a wall. That’s about it. Any questions?

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER JAMES DRURY Interview Date: October 16, 2001

link

it’s silly for you to go on about “sounded-like” / “looked-like” language as if it’s really changing what people are describing. and besides, often times explosions sound-like and look-like explosions. you can talk about specific cases or you can stfu.

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.

that’s a straw-man argument, and you’ve proved that you don’t know what you are talking about.

Post Modified: 01/25/06 22:50:39

R118517
4 years ago
fennec

It’s not even 2000 posts yet.

Fucking weak…I am trying to do my part.

Post Modified: 01/25/06 22:45:30

R118522
4 years ago
whateveryousay

here’s another (of many):

It was weird how it started to come down. It looked like it was a timed explosion, but I guess it was just the floors starting to pancake one on top of the other.

BATTALION CHIEF DOMINICK DeRUBBIO I n t e r v i e w D a t e : O c t o b e r 1 2 , 2 0 0 1

link

the Battalion Chief here remembers what he saw and what was weird about it, and he just tries to harmonize it with the official “pancake” explanation. perfectly normal.
i saw a green goat, i’m sure, but if everybody says it was pink elephant then i guess it must have been a pink elephant.


R118524
4 years ago
Schneibster

And that would be the third or fourth story I have heard about someone who made statements of the precise type you are repeating here, and later said that they regretted ever saying anything; no doubt they’re tired of being chased around by kooks with foil hats. Like you, for example.


R118528
4 years ago
whateveryousay

And that would be the third or fourth story I have heard —schneibtard

uh huh.

who made statements of the precise type you are repeating here —tardster

go on, i’m very interested in this precision your talking about (yawn)

and later said that they regretted ever saying anything —fucktard

regret… let’s see. no.
oh wait
i get it. you’re actually just saying nothing and without substance

no doubt they’re tired of being chased around by kooks with foil hats. Like you, for example. —schneibwit

no doubt the chicago cubs gang-raped your eye-sockets


R118537
4 years ago
whateveryousay

oh. how rude of me.
never mind.

anyway. i checked out the nist report (appendix L in progress) that joe posted.

it’s inconclusive as to causes of course but it’s got lots of info.
but i don’t think they had access to all the plans and drawings and info they needed:

The framing and roof reinforcement for the east penthouse and the mechanical equipment screenwall are not available at this time. Layout of these areas has been determined from photographs, as shown in Fig. L–16.

regarding their conclusions,

Many factors and structural components may have contributed to the start of the collapse, but there must have been an initiating event. After the collapse initiated, it progressed to other parts of the building, leading to their failure as well. emphasis mine.

it should be noted the conspicuous absence any timing of the actual collapse. good thing too, because keeping in mind the free fall time of collapse might make their hypothesis much less plausible.
they do time events from first observed movement of the penthouse, up to the time of the “global collapse” initiation… but there’s not a peep about how long it took the top of the building to reach the ground.

this is about as close as they get:

The horizontal progression requires further analysis and investigation, but observations indicate that the remaining core columns appeared to fail almost simultaneously, approximately 5 second after the east penthouse failed.

one other thing:

The working hypothesis, for the collapse of the 47-story WTC 7, if it holds up upon further analysis, would suggest that it was a classic progressive collapse...

heh.
classic.
it’s generally understood, that a “classic progressive collapse” only happens from a careful explosive demo job.


R118583
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

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.

Number 5,

Obviously I disagree with your statement that explosives at the WTC is a dubious myth, if there is such a thing as a dubious myth. It is amazing how many comparisons can be drawn between 9-11 and the assassination of JFK. I urge people, if they have not already seen it, to get the director’s cut of JFK, it is amazing. For example, originally people thought one shooter three bullets, turned out there were a few other bullets, that had not been accounted for, and it is easy to see today that there were more than three. But that is for people, who dig a little for information. I can follow your thinking, about the issues, and I understand what you are saying, but as far as getting anywhere with the Pakistani connection, in my opinion, that will never bring the 9-11 plotters to justice. I strongly urge people to read Jim Garrison’s On the Trail of the Assassins, or watch the director’s cut of JFK, or watch the Garrison Tapes, to find out how this rogue element, as Webster Tarpley calls them, operates. There are too many levels of deception. Underneath it all, it is very simple, a secret organization murdered JFK, and carried out the 9-11 plot. How far do you think you can get with the Pakistani connection and what would be the significance of bringing it up, since it has been talked about all over the place? Same thing with the war games. So, one day the military says, ok, for national security reasons we did not want to talk about it, but yes we had war games on 911, and guess what, they mixed us all up, and we could not tell the difference between blips on the radar, did not know which was which, which was hijacked as part of the drill, or which was actually hijacked.

The information that tells us the Saudis were funding the terrorists we have right in front of us. Why doesn’t it do anything? Because the negligence theory is always going to be a defense. We carried on our relationship with the mujahadeen too long, maybe we should have severed those connections, maybe we should not have let the Saudis have that software (Promis), the intelligence agencies were not communicating with each other, there are always going to be the same excuses. If you can’t get them on the big stuff, you won’t get them at all.

Saudi terrorists were coming in and out of the country, even though they were on watchlists. Look at the last couple of days. A general gets up there to repeat what Bush has been saying about the need for the NSA to spy on the terrorists, and says if we would have been doing this before 911, we would have identified some of the hijackers. OK. That sounds great, but the fact is, they were spying on the terrorists with Echelon and they did identify the hijackers and still the attack happened. That is the part of the plot that you want to emphasize, if you can.

How did the terrorists move in and out of the country? We know that many of the visas were issued at Jeddah, we even know who issued them. BTW, that leads me to websites, 911Truth.org is an outstanding website, no doubt about it, can’t go wrong there.

Look. It is most likely that this 911 plotters will never be prosecuted. It is just a fact of life. These people are just too powerful, and they do not leave anything to chance. Plus they have control of everything, for example, thousands of photos and videos and the black boxes. Our greatest resource is our people. The guy in Jeddah, who said his superiors told him to issue visas to known terrorists, the woman, who worked for J.P Morgan, who came across the Promis software, the colonel, who knew the pilot, who shot down flight 93, the people, who saw the other plane in Shanksville, the janitor, who was in the midst of explosions in the WTC, the fireman, who said that they were told to keep their mouths shut about explosives, that is what is going to break this story, not an SEC investigation of the purchase of put options before 911.

Post Modified: 01/26/06 08:50:52

R118587
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

What was it Senator Russell Long told Jim Garrison, I would get together the top one hundred snipers in the world and find out which one of them was in Dallas on November 22, 1963. Well I would get together the top demolitions companies in the world and find out which one of them blew up the World Trade Center buildings.

Post Modified: 01/26/06 08:51:34

R118593
4 years ago
Shogo

The official dogma of what actually happened doesn’t leave any room for there to be any explosions during the collapse of the towers.

I like how an absence of evidence now becomes “official dogma”. You are one stupid bastard.

What was it Senator Russell Long told Jim Garrison

I think he told him that his classification of the Kennedy assassination as a homosexual thrill killing sounded loony as fuck.


R118594
4 years ago
Shogo

Obviously I disagree with your statement that explosives at the WTC is a dubious myth

And you do so despite the lack of any evidence to support your position. The hallmark of a true foil-hatted conspiracy nutter.

Post Modified: 01/26/06 08:56:36

R118595
4 years ago
Shogo


R118596
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

*On page 7 of this thread, you will find the lists I compiled of Shogo* *quotes*.

There are four sets of Shogo quotes. At least he is entertaining. Scroll down on page 7 to just about halfway.

BTW, is IF2 on vacation?

Post Modified: 01/26/06 09:10:52

R118609
4 years ago
Shogo

BTW, is IF2 on vacation?

Do you even look at the forum page? Or do you just have this one bookmarked?

Washington Post Explains How the Nazi-Created CIA Protects Us
Open Forum > Intelligence IsraelForever2 4 hours ago 3
T12229 Jack Abramoff, “Super Zionist”
Open Forum > Government IsraelForever2 4 hours ago


R118612
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

I haven’t checked the open forum the last couple of days, but it looked like he was out of action for a while there, I just thought he might have been on vacation.


R118658
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

Check the 911 Blogger for the latest 911 news.

David Ray Griffin’s The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, will be showing in Colorado and Losse Change will be showing at Hartwick College.

Post Modified: 01/26/06 11:56:28

R118673
4 years ago
Chickenma1

I asked a lawyer friend who doubts even LIHOP – even knowing the Pakistan connection which he considers insubstantial – well, what if it was shown to be physically impossible for the WTC buildings to fall down from what damage was inflicted by the planes? He said, “If that could be shown, I’d have to conclude that it was an inside job.” There – that’s why this is important. And just because WE can argue all year about it, doesn’t mean that having bona fide experts lay out the case both ways to a jury wouldn’t result in a conclusion being drawn.

Certainly we should be supporting Jones’ call to reopen the case.


R118680
4 years ago
Number5Toad

i’m awfully skeptical of this Jones character for a number of reasons. i’m not sure he’s the pony i’d back. however, i absolutely agree that another, completely independant investigation is in order.

The information that tells us the Saudis were funding the terrorists we have right in front of us. Why doesn©t it do anything? Because the negligence theory is always going to be a defense

i disagree…it’s not going to do anything because of the complete apathy of a large part of the population. they trust that the government wouldn’t lie to them unless it was absolutely necessary, and certainly wouldn’t do anything like allow a terrorist attack to occur for any reason whatsoever.

all of this information is out there, and none of it is hard to find. the hard part is convincing someone who’s bought into the official version to consider that something else may have happened.

that’s why i believe that hard and verifiable facts are crucial. they can’t be denied or discredited. this line of questioning doesn’t have the same kind of tenacity. you show me a picture, i show you another picture, you quote one expert and i quote another, we argue back and forth, and ultimately prove nothing though we both claim to have proven everything. the debate disappears in the memory hole of “conspiracy theory” and is all to easily dismissed by the people who just want to believe the official version and go on with their lives.

but take a fact that can’t be dismissed, use it to create a nagging sense of malease, and you just might be able to get somewhere. the 9/11 moneyman was in DC dining with top administration officials the same morning he authorized a wire transfer to the head hijacker? well, don’t we deserve to know why? since people are sitting in jail for supposed connections to terrorists that are far less substantial than the solid connections our administration has with this man, don’t we deserve some answers? this is just one example, of course, there are lots of them out there – examples of little things that “just don’t fit” and don’t make sense considering the official story, and that can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to have occurred. Chickenma, your first blog and your “deception dollar” was a great example of a number of those little things.

with all due respect, you will never prove beyond a reasonable doubt that controlled demolition was responsible for the WTC collapses. you may create a stunning and convincing case for it, but proof beyond question is just out of the question.

i think i’m probably done with this thread. the discussion is going around in circles now, i’m not an expert, and i have nothing beyond my own skepticism of this particular line of questioning to contribute. good luck, i really do hope you guys turn up a smoking gun, no matter how much i doubt that it will happen.


R118686
4 years ago
Shogo

what if it was shown to be physically impossible

It won’t be. The bottom line is that it is physically possible.


R118694
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

but take a fact that can’t be dismissed, use it to create a nagging sense of malease, and you just might be able to get somewhere. the 9/11 moneyman was in DC dining with top administration officials the same morning he authorized a wire transfer to the head hijacker? well, don’t we deserve to know why?

A couple of weeks back or so, there was a lot of discussion about Philip Wright’s Bungled Sting Operation, and I argued in a couple of places that the Bungled Sting Operation was a false sponsor of 9-11, ready to be trotted out, if it becomes necessary to defend, among other things, the wire transfer that you are talking about. That is what I meant, there are so many levels of deception, and so many ways the intelligence community can protect itself.

Post Modified: 01/26/06 13:36:49

R118711
4 years ago
Chickenma1

Yes, exactly. With JFK, we even have the Zapruder film which pretty much debunks the magic bullet from the School Book Depository. None of that helps. This discussion has possibilities, especially WTC7, as an INVESTIGATION – that way, if it doesn’t pan out, nothing’s lost by way of “conspiracy nutters lose credibility”. The NIST report was inconclusive – time for open hearings.


R118722
4 years ago
Joe

“The NIST report was inconclusive”

how do you know that? The report on WTC 7 isn’t finished.


R118816
4 years ago
whateveryousay

I like how an absence of evidence now becomes “official dogma”. You are one stupid bastard. —shoegoo

dogma

n 1: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof [syn: tenet] 2: a doctrine or code of beliefs accepted as authoritative

how do you know that? The report on WTC 7 isn’t finished. —joe

they formulate some conclusions already… like which columns most likely failed first. it’s a draft version with draft conclusions. what i’m saying is that it’s inconclusive as to causes of the column failures and collapse in general. they say that “maybe fire had something to do with it”. but it comes off sounding a bit like, “maybe the terrorist attacks which also happened that day had something to do with it”.

but that’s just my take.

they seem to do a good job of describing the collapse, saying that at least 2 of 3 columns (79, 80, 81) would have had to have first failed to fit the observed events (8 seconds or so before the whole building drops). they point out that apparently 1 failed column would be able to redistribute its load. after that “observations indicate that the remaining core columns appeared to fail almost simultaneously, approximately 5 second after the east penthouse failed”.
there’s not much detail about how much stress it would have taken to do this i think. but they do mention that a specific column “would be approaching its load carrying capacity” if it lost the continuous lateral support of 4 floors and had a uniform temp of 500 C.

one thing:

In the east stairwell, smoke was observed around Floors 19 or 20, and a signs of a fully involved fire on the south side of Floor 23 were heard/seen/smelled from Floor 22. —-nist report

huh. 23rd floor. that’s the bullet-proof, 200mph wind proof, reinforced construction emergency command bunker with its own air-supply and shit. guess it may have been the least fireproof part of the building.


R118822
4 years ago
Chickenma1

“huh. 23rd floor. that’s the bullet-proof, 200mph wind proof, reinforced construction emergency command bunker with its own air-supply.”

Forgive me the urge to read something into that.


R119095
4 years ago
Shogo

a doctrine or code of beliefs accepted as authoritative

But see, that’s not what we’re talking about. A doctrine is defined as: “a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church, political party, or other group”.

We’re not talking beliefs. We’re talking about explanations as to how the WTC collapsed. When you have evidence and can analyze it to draw an informed conclusion, you have moved out of the realms of dogma and into the realm of science.

What are known facts? The mass and approximate velocity of the planes, the manner of construction of the towers, the materials of which the towers were built. Using these things alone, hypotheses may be developed as to how the impact and subsequent fires could cause the towers to fail. For example, the hypothesis of Asif Usmani, which I have yet to see challenged.

Another great bit of debunking on that site comes regarding the ‘molten steel’ – I’d be curious to know how anyone could find fault with this reasoning.

Of course I am underestimating the doggedness of foil-chapeau’d nutters.


R119137
4 years ago
Chickenma1

Usmani’s piece certainly makes the pancaking easier to visualize and I can buy that the molten “steel” was aluminum. I still can’t visualize any pancaking scenario which wouldn’t leave the central columns somewhat standing. Did I miss something somewhere?


R119143
4 years ago
Shogo

“This caused a buckling of the floors which was providing not only the load carrying capacity for the furniture and the people but was also providing lateral support for the columns,” Usmani explained.

Without lateral support, the columns fell along with everything else.


R119144
4 years ago
Shogo

This is also good:

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.


R119179
4 years ago
whateveryousay

We’re not talking beliefs. We’re talking about explanations as to how the WTC collapsed. When you have evidence and can analyze it to draw an informed conclusion, you have moved out of the realms of dogma and into the realm of science. —shogo

official accounts of the day (official dogma) completely ignore explosions… even though they were widely reported and can be heard on the limited amount of audio documentation which is available. indestructible pass-ports were kept in and explosions not, arguably because irrational belief in magic passports furthered a certain political agenda where as explosions (and a lot of other info) raised too many valid questions which jeopardized that political agenda.

regarding nist. their job is quite obviously to give a bit of cred to the official story. questions which are too difficult for them to answer, they just ignore.
there’s no room for evidence of explosions in the nist report about building 7. they can go as far as to repeatedly state that there could have been fire on floor 5 even though there are no reports of fire on floor 5 or any other documentation of fires on floor 5; but they can’t mention explosions prior to the collapse of the building, even though there is documentation of this occuring.
likewise, they don’t bother to mention the free-fall speed of the building (7) coming down or point out that all but 2 or 3 of the core-columns failing almost simoultaeneously is… how shall we put it… not too likely a thing to happen.
they don’t bother to mention the totally semetrical fall of the building even though it’s very obviously a major factor in formulating their hypothesis.

usmani’s argument that “rational minded people” need only consider one hypothesis because it is perhaps possible according to their computer models … similar to the shogo/5toad argument at the moment …

well perhaps you should recapitulate, summarize and explain what makes an explosive demolition hypothesis impossible for starters. we’ll get to the holes in the prize email later.


R119189
4 years ago
Chickenma1

“Without lateral support, the columns fell along with everything else.”

Straight down? Why wouldn’t they fall outward, creaming surrounding buildings in a 200 foot radius?


R119204
4 years ago
Joe

because when a floor in a building that size drops onto the floor below it, nothing can stop it.


R119218
4 years ago
Chickenma1

Chickenma: “I still can’t visualize any pancaking scenario which wouldn’t leave the central columns somewhat standing. Did I miss something somewhere?”

Shogo: “Without lateral support, the columns fell along with everything else.”

Chickenma: “Straight down? Why wouldn’t they fall outward, creaming surrounding buildings in a 200 foot radius?”

Joe: “because when a floor in a building that size drops onto the floor below it, nothing can stop it.”

Joe, I think you misinterpret my visual: The floors are pancaking straight downward because the trusses let go – that part I get. Nothing can stop them. But the center supports should still be standing, then fall outward once they’re no longer supported laterally. Actually, it seems like the outside supports should also. What am I missing?

I know I asked this earlier, and never got an answer that made visual sense to me.


R119222
4 years ago
Joe

“fall outward once they’re no longer supported laterally”

That may have been the case. Many buildings were damaged by flying debris in the surrounding blocks.

But it’s not like the supports could last more than a few seconds.


R119234
4 years ago
Shogo

Ma, bodies at motion tend to stay in motion unless something stops them. The central supports would fall vertically along with the rest of the floor. Gravity is pulling downwards on the structure at all times. It’s only through the structure remaining intact that this pull is resisted. Unless some lateral force was exerted on the central core, straight down it will go.


R119267
4 years ago
whateveryousay

Unless some lateral force was exerted on the central core, straight down it will go.

lateral force…
like floors 76 and 77 for instance. rather than lightweight web-trusses they had the full on i-beam treatment. kind of like an extra ground floor with foundation but 2/3rds up the building. part of how the buildings could be so tall.
same thing 1/3rd up the building.

so, yeah, unless there was something holding the damaged part of the building up, like the rest of the undamaged building, it would fall straight down.


R119281
4 years ago
The_FBI

We pretty much know what happened and who was involved at this point.


R119400
4 years ago
Continuity

Seems to me, from pics and video, the towers fell straight down (WTC2 leaned 15 degrees, then went straight down) until the resistance became enormous. The compounding amount of material forced out large amounts of ejecta.

Here, I’m not coming to any conclusions. Instead, I see propose scenarios or hypothetical models.

First , a natural collapse model would presume that the increasing, compiling resistance would cause lateral ejecta. Stuff naturally would get squirted outward, in acordance with increasing resistance. The core was stronger and thicker the farther you go down to street level, therefore more resistance.

Second, an unnatural collapse model might presume that supportive mechanisms simply vanished for a large number of floors. As those floors fell, they might have soon smashed down upon uncompromised support. Such an effect would cause a burst of ejecta and that volcanic effect at about half way down.

Question. Why wasn’t there more ejecta in the earlier stages of collapse, if core levels are literally smashing themselves to pieces as they fall? The top floors are in near freefall. Yes, there was smoke, dust, clouds of momentary flame, falling lattice — but nothing explosive as when the towers collapsed about mid-way and below.

Post Modified: 01/28/06 16:19:45

R119432
4 years ago
Shogo

so, yeah, unless there was something holding the damaged part of the building up, like the rest of the undamaged building, it would fall straight down.

The rest of the building wasn’t designed to withstand the collapsing of the floors.

Your smart-aleck comments might have more of an impact if you knew the first thing about physics.


R119433
4 years ago
Shogo

Question. Why wasn’t there more ejecta in the earlier stages of collapse

That’s a joke, right?


R119491
4 years ago
aaron

Shogo, you are right in that it doesn’t fall as directly and neatly as a normal controlled demolition. WTC 7, for example.
So it doesn’t “look exactly like a controlled demolition”.
You’ve made your point.
And its not just dummies who think it was a demolition of some kind.

BYU professor’s group accuses U.S. officials of lying about 9/11

By Elaine Jarvik
Deseret Morning News

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635179751,00.html

Last fall, Brigham Young University physics professor Steven E. Jones made headlines when he charged that the World Trade Center collapsed because of “pre-positioned explosives.” Now, along with a group that calls itself “Scholars for 9/11 Truth,” he’s upping the ante.

“We believe that senior government officials have covered up crucial facts about what really happened on 9/11,” the group says in a statement released Friday announcing its formation. “We believe these events may have been orchestrated by the administration in order to manipulate the American people into supporting policies at home and abroad.”

Headed by Jones and Jim Fetzer, University of Minnesota Duluth distinguished McKnight professor of philosophy, the group is made up of 50 academicians and others.

They include Robert M. Bowman, former director of the U.S. “Star Wars” space defense program, and Morgan Reynolds, former chief economist for the Department of Labor in President George W. Bush’s first term. Most of the members are less well-known.

The group’s Web site (www.ST911.org) includes an updated version of Jones’s paper about the collapse of the Twin Towers and a paper by Fetzer that looks at conspiracy theories. The government’s version of the events of 9/11 — that the plane’s hijackers were tied to Osama bin Laden — is its own conspiracy theory, says Fetzer, who has studied the John F. Kennedy assassination since 1992.

“Did the Bush administration know in advance about the impending attacks that occurred on 9/11, and allow these to happen, to provoke pre-planned wars against Afghanistan and Iraq? These questions demand immediate answers,” charges a paper written collectively by Scholars for 9/11 Truth. The group plans to write more papers, and present lectures and conferences.

“We have very limited resources and no subpoena powers,” Fetzer said. “What you have is a bunch of serious scholars taking a look at this and discovering it didn’t add up. We don’t have a political ax to grind.”

Fetzer has doctorates in the history and philosophy of science. “One of the roles I can play here,” he said, “is to explain why a certain line of argument is correct or not.”

In his original message to potential members last month, Fetzer warned that joining the group might make them the subject of government surveillance and might get them on various lists of “potential terrorists.”

The group’s charges include:

• Members of the Bush administration knew in advance that the 9/11 attacks would happen but did nothing to stop them. • No Air Force or Air National Guard jets were sent to “scramble” the hijacked planes, which were clearly deviating from their flight plans, although jet fighters had been deployed for scramblings 67 times in the year prior to 9/11. The procedure for issuing orders for scrambling was changed in June 2001, requiring that approval could only come from the Secretary of Defense, but Donald Rumsfeld was not alerted soon enough on 9/11, according to Scholars group. • The video of Osama bin Laden found by American troops in Afghanistan in December 2001, in which bin Laden says he orchestrated the attacks, is not bin Laden. The Scholars for 9/11 Truth compared the video with a photo of the “real” bin Laden and argue that there are discrepancies in the ratio of nose-length to nose-width, as well as distance from tip-of-nose to ear lobe.

The Scholars group hopes that media outlets around the world will ask experts in their areas to examine the group’s findings and assertions. If this were done, they argue, “one of the great hoaxes of history would stand naked before the eyes of the world.”

The group also asks for an investigation of the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings, following up on points made in Jones’s paper, “Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?” That paper, recently updated, has been posted on Jones’s BYU Web site since last November.

Jones argues that the WTC buildings did not collapse due to impact or fires caused by the jets hitting the towers but collapsed as a result of pre-positioned “cutter charges.” Proof, he says, includes:

• Molten metal was found in the subbasements of WTC sites weeks after 9/11; the melting point of structural steel is 2,750 degrees Fahrenheit and the temperature of jet fuel does not exceed 1,800 degrees. Molten metal was also found in the building known as WTC7, although no plane had struck it. Jones’s paper also includes a photo of a slag of the metal being extracted from ground zero. The slag, Jones argues, could not be aluminum from the planes because in photographs the metal was salmon-to-yellow-hot temperature (approximately 1,550 to 1,900 degrees F) “well above the melting temperatures of lead and aluminum,” which would be a liquid at that temperature. • Building WTC7 collapsed in 6.6 seconds, which means, Jones says, that the steel and concrete support had to be simply knocked out of the way. “Explosive demolitions are like that,” he said. “It doesn’t fit the model of the fire-induced pancake collapse.” • No steel-frame, high-rise buildings have ever before or since been brought down due to fires. Temperatures due to fire don’t get hot enough for buildings to collapse, he says. • Jones points to a recent article in the journal New Civil Engineering that says WTC disaster investigators at NIST (the National Institutes of Standards and Technology) “are refusing to show computer visualizations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers.” Neither Jones nor other members of the Scholars group suggests who would have planted the explosives, but they argue that the devices could have been operated by remote control.

Jones says he has received thousands of e-mails from people around the world who either support his ideas or think he’s “nutty,” and he still gets about 30 e-mails a day on the topic.

He continues to do research on cold fusion, which he prefers to call metal-catalyzed fusion “to distinguish it from the claims” of former University of Utah chemistry professors B. Stanley Pons and Martin Fleishmann, “which we do not accept as verified.” He reports that his metal-catalyzed fusion work is going well, with three scientific papers published last year.

Jones will present a talk entitled “9/11 Revisited: Scientific and Ethical Questions” at Utah Valley State College at 7 p.m. on Wednesday, Feb. 1.

Post Modified: 01/29/06 00:37:40

R119507
4 years ago
Continuity

Shogo, because it’s in your nature to distort, you showed a picture of exactly what I was talking about at the point of “mid-collapse.” i.e. when half the tower crumbled. Exactly what I was referring to, which is to say not in the first stage.

My words again: but nothing explosive as when the towers collapsed about mid-way and below

I totally recognize and emphasize the explosive effect mid-way in the collapse, when the resistance went critical and thus violently sent ejecta out laterally. The freefalling tops smashed or compunded upon harder stuff.

That observation can be made to support either argument.


R119511
4 years ago
whateveryousay

The rest of the building wasn’t designed to withstand the collapsing of the floors.
Your smart-aleck comments might have more of an impact if you knew the first thing about physics. -shogo

bare in mind, the building wasn’t desinged to unzip like a chip-and-dale’s pants.
it was designed and built to stand up.

the usmani email… he said that in their models, fires covering the whole of 3 floors with temps at 600-800C was causing a collapse. no doubt these temperatures are to be sustained for an unrealistic amount of time to produce the amount of heat they need, and my guess here is that those temps are supposed to be inside the steel columns (very hard to do because big steel columns would wick away the heat). i doubt they modelled the whole structure of the building and are dealing with a localized collapse only.

he’s careful to qualify a bit:
Most analyses of the fire [on 9/11] also show that the temperatures were not very high. —usmani

i think we might take that as an admission that their models are not very realistic.
now, of course we’re talking about structural damage + a (seemingly admitted) less intense fire than they modelled… i guess they’re figuring that the more structural damage you have, the lower your temperatures need to be. (anyone see a problem with that?)
it’s unclear as to how they factor the structural damage in, but they do leave us with this:

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). —usmani

they think the fire is “mainly” responsible for the collapse leaving us to wonder if they haven’t really looked at the structural damage in any depth at all… and leaving us to wonder about how realistic their models really are.

Post Modified: 01/29/06 05:37:59

R119543
4 years ago
Joe

BYU professor’s group accuses U.S. officials of lying about 9/11”

Déjà vu all over again!


R119607
4 years ago
Shogo

no doubt these temperatures are to be sustained for an unrealistic amount of time to produce the amount of heat they need

Why don’t you ask the man yourself? You have his name, and where he works. Surely you can scare up an email address.

i think we might take that as an admission that their models are not very realistic.

That’s asinine considering he said that he was more confident than ever that his hypothesis was correct.

I think, no offense, that I’m going to put just a wee bit more stock in the opinions of a structural engineer who studies the effects of fire on buildings than, say, some random internutter conspiracy yob.

9/11 is the first ever and the only occasion

But he then goes on to say that it’s likely sheer luck that this hasn’t happened more often, given the tendency for engineers to not take into account how their buildings will be affected by fires.

Nice selective quoting. I guess when you have nothing, you use what you can.


R119612
4 years ago
whateveryousay

Why don’t you ask the man yourself? You have his name, and where he works. Surely you can scare up an email address.

why don’t you fish out the details yourself if you’re going to prop this guy’s research up? usmani describes his fires as moderate temperature (600-800C) and the observed fire temps at the WTC as “not very high”. what’s the difference around about? find out and fill us in.

(save yourself some time and read the nist report… you might find that there’s a schism between what was observed and what was modelled)

R119625
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

911 Blogger is useful as an example of the many websites out there, which get into the various arguments that skeptics have amassed to discredit the official story, and The 911 Commission Report, after it was published. It is a little hokey, The Fairy Tale From Hell is a good example of why I would say that, nevertheless it serves a purpose, because it has a very simple approach similar to 911 Myths Reading Between the Lies. They are easy to compare.

Post Modified: 01/29/06 19:47:24

R119626
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

The first story today, on 911 Blogger, which is about a nationwide campaign to raise public awareness of 911 has a section entitled Who is behind this website?
Then the writer says,

Just me, Benjamin Pritchard. (“Doing stuff like this is the only way I’ve stayed sane in a world seeming to have lost its mind.”)

Feel free to contact me at ben@benjaminpritchard.name if you have additional questions or suggestions.

Anyway, clik onto “Benjamin Pritchard”: and you will get here

then clik where it says
please read this to see why the official version of 9/11 is a fairy tale

Post Modified: 01/29/06 20:35:25

R119627
4 years ago
Chickenma1

“The central supports would fall vertically along with the rest of the floor. Gravity is pulling downwards on the structure at all times.”

STOP! I know gravity pulls downward. How do I make my question clear as no one seems to get it. I wish I knew and had time to figure out how to post a drawing, but here it is in type: —][— Dashes are the floors, brackets the center supports. Trusses that hold the floors to the center supports give wayand the floors fall to the ground, so what you get is this: ][ The supports would not fall DOWN just because the trusses gave way, though they might fall to the side. So again, what am I missing? (That’s textile pushing the supports to one side :-)


R119637
4 years ago
Joe

“The supports would not fall DOWN just because the trusses gave way, though they might fall to the side”

I’m still not sure what you mean. It wasn’t a controlled demolition, for one thing, I’m sure you’ve seen the pics of the building tilting and twisting as it collapsed. The loads on the building’s supports were inbalanced because of the damage from the plane impact and the fires. The columns were subject to all kinds of stresses, from different directions, the floors didn’t simply fall onto the ones below it.. they collapsed in an uncontrolled way, so I wouldn’t expect to see any uniform pattern of failure.

The NIST report has a bunch of stuff on the interaction of the different elements of the buildings frame as it collapsed.. it might have the answers you’re looking for, if you’re interested in what the government funded scientists have to say. At 470 pages it could use a good plot though.. it’s pretty dry. :-P


R119638
4 years ago
Chickenma1

Every no-explosives theory says the floors pancaked, either because the trusses softened and gave way, or because they expanded and gave way. In other words, the floors let go of the supports and fell, one on top of the other, pancaking down. So we should see the supports, especially in the center, being exposed – and we don’t.


R119639
4 years ago
Schneibster

So we should see the supports, especially in the center, being exposed – and we don’t.

That would be the spires of core material you can’t see in the images I posted above?


R119640
4 years ago
Shogo

So we should see the supports, especially in the center, being exposed – and we don’t.

No, you shouldn’t, and I have no idea where this certainty on your part comes from. It’s not as though the supports can simply stand on their own, and the floors are hung from them only. The outer structure of the WTC was an integral part of the structure too.

You’re just being bloody-minded at this point.


R119642
4 years ago
Chickenma1

Floors “pancake”, supports don’t.


R119650
4 years ago
aaron

“9/11 is the first ever and the only occasion”

Shogo: “But he then goes on to say that it’s likely sheer luck that this hasn’t happened more often, given the tendency for engineers to not take into account how their buildings will be affected by fires.”

So the fact that 3 unprecedented collapses happened on one day is irrelevant.
All buildings should plummet into their footprints when they catch fire because engineers are so incompetent.
The historic evidence doesn’t support you, so you resort to “luck” to explain it away.
I think YOU are being bloody-minded.


R119659
4 years ago
whateveryousay

The historic evidence doesn’t support you, so you resort to “luck” to explain it away. —aaron

heh.
blind luck no less.


R119666
4 years ago
Shogo

So the fact that 3 unprecedented collapses happened on one day is irrelevant.

You’re a fucking douchebag.

Once again, I’m more inclined to accept the explanation offered by someone who actually teaches this stuff at university than some internet douchebag who wishes death on people who disagree with him.

Or do you think a middle eastern prof. at a Scottish university is another government shill? Another paid-off member of the vast conspiracy?

Floors “pancake”, supports don’t.

I’m sure your many years of feeding chickens, taking acid, and hangin’ with Janis make you a real expert on these matters, right?

Post Modified: 01/30/06 00:37:03

R119672
4 years ago
whateveryousay

Once again, I’m more inclined to accept the explanation offered by someone who actually teaches this stuff at university than some internet douchebag who wishes death on people who disagree with him. -shogs

yeah, well, unless he’s the wrong religion eh?


R119712
4 years ago
Shogo

yeah, well, unless he’s the wrong religion eh?

Not sure what you mean, so let me explain my remark. Once upon a GNN v.1, aaron (under his old username Aaronymous) expressed his desire that I be killed in some fashion. Since comments like that are only made by the completely unhinged, I feel the need to remind him of it from time to time.


R119727
4 years ago
Joe

“Every no-explosives theory says the floors pancaked”

The word ‘pancake’ is used only to simplify the concept. No serious engineer or scientist to my knowledge actually thinks the floors fell on one another like a stack of pancakes. The trusses were under a variety of stresses and would collapse at different points in the floor – the floor didn’t simply flop onto the one below. And since the building’s supports were weakened (according to the NIST report) it’s unlikely that they’d be able to remain standing even if the floors pancaked as you describe.


R119744
4 years ago
Shogo

The word ‘pancake’ is used only to simplify the concept.

And by conspiracy nutters, to try and make their argument seem less daft.


R119746
4 years ago
lday

Shogo: “... like how an absence of evidence now becomes “official dogma...”

hmmm.. ‘the absence of evidence’..
like insta-removal of the steel;
like keeping photographers away from WTC ground zero;
like gagging firemen and air traffic controllers;
like chopping up the air traffic controller’s reports
into little bitty pieces and dispersing them into a variety of different trash bins;
like hoarding the black boxes;
like confiscating gas station and hotel security cameras that saw the Pentagon hit;
like shutting up Sybil Edmunds by executive imperial privilege;
like intimidating non-aligned investigators (Grable, Jayhan, Rodriguez, Madsen etc);
like reediting ’9/11 anniversary commerative’ dvds to photoshop out the flash;
like microwaving Mike Ruppert’s office…

Shogo, you are so obviously a tentacle
that you would do your masters a service by shutting up.


R119763
4 years ago
Shogo

Florence, one thing has not changed and that is your status as one of the biggest toolmasters on GNN.

like insta-removal of the steel

That’s not evidence of explosives.

like keeping photographers away from WTC ground zero

Ditto.

like gagging firemen and air traffic controllers

Ditto.

like chopping up the air traffic controller’s reports

Ditto.

like hoarding the black boxes

Ditto.

like confiscating gas station and hotel security cameras that saw the Pentagon hit

Ditto.

like shutting up Sybil Edmunds by executive imperial privilege

Ditto.

like intimidating non-aligned investigators (Grable, Jayhan, Rodriguez, Madsen etc)

Ditto.

like reediting ’9/11 anniversary commerative’ dvds to photoshop out the flash

Ditto. And LOLERSKATES for your hilariously inept grasp of video editing.

like microwaving Mike Ruppert’s office…

Hopefully he had his AFDB on.

So everything you just listed is what is known as innuendo. You have no evidence, but imply suspicious and nefarious motives behind these things – corroborating none of them with evidence, but simply parroting them back from whichever nutter’s website you saw them on.

Stick to the chess, Lar.


R119852
4 years ago
Chickenma1

Shogo, I believe all that would be admissable in a jury trial.


R119855
4 years ago
Shogo

None of that stuff is evidence of anything, though. How many instances can you think of where the black boxes themselves were made widely available to the public? What are the black boxes going to reveal anyway that people didn’t see with their own eyes?

Have you so lost it that you believe (like Larry apparently does) that all the people sitting next to the Pentagon were incapable of recognizing a fucking jumbo jet?

The conspiracy mindset is totally classic. Cherry picking 24/7. With the WTC, ear-witness testimony of questionable authenticity is accepted at face value, but with the Pentagon, eye-witness testimony is dismissed as “black op government shills”, etc.

Selective perception is a beautiful thing, isn’t it?


R119877
4 years ago
whateveryousay

The trusses were under a variety of stresses and would collapse at different points in the floor —joe

fair enough. so what about floor 22 for example?
i mean if you were to hazard a theory?

there’s kind of a possible issue in how floors which are light enough to crumple like tin foil can be heavy enough to jack-hammer the structure into shreds.
i of course have my own ideas how this could possibly happen with or without explosives… but i’m curious on your take.

What are the black boxes going to reveal anyway that people didn’t see with their own eyes? -gummo

uhh… cockpit recordings? flight data?

The conspiracy mindset is totally classic. Cherry picking 24/7. With the WTC, ear-witness testimony of questionable authenticity is accepted at face value, but with the Pentagon, eye-witness testimony is dismissed as “black op government shills”, etc.

questionable authenticity?
you’re going to have to explain that one.


R119933
4 years ago
Joe

“None of that stuff is evidence of anything, though.”

The Church of Explosive Demolition holds the teachings of their prophets above all. (I realize the hyperbole police have been dispatched and are on their way. But still.). This is totally “Plan 9” logic. Can you prove that it didn’t happen?

Has it been mentioned that the tallest office building ever demolished was 187 m in height? The WTC towers were 415 m and 417 m. I can’t find a record of a taller building that was intentionally demolished. But can I prove it didn’t happen?

Post Modified: 01/31/06 09:57:08

R119938
4 years ago
aaron

Shogo, when I told you to go wrestle some traffic on GNN1 it was because you were being a shithead and deserved it.
I didn’t actually expect it to phase you in the least, but because it did I wished death on you a couple more times as kind of a running joke. I thought you got it, but apparently not.

As for 9-11, we all know you viciously oppose any theory which leads away from 19 Arab maniacs with knives.
Some of us know why that is ;)


R119939
4 years ago
Shogo

there’s kind of a possible issue in how floors which are light enough to crumple like tin foil can be heavy enough to jack-hammer the structure into shreds.

That’s the most brain-dead reduction I’ve yet seen.

Nobody is arguing the floors crumpled like tin foil. If that’s what you take from Usmani’s hypothesis, there’s no point in even talking to you. You simply don’t comprehend what’s being said.


R119941
4 years ago
Shogo

Shogo, when I told you to go wrestle some traffic on GNN1 it was because you were being a shithead and deserved it.

People deserve to die for offending Moronymous’ delicate nonsensibilities!

As for 9-11, we all know you viciously oppose any theory which leads away from 19 Arab maniacs with knives.

Apparently you don’t know much. (shock)

I have always maintained that I think there may have been some elements within the government that aided the attacks (or at the very least, let them happen). But fairytales about explosives, missiles, and pods I have no use for.

Some of us know why that is

Tool.

Post Modified: 01/30/06 22:54:30

R119945
4 years ago
aaron

“People deserve to die for offending Moronymous’ delicate nonsensibilities!”

No, Shogo needs to fucking bum out every now and then because he’s a fucking prick to everyone.
And talks complete shit. Example;

Shogo: “Ma, bodies at motion tend to stay in motion unless something stops them. The central supports would fall vertically along with the rest of the floor. Gravity is pulling downwards on the structure at all times. It’s only through the structure remaining intact that this pull is resisted. “

Explain the removal of the cores integrity. Poof, gone in an instant.
If you cant, then you cant explain why the lower part of the building doesn’t provide a hell of a lot more interference than it did.
The core was shitloads stronger than the facade and floors.
If there was no catastrophic core failure then Ma is right, the core would be stripped and exposed.
How dare you talk down to everyone, git?

Shogo: “Unless some lateral force was exerted on the central core, straight down it will go.”

See, this is why people suspect your motivations. I for one don’t think you
believe that statement.

shogo; “Tool.”

Haha, trogdor strikes again.


R119946
4 years ago
Continuity

The only reason why I’m in this thread still is because of unanswered questions. Now, Joe, you started off in this thread with a sentiment like this: Where’s the hurt in asking questions? At least some info might get unearthed

Instead of listening to the new church wisecracks, I’d rather get back to normal inquiry.

For instance, I would like to know why NIST can’t produce samples of steel that had endured any significant temperatures. What was the average? 250c? Has this situation changed? Or is this still a real anomaly?

Post Modified: 01/30/06 23:21:39

R119948
4 years ago
Shogo

Explain the removal of the cores integrity. Poof, gone in an instant.

The way the WTC towers were designed, the inner core and outer walls both provided lateral support. The building is an integrated whole. It’s not as though there’s a free-standing core with floors hung off of it.

How dare you talk down to everyone, git?

Not everyone, just stupid fucks like you.

See, this is why people suspect your motivations. I for one don’t think you believe that statement.

No dude, you suspect my motivations because you’re an imbecile.

Post Modified: 01/30/06 23:25:18

R119952
4 years ago
aaron

Do you think that is an explanation? Sheesh…
I’m gonna bow out for Contingency’s sake, Shogo. Have fun destroying their thread.


R119954
4 years ago
Joe

Is that a core? I guess it didn’t last long, but parts of the building held together to the bitter end.


R119956
4 years ago
Joe

“Instead of listening to the new church wisecracks, I’d rather get back to normal inquiry.”

Right.. back to proving your beliefs through lack of evidence.


R119960
4 years ago
Shogo

Do you think that is an explanation? Sheesh…

It is an explanation, yes. Rather than engage in innuendo (another favorite substitute for evidence), why don’t you try explaining why it’s incorrect? I mean, apart from the obvious problem that you have no fucking idea what you’re talking about, as usual.

I’m gonna bow out for Contingency’s sake, Shogo. Have fun destroying their thread.

You’re so kind. And here I thought you were bowing out because you’re aware of just how bankrupt your arguments are.


R119962
4 years ago
CIAlien

comments like that are only made by the completely unhinged

Reminds me of Schneibster’s recent behaviour on the Basic Physics thread at PhysOrg. In his abject desperation he’s taken to threatening not only legal action but death by axe. Quite a fetching performance, really.


R119964
4 years ago
Schneibster

Have fun destroying their thread

Bwahahaha, done long ago. First page, in fact, of a nineteen page thread.

CIAlien, welcome to GNN. Now eat shit and die.


R119969
4 years ago
CIAlien

Thanks for the hospitality, Schneiby. I would wish death on you, too, but I’m just not feeling that unhinged at the moment.


R119971
4 years ago
Shogo

Well, CIAlien, as much as I can’t really be down with wishes of ill will, I can say that conspiracy nutters are hugely frustrating to debate with, due to their inability to see facts that contradict their pet theories.


R119973
4 years ago
CIAlien

I feel the same way about the FTPs but I haven’t threatened to kill or sue anyone yet. Granted, the guy’s under a lot of stress and the internet IS serious business.


R120024
4 years ago
whateveryousay

The Church of Controlled Demolition holds the teachings of their prophets above all. -joe

i would just like to point out that the technique of bringing buildings down with bombs is called “explosive demolition”.
“controlled demolition” is the name of a company which demolishes buildings for a living. they certainly aren’t the only ones in the game but they do (according to their web-site) secret work for the the u.s. gov from time to time. they’ve been known to pump money into national geographic t.v. programs to get painted in a good light.

Has it been mentioned that the tallest office building ever demolished was 187 m in height? —joe

depends what exactly you mean by demolished. video link

but yeah, anyway. i did point out a few pages ago that wtc7 would have been almost twice as tall as the largest steel-framed sky-scraper to be explosively demolished… the twin tower more that 4 times taller…

The way the WTC towers were designed… etc. I’m a retard etc —shogo

source? ... shogo’s ass.

I can say that conspiracy nutters are hugely frustrating to debate with, due to their inability to see facts that contradict their pet theories. —shogo

i’ve got facts like interviews from an investigative task-force… audio recordings with the sound of explosions…

what do you have?
you’ve got an email from some guy in england…

who’s theory says something to the effect of… if a much much larger plane, going much mcuh faster, were to crash into the tower the top would fall off.

Post Modified: 01/31/06 09:03:27

R120031
4 years ago
Shogo

i’ve got facts like interviews from an investigative task-force

Which task-force is this? The foil-hat brigade of internutters?

audio recordings with the sound of explosions

Bullshit. You have audio recordings with some loud noise that you are choosing to label explosions. In reality, you have no idea what is producing those sounds – in a giant skyscraper that is collapsing there are bound to be all kinds of loud sounds as parts of it fail.

source? ... shogo’s ass.

All you’re doing now is confirming the black void of your ignorance.


R120049
4 years ago
whateveryousay

R120053
4 years ago
Shogo

Then we got up and we couldn’t see, but it started to clear to like a brown, cloudy smoke, and I hear pop, pop, pop, which sounded like gunfire to me.

Hm, now we have reports of gunfire!

Clearly, the WTC was shot down in flames!


R120054
4 years ago
Shogo

Another definitive statement (my emphasis):

THEN WE HEARD LOUD EXPLOSION OR WHAT SOUNDED LIKE LOUD EXPLOSION AND LOOKED UP AND SAW TOWER TWO START COMING DOWN CRAZY


R120056
4 years ago
Shogo

Or this:

We went to the back of the van, and we got down on the ground, and we heard this huge, thunderous, loud sound, and then it was completely dark and completely silent.

I submit to you that there’s no way in hell to identify what the sounds were. They were loud, they were sudden, they were deep and rumbling – but that does not mean they were caused by explosive devices.

I don’t know if you’ve ever seen a building demolished via explosives up close, but I have – it’s not simply one sudden sound, but smaller sounds in series as the charges are detonated.


R120062
4 years ago
whateveryousay

I don’t know if you’ve ever seen a building demolished via explosives up close, but I have – it’s not simply one sudden sound, but smaller sounds in series as the charges are detonated. —shogo

when you’ve seen one explosive demolition, you’ve seen ‘em all eh?
but anyway. can you describe more in detail what you heard? when you say, “smaller sounds in series”, how would you classify them?
was it a “pop, pop, pop”? like gun-fire? did it sound like gunfire to you?


R120063
4 years ago
whateveryousay

if someone wasn’t aware that an explosive demolition was about to take place, do you think it would sound like gun-fire to them?


R120064
4 years ago
whateveryousay

or could sound like gunfire rather?


R120066
4 years ago
Shogo

how would you classify them? was it a “pop, pop, pop”? like gun-fire? did it sound like gunfire to you?

Not really, no. The sounds were in series, but rapid. If I were to make an analogy, I’d say like a zipper, with high-pitched short bangs. One thing I can say is that it sounded nothing like explosions in movies sound.


R120068
4 years ago
Shogo

But see, now you’re trying to make the accounts fit your hypothesis. You’re trying to figure out how these statements can support the notion of explosive demolition. That’s the opposite of logical deduction. You want to take the facts you have available, and come up with a hypothesis that best accounts for them – not try to jigsaw the available data to make the conclusion you favor.


R120083
4 years ago
whateveryousay

inductive, deductive. whatever.
analysis of the audio recordings corroborates fdny testimonies.

You have audio recordings with some loud noise that you are choosing to label explosions. In reality, you have no idea what is producing those sounds – in a giant skyscraper that is collapsing there are bound to be all kinds of loud sounds as parts of it fail. —sluggo

well. yeah. lots of loud sounds. which can be generally described as the “roar”... ground shaking, approx 10 floors/second crashing down, etc.
but some sounds are able to “escape from noise” if you will.

here we have 2 different audio recordings:

click for a decent sized image…

both are of the south tower collapse. one from right next to the tower on west-street… the other, 1600 meters away to the north.
on the bottom one, you can see the general roar of the collapse and you can also see ‘spikes’ in the noise. now if there, were explosions in the towers, this is what they would look like recorded from such a range1.

the recording represented on the top (notice the narrower fq scale) also records these spikes… at this distance it’s the low frequencies which are responding (also consistent with blast-noise propegation through gasses like air). the two biggest spikes look exactly like explosions would at this distance and this equipment2.

when you line up the first peak sounds of the south tower collapse in each recording, you can see that the ‘voice print’ of these spikes match.
of particular note is the two largest spikes in each recording. they really do match up. that’s actually a very big deal that they do. for sudden bursts of energy like that to escape the general intense collapse noise appear over such a big distance… there are other angle from still further away with the same thing going on…

if there’s anything about the audio recordings and analysis you want help with understanding i’d be happy to answer questions.

1 this is from a recording of a building in the process of being explosively demolished.

2 how do we know what an explosion should look like?
because we have the recording of the south-tower jet-plane impact from the same angle, that’s why: plane impact:
loudest spikes in the south-tower collapse:

there’s no doubt that there was an explosion when the plane hit.

Post Modified: 01/31/06 11:27:42

R120091
4 years ago
Shogo

now if there, were explosions in the towers, this is what they would look like recorded from such a range

That’s conjecture. Just because sounds occur in the same frequency range doesn’t mean they are caused by the same thing. Musical instruments are a great example of this. Unless whereever you got those fancy spectrum analyses from is also measuring timbre, they’re pretty useless in terms of telling you what was responsible for making the various sounds you heard as the towers collapsed.


R120106
4 years ago
whateveryousay

That’s conjecture. Just because sounds occur in the same frequency range doesn’t mean they are caused by the same thing. Musical instruments are a great example of this. Unless whereever you got those fancy spectrum analyses from is also measuring timbre, they’re pretty useless in terms of telling you what was responsible for making the various sounds you heard as the towers collapsed. —shogo

heh. well. it’s certainly not a violin. a violin would appear as thin, stacked horizontal lines. the lowest line, the fundamental pitch would tend to be the brightest line. we could differentiate between this and say, a clarinet by looking at the lines above the fundamental pitches which are overtones. different instruments show different relative strengths or ratios of overtones and this is quite generally what “timbre” refers to. so in that respect, yes you can read timbre from the fancy spectrum analysis thinger, to a very sophisticated degree actually.

explosions don’t actually resemble the sound of musical instruments, except some members of the percussion family. these instruments (like snare drums) also create bursts of noise which can look pretty similar.

it’s not conjecture to say this is what explosions would look like when
a) that’s what they would look like and
b) you have the same events on a different recording at a much further distance and they are also look like explosions would.


R120114
4 years ago
Shogo

these instruments (like snare drums) also create bursts of noise which can look pretty similar

Precisely my point – you have no way of discerning from an analysis such as above what is responsible for making any given sound.

it’s not conjecture to say this is what explosions would look like when you have the same events on a different recording at a much further distance and they are also look like explosions would.

Or a snare drum. :P

Were you really intending to solidify my point like that?


R120120
4 years ago
whateveryousay

Precisely my point – you have no way of discerning from an analysis such as above what is responsible for making any given sound.

just because they can look similar doesn’t mean you can’t differentiate. of course you can.


R120130
4 years ago
whitey

whateveryousay, interesting stuff with the audio analysis. Apologies if you already posted it and I missed it, but what is the source of this audio and who did the spectrum analysis?


R120137
4 years ago
Shogo

just because they can look similar doesn’t mean you can’t differentiate. of course you can.

So what is it in that analysis that unequivocally indicates an explosion?


R120140
4 years ago
Shogo

Ahem:

how do we know what an explosion should look like? because we have the recording of the south-tower jet-plane impact from the same angle

So now you seem to be arguing that a jet-fuel explosion would be sonically identical to demolitions charges. Seems like a huge leap to me. Especially considering that at the point of the plane impacting you’re hearing not only exploding fuel, but the sound of the plane smashing into the building.

Face it man, that spectrum analysis is completely inconclusive. More to the point, if that’s what you’re going to hang your demolitions hypothesis on then your chances of convincing me are nil.


R120143
4 years ago
Chickenma1

“Have you so lost it that you believe (like Larry apparently does) that all the people sitting next to the Pentagon were incapable of recognizing a fucking jumbo jet?”

I have never said that a jet didn’t hit the Pentagon. I have said quite the opposite. A basic problem with Shogo and Joe is this tendency to assume that if I/we espouse one conspiracy theory, we espouse them all, even the ones that are clearly (to me) red herrings. That assumption is why the communication on this thread is so bad, IMHO. I think some of the others on this thread have assumed that Shogo and Schneib aren’t even LIHOP, which they are – they are not “shills”. So we’re all “conspiracy nutters” to different degrees and should be more respectful of one another.


R120148
4 years ago
whitey

we’re all “conspiracy nutters” to different degrees

sing it, sister


R120178
4 years ago
Chickenma1

I have to admit, Joe and Schneib, you scored one with your core photo. The jury is out, studying the “preponderance of the evidence”.


R120283
4 years ago
whateveryousay

whateveryousay, interesting stuff with the audio analysis. Apologies if you already posted it and I missed it, but what is the source of this audio and who did the spectrum analysis? -whitey

the analysis, sources, etc. is written up here:

Explosion Sounds and the World Trade Center – Twin Tower Collapses

So now you seem to be arguing that a jet-fuel explosion would be sonically identical to demolitions charges. Seems like a huge leap to me. Especially considering that at the point of the plane impacting you’re hearing not only exploding fuel, but the sound of the plane smashing into the building. —shogo

i don’t see any need to play up the impact sound of the plane. even a chimp could figure out that the impact sound would come before the explosion, why can’t you? maybe it’s the smaller thing about 0.2 seconds before the blast proper (maybe not…i certainly have my doubts). depends how much time you should expect it to proceed the explosion and how impact sounds should be expected to propagate through the air. if you look at this graph you can see what should probably be the impact register at about 18 seconds, around 5 seconds before the air-blast (but this would have had to have been transmitted through the ground of course).

i wouldn’t be arguing that anything is “sonically identical” here; for starters they’re not. there are differences as well as similarities. take a look.

one factor to consider is the claims of explosions in the north tower at the time of the south-tower plane impact. i’m not sure what that would exactly do to the comparison if it’s true but it might cause one to wonder about taking the plane impact/explosion at face value.

there’s also the “camera shaking 12 seconds before the collapse of the north tower” thing. seismic activity? well yeah, quite possibly. the same camera shakes 4 seconds before the sound of the plane explosion on the south tower and also at the time of the south tower collapse.


R120287
4 years ago
Shogo

i don’t see any need to play up the impact sound of the plane. even a chimp could figure out that the impact sound would come before the explosion, why can’t you?

There’s a lot of sound that would happen in fast succession. There’s the impact of the plane on the outside of the building, the breaking of dozens of windows, the smashing of concrete, the exploding fuel, the force traveling inwards out through the other side of the building, blowing the windows and concrete out on the opposite side. A lot of sound happening near simultaneously. I don’t see how you can look at that, and then another loud sound later and assume you can find some commonality between them specific enough to say “yep, must have been demolitions!”

the same camera shakes 4 seconds before the sound of the plane explosion on the south tower and also at the time of the south tower collapse.

Sound waves travel faster through solid matter than they travel through air. Also, frequencies outside the range of our hearing still generate vibrations that can be felt in solid matter.


R120323
4 years ago
Continuity

Joe: Right, back to proving your beliefs through lack of evidence

Joe, come on. You know that’s lamer line. So much for your innocent tolerance of questions and inquiry.

NIST put forth its grand hypothesis, but a study of that hypothesis shows they have no steel samples to support their claims. Last I read, pages ago, NIST admitted they have a bunch of steel that had undergone, on average, 150c to 250c temperatures. I’ll go back and find the links, which are in this thread.

My question was, Has this low-temperature puzzle changed? If so, that’s important.


R120352
4 years ago
Shogo

a study of that hypothesis shows they have no steel samples to support their claims.

Just curious, why do you think steel samples would be saved? Are burned bits of houses saved? Are bits of cars in auto accidents saved?

There’s a great deal of chatter about how the carting away of the demolished building is somehow a priori evidence of this grand conspiracy you believe in, yet it was done in broad daylight with ample media coverage. Not really suggestive of some clandestine motive.

In short, your suspicions are hardly evidence. And the conclusions of those who don’t buy into the explosives bullshit are based on the evidence that is available. This is how science works, you look at the available evidence and draw your conclusions from there. The fact is that the collapse of all of the buildings can be adequately explained from the damage they suffered from the planes (WTC1 & 2), and from falling debris (WTC7).

In fact, if you look at the photos of all the debris flying from the collapsing towers, you can see that there are some massive, massive chunks falling. It seems you all want to believe that the towers collapsed neatly into their own sub-basements, which plainly did not happen.

The thing that most bothers me about the explosives argument is that it’s totally unnecessary. Why is it necessary that the towers collapse? Why was that so important? Why would hijacked planes flown into them be insufficient to get Americans riled up to support an illegal war?

Why is demolishing WTC7 necessary? The government is securely in the hands of the GOP, and Bush appointees head up all the intelligence agencies. What would the demolishing of WTC7 accomplish?

At the most basic level, this demolitions idea just plain makes no sense. There’s no reason to do it, and there’s no evidence to support it.


R120359
4 years ago
whateveryousay

The fact is that the collapse of all of the buildings can be adequately explained from the damage they suffered from the planes (WTC1 & 2), and from falling debris (WTC7). -shogo

a few posts ago you were supporting usmani’s claim that wtc7 collapsed “only because of fire”.?
now it’s from “falling debris”.

Why is it necessary that the towers collapse? -shogo

you are such a tard. seriously. try to get out of the 1 dimentional hollyworld and imagine a place where there are lots of people with lots of motives… it’s called reality.


R120367
4 years ago
Shogo

a few posts ago you were supporting usmani’s claim that wtc7 collapsed “only because of fire”.?

This page offers some compelling arguments about how much damage (from debris and fire) WTC7 suffered.

However the falling debris isn’t what caused WTC7 to collapse. The falling debris greatly damaged the structure and weakened it, making it more vulnerable to fire damage.

Do you even think before you type this stuff? Or are you just playing knee-jerk reactionary?

you are such a tard. seriously. try to get out of the 1 dimentional hollyworld and imagine a place where there are lots of people with lots of motives… it’s called reality.

Haha. Nice way of saying you can’t answer the question.

Lots of motives, eh?

That is fucking classic conspiracy drivel. Innuendo masquerading as factual argument.

If the motive were that Silverstein wanted to build new buildings, he would have that excuse anyway. Post airplane impact, the towers would have needed to be demolished anyway, even if they had not yet collapsed.

If the motive were to rile up the American public so they’d support a war in the middle east, the simple fact of the attack occuring would have been sufficient.

But no, since I don’t swallow your bullshit, and dare to question your precious assumptions, I’m now seeing only 1 dimensionally.

Brilliant.

If you ever work out an actual rationale, I’ll be glad to read it. Until then, you’re just another conspiracy nutter acting a fool.


R120371
4 years ago
Joe

“you can see that there are some massive, massive chunks falling”

pic deleted

Post Modified: 03/16/06 18:13:14

R120377
4 years ago
whateveryousay

There’s a lot of sound that would happen in fast succession. There’s the impact of the plane on the outside of the building, the breaking of dozens of windows, the smashing of concrete, the exploding fuel, the force traveling inwards out through the other side of the building, blowing the windows and concrete out on the opposite side. A lot of sound happening near simultaneously. I don’t see how you can look at that, and then another loud sound later and assume you can find some commonality between them specific enough to say “yep, must have been demolitions!” -shogo

and what about the sound of people yelling “holy shit! a plane!”?
and the sound of people dropping their keys on the street below the tower?
and the sound of an ant picking its nose on the battery-park lawn?
all that would obviously have significant influence the low frequency ‘boom’ caused by a giant deflagration and recorded 1600 meters away.

However the falling debris isn’t what caused WTC7 to collapse. -shogo
...
The fact is that the collapse of all of the buildings can be adequately explained from the damage they suffered from the planes (WTC1 & 2), and from falling debris (WTC7). -shogo

so when it isn’t the fire it’s the damage and when it isn’t the damage it’s the fire.
oh. very clever.

side note: what do you propose would happen if, say, 9 core columns lost all lateral support over, say, 3 stories?

Post Modified: 02/01/06 10:11:56

R120381
4 years ago
whitey

whateveryousay, thanks for the link. You did all that?


R120388
4 years ago
Shogo

and what about the sound of people yelling “holy shit! a plane!”? and the sound of people dropping their keys on the street below the tower?

Um, those would be significantly less loud than the sounds of the impact. But if you think that the impact of the force from the plane on the building itself wouldn’t generate sound, you’re dumber than I already thought you were.

so when it isn’t the fire it’s the damage and when it isn’t the damage it’s the fire.

My mistake for not including fire in my passing reference to WTC7.

It doesn’t make you any less of an idiot.

Post Modified: 02/01/06 10:39:57

R120389
4 years ago
Shogo

By the way, are you ever going to address that whole motive issue you made such a big deal over? Or do you realize that you have no actual answer? Focus, please.


R120393
4 years ago
whateveryousay

all that? -wit

heh. who’s asking?..

but seriously though, yeah, but there’s much more to post. and tons of questions to think about.

and no, not the shogoesq “maybe pencils rolling off the desks coloured the sound?” type questions.
Post Modified: 02/01/06 10:48:53

R120395
4 years ago
Shogo

maybe pencils rolling off the desks coloured the sound?

Not what I said.

The fact that you would even make such an absurd analogy shows that you have about as much sense as Karl Pilkington.


R120396
4 years ago
Shogo

Still puzzling out that whole motive issue? Bit of a poser, that.


R120404
4 years ago
whateveryousay

By the way, are you ever going to address that whole motive issue you made such a big deal over?

it was addressed by myself pages ago:

it was fenric da wolf tryin’ ta get ha 1000 years sov dakness ‘n’ war ‘n’ shit. yo.


R120408
4 years ago
Shogo

People would have been just as eager to go to war if the towers hadn’t collapsed.

I know to you the world looks like vast webs of conspiracies carried out by elite secret agents, but James Bond is fictional.


R120412
4 years ago
whateveryousay

People would have been just as eager to go to war if the towers hadn’t collapsed.

speak for yourself.


R120420
4 years ago
whateveryousay

Otto von Bismarck once said: “Never believe anything in politics, until it has been officially denied.”


R120433
4 years ago
Shogo

speak for yourself.

Hm, the sinking of the Lusitania was enough, the assault on Pearl Harbor was enough, the Gulf of Tonkin was enough. History serves as a pretty reliable guide. The argument that only by the towers collapsing would people have been motivated is grade-A bullshit, made up out of thin air, and birthed from your anus.

Never believe anything in politics, until it has been officially denied.

That’s a lousy yardstick. I’d rather stick with rationality and logic.

And again, we come to the conspiracy nutters downfall – their love of complexity. It’s not sufficient that an attack be possibly aided and allowed to happen – something which would be relatively simple to do without any risk of discovery.

No, it must have been hundreds of sekrit operatives, working through the dark nights and sekritly planting explosives, laying det cord, placing detonators, and hoping against hope that not one employee should discover such devices. Not one maintenance worker, not one AC tech, not one IT monkey.

Yeah, it’s really FAR MORE LIKELY that some grand scheme would be hatched involving missiles, pods, holograms, and hundreds of conspirators. I can’t believe I didn’t see it!

Post Modified: 02/01/06 11:59:18

R120451
4 years ago
Chickenma1

“And again, we come to the conspiracy nutters downfall – their love of complexity. It’s not sufficient that an attack be possibly aided and allowed to happen – something which would be relatively simple to do without any risk of discovery.”

Well said. I would totally agree with you if it weren’t for Building 7 falling down the way it did. And if building 7 was demolished, why not the other 2? And it would be tragic to discount something that happened right in front of our noses simply because the enormity of the crime is hard to grasp.

But when it comes to re-opening the investigation, demolitions are not really needed to make the case – so unless the scientist-types have overwhelming evidence, best to keep it simple.


R120481
4 years ago
whateveryousay

The argument that only by the towers collapsing would people have been motivated is grade-A bullshit, made up out of thin air, and birthed from your anus.

i think you will find that that straw-man’s place of birth was in fact your anus.


R120484
4 years ago
Shogo

I would totally agree with you if it weren’t for Building 7 falling down the way it did.

I think WTC7 is quite adequately explained. It had a 20-story hole in the front, had fires burning for hours on end, and was a less-stable structure in terms of how it was built. It was trapezoidal, not square, and it had a cantilevered construction to allow for a large open space in the front of the building. All those factors make it an inherently less stable structure than a standard skyscraper.

It may well be as Dr. Usmani suggests – that the architects of the WTC didn’t design for fire. The focus was solely on fire-resistance, not accommodating the structural weaknesses that can come about from long-burning fires.

i think you will find that that straw-man’s place of birth

Straw man? Are you retracing this comment, then: “speak for yourself”?


R120652
4 years ago
whateveryousay

I think WTC7 is quite adequately explained. It had a 20-story hole in the front

not according to the nist report.

but anyway,

according to frank greening’s paper, Aluminum and the World Trade Center Disaster (hosted on the 911 myths site), there were gigantic explosions and it was these explosions which caused the collapse of the tower(s).

since it would be the first “non-demolition theory” which actually acknowledges the reality of explosions (and other observations of the collapses which are generally ignored), the “explosion sounds” paper has been updated thusly:

=====================================================
One “non-demolition” theory for the demise of the Twin Towers, which actually acknowledges the explosiveness of these events, is offered in a recent paper (January, 2006) by Dr. F.R. Greening called “Aluminum and the World Trade Center Disaster”. Greening’s theory suggests that molten aluminum-thermite reactions and low temperature “thermite sparking” were caused by a combination of aluminum from the 767 jet-plane, heat from the fire, the presence of lime in the towers’ concrete floors, gypsum in the wall-boards, rust from the steel frame of the towers, and sources of water in the towers including concrete.

The theory states that the 767’s aluminum air-frame would begin to melt a temperatures 500-550?C, flow down, and come into contact with the other ingredients “inducing violent thermite explosions”. These explosions would in turn cause a partial collapse, like that observed in the leaning of the South Tower’s top, allowing the flowing molten aluminum access to yet more reagents below, more explosions, the process repeating in something of a chain-reaction down the building, and gravity adding to the momentumcof the collapse with the intact structure above.

The observed explosion of the South Tower’s mechanical floors could lend some weight to this theory since these floors would quite probably house large water systems used for cooling of the building. Greening’s paper quotes one B. Davy who says, “The aluminum-water reaction that occurs with molten aluminum is highly exothermic, and will cause the aluminum to detonate with greater energy release than an equivalent weight of TNT.”
====================================================

Post Modified: 02/01/06 20:17:26

R120654
4 years ago
Shogo

Interesting find, wys.


R120659
4 years ago
whateveryousay

it’s a pretty fucked up idea that the fdny who radio-ed down from floor 78 (south tower) and said that they could control the fire might have started spraying water and hit a bunch of molten aluminum causing an explotion…
a very weird idea.

=======================================================
9:52 a.m.

Battalion Seven Chief: “Battalion Seven to Battalion Seven Alpha.”

“Freddie, come on over. Freddie, come on over by us.”

Battalion Seven Chief: “Battalion Seven … Ladder 15, we’ve got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor numerous 10-45 Code Ones.”

Ladder 15: “What stair are you in, Orio?”

Battalion Seven Aide: “Seven Alpha to lobby command post.”

Ladder Fifteen: “Fifteen to Battalion Seven.”

Battalion Seven Chief: “... Ladder 15.”

Ladder 15: “Chief, what stair you in?”

Battalion Seven Chief: “South stairway Adam, South Tower.”

Ladder 15: “Floor 78?”

Battalion Seven Chief: “Ten-four, numerous civilians, we gonna need two engines up here.”

Ladder 15: “Alright ten-four, we’re on our way.”
=======================================================


R120699
4 years ago
Continuity

Natural freakish thermite explosions? Seems pretty unlikely to me. Does such a thing happen a lot in similar, albeit rare, situations? It seems even more unlikely when Shogo, after calling W.E.Y.S. a retarded tool fifty times, says “hey, interesting find”. Whatever shiznit works, eh Shogo?

More BS:

It may well be as Dr. Usmani suggests – that the architects of the WTC didn’t design for fire. The focus was solely on fire-resistance, not accommodating the structural weaknesses that can come about from long-burning fires

Oh now it’s the fires again, says Shogo. Are those the same mysterious fires that never produced steel samples to prove NIST’s hypothesis? The Dr. (now a good guy) didn’t think the WTC could endure fires of such longstanding length as like… less than an hour? All of that concrete and steel never had a chance in hell

I can’t help but repeat the obvious joke: If you want to take down a massive skyscraper, the most efficient way is to blast a 767 into it.

Post Modified: 02/02/06 02:02:27

R120700
4 years ago
Continuity

Notice the Shogo-Bot spew the jive, apparently aimed at whatever poor gullible bastard chancing upon this thread:

Yeah, it’s really FAR MORE LIKELY that some grand scheme would be hatched involving missiles, pods, holograms, and hundreds of conspirators. I can’t believe I didn’t see it

I’m afraid none of the regular critics in this thread are talking missiles, pods, holograms, etc. As for hundreds of conspirators, you already believe in hundreds of unstoppable brown-skinned conspirators who had far less resources, so whatever…

I know to you the world looks like vast webs of conspiracies carried out by elite secret agents, but James Bond is fictional

8.5 on the rhetoric scale. The use of James Bond as stereotypical, archetypal image is appreciated.

The fact that you would even make such an absurd analogy shows that you have about as much sense as Karl Pilkington

9.2 on the hypocrisy scale. If both sides are going to be deathly sarcastic, don’t try and reach the higher ground now.


R120705
4 years ago
Continuity

Oh I almost missed this gem. Classic Shogo:

Just curious, why do you think steel samples would be saved? Are burned bits of houses saved? Are bits of cars in auto accidents saved?

There’s a great deal of chatter about how the carting away of the demolished building is somehow a priori evidence of this grand conspiracy you believe in

First of all, your apologetics here reveal yet more cynical dishonesty, which isn’t a surprise, but I didn’t think you would be this reaching.

Second of all, I believe it’s only natural to ask: why was all this crime scene swiftly destroyed and removed from the country without a proper investigation, as FEMA subcontractors complained, to cite one example. Physical investigations of much less devastating events have usually been longer and more comprehensive. In this case, the largest mass murder crime scene in the history of the USA, the governor of New York tells us: We don’t need the physical evidence. Computer models will suffice.

Ship this debris out of here ASAP!


R120722
4 years ago
whateveryousay

Natural freakish thermite explosions? Seems pretty unlikely to me -continu

well yeah. freakish, sure. but as far as theories go, it looks pretty tight on the surface and it certainly deserves a chance. it goes a hell of a lot further towards explaining what much of the “demolition theories” are based on, at least in part… a hell of a lot further than the “there were no explosions”, “ignore everything” method.


R120726
4 years ago
whateveryousay

i find the whole appearance of a cover-up thing intreging. there’s a kind of authority of meaning paradigm going on. like: it doesn’t matter what happened, people will think what i tell them to think.

so what’s the deal with the total ban on photos and videos of the ground zero site?
was there a ban? certainly. there’s not question about it. what was all of that part of?

lets look at a document from The United States Army Corps of Engineers: “World Trade Center Public Affairs Team”... do bare in mind that “public affairs” is just (quite specifically) an early euphamizm for “propaganda”.

here’s some excerpts:

====================================================================================
Initial implementation of the New York City FEMA disaster plan was based on a Cold War 1962 scenario that placed the FEMA Emergency Operations Center 22 miles from a projected nuclear blast in Manhattan….

The challenge for Public Affairs was to create and implement a centrally managed communication structure that would support the efforts of the Corps as part of the total federal response led by FEMA.

By September 15, the key messages and strategies for the Corps role at the World Trade Center were developed, coordinated with FEMA and NYC,

Public Affairs Strategies for WTC:
... #Stress the work that the City, the State and the other Federal agencies have done in their response to this unprecedented event. #*Establish a “one-voice” message concept*, ensuring accurate and timely information. #Handle media per established protocol. #Develop and provide key agency messages and program descriptions in written format to leadership and Corps employees working at various sites.
... #Provide consistent messages to external audiences and coordinate information received with other functions.
[..]
Together with HQ USACE public affairs, the team developed key talking points for the interview and conducted a “murder board” review with the Chief and NAD Commander.
[..]
...time was wasted trying to locate individually photographed images. Upon arrival of USACE manpower, the photo mission ceased to be a concern as the photographer was aware of missions, restrictions, coordination and protocols.
[..]
During the first week, individually driven coordination between members of the team ensured one voice, one message.
[..]
As a result of the City ban on photography and video from Ground Zero, images reflecting the Corps activities in the Red Zone, at the landfill and throughout the effected areas, would run on every TV and cable newscast as background video for local talking heads nationwide and throughout the world.
[..]
The WTC PA Team began issuing a Public Affairs Talking Points Paper on September 14 and made sure every Corps employee processing in got a copy so all Corps responders were speaking with one voice.
[..]
...Be prepared to issue talking points in writing to all in-processing and out-processing employees as well as any major updates during the deployment. Keeping employees informed and reducing rumors is a force multiplier mission that is ideal for PAO to perform. Failure to perform diminishes any goodwill earned through earlier works by PAO. ...
[..]
the WTC PA Team successfully demonstrated a willingness to take on the added responsibility to ensure the Corps and the total Federal Response Team and their goals were properly addressed with a constant one-message, one-voice approach by all involved, from the structural engineers inside the debris pile at Ground Zero to the logistics personnel at the reception center at Pier 90, from the White House press updates to the FEMA Director’s media briefings, and from other Federal agencies, our stakeholders to include our elected officials, and the public-at-large, to the men and women of the United States Army Corps of Engineers.
[..]
...the need to follow a Joint Information Center set of rules where all news releases are coordinated through FEMA and the State.
================================================================================================================================ emphasis mine

Post Modified: 02/02/06 06:54:02

R120751
4 years ago
Shogo

Continuity, I know that you think you have some incredibly deep insight into my personality, but you really are nothing more than an idiot masquerading as a fucktard.

you already believe in hundreds of unstoppable brown-skinned conspirators

Show me where I made such a claim, please. Happy hunting, you won’t find it.

You’re a classic example of what I’ve been talking about. You’re the kind of moron who perceives any criticism of your position as equating to the critic being a government shill.

I don’t think 9/11 is what it appears to be on the surface. But I also find the notion of demolitions to be far-fetched, absurd, and unnecessary.

Your inability to see beyond the two polar extremes suggests that you have some serious mental impairments.

By the way, nice attempt at swooping in bravely and “exposing” me in order to “save” GNNsters from being duped by my disinfo campaign! You are awesome!

Post Modified: 02/02/06 08:54:43

R120791
4 years ago
Joe

“not according to the nist report.” (wtc7)

I don’t think NIST’s WTC 7 report is finished. This outline mentions structural damage due to falling debris a number of times. For example:

Analyses shall be conducted to meet the following subtasks:

a. Determine global structural stability for two damage states, caused by debris impact during the collapse of WTC 1. NIST will estimate the two states of damage to the structural system, based on witness accounts and photographs, and provide the estimates to the contractor. The analyses shall be conducted to characterize the mechanism by which loads redistributed after the impact damage from falling debris.


R120792
4 years ago
Joe

“As for hundreds of conspirators, you already believe in hundreds of unstoppable brown-skinned conspirators who had far less resources, so whatever…”

Even brown-skinned people can learn to fly planes.


R120796
4 years ago
yeshappysteady


R120798
4 years ago
Joe


R120799
4 years ago
yeshappysteady

an oldie, but a goodie

R120801
4 years ago
whateveryousay

I don’t think NIST’s WTC 7 report is finished. —joe

the report says nothing of “a 20-story hole in the front”. it does mention that there are conflicting reports of damage to the south-face but call the collection of stories as a whole, “mostly consistent” and enough to suggest there was a 10 story gouge from the base and a smaller hole further up. in the task-force interviews, (if i remember rightly) one fireman claims he saw damage much more severe than was actually there. he’s all, “yeah, i totally knew it would collapse ‘n’ shit”, and the interviewers kind of laugh at him a bit…
i’ll dig it up.


R120831
4 years ago
Joe

Dig what up? I’m not sure I know what report you’re talking about.. NIST’s report on WTC 7 is still being worked on, to my knowledge.

Damage visible at the 18th floor:

pic deleted

from appendix L – Interim report on WTC
Post Modified: 03/16/06 18:13:04

R120837
4 years ago
whateveryousay

Damage visible at the 18th floor —joe

...and only as low as the 8th:

from appendix L – Interim report on WTC

that would be 10 floors, not 20 (if that’s what you were getting at, i don’t know).


R120838
4 years ago
whateveryousay

Dig what up? I’m not sure I know what report you’re talking about. —joe

the world trade center task force fdny interview i was talking about. that’s what i’ll dig up.


R120900
4 years ago
Continuity

You’re the kind of moron who perceives any criticism of your position as equating to the critic being a government shill

No, I believe some others here were calling you a shill or operative. That’s too flattering imo. I just call you full of shit, according to your own writings. Examples: You wrote that Oswald assuredly bagged Kennedy alone with the magic bullets; wrote that all or the vast majority of the Jewish people are direct genetic descendants of ancient Israelites, Judaeans, etc. (no conversions, intermarriages, etc.). You wrote that steel filing cabinets can account for the molten steel at the WTC ruins; wrote that the temperatures beneath the ruins not only stayed the same naturally for a long period of time, but in fact increased over time. Now you wrote it’s not even worth batting an eyelash that virually all of the WTC ruins (the biggest crime scene ever in America) were quickly whisked away to China and India, or dumped in the ocean. There’s just a few diddies, but please don’t let me get in the way of you spouting further nonsense.

But I also find the notion of demolitions to be far-fetched, absurd, and unnecessary

Fine, we got your point 3 yrs ago when you were championing the Eager analysis, and you were losing it back then with longwinded bluster posts too. We know you will jump on any bandwagon, hump any leg, and hug any theory that precludes demolition. New case in point on this page: freakishly unlikely possibility of natural thermite explosions going off.

Your inability to see beyond the two polar extremes suggests that you have some serious mental impairments

Uhm, that’s called rhetoric & ad hom, which is normally all you got. If all the WTC anomalies were sufficiently explained, then I would have no further interest in this debate. I would say: demolition is out of the question because new evidence A,B,C properly explains anomalies X,Y,Z.


R120915
4 years ago
sisyphus


R120936
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

Miami Herald Publishes Editorial Questioning the Official Story of 9/11

ROBERT STEINBACK
1/31/2006

A group of experts and academicians ‘devoted to applying the principles of scientific reasoning to the available evidence, `letting the chips fall where they may,’ ‘’ last week accused the government of covering up evidence that the three destroyed New York City buildings were brought down that day by controlled demolition rather than structural failure. The group, called Scholars for 9/11 Truth, has a website, www.st911.org
\

Minnesota professor helps found Scholars for 9/11 Truth

‘‘I am a professional philosopher who has spent 35 years teaching logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning,’‘ group co-founder and University of Minnesota professor James H. Fetzer told me. ``When I come to 9/11, it’s not hard for me to determine what is going on. This is a scientific question. And it is so elementary that I don’t think you can find a single physicist who could disagree with the idea that this was a controlled demolition.’‘

A small club gets a little bigger.

Post Modified: 02/02/06 20:36:52

R120937
4 years ago
Snark

Carry on.


R120962
4 years ago
aaron

WTC7 was about the insurance claim, shogo. All 3 buildings had to come down for Silverstein to become one of the richest men alive. Nothing to see there though, move along.

Shogo said: Just curious, why do you think steel samples would be saved? Are burned bits of houses saved? Are bits of cars in auto accidents saved?”

This illegal evidence destruction operation was conducted over the objections of attack victims’ family members and respected public safety officials. Bill Manning, editor of the 125 year old Fire Engineering Magazine, wrote in an article condemning the operation:

“Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the happy land social club fire? ... That’s what they’re doing at the World Trade Center. The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately.”

Dr. Frederick W. Mowrer, an associate professor in the Fire Protection Engineering Department at the University of Maryland, was quoted in the the New York Times as saying:

“I find the speed with which potentially important evidence has been removed and recycled to be appalling.”

Officials running the “cleanup operation” took pains to make sure the structural steel didn’t end up anywhere but in blast furnaces. They installed GPS locater devices on each of the trucks hauling loads from Ground Zero at a cost of $1000 each. One driver who took an extended lunch break was dismissed.

I’d bet all thats probably been covered already somewhere in this thread.


R120970
4 years ago
Joe

“All 3 buildings had to come down for Silverstein to become one of the richest men alive.”

‘Not much sign of ‘windfall profits’ here.’


R121016
4 years ago
whateveryousay

the 911myths.com site hosts some earlier papers by greening here .

they’ve been cited earlier in this thread.

but here’s some other quotes which weren’t brought up yet:

====================================================
Energy_Transfer_Addendum.pdf

Finally, let me say that although I have not done any calculations for other WTC structures, the collapse of WTC 7 is a problem! I say this mainly because WTC 7 was not hit by an aircraft; therefore I admit it is very surprising that this high-rise building should have collapsed without being subject to an aircraft impact.

NISTREPORT.pdf

Clearly, if NIST’s computer model is essentially correct, the Twin Towers collapsed (or fell over!) at ridiculously small downward displacements and tilt angles, and were inherently unstable as soon as they were struck by aircraft. This raises serious questions about the design and construction of the Twin Towers. However, a more reasonable assessment would be that NIST’s computer model is highly inaccurate,and therefore of no value in explaining the demise of the Twin Towers.
====================================================

i’m still fascinated by his ‘molten aluminum/water explosions’ theory.
i’m speculating that there was a lot of water in the cooling equipment on the mechanical floors 77 + 78 in the south tower; the towers were cooled with river water pumped up from the basement.
not an issue with the north tower but at floor 110 there they had 2 reserve water tanks for the sprinkler system and fire-fighting stand-pipes. they were 5,000 and 10,000 gallons. at least the smoke reached up to the top floors of the north tower but i’m not sure about the fire.


R121047
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

Experts Claim Official 9/11 Story is a Hoax

(PRWEB) – Duluth, MN (PRWEB) January 30, 2006 — A group of distinguished experts and scholars, including Robert M. Bowman, James H. Fetzer, Wayne Madsen, John McMurtry, Morgan Reynolds, and Andreas von Buelow, have concluded that senior government officials have covered up crucial facts about what really happened on 9/11.

They have joined with others in common cause as members of “Scholars for 9/11 Truth” (S9/11T), because they are convinced, based on their own research, that the administration has been deceiving the nation about critical events in New York and Washington, D.C.

These experts suggest these events may have been orchestrated by elements within the administration to manipulate Americans into supporting policies at home and abroad they would never have condoned absent “another Pearl Harbor.”

They believe that this White House is incapable of investigating itself and hope the possibility that Congress might hold an unaccountable administration accountable is not merely naive or wishful thinking.

They are encouraging news services around the world to secure scientific advice by taking advantage of university resources to verify or to falsify their discoveries. Extraordinary situations, they believe, require extraordinary measures.

If this were done, they contend, one of the great hoaxes of history would stand naked before the eyes of the world and its perpetrators would be clearly exposed, which may be the only hope for saving this nation from ever greater abuse.

They hope this might include The New York Times, which, in their opinion, has repeatedly failed to exercise the leadership expecedt from our nation’s newspaper of record by a series of inexplicable lapses. It has failed to vigorously investigate tainted elections, lies leading to the war in Iraq, or illegal NSA spying on the American people, major unconstitutional events. In their view, The Times might compensate for its loss of stature by helping to reveal the truth about one of the great turning-point events of modern history.

Stunning as it may be to acknowledge, they observe, the government has brought but one indictment against anyone and, to the best of their knowledge, has not even reprimanded anyone for incompetence or dereliction of duty. The official conspiracy theory—that nineteen Arab hijackers under control of one man in the wilds of Afghanistan brought this about—is unsupportable by the evidential data, which they have studied. They even believe there are good reasons for suspecting that video tapes officially attributed to Osama bin Laden are not genuine.

They have found the government’s own investigiation to be severely flawed. The 9/11 Commission, designated to investigate the attack, was directed by Philip Zelikow, part of the Bush transition team in the NSA sector and the co-author of a book with Condoleezza Rice. A Bush supporter and director of national security affairs, he could hardly be expected to conduct an objective and impartial investigation.

They have discovered that The 9/11 Commission Report is replete with omissions, distortions, and factual errors, which David Ray Griffin has documented in his book, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions. The official report, for example, entirely ignores the collapse of WTC7, a 47-story building, which was hit by no airplanes, was only damaged by a few small fires, and fell seven hours after the attack.

Here are some of the kinds of considerations that these experts and scholar find profoundly troubling:

  • In the history of structural engineering, steel-frame high-rise buildings have never been brought down due to fires either before or since 9/11, so how can fires have brought down three in one day? How is this possible?
  • The BBC has reported that at least five of the nineteen alleged “hijackers” have turned up alive and well living in Saudi Arabia, yet according to the FBI, they were among those killed in the attacks. How is this possible?
  • Frank DeMartini, a project manager for the WTC, said the buildings were designed with load redistribution capabilities to withstand the impact of airliners, whose effects would be like “puncturing mosquito netting with a pencil.” Yet they completely collapsed. How is this possible?
  • Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700*F, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800*F under optimal conditions, and UL certified the steel used to 2,000*F for six hours, the buildings cannot have collapsed due to heat from the fires. How is this possible?
  • Flight 77, which allegedly hit the building, left the radar screen in the vicinity of the Ohio/Kentucky border, only to “reappear” in very close proximity to the Pentagon shortly before impact. How is this possible?
  • Foreign “terrorists” who were clever enough to coordinate hijacking four commercial airliners seemingly did not know that the least damage to the Pentagon would be done by hitting its west wing. How is this possible?
  • Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, in an underground bunker at the White House, watched Vice President Cheney castigate a young officer for asking, as the plane drew closer and closer to the Pentagon, “Do the orders still stand?” The order cannot have been to shoot it down, but must have been the opposite. How is this possible?
  • A former Inspector General for the Air Force has observed that Flight 93, which allegedly crashed in Pennsylvania, should have left debris scattered over an area less than the size of a city block; but it is scattered over an area of about eight square miles. How is this possible?
  • A tape recording of interviews with air traffic controllers on duty on 9/11 was deliberately crushed, cut into very small pieces, and distributed in assorted places to insure its total destruction. How is this possible?
  • The Pentagon conducted a training exercise called “MASCAL” simulating the crash of a Boeing 757 into the building on 24 October 2000, and yet Condoleezza Rice, among others, has repeatedly asserted that “no one ever imagined” a domestic airplane could be used as a weapon. How is this possible?

Their own physics research has established that only controlled demolitions are consistent with the near-gravity speed of fall and virtually symmetrical collapse of all three of the WTC buildings. While turning concrete into very fine dust, they fell straight-down into their own footprints.

These experts and scholars have found themselves obliged to conclude that the 9/11 atrocity represents an instance of the approach—which has been identified by Karl Rove, the President’s closest adviser—of “creating our own reality.”

Post Modified: 02/03/06 07:56:34

R121051
4 years ago
Shogo

You wrote that Oswald assuredly bagged Kennedy alone with the magic bullets

Uh, what? That’s bullshit. You’ll have to prove that contention, guy.

wrote that all or the vast majority of the Jewish people are direct genetic descendants of ancient Israelites, Judaeans, etc. (no conversions, intermarriages, etc.).

That’s quite an imprecise attribution. “All” or “the vast majority”? Well, I certainly wouldn’t claim all, and I would never claim no intermarriages or no conversions since it is obvious that there are people who have converted to Judaism.

You wrote that steel filing cabinets can account for the molten steel at the WTC ruins

A) There is no evidence that whatever molten metal was seen even was steel.

B) An office building has lots of steel in it apart from structural steel. You argue that such a notion is preposterous, yet can’t explain why it’s preposterous. Do you think that WTC7 had no steel apart from structural steel? Is that really going to be your contention?

freakishly unlikely possibility of natural thermite

Why is it freakishly unlikely? Because you say so? The same guy who got all the shit listed above horribly wrong? Do you have some logical reasoning to support your contention that it’s not only unlikely, but freakishly so? Upon what are you basing this conclusion?

that’s called rhetoric & ad hom, which is normally all you got.

Unlike you, right? Paragon of reason that you are?

You’re an idiot, Cuntingency. Plain and simple. And you plainly have problems with logical thinking and reading comprehension.

PS – Oswald didn’t shoot JFK, FYI.


R121058
4 years ago
in_itself

“PS – Oswald didn’t shoot JFK, FYI.”

Well then….who did?


R121062
4 years ago
Shogo

A group of distinguished experts and scholars, including Robert M. Bowman, James H. Fetzer, Wayne Madsen, John McMurtry, Morgan Reynolds, and Andreas von Buelow

Bowman is former Air Force Lt. Colonel.

James H. Fetzer is a philosphy professor.

Wayne Madsen is a journalist.

John McMurty is another philosophy professor.

Morgan Reynolds is an economist.

Andreas Von Buelow is a former German minister of research and technology.

So while these men may be experts in certain endeavors, skyscraper construction, engineering, and physics are certainly not among them.

While they may indeed be right about the Bush admin desiring the events to take place, and aiding them in some fashion, their adherence to the church of explosive demolitions puts them squarely in the fruitcake camp.

In the history of structural engineering, steel-frame high-rise buildings have never been brought down due to fires either before or since 9/11, so how can fires have brought down three in one day? How is this possible?

I can’t believe you’re rehashing this same old shit, but here goes. A) They’re leaving out the impact of the jets into the buildings, which knocked giant holes in the sides. They are mischaracterizing the damage by claiming “only” fire took the buildings down. B) They’re implying that three buildings collapsing that way in one day is somehow statistically improbable, which is bizarre considering the three buildings in question all suffered significant structural damage, and two of them were built at the same time, in the same fashion. If there were a flaw in their design that didn’t adequately accommodate for the effects of long burning fires, then it would apply to both towers.

The BBC has reported that at least five of the nineteen alleged “hijackers” have turned up alive and well living in Saudi Arabia, yet according to the FBI, they were among those killed in the attacks. How is this possible?

Evidence?

Frank DeMartini, a project manager for the WTC, said the buildings were designed with load redistribution capabilities to withstand the impact of airliners, whose effects would be like “puncturing mosquito netting with a pencil.” Yet they completely collapsed. How is this possible?

A) This claim was never evaluated in any scientific manner. It was a boast made at the time of the buildings debut, and may well have been hyperbole since there’s no way to verify the accuracy of such a claim without testing. B) At the time the buildings were designed the largest and heaviest plane weighed over a hundred tons less than the planes that hit the WTC towers, and were capable of speeds approximately half as fast. Mass and velocity are how force is calculated, and by that measure the impact damage from a fast-moving 767 is orders of magnitude larger than the planes the architect was speaking of.

Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700*F, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800*F under optimal conditions, and UL certified the steel used to 2,000*F for six hours, the buildings cannot have collapsed due to heat from the fires. How is this possible?

Total bullshit. Steel loses a great deal of it’s strength LONG before it reaches those melting points. These guys “physics research” is a bunch of shit if they’re making claims like this.

Flight 77, which allegedly hit the building, left the radar screen in the vicinity of the Ohio/Kentucky border, only to “reappear” in very close proximity to the Pentagon shortly before impact. How is this possible?

Evidence?

Foreign “terrorists” who were clever enough to coordinate hijacking four commercial airliners seemingly did not know that the least damage to the Pentagon would be done by hitting its west wing. How is this possible?

Quite a giant leap is being made here. Why do they assume the hijackers knew that? If you look at the Pentagon and where it is situated geographically, the side that they hit is the easiest one to hit, since it’s the most exposed. It has the longest approach available, over the river and the highway, with the fewest trees in the way.

A former Inspector General for the Air Force has observed that Flight 93, which allegedly crashed in Pennsylvania, should have left debris scattered over an area less than the size of a city block; but it is scattered over an area of about eight square miles. How is this possible?

Who is this “former Inspector General”? More to the point, what is an Inspector General in terms of the USAF? And why would a former USAF officer know A) anything about commercial airlines, and B) be more of an expert in civilian airliner crashes than the NTSB? How long ago did he serve? What kinds of airplanes is he intimately familiar with? This sounds like conjecture, and there’s no citation.

A tape recording of interviews with air traffic controllers on duty on 9/11 was deliberately crushed, cut into very small pieces, and distributed in assorted places to insure its total destruction. How is this possible?

Source?

Some of the points, re: foreknowledge, I’d say are good questions – such as the Cheney one (if true), and the Condoleezza Rice one. But their “physics” analysis is dogshit, they are sloppy in how they frame their questions, and it seems their whole hypothesis is based on conspriacy nutter websites. If they really were of a scientific bent, those questions pertaining to the collapse wouldn’t be so idiotic.

This “panel of experts” is a fucking joke.


R121064
4 years ago
Shogo

All 3 buildings had to come down for Silverstein to become one of the richest men alive.

Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that this is true.

The buildings didn’t have to come down that day for this to happen. The buildings would have to have been demolished anyway. I don’t see this as a compelling argument for demolitions, sorry.


R121066
4 years ago
Shogo

I am a professional philosopher

Big fuck.


R121088
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

You left out the rest of the statement

‘’I am a professional philosopher who has spent 35 years teaching logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning,’’ group co-founder and University of Minnesota professor James H. Fetzer told me. ``When I come to 9/11, it’s not hard for me to determine what is going on. This is a scientific question. And it is so elementary that I don’t think you can find a single physicist who could disagree with the idea that this was a controlled demolition.’’


R121094
4 years ago
Shogo

Pertinent excerpts: “I am a professional philosopher” and “When I come to 9/11, it’s not hard for me to determine what is going on.”

Sorry, but the opinion of a philosopher doesn’t count for much in a matter of engineering.

And this, “it is so elementary that I don’t think you can find a single physicist who could disagree with the idea that this was a controlled demolition.” is plainly wrong considering that many scientists have debunked the notion that it was a controlled demolition.

So in short, this guy is wrong, and he’s overstated his case so egregiously it calls his sanity into question. To say you don’t think a single physicist (which is strange anyway, considering it’s more an engineering puzzle than theoretical physics) would dispute that it was explosives, when there are numerous engineering professors who do not buy into the explosives fantasy, clearly shows that this guy is fucking clown shoes.


R121125
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

BYU Professor Steven E. Jones at UVSC
Februaruy 1, 2006

Listen for yourself, as Jones makes his case for explosives.

“It is not nutty to say that the collapse of World Trade Center 7 looks like a controlled demolition.” Jones said he tired to get the video of the collapse shown on the Tucker Carlson program, but they would not show it.

Post Modified: 02/03/06 11:09:08

R121145
4 years ago
Shogo

Jones is a crackpot.


R121146
4 years ago
Joe

““Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the happy land social club fire? ... That’s what they’re doing at the World Trade Center. The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately.””

According to 911myths.com, this quote is only part of a larger statement. He goes on to say “Such destruction of evidence shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a thorough, scientific investigation of the largest fire-induced collapse in world history.” more


R121180
4 years ago
aaron

Don’t be fucking ridiculous. I quoted that guy to show that contrary to what shogo says, there would have been great value in keeping and studying the steel.
Who cares if he beleives in demolition? The point is that neither of our camps can prove much of what we say because they got rid of the steel.

Now you guys are trying to play it down instead of being frustrated by it. Why?


R121184
4 years ago
Joe

“The point is that neither of our camps can prove much of what we say because they got rid of the steel.”

Sorry.. I thought you were a supporter of the explosive demo theory. My bad, I shouldn’t of picked on you.

Post Modified: 02/03/06 13:20:50

R121186
4 years ago
aaron

Of course I’m a supporter of the Demolition theory, pick on me all you want.
The steel could have proved a lot, and keeping it would be much more in line with standard procedure. Do you agree?


R121189
4 years ago
aaron

shogo said:
“Jones is a crackpot.”

BYU Professor Steven E. Jones at UVSC said:
“Josh is an inbred Khazar fat-head whose life revolves around maintaining the set-up against Arabs.”


R121192
4 years ago
Shogo

Of course I’m a supporter of the Demolition theory

I know, I have no idea what Joe was thinking there. I guess he didn’t realize that you’re a swallower of any and every cracked-out hypothesis out there.

Josh is an inbred Khazar fat-head whose life revolves around maintaining the set-up against Arabs.

See what I mean? The Khazar “mass conversion” has been thoroughly debunked, but you believe it anyway. You’re a great fan of believing in shit without any evidence.

Oppress any maori lately?


R121194
4 years ago
aaron

Loads. Sucked any bleeding infant penis lately?


R121199
4 years ago
Shogo

Yeah, that really happens!

You should read some more Jew-hate sites. You’re obviously learning a lot.

We also kill Arab children to get blood for making matzos.

BTW, I called your bank and had them transfer your money to my account. Since it was only a few dollars I didn’t think you’d miss it.


R121201
4 years ago
Joe

“I guess he didn’t realize that you’re a swallower of any and every cracked-out hypothesis out there.”

I guess not. If one’s under the assumption that there’s not enough evidence to prove any side, why take a side? And if you’re going to post that Mr. Fireman said “taking away the evidence was wrong”.. why not share that Mr. Fireman also called it the “largest fire-induced collapse in world history”?

“The steel could have proved a lot, and keeping it would be much more in line with standard procedure. Do you agree?”

I don’t know what standard procedure is for a terrorist attack of that magnitude, nor do I know who exactly was directing the initial investigation, so I can’t speak to that. A huge pile of toxic burning rubble in the middle one of the biggest cities in the world does have to go somewhere, and it has to go quickly.

I do agree that it may have been useful evidence. But it’s unfair to portray it as evidence of a record-setting explosive demolition operation.

Post Modified: 02/03/06 14:06:40

R121212
4 years ago
aaron

Shogo, are you unaware about Mayor Bloombergs battle with the Rabbis who are refusing to stop the pee-pee sucking, even though one of them gave 3 kids herpes and one of the kids died?

Joe said:
Mr. Fireman said “taking away the evidence was wrong”.. why not share that Mr. Fireman also called it the “largest fire-induced collapse in world history”?

I’ve already explained that i was making a point to counter shogos bullshit .
Lets say Mr Fireman is 100% positive there was a demolition. Do you expect him to voice that, or call for the preservation of evidence so something can be proven?
I think its obvious why he described it that way. He was staying within the parameters of what was acceptable to everyone, while pleading for the preservation of evidence so there could be an investigation. He couldn’t prove demolition so he kept it to himself.
Or he wasn’t sure, so he kept it to himself. Or he knew there would be others who would be curious, and felt they should have the right to a thorough investigation. I cant tell for sure.
But calling it a “fire induced collapse” proves nothing. That was the gummint line, and I can see why he wouldn’t want to seen to stray from it. If you want to investigate criminal government activity, its best not to make a case for enquiry that can be written off as crackpot. You won’t get an investigation if you appear to have drawn conclusions already.

Joe: “I don’t know what standard procedure is for a terrorist attack of that magnitude, nor do I know who exactly was directing the initial investigation, so I can’t speak to that.”

The nature of the attack shouldn’t impact on the nature of the investigation. You need to study the steel so you know what happened, so you don’t send the steel to China. I can’t see it any other way.

Joe: “A huge pile of toxic burning rubble in the middle one of the biggest cities in the world does have to go somewhere, and it has to go quickly.”

Now that I can agree with. But the steel couldn’t have been stored?

Joe: “I do agree that it may have been useful evidence. But it’s unfair to portray it as evidence of a record-setting explosive demolition operation.”

It could easily be someone covering their ass. Hiding evidence is suspicious.

Post Modified: 02/03/06 14:48:10

R121229
4 years ago
Shogo

are you unaware about Mayor Bloombergs battle with the Rabbis who are refusing to stop the pee-pee sucking

That’s no more representative of modern Jewry than the Taliban is of Islam. Pointing to fringe nutters as an indictment of a whole people is fucking wack.


R121231
4 years ago
aaron

Stay on target, Shogo. You made out it was some kind of fable. Its not.
I’m not saying all jews do it. Just you.


R121239
4 years ago
Joe

“The nature of the attack shouldn’t impact on the nature of the investigation.”

Ideally. Who was in charge of the investigation at this time? Who would have been responsible for collecting the steel, had it been done? Just looking at recent history (Brownie did a heckuva job), it looks like some government agencies have a problem dealing with reality.

“That was the gummint line, and I can see why he wouldn’t want to seen to stray from it.”

He’s obviously not afraid to accuse the government of being ignorant and incompetent. Why assume he’s afraid to propose an alternate theory?


R121244
4 years ago
aaron

“Why assume he’s afraid to propose an alternate theory?”

Not afraid, just professional. We’ve got 20 pages of examples of the kind of names you get called for bringing alternate theories. Having the Shogos of the world screaming “moonbat” at him would have hurt his cause, which was honest investigation.


R121249
4 years ago
Joe

So you can’t believe any professionals?


R121282
4 years ago
Shogo

We’ve got 20 pages of examples of the kind of names you get called for bringing alternate theories.

Don’t be such a daft tit.

It’s not the bringing of alternate hypotheses that’s the issue. It’s the insistance (which it is) that the alternate hypotheses are correct, and anyone who finds fault with them is a government shill that rankles. It’s the readiness to believe any alternative hypothesis despite having no evidence that it’s accurate – or indeed even possible.

Your mischaracterization of this is a clear symptom of your status as a friggin moonbat.


R121306
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

New ‘Scholars for 911 Truth’ Group – Update – Steven E. Jones’ Lecture, 2/1/2006, Now Available

February 1, 2006
Seminar: “9/11 Revisited: Scientific and Ethical Questions,” by Prof. Steven E. Jones
7:00 – 8:30 p.m., at CS 404 at Utah Valley State College in Orem, Utah

Thanks to www.911truthseekers.org for making the audio available: Click Here

Thanks to dz from www.911blogger.com for making Professor Jones’ slides available for download: Click Here

Sponsored by the Center for the Study of Ethics and the School of Science and Health

Why, Indeed, Did the WTC Buildings Collapse? by Steven E. Jones


Press Release posted at YahooNews: Experts Claim Official 9/11 Story is a Hoax


BYU professor’s group accuses U.S. officials of lying about 9/11

Post Modified: 02/03/06 20:11:19

R121310
4 years ago
aaron

Joe:“So you can’t believe any professionals?”

Are you fucking with me?
He didn’t want to commit to any theory without evidence. He wanted to preserve the evidence so that a conclusive study could be done. If he had been succesful maybe we would know shit for sure. I don’t find that insignificant, it fucks me off really bad, TBH.

I don’t understand why you cant see why.


R121312
4 years ago
aaron

Shogo, you fucking wanker, this thread is pages and pages of you talking absolute shit that you cant back up. You cling to your side of the argument as religously as you accuse everyone else of doing. Bring something to the party or STFU.

You can start by explaining why you think that the towers needed 100% integrity to stand. According to those who designed the thing (are they engineery enough for you?) the exact opposite is true. I’m sure the “pencil in a flyscreen” quote would be in this thread somewhere.
So back your shit up, fuckhead.

“The BBC has reported that at least five of the nineteen alleged “hijackers” have turned up alive and well living in Saudi Arabia, yet according to the FBI, they were among those killed in the attacks. How is this possible?”

Shogo said:“Source?”

Hahahahahaha, BBC, simpleton. Have you honestly not heard about this?


R121320
4 years ago
whitey

wys: yeah, but there’s much more to post

Cool… link here when you put it up.


R121336
4 years ago
Joe

“I don’t understand why you cant see why.”

I don’t see the connection between evidence of a coverup and a record-setting controlled demolition operation carried out in complete silence without a single whistleblower.


R121337
4 years ago
Continuity

Aaron, I’m not in any grand position to tell you what to say, so you can ignore me or whatever; but for the sake of this thread, I advise you not to press the Jew Button (especially about weird fringe stuff). Other than that, I also wonder why some of the hijackers were still alive after 9/11.

The most obvious answer comes right from the wrongly accused men themselves: their passports or other ID pieces were lost/stolen, meaning that identity theft probably took place. To my knowledge, there’s been no proof of any government agencies involved in that; it is a common intel practice nevertheless.

When FBI Director Mueller swore in for testimony regarding the hijackers, he confessed that his agency could not prove for certain who the hijackers really were. But that was months after 9/11, and by that time few really cared about such details anyway.

Anyway, none of this has to do with demolition, so I’ll stop with this subject.


R121346
4 years ago
yeshappysteady

“...I advise you not to press the Jew Button.”

Post Modified: 02/03/06 23:28:43

R121349
4 years ago
Shogo

You cling to your side of the argument as religously

Not religiously, no. There is something called “physical law”. There is another thing called “evidence”, and still another called “Occam’s Razor”.

Bring something to the party or STFU.

I brought your mom, but she passed out after the first couple of hours.

You can start by explaining why you think that the towers needed 100% integrity to stand.

I don’t recall saying that (don’t bother looking for a quote, you won’t find it). However, a structure as tall as the WTC, and as physically massive, can only bear so much damage before the structural integrity is compromised. After the planes hit the building there were those who fled, and those who remained – the ones who remained did so out of a false sense of security.

According to those who designed the thing (are they engineery enough for you?) the exact opposite is true.

Dude, you’re being a daft tit again. I’m sure the engineers who designed the Hindenburg were quite confident in it’s safety. The same goes for the Titanic, the Pinto, and the Dalkon Shield. The bottom line is that people make mistakes, and just because you think you’ve addressed something in your design doesn’t make it so.

The point that Usmani was making (structural engineering professor, specializes in fire damage) is that the WTC towers were not designed with fire tolerance in mind. The bulk of the effort was spent on fire prevention, but no thought was given to the circumstance where a fire would burn for a long time before being put out.

So back your shit up, fuckhead.

Heh. Right. Fuck off.

Hahahahahaha, BBC, simpleton. Have you honestly not heard about this?

Provide the data or STFU, bitch.


R121350
4 years ago
yeshappysteady

Post Modified: 02/03/06 23:48:02

R121352
4 years ago
aaron

Here’s a link, goober.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm

Occams Razor again? When I apply occams Razor to this situation, I get the guys who benifitted the most, and who were in the best position to pull it off, resisting and stonewalling all inquiry.
I also notice that the guys who are blamed gaining very little. There is also zero credible evidence they had anything to do with it, they were far from devout maniacs, and oh yeah, some are still alive. They all had fake identities, and the strongest evidence against them is a koran in a rental, a non-singed passport, and security footage with no timestamp.

So to me, the simplest explanation is government complicity on some level.
With that in mind, I think the easist way for them to make sure those towers came down would be to give them some help. I can’t see them leaving anything to chance.

Having said all that, i don’t think Occams Razor applies because it requires all relevant information, which we obviously don’t have.

Shogo: “The point that Usmani was making (structural engineering professor, specializes in fire damage) is that the WTC towers were not designed with fire tolerance in mind. The bulk of the effort was spent on fire prevention, but no thought was given to the circumstance where a fire would burn for a long time before being put out.”

They didn’t burn for a long time. Read some of this.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html

Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel-framed high-rise building to collapse. Following are examples of high-rise fires that were far more severe than those in WTC 1 and 2, and Building 7. In these precedents, the fires consumed multiple floors, produced extensive window breakage, exhibited large areas of emergent flames, and went on for several hours. The fires in the WTC towers did none of these things.

The One Meridian Plaza Fire

One Meridian Plaza is a 38-floor skyscraper in Philadelphia that suffered a severe fire on February 23, 1991. The fire started on the 22nd floor and raged for 18 hours, gutting eight floors and causing an estimated $100 million in direct property loss. 1 2 3 It was later described by Philadelphia officials as “the most significant fire in this century”.

The fire caused window breakage, cracking of granite, and failures of spandrel panel connections. 4 Despite the severity and duration of the fire, as evidenced by the damage the building sustained, no part of the building collapsed.

The First Interstate Bank Fire

The First Interstate Bank Building is a 62-story skyscraper in Los Angeles that suffered the worst high-rise fire in the city’s history. From the late evening of May 4, 1988 through the early morning of the next day, 64 fire companies battled the blaze, which lasted for 3 1/2 hours. The fire caused extensive window breakage, which complicated firefighting efforts. Large flames jutted out of the building during the blaze. Firefighting efforts resulted in massive water damage to floors below the fire, and the fire gutted offices from the 12th to the 16th floor, and caused extensive smoke damage to floors above. The fire caused an estimated $200 million in direct property loss.

A report by Iklim Ltd. describes the structural damage from the fire:
In spite of the total burnout of four and a half floors, there was no damage to the main structural members and only minor damage to one secondary beam and a small number of floor pans.

The New York Plaza Fire

New York Plaza is a 50-story office tower less than a mile from the World Trade Center site. It suffered a severe fire and explosion on August 5, 1970. The fire started around 6 PM, and burned for more than 6 hours.

Caracas Tower Fire

The tallest skyscraper in Caracas, Venezuela experienced a severe fire on October 17, 2004. The blaze began on the 34th floor and spread to over 26 floors, and burned for more than 17 hours. Heat from the fires prevented firefighters from reaching the upper floors, and smoke injured 40 firefighters.

The Windsor Building Fire

The most recent case of a severe high-rise fire is the one that destroyed the Windsor Building in Madrid, Spain on February 12, 2005. The Windsor fire was more severe than any of the other fires described on this page, and the incident has been widely publicized, with comparisons to the fires in the three World Trade Center skyscrapers on 9/11/01. However, the Windsor Building, unlike all the buildings mentioned above, was framed in steel-reinforced concrete rather than steel. Hence it is described on a separate page, which notes differences between the response of these different types of structures to fires.


R121406
4 years ago
lday

Shogo,

You persistently misuse the expression ‘jumbo jet’. A jumbo jet has 4 engines, not two.

Flight 77, which allegedly hit the [Pentagon] building, left the radar screen in the vicinity of the Ohio/Kentucky border, only to “reappear” in very close proximity to the Pentagon shortly before impact. How is this possible?

There are several ways this is possible. The simplest explanation is plane substitution. Somewhat more elaborate is that System Planning Corporation, a pioneer in stealth technology, simply used a cloaking device until the ‘plane’ was approaching Washington.

from Legal Intelligencer (2002-11-17)

In litigation that began years before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the owners of the World Trade Center office complex in New York are not entitled to insurance coverage for the costs of removing asbestos.

That is the appeal of the previous, early-2001 ruling in a ten-year case.
The Port Authority’s ‘solution’ was to privatise the towers.
Why anyone would buy them, even with a 75% tax break, is a ‘mystery’.
The PA had asked for permission to demolish them and been denied.
The work order to remove the asbestos in a safe manner was a gigantic
liability.

http://www.newswithviews.com/Spingola/deanna24.htm

_Compartmentalized thinking functions like amnesia when it comes to previous administrations and notable events such as fires and other destructive occurrences. There has certainly been no mention either by the government or our mass media about the major fire that occurred in the north tower on 13 February 1975. This fire required 132 or more firemen. It started on the 11th floor and spread to six other floors. It burned for three hours and destroyed a major portion of the 11th floor. Yet, the building did not collapse in its own footprint or explode into concrete powder that blanketed the surrounding area.[23]

This lease was for 99 years and the negotiations by Lewis M. Eisenberg, the chairman of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, had begun in April 2001.[3] Westfield America leased the portion of the World Trade Center referred to as “the mall” which constituted 427,000 square feet of retail space. “The Mall has 75 specialty stores, restaurants and service retailers, and will be branded ‘Westfield Shoppingtown World Trade Center.’ The Mall has one of the highest producing sales volumes in America with sales in excess of $900 per square foot. It serves 40,000 office workers, 150,000 daily visitors and is an important business and tourism hub.”[4]
“Eisenberg has served as Chairman of the Republican National Finance Committee in Washington, D.C. since January 2002, raising crucial dollars for Republican candidates across the country. During the last year (2004), Eisenberg helped raise $135.3 million for the Republican Party.”[5] He is also known as a Republican Super Power Ranger.[6] A Super Power Ranger is someone who was willing to individually contribute $300,000 to the 2004 Bush/Cheney campaign.[7] Eisenberg personally gave $307,000 and has been an influence in the Bush administration.[8] He is also a member of the Republican Jewish Coalition.[9]
“Silverstein and Eisenberg have both held senior leadership positions with the United Jewish Appeal (UJA), a billion dollar Zionist “charity” organization, to which media magnate Rupert Murdoch and Lowy generously contribute. In 1997, Henry Kissinger presented Murdoch with the UJA’s award for “Humanitarian of the Year.” Silverstein is a former chairman of UJA. This organization raises hundreds of millions of dollars every year for a network of Zionist agencies in the United States and Israel.[10]
In February 2002, Silverstein was awarded $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. His original investment in WTC 7 was $386 million.
(…)

WRH: …Larry Silverstein said. “We will be in control of a prized asset, and we will seek to develop its potential, raising it to new heights.”
But the World Trade Towers were not the real estate plum we are led to believe.

{ From an economic standpoint, the trade center — subsidized since its inception — has never functioned, nor was it intended to function, unprotected in the rough-and-tumble real estate marketplace. [BusinessWeek] }

How could Silverstein Group have been ignorant of this?

I question how NJ Governor Wittman, having been appointed by GWBush to head
the EPA, could play dumb about the toxic air quality after the collapse?
The Port Authority is jointly NY’s and NJ’s. and she must have known about the asbestos removal problem.

from: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/asbestos.html
(...)
_The recognition of the toxicity of asbestos has led to legislation for its survey and removal from structures. The removal is expensive because the removal operation must be quarantined and subject to rigorous decontamination procedures. Removal of asbestos used as structural fireproofing in steel framed high-rises is complicated by the fact that the fireproofing covers an intricate lattice of steel in the most difficult-to-access places.

Some sense of the cost of removing the asbestos from the Twin Towers can be obtained by the example of 55 Broad Street. The removal of asbestos in that building cost $70 million when it was empty. That was five times the cost of the building’s construction 15 years before. 3

Another example is the 60-story Montparnasse Tower in Paris. Experts estimate that the removal of asbestos from this building would take three years with full evacuation, and ten years if the building were to remain occupied during the operation. 4

According to Eric Darton’s 1999 book on the Twin Towers, the Port Authority had planned to pump $800,000 into the Twin Towers for a variety of improvements, the most costly of which was asbestos abatement (not removal)_. 5

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


R121408
4 years ago
whateveryousay

At the time the buildings were designed the largest and heaviest plane weighed over a hundred tons less than the planes that hit the WTC towers, and were capable of speeds approximately half as fast. Mass and velocity are how force is calculated, and by that measure the impact damage from a fast-moving 767 is orders of magnitude larger than the planes the architect was speaking of. -shogo

that’s inaccurate. if you’re talking about the 707 it had a faster speed than a 767, maybe ‘cause of the 4 engines. but yeah, slightly smaller plane, slightly faster speed. faster speed, more force.

607mph vs. 530mph … that’s not half the speed hobo.


R121409
4 years ago
whateveryousay

You persistently misuse the expression ‘jumbo jet’. A jumbo jet has 4 engines, not two.

767s are wide body jets and are sometimes refered to as jumbo jets.
not near as jumbo as 747s but jumbo enough to be called jumbo from time to time.


R121412
4 years ago
Snark

Ok, just as a general comment, stop posting shit about other skyscraper fires, aight? None of those had an airliner rammed into them. That’s a significant difference, and apples and oranges are somewhat different. Fuck.


R121421
4 years ago
Joe

“None of those had an airliner rammed into them.”

lol. you noticed?

“However, the Windsor Building, unlike all the buildings mentioned above, was framed in steel-reinforced concrete rather than steel”

And this particular building suffered a partial collapse, and has to be demolished. Firefighters thought the whole thing might collapse.


R121473
4 years ago
Shogo

From aaron’s BBC linkage:

FBI Director Robert Mueller acknowledged on Thursday that the identity of several of the suicide hijackers is in doubt.

Yeah aaron, QUITE THE COVERUP you’ve unearthed there!

If you have any more stupid shit to say, I’m all eyes.


R121485
4 years ago
Briefcaseman

Let us not forget The Five Dancing Israelis Arrested On 9/11
A Mossad surveillance team made quite a public spectacle of themselves on 9-11.

Post Modified: 02/04/06 12:36:44

R121486
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

Shortly after the arrest of the men, FBI officials suspected that the Urban Moving company was an Israeli intelligence front. Vince Cannistraro, a former chief of operations for counterterrorism, told ABC News that the FBI was concerned that the moving company had been “set up or exploited for the purpose of launching an intelligence operation against radical Islamists in the area, particularly in the New Jersey-New York area.” [ABC News, 6/21/02]

The five employees that were taken into custody were all former members of the Israeli Army. After being transferred to jail, the FBI’s Criminal Division sent the case to the Counterintelligence Section on account of suspicions that they were Israeli spies. They were then detained for more that two months. Some of them spent 40 days in solitary confinement. [New York Times 11/21/01; ABC News, 6/21/02]

Mossad and Moving Companies: Masterminds of Global Terrorism


R121487
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

Let’s find out what the Center for Cooperative Research has to say about the Israeli Spy Ring, because Paul Thompson is famous, among 911 researchers, for using only mainstream sources.

Post Modified: 02/04/06 12:53:57

R121490
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

Now isn’t it easy to figure out why the “Weehawken Five” knew in advance that the WTC towers were coming down? Isn’t it easy to tie the trace of explosives, the van and the “moving” company together? And do we really need to ask why the FBI hustled these Mossad killers quickly out of the country? And don’t tell me you’re still curious as to why the FBI did that! And don’t expect me to believe for a moment that Israeli intelligence knew about it, tried to tell our government, but had nothing whatsoever to do with it!

Major 911 Curiosity Completely Ignored By The Media

Post Modified: 02/04/06 13:05:03

R121514
4 years ago
whateveryousay

The five employees that were taken into custody were all former members of the Israeli Army.

everyone youth in israeli have been in the army.
it’s an obligation to serve. some people don’t have to, if they’re a “type 102” or whatever (mentally unfit(crazy)).

...

but back to 7. if you look at where the damge was and possibly was (they say at least 2 exterior columns were severed), it’s no where near the columns which they are confident failed first.

shogo goes on about the cantilevers. that bit, the con-ed station, was on the north face (undamged) and the columns which failed were not a part of the cantilever system.


R121518
4 years ago
whateveryousay

oh yeah. about vans full of people with some kind of apparent foreknowledge:

9/11/01 police radio scans, tape 10

skip ahead to 3 minutes and listen to about 30 seconds of this…

“king and 6th ave”, “explosives”, “remote-control planes”...

huh? what the?

well go to 5:15 where they eventually explain what’s going on.

the cops find a big truck with a mural of a plane (remote control) diving into new york city and exploding. two guys get out of the van and run off and the truck explodes (or is maybe only filled with explosives far as i can tell what they are saying). the cops catch the 2 guys.

on a side note, one guy on the radio seems to have the bright idea of just “fukin’ beat the shit out of em” (5:56min)

i think that the tape is ‘post-wtc1 collapse’ because of the gas-leak at the high-school report.


R121520
4 years ago
Joe

Party like it’s 1999.


R121521
4 years ago
whateveryousay

hey! i’m post 2000!



R121523
4 years ago
whitey

2001: A Space Odyssey


R121529
4 years ago
whateveryousay

R121541
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

I guess the story about the remote controlled plane was originally here.

The transcript is here.

Audio

Post Modified: 02/04/06 20:52:21

R121694
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

If you are listening to the tape and following the transcript, you have to wait about three minutes for the audio to catch up with the beginning of the transcript. Before the transcript begins, there is some talk about explosives on King and 6th Avenue, and somebody says “one of those remote controlled planes” and something about a plane message.

As the transcript begins, they are still talking about a message about the plane, or a message about a remote controlled plane, and it turns out that the message is about a big truck with a mural painted of an airplane diving into New York City and exploding, the truck is in between 6th and 7th on King Street. Then one officer said: “Two men got outta the truck, ran away from it, we got those two”.

officer: we got both suspects under kay, we have the suspects who drive…drove in the van and that exploded
we have both of them under kay let’s get some help over here

officer: now I’m sending you [inaudible] I just want to make sure you and your guys all right over there kay, that’s all.

officer: what location?

officer: King Street between 6th and 7th

Post Modified: 02/05/06 20:23:12

R121921
4 years ago
Betty_Swollocks

Hmmmmmmmmm This Steven Jones stuff…...............

Even his own University doesn’t agree with him …...........

“The BYU physics department has also issued a statement: “The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones’s hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU’s own faculty members. 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.”

And …......

“Chairman of the BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Dr. Miller, is on record stating in an e-mail, “I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don’t think there is accuracy and validity to these claims”.

In other words, he wrote the crap, but it has not yet been peer reviewed ….......

But hey, he must be making lots of money from the lecture circuit right?? Oh, and I feel maybe a book or two in the pipeline …..........................


R121927
4 years ago
Shogo

Best. Name. Ever.


R121963
4 years ago
COS

Hey! you are the 2006th poster. You win a free toaster.


R122007
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

Betty_Swollocks,

Welcome to GNN. I noticed you are a brand-new poster.

Post Modified: 02/06/06 14:50:55

R122009
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

Let’s not get off-subject. We talked about the professor. I think that subject is pretty much exhausted. Expert witnesses need to be challenged in court, if they ever get there, character evidence sometimes makes a difference, but in the end expert witness testimony is what it is, either the jury believes it or they don’t. You can’t spend forever on it.

But there are a couple of issues I addressed, such as the Urban Moving Company and this latest evidence of the two guys in the van that apparently exploded. See everybody is looking for a nice neat explosion scenario, have you ever heard of pot shots?

Post Modified: 02/06/06 15:20:23

R122191
4 years ago
COS

Its past the point of questions and answers. Its now at the action stage. If you havent noticed bush nor cheney nor rumsfled are in cuffs.


R122190
4 years ago
COS

Its past the point of questions and answers. Its now at the action stage. If you havent noticed bush nor cheney nor rumsfled are in cuffs.


R122273
4 years ago
Chickenma1

Welcome, Betty. Your post has been posted already. Guess you’ll have to read through all 21 pages to catch up.


R122318
4 years ago
whateveryousay

Betty_(sock puppet)_Swollocks?


R122323
4 years ago
CIAlien

But hey, he must be making lots of money from the lecture circuit right??

Wow, Professor Jones must have screwed up when he forgot to charge money for the presentation he gave to over 750 people the other night.

Off to a great start, “Betty”.


R122402
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

Yeah, I was just wondering how much of a killling Jones is making out there on the circuit in Utah.

Post Modified: 02/07/06 19:37:20

R122504
4 years ago
Continuity

Maybe we should all start like 12 new proxy accounts each…


R122738
4 years ago
Chickenma1

Reposting this from the WTC 7 thread:

Check out the pic of a demolition in China. Go to http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6981409/ and hit China’s Three Gorges Dam slide-show on the right. It’s picture number 8.


R122752
4 years ago
Joe

“Betty_(sock puppet)_Swollocks?”
“Off to a great start, “Betty”.”
“Maybe we should all start like 12 new proxy accounts each…”

X-D

lol


R122882
4 years ago
Shogo

Betty Swollocks is a pretty funny name though, you must admit.


R122890
4 years ago
Joe

I guess that’s what gave Betty away.. paid NSA disinfo agents don’t have such clever names, therefore: sockpuppet.


R123019
4 years ago
Fogo_Shucker

Shogo: “Betty Swollocks is a pretty funny name though, you must admit.”

I think that it’s a hillarious name!


R123073
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

Fogo,

Welcome to GNN. One thing for sure, this thread is bringing in some new people. Listening to the podcast now.

Post Modified: 02/09/06 07:50:55

R123868
4 years ago
CIAlien

In an exclusive Killtown interview, Ground Zero EMT Patricia Ondrovic talks about her harrowing day at the WTC on 9/11. Within minutes after the South Tower collapses, she witnessed the WTC 5 blowing up, cars exploding, and explosions inside the lobby of the WTC 6, all the while narrowly escaping with her own life. Patricia can be reached at: fieldangel911@yahoo.com

Arriving at the Scene

Killtown: Were you one of the Ground Zero rescuers on 9/11?

Patricia Ondrovic: Yes.

KT: What was your position and who did you work for?

PO: I was an emergency medical technician [EMT] with the Fire Department of New York.

KT: How did your day start off on Sept. 11 and when did you get called to the scene at the WTC?

PO: It started off like any other. I had dropped a patient off at Bellevue and one of the Doc’s asked if I was going to respond to the WTC. I told him it was out of my area. I asked “why, what’s going on?” He told me they were getting reports that “a helicopter” had crashed into one of the towers. I responded after both planes had hit. I was on scene approx 45 min before the first tower fell.

[The 2nd crash happened at approx 9:03 a.m. and the South tower fell at approx 9:59 a.m.]

KT: Was the WTC area part of your regular route?

PO: No, I worked in the Times Square area. The WTC was far downtown from where I was.

KT: What did you immediately do once you arrived at the scene and do you remember where exactly you arrived at?

PO: I reported to a staging officer who told me to park the ambulance along Vesey Street. I ended up parking along the street in front of the 6 World Trade with several other ambulances. We were going to get any injured people who were brought out of the burning buildings to transport to the hospital. I don’t remember where we entered from as I was not so familiar with the area.

Another Airplane Warning

KT: Did you basically stay around that area before the South Tower collapsed at 9:59 am?

PO: Yes, we were staged waiting for the triage teams to bring us patients when an officer in a white shirt and blue pants (don’t know from what agency) said that there was a radio transmission that stated, “Another plane was headed towards us!” We were told to get to our vehicles and get ready to move fast, but it wasn’t fast enough. All of a sudden there was a lot of activity within the several agencies there and everyone started to scramble to ready their respective vehicles.

KT: When you were told another aircraft was approaching, was this right before the South Tower collapsed?

PO: Maybe 3 to 5 minutes prior. I don’t know if that estimation is correct, but I remember we all had time to take a minute and look into the skies all around to see if we could see anything.

KT: Did you see any planes in the sky?

PO: No, there was nothing in the skies at that time.

KT: Did you happen to see any helicopters, military or non-military, flying around?

PO: I didn’t see any helicopters at the time either.

KT: Where did they want you to move your vehicles too, any particular spot, or just “away” from the WTC?

PO: “Just get ready to move fast” is the phrase I remember.

KT: Did they want you to move away from the area right away, or just get ready to move if another plane was coming in?

PO: I don’t know, they just told us to get our equipment, put it back in the vehicles and “get ready to move…fast”. At that point, they seemed to realize it just wasn’t a safe place to be.

KT: In retrospect, did it seem a little too coincidental that they told all of the rescuers to get ready to move out of the area minutes before the Tower collapsed?

PO: It was a bit eerie at the time as well. In that job, when someone tells you to “just move fast” there’s nothing to question, you just move. We had been on scene for a while before just setting up and waiting for patients and all of a sudden there was so much activity. It did seem odd that after being there for some time all of a sudden everyone had to get ready to get out. I personally never expected the buildings to come down.

KT: Did you receive any direct warnings or hear any rumors that any of the towers might be coming down?

PO: We were not told the building was possibly going to collapse. I did not hear any rumors about a building collapse. I never heard anyone say anything to the effect that any of the buildings in the area were not stable at the time. We were simply told to get to our vehicles and get ready to move.

KT: Was Vesey Street blocked off between Church St and West St?

PO: Yes, I think all that were there were fire, police, EMS, and OEM [Office Emergency Management].

KT: Did you ever see any videos or cameras being confiscated from anyone that day?

PO: No.

KT: Did you see any newscasters or any other media people on or near Vesey taking any footage?

PO: No, none that I could see.

Cars Blowing Up

KT: What did you do when the South Tower started coming down?

PO: I didn’t know what was happening, but there was a loud “roar” — lots of crashing sounds. I was attempting to put my stretcher back into the vehicle. The ground was shaking and I saw a sea of people, mostly the various agencies on scene, Fire, Police, EMS, all running towards me. I had no idea what they were running from, but I decided I’d be ahead of them and just started running west towards the river. As I was running, parked cars were blowing up and some were on fire, the street was cracking a bit as well. Very shortly after I started running, everything became one big black cloud. I was near the West Side Highway and I couldn’t see around me anymore.

KT: Before you heard the loud rumbling which was the South Tower coming down, do you remember hearing any strange noises like gunfire or crackling sounds?

PO: No.

KT: You talked about the cars blowing up in your WTC Task Force interview, correct?

PO: Yes.

KT: Can you estimate how many vehicles blew up around you?

PO: At least three and some were on fire as I was running by. I was still on the south side of Vesey running west. The burning cars were between my ambulance and about the middle of the 6 World Trade where the lobby doors were at.

KT: Where you running on the street, or up the sidewalk?

PO: Up the sidewalk.

KT: When these vehicles blew up, was it kind of like what you would see in the movies where the vehicle pops up in the air when it explodes with a fireball coming out?

PO: I remember parts flying off — I think I got hit with a car door. I remember they were also on fire, but I don’t specifically recall the movie type fireball, but there was a loud bang as the door flew off the one car I was running past.

KT: Do you have any idea what was causing these vehicles to catch on fire and/or explode? Was the air temperature really hot as you were running by these cars?

PO: I don’t know what was causing them to blow up. I didn’t know at the time that I was trying to outrun a skyscraper falling on me, but after I found out what I ran from. I figured it was the impact of the building falling and residual effect. I am not an engineer, so I can only guess at a probable cause. I don’t remember feeling any extreme heat.

KT: Could you tell if the vehicles blowing up on the street were only parked next to the WTC 6?

PO: I was only paying attention to my immediate surroundings, if there were any vehicles not near me blowing up, I wasn’t aware of them, just the ones closest to me.

KT: What type of vehicles were they (cars, SUVs, trucks — civilian, non-civilian) that were on fire or had blown up?

PO: They were unmarked cars, most likely privately owned. I didn’t see any SUVs, trucks or any “official” vehicles on fire.

KT: Were these cars all parked next to each other?

PO: They were parallel parked. There was no discernable order to what was on fire. It was all very chaotic.

Explosions Inside WTC 6 Lobby

KT: You mentioned you were running west on Vesey Street, what happened after that?

PO: I just kept running. I was aware there were other people running as well. After passing the cars on fire, I was trying to find someplace safe. I tried to run into the lobby of 6 World Trade, but there were federal police — maybe 4 to 6 of them — standing in the open doorways. As I tried to run in, they wouldn’t let me, waving me out, telling me “you can’t come in here, keep running.” As I turned to start running west again, I saw a series of flashes around the ceiling of the lobby all going off one-by-one like the X-mass lights that “chase” in pattern. I think I started running faster at that point.

KT: Did you hear any “popping” sounds when each of these flashes in the WTC 6 lobby were going off?

PO: Yes, that part was like a movie. The pops were at the same time as the flashes.

KT: Can you estimate either how many flashes you saw or how many of these “pops” you heard inside this lobby?

PO: At least 6 before I was turned away.

KT: Could you still hear any of these explosions when you turned to run back out, or was the noise outside too loud?

PO: I don’t recall hearing any more when I resumed running. It was very chaotic.

KT: Now to be clear, were you inside the Lobby of the WTC 6, or were you outside the building when you witnessed these what appeared to be explosions?

PO: I was in the doorway, but not inside the lobby. I remember being able to breathe the somewhat cleaner air coming from inside the building. They stopped me as I was trying to get past the threshold.

KT: Were the explosions going off as you were entering the lobby area, or did they seem to start going off after the police tried to turn you away?

PO: It all happened at the same time. As I got to the doorway, I was told not to come in. As the officer was telling me I couldn’t get in the building the flashes starting going off.

KT: Where the police just right at the lobby door, or were some also way inside the building?

PO: There were probably 4-5 officers in the doorway. I could see a few others back in the lobby area.

KT: You said you saw “federal police.” What exactly do you mean and did you find it strange they were in there and that they wouldn’t let you in?

PO: Well, they were in light brown uniforms and “Smokey the bear” hats. I assumed they were federal police because NYC police don’t look like that and I knew there was a lot of federal offices in the WTC as well as the surrounding area, so it wasn’t strange to me to see them there, but I did find it very odd that they wouldn’t let me in to get cover. But like I say, in that profession, someone tells you to go an opposite way you are going, you don’t ask, you just go. I remember hoping they got out as I was watching whatever the small explosions were, because they stayed in the building. They weren’t locking it up after evacuating or anything like that.

KT: Did you know which government agencies were in the WTC?

PO: I knew there were a lot of federal agencies in the WTC complex, but I don’t know which ones specifically.

KT: Did these policemen run out of the WTC 6 lobby after these explosions occurred, or could you tell?

PO: It didn’t look like they did. It looked like they were there making sure no one ran in like I tried to do. I remember seeing them in the doorway, but don’t know what happened to them after that.

KT: Did you happen to notice if they were wearing any earplugs or any other uncommon protective gear?

PO: There was nothing that I could see. They appeared to be dressed to simply do lobby detail. No flack wear, no overcoats, no helmets. To this day, I still wonder if they got out.

KT: Did you think these explosions in the lobby were maybe lights popping out as in an electrical surge, or did they seem more like explosives going off in a timed manner?

PO: I immediately got the impression they were timed explosives. I have never thought they were anything else, not then, not now.

KT: Have you ever seen a building being demolished with explosives on TV and was the flashes and pops similar to that?

PO: It did remind me of just that. I had seen something on a Las Vegas casino being demolished and that’s what it reminded me of.

KT: Can you try to describe what these “pops” you heard sounded like?

PO: They sounded like light bulbs popping, but there were no light fixtures where the explosions were coming from. The sound was not all that loud.

KT: Do you think these explosions you witnessed were loud enough to be heard on the street?

PO: Because of everything going on, I don’t think these “pops” could have been heard from the street. It was definitely louder outside as a whole.

KT: At the time, who did you think planted these explosives in there?

PO: I didn’t have any notions of where to put blame per se, but I remember thinking that it was possibly the same organization who tried to blow up the building back in 1993. I figured they came back to finish the job. At the time I was running, I remember thinking that “they” wired the whole area. At the time I wasn’t aware that what made the towers catch fire were passenger jets crashing. I thought the buildings had bombs planted to go off that day. The idea of not only one passenger jet, but two took me a while to comprehend — not to mention the pentagon as well.

KT: Can you estimate how long after you heard the load rumbling, which was the South Tower coming down, to when you witnessed these explosives going off in the WTC 6?

PO: Well, remember this was all on the same street I was parked. It is very difficult for me to estimate time with so much happening at once, but I want to say maybe 2 to 3 minutes from the rumbling and the ground, and the cars, and the fires, that I tried to run into 6 WTC for cover, which is when I saw those explosions.

KT: Did anybody else besides you and the police witness these explosions in the WTC 6 lobby?

PO: I imagine there must have been others to see, I wasn’t the only one running up the street. I can’t imagine being the only person to try to run for cover. I didn’t see any “civilians” in the lobby of the 6, just the brown uniformed officers.

Motorola Radio Troubles

KT: After you witnessed the explosions in the lobby of the WTC 6, you started running in which direction and then what happened?

PO: I kept running west on Vesey. I got hit with the cloud shortly after being turned away from 6 WTC. I was probably at the corner of Vesey/West Street at that point running. I ran towards the West Side Highway — there is a park area there. I remember running across grass and there was now lots of grey and black smoke. I was just trying to get to the water because nothing was exploding, or on fire from what I could see. There were lots and lots of people also running that way at this point.

KT: When were you able to escape the dust cloud and what happened after that?

PO: I was now at the water’s edge. There were no boats I could see, so I started to run north along the side of the West Side Highway. I was about 9 or 10 blocks north of Vesey on the West Side Highway. I found the first FDNY EMS vehicle and knew the crew as they were also from my station. I remember not being able to breathe so well — felt like someone was standing on my chest. When I looked back, I could see people coming out of the black cloud and continuing to run and walk north on the West Side Highway as well.

KT: Did you notice any firefighters or other rescuers having technical problems with their Motorola radios or any other equipment?

PO: Oh yeah, at one point there was a loud “buzzing” sound and none of the EMS radios worked for maybe 30 seconds? We all used Motorola radios and I believe our repeaters were on top of the towers, so when the tower came down our radios failed. I tried to use my cellphone, but that too did not work.

KT: Do you know if anybody’s cellphone worked and were able to get through to anybody?

PO: A few of my co workers had Nextel phones. Theirs worked, but they couldn’t talk to anyone who didn’t have a Nextel because all the other services were out at the time.

KT: When did you get to leave the area to go home?

PO: I left by ambulance. A FDNY EMS supervisor came up to myself and my colleagues and told us to “go back in.” I still wasn’t aware of what I had come out of and I told him anyone who didn’t get out isn’t getting out and it’s not safe to go back in. He yelled at me, demanding all 3 of us “go back in.” I told him I was having chest pain and trouble breathing and my colleagues took me to St. Vincent’s Hospital. I was on the stretcher with an oxygen mask on looking out the back windows as we were driving off and saw the other tower collapse. It didn’t occur to me at the time that the other one was already gone and that’s what I came out of. I don’t remember when I got home. I had to walk over the Queensboro Bridge and it was dark out. I walked home from my station at Bellevue. I lived in Astoria, Queens at the time. All I wanted to do was get home and see my cats.

Bag & Tag at Ground Zero

KT: In the days after, did you have to go back at Ground Zero?

PO: Yes, I think my first day back was maybe 3 days later.

KT: What were your duties when you had to go back?

PO: We all took turns doing morgue detail, standby for anyone who got hurt going through the rubble. I did morgue detail a few times.

KT: Is this what is referred to as “bag & tag”?

PO: Yes, when you have to log any body parts, or personal effects in morgue work. It was important to try to document any remains we found.

KT: Now despite this being probably the most chaotic incident you had to work at, did you find any strange things when you’re recovering evidence there?

PO: Well, I remember cataloging findings in the morgue log — a tooth, an arm and such. Never catalogued watches, wallets or jewelry.

KT: You never found any jewelry on any of the victim’s parts?

PO: I didn’t, no. But I do recall at some point either in Brooklyn or Staten Island they had a facility where debris was trucked to and the contents sifted by hand for any evidence. That was some time after 9/11, maybe a few weeks after they started that.

KT: Did you find any personal belongings on the ground or buried under any debris?

PO: I didn’t.

KT: What about things like office furniture, computers, and pictures — things that would be in a normal office building?

PO: Everything was this sort of grey/black debris. I personally never saw anything definable like a chair, desk, or phone, but I never went into what was the base of the building itself, there could have been there. I remember everything being layered in grey soot and ashes everywhere and just debris. One thing I remember distinctly was on a corner adjacent to the towers a bike messenger’s bicycle still chained to the lamppost covered in soot.

KT: Have you ever worked a recover detail where you didn’t find any recognizable personal belongings or objects like interior furniture, say from the aftermath of a fire?

PO: I never worked a recovery detail before that. It wasn’t customary for EMS to work recovery. From time to time we would have to transport a body to the morgue after an investigation was completed if the deceased was in public view. I worked in midtown. In the 12 years I was with EMS, I never responded to anything like that.

KT: A year after the attacks, a victim’s family received an ATM card that belonged to their son who was supposedly on Flight 11 that crashed into the North Tower and was supposedly found in relative pristine condition by rescue crews at Ground Zero. Did you ever come across anything even remotely close to someone’s personal item like this in any condition?

PO: I never came across any personal effects. The things I did find were charred, burnt, rubble covered in soot. I guess that’s the needle in the haystack [the ATM card].

KT: So is it fair to say that you think something like this plastic ATM could not only not survive at Ground Zero, but not survive so well intact?

PO: I’d say it was a miracle.

Aircraft Wreckage

KT: Did you ever see any aircraft wreckage lying around on or after 9/11 at Ground Zero.

PO: Not on 9/11, but a bit after one day I was doing standby and there was a long flatbed truck bringing out a long piece of silver and charred metal, probably the length of 2 passenger cars, that one of the police officers doing standby detail with us brought to my attention and he said it was a piece of the plane.

KT: Could you at all tell what part of the plane this piece of debris you saw on this truck came from and could you see any windows or other discernable markings?

PO: No, it had to be brought to my attention what it was. In fact, I forgot I saw that until you asked the question. It would have stuck in my memory if it was a wing, or seats or anything like that. It was a somewhat long and curved at the edges piece of what looked like fuselage. I didn’t see any company markings on it either.

KT: You mentioned this piece was silver in color. Did any part of that piece of silver debris you saw have any of the “shiny silver” you would see on your average American Airlines plane?

PO: Not when I saw it. The entire piece was dull and charred silver, but it definitely looked like part of a plane.

KT: Did anybody you know of who was at the WTC on 9/11 or at Ground Zero afterwards see or find any airplane debris?

PO: Not that I’m aware of. No one mentioned anything like that to me.

WTC Task Force Interview

KT: You were interviewed by the WTC task force afterwards. Did anybody else interview you about your experience at ground zero?

PO: The WTC Task Force was the only group that ever interviewed or debriefed me. They asked me to detail the events that day as well as mark on a map where I was parked and which way I ran.

KT: Who were the people at the WTC Task Force that interviewed you?

PO: I was told one was from the F.B.I., one was from D.O.I. [Dept. of Investigations], one was P.D. I recall there were 4 to 5 people involved. They were writing as well as voice recording.

KT: Do you know why some of the lines on pages 9, 12, 13 of your Task Force interview were blacked out?

PO: No, I never received a copy of my interview and I never read it. All I did was the one interview with them.

KT: When these officials were debriefing you, was this a normal routine after an incident?

PO: I had been on other calls that I was debriefed after (not many) and usually it was an EMS supervisor with P.D. if it was a crime scene, or if I had witnessed a crime, or incident in progress.

KT: Was your interview with the WTC Task Force more of a normal debriefing, or did you feel like you were being interrogated?

PO: I felt as if they were trying to pick apart every minute detail from every possible angle.

KT: Did you find that odd, especially having to trace your movements on a map?

PO: It was a crime scene, so much was lost. I figured they still had to recover equipment and needed to document. I think I was still a bit shell shocked to really consider it. There were so many things that were odd then, nothing was normal.

KT: Did you mention the flashes and explosions going off in the lobby of the WTC 6 to them?

PO: Yes, I did. I remember describing what looked like depth charges going off in the building I tried to run into, but I don’t see it in the transcript of my interview.

KT: Did they ask you any follow-up questions about these explosions?

PO: No, they asked me to describe the events as I have described them to you here. I don’t recall them asking any follow up questions. They simply took notes all the way through. The only specific questions I remember being asked was in regards to mapping out where my vehicle was and which way I ran.

WTC 5 Blowing Up

KT: On the Task Force interview, you said “I was still on Vesey, cause the building that blew up on me was on Vesey.” Which building were you refereeing to?

PO: I don’t know, but that is all WTC property. I’m not sure if that was 6 or just a part of the WTC complex.

KT: When you said the building “blew up” on you, are you talking about the explosions you saw in the WTC 6 lobby?

PO: No, this was directly behind my vehicle as I was trying to put the stretcher back in. I don’t know if that was part of 6 though. I ran from what was blowing up and that’s when I tried to run into the lobby of 6. The vehicles were parked backed up to the curb, not parallel parked, so the back doors of the ambulance were facing the building [WTC 6] on the south side of Vesey.

KT: Do you feel that it was either the WTC 5 or 6 that was blowing up?

PO: Yes.

KT: Was this before the cars started catching on fire and blowing up, or about at the same time?

PO: All at the same time. Everything happened very quickly. I couldn’t say which came first.

KT: You mentioned in that interview that you thought one of the lobbies of the building behind you is what blew out. Was this the lobby of WTC 5 or 6?

PO: I’m not sure, but it was probably 5 because 6 was west of me and that’s the lobby I tried to run into.

KT: Can you describe more about how the building blew up on you? Did you feel the shock wave from the explosion and/or debris falling down near you?

PO: Well, one second I was trying to put my stretcher into the ambulance, the next thing I know I am thrown to the ground as the ground was shaking. Debris was flying at me from where the building I was parked in front of. There was a continual loud rumbling, there was just debris flying from every direction and then everything being covered in the black and gray smoke.

KT: Let’s recap real quickly; your ambulance was parked backed up against the WTC 6, near the 6’s corner by the alleyway between the WTC 5 and 6. When you were trying to put your stretcher back in, you were knocked down to the ground by an explosion that you thought came from the lobby of WTC 5. When you got back up, you started running west up the sidewalk on Vesey St towards West Side Hwy and then these cars parked along the street started blowing up as you ran by and that’s when you tried to duck into the WTC 6 lobby for cover, but these policemen inside where preventing you from coming in and that’s when you saw the explosions inside the lobby of WTC 6?

PO: Yes.

KT: Did anybody else you know concur with you that either the WTC 5 or 6 was blowing up at the same time you heard the rumbling of the South Tower collapsing?

PO: No, it never came up in discussion.

KT: After the attacks when things were starting to settle down for you and after the government and media was telling us what had all happened, did you ever look back and think what were all those explosions from the WTC 5 and 6 you witnessed were all about and why there was never any official mention of them?

PO: No, I didn’t watch the news. I was a bit shell shocked to say the least. In fact the very first time I have revisited that day was when I found your site.

WTC 7

KT: You mentioned you left the WTC area before the North Tower collapsed, when did you hear about the WTC 7 collapsing, in which you were parked across them street from?

PO: When I stumbled onto your site 3 weeks ago.

KT: Did that surprise you that you never heard about the WTC 7 collapsing afterwards?

PO: Actually, it did. It confused me somewhat because I don’t remember seeing anything on the news about it, or even knowing it was in any type of unstable condition.

KT: So you weren’t aware that another building had collapse (which was WTC 7) when you returned to Ground Zero for morgue detail?

PO: No I wasn’t. There was so much debris and wreckage I couldn’t tell what was what anymore.

KT: When you were on the scene on Vesey St that whole time, did you happen to notice anything commotion or anything strange going on near the WTC 7?

PO: No.

Colleagues Lost

KT: Were you ever invited to the 9/11 Commission hearings?

PO: No.

KT: Were you ever gagged by anybody from talking about anything related to 9/11?

PO: No, I wasn’t.

KT: Are you concerned that you might loose your job by speaking out on these issues?

PO: No, not at this time.

KT: Have you suffered any health effects from working down at Ground Zero?

PO: I broke a couple of ribs, but didn’t realize it till 3 days later. I had, like most of my colleagues, the “WTC cough” for several months. It was an extremely annoying dry hack that didn’t produce anything, but acted more like “spasms” rather than a cough. You’d get woken up in the middle of the night with this cough that sometimes would have you near passing out and unable to catch your breath. Over time it has dissipated, thanks gods.

KT: Did you lose any colleagues at Ground Zero?

PO: I stopped counting at 60.


R123901
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

Reports from FEMA and NIST which attempt to explain how airplane impacts and the subsequent fires brought down the towers on 9/11 suffer from two major flaws. First of all, investigations by government agencies can hardly be considered independent; secondly, both documents attempt to explain the collapses based on the foregone conclusion that the airplanes impacted the towers creating a set of circumstances eventually resulting in their collapse. These reports concede that the collapses were not brought down by the impacts themselves nor the burning jet fuel, but rather by the resultant infernos which were responsible for weakening the structure of the towers causing their demise. Considering the fact that a third tower collapsed that day without suffering any airplane impact or jet fuel fire, the official story DEMANDS that plain old office fires caused the collapses, because if they didn’t, the official story falls apart.

Simple Logic Part II

Post Modified: 02/11/06 08:58:16

R124683
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

R124761
4 years ago
zark

??By the way, are you ever going to address that whole motive issue you made such a big deal over? Or do you realize that you have no actual answer? Focus, please??

It was the most sublime event ever seen by the world. An event that was the greatest distraction ever conceived.

The gold in the towers did not exist — yeah yeah i know the official reports state that there was hundreds of billions of dollars of gold in the towers but only $200 million was ever accounted for . This was a robbery of gold that didnt exist. How can you rob non-existant gold? baffling eh? well so is the banking system.

Distraction distraction distraction

The Banking System

Post Modified: 02/14/06 05:03:39

R125044
4 years ago
reprehensor

Bin Laden tapes are as phony as Sept. 11’s connection to Islam

By Kevin Barrett

As a Ph.D. Islamologist and Arabist I really hate to say this, but I’ll say it anyway: 9/11 had nothing to do with Islam. The war on terror is as phony as the latest Osama bin Laden tape.

It’s a tough thing to admit because I know on which side my bread is buttered and dropping Islam from the 9/11 equation is dropping my slice of bread butter-side-down. The myth that 9/11 had something to do with Muslims has poured millions, if not billions, into Arabic and Islamic studies. I finished my Ph.D. last year, so all I have to do is keep my eyes in my pocket and my nose on the ground, parrot the party line, and I’ll be on the fast track to tenure track.

The trouble is, it’s all based on a Big Lie. Take the recent “bin Laden” tape please! That voice was no more bin Laden than it was Rodney Dangerfield channeling my late Aunt Corinne from Peoria. I recently helped translate a previously unknown bin Laden tape, a real one from the early ’90s, back when he was still alive. I know the guy’s flowery religious rhetoric. The recent tape wasn’t him.

The top American bin Laden expert agrees. Professor Bruce Lawrence, head of Duke University’s religious studies department, has just published a book of translations of bin Laden’s speeches. He says that the recent tape is a fake and that it is possible bin Laden is not even alive.

Continued at link…


R127628
4 years ago
reprehensor

The Seekers

The birth and life of the ’9-11 Truth movement’

by Jarrett Murphy
February 21st, 2006 11:48 AM

Essentially, it’s all about physics and common sense. Cut steel, and buildings fall. Crash a plane, and the Earth gets scarred. Fire a missile; see a hole. What’s up must come down, cause makes effect, and for the truth to set you free, it must be freed itself.

It’s dark in the basement of St. Mark’s Church and dark outside on a mid-December Sunday night, but inside they have seen the light. Among the 100 or so people in the room, many wear buttons that read “9/11 Was An Inside Job.” Others grip the vital texts in their hands—Crossing the Rubicon, The New Pearl Harbor, or 9/11 Synthetic Terror. Most in the largely (but not exclusively) white and male crowd can quote you the important passages from “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” or The 9/11 Commission Report. A few can guide you through the details of concepts like “peak oil” and pyroclastic flow. All of them suspect—and a few simply know—that their government was somehow complicit in the attacks that killed nearly 3,000 Americans four Septembers ago.

They are watching the new edition of Loose Change, a slick, witty documentary featuring a hip soundtrack and a rapid-fire assault on nearly every aspect of the “official” story of 9-11. The work of 22-year-old filmmaker Dylan Avery, Loose Change came out last year to take its place in a growing library of DVDs that 9-11 skeptics can own: Painful Deceptions, Confronting the Evidence, 911 in Plane Site, 9-11 Eyewitness. Shown in similar gatherings around the country and passed among likeminded friends, the films are what tie together the disparate ends of what many of its members call the “9-11 Truth movement.” They unite Luke Rudkowski, an earnest Brooklyn College freshman, with David Ray Griffin, a California theologian who wrote The New Pearl Harbor. They link Les Jamieson, a web designer and coordinator for New York 9-11 Truth, with multimillionaire Jimmy Walter, dreamer of car-free, self-sustaining cities. And they bind a FDNY lieutenant attending his first Truth movement meeting with Michael Ruppert, the Crossing the Rubicon author who blames a fiancée’s CIA-and-Mafia-linked drug running and arms dealing for helping to drive him out of the LAPD two decades ago.

It’s easy to dismiss the odd characters. It’s harder to ignore the regular guys in the room, or the polls showing that 49 percent of New York City residents believe the government knew about 9-11 before it happened, or the rock-solid certainty of these supposed doubters. “I’d love to be proven wrong. I would love for someone to come to me and say I’m full of shit. It hasn’t happened,” says Avery. “I have scientists on my side. There’s so much evidence supporting my side, and the government’s side has nothing.”

continued at link


R127630
4 years ago
Shogo

This was a robbery of gold that didnt exist. How can you rob non-existant gold?

So you’re claiming that the motive for engineering and orchestrating the whole of 9/11 was to cover up the absence of gold that nobody even knew about?

You’re a fucking douchebag.


R127634
4 years ago
zark

a robbery, pure and simple.

$2.6 trillion missing from Pentagon accounts.

Hundreds of billions of dollars claimed to be in WTC complex, after 9/11 £200 million accounted for.

Follow the money

You’re a fucking douchebag

oooo steady on with the abuse. i might cry


R127636
4 years ago
Shogo

Sorry, don’t believe it. Not credible.


R127648
4 years ago
zark

okey dokey, lets start a thread to discuss Thomas Barnets Pentagons New Map, Global and national economies, trade to middle east – trade from middle east, national debt etc etc.


R129119
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

Coast to Coast Radio Show

Recap, Thursday, February 23, 2006

9-11 Theories & Evidence

The 9-11 attacks were an “inside job” orchestrated by factions within the United States, according to three guests who shared their theories and evidence. Prof. James Fetzer, an expert on the JFK assassination and one of the founding members of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, cited numerous factors which he believes indicate the government’s official explanation is riddled with falsities. In the case of the WTC towers, the melting point of steel and the quick rate of the buildings’ collapse could only be explained by a planned demolition, he said, adding that were security anomalies reported at the WTC in the two weeks leading up to the attack. Fetzer also noted that in the Pentagon attack, the size of the impact in the building was too small for an airliner, and may have instead have been an A-3 Skywarrior.

Fetzer also contended that the terrorists would have been incapable of piloting the planes into these precise targets, and that “neocons,” such as those who were involved in the Project for the New American Century were the instigators of the 9-11 events.

Appearing with Fetzer in the second hour was David Ray Griffin, the author of The New Pearl Harbor who concurred that the official story behind the WTC and Pentagon attacks doesn’t jibe with the physics and chemistry of the evidence. Joining Fetzer in the third hour, was Morgan Reynolds, former chief economist for the Labor Dept., who argued that al Qaeda had been set up as “patsies” in the style of Lee Harvey Oswald.

LISTEN TO PROGRAM

Post Modified: 02/24/06 15:12:40

R129349
4 years ago
emissary71

Hey ya suitcase, zark.

Have ya’s seen the 9/11 eyewitness video yet?

3X48MB

Footage was taken by a guy named Richard A Siegel. Well worth the download.

“Internet webcasting pioneer Richard A Siegel, of OnlineTV fame,
captured both of the World Trade Towers collapsing and a lot more.
See the raw footage and listen to Rick’s eyewitness testimony of the
daring helicopter rescue on the roof of the south tower, WTC2, only
moments before it collapsed into “a pile of dust.” For the first time, see
and hear the massive explosions at the base of the towers causing
clouds of dust to rise up from street level before each tower fell.

Prepare yourself for the shocking reality of raw
digital video that was removed from the internet
when all the OnlineTV computers were seized.
Despite legal attempts to recover them, they
remain locked away to this day…”

Richard A Siegel site is here


R129427
4 years ago
Continuity

This video is a long compilation of WTC collapse footage, along with various eye witness testimonies, etc..

The premise of “9/11 Revisited” deals with possible demolition. I don’t care what the maker of the video thinks. I am interested in his superb job of compiling primary footage.

The video footage shows that Schneibster might be wrong about what he thinks is exposed, temporarily standing core. (Previously, he offered the idea that the core couldn’t have been demolished because some it was still standing. He built this idea from pics of the final stages of WTC1’s collapse.)

The tall, relatively thin structure that stands for only a second or two appears to be part of an external facade wall. I specifically say external wall because I watched the clips many times, and the temporarily standing structure exactly corresponds with the position of WTC1’s wall immediately before and during collapse.

I say all this not because I want a big fight with Schneib, who I believe is sincere. It’s because Schnieb really got me thinking, and I wanted to get to the bottom of his interesting premise.

The footage of this in ’9/11 Revisited’ is about at 1/4 or less into the overall video, labelled under the chapter “North Tower Collapse.”

Post Modified: 02/24/06 19:13:03

R129440
4 years ago
Continuity

The pictures posted pages before are gone, although I see WEYS is talking about the SOUTH tower, and a persisting structure.

I’ll see what I can find for that tower.


R129445
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

Hello emissary71, no I have not seen it. Thanks. I am trying to download it now.


R129774
4 years ago
Memnoch01

what really happened


R129786
4 years ago
whateveryousay

s. jones has been busy:

Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse? has been updated and tests (in part) some of greening’s ‘aluminum theories’.

search for
“Dramatic footage reveals”
to get the the pertinent bit. watch the clips which are linked…

he doesn’t answer the possibilities of molten aluminum + lime + water + gypsum reactions though…


R129814
4 years ago
zark

emissary —- i know that the buildings were demolished. Watching the collapses you can clearly see squibs, to which i would describe it as the most sublime event ever seen by the world.

those videos are incredible

booom, boom boom boom boooom — clear explosions before collapse began

with regard to all the stories surrounding the event;

Peter Dale Scotts ‘Deep Politics’ is very enlightening, Baudrillards ‘Simulacrae’, Michael Rupperts ‘Crossing the Rubicon’ and Alex Jones “Matrix of Evil” [video].

Post Modified: 02/26/06 14:04:22

R129836
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

About the video that emissary sent our way, how interesting is it to listen to 1010 WINS radio broadcast from September 11, 2001? And the sounds of explosions? The smoke rising from the bottoms of the buildings? Not too sure what to think about the helicopters?


R129894
4 years ago
renwald

It appears this is the thread that will never die. Nice links and stuff keep up the good work.

Shogo did you hear about that river in Egypt?

Post Modified: 02/26/06 16:17:48

R130569
4 years ago
BushBasher

I am sorry to all those who believe that the towers fell on their own…....... but the evidence does not lie. I have gone through alot of the information poseted and have gone through most of what is on http://www.911proof.com/ and to the best of my knowledge i believe that someone helped the towers fall.

Why argue over the “facts”. Anything the american gov’t has done has been a COMPLETE fuck up over the past 6 years. From bush stealing the election, to allowing 9/11, to the pointless seizure of afghanistan, the WMD that Iraq was going to use on us, to hurricane Katrina…..... i mean come on….... Bush has made a mockery of democracy and you continue let it happen.

The evidence is all around you, Haliburton contracts, Bush’s friends being put into positions of power, all the “arms length” deals, rich people linig their own pockets with more money. the defence contractors getting rich of YOUR AMERICAN TAX DOLLARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, the nation debt rising uncontrolably, the “unethical” treatment of people in GITMO, the debacle in IRAQ, and now Iran eh?, gov’t spying on its own people, the ever growing gap in classes.

..............“Most of my Latino and black people who are struggling to get food, clothes and shelter in the hood are so concerned with that, that philosophising about freedom and socialist democracy is usually unfortunately beyond their rationale. They don’t realize that America can’t exist without separating them from their identity, because if we had some sense of who we really are, there’s no way in hell we’d allow this country to push it’s genocidal consensus on our homelands. This ignorance exists, but it can be destroyed.
Nigga talk about change and working within the system to achieve that. The problem with always being a conformist is that when you try to change the system from within, it’s not you who changes the system; it’s the system that will eventually change you. There is usually nothing wrong with compromise in a situation, but compromising yourself in a situation is another story completely, and I have seen this happen long enough in the few years that I’ve been alive to know that it’s a serious problem. Latino America is a huge colony of countries whose presidents are cowards in the face of economic imperialism. You see, third world countries are rich places, abundant in resources, and many of these countries have the capacity to feed their starving people and the children we always see digging for food in trash on commercials. But plutocracies, in other words a government run by the rich such as this one and traditionally oppressive European states, force the third world into buying overpriced, unnecessary goods while exporting huge portions of their natural resources.

I’m quite sure that people will look upon my attitude and sentiments and look for hypocrisy and hatred in my words. My revolution is born out of love for my people, not hatred for others.

You see, most of Latinos are here because of the great inflation that was caused by American companies in Latin America. Aside from that, many are seeking a life away from the puppet democracies that were funded by the United States; places like El Salvador, Guatemala, Peru, Columbia, Nicaragua, Ecuador and Republica Dominicana, and not just Spanish-speaking countries either, but Haiti and Jamaica as well.

As different as we have been taught to look at each other by colonial society, we are in the same struggle and until we realize that, we’ll be fighting for scraps from the table of a system that has kept us subservient instead of being self-determined. And that’s why we have no control over when the embargo will stop in Cuba, or when the bombs will stop dropping in Vieques.

But you see, here in America the attitude that is fed to us is that outside of America there live lesser people. “Fuck them, let them fend for themselves.” No, Fuck you, they are you. No matter how much you want to dye your hair blonde and put fake eyes in, or follow an anorexic standard of beauty, or no matter how many diamonds you buy from people who exploit your own brutally to get them, no matter what kind of car you drive or what kind of fancy clothes you put on, you will never be them. They’re always gonna look at you as nothing but a little monkey. I’d rather be proud of what I am, rather than desperately trying to be something I’m really not, just to fit in. And whether we want to accept it or not, that’s what this culture or lack of culture is feeding us.

I want a better life for my family and for my children, but it doesn’t have to be at the expense of millions of lives in my homeland. We’re given the idea that if we didn’t have these people to exploit then America wouldn’t be rich enough to let us have these little petty material things in our lives and basic standards of living. No, that’s wrong. It’s the business giants and the government officials who make all the real money. We have whatever they kick down to us. My enemy is not the average white man, it’s not the kid down the block or the kids I see on the street; my enemy is the white man I don’t see: the people in the white house, the corporate monopoly owners, fake liberal politicians those are my enemies. The generals of the armies that are mostly conservatives those are the real Mother-Fuckers that I need to bring it to, not the poor, broke country-ass soldier that’s too stupid to know shit about the way things are set up.

In fact, I have more in common with most working and middle-class white people than I do with most rich black and Latino people. As much as racism bleeds America, we need to understand that classism is the real issue. Many of us are in the same boat and it’s sinking, while these bougie Mother-Fuckers ride on a luxury liner, and as long as we keep fighting over kicking people out of the little boat we’re all in, we’re gonna miss an opportunity to gain a better standard of living as a whole.

In other words, I don’t want to escape the plantation I want to come back, free all my people, hang the Mother-Fucker that kept me there and burn the house to the god damn ground. I want to take over the encomienda and give it back to the people who work the land.

You cannot change the past but you can make the future, and anyone who tells you different is a Fucking lethargic devil. I don’t look at a few token Latinos and black people in the public eye as some type of achievement for my people as a whole. Most of those successful individuals are sell-outs and house Negros.

But, I don’t consider brothers a sell-out if they move out of the ghetto. Poverty has nothing to do with our people. It’s not in our culture to be poor. That’s only been the last 500 years of our history; look at the last 2000 years of our existence and what we brought to the world in terms of science, mathematics, agriculture and forms of government. You know the idea of a confederation of provinces where one federal government controls the states? The Europeans who came to this country stole that idea from the Iroquois lead. The idea of impeaching a ruler comes from an Aztec tradition. That’s why Montezuma was stoned to death by his own people ‘cause he represented the agenda of white Spaniards once he was captured, not the Aztec people who would become Mexicans.

So in conclusion, I’m not gonna vote for anybody just ‘cause they black or Latino they have to truly represent the community and represent what’s good for all of us proletariat.

Viva la revolution!


R130572
4 years ago
BushBasher

read it…................ ^^^^^^^^^ just curious, anyone know what musical artist is responsible for such wisdom?

hint —— I___________________ T__________


R130575
4 years ago
Shogo

I am sorry to all those who believe that the towers fell on their own

They didn’t. They were helped along by two fuel-laden jet planes, weighing hundreds of tons and slamming into the towers at high speed.

Open your mind.


R130583
4 years ago
zark

Join the torrent of 911 EYEWITNESS

Shogo give this video a looksee.

678MB dvd rip 1hr 44 mins 40 secs

video = xvid 760 kbitss —- 95 kb/s
audio mpga 106 kbits/s —- 13 kb/s

640 × 480

Post Modified: 02/28/06 11:49:45

R130598
4 years ago
truthcansuck

Hey, I signed up for high-speed internet service just so i could finally load this huge thread, and I must say, I’m a little dissapointed…

Betty Swallocks almost makes it worthwhile, though…


R130632
4 years ago
whateveryousay

shogo,

the 911myths sites’ favourite expert (greening) has pretty much said that building 7 was knocked down on purpose… at the very least he’s said there’s major problems with the official story on that.

truthcansuck,

THAT WASZ A FUKING LIE!

bushbasher,

a guess might be IceMutherfukinT since it fits your hint…
but Immortal Technique would also fit the hint so i’ll have to go with that.

hey how do i link to a file with loads of underscores in the address?!

shit gets all fucked up by fuktile.

Post Modified: 02/28/06 14:39:09

R130649
4 years ago
zark

Hey, I signed up for high-speed internet service just so i could finally load this huge thread, and I must say, I’m a little dissapointed

why didnt you just disable image display in your browser .. looks weird but would have saved you a bit of trouble


R130653
4 years ago
Joe

R130658
4 years ago
Shogo

Heh, that’s an awesome link Joe.


R130675
4 years ago
Chickenma1

You guys thought that was awesome?! Shows just how divorced from your own senses you’ve become. First, there was only one crane, not three; second, it fell over sideways, as if it were unbalanced to one side – just like you’d expect a building (or part of a building) to fall if it were struck on one side by a plane.


R130682
4 years ago
Shogo

just like you’d expect a building (or part of a building) to fall if it were struck on one side by a plane.

If you were extremely ignorant, you might expect such a thing. For a building to fall sideways, the structure of the building would need to be intact, and it would need to be damaged at it’s base – not near the top. If you look at the pics of WTC 1 (I believe), when it begins it’s collapse, the top is leaning to one side in precisely the manner you describe – however since it’s so massive, as the support is lost beneath it, it drops vertically.


R130687
4 years ago
Joe

“First, there was only one crane”

Yes, but this kind of accident was unprecedented! A crane of that type had never before fallen due to high winds and heavy loads. It must have been explosions.

“it fell over sideways, as if it were unbalanced to one side – just like you’d expect a building (or part of a building) to fall if it were struck on one side by a plane.”

But it wasn’t struck by a plane! The officials want us to believe that the wind (which is invisible!) just pushed this crane over. Well.. this type of crane is used on oil rigs, so how can you explain how those cranes stay up in high winds, and this one fell over? It must have been explosions. Eye-witness accounts confirm it, and so does the video evidence. The operators had special equipment to let them know about the weather conditions, so the wind simply was not a factor. The official story just doesn’t add up.


R130689
4 years ago
Shogo

Funny, and oh so true.


R130690
4 years ago
Wombat

“when it begins it’s collapse, the top is leaning to one side in precisely the manner you describe – however since it’s so massive, as the support is lost beneath it, it drops vertically.”

BULLSHIT.

It starts to fall sideways and then just desintegrates. It should have either kept falling sideways and taken the rest of the building with it or broken away and fallen sideways by its self. Once something thyat large and heavy decides its going in one direction it just dosent suddenly fall straight down.


R130695
4 years ago
Shogo

It should have either kept falling sideways and taken the rest of the building with it

Nonsense. The reason it started to fall in the firstplace was because the building was falling apart beneath it. The leaning is because the collapsing was uneven.

or broken away and fallen sideways by its self.

Incorrect as well – there was no lateral force being applied to the top of the building.

Drink up mate!


R130701
4 years ago
Wombat

“Nonsense. The reason it started to fall in the firstplace was because the building was falling apart beneath it. “

The reason it started to fall is that a large aircraft had taken out a very large portion of the supporting structure underneath it. You chop 2/3 of the way through the trunk of a tree and see what happens.

“The leaning is because the collapsing was uneven”

But if the collapsing was uneven then how do you explain the “pancaking” and why didnt the building fall sideways.

“Incorrect as well – there was no lateral force being applied to the top of the building. “

You are full of shit. The lateral force was applied by the weight of the building pivoting on the portion of the top still attached to the main part of the building. Once that force was in motion there was nothing to stop the top of the building from falling sideways, which it began to do ….... and then suddenly it just dissapeard.

Do you really have to try and debate a point by belittleing your opponent, in my case its usually the drinking allegation, are your arguments and your ability to reason really that poor that you find a need to resort to this kind of rubbish to add some sort of weight to your point and discredit your opposer. I find the tactic as childish and borish as most of the so called “arguments” you present.

Post Modified: 02/28/06 18:13:25

R130706
4 years ago
Shogo

But if the collapsing was uneven then how do you explain the ‘pancaking’ and why didnt the building fall sideways.

Uneven in the sense that it was not synchronized. In any case, I’m talking about the initial failures that led to the collapse of the structures. The failures on the supports on one side of the floors obviously occured first, otherwise you wouldn’t have seen the leaning. However since the building is an integrated structure, it’s not possible for only one-half of the building to collapse.

You chop 2/3 of the way through the trunk of a tree and see what happens.

A tree trunk is a solid object and not a box-like structure. It’s not analagous at all.

The lateral force was applied by the weight of the building pivoting

That is not lateral force. Lateral force would be force directed sideways on the building. There was nothing moving the top of the building laterally. One side of the top lost it’s support before the other, so the top was leaning – however once the other side gave way it fell straight down since the only force acting on it was gravity.

in my case its usually the drinking allegation

OK, no more drinking comments.

Post Modified: 02/28/06 18:27:03

R130724
4 years ago
Wombat

“Uneven in the sense that it was not synchronized”

Im not sure what you are trying to say here.

“However since the building is an integrated structure”

The building wasnt an “integrated structure” anymore, the aircraft had taken out most of the support for the building above the impact point.

“A tree trunk is a solid object and not a box-like structure. It’s not analagous at all.”

I disagree entirely. It dosnt matter if its a solid object or not the dynamics are still the same. The weight of the object pulls it to the area of least resistance, where the plane took out the support, the portion that is still intact tries to hold the weight upright causing the weight to swing in a lateral movement that should have either pulled the entire building down sideways or broken the top portion of the building off and it would have continued its lateral movement and fallen away from the rest of the structure. Neither of which happened.

“so the top was leaning “

That is your lateral force. What do you think leaning is, weight moving in one direction which equals lateral force, and it was moving not just “leaning” and moving rather quickly at that. The only reason it leans rather than goes straight sideways is beacause it is also being affected by the force of gravity and the pull from the still attached portion. Once it has started moving you can not change that lateral force into a straight downward movement. It just imposible to completely change momentum in that way, doesnt happen, cant be done. Even if the whole building underneath it collapsed the top would still have continued sideways off the building and would have taken as much of the building with it as its weight would allow.

Maybe you should go back and look at the footage of the top falling again.

Post Modified: 02/28/06 19:11:51

R130730
4 years ago
Suitcaseman


Shogo wants to be the guy on his knees.

Post Modified: 02/28/06 20:01:26

R130736
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

Do you really have to try and debate a point by belittleing your opponent, in my case its usually the drinking allegation, are your arguments and your ability to reason really that poor that you find a need to resort to this kind of rubbish to add some sort of weight to your point and discredit your opposer.

Haven’t you seen the collection of Shogo quotes I posted on this thread? What page are they on? There are three sets of Shogo quotes.

Post Modified: 03/01/06 07:53:41

R130741
4 years ago
Continuity

There’s two things interesting, and one thing weird, about the first portion of the 911 Eye Witness video

This guy’s video is the second amateur video I’ve now seen that picks up loud pre-collapse rumbles. Before WTC2 falls, there are 9 loud and clear rumbles identified. The last rumbles come close together.

The second interesting thing captured on the video is the dust and smoke that pours out of the lobby (?) of WTC2 well before it collapses. If my eyes aren’t deceiving me, that’s a lot of smoke and dust coming out, as if some serious shit went on inside.

EDIT: Whateveryousay explained to me in the post below what the cameraman was trying to suggest. The cameraman was trying to suggest that one of the helicopters made a specific signal exactly before WTC2 collapsed.

*

A totally different video of the WTC, shot by another person I believe, also captures a distinct rumble (well before collapse) and it made the camera shake. Apologists here were quick to call this “wind”.

Anyone care to comment on this data?

Post Modified: 02/28/06 21:43:30

R130743
4 years ago
whateveryousay

interesting stuff about the crane. “look up and live” indeed.
i’d like to see footage which doesn’t suck so hard because of the compression though. the sound… it’s so heavily compressed… one of the “explosion” sounds has the character of hitting a big empty metal container with a big monkey wrench… the resonance..

looking at a graph you can see these “explosion” sounds from the crane are centred around different frequency ranges than what you see with actual explosions (you know, bombs and stuff). further, they are not even registering in the low registers below 100Hz. explosions from bombs show up in these low registers the heaviest.
but yeah. good example. though of course the sound of these king-pins wouldn’t be picked up 3 km away as deep-bass movements i’d reckon.

still, it’s such a compressed file… but the wind shows up in the low registers, and a bunch of artifacts from compression.

anyway…

since no one seems to have followed the link i posted above…

Dramatic footage reveals yellow-to-white hot molten metal dripping from the South WTC Tower shortly before its collapse

the same paper compares it to this video of thermite reactions.
the same paper also points out that molten aluminum (which greening assumes the witness reports of molten metal falling from that spot at that time was) does not look like that.


R130744
4 years ago
whateveryousay

The author seems to think one of the helicopters emmitted some energy “flash” that made WTC2 fall —cont

not really. he was speculating as to some sort of “okay go” signal from the chopper.

A totally different video of the WTC, shot by another person I believe, also captures a distinct rumble (well before collapse) and it made the camera shake. Apologists here were quick to call this “wind“ —cont

that’s the north tower pre-collapse shaking camera. 10 or 14 seconds before collapse. the south-tower footage from the same camera doesn’t quite start that early before collapse so it’s not clear if it picked up the same sort of thing or not… camera does shake during collapse of south tower though… and probably not from wind.

Post Modified: 02/28/06 21:26:27

R130746
4 years ago
Continuity

RE: WhateverYouSay — helicopter, flash

not really. he was speculating as to some sort of “okay go” signal from the chopper.

Ahhh, I didn’t get that suggestion. Thank you. It seems that the helicopter flashes two bright lights near WTC2, and as the helicopter quickly leaves, the collapse begins.

Also , I just watched the bright yellow material spilling from WTC2. That is intense. Whatever material it was, it was extremely hot and somewhat fluid. It didn’t seem to be carbon-based material, like burning office furniture. I suggest everyone watch Whatever’s video.


R130750
4 years ago
Continuity

Okay, I just watched Whateveryousay’s video again.

I have to say that the bright yellow material is splashing out in what appears to be globs. This stuff doesnt seem to be comprised of carbon-based sparks and cinders either (it’s different than the cooler, red fires). As the stuff splatters out and strikes the building’s facade, it’s behaving like some kind of molten metal.

Post Modified: 02/28/06 22:11:53

R130767
4 years ago
Shogo

I disagree entirely. It dosnt matter if its a solid object or not the dynamics are still the same.

Nonsense. In the example of the tree, chopping 2/3 of the way through the trunk doesn’t cause the lower part of it to collapse. Further, the axe swinging sideways repeatedly is providing lateral force to the tree.

Both of these things make the tree model a very poor analogy for what happened to the WTC towers.

The plane impact did it’s damage, and the buildings remained standing for a while. Lateral force was no longer being applied. Instead you had an intact structure of hundreds of tons standing on top of compromised supports.

The weight of the object pulls it to the area of least resistance, where the plane took out the support, the portion that is still intact tries to hold the weight upright causing the weight to swing in a lateral movement

a) Swinging isn’t lateral, b) The weight of the object isn’t pulling it anywhere, precisely the opposite in fact. The weight gives it inertia. Gravity is what is pulling on the object, and gravity only pulls in one direction – towards the ground. When you saw the top lean, what you were seeing was the effect of gravity pulling the top portion unevenly as the support failed unevenly.

broken the top portion of the building off

I don’t think so. Visualize this in your mind’s eye: the first structural failures happen on one side of the building. The support columns go, and that side of the top begins falling first. While that is happening, the remaining supports on the opposite side fail, and now the other side of the top starts to fall. The “pivot point” (for lack of a better term) is now gone. If you imagine a ball on a string that you’re swinging, the only thing that makes the ball go in an arc is the fact that you’re holding the string – once you let go, it’s moving in a straight line (until gravity pulls it back to earth).

Using this analogy, the top of the building starts leaning as one side of it begins falling to earth before the other. The other side gives way, and now the whole of it continues in the direction it was headed when the pivot point gave way.


R130802
4 years ago
Chickenma1

Shogo, I think we were discussing this many pages back, how about going on to Whatever’s new information – I’d love to hear your take on what that is dripping out the the building.


R130823
4 years ago
neverknwo

Study/ In-flight cell calls pose risk to planes
CMU group finds danger increasing
Wednesday, March 01, 2006

By Mark Belko, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

You might want to think twice the next time you’re tempted to make a call from your cell phone during an airplane flight. Or flip on your portable game player. Or work a spreadsheet on your laptop.

Besides possibly annoying fellow travelers and breaking federal regulations, you might be endangering the airplane, according to a Carnegie Mellon University study that quietly monitored transmissions on board a number of flights in the Northeast.

The study, by CMU’s Department of Engineering and Public Policy, found that the use of cell phones and other portable electronic devices can interfere with the normal operation of critical airline components, even more so than previously believed.

Researchers concluded that such devices can disrupt the operation of cockpit instruments, including the Global Positioning System receivers that are becoming more common in helping to ensure safe landings.

Researchers noted that there is no definitive instance of an electronic device used by a passenger causing an accident. However, they said their data support the conclusion that use of devices like cell phones “will, in all likelihood, someday cause an accident by interfering with critical cockpit instruments such as GPS receivers.”

The findings come as the Federal Communications Commission is considering lifting the ban on the use of cell phones during flight.

Both the FCC and the Federal Aviation Administration have barred the in-flight operation of cell phones because of concerns about interference, both to navigational and communications equipment in the air and to cell phone towers on the ground.


R130824
4 years ago
zark

R130850
4 years ago
whateveryousay

R130851
4 years ago
Snark

how about going on to Whatever’s new information

New information? Bollocks. Nothing but the same old sophistry.


R130861
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

Snark and Shogo like that word bollocks.

Post Modified: 03/01/06 08:04:20

R130863
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

Shogo and Snark have declared all 911 research to be nonsense, but they keep coming back, for what I don’t know?

Post Modified: 03/01/06 08:05:03

R130871
4 years ago
Suitcaseman


Question 9-11: A Call to Activism

Post Modified: 03/01/06 08:32:45

R130876
4 years ago
Snark

Shogo and Snark have declared all 911 research to be nonsense, but they keep coming back, for what I don’t know?

Never mind the bollocks, here’s the Sex Pistols.

And that’s a right purty strawman, but in fact I do support 911 research… just not the ignorant layman wanking that I see here. If there’s actual research to do, or anything but the “well, this makes the most sense to me” masturbation that I see splattering all over this thread, I’ll pay attention.


R130882
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

but in fact I do support 911 research… just not the ignorant layman wanking that I see here

So why do you bother to keep coming back to this thread?


R130886
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

After all Snark, this is what you said on page 2 of this thread

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

And Rasputin responded

Bullshit. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize the reductio ad absurdum of WTC7 (or the rest of the official story), and your suggestion that people should “trust the experts” (which one?) instead of trying to understand their various arguments and come to their own conclusions is elitist and fawning.
If you’re sick of the argument, ignore it and move on.

Post Modified: 03/01/06 09:14:37

R130889
4 years ago
Snark

So why do you bother to keep coming back to this thread?

Mostly because the spectacle of grown men and women endlessly reliving 9/11 in their heads and then bashing each other over the head about what really happened is kind of amusing.


R130890
4 years ago
zark

911 eyewitness

discussion about it?


R130891
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

Why do you participate?


R130892
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

At least we got that straight. I can understand reading it, if you find it amusing, but why do you participate?


R130893
4 years ago
Snark

Hmm. Probably because I’m a cantankerous bastard and enjoy arguing with people.


R130894
4 years ago
Shogo

And Rasputin responded

Rasputin is a fucking dolt, so quoting him as though he’s Jesus Christ is absurd. His comments about WTC7 are informed by cherry-picked data, and are completely ignorant of the transcripts of conversations between the firefighters who were on the ground about how the building was bulging, and how they knew it was going to collapse.

The reason for coming back to this thread is because it’s fun.

Post Modified: 03/01/06 09:22:56

R130895
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

Zark,

Obvious explosions, smoke rising from the bottom of the buildings, obvious. Way back when I put up the smoke from the bottom of the buildings, from 911 Research, now we have this film, which shows it very very clearly. The sounds of explosions is obvious, and there are people all over the 1010 WINS and CNN etc., who said explosions, how many times have we heard it? The helicopters, not much to go on there.


R130897
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

cherry-picked data

where have I heard that before?


R130899
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

SHOGO QUOTES ARE ON PAGE 7


R130900
4 years ago
Snark

And, I suppose, because watching people completely waste their time accomplishing precisely fuck-all is sort of frustrating to me, and I fancy myself the voice of reason saying, “Uh, guys, given that none of you really know what you’re talking about, and given that knowing exactly what happened is probably not possible for Joe Schmoe computer jockeys because we don’t have access to evidence or the knowledge to interpret it reliably, and given that knowing exactly what happened is sort of moot anyway at this point, what the fuck is the point of arguing over exactly what happened?”

And, of course, I think that it’s kind of wierd that all of these 9/11 activists are still so obsessed with the events of five damn years ago that they’re willing to waste vast amounts of time trying to convince everybody of their gospel truth about it….

Post Modified: 03/01/06 09:30:17

R130901
4 years ago
YT_

New information? Bollocks. Nothing but the same old sophistry.

How does raw video footage = sophistry?

The answer is YES, you are an asshole!


R130903
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

and given that knowing exactly what happened is sort of moot anyway at this point, what the fuck is the point of arguing over exactly what happened?

Exactly, good word, why do you waste your time?

Post Modified: 03/01/06 09:34:04

R130904
4 years ago
Shogo

where have I heard that before?

It’s a standard complaint leveled at conspiracy nutters.


R130906
4 years ago
Shogo

raw video footage = sophistry

It’s not the footage that’s sophistry, it’s the uneducated, misinformed, and illogical arguments that are constructed based on the raw video footage.


R130907
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

Well from now on we will check with you and the Voice of Reason before we post anything about 911/Iraq.


R130909
4 years ago
YT_

It’s not the footage that’s sophistry, it’s the uneducated, misinformed, and illogical arguments that are constructed based on the raw video footage.

You must have the special edition of this thread that I haven’t seen yet. What are the arguments being posited regarding the dripping molten metal?


R130910
4 years ago
Snark

It’s not the footage that’s sophistry, it’s the uneducated, misinformed, and illogical arguments that are constructed based on the raw video footage.

Danke.


R130912
4 years ago
YT_

Ah, yes… let’s generalize. Here’s to science!


R130913
4 years ago
Shogo

Well from now on we will check with you and the Voice of Reason before we post anything about 911/Iraq.

Post whatever you want, dude. And I’ll be here to shoot holes in it.


R130914
4 years ago
Shogo

let’s generalize.

I’ve read the arguments. If you read the arguments, then it’s not generalizing is it?


R130918
4 years ago
YT_

You’ve read what arguments? Let’s refresh: chickenma asked you to comment on the footage whateveryousay posted. Snark jumped in and said “what new information, it’s all sophistry, blah blah blah” I asked him how raw video footage = sophistry. You answered for him and said not the footage, but the arguments that are “constructed based” on the footage. I’m asking you what arguments, as I haven’t seen any posited yet.


R130920
4 years ago
zark

help create the torrent, it was a trickle but now it is beginning to flow — 911 eyewitness

678MB dvd rip 1hr 44 mins 40 secs
video = xvid 760 kbitss—- 95 kb/s
audio mpga 106 kbits/s—- 13 kb/s
640×480


R130945
4 years ago
Shogo

chickenma asked you to comment on the footage

I don’t know what the burning material is that is falling from the hole in the side of the building.

OK? Satisfied?

I’m sure in an office building damaged in the way that was, on fire, there will be a great many things burning and melting.

Oh wait, I’m sorry – is this supposed to be when I put the foil hat on and claim that this is obvious proof of some wacky conspiracy?


R130949
4 years ago
YT_

OK? Satisfied?

I wasn’t the one asking for your commentary.


R130968
4 years ago
markrc99

zark, I’m late to the thread and was going to ask whether the Richard Siegel video had been examined & discussed. Ties the explosions and collapse in real time. Here’s another link accessing it

Post Modified: 03/01/06 11:48:29

R130971
4 years ago
Shogo

I wasn’t the one asking for your commentary.

Then STFU.


R130981
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

SHOGO QUOTES

There is plenty of hard science that backs up the twin towers falling due solely to the impact of the planes. The fact that not one of you dickheads can be bothered to look for it says a lot about your intellectual honesty.

verisimilar, you’re not only a tool, but you waste a lot of space with your retarded posting style. Fuckface.

The building wasn’t designed to withstand the weight of several upper floors collapsing downwards. Fucking hell you guys are dumbshits.

“He’s fairly hostile on the issue”
Because the controlled demolition hypothesis makes no fucking sense, douchebag.

For the Pentagon douchebags: Eat shit, fuckwads.

veristupid, please read the article and the excerpts posted here. Then look in the mirror and repeat 100 times, “I am an ignorant tool”.

To repeat: Proponents of the demolition hypothesis are not interested in science, else they wouldn’t put so much stock in half-baked conspiracy theories that aren’t grounded in reality. Pleasant dreams, asshats.

You’re just some movie-addicted anarchist wannabe revolutionary holed up somewhere in British Columbia. But hey, you got a bunch of know-nothing internutters to believe you – that and a couple a bucks should get you a cup of coffee in most major metropolitan areas

includes only the ones taken from page one of this thread

Post Modified: 03/01/06 17:42:56

R130983
4 years ago
Joe

“Mostly because the spectacle of grown men and women endlessly reliving 9/11 in their heads and then bashing each other over the head about what really happened is kind of amusing.”

I’d use ‘baffling’ rather than amusing.

SHOGO QUOTES ARE ON PAGE 7”
SHOGO QUOTES”
“Haven’t you seen the collection of Shogo quotes I posted on this thread? What page are they on? There are three sets of Shogo quotes.”

Wow… shogo insults people. That’s what I call groundbreaking research!


R130986
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

The point is who would want to argue with a person like Shogo?

Post Modified: 03/01/06 12:16:38

R130993
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

Page 2 of SHOGO QUOTES

Only if you’re a mental midget. But thanks for sharing how easily confusable you are. It explains a lot.

But by all means, continue to be the wise sage of GNN fucktards. It suits you well. Conspiracy nutters are a funny bunch of fucksticks.

Please Rasputin, you’re embarrassing yourself now. Go back to the anarchy theories. At least with those you don’t sound like a complete fucking idiot.

Florence Gay, please stick to sucking cock.

Butt, suck my dick.

Eat shit, cunt.

Butt: nobody claimed the steel melted, you stupid fucking cunt.

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

The clamoring of all these uneducated dolts creates a cacophony of idiocy that guarantees the real questions about what went down on 9/11 will never be answered.

Butt, you are seriously one of the stupidest motherfuckers on the planet.

Good luck, cunt.

If you read the article, stupid cunt, you’d have seen that this was reported by a cameraman on the ground floor where the elevators landed, with burning people coming out of them.

Rastupid, thanks for ignoring the point I made earlier. The issue as to who was piloting the aircraft is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to the question of why the towers collapsed. I certainly hope you aren’t presenting that broke-ass missile hypothesis again. That’s a real howler.

Yo, dickhead, that’s not a piece of metal. The facade was made of steel-reinforced concrete. This is the kind of sloppy ignorance that renders you and these other shitheads totally incapable of knowing what the fuck you’re talking about.

I at least have something of a science background from college. I feel pretty confident in my ability to recognize baseless conjecture when I see it.

Every argument put forward by the conspiracy nutters to advance their belief that it was a controlled demolition is constucted out of 100% conjecture. There is not a shred of hard evidence, nor a shred of credible argument.

Sorry gonadcock, I get paid for my food, music, and feature writing; so, no, I’m not an amateur. But that’s still only something I do as an avocation.

My full-time job is computer programming. I get paid for my ability to think logically. I doubt very much you could say the same.

But please, feel free to type “BWAHA” with as many As and !s as you like. It only confirms that you’re an immature know-nothing fuckwad.

You know what to do now right? It involves sticking your cock up your anus. Thanks.

Post Modified: 03/01/06 17:38:42

R130994
4 years ago
Continuity

Has their been any expert opinion on the net or in print regarding this yellow “molten-like” material spilling from WTC2? So far, only Prof Jones has made comment. I’d like to hear from others.

Also, in the Siegel video, which has been linked several times on the previous page (21), has there been any expert opinion regarding the nine loud rumbles preceding the collapse of WTC2? Siegel’s video also plainly captures large volumes of dust and smoke exiting the lower floors of WTC2, well before its collapse.


R130996
4 years ago
Continuity

Also, can anyone rip the “molten” video and produce some captures? It’s be helpful to have some pics here.


R130998
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

For those of you who have a hard-on for the 911 thread, I suggest you try masturbation.


R131008
4 years ago
reprehensor

Experts Call for Release of 9/11 Evidence

Wed Mar 1, 7:00 AM ET

(PRWEB) – Duluth, MN – March 1, 2006 — A society of experts and scholars has now joined with Judicial Watch in calling for release of videos that are being held by the Department of Defense, which are essential to understanding events at the Pentagon that transpired on September 11, 2001. Scholars for 9/11 Truth, which is dedicated to exposing falsehoods and establishing truths about the events of 9/11, has gone beyond Judicial Watch by calling for the release of other films and evidence that, its officers maintain, are essential to understanding 9/11…

They are calling for immediate release of the full Pentagon surveillance tape as well as video tapes seized by FBI agents minutes after the Pentagon hit; a complete inventory of the plane wreckage and debris from Flights 11, 77, 93, 175 or any other aircraft that crashed or was destroyed on September 11, 2001, including, but not limited to their location (whether warehoused or otherwise), catalog of photographs and videotapes taken of any items from the planes, and results of all tests and examinations conducted concerning any of these items…

Judy Wood, a professor of mechanical engineering at Clemson University and a full member of the society of scholars, has emphasized the importance of this material for those studying the collapse of the Twin Towers and World Trade Center 7. “This material has the potential to resolve crucial questions about the forces that were responsible for the buildings’ fall, including the possible use of incendiaries and explosives”, she observed. “It is of great importance that we have access to it.”...

“We are inclined to believe that these events were orchestrated by the Bush administration in order to instill fear in the American people,” Fetzer said. “The use of violence and threats of violence to manipulate a populace based on fear,” he observed, “is the definition of terrorism. The release of this vital evidence will help to confirm or to dispel our concerns about what happened on 9/11.” Added Wood, “The American people are entitled to know the truth about their own history. If the government has nothing to hide, it should have no objections to releasing all this evidence for experts and scholars to study.”

Fetzer also noted today’s Zogby International Poll, which shows that 90% of American troops in Iraq believe that they are fighting to avenge Saddam Hussein’s role in 9/11. “This would be funny if it weren’t so sad”, Fetzer said. “The administration falsely linked Iraq to 9/11 even though it knew better”, he remarked. “Even the Osama Bin Laden ‘confession tape’ appears to have been faked. We want to know the identity of those who perpetrated these despicable acts.”...

Continued at link…


R131016
4 years ago
Joe

“The point is who would want to argue with a person like Shogo?”

Who’d want to argue with someone who’s idea of arguing is to repost a bunch of out-of-context insults.

At least limit it to once-per-thread so you don’t look desperate.

Post Modified: 03/01/06 13:08:08

R131021
4 years ago
YT_

Then STFU.

If you don’t want to hear from me then MYOB.

I was addressing Snark.


R131022
4 years ago
Shogo

The point is who would want to argue with a person like Shogo?

You, obviously.

I can understand your need to quote me out of context, though. When your own arguments are logically bankrupt, what else do you have but irrelevant quoting of my foul-mouth?


R131023
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

Shogo cannot outrun his reputation that’s all.


R131024
4 years ago
Shogo

I was addressing Snark.

That must be why you mentioned my name and wondered if I was going to respond to Ma’s question, right?

Tool.


R131025
4 years ago
Shogo

Shogo cannot outrun his reputation that’s all.

You seem to think that I’m trying to. I’m standing still, genius.


R131029
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

It is not only the foul mouth, it is the insults. Just a reminder, so people might consider just ignoring you.

Page 3 SHOGO QUOTES

Maybe, zark, if you got some of that education you’re so hostile to, you wouldn’t sound like such a goddamned moron.

When it comes to websites though, I am endlessly fascinated by the deranged writings of people like yourself. It is a form of entertainment for me. I am perpetually fascinated by the odd and crazy things that people are capable of believing.

I see why you copy/paste all the time, Spewt. Your original writing sucks ass, dick, balls, and cock.

If you want to subscribe to crackpot hypotheses advanced by foil-behatted conspiracy nutters, that’s your prerogative. But you should at least know that you’re arguing in bad faith by continually mischaracterizing the physical explanation of how the plane damage could result in the collapse of the buildings.

Why are you conspiracy nutters so hell-bent on ignoring basic facts? Christ you’re stupid.

Your brain is busted, renwald.

I think 9/11 was allowed to happen by certain elements within the government. But where you and your ilk part ways with me is that I don’t see why it’s necessary to buy into a bullshit and unsupportable belief in controlled demolitions.

It can be an inside job that solely consists of allowing planes to be hijacked and flown into buildings.

You really are a piece of work. Might I suggest you stick to your blue-collar lifestyle, and become a lorry driver? I don’t think you’re cut out for much more than that.
You’re a total dumbass, Florence.

Perhaps I’m a masochist for debating you zark, since you’re completely sub-moronic.

Post Modified: 03/01/06 17:31:46

R131032
4 years ago
in_itself

“Shogo cannot outrun his reputation that’s all.”

He might not be able to outrun it, but surely he can grace us with a snappy jazz dance number.


R131033
4 years ago
Shogo

It is not only the foul mouth, it is the insults.

Right. As Joe commented, what else is new?

What do you got?

Oh, I insulted some people? You’re shitting! Next thing you’ll be telling me you’re a fag.


R131034
4 years ago
Shogo

snappy jazz dance number

Just wondering where this particular flame comes from, since I never studied jazz dance.

Post Modified: 03/01/06 13:26:30

R131036
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

Oh, I insulted some people? You’re shitting! Next thing you’ll be telling me you’re a fag.

Now that is more like the Shogo we know.


R131039
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

And by the way,

It can be an inside job that solely consists of allowing planes to be hijacked and flown into buildings.

Yeah, that sounds like a brilliant idea.


R131040
4 years ago
in_itself

“Perhaps your mother misheard what I was saying when I ass-fucked her?”

Perhaps…but that doesn’t explain your modified post.


R131041
4 years ago
Shogo

that doesn’t explain your modified post.

I felt that particular comment was gratuitous, so I removed it. I’m making an attempt to be less insulting and reactionary.


R131042
4 years ago
Shogo

Yeah, that sounds like a brilliant idea.

Has fewer logical flaws than your Church of Demolitions, G. Fewer points of failure, and as I’ve commented many times, the mere fact of an “attack” on American soil is more than enough to rally support for Bush’s “War on Terror”.

What’s pretty funny though, to me I mean, is how you say up above: who would want to argue with a person like Shogo?

You keep doing it, so you must be enjoying yourself.

Post Modified: 03/01/06 13:33:02

R131044
4 years ago
in_itself

“I felt that particular comment was gratuitous, so I removed it. I’m making an attempt to be less insulting and reactionary.”

As if that will give you any more credibility. You’ve already burned that bridge. When you’re done with my mom you think you could re-bury her? How long have you been a necrophiliac?


R131046
4 years ago
Shogo

Perhaps…but that doesn’t explain your modified post.

So, any forthcoming enlightenment on the jazz dance comment? Sorry I don’t have any similar comments to make about you, but I have more to do in my life than research shit about people on the intardnet.

Mad props to you though, G. You clearly understand that the internet is SERIOUS FUCKING BUSINESS!


R131047
4 years ago
Shogo

As if that will give you any more credibility.

Well, it’s worth a shot. I figure it’s better to simply try and be more civil. You have a problem with that?

You’ve already burned that bridge.

I didn’t realize you were the arbiter of everything that was, is, and will be.


R131048
4 years ago
Shogo

When you’re done with my mom you think you could re-bury her?

I don’t know what you mean. I didn’t say anything about your mom.

Post Modified: 03/01/06 13:38:17

R131049
4 years ago
Joe

“Shogo cannot outrun his reputation that’s all.”

That’s irrelevant – that’s like saying I can trash all your future posts because of the lunacy you’ve displayed in this thread.

Or saying I can discount Prof. Stephen Jones solely just because he’s a religious nut and has no problem mixing his religious beliefs with his scientific methodology. Who would want to listen to him? I try to limit that to a once-per-thread basis. He’s also a bad researcher, which makes a better point.

Post Modified: 03/01/06 13:44:33

R131052
4 years ago
in_itself

“Well, it’s worth a shot. I figure it’s better to simply try and be more civil. You have a problem with that?”

No problem. Why the sudden change of heart though?

“I didn’t realize you were the arbiter of everything that was, is, and will be.”

You are very astute. Of course I’m not. Trying to be “more civil” on page 22 of a thread where you’ve cussed people out and insulted them on every page doesn’t seem to me to be very genuine. I’m sure a few others would agree.


R131054
4 years ago
Shogo

Why the sudden change of heart though?

Hmm. Hard to explain. I have an exchange with Wombat on page 21, where he asked why I did that so often. Made me realize that it was unnecessary. I adopted a more civil tone with him, and we had what I thought was a productive exchange. Maybe it just got old.


R131056
4 years ago
in_itself

“Maybe it just got old.”

Maybe…or maybe you just reverted back to the childish mentality you seem to have so much trouble letting go of.


R131058
4 years ago
Shogo

maybe you just reverted back to the childish mentality you seem to have so much trouble letting go of.

This doesn’t make sense. Is trying to be more civil childish? And if I’m childish, then aren’t you similarly so for sinking to my level?

Is your attempt at an insult vis-a-vis jazz dance commentary somehow not childish because it’s in retort to insults I have made?

And really, how relevant are Suitcaseman’s posts considering they are dredging up comments that I made many months ago? My most recent presence on this thread is in presenting reasoned arguments and not mindlessly flaming people.

Suitcaseman brings these old bits up because he’d rather attack my character than deal with the meat of my arguments.


R131059
4 years ago
zark

help maintain this torrent, its beginning to flow—911 eyewitness

678MB dvd rip 1hr 44 mins 40 secs
video = xvid 760 kbitss—- 95 kb/s
audio mpga 106 kbits/s—- 13 kb/s
640×480


R131061
4 years ago
in_itself

“My most recent presence on this thread is in presenting reasoned arguments and not mindlessly flaming people.”

O RLY?

O RLY?

“Perhaps your mother misheard what I was saying when I ass-fucked her?” Shogo is just trying to turn over a new leaf guys. It’s the American way!


R131063
4 years ago
Shogo

His comments about WTC7 are informed by cherry-picked data, and are completely ignorant of the transcripts of conversations between the firefighters who were on the ground about how the building was bulging, and how they knew it was going to collapse.

You don’t find that a substantive argument?

As for the STFU comment, he asked me a question, then told me he wasn’t asking me a question.

I already told you why I retracted the comment about your mom. It was intended ironically anyway, coming as it did after Suitcaseman’s posts. Irony doesn’t translate well to the web, unfortunately.

Shogo is just trying to turn over a new leaf guys.

You do realize you’re only talking to yourself right? People on here that know me well don’t get their knickers in a twist like you do. My advice is to sack up.


R131064
4 years ago
Shogo

Oh, but please do continue making your hilarious jazz dance jokes. They’re teh funneh!


R131082
4 years ago
Wombat

Snarks problem is that he thinks that if your not a microbioligist or a “serious” scientist then you have no right to have an opinion on anything. Hes the all knowing “science guy” and can not stand it if you dont fall in with his opinions. He comes back to a thread he says is a waste of time and mental masturbation because hes scared shitless you might actually discuss something that he has missed.

Shogo just a fuckwit.

If any kind of evidence for the controlled demolition of the WTC is going to come out it will probably be through discussions on a forum just like this one.

Unfortunately for poor old Snark some of the best investigations and the greatest inventions are not carried out by scientists but by ordinary schmuks that see something different and act on it.

I hope this thread get 10000 posts.


R131085
4 years ago
Shogo

If any kind of evidence for the controlled demolition of the WTC is going to come out it will probably be through discussions on a forum just like this one.

Now that’s funny.


R131086
4 years ago
Shogo

some of the best investigations and the greatest inventions are not carried out by scientists

You must be joking. Alternating current? The semiconductor? The microprocessor? Anti-biotics?


R131137
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

MORE SHOGO QUOTES FOR THE RECORD

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

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

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

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

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

You keep saying the same shit over and over like it’s going to change the laws of physics. Maybe you should try eating a dick? That might help you.

Nutcaseman, full of shit as ever.

Firefighters know about fighting fires, cunt. They’re not explosives experts. Don’t ever change Butt, your kind of ignorant douchebaggery always brightens my day. Cunt.

Let me explain how scientists operate Butt, since you’re such a stupid cunt. There is zero physical evidence that indicated demolitions. Even if all the rubble were intact and that conclusion reached, you and your ilk would simply chalk it up to some super secret technology that nobody knows about. You and gonadcock should take your act on the road.

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

Quite a circle jerk you’ve got going here Spewt. Only question I have is who eats the ookie cookie?

It’s pretty sad watching a bunch of idiots self-congratulate each other on their mutual stupidity.

Just wanted you all to know (zark, Continuity, Nutcaseman, Butt): you’re a bunch of total fucking retards.

I think I said that you’re all a bunch of fucking morons. But please, by all means, continue on in your rampant faggotry, bitches.

You’re such a stupid fuck, Nutcaseman. You, Butt, Zark, and Continuity are the dumbest motherfuckers on GNN.

“Can you explain what happened to the wings of the aircraft and why they caused no damage?” They disappeared up your asshole along with Zark’s head.

If you don’t understand how heat works, and the difference between materials that conduct it, and don’t conduct it, and what energy conservation is, then you’re not qualified to do anything other than parrot your same limp-dicked conspiracy drivel.

Your innuendo is worth shit, Nutcaseman.

d) eat the peanuts out of my shit.

“V. Romero of New Mexico Tech” Pretty high-end shit, right there. The massive amount of building remnants scattered all over lower Manhattan illiustrate clearly that, as usual, you have no fucking idea what you’re talking about. Maybe you can copy/paste some of your same old non fact-based insinuations masquerading as half-baked conspiracy doggerel?

“The parts found did not match a Boeing 757.” According to who? Some French conspiracy nutter who wasn’t there? Some other random internutters who weren’t there? Some fuck like you who’s watched 100 too many X-Files episodes? Color me unimpressed.

Post Modified: 03/01/06 17:18:50

R131140
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

Do you talk to people in person like you talk to people on the internet? Point is your behavior is retarded. Special Ed.


R131145
4 years ago
Continuity

Looks like Page 22 is a write-off. The important videos linked at the end of Page 21 still await.


R131153
4 years ago
YT_

That must be why you mentioned my name and wondered if I was going to respond to Ma’s question, right? Tool.

Learn to read, bitch.


R131162
4 years ago
sisyphus

Can you guys start a different thread for shogo quotes or something? This shit is confusing enough as it is.


R131166
4 years ago
Chickenma1

Wow, one whole page wasted in a single day.


R131171
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

Push your finger down on the mouse and scroll to the next relevant comment. Sorry for the inconvenience.


R131194
4 years ago
Shogo

I think what’s most impressive is that you actually went through all 21 pages of the thread in order to find where I insulted people. That’s an awful lot of effort for very little return.

I continue to maintain that anyone who is willing to buy into the demolitions bullshit based on the available information is gullible and willfully ignoring any information that might contradict their religious faith.


R131197
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

You have a bad memory. The quotes are all on page 7.


R131201
4 years ago
Shogo

The quotes are all on page 7.

Good thing you posted them here. They are, after all, incredibly relevant being over 9 months old.


R131202
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

Do you want me to find the most recent quotes?


R131206
4 years ago
Shogo

Do you want me to find the most recent quotes?

Sure, go nuts.

It’s not like you have anything better to do.


R131213
4 years ago
in_itself

“...I have more to do in my life than research shit about people on the intardnet.”

O RLY?


R131217
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

Recent Shogo quotes

4 weeks ago p. 20

You’re an idiot, Cuntingency. Plain and simple. And you plainly have problems with logical thinking and reading comprehension.

Continuity, I know that you think you have some incredibly deep insight into my personality, but you really are nothing more than an idiot masquerading as a fucktard.

So back your shit up, fuckhead.

Heh. Right. Fuck off.
Hahahahahaha, BBC, simpleton. Have you honestly not heard about this?
Provide the data or STFU, bitch.

p. 19 1 month ago

You’re a fucking douchebag.

I’m sure your many years of feeding chickens, taking acid, and hangin’ with Janis make you a real expert on these matters, right?

No dude, you suspect my motivations because you’re an imbecile.

That is fucking classic conspiracy drivel. Innuendo masquerading as factual argument.

If you ever work out an actual rationale, I’ll be glad to read it. Until then, you’re just another conspiracy nutter acting a fool.

It doesn’t make you any less of an idiot.

The argument that only by the towers collapsing would people have been motivated is grade-A bullshit, made up out of thin air, and birthed from your anus.

You’re a classic example of what I’ve been talking about. You’re the kind of moron who perceives any criticism of your position as equating to the critic being a government shill.

Last week

You’re a fucking douchebag.

Post Modified: 03/01/06 20:13:30

R131224
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

Somebody must have told you to cool it. You demean the station.


R131225
4 years ago
Shogo

I have more to do in my life than research shit about people on the intardnet.

Maybe I should have been more clear: people I don’t like.

The obsession with me is flattering though. You, freefall, “EvilJeff”, “EvilJosh”, Suitcaseman…I have quite the fanclub riding my zipper. For people who don’t like me, y’all sure do spend a lot of time and energy making posts about me.


R131226
4 years ago
Shogo

Somebody must have told you to cool it.

Yep. My NSA handlers told me to tone down the assholeishness.

No way I could possibly have decided on my own to ease up. That just wouldn’t fit in with the conspiratorial worldview!


R131229
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

Forget that. I’m talking about GNN. People won’t read a thread like this because of people like you. You demean the sight. Don’t try to deflect the issue.


R131231
4 years ago
Snark

I dunno, Shogo’s asshole schtick sort of amuses me.


R131232
4 years ago
Shogo

People won’t read a thread like this because of people like you.

No wonder it’s only twenty-fucking-two pages long.


R131233
4 years ago
Shogo

Seriously Suitcaseman, as an NSA asset, I can assure you that was my intention all along. Here at the NSA, we take our thread pooping verrah verrah seriously. My instructions are clear: anytime someone threatens to expose the ignorant sheeplike masses to The Truth™, I’m to step in and make a bunch of insults so that people won’t read the thread. Unfortunately, as a dedicated X-Files fan, you’re far too sharp a tack to fall for such a thing so they have decided to bring Mr. Special in on the case to properly derail this thread.


R131234
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

Don’t flatter yourself with this NSA bullshit. You’re a cheap internet bully. It is not only this thread.

Post Modified: 03/01/06 20:52:38

R131271
4 years ago
Shogo

You’re a cheap internet bully.

That’s only what they want you to believe.


R131277
4 years ago
Continuity

Yeah, you’re right Snark. Shogo is quite amusing. It makes me laugh how someone would spend so much time in this thread, or combing the others to find a place to have a diarrhea attack.

Check this. On this page alone, in a twelve hour period, Shogo made 25 posts. Yes, that’s right 25 within a twelve hour period. He almost dropped in every hour, on the hour, save for some short lulls. You’ll notice all his posts, on this page, really have nothing to do with the thread topic or latest footage, other than the first post on the page, where he briefly states he doesn’t know what to make of what we’re talking about. Then he goes on with the same tricks and slogans. Attracts attention, superficially revels, etc.. Result. Page 22 be like fuckted.

And I’m quite certain Shogo is not a sekret agent man. No, he’s addicted. Remember in the old days when you could see who was online at GNN v1.0? Shogo was on — and people were starting to seriously notice — half of the freaking day.

Dude, you are addicted to insulting & bickering with people on the net. For a guy who’s, I dunno, some people said 40 or almost thereabouts, that’s pretty messed up.

Post Modified: 03/01/06 23:25:51

R131278
4 years ago
Shogo

Post Modified: 03/01/06 23:36:44

R131281
4 years ago
Joe

Shogo spends a lot of time on a computer. More groundbreaking research. At least this sounds fairly accurate.


R131282
4 years ago
Shogo

Shogo was on—and people were starting to seriously notice—half of the freaking day.

I’m a fucking computer programmer, genius. I’m on a computer for 10-12 hours per day. Sometimes I need a mental break from coding, and nothing is better than flinging shit at the monkeys.


R131284
4 years ago
Shogo

Also, I type very fast. Writing a post takes me less than a minute in most cases. I’m not sitting here laboring over my comments (which should be obvious).


R131292
4 years ago
YT_

Continuity, I can’t believe you made such a long post about Josh. And Suitcaseman, what on earth are you reposting his comments for? Haven’t we all suffered enough already? This thread is supposed to be about the towers, dammit!


R131294
4 years ago
zark

911 eyewitness TORRENT

Discussion about it?

eh?


R131592
4 years ago
Wombat

“Writing a post takes me less than a minute in most cases. “

It shows in the content.


R131604
4 years ago
Shogo

Sorry Wombat, beat you to the punch: I’m not sitting here laboring over my comments (which should be obvious).


R131638
4 years ago
Chickenma1

Shogo’s Day: Write code for an hour, check comments to his comments on threads he’s commented on, back to writing code. Doesn’t leave much time for researching anything.

That’s OK Shogo, I do it too, only my breaks are from lay-out, writing fluff pieces, and editing. I really envy and appreciate the people who do have time to do research and I love it when something new is introduced – like the thermite video – after 21 pages. Keeps me coming back.


R131751
4 years ago
whateveryousay

Has their been any expert opinion on the net or in print regarding this yellow “molten-like” material spilling from WTC2? So far, only Prof Jones has made comment. I’d like to hear from others.

well,

I’m sure in an office building damaged in the way that was, on fire, there will be a great many things burning and melting. -shogo

no. not yet…
oh. wait…

http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf

======================================================

FEMA: World Trade Center Building Performance Study, Chapter 2, Section 2.2.2.3, page 34: “Just prior to the collapse (of WTC 2), a stream of molten metal -possibly aluminum from the airliner –was seen streaming out of a window opening at the northeast corner (near the 80 thfloor level).”

NIST: Progress Report on the Federal Building andFire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster, Volume 4, Appendix H, Section H.9, page 43: “Starting around 9:52 a.m., a molten material began to pour from the top of window 80-256 on the north face of WTC 2. The material appears intermittently until the tower collapses at 9:58:59 a.m. The observation of piles of debris in this area combined with the melting point behaviors of the primary alloys used in a Boeing 767 suggest that the material is molten aluminum derived from aircraft debris located on floor 81.”

=================================================

so that’s what your video in showing…

greening went with the nist/fema “it must have been aluminum” assumption.

jones commenting on actual video footage says, “not plane dripping… steel…”
and gives a pretty good reason actually.

maybe shogo should send in his melting-file cabinets theory or whatever it is.

incidently (or not so incidently) ...
greening has just updated his paper to answer s.jones’s limited response to the aluminum theory.

http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf

they both could sure use some more evidence for their theories…
and they may in fact agree on building 7.


R131761
4 years ago
Continuity

ChickenMa,

Did you download the much longer 911 EyeWitness video linked a few times on the previous page? It’s also been called the “Siegel” video.

You might hear some very suspicious sounds in that video. It ain’t hard to miss, and it ain’t wind.

WhateverYouSay,

As you know, I’m not so sure aluminum goes bright yellow when molten. Second of all, have the aluminum parts of planes actually ran like molten rivers, in any other disastrous plane crashes?

Last of all — and I should find some links to help answer the question — what happens to aluminum when it’s really heated?

Post Modified: 03/02/06 21:48:28

R131762
4 years ago
Wombat

“Sorry Wombat, beat you to the punch”

Ive just gotta improve my typing speed.


R131765
4 years ago
Shogo

Second of all, have the aluminum parts of planes actually ran like molten rivers, in any other disastrous plane crashes?

Really, you’d need to find a disastrous plane crash where there was both a lot of burning fuel, and where the plane parts were stuck somewhere hot. Typical crashes, i.e. planes hitting the ground, aren’t really like that – in those instances you see wreckage spread out over a large area, it’s not really confined to a small space.

what happens to aluminum when it’s really heated?

Same as any other metal, it melts. All metals melt when brought to a high enough temperature.


R131792
4 years ago
Continuity

I’m just thinking out loud.

I was curious about the actual temp level where aluminum combusts and begins to burn. I don’t know this temperature level for certain, but I do know it can actually burn vigorously. And it burns white, which is why aluminum is added to fireworks which are desired to burn white.

I believe the temperature needed for aluminum to burn — in ivory white puddles — is 1800 C, which is far lower than its 660 C melting point.

Whereas the substance we saw dripping from WTC2 was definitely yellowish. Only thing that comes to mind is steel & the thermite in Whatever’s video.

Post Modified: 03/03/06 00:31:16

R131804
4 years ago
whateveryousay

I’m not so sure aluminum goes bright yellow when molten.

s.jones’s point was that since aluminum melts at such a low temp.
it would have run-off away from the heat source before it would have been able to get hot enough for a salmon/yellow temp.


R131805
4 years ago
zark

very intersting video footage of that ‘substance’ exiting the building. — thanks for link

montage video — thanks for link

n.b emissary is have major problems getting page 22 to load. i also did to begin with. was getting a blank default forum screen. Anyone know how to help emissary?>


R131863
4 years ago
Joe

One of Frank Greening’s papers mentions the leaking aluminum.

Aluminum and the World Trade Center (pdf)

“The other major source of aluminum at the WTC was the aluminum alloy airframes of the Boeing 767 aircraft that crashed into the Twin Towers on the morning of 9-11. It may be estimated that, on impact, these aircraft weighed about 124,000 kg including fuel; of this weight, 46,000 kg comprised the fuselage and 21,000 kg made up the mass of the wings – all of which were fabricated from aluminum alloys. Modern airframes are invariably constructed from series 2000 aluminum alloys. Alloy 2024 is a typical example containing 93 % Al, 4.5 % Cu, 1.5 % Mg, and 0.5 % each of Mn and Fe. These metallic additions to aluminum lower the melting point of the alloy from a value of 660 C, for pure aluminum, to about 548 C for alloy 2024. This relatively low temperature indicates that the fires within the Twin Towers were quite capable of melting at least some of the Boeing 767 aluminum airframe structures remaining in the WTC before its collapse.”

“But is there any direct evidence for the presence of molten aluminum at the WTC site on 9-11? The answer to this question is an emphatic: “Yes!” The formation of molten aluminum in WTC 2 just prior to its collapse was discussed in the well known FEMA and NIST Reports on the performance of the WTC buildings during 9-11.”

“Since there were no other metals in the Twin Towers that could melt at the temperatures present in WTC 1 & 2 during 9-11 – i.e. less than 800© C, it must be concluded that molten aluminum was produced in significant quantities from the melting of airframe debris in a least one Twin Tower (WTC 2). However, from the different trajectories of the aircraft strikes on WTC 1 & 2, it appears that the fuselage of the aircraft that struck WTC 2 came to rest closer to an exterior wall than the aircraft that struck WTC 1 which stopped deep inside this building. NIST report that the fires in WTC 2 were less active than those observed in WTC 1. In addition, the maximum temperature reached inside the Towers was probably higher for WTC 1 than for WTC 2 because Tower 1 burned for 102 minutes compared to 56 minutes for WTC 2. Given these facts, it is probable that molten aluminum was produced in both Towers, but was only observed at one location, namely spilling out of a broken window in WTC 2. It is obviously very difficult to estimate how much molten aluminum was produced in either of the Twin Towers during 9-11. However, from the temperature and heat flux estimates reported by NIST, and the mass of aluminum exposed, it is probable that as much as 10,000 kg of molten aluminum formed in each Tower.”

The addendum has some more on Prof. Stephen E. Jones:

“In spite of what I suggested in my January e-mail, namely simulations that reproduce conditions in the WTC fires and would thus be an acceptable test of my claims, Prof. Jones carries out two entirely different experiments:

(i) He pours molten aluminum onto a section of clean, dry, rusted steel.

(ii) He pours molten aluminum onto a clean, dry, concrete block.

Because there were no violent reactions in these two tests, Prof. Jones concludes that my hypothesis is invalid! This conclusion is reached in spite of the fact that gypsum was not even tested, and none of the materials were crushed.”

“In conclusion I would say that Prof. Jones is, of course, entitled to his opinion, but I would argue that his “simulation” lacks most of the key conditions that were present in the WTC impact zones on 9-11, namely prolonged fires ignited by aviation fuel, sustained by burning plastics, paper, furniture, etc, that directly heated water, aluminum and rusted steel in the presence of crushed concrete and gypsum. I challenge Prof. Jones to repeat his tests under these conditions and publish the results.”

Post Modified: 03/03/06 09:07:19

R131868
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

n.b emissary is have major problems getting page 22 to load. i also did to begin with. was getting a blank default forum screen. Anyone know how to help emissary?

I have the last page on my favorites, but if I want to jump around to different pages, sometimes the blank screen comes up. When that happens, I go through the forum, open forum, there is no problem.

Post Modified: 03/03/06 09:16:58

R132367
4 years ago
whateveryousay

joe,

since it seems we are rather on the same page…

greening and jones both obviously avoid the more uncomfortable points in each others’ theories. . . but greening is like, the only independent guy supporting official theory.

i mean.. i don’t care either way.. but for me … it comes down to this…

greening admits the fact of explosions to be a fact

i mean, that’s it,.
end of story…

explosions…

the firemen were not delusional or misquoted… it’s the real deal… big motherfucking explosions…

the 911myths site had a nice little bit about “big blue” and the sounds it made before it collapsed but sorry… them there sounds don’t quite cut the mustard or knock people over enough to even come close to qualifying.

i’ll be the first to admit that jones’s stuff is lacking but his stance cuts through so much bullshit…

greening has got it going on but… strange as it may seem .. the facts might just swallow him…

i for one would be happy if the 2 towers was an accident… but do you think anyone is actually going to accept responsibility for fuking up so hard?


R132406
4 years ago
Continuity

Greening says:

“Since there were no other metals in the Twin Towers that could melt at the temperatures present in WTC 1 & 2 during 9-11 – i.e. less than 800© C, it must be concluded that molten aluminum was produced in significant quantities from the melting of airframe debris in a least one Twin Tower (WTC 2).

He’s racing to an assumption with a closed argument, and I have to admit, Jones is also assuming.

Anyway, back to my original question, can molten aluminum actually turn bright yellow at say 800 or 900 c, even if trapped? (A friend of mine with some factory experience said it stays primarily silver in colour, but he’s definitely no expert and cannot be counted on as an authority).


R132415
4 years ago
Chickenma1

My understanding is the thermite is iron oxide and aluminum.


R132423
4 years ago
Joe

“greening admits the fact of explosions to be a fact”
“the firemen were not delusional or misquoted…”

I don’t think I called the fireman delusional or said they were misquoted. I said you were misquoting them. Their statements aren’t evidence of a controlled demoltion operation, because like you say, explosions could have been a natural part of the building’s collapse. So I guess we’re on the same page, if you’re agree that it’s likely, or even just possible, that the buildings collapsed because of the plane impacts.

“them there sounds don’t quite cut the mustard or knock people over enough to even come close to qualifying.”

You haven’t convinced me. The sounds are quite impressive, they do indeed cut the mustard. It comes close to qualifying. That ‘explosion’ was caused by a single piece of steel. Or at least thats what the “official story” is… there’s evidence it was a controlled demolition, which makes sense because it’s impossible for a piece of steel to make a noise that loud.

The people investigating it must have been in on it too.. there’s no other explanation for why this crane fell over.. no other crane of that type has collapsed like that.

Post Modified: 03/03/06 21:08:11

R132438
4 years ago
Chickenma1

Sorry for the stupid comment above – I just read the Greening pdf. Very interesting. First reasonable argument I’ve heard. Course there weren’t any aluminum planes in WTC 7. My contention is if one was “pulled”, they were all “pulled”.


R132451
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

A society of experts and scholars has now joined with Judicial Watch in calling for release of videos that are being held by the Department of Defense, which are essential to understanding events at the Pentagon that transpired on September 11, 2001. Scholars for 9/11 Truth, which is dedicated to exposing falsehoods and establishing truths about the events of 9/11, has gone beyond Judicial Watch by calling for the release of other films and evidence that, its officers maintain, are essential to understanding 9/11.

“It is outrageous that the government is withholding this vital information”, said James H. Fetzer, founder and co-chair of the society. “This concerns one of the monstrous events of our time and deserves to be in the public domain.” The group, whose members include such prominent figures as David Ray Griffin, Morgan Reynolds, John McMurtry, Wayne Madsen, Robert Bowman, Webster Tarpley, and Andreas von Buelow, has been speaking out against what its own research suggests has been complicity by elements of the administration in the crime.
They are calling for immediate release of the full Pentagon surveillance tape as well as video tapes seized by FBI agents minutes after the Pentagon hit; a complete inventory of the plane wreckage and debris from Flights 11, 77, 93, 175 or any other aircraft that crashed or was destroyed on September 11, 2001, including, but not limited to their location (whether warehoused or otherwise), catalog of photographs and videotapes taken of any items from the planes, and results of all tests and examinations conducted concerning any of these items.

911 Blogger


R132457
4 years ago
Chickenma1

Amen.


R132468
4 years ago
zark

The people investigating it must have been in on it too.. there’s no other explanation for why this crane fell over.. no other crane of that type has collapsed like that

Joe it is like the 911 Commission Report —- they were told the story to investigate, not to investigate the event.
a commissioned report sets the parameters allowed. Since the official story didnt include ‘explosions’, the commission couldnt investigate the claims.

Its not about people being ‘in on the act’, its about keeping them away from it.

It is sinister but not in the mass paranoid view of ‘the investigators are in on it’. They are just kept out of it.

Lee Hamilton
“the charge, of course, that the United States government was cpmplicit in 9/11, is just extrodinary and, uh, we found No, zero evidence of that. ah um. our government planned that attack, uh um. so i think the burden of persuasion is on their side”

WTF! just listen to it here

Number 3 Griffin one
small little file.
Hamilton says that the commisson did everything they could to fully investigate the evidence “we took our best crack at it”, “we were ordered by the statute to tell the story of 911”.. i think he is honestly trying to say stuff without stepping outside of his job position. (file number 2)
just listen to him answer, very composed but always falling back on the fact that they were commissoned to do a job.
one of the things i think backs this up is within the 911 commisson document there is no mention of the central columns when the floor pancaked. which means they were omitted because
1) the commission had to prove the 911 story
or
2) the columns were not there when the floors collapsed

Post Modified: 03/04/06 00:53:26

R132522
4 years ago
markrc99

Greening –

“It is suggested that molten aluminum initiated the global collapse of each Tower by burning through key structural supports in the impact zones. Molten aluminum-thermite reactions could explain the rapid intensification of the fires and the many detonations seen and heard moments before and during the collapse of each Tower. Molten aluminum-thermite explosions – reactions that are quite capable of shattering ceramic or metal molds during aluminum casting – would help to explain the much-debated pulverization of the WTC concrete. … Simply put, thermite-induced reactions were largely responsible for the destruction of the Twin Towers on that terrible September day in New York City – but the fatal damage was not from deliberately planted thermite charges. Molten aluminum was the culprit, and the true terrorist!” That’s interesting. So, the massive amounts of fine dust emitting from the buildings, which is characteristic of a controlled demolition, is a point of contention acknowledged by Greening.

His theory, if I understand it correctly is such that molten aluminum came into contact with “other materials containing chemically bound oxygen…” lol Even if this were so, how does this explain the explosions at the base of the building? Specific substances mixing together would irrefutably be isolated to a small percentage of the building, perhaps as little as a few floors, even though he described the destruction as a “global collapse.” Even it uniformly covered all the floors of the impact zone we’re back to the original argument. How was it possible that the vast majority of the towers, those massive reinforced central cores offer literally no resistance? Yeah, I hear the aunt jemima brigade coming once again. lol

My understanding of themite is that it’s a mix of aluminum and Iron Oxide. Greening concurs that themite-induced reactions brought down the towers. So what “other material” in the WTC served as Iron Oxide? Jones also mentioned the presence of sulfur on the steel that had been examined. Again, if I understand the contention here correctly, I don’t find this argument to be particularly compelling.

Post Modified: 03/04/06 07:19:19

R132532
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

I consider this neverending 911 thread to be like a bulletin board, a place to post interesting 911 articles, videos, etc., so if people have not heard from Bob Bowman, they need to, because he is another one of these guys, who is as American as apple pie, another career military man, who is part of the 911 Truth Movement. He was part of Confronting the Evidence. I mention him because he is a member of the Scholars for 911 Truth mentioned above.

short video

It begins,

Certain pieces of information taken together prove that the official conspiracy theory of 911 is a bunch of hogwash, it is impossible.

Post Modified: 03/04/06 09:54:31

R132537
4 years ago
Joe

“those massive reinforced central cores offer literally no resistance?”

pic deleted

Anybody who tells you it fell at free-fall speeeds is a CIA disinfo agent.

“hear the aunt jemima brigade coming once again.”

Was that a racist joke? I didn’t get it.

Post Modified: 03/16/06 18:13:29

R132540
4 years ago
Suitcaseman

Let’s go to Rasputin’s favorite sight for 911 videos

Quote

We’re here to talk about 911.
911 is related to Iraq.
They are both in my opinion treason.

A FIGHTER PILOT LOOKS AT 9/11: LT. COL. ROBERT BOWMAN After 22 years in the US Air Force, Bowman retired in 1978 as director of Air Force Space Division/Advanced Space Programs Development. Until 1982, he was manager of General Dynamics’ Advanced Space Programs. Star Wars, in short. Dr. Bowman’s credentials and experience (PhD, Caltech etc.) are of special note considering his call for the indictment of George W. Bush et al. for TREASON for 9/11 and the cover-up. Bowman spoke at the International Citizens Inquiry Into 9/11 in Toronto, May 25-30, 2004. (Part 1; part 2 of his talk is entitled “Forward to a Resurrected America.” ) www.rmbowman.com/ssn/rally031025.htm
28 minutes, winmedia 7.8 megs – thanks to VermontIMC

Post Modified: 03/04/06 09:40:49

R132543
4 years ago
markrc99

Joe

Can I see the evidence proving that every analysis contending that the destruction of the WTC towers occurred too quickly to be characteristic of a natural collapse is CIA disinformation? The aunt jemima brigade are the pancake people, sorry to disappoint you.


R132545
4 years ago
Shogo

The aunt jemima brigade are the pancake people, sorry to disappoint you.

That’s a snappy nickname. We should come up with a similar one for the demolitions proponents. How about “batshit nutters”?

No comments:

Post a Comment