| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
 Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 8:08 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Jay Ref wrote: | | scar wrote: | | chipmunk stew wrote: | | Ally must be awfully desperate, then. |
Evidently when ya have a rendon chip wired in, in place of your soul, it can get confusing.
It was Jay Ref, not Ally, who said it.
The names appear above the quotes on this forum, its fairly straightforward. |
Subtlety is wasted on the dense Chipmunk my friend...
-z |
But not on those who read the words of the dense...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 8:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kbo234 wrote: | | chipmunk stew wrote: | | but it's hard to argue with their source materials. |
No it isn't. Explain. |
Well, unless you're of the opinion that the bulk of the source materials are fabricated (I'm not) they stand as they are. They can be cross-referenced and corroborated and checked for anomalous information. What you make of them is an analytical exercise that has a subjective element, but the material itself simply stands as it is. You can argue against an analysis (how much weight a document should be given, the relevance of a piece of testimony, how to deal with conflicting statements, etc.) but you can't argue against raw information.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pete J
Minor Poster
Joined: 06 Apr 2006
Posts: 57
Location: Scotland
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 8:17 pm Post subject: calls for evidence |
|
|
Just before this conversation descends into a name calling exchange, I thought I would make the observation that you've all skipped right past the basic reasons why people are asking questions about the events of 9/11.
Jay Ref - you (rightly) ask for evidence when other posters make accusations which you consider to be wild, but the background to the technical debate is the issue over who was allowed to set the original agenda after 9/11 and why. The answer is, a very small number of people were. They decided that there was going to be a 'war on terrorism', they decided there were going to be pre-emtive invasions, they decided what investigations into 9/11 there were going to be and who was going to sit on them, they decided that the black box data was not going to be made public, they decided that there would be no public aeronautical investigation etc etc. They also 'solved the crime' of 9/11 within a couple of days and fed the media the whole story before any substantive cross examination of it could be made. The war on terrorism and it's associated baggage such as the so called 'patriot act' is not the product of extensive public debate and involvement - it's in fact nothing to do with the general public but the agenda of a very small group of individuals within the goverment and it's associates. This scenario is what forms the background to many people's concerns first and foremost.
Moving on to the 'technical' stuff where all the cat calling over 'evidence' & 'proof' goes on, this area of discussion also gets confused by similar "agenda-setting" tactics.
For example, so much discussion gets wasted on whether S. E. Jones has credible evidence or not, is crazy or not, has been proved wrong by other theories or not, when in fact the main issue he is trying to promote is that NIST did not do 'good' science because they were selective about the hypothises they chose to investigate. i.e.
1] Good Science = submit ALL the technically plausible hypothises and investigate which one fits the available data
2] Bad Science = select a single hypothises and develop a theory which attempts to prove this hypothises only
This is nothing to do with politics, conspiracy theories or anything else - it's just what you do in science - you consider ALL POSSIBLE HYPOTHISES which remotely fit the data. If they seem politically unrealistic then that might be uncomfortable but it's got nothing to dowith a technical investigation. On the other hand, if a technically plausible hypothises is discarded then you have to ask the question if it was for political reasons don't you ?
Controlled demolition is a KNOWN scenario by which buildings can collapse in the way that WTC-1, 2 and 7 were observed to on 9/11. It also fits all the observed data much better that the so called 'pancake theory'. Further, it is probably the ONLY hypothises which fits the data comfortably (other theories have been put forward but they could not be said to fit the data COMFORTABLY in the way the controlled demolition can). The official account would have us beleive that asymmetric damage led to a symmetric collapse in all 3 cases. The scientists cited below have presented theories to explain this, but how about the simple theory of 'symmetric damage' leading to a 'symmetric collapse' ?
So why did NIST discard this hypothises from the investigation ? That is what Jones's original question was. It can only have been a political decision, not a scientific one is his conclusion.
NIST have set the 'agenda' and this has now led to equally 'bad science' from others who have simply 'aped' the same approach such as Eagar Beavers, Silverstein/Weidlinger Associates et al. There is nothing wrong with their theories - they are all plausible independently and I'm sure are scientifically rigerous within their own scope - but they all have the same problem, i.e. that in the end they have to speculate as to the actual 'collapse' mechanism because they don't allow themselves to consider the demolition theory. Futhermore, they are generally in agreement that the temperatures were not hot enough to melt the steel but avoid even trying to explain away how you 'compress' the 47 vertical steel columns on the way down.
CT debunkers such as Marky do a good job of raking up inconsistencies, implausible arguments and (I admit) outright lies in the 9/11 movement. I even agree with many of the citations he has made, such as the airline pilot saying that it was possible for the hijackers to carry out the operation given their training (although my point was that it was highly unlikely that they would all reach their targets successfully). However, these just go nowhere near to addressing the central issue of total lack of public accountability over the whole 9/11 agenda.
It's a bit like me telling you that a recent mountain rally had been won by a double-decker bus when you had a bet on the favourite Toyota. I'm sure I could make a good theory on how it would be possible for a bus to win a race but you sure would be asking some questions in a great deal of detail before you accepted you money was "down the tubes".
People are absolutely right to ask questions about 9/11 and they should get answers in as much detail as they want considering the price they're paying. So called "CT Debunkers" like MarkyX do a good job of keeping things tidy, and his comic's not bad either, but this whole episode deserves a much more thorough, even handed and public investigation than it has received to date.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MarkyX
Minor Poster
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 21
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 8:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dodgy wrote: |
WOOOOOAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGG
I hate it when people can not read, make stupid accusations, and say silly words in capitals.
They are either stupid, lying or very, very, very ignorant! |
Nice try with the insult, but what do you have to say to my proof that Iraq isn't even on the top 3 list of imported oil?
_________________
- Mark Iradian
Writer of Chronicles of Garas (A dark tech fantasy webcomic)
The b****** behind Screw Loose Change video |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dodgy
Minor Poster
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 78
Location: Newcastle
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 9:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| MarkyX wrote: | | Nice try with the insult, but what do you have to say to my proof that Iraq isn't even on the top 3 list of imported oil? |
And your point being? You are attacking a straw man - I said "2nd largest supply of oil", not suppliers or anything else. Nice use of 'proof'.
| Quote: | | "Iraq holds more than 112 billion barrels of oil - the world's second largest proven reserves. Iraq also contains 110 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, and is a focal point for regional and international security issues." |
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aairaqioil.htm
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 10:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
For our new comedian friends, another little clip - which has nothing to do with anything really, except I wanted to hear it again.
| Description: |
|
Download |
| Filename: |
Monty Python2.mp3 |
| Filesize: |
143.67 KB |
| Downloaded: |
645 Time(s) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gravy
Minor Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 65
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 1:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Me wrote: | Jones's research 'is' peer reviewed and his work has appeared in several major scientific publications.
Here's an experiment for anyone who doubts what Jones is saying. Go ahead and try to melt a wood burning stove with fire. Stick all of the jet fuel that you want in there. Spend all day if you like! See if you can get it to melt into a giant puddle like what was found in the sub-levels of the WTC buildings, including 7 which wasn't even struck by a plane as we all should know by now. To believe the 9/11 Commission's farcical version you must first believe that the Newtonian laws of physics ceased to exist that day on 9/11. |
Do you have access to an analysis of the molten metal at the WTC?
Do you feel you have a good grasp on the conditions within the piles?
Can you think of logical scenarios that would produce molten metal that don't involve the use of preplanted incendiaries?
Finally, please explain what laws of physics were broken, according to the official version. Please be specific about how those laws would have to be broken to support the OV.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Me
Moderate Poster
Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 431
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 3:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Do you have access to an analysis of the molten metal at the WTC? |
Do you have access to any of the 84 surveillance videos from the Pentagon that were never released? I guess based on your tortured logic that you're not allowed to have an educated opinion on it then. And do you have direct access to the sun? Have you personally analyzed it? Oops, I guess you have no basis for claiming that it really is hot. This ridiculous type of unreasonable burden of proof argument is a cheap ploy and usually resorted to by the desparate as a last minute effort to score points in a losing debate. Sorry but you're going to have to come up with something better than that.
| Quote: |
Can you think of logical scenarios that would produce molten metal that don't involve the use of preplanted incendiaries? |
Hell no....... Have you been able to melt a wood burning stove yet with just fire? I'd love to hear about that.
| Quote: | | Do you feel you have a good grasp on the conditions within the piles? |
The steel was literally molten, we know what temperatures are needed to cause that to happen. Those temperatures 'were not possible' from just fire such as building seven. It's not even possible with jet fuel involved. It's just like we also know what temperature water freezes and melts at? You don't have to be a genius or have to analyze water (or steel) yourself to know that or to realize when the laws of physics have been defied when water (or steel) behaves abnormally.
So.....how's the melting of that wood burning stove going btw? I'm still waiting for how you debunkers are going to peform that miracle. How come my outdoor grill doesn't explode upward into white hot ash and then melt away into a puddle when I'm cooking burgers on it? I thought fire melts steel? Only on 9/11 it does. Why has no building before or since ever fallen from fire? Gee, I wonder........
| Quote: |
Finally, please explain what laws of physics were broken, according to the official version. Please be specific about how those laws would have to be broken to support the OV.
|
The molten steel for one as I've already explained.
Number two as structural engineer Judy Wood explained. Asymmetrical damage with asymmetrical fires will never cause a perfectly symmetrical collapse. Besides, if the fires were somehow burning so hot, that it actually melted the steel, why were the victims seen standing in the very wounds of the buildings still alive? Why wasn't their clothes even singed? Fire that was hot enough to melt steel but yet doesn't even burn clothes? Gimme a break!
The second building was hit on the corner, why didn't it fall to the side if damage from the impact is what caused the collapse? When a lumberjack deliberately chops the side out of a tree, does it fall straight down or to the side? This of course in light of the fact that these buildings were 'over-engineered' to withstand the impact of 'multiple' planes.
image
Woman still alive, clothes still intact, where's the raging inferno required to melt steel? I see a bit of a conundrum here. Care to explain?
How does a building fall from the "pancake theory" at nearly free fall speed with virtualy no resistance? As Judy Wood explained, that's like dropping a billiard ball from the top of the WTC building and having it fall completely unimpeded in a vacuum. Each floor, if it pancake that is, should’ve provided resistance as if crumbled down slow at first and then speeding up as it gained mass. It should've taken much, much longer for the entire process to unfold. Instead it just amazingly fell a free fall speed, IMPOSSIBLE!!!!
Number three, how do explain the squibs blowing out from the sides of the buildings occurring well beneath the collapse wave. They can be seen in almost every video from 9/11. Where’s the force coming from, where’s the energy coming from to cause this? Is it magically manifesting itself from an alternate dimension?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Me
Moderate Poster
Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 431
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 4:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | So, existing extremists who are planning to hit the WTC towers in exactly the places where pre-positioned explosives were placed? Pardon me, but isn't that all just a little too damned pat? |
Not at all, how hard of a target would the colossal WTC buildings be to hit? They literally stand out from the rest of the buildings like a giant green thumb! Those planes were, as my other posts pointed out, equipped with autonomous flight capabilities anyway to assure their destination. They were certain that these planes would reach their proper target.
Also, there would be no reason that the charges would’ve had to have been placed precisely where the planes hit either as you said. Bringing a building down from controlled demolition requires for the most part, incendiary devices strategically planted in the basement. That’s where the process of destruction really began. That of course is what explains to molten steel. That's all that could've explained it. Certainly none of the elements of the official version do. It's no wonder that the 9/11 Commission chose to ignore building seven altogther. They had no choice...
It's absolutely unexplainable in the context of their faulty account.
But if you wish to use this angle, let me reverse it on you. If the US government with its multi-trillion dollar defense systems and capabilities couldn't possibly have pulled it off then why the hell should we actually believe that nineteen cave dwelling Muslims were able to perform such an amazing feat with mere boxcutters? You can't have it both ways either. If you want to talk about unlikely, difficult maneuvers, why did the Muslims with all of their supposed expert abilities and intelligence to attack decide to pull such a difficult if not impossible high G turn into the Pentagon only to hit an area of the building with no government officials in it? Why not just crash it through the roof? That would’ve been a whole lot easier, caused a whole lot more damage and casualties. Oh yeah, the very wall they did allegedly decide to go through so much trouble to hit just happened to be renovated to withstand the impact of a plane. Go figure. Coincidence theories at work here….
| Quote: |
leaving no evidence in the rubble
|
| Quote: |
Molten steel, again, go ahead and melt a wood burning stove with just fire. I can't wait to hear your solution.
If they are this bad then why hasn't the truth movement attracted some real structural engineers?? Gathered some real evidence??
|
To make such a statement proves that you haven't done your research. Judy Wood is a real structural engineer, are you? She, like Steve Jones has a lot of academic support from prominent figures. Many engineers, have come forth and have literally been bought off by the censoring government to change the direction of their work. What are they so damn afraid of if their case is so solid? Steve Jones for example was offered major grants to shut up and put a lid on his research.
| Quote: | Both BYU and Prof. Jones have been offered additional grants if he would "change the direction" of his research. In addition, there have been threats made by an individual who "is taking action" to stop Steven Jones' research, specifically his experiment with thermites (aluminothermics), on the grounds his work may be helpful to "terrorists". Jones notes that much more detailed information on both thermite and thermate is readily available on the internet.
|
Others have changed their stories after being intimidated and threatened. In some case their stories totally switched 180 degrees within just a weeks time from jet fuel 'didn’t do it', to jet fuel 'did' bring the buildings down. Why such a drastic and sudden change in opinion? Perhaps is has something to do with the thinly veiled death threats that numerous 9/11 Scholars For Truth members have been receiving against themselves and their families?
If you’re so confident in FEMA and NIST, why are they refusing all challenges to a debate on the subject? If what they’re saying is true, it should easily be provable right? Judy Wood said that she sat in on one of the panels espousing the governments explanations and engineers in the crowd knowing better were actually gasping at the absurdity of their claims. She said that they dodged that simplest of questions and replied to others with sheer nonsense. Kevin Ryan, the man who certified the steel used in the WTC buildings was fired for saying that it was a fraud.
| Quote: |
The questions were loaded. 70 million Americans were not asked even these loaded questions. It's simply a crock. |
Oh please, "do you believe that there was there a government cover-up" is a loaded question? It was conducted by Zogby, one of the most credible and reputable polling agencies around. I'll tell you what's loaded, the biased, uninformed media coverage of the bull nonsense story of 9/11, that's what! That which you have willfully bought, hook, line and sinker.
For every question that you have asked, I have ten bigger ones to ask you in return. So far I don't see you answering very many of them if any, namely my wood burning stove question.
.....
Last edited by Me on Sat Jul 22, 2006 6:51 am; edited 5 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Me
Moderate Poster
Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 431
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 4:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
NYC Police Officer On MySpace
http://www.myspace.com/nypd219
| Quote: |
About me:
I recently decided my MySpace page was boring, so here goes nothing:
The Nut in the Shell:
I'm a former NYC police officer, now retired in my 30's thanks to 9/11. I had a minor go at owning an adult video store New Jersey, but now I'm 100% disabled due to PTSD from 9/11. I still can get you great porn or toys though!
I honestly believe GOVERNMENT complacency had a hand in ALLOWING 9/11 to happen. Someone also allowed LARRY SILVERSTEIN make a profit of 4 BILLION dollars by demolishing his own buildings.
I am not a conspiracy theorist.
The conspiracy can be found in the story that the media, and our government are trying to sell to us. If you don't believe me, I don't care if you are a sheep singing "baaa", through your daily life. Do yourself a huge service and watch the two videos posted below before you judge me.
I was there that morning on 9/11, I heard it all, and I saw it all, nuff said.
George W Bush thinks he is a king, and should be THROWN out of office.
This is not the America I grew up in under this selfish billionaire.
All IMAGES ON THIS PAGE ARE LINKS! CLICK THEM AND LEARN SOMETHING!
NOVEMBER IS COMING! VOTE ANTI- REPUBLICAN!
click to sign 911 TRUTH petition
Please take an hour and 20 minutes of your life and watch this video, Loose Change 2nd Edition.
It will give you a new perspective on the events of 9/11.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Me
Moderate Poster
Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 431
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 4:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
FIRE OFFICER SAYS FIREMEN, COPS KNOW TRUTH!!!
http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/bombs_inside_wtc.html
‘BOMBS INSIDE WTC’
| Quote: |
On the morning of Sept. 11, 2005, New York City auxiliary fire lieutenant Paul Isaac Jr. asserted, yet again, that 9-11 was an inside job. “I know 9-11 was an inside job. The police know it’s an inside job; and the firemen know it too,” said Isaac.
The ramifications of this statement are immense: One of New York’s own firefighters says publicly that 9-11 couldn’t have been the work of Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, but instead was planned, coordinated and executed by elements within our own government.
He also added, after pointing to throngs of police officers standing around us, that, “We all have to be very careful about how we handle it.”
Isaac reiterated what a 9-11 survivor told this journalist during our protest at Ground Zero on Sept. 11, 2005—that emergency radios were buzzing with information about bombs being detonated inside the World Trade
Center towers.
Also, Isaac directly addressed a gag order that has been placed on firemen and police officers in New York.
“It’s amazing how many people are afraid to talk for fear of retaliation or losing their jobs,” said Isaac, regarding the FBI gag order placed on law enforcement and fire department officials, preventing them from openly talking about any inside knowledge of 9-11. There is more information related to Isaac circulating in on-line and print reports, so here again we are hearing first-hand evidence from individuals who were on the scene, such as live witness William Rodriguez, saying that the World Trade Center towers were brought down not by the airliner’s impact or the resulting jet fuel fires, but instead by a deliberately executed controlled demolition.
Tragically, due to heavy-handed pressure from officials at the city, state and federal levels, we are still not hearing the entire story.
Researcher Vincent Sammartino, who was also at the WTC “open grave site” on the afternoon of Sept. 11, 2005, wrote the following on the on-line news web site APFN: “I just got back from Ground Zero. People know the truth. Half of the police and firemen were coming up to us and telling us that they know that 9-11 was an inside job. They were told not to talk about it. But they were supporting what we were doing. I had tears in my eyes.”
Victor Thorn is the author of New World Order Exposed, and co-host of WING TV. For more information, visit Thorn’s web site at wingtv.net or write P.O. Box 10495, State College, PA 16805-0495. New World Order Exposed (#1080, $25, 560 pps., softcover) and 9-11 On Trial (#1178, 175 pages, $14, booklet) can be ordered from FIRST AMENDMENT BOOKS. Write 645 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100, Washington, D.C. 20003. Call toll free 1-888-699-NEWS (6397) to order by Visa or MasterCard. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Me
Moderate Poster
Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 431
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 4:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
No confidence at all in their own work. How pathetic and cowardly. It's so evident that they know damn well that they speak of impossibilites and wish not to have to twist themselves in to a pretzel trying to explain it.
http://www.teamliberty.net/id244.html
| Quote: |
With millions of Americans now questioning the U.S. government’s official account of the events surrounding September 11, 2001, and with a growing number of professors, engineers, and former government officials, men and women that are uniquely qualified to challenge the government’s account of how World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2, and 7 collapsed, as well as the government’s official account of the events at the Pentagon and United Flight 93, it is now time for the nation to witness a fearless and thorough debate on 9/11 that publicly answers the questions and concerns of a troubled and divided nation. It’s time for The National 9/11 Debate™. |
http://newsbusters.org/node/6267
NIST: Will not participate in National 9/11 Debate!
http://www.teamliberty.net/id273.html
Change in Venue or Date will not Alter Decision
Even FEMA's best explanation of the collpase of building seven was admittedly one of "low probability" and still unkown. They couldn't possibly admit the truth, that it was entirely impossible!
http://www.wtc7.net/femareport.html
| Quote: |
The Report is inconclusive about the cause of Building 7's collapse, stating:
The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue. |
This is what you debunkers are willing to hang your hat on? This inconclusive nonsense? What a joke! Be a little more discerning.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Me
Moderate Poster
Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 431
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 5:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Let me tell you what else I’m getting real sick and tried of. People that expect us 9/11 Truthers to know every single precise detail of every single moment of that day without any deviation or errors along the way. We don’t have a multi-million dollar budget allocated to perform a full scale investigation nor do we have access to confidential files and other pertinent information, some of which has been deliberately destroyed and yet we are held to such high standards. The 9/11 Commission, NIST & FEMA, even with the money, with the information and everything else still haven’t been able to answer the most basic of questions about 9/11 and these very same debunkers just say, “ok, it must be true”. What a double standard.
Of course Bush didn’t even want a Commission at first and only gave the 9/11 Commission three million dollars at first. The space shuttle disaster alone got something like fifty million. What’s more important?
If you walk into your home and see your sister with her throat torn open and the rooms ransacked, it should be safe to say that an intruder has broke into your home and killed your sibling. You may not have the murder weapon or the identity of the assailant but there’s more than enough information available to you to make a logical assumption that something is wrong. These debunker disinformants expect us to have all of the answers while the government gets off scott free with the cheapest and most inadequate of lousy explanations. How about evenly applying the standards for once and challenge our governments the way you do everybody else?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Me
Moderate Poster
Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 431
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 6:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
Just because they didn't do it doesn't mean that they didn't try. Besides, they didn't have to. They just allowed Fox News to spout the egregious lie that the WMD's must've been shipped to Syria.
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/06/266752.shtml
CIA and DOD Attempted To Plant WMD In Iraq
| Quote: | A DOD whistleblower detail an attempt by a covert U.S. team to plant weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The team was later killed by friendly fire due to CIA incompetence.
Pentagon Whistleblower Reveals CIA/ DoD Fiascos
20.06.2003 [08:07]
In a world exclusive, Al Martin Raw.com has published a news story about a Department of Defense whistleblower who has revealed that a US covert operations team had planted "Weapons of Mass Destruction" (WMDs) in Iraq - then "lost" them when the team was killed by so-called "friendly fire."
The Pentagon whistleblower, Nelda Rogers, is a 28-year veteran debriefer for the Defense Department. She has become so concerned for her safety that she decided to tell the story about this latest CIA-military fiasco in Iraq.
According to Al Martin Raw.com, "Ms.Rogers is number two in the chain of command within this DoD special intelligence office. This is a ten-person debriefing unit within the central debriefing office for the Department of Defense.
The information that is being leaked out is information "obtained while she was in Germany heading up the debriefing of returning service personnel, involved in intelligence work in Iraq for the Department of Defense and/or the Central Intelligence Agency.
"According to Ms. Rogers, there was a covert military operation that took place both preceding and during the hostilities in Iraq," reports Al Martin Raw.com, an online subscriber-based news/analysis service which provides "Political, Economic and Financial Intelligence."
Al Martin is a retired Lt. Commander (US Navy), the author of a memoir called "The Conspirators: Secrets of an Iran Contra Insider, " and he is considered one of America's foremost experts on corporate and government fraud.
Ms. Rogers reports that this particular covert operation team was manned by ex-military personnel and that "the unit was paid through the Department of Agriculture in order to hide it, which is also very commonplace."
According to Al Martin Raw.com, "the Ag Department has often been used as a paymaster on behalf of the CIA, DIA, and NSA and others."
Accordng to the Al Martin Raw.com story, another aspect of Ms. Rogers' report concerns a covert operation which was to locate the assets of Saddam Hussein and his family, including cash, gold bullion, jewelry and assorted valuable antiquities.
The problem became evident when "the operation in Iraq involved 100 people, all of whom apparently are now dead, having succumbed to so-called 'friendly fire.' The scope of this operation included the penetration of the Central Bank of Iraq, other large commercial banks in Baghdad, the Iraqi National Museum and certain presidential palaces where monies and bullion were secreted."
"They identified about $2 billion of cash in US dollars, another $150 million in Euros, in physical banknotes, and about another $100 million in sundry foreign currencies ranging from Yen to British Pounds," reports Al Martin.
"These people died, mostly in the same place in Baghdad, supposedly from a stray cruise missile or a combination of missiles and bombs that went astray," Martin continues. "There were supposedly 76 who died there and the other 24 died through a variety of 'friendly fire,' 'mistaken identity,' and some of them - their whereabouts are simply unknown."
Ms. Rogers' story sound like an updated 21st Century version of Treasure Island meets Ali Baba and the Bush Cabal Thieves, writes Martin.
"This was a contingent of CIA/ DoD operatives, but it was really the CIA that bungled it, Ms. Rogers said. They were relying on the CIA's ability to organize an effort to seize these assets and to be able to extract these assets because the CIA claimed it had resources on the ground within the Iraqi army and the Iraqi government who had been paid. That turned out to be completely bogus. As usual."
"CIA people were supposed to be handling it," Martin continues. "They had a special 'black (unmarked) aircraft to fly it out. But none of that happened because the regular US Army showed up, stumbled onto it and everyone involved had to scramble.
These new Iraqi "Asset Seizures" go directly to the New US Ruling Junta. The US Viceroy in Iraq Paul Bremer is reportedly drinking Saddam Hussein's $2000 a bottle Napoleon era brandy, smoking his expensive Davidoff cigars and he has even furnished his Baghdad office with Saddam's Napolean era antique furniture
The Iraq Debacle Du Jour has evidently been extensively documented by the DIA debriefing teams with "extensive tape recordings of interviews with the Iraqi returnees, the covert operatives (as well as their affidavits)."
Al Martin Raw.com has dubbed this "Operation Skim Iraq."
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 6:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The so called "skeptics" who visit this site are not sceptical at all. They know the truth and they spend their time here toying with people who are demanding that the horror and mass murder of 9/11 be addressed. They are truly evil people who do not care a jot about the lives of the innocents who were murdered on 9/11 or the tens of thousands who have been killed since as a result of the revenge war in Iraq. Why they are even allowed to remain here is beyond me. They contribute nothing except a perverse gloating over their unassailable (so far) blatant lie. Why are they tolerated here??
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Me
Moderate Poster
Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 431
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 6:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | The so called "skeptics" who visit this site are not sceptical at all. They know the truth and they spend their time here toying with people who are demanding that the horror and mass murder of 9/11 be addressed. They are truly evil people who do not care a jot about the lives of the innocents who were murdered on 9/11 or the tens of thousands who have been killed since as a result of the revenge war in Iraq. Why they are even allowed to remain here is beyond me. They contribute nothing except a perverse gloating over their unassailable (so far) blatant lie. Why are they tolerated here??
|
They're the ones that have to live with themselves.
These quotes can be found on Judy Wood's site below. They say it all.
| Quote: | "A time comes when silence is betrayal." - Martin Luther King
"All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing." -Edmond Burke
"The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing." - Albert Einstein |
Another often quoted by Alex Jones:
| Quote: | "In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."
-Mark Twain |
http://newsbusters.org/node/6156
| Quote: |
"Judy D. Wood is a Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Clemson University with degrees in Civil Engineering, Engineering Mechanics, and Materials Engineering Science. Professor Wood teaches courses in the areas of engineering mechanics and experimental stress analysis." |
Judy Wood's Work:
Homepage:
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/
Billiard Ball Analogy:
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html
| Quote: | | In conclusion, the explanations of the collapse that have been given by the 9/11 Commission Report and NIST are not physically possible. A new investigation is needed to determine the true cause of what happened to these buildings on September 11, 2001. The "collapse" of all three WTC buildings may be considered the greatest engineering disaster in the history of the world and deserves a thorough investigation. |
Recently launched 'new' 9/11 Scholars For Truth wesbite.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
Last edited by Me on Sat Jul 22, 2006 7:12 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Me
Moderate Poster
Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 431
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 7:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
An ostrich, with an instinctive, built-in defense mechanism will bury its head in the sand in a futile attempt to shelter itself from uncomfortable realities or information that it’s mentally incapable of handling.
Debunkers and agents of misinformation seem to have a more direct method of shielding themselves from the truth.
Pull your heads out and wake up!!!!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CrazyBlade
Minor Poster
Joined: 03 Jul 2006
Posts: 44
Location: Lancashire
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 3:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I've had enough run-ins with chipmunk stew and friends on the Loose Change forum to know exactly the way they conduct their business. Hell, I was even thinking of participating on the JREF forum (I actually registered but never posted) before I saw how they conducted themselves. I'm not going to insult them or anything, they're entitled to their opinion (if it is, indeed, their opinion) but I will not get into a slanging match with them. I'm sure many of them realise the truth, even if they can't bring themselves to admit it on an open forum like this.
In a way, I actually envy them. Denial can be a very comfortable point of view to come from, and an interesting way to protect yourself from harm. I would always want to know the truth and tell it freely however, regardless of the mental anguish it may, and frequently does, bring.
CrazyBlade
_________________
"People should not be afraid of their Governments...
Governments should be afraid of their People"
V For Vendetta |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gravy
Minor Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 65
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 5:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Me wrote: |
FIRE OFFICER SAYS FIREMEN, COPS KNOW TRUTH!!!
http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/bombs_inside_wtc.html
‘BOMBS INSIDE WTC’
| Quote: |
On the morning of Sept. 11, 2005, New York City auxiliary fire lieutenant Paul Isaac Jr. asserted, yet again, that 9-11 was an inside job. “I know 9-11 was an inside job. The police know it’s an inside job; and the firemen know it too,” said Isaac.
The ramifications of this statement are immense: One of New York’s own firefighters says publicly that 9-11 couldn’t have been the work of Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, but instead was planned, coordinated and executed by elements within our own government.
He also added, after pointing to throngs of police officers standing around us, that, “We all have to be very careful about how we handle it.”
Isaac reiterated what a 9-11 survivor told this journalist during our protest at Ground Zero on Sept. 11, 2005—that emergency radios were buzzing with information about bombs being detonated inside the World Trade
Center towers.
Also, Isaac directly addressed a gag order that has been placed on firemen and police officers in New York.
“It’s amazing how many people are afraid to talk for fear of retaliation or losing their jobs,” said Isaac, regarding the FBI gag order placed on law enforcement and fire department officials, preventing them from openly talking about any inside knowledge of 9-11. There is more information related to Isaac circulating in on-line and print reports, so here again we are hearing first-hand evidence from individuals who were on the scene, such as live witness William Rodriguez, saying that the World Trade Center towers were brought down not by the airliner’s impact or the resulting jet fuel fires, but instead by a deliberately executed controlled demolition.
Tragically, due to heavy-handed pressure from officials at the city, state and federal levels, we are still not hearing the entire story.
Researcher Vincent Sammartino, who was also at the WTC “open grave site” on the afternoon of Sept. 11, 2005, wrote the following on the on-line news web site APFN: “I just got back from Ground Zero. People know the truth. Half of the police and firemen were coming up to us and telling us that they know that 9-11 was an inside job. They were told not to talk about it. But they were supporting what we were doing. I had tears in my eyes.”
Victor Thorn is the author of New World Order Exposed, and co-host of WING TV. For more information, visit Thorn’s web site at wingtv.net or write P.O. Box 10495, State College, PA 16805-0495. New World Order Exposed (#1080, $25, 560 pps., softcover) and 9-11 On Trial (#1178, 175 pages, $14, booklet) can be ordered from FIRST AMENDMENT BOOKS. Write 645 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100, Washington, D.C. 20003. Call toll free 1-888-699-NEWS (6397) to order by Visa or MasterCard. |
|
If you like, I'll put you in touch with Paul Isaac Jr. He's been trying to get me to help with his protest AGAINST the CTs at Ground Zero.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gravy
Minor Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 65
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 5:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CrazyBlade wrote: | I've had enough run-ins with chipmunk stew and friends on the Loose Change forum to know exactly the way they conduct their business. Hell, I was even thinking of participating on the JREF forum (I actually registered but never posted) before I saw how they conducted themselves. I'm not going to insult them or anything, they're entitled to their opinion (if it is, indeed, their opinion) but I will not get into a slanging match with them. I'm sure many of them realise the truth, even if they can't bring themselves to admit it on an open forum like this.
In a way, I actually envy them. Denial can be a very comfortable point of view to come from, and an interesting way to protect yourself from harm. I would always want to know the truth and tell it freely however, regardless of the mental anguish it may, and frequently does, bring.
CrazyBlade |
CrazyBlade, here's a public challenge to you. I'll set up a thread on the JREF forum just for you and me. No one else will be able to participate, but thousands will view it. You bring your facts about 9/11, and I'll bring mine, and we'll have a civil debate without the name-calling and banning that's done by the Loose Change mods.
Agreed?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gravy
Minor Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 65
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 5:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'll deal with this first because it disgusts me the most.
| Me wrote: | | Woman still alive, clothes still intact, where's the raging inferno required to melt steel? I see a bit of a conundrum here. Care to explain? |
Care to explain, "Me," why you used photos of Edna Cintron that crop out the fires? Care to explain why you don't show the rest of the building?
Please explain why you use a victim in this way. I'm waiting.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Me
Moderate Poster
Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 431
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 6:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You debunkers have failed to answer even one of my questions so far. You've struck out every time. Whiffffff.....
The simple fact that the woman was even able to make it to that hole alive shows that those fires couldn't have been burning very hot for very long. Those fires were moderate at best in comparison to other major high rise fires which were far, far worse invloving many more levels and yet as expected, they never fell.
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
| Quote: | "The fire is the most misunderstood part of the WTC collapse. Even today, the media report (and many scientists believe) that the steel melted. It is argued that the jet fuel burns very hot, especially with so much fuel present. This is not true.... The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel.
In combustion science, there are three basic types of flames, namely, a jet burner, a pre-mixed flame, and a diffuse flame.... In a diffuse flame, the fuel and the oxidant are not mixed before ignition, but flow together in an uncontrolled manner and combust when the fuel/oxidant ratios reach values within the flammable range. A fireplace is a diffuse flame burning in air, as was the WTC fire. Diffuse flames generate the lowest heat intensities of the three flame types... The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1000 °C -- hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1500 °C."
"But it is very difficult to reach [even] this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio... This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500 °C to 650 °C range [Cote, 1992]. It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke.... It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425 °C and loses about half of its strength at 650 °C [Cote, 1992]. This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse... The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable... Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650 °C fire." (Eagar and Musso, 2001; emphasis added.)
|
Time for a healthy dose of reality.
Building 7, minimal fires at best, this building for reasons still unknown to FEMA (or anyone else for that matter) collapsed in under seven seconds
The Windsor building Madrid fire, a raging inferno, burned for 'ten' hours and yet no total collapse
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gravy
Minor Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 65
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 7:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Me wrote: | | Quote: | | Do you have access to an analysis of the molten metal at the WTC? |
Do you have access to any of the 84 surveillance videos from the Pentagon that were never released? |
Is that an attempt to answer my question? I'll ask again, more simply: do you know what comprised the molten metals at the WTC?
As for the Pentagon, nice attempt to change subjects. You're referring to the number of videotapes gathered for evidence. According to the FOIA requests, the only tape that showed the crash was the one released in May after the Moussaoui trial. Other tapes, unless rights are released by their owners, remain the property of those owners. The government cannot, by law, "release" them to the public. You seem to be under the impression that the Pentagon exterior was bristilig with cameras. That is incorrect. The Pentagon used "live" security, primarily men in vehicles, for its perimeter security. Ask Dylan Avery: he was detained by them.
| Quote: |
Can you think of logical scenarios that would produce molten metal that don't involve the use of preplanted incendiaries? |
| Quote: | | Hell no....... Have you been able to melt a wood burning stove yet with just fire? I'd love to hear about that. |
Please show your work that excludes the heat from the fires in the piles as the cause of the molten metal.
| Quote: | | Do you feel you have a good grasp on the conditions within the piles? |
| Quote: | | The steel was literally molten, |
What steel was literally molten? I asked you if you'd identified the molten metals. Have you?
| Quote: | | we know what temperatures are needed to cause that to happen. Those temperatures 'were not possible' from just fire such as building seven. |
Please show your work. And please explain why you think that the the molten metal resulted from the fires in building 7, and not from the fires in the debris piles. And if the molten metal originated in the buildings, you haven't shown that the piles and fires didn't have the insulative and heat properties necessary to maintain the heat.
How about the molten metal found beneath WTC 6? Is it your opinion that it arrived there in an "unnatural" way?
| Quote: | | It's not even possible with jet fuel involved. It's just like we also know what temperature water freezes and melts at? You don't have to be a genius or have to analyze water (or steel) yourself to know that or to realize when the laws of physics have been defied when water (or steel) behaves abnormally. So.....how's the melting of that wood burning stove going btw? I'm still waiting for how you debunkers are going to peform that miracle. |
I didn't ask if you were a genius. I asked if you were able to explain the conditions within the piles. You clearly haven't looked into it. You're talking about woodstoves. I'm talking about the contents of the world's largest commercial complex.
| Quote: | | How come my outdoor grill doesn't explode upward into white hot ash and then melt away into a puddle when I'm cooking burgers on it? I thought fire melts steel? |
An incredibly ignorant statement. You're saying that your grill has been through conditions comparable to those in the WTC and the debris piles?
“The fire conditions in the towers on 9-11 were far more extreme than those to which floor systems in standard U.S. fire rating tests are subjected." –Shyam Sunder, NIST Lead Investigator
| Quote: | | Why has no building before or since ever fallen from fire? Gee, I wonder........ |
I think you're talking about steel-framed skyscrapers. But it is again, a disingenuos statement.
LIke so many CTs, you choose to focus on one factor and ignore the others. Why?
Do you know the three interdependent reasons that NIST gives for the tower collapses? Do you know that NIST concluded that the towers prpbably would not have fallen from the fires alone? It seems that you're just repeating CT nonsense, rather than reading the results of the investigations. At least read the executive summaries on the towers. At least read the interim report on building 7.
Now, are you claiming that structural steel can't collapse in a fire? If that were true, why do building codes mandate that fire-resistant materials be applied to all structural steel? It's the law. An entire industry is devoted to protecting structural steel from fire.
How about the Windsor building in Madrid? CTs use it all the time as an example of a building that had a long, severe fire on its top 10 floors and didn't collapse. They ignore the fact that the steel perimeter columns DID collapse due to fire alone on those floors, resulting in the concrete core standing there on its own. (Not to mention the fact that the building wasn't hit by an airliner at high speed, resulting in massive structural damage and fireproofing blasted off its steel.)
If steel can't fail in fires, can you explain why the designers of the new WTC 7 took the very expensive measure of covering all its structural steel in fireproofing that's FIVE TIMES thicker than required by law? And why that building was not built, like its predecessor, with a steel core, but with a thick concrete core?
I'd appreciate your response to these questions.
| Quote: |
Finally, please explain what laws of physics were broken, according to the official version. Please be specific about how those laws would have to be broken to support the OV.
|
| Quote: | | The molten steel for one as I've already explained. |
No, I asked you if you could explain the conditions in the buildings and piles, and you chose to talk about woodstoves and barbecue grills. You have not shown that the laws of physics were broken. Please show your work, or the work of those you rely on when making statements like that. In case you haven't noticed, your opinions don't convince me.
| Quote: | | Number two as structural engineer Judy Wood explained. |
STRUCTURAL ENGINEER? Wow, you REALLY are misinformed. She's a mechanical engineer who specializes in DENTAL WORK. She thinks the towers were constructed, snd should have fallen, like TREES! She displays an incredible ignorance of the difference between elaseic and inelastic collisions by stating that the ENTIRE MASS of the falling portion of the towers should have STOPPED on each floor before continuing on! When it comes to knowledge of structural engineering, she's as smart as...wood. If you think I'm joking, here's a slide from the public presentation this "scholar for Truth" gives, comparing the steel-framed, 95% empty space WTC towers to a petrified tree trunk, a tree corss section, and a home for Keebler Elves. She shows no conception of structural engineering.
| Quote: | | Asymmetrical damage with asymmetrical fires will never cause a perfectly symmetrical collapse. |
Read the reports. You're just spouting CT nonsense. You need to revise your concept of "symmetrical collapse."
| Quote: | | The second building was hit on the corner, why didn't it fall to the side if damage from the impact is what caused the collapse? When a lumberjack deliberately chops the side out of a tree, does it fall straight down or to the side? |
See above. You are mistaken if you think the towers were built like trees, as opposed to being complex structures composed of thousands of interconnected steel elements. You also need to learn about gravity.
The ASCE represents over 125,000 STRUCTURAL engineers worldwide. Please provide the name of a single one who supports your ideas.
| Quote: | | This of course in light of the fact that these buildings were 'over-engineered' to withstand the impact of 'multiple' planes. |
That's based on a single statement by the WTC engineer who died there. He was perhaps bragging about his buildings, because the towers were not designed for multiple aircraft impacts. They were the first buildings designed to withstand the impact of a large jet. And according to interviews with Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer who designed the towers, that's all they modeled: the impact of ONE 707 traveling at APPROACH speed. They DID NOT model the combination of structural damage, fireproofing damage, and massive fires started by the fuel on board. They made no calculations involving the fuel. The question was: can these buildings withstand the impact of an airliner traveling at approach speed. The answer: yes. They even withstood the impact of airliners with several times the kinetic energy as was modeled.
| Quote: | | How does a building fall from the "pancake theory" at nearly free fall speed with virtualy no resistance? |
Let's see your timing and your math. What's your definiton of "nearly free fall?" Be exact.
| Quote: | | Each floor, if it pancake that is, should’ve provided resistance as if crumbled down slow at first and then speeding up as it gained mass. |
Please show how that did not happen.
| Quote: | | It should've taken much, much longer for the entire process to unfold. Instead it just amazingly fell a free fall speed, IMPOSSIBLE!!!! |
That WOULD involve breaking the laws of physics.
Funny how the debris that fell and encountered only air resistance hits the ground HUNDREDS OF FEET before the rest of the building. Would you like to revise your statement above?
| Quote: | | Number three, how do explain the squibs blowing out from the sides of the buildings occurring well beneath the collapse wave. They can be seen in almost every video from 9/11. Where’s the force coming from, where’s the energy coming from to cause this? Is it magically manifesting itself from an alternate dimension? |
Alternate dimension? Good Lord! This is stuningly simple. It has notihng to do with explosives and everything to do with air pressure. Do you understand that were talking about hundreds of millions of pounds falling? You can clearly see on video, especially with the early "squibs," that the dust and smoke is FLOWING out of the holes at exactly the speed the building is falling. It is NOT being propelled by high-velocity explosives. Those puffs become faster as the faling portion accelerates: a variable effect that's impossible to be caused by explosives. Look up the velocities of common demolitions explosives: you may be surprised. Check out the huge "squib" that's commonly pointed to near the top of the north tower. Run the video back and forth. See the dust and smoke flowing out? It is NOTHING like the effects of an exlposion. That "squib" is even large enough that you can measure it and put a stopwatch on it to determine its rate of growth. Why don't you do so, then compare it to the explosives velocities you've already researched, if you have such serious doubts about its origin?
I look forward to your results.
Next, would you like to explain why your "squibs" aqppear randomly? You're claiming that these are signs of explosives. Can you show me an example of a CD where the explosives are planted randomly and act slowly?
Controlled Demolitions, Inc. calls the WTC CD hypothesis "ludicrous." I agree.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gravy
Minor Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 65
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 8:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Me wrote: | | You debunkers have failed to answer even one of my questions so far. You've struck out every time. Whiffffff..... |
The evidence does not support your assertion.
| Quote: | | The simple fact that the woman was even able to make it to that hole alive shows that those fires couldn't have been burning very hot for very long. |
"Me," please describe how Edna Cintron made it to that hole.
I'm glad you brought up the Windsor building. See my statements about it in my last post. The steel failed on the affected floors because of the fire. The concrete core held. And you're ignoring the facts that the building wasn't hit by an airliner, and the damage was on the top ten floors.
Arup, a major fire safety engineering company, weighs in on the Madrid fire:
| Quote: | The steel perimeter columns, even if they had been protected, or even concrete columns, would not necessarily be expected to survive the effects of such a 10-storey blaze.
The central concrete core appeared to perform well in the fire and on initial observations seems to have played a major role in ensuring the stability of the building throughout the incident. The role of cores in multiple floor fires is now an immediate area of study required for the industry, and Arup have commenced investigating this issue. (Source http://www.arup.com/fire/feature.cfm?pageid=6150) |
Windsor Building, Madrid, Spain. The Steel buckled in the fire. The concrete core survived. Is it any wonder that the new WTC 7 has a concrete core, and that the steel has five times the fire-resistant coating that's required by law?
Column and beam buclked by fire in WTC 5. The fuel? Office contents.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
realitybites
New Poster
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 9
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 23, 2006 4:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| .... I really wish they had a cricket emoticon.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kbo234
Validated Poster
Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 2017
Location: Croydon, Surrey
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 23, 2006 6:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| realitybites wrote: | | .... I really wish they had a cricket emoticon. |
Sorry to be dumb. What did you mean by that?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Me
Moderate Poster
Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 431
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 23, 2006 8:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Where’s your attempt to refute any of Steve Jones’s findings btw?
| Quote: |
Is that an attempt to answer my question? I'll ask again, more simply: do you know what comprised the molten metals at the WTC?
|
Well seeing as how you haven’t been able to explain why you’re still unable to melt a wood burning stove with just fire and no other external energy source I guess it’s just par for the course. The obvious point that clearly went right over your head was that one doesn’t need personal access to all of the available information in order to reach a logical conclusion. In fact all of your theories do exactly the same thing? You don’t have personal access to any of the debris anymore than I do. The elements used in the design of the WTC buildings is no secret. It’s been revealed in numerous documentaries. Only steel could’ve remained as hot as those pools were and for as long as they did with the properties described by firsthand accounts. What other element could it have possibly been? An element that would’ve been used in the design of the WTC buildings. If you had an answer to this questiond you would've said so by now. Instead you just keep asking me. You tell me, if not steel, what then? We know that it was a steel-framed skyscraper.
Also, again, why in hundreds of other fires are there no reports of molten steel found in the basements if this is so common... NOT ONE!? Can you find another example where this has happened? More importantly, why has fire never caused a collapse of modern, steel-based high rise building? Why are you consistently avoiding the most important questions? Is it because like FEMA, NIST and the 9/11 Commission, you know that you can’t sufficiently answer them?
The temperatures were no secret:
The map, created by the U.S. Geological Survey, shows hotspots on the surface of the rubble that were above 700 Celsius.
| Quote: | Other tapes, unless rights are released by their owners, remain the property of those owners.
|
Then why were they immediately confiscated by the FBI within minutes? Why would that have been a first priority with so much damage and carnage happening? Conveniently left that part out eh? You've got a lot of unfinished research to do on this based on your consistency of omitting crucial details. And if you honestly believe that none of the other 80+ cameras on the premises, many of which were clearly pointing in that general vicinity of the strike did not capture the crash then I’ve got a nice bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. What about all of the cameras located inside of the Pentagon? Every square inch of that building was keenly monitored with surveillance for obvious reasons. Don’t be a dunce. Besides, if these extra videos allegedly don’t show anything important, why wouldn’t they just simply release them to silence those who doubt what they say?
http://www.rense.com/general67/fbicl.htm
| Quote: |
National Geographic reported that the FBI confiscated a video tape from a Citgo gas station within a half hour of the crash. Without asking the questions how did the FBI know of the tape and how did they grab it so quickly, many people think the aircraft model could be identified from that video since the aircraft flew directly over the Citgo station |
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/12/1211_wirepentagon.html
Property of the owners heh? Yeah sure pal.....
http://www.infowars.net/articles/may2006/170506Pentagon_videos.htm
FBI Withholding 84 More Tapes of Pentagon on 9/11
Magically Only 1 shows impact so why not release the rest?
| Quote: |
There is an ongoing lawsuit to get these tapes released via the Freedom of Information Act. The FBI has admitted in a statement to attorney, Scott Hodes, representative of Mr Scott Bingham who runs the website http://www.flight77.info/, that they have these tapes, that they have already analyzed them and are still keeping them under lock and key. |
| Quote: | "His gas station, open only to Department of Defense personnel, is the last structure between the Pentagon and the hillside that, hours later, would become a wailing knoll. "By the time I got outside all I could see was a giant cloud of smoke, first white then black, coming from the Pentagon," he said. "It was just a terrible, terrible thing to be so close to."
"Velasquez says the gas station's security cameras are close enough to the Pentagon to have recorded the moment of impact. "I've never seen what the pictures looked like," he said. "The FBI was here within minutes and took the film."
The second business was initially believed to be the Sheraton National Hotel which overlooks I395 and the Pentagon. Initial reports pointed out that hotel staff had sat watching the video surveillance in horror before the FBI arrived and shut down the scene. |
| Quote: | Furthermore, if the footage does not show the impact, we have to ask the question why is the Justice department still withholding it under national security laws?
|
| Quote: | After determining that only 13 of the 85 had footage of the crash site, the FBI states that 12 of these only show footage AFTER the impact of flight 77. WHY? Did someone forget to turn them on? ALL TWELEVE OF THEM?
Furthermore how unlikely is it that in Washington DC there were only 13 cameras pointing in the general direction of the most surveilled building in the world? The area is littered with buildings and roads that have their own surveillance systems, in addition to the pentagon itself - does the sole world superpower's military HQ only have a couple of cameras at the front gate? |
| Quote: |
What steel was literally molten? I asked you if you'd identified the molten metals. Have you? |
According to eyewitness reports, YES. Do you have any evidence to the contrary? Is there any official denial of these claims?
| Quote: | Molten steel was found “three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed [from WTCs 1 & 2],” Loizeaux said. He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon. [American Free Press]
|
| Quote: | The book American Ground, which contains detailed descriptions of conditions at Ground Zero, contains this passage:
... or, in the early days, the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole.
A review of of the documentary Collateral Damage in the New York Post describes firemen at Ground Zero recalling "heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel." |
I believe there's actual video of it even. I can't find it but one of the claws used to remove the debris was captured scooping the columns right out of the pools of melted steel. There would've had to have been a tremendous amount of energy available for steel to be melted like butter in such a manner. No conventional fire could’ve provided enough to do so. Why haven't you or your prized listing of structural engineers been able to explain it?
| Quote: |
Please show your work. |
Please show yours. Where's your * work?!?!
| Quote: |
And please explain why you think that the the molten metal resulted from the fires in building 7, and not from the fires in the debris piles. |
I defy you to show me even one other example where a modern, high rise, steel based building fire produced enough heat to generate molten steel in the basement, just one other example. Until you do, it's an unexplainable anomaly. If this is such a natural phenomenon there ought to be other plenty other examples of this effect to reference for comparison. Just like there ought to be many other examples of modern, steel based high rise buildings collapsing from fire... fires that were burning hotter, longer and covered many more floors. Just like heir ought to previous examples of planes completely vaporizing upon crashing due to the burning jet fuel. These all mysteriously seem to be firsts of their kind.
| Quote: |
How about the molten metal found beneath WTC 6? Is it your opinion that it arrived there in an "unnatural" way? |
I've seen no reports of such. If it's true, it too defies any sort of logic or reason.
| Quote: |
And if the molten metal originated in the buildings, you haven't shown that the piles and fires didn't have the insulative and heat properties necessary to maintain the heat. |
The source of the heat is the real question. Heat requires an energy source, it doesn't just manifest itself from nowhere. Maintaining heat is not the same as producing heat. Your blanket can maintain your own body heat when you cover yourself with it. The blanket itself however does not on its own produce heat. Not unless it’s an electric blanket in which case it needs to be plugged in to an exterior outlet. It needs an external source of energy to produce heat. What other variable (energy source) is there to consider at building seven besides the small fires that would've been able 'produce' enough heat to melt steel into a giant puddle?
| Quote: |
Do you know the three interdependent reasons that NIST gives for the tower collapses? Do you know that NIST concluded that the towers prpbably would not have fallen from the fires alone? |
| Quote: | | In fact, NIST (the National Institute of Standards and Technology) has admitted that aircraft couldn’t have destroyed the towers, and so has Thomas Eager, who admitted “the impact of the airplanes would have been insignificant because the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large, and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure. |
Yeah no *. What other factor was there to explain the collapse of building seven? Even FEMA admits the cause to be unknown. How about controlled demolition?
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/
NIST's 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-Up
of the Crime of the Century
| Quote: | NIST's investigation is often cited as proving the official theory that the plane crashes and fires caused the collapses. Yet the Report does not explain why or how the buildings totally collapsed, despite the lack of a single historical precedent for a steel-framed skyscraper totally collapsing for any reason other than controlled demolition. And, in contrast to the Report's voluminous detail about the plane crashes, fires, and loss of life, it makes no attempt to characterize or explain the demolition-like features of the collapses -- such as their explosiveness, pulverization, verticality and nearly free-fall rapidity -- except for two sentences in a half-page section added to the Final Report to address criticisms of the Draft.
NIST simply avoids these troublesome issues by placing them outside the scope of its investigation, claiming that "global collapse" was "inevitable" after the "initiation of collapse." |
| Quote: |
The Report repeatedly makes claims that amazingly high fire temperatures were extant in the Towers, without any evidence. The Report itself contains evidence contradicting the claims.
Observations of paint cracking due to thermal expansion. Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 ºC: east face, floor 98, inner web; east face, floor 92, inner web; and north face, floor 98, floor truss connector. Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC. ... Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC. (p 90/140)
The highest temperatures estimated for the samples was 250 ºC (482 ºF). That's consistent with the results of fire tests in uninsulated steel-framed parking garages, which showed maximum steel temperatures of 360 ºC (680 ºF). How interesting then, that NIST's sagging truss model has the truss heated to 700 ºC (1292 ºF).
A floor section was modeled to investigate failure modes and sequences of failures under combined gravity and thermal loads. The floor section was heated to 700 ºC (with a linear thermal gradient through the slab thickness from 700 ºC to 300 ºC at the top surface of the slab) over a period of 30 min. Initially the thermal expansion of the floor pushed the columns outward, but with increased temperatures, the floor sagged and the columns were pulled inward. (p 98/148)
Where does NIST get the idea that steel temperatures should be more than 450 degrees Celsius (or 842 degrees Fahrenheit) higher than their own evidence indicates? This passage provides some insight into their experimental method.
A spray burner generating 1.9 MW or 3.4 MW of power was ignited in a 23 ft by 11.8 ft by 12.5 ft high compartment. The temperatures near the ceiling approached 900 ºC. (p 123/173)
1.9 to 3.4 MW (megawatts) is the heat output of about 500 wood stoves -- that in a living-room-sized space!
The jet fuel greatly accelerated the fire growth. Only about 60 percent of the combustible mass of the rubblized workstations was consumed. The near-ceiling temperatures varied between 800 ºC and 1,100 ºC. (p 125-6/175-6)
Temperatures of 800 ºC to 1,100 ºC (1472 ºF to 2012 ºF) are normally observed only for brief times in building fires, in a phenomenon known as flashover. Flashover occurs when uncombusted gases accumulate near the ceilings and then suddenly ignite. Since flame consumes the pre-heated fuel-air mixture in an instant, very high temperatures are produced for a few seconds. Note that this temperature range includes the 900 ºC recorded using the megawatt super-burner, so they must have had to pour on quite a lot of jet fuel.
The first section of the Report describing the fires deceptively implies that 1,000 ºC (1832 ºF) temperatures (rarely seen in even momentary flashovers) were sustained, and that they were in the building's core.
Aside from isolated areas, perhaps protected by surviving gypsum walls, the cooler parts of this upper layer were at about 500 ºC, and in the vicinity of the active fires, the upper layer air temperatures reached 1,000 ºC. The aircraft fragments had broken through the core walls on the 94th through the 97th floors, and temperatures in the upper layers there were similar to those in the tenant spaces. (p 28/7
Note the absurdity of asserting that the fires in the core were as intense as those in the tenant spaces when the core:
* Had very little fuel
* Was far from any source of fresh air
* Had huge steel columns to wick away the heat
* Does not show evidence of fires in any of the photographs or videos
Furthermore, NIST's suggestion of extremely high core temperatures is contradicted by its own fire temperature simulations, such as the one illustrated on the right, which show upper-level air temperatures in the core of mostly below 300 ºC.
|
| Quote: | | Now, are you claiming that structural steel can't collapse in a fire? |
Where's an example?
| Quote: | | (Not to mention the fact that the building wasn't hit by an airliner at high speed, resulting in massive structural damage and fireproofing blasted off its steel.) |
Which airliner hit building seven?
| Quote: | | If steel can't fail in fires, can you explain why the designers of the new WTC 7 took the very expensive measure of covering all its structural steel in fireproofing that's FIVE TIMES thicker than required by law? And why that building was not built, like its predecessor, with a steel core, but with a thick concrete core? |
Because they were absolutely shocked (as I was) that it fell despite being so well designed and over-engineered. They had every reason to be shocked because it was completely unprecedented and unexpected.
| Quote: |
These statements are disingenuous because they ignore the effect of steel's thermal conductivity, which draws away heat, and the considerable thermal mass of the 90,000 tons of steel in each Tower. The Report's implication that fire protection is essential is highly misleading, given that no steel-framed high-rise building has ever collapsed from fires, whether the steelwork was fire protected or not. |
| Quote: | Please show your work, or the work of those you rely on when making statements like that. In case you haven't noticed, your opinions don't convince me.
|
Why don’t you show your own work instead of just parroting NIST's half-assed, government sponsored faulty conclusions. I couldn't possibly care less about convincing you. You're clearly a government puppet who believes everything that your told without question, doubt or self-reflection. That’s the same gullibility and naivety that allows so many people to be duped into believing that Iraq actually had WMD’s and Saddam to Al Qaeda. It’s because the government as well as projects funded by the government LIE! You apparently enjoy being lied to. Congratulations!
| Quote: | Conclusion
Assuming the premise of the official explanation, the total collapses of the Twin Towers and Building 7 were the largest, most unexpected, and least understood failures of engineered steel structures in the history of the world. NIST's Report, like FEMA's 2002 report, presents the appearance of explaining the collapses of the Twin Towers, but in reality it doesn't explain them at all. Flatly asserting that "global collapse" inevitably follows "collapse initiation," the Report implies that the only issue worthy of study is how the jet impacts and fires led to collapse initiation -- an issue to which it devotes well over one hundred pages. Thus, the Report makes two fundamental claims, the first explicit and the second implicit:
* The impact damage and fires caused the tops of the Towers to lean and then begin to fall (collapse initiation).
* Once initiated, the collapses proceeded to total collapses.
NIST goes to great lengths to support the first claim, but commits numerous omissions and distortions in the process. It remains quiet about the second claim, except for its vague rehash of the pile-driver theory. This is indefensible, given NIST's charge to investigate the collapses. Accepting that claim requires us to believe:
* That the collapses of WTC 1, 2, and 7 are the only examples of total progressive collapse of steel-framed structures in history.
* That those collapses were gravity-driven despite showing all the common physical features of controlled demolitions. In the cases of the Twin Towers, those features included the following:
* Radial symmetry: The Towers came straight down, blowing debris symmetricaly in all directions.
* Rapid descent: The Towers came down just slightly slower than the rate of free-fall in a vacuum.
* Demolition waves: The Towers were consumed by synchronized rows of confluent explosions.
* Demolition squibs: The Towers exhibited high-velocity gas ejections well below the descending rubble.
* Pulverization: The Towers' non-metallic components, such as their concrete floors, were pulverized into fine dust.
* Totality: The Towers were destroyed totally, their steel skeletons shredded into short pieces, most less than 30 feet long.
All of these features are seen in conventional controlled demolitions. None have ever been observed in steel-framed buildings collapsing for any reason other than controlled demolition.
What are the chances that a phenomenon other than controlled demolition would exhibit all six features never observed elsewhere except in controlled demolitions?
NIST avoids asking this and other questions by implying that they don't exist. It uses the false assertion that partial collapse will inevitably lead to total collapse (couched in the ill-defined terms of "column instability," "global instability," "collapse initiation," and "global collapse") to imply that nothing about the actual collapses is worth considering.
To shield the reader from the evidence of controlled demolition, NIST fills hundreds of pages with amazingly realistic plane crash simulations, tedious details about fire tests and simulations, and long lists of recommendations for improving building safety. It calls its event narrative of each Tower, which starts with the jet impact and ends at the point that "collapse ensued," the "probable collapse sequence," but it is neither probable nor a collapse sequence.
NIST's misleadingly named "probable collapse sequence" is a mirage, masking the explosive reality of the collapses with a cinematic account of the crashes and fires. NIST's theory stops at the moment that the "upper building section began to move downwards," thus avoiding the longer timeline of the truss-failure theory and any overlap with the time span in which the demolition-like features appear. Despite NIST's theory being even more incredible than its predecessors (with spreading "column instability" triggering "global collapse" in an instant) it works better as a mirage because its timelines stop short of the collapses.
NIST's Report states that its first objective is to "determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed." The Report does not fulfill that objective, and hides that failure with misleading headings and disproportionate, misapplied technical detail. Its authors should admit that they have failed to explain why and how the Towers collapsed, and should call for an investigation that will address rather than avoid the issue.
|
| Quote: | | See above. You are mistaken if you think the towers were built like trees, as opposed to being complex structures composed of thousands of interconnected steel elements. You also need to learn about gravity. |
http://www.freepressinternational.com/wtc_11152004_manager_88888.html
| Quote: | | Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resiliance of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001. "The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting". |
"Firefighter Mag Raps 9/11 Probe -
| Quote: |
A signed editorial in the January issue of Fire Engineering magazine says the current investigation is "a half-baked farce." |
| Quote: | | A growing number of fire protection engineers have theorized that "the structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers," the editorial stated. |
| Quote: |
Scientific American, October 2001 said "The WTC was probably one of the more resistant tall buildings..they just don't build them as tough as the World Trade Center" |
| Quote: | | "A steel building survived fires in experiments with extreme temperatures beyond the range possible with jet fuel."- Cardington fire tests |
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html
Like All Skyscrapers, the Twin Towers Were Over-Engineered
| Quote: | One aspect of engineering that is not widely understood is that structures are over-engineered as a matter of standard practice. Steel structures like bridges and buildings are typically designed to withstand five times anticipated static loads and 3 times anticipated dynamic loads. The anticipated loads are the largest ones expected during the life of the structure, like the worst hurricane or earthquake occurring while the floors are packed with standing-room-only crowds. Given that September 11th was not a windy day, and that there were not throngs of people in the upper floors, the critical load ratio was probably well over 10, meaning that more than nine-tenths of the columns at the same level would have to fail before the weight of the top could have overcome the support capacity of the remaining columns.
There is evidence that the Twin Towers were designed with an even greater measure of reserve strength than typical large buildings. According to the calculations of engineers who worked on the Towers' design, all the columns on one side of a Tower could be cut, as well as the two corners and some of the columns on each adjacent side, and the building would still be strong enough to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind. |
| Quote: | | Let's see your timing and your math. What's your definiton of "nearly free fall?" Be exact. |
http://www.physics911.net/stevenjones.htm
The rapid fall of the Towers and WTC7 has been analyzed by several engineers/scientists | Quote: | | (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/proofs/speed.html; Griffin, 2004, chapter 2). The roof of WTC 7 (students and I are observing the southwest corner) falls to earth in less than 6.6 seconds, while an object dropped from the roof would hit the ground in 6.0 seconds. This follows from t = (2H/g)1/2. Likewise, the Towers fall very rapidly to the ground, with the upper part falling nearly as rapidly as ejected debris which provide free-fall references (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/proofs/speed.html; Griffin, 2004, chapter 2). Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum – one of the foundational Laws of Physics? That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors – and intact steel support columns – the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass. If the central support columns remained standing, then the effective resistive mass would be less, but this is not the case – somehow the enormous support columns failed/disintegrated along with the falling floor pans. |
| Quote: | | Please show how that did not happen. |
Please show how it did.
http://www.signs-of-the-times.org/signs/9-11_100_reasons.htm
| Quote: |
"Given these special characteristics, they contend [ defenders of the fire theory] the fire did not have to heat all the steel by spreading throughout all the floors...it was sufficient to have a hot fire that covered one floor. The culprits...were the 'angle clips' which 'held the joints between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure,' and which he says were not designed to hold five times their normal load...'it put extra load on other angle clips and then it unzipped around the building on that floor in a matter of seconds.' [...] 'This started the domino effect that caused the building to collapse in ten seconds' [...] There are...many problems with this account. First, even this more modest view of the amount of steel that had to become very hot would seem to require more heat than was present, especially in the South Tower. Second, as [Eric] Hufschimid points out: 'In order for a floor to fall, hundreds of joints had to break simultaneously on 236 exterior columns and 47 core columns.' For a 1,300 foot building...ten seconds is almost free-fall speed...Can we really believe that the upper part of the buildings encountered virtually no resistance from the lower parts?...'How could the debris crush 100 steel and concrete floors while falling as fast as objects fall through air? ' " |
| Quote: |
'Why were the lower parts of the massive supporting steel columns not left standing after the collapse? If the official story is true...one would expect the massive steel columns in the central core, for, say, the lowest 20 or 30 floors to have remained standing.' |
| Quote: |
Funny how the debris that fell and encountered only air resistance hits the ground HUNDREDS OF FEET before the rest of the building. Would you like to revise your statement above? |
Debris that was falling 'before' the building itself began to collpase. Nice try.
| Quote: |
Alternate dimension? Good Lord! This is stuningly simple. It has notihng to do with explosives and everything to do with air pressure. Do you understand that were talking about hundreds of millions of pounds falling? |
If there was so much internal pressure then why did it only blow out in several, small isolated areas as shown in numerous stills instead of blowing out the entire sides of the building like a banana being peeled? Why wouldn't the weakest areas of the structure, namely the windows have blown out first? Are you telling that this tremendous amount of pressure selectively chose only to exert itself in these small isolated areas as if it we able to consciously choose where it wanted, or did not want to blow outward? What magical force was guiding all of this pressure to such distinct areas of the buildings and away from the easiest escape via the windows?
Why weren't 'all' or at least most of the fragile glass windows shattered if there was so much internal pressure built-up? That assertion doesn't even come close to making any sense.
In the picture below you can clearly see several floors worth of windows below the collapse wave and above or around the squib area where no shattering at all is taking place. This defies all reason if what you say is true. A few well placed explosives however could easily explain it.
| Quote: | | Next, would you like to explain why your "squibs" aqppear randomly? |
Why did the pressure only exert itself randomly instead of being evenly dispersed?
You keep asking me, "were you there"?, "do you have material evidence in your possession"? Well what about hearing from those that were there? Testimony that for some insane reason was never used by the 9/11 Commission?
| Quote: |
Ed Cachia -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 53]
we originally had thought there was like an internal detonation explosives because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down. |
| Quote: |
Dominick Derubbio -- Battalion Chief (F.D.N.Y.) [Division 8]
It was weird how it started to come down. It looked like it was a timed explosion... |
| Quote: | Brian Dixon -- Battalion Chief (F.D.N.Y.)
... the lowest floor of fire in the south tower actually looked like someone had planted explosives around it because the whole bottom I could see -- I could see two sides of it and the other side -- it just looked like that floor blew out. I looked up and you could actually see everything blew out on the one floor. I thought, geez, this looks like an explosion up there, it blew out. |
Gee, it sure does sound like they're describing a controlled demolition. I suppose they must be lying though right? We'll just accept the word of government sponsored agencies and committees that were never anywhere near ground zero on 9/11 right?
Last edited by Me on Sun Jul 23, 2006 10:33 am; edited 11 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Me
Moderate Poster
Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 431
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 23, 2006 8:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | The ASCE represents over 125,000 STRUCTURAL engineers worldwide. Please provide the name of a single one who supports your ideas.
|
I wouldn’t expect that they would considering the fact that the group was sponsored and guided by FEMA and the so-called “investigation” was spiked every step of the way. None of those rank and file members would dare step out of line. They knew their roles. The government using its far reaching power and influence was basically allowed to investigate itself. It's a joke. How about a REAL & INDEPENDANT INTERNATIONAL INVESTRIGATION? One that hasn’t been overtly controlled by the very suspects themselves. How much do you want to bet there'd be very, VERY different results? If one ever does get put together as promised by several Latin American countries including Venezuela that also doubt the official account (with good reason) we may just find out.
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060327100957690
| Quote: | | It would help to begin with an accurate description of the WTC towers in terms of quality of design and construction. In July of 1971, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) presented a national award judging the buildings to be "the engineering project that demonstrates the greatest engineering skills and represents the greatest contribution to engineering progress and mankind."3 Others noted that "the World Trade Center towers would have an inherent capacity to resist unforeseen calamities." This capacity stemmed from the use of special high-strength steels. In particular, the perimeter columns were designed with tremendous reserve strength whereby "live loads on these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs."4 |
| Quote: | | Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members- described by one close source as a "tourist trip"-no one's checking the evidence for anything. |
http://911research.wtc7.net/post911/probes.html
WTC Disaster: "No Clear Authority" Stymied Collapse Investigation
| Quote: |
Within 48 to 72 hours of the attack, representatives of the following agencies were on the scene of the World Trade Center attack, allegedly collecting data.
* Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
* American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)
* National Science Foundation (NSF)
FEMA and its contractor, Greenhorne and O'Mara, Inc., created the Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT), whose work would culminate in the World Trade Center Building Performance Assessment Study . The BPAT investigators were, except for a walk-through described as a "tourist trip", denied access to the evidence at Ground Zero. They did not have subpoena power.
It is widely recognized that the "investigations" carried out by these agencies were mismanaged and "muddled". 2 The people who were supposed to investigate the building failures were barred from examining the crucial evidence. A charter for a March 6, 2002 committee hearing in the U.S. House of Representatives listed the following problems with these efforts.
* No clear authority and the absence of an effective protocol for how the building performance investigators should conduct and coordinate their investigation with the concurrent search and rescue efforts, as well as any criminal investigation
* Difficulty obtaining documents essential to the investigation, including blueprints, design drawings, and maintenance records
* Uncertainty as a result of the confidential nature of the BPAT study
* Uncertainty as to the strategy for completing the investigation and applying the lessons learned
|
Other experts......
...................................................................... ....................
| Quote: | People's Daily Online: Why WTC Steel Towers Collapsed at One Blow - September 20, 2001
“Professor Shi Yongjiu, director of civil engineering department of Qinghua University and an expert on steel structure"
According to steel structure's mechanical nature, the towers shouldn't collapse as late as an hour later after the planes slammed into. What's more, it should be in a way to topple over gradually instead of crashing down as seen in videotapes. It looks more like a directional blast in doing the job of destruction, so he feels that huge damages must have been done at the lower part of the towers.
...
He was surprised that a 40-storied supportive building [WTC 7] beside the towers should collapse 6 hours later...
Source:
http://english.people.com.cn/english/200109/20/eng20010920_80655.html
-Matthys Levy, Structural Engineer and Co Author of “Why Buildings Fall Down”
"If you've seen many of the managed demolitions where they implode a building and they cause it to essentially to fall vertically because they cause all of the vertical columns to fail simultaneously, that's exactly what it looked like and that's what happened."
Video: http://www.freepressinternational.com/discovery.html
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Me
Moderate Poster
Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 431
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 23, 2006 9:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
We even have insurance companies seeing through the deception.
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/may2005/040505potentialfraud. htm
Major WTC Insurance Company Questions Building 7 Collapse As Potential Fraud
| Quote: | | Allianz Group published a shareholder proposal on April 20th faulting management for ignoring signs of insurance fraud on 9/11/2001. Allianz carried a significant portion of the insurance coverage on the WTC, and stands to pay a corresponding portion of the $3.5 billion payout currently being litigated in New York. In his proposal, shareholder John Leonard, a California native and a publisher of books on 9/11, pointed to reports that building WTC 7 apparently collapsed by demolition, and for no plausible reason related to the 9/11 attacks. Management replied that it relied on official US government reports which made no mention of such evidence. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Me
Moderate Poster
Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 431
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 23, 2006 10:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Don't like the Windsor fire? There's plenty more to choose from.
| Quote: |
In May 1988 a fire at the Interstate Bank Building in Los Angeles destroyed four floors and damaged a fifth floor of the modern 62-story building. The fire burned for four hours. The building did not collapse. See http://www.iklimnet.com/hotelfires/interstatebank.html |
| Quote: | | In February 2005 there was another "towering inferno" in Taiwan. The fire burned for about an hour and a half, but the building never came close to collapsing. See http://www.itv.com/news/world_404914.html |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
