OT: Iran's leader: 2 planes couldn't bring towers down

[Scott]

Iran's leader: 2 planes couldn't bring towers down
http://news.yahoo.com/irans-leader-2-planes-couldnt-bring-towers-down-003428338.html

Four paragraphs in total from the AP! I wonder how many paragraphs
would be devoted to a new story describing another Sarah Palin
shackup.

Since there are only four paragraphs about this momentous topic, here
they are:

* * * * *

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says that as an engineer he's
sure the twin towers were not brought down by jetliners.

Ahmadinejad, in an interview with The Associated Press, says it would
have been impossible for two jetliners to bring down the towers simply
by hitting them. he says some kind of planned explosion must have
taken place.

Ahmadinejad stopped short of saying the United States staged the
disaster 10 years ago. But he says there are questions the world
should resolve, and noted there are doubters in the United States as
well.

Ahmadinejad was denied his request last year to visit the site of the
World Trade Center collapse. He says he's not making another attempt
this year. He's in New York City for the U.N. General Assembly.

[Calimero]

On 23 Sep., 14:01, Scott <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Iran's leader: 2 planes couldn't bring towers downhttp://news.yahoo.com/irans-leader-2-planes-couldnt-bring-towers-down...

>
> Four paragraphs in total from the AP! I wonder how many paragraphs
> would be devoted to a new story describing another Sarah Palin
> shackup.
>
>  Since there are only four paragraphs about this momentous topic, here
> they are:
>
>  * * * * *
>
>  Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says that as an engineer he's
> sure the twin towers were not brought down by jetliners.
>
>  Ahmadinejad, in an interview with The Associated Press, says it would
> have been impossible for two jetliners to bring down the towers simply
> by hitting them. he says some kind of planned explosion must have
> taken place.
>
>  Ahmadinejad stopped short of saying the United States staged the
> disaster 10 years ago. But he says there are questions the world
> should resolve, and noted there are doubters in the United States as
> well.
>
>  Ahmadinejad was denied his request last year to visit the site of the
> World Trade Center collapse. He says he's not making another attempt
> this year. He's in New York City for the U.N. General Assembly.

LOL, nice company you have!!
Hitler would agree with both of you if he were still alive ...


Max

[TT]

Do you disagree with Mahmoud's engineering experience? Or is it just his
political background...

[TT]

ps, completely unrelated but my appreciation for German culture just
shot up a few notches after finding these...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUGD3RifH2k&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=volC9VN-YFo

Mmmmmm....

[bob]

On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 05:01:56 -0700 (PDT), Scott <scot...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Ahmadinejad already started to say this at UN last yr and most present
walked out on his speech. tower 7 fell in a different way than 1 and 2
and housed some sensitive offices. but if the gov't did bring down
tower 7, so what, believe nobody was killed, correct?

and btw, demolition expert who said WTC7 was brought down in
controlled demolition, was killed in car wreck. how can we trust an
engineer who can't even drive?
http://www.infowars.com/expert-who-concluded-wtc-7-was-a-controlled-demolition-killed-in-car-accident/

bob

[Calimero]

I agree with all those experts who have explained again and again and
again and again how two planes could bring down the Twin Towers.
Everybody with more than one brain cell can understand that.

Max

[Shakes]

I think Max just agrees with everything the U.S says and does. Seems
that way to me. He probably even loves Monsanto, and totally agrees
with what they are doing to the world's food.

[Shakes]

Actually
>
that makes it even more suspicious. Maybe he was bumped off. :-)

[jdeluise]

On 23-Sep-2011, Shakes <kvcs...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think Max just agrees with everything the U.S says and does. Seems
> that way to me. He probably even loves Monsanto, and totally agrees
> with what they are doing to the world's food.

Yes, he agrees with everything the US does while simultaneously slagging the
intelligence of Americans.

[drew]

On Sep 23, 1:10 pm, Calimero <calimero...@gmx.de> wrote:

> I agree with all those experts who have explained again and again and
> again and again how two planes could bring down the Twin Towers.
> Everybody with more than one brain cell can understand that.

You can call me an amoeba again and again and again and I still won't
believe that I am an amoeba.

[Calimero]

Son, there is really no controversy among the scientific community
anymore that the planes brought the Towers down. And with "scientific
community" I mean "scientific community" and not some nutters who have
studied physics for two or three years and thinks they are "experts".

But it is a free country and everybody has the right to be
intellectually lazy ...


Max

[Calimero]

On 23 Sep., 19:15, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 05:01:56 -0700 (PDT), Scott <scott...@yahoo.com>

> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >Iran's leader: 2 planes couldn't bring towers down

> >http://news.yahoo.com/irans-leader-2-planes-couldnt-bring-towers-down...

> engineer who can't even drive?http://www.infowars.com/expert-who-concluded-wtc-7-was-a-controlled-d...
>
> bob


LOL, a "demolition expert" ...


Max

[Calimero]

Who is "the U.S." ... ?

Let me guess, you must be an American?



Max

[Calimero]

On 23 Sep., 19:15, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 05:01:56 -0700 (PDT), Scott <scott...@yahoo.com>

> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >Iran's leader: 2 planes couldn't bring towers down

> >http://news.yahoo.com/irans-leader-2-planes-couldnt-bring-towers-down...

> >Four paragraphs in total from the AP! I wonder how many paragraphs
> >would be devoted to a new story describing another Sarah Palin
> >shackup.
> > Since there are only four paragraphs about this momentous topic, here
> >they are:
> > * * * * *
> > Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says that as an engineer he's
> >sure the twin towers were not brought down by jetliners.
> > Ahmadinejad, in an interview with The Associated Press, says it would
> >have been impossible for two jetliners to bring down the towers simply
> >by hitting them. he says some kind of planned explosion must have
> >taken place.
> > Ahmadinejad stopped short of saying the United States staged the
> >disaster 10 years ago. But he says there are questions the world
> >should resolve, and noted there are doubters in the United States as
> >well.
> > Ahmadinejad was denied his request last year to visit the site of the
> >World Trade Center collapse. He says he's not making another attempt
> >this year. He's in New York City for the U.N. General Assembly.
>
> Ahmadinejad already started to say this at UN last yr and most present
> walked out on his speech. tower 7 fell in a different way than 1 and 2
> and housed some sensitive offices. but if the gov't did bring down
> tower 7, so what, believe nobody was killed, correct?
>
> and btw, demolition expert who said WTC7 was brought down in

> controlled demolition, ...


"Blast events did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7. Based on
visual and audio
evidence and the use of specialized computer modeling to simulate
hypothetical blast events,
NIST concluded that blast events did not occur, and found no evidence
whose explanation
required invocation of a blast event. Blast from the smallest charge
capable of failing a
critical column (i.e., Column 79) would have resulted in a sound level
of 130 dB to 140 dB at
a distance of at least half a mile if unobstructed by surrounding
buildings (such as along
Greenwich Street or West Broadway). This sound level is consistent
with standing next to a
jet plane engine and more than 10 times louder than being in front of
the speakers at a rock
concert. There were no witness reports of such a loud noise, nor was
such a noise heard on
the audio tracks of video recordings of the WTC 7 collapse." (NIST
report)


Maybe all those witnesses who really heard this loud blast were
eliminated by Dick Cheney ... ?


Max

[Scott]

Whisper-like trolling.

[bob]

i'm not saying i agree that WTC 7 was brought down, only that if it
was (it does appear to fall differently thatn other 2, of course it's
a much different structure) then so what?

bob

[Vlado]

On Sep 23, 8:01 am, Scott <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Iran's leader: 2 planes couldn't bring towers downhttp://news.yahoo.com/irans-leader-2-planes-couldnt-bring-towers-down...

>
> Four paragraphs in total from the AP! I wonder how many paragraphs
> would be devoted to a new story describing another Sarah Palin
> shackup.
>
>  Since there are only four paragraphs about this momentous topic, here
> they are:
>
>  * * * * *
>
>  Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says that as an engineer he's
> sure the twin towers were not brought down by jetliners.
>
>  Ahmadinejad, in an interview with The Associated Press, says it would
> have been impossible for two jetliners to bring down the towers simply
> by hitting them. he says some kind of planned explosion must have
> taken place.
>
>  Ahmadinejad stopped short of saying the United States staged the
> disaster 10 years ago. But he says there are questions the world
> should resolve, and noted there are doubters in the United States as
> well.
>
>  Ahmadinejad was denied his request last year to visit the site of the
> World Trade Center collapse. He says he's not making another attempt
> this year. He's in New York City for the U.N. General Assembly.

American zionazi media is trying to portray him as "crazy" so they may
as well
mistranslate him as when he called upon the destruction of the zionazi
regime , they
tried to portray him as crazy killer.

As for the september 11 thing, well there is a 100 ton aircraft and 40
tonnes of fuel.
There is no concentrated manmade structure that can withstand that.
The other thing that totally disproves
the misinformers is that the second tower that got hit was the first
to fall because if was hit much
lower. Well they can not explain how that tower could fall by anything
else by a plane attack when
everyone knew that the other tower got hit.

[Scott]

Vlado, do you live in a Marvel Comics issue? Are you a two-
dimensional animation seemingly oblivious to the science of Man?

[drew]

On Sep 23, 3:18 pm, Calimero <calimero...@gmx.de> wrote:

> On 23 Sep., 21:01, drew <d...@technologist.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 23, 1:10 pm, Calimero <calimero...@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> > > I agree with all those experts who have explained again and again and
> > > again and again how two planes could bring down the Twin Towers.
> > > Everybody with more than one brain cell can understand that.
>
> > You can call me an amoeba again and again and again and I still won't
> > believe that I am an amoeba.
>

> Son,.....(snip garbage)

Please, I'd rather be a single-celled animal than your son, you piece
of shit.

[Calimero]

"Son" in this context was only meant figuratively, kid. Just to
underscore the vast intellectual difference between both of us.
Of course you being my son would be near impossible. I mean, my genes
and your intellectual level, no way ...

Max

[Vlado]

> dimensional animation seemingly oblivious to the science of Man?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Please Scott, attacking the messenger only shows that you agree with
him , in this case me.
You will never explain how the second tower that got hit was the first
to fall which debunks all the
disinfo theories. All this disinformation that you and your buddies
put out serves some purpose .
The Washington regime doesn't want people questioning the underlying
reasons and motivations
of the hijackers and they certainly don't want anyone doubting the
myth of the "only superpower"
and their supposed ever lasting superiority.

[Scott]

Huh?

> You will never explain how the second tower that got hit was the first
> to fall which debunks all the
> disinfo theories.

this is a cartoon reality. There are more scientific problems with
the collapses than Vlado can count to.

(Vlado, are you sure you're not living in a comic strip? Look above
you. Are your latest thoughts and/or remarks above you in a thought
or a comment balloon?)

[Vlado]

> or a comment balloon?)- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

So you still can't explain how the second tower that got hit was the
first
to fall? I guess that would require some logic on your part but
disinfo agents
hate logic.
Again personal attacks prove my point , thank you very much.

[Scott]

Vlado, explain what is indicated by the fact the ST fell first?

[Vlado]

> Vlado, explain what is indicated by the fact the ST fell first?- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Since you can't explain it and yet you spam the board with this
disinfo nonsense, here it is.
The people in the second tower obviously saw what happened to the
first one so they would
be super alert to any suspicious people or materials in the other
building yet they didn't see
anything and most of them returned to their desks before the other
plane struck.
So why did the 2nd tower fell first ?
Second tower crashed down after only 55 minutes and the 1st tower
crashed aftet 1h45 because
the second tower was hit much lower thus the fuel and subsequent fire
spread much faster to the
base structure , thus losing the balance of the building. Yet going by
disinfo theories , first tower
hit would be the first to fall as well or at least if it were planned
as such and the impact of the plane
would not matter.
To put it simply for you, if you kick someone in the ankle , they are
much more likely to lose balance
than if you kick them in the chest.

[Calimero]

> disinfo theories. ...

Er, what's so mysterious about the tower who was hit first collapsing
last?

When I shoot first you and right after that this Scott moron with a
pump gun in the stomach are you certain you would die first?


Max

[TT]

My point being that Ahmadinejad has motives to claim otherwise and I
certainly have my doubts of his engineering background...

A word of one engineer doesn't mean much against many...but I reckon
Ahmadinejad's engineering is same level as Kim Jong Il's mad golf skills
or Kim designing an invisible phone.
Of course I could be wrong and Mahmoud has great knowledge of collapsing
buildings. But frankly I don't bother to google his engineering
credentials for this debate...

[Scott]

the max temperature that jet fuel burns at is about a thousand degrees
less than the temperature to melt steel. We know the steel wasn't
merely weakened, since it fell in its own footprint, making a tidy
pile.

the ST fell too fast to be a gravity collapse. The ST collapsed at
the rate of a free fall which is impossible considering how much
friction was involved when floor 100 crashed into floor 99, all the
way down.

I asked you for science, not a Marvel Comics fantasy.

[Vlado]

> I asked you for science, not a Marvel Comics fantasy.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Steel doesn't have to melt at all, it just has to weaken. I don't
claim to be
a chemical expert unlike you to talk about so here is something off of
the web
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center
Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel
(2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse,
their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of
their structural strength—and that required exposure to much less
heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says
retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The
Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've
seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is
that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer
expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior
engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel
Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent."
NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing
insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the
path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the
heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a
professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego,
and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM
consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the
WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible
material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and
paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned
for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10
minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was
responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

[Scott]

> the webhttp://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-91...

there's no indication that the fires in the Towers were particularly
hot. if we look back at the 9/11 footage we see a dense concentration
of black soot coming from the Towers. this suggests lower
temperatures than what is needed even to weaken steel.

also, we can't go along with the "weakened steel theory" because both
towers fell as fine dust in their footprints. Weakened steel suggests
both would have toppled over and hit a neighbor building.

finally, popular mechanics has published a few commentaries in defense
of the official story of 9/11 and both are laughable from a scientific
perspective.

[Scott]

I thought you wanted mortal combat between us? you're now so afraid
of me physically you need a pump gun?

[TennisGuy]

On Sep 23, 8:46 pm, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:

> i'm not saying i agree that WTC 7 was brought down, only that if it
> was (it does appear to fall differently thatn other 2, of course it's
> a much different structure) then so what?
>

So what? So what?

You cannot rig a building for controlled demolition in an afternoon.

That fact alone should answer your "So what?" and get you thinking of
all the implications it raises.

[bob]

perhaps you can bring it down in an afternoon, per what i've read.
and even if not, if the building was rigged to be brought down *just
in case* of something like this, and they did, then so what?
the bldg housed extreme national security offices, if the gov't was
afraid the bldg could be compromised or security breached, then they
did what they had to do, and made sure the building was vacant first.

bob

[number_six]

The first several floors of WTC 7 were seriously weakened by debris
from the collapse of the towers. This was not understood immediately
because of the scope of the triage situation and because the damaged
area itself was occluded by smoke in most photos of the building.

[number_six]

I should add, although Popular Mechanics cited a NIST spokesman as
saying that on a third of the face of the building about 25 percent of
the depth of the building the first 10 stories was "scooped out" by
debris damage, the current NIST FAQ on WTC 7 indicates that collapse
would still have occurred without that structural damage on the lower
floors -- as I quote below:

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm

21. Did debris from the collapse of WTC 1 cause damage to WTC 7's
structure in a way that contributed to the building's collapse?

The debris from WTC 1 caused structural damage to the southwest region
of WTC 7—severing seven exterior columns—but this structural damage
did not initiate the collapse. The fires initiated by the debris,
rather than the structural damage that resulted from the impacts,
initiated the building's collapse after the fires grew and spread to
the northeast region after several hours. The debris impact caused no
damage to the spray-applied fire-resistive material that was applied
to the steel columns, girders, and beams except in the immediate
vicinity of the severed columns. The debris impact damage did play a
secondary role in the last stages of the collapse sequence, where the
exterior façade buckled at the lower floors where the impact damage
was located. A separate analysis showed that even without the
structural damage due to debris impact, WTC 7 would have collapsed in
fires similar to those that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001. None of the
large pieces of debris from WTC 2 hit WTC 7 because of the large
distance between the two buildings.

22. Would WTC 7 have collapsed even if there had been no structural
damage induced by the collapse of WTC 1?

Yes. Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed
from the fires that the debris initiated. The growth and spread of the
lower-floor fires due to the loss of water supply to the sprinklers
from the city mains was enough to initiate the collapse of the entire
building due to buckling of a critical column in the northeast region
of the building.

[Scott]

"The heat from the uncontrolled fires caused steel floor beams and
girders to thermally expand, leading to a chain of events that caused
a key structural column to fail. The failure of this structural column
then initiated a fire-induced progressive collapse of the entire
building."

WTC7, like the Towers, fell at a free fall, in its own footprint.
There's no way the heat from the office fires--which all documentation
shows were minor, certainly not "uncontrolled"--could have damaged the
steel in any way.

This explanation is total bullshit which is why it is being peddled by
the paid disinfo agents here.

[Scott]

On Sep 25, 8:25 am, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 16:57:43 -0700 (PDT), TennisGuy
>

343 firefighters are said to have died. Is that OK with you--"they
did what they had to do"?

[Scott]

if the documentation is showing a lot of smoke it isn't also showing
fires hot enough to weaken steel.

You can't have it both ways. (You can if you're a paid disinfo agent,
but nowhere else.)

Either the fires were hot enough to weaken steel or they were much
cooler and gave off a lot of black smoke. Which was it?

[number_six]

On Sep 25, 9:47 am, Scott <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> snip <

> WTC7, like the Towers, fell at a free fall, in its own footprint.
> There's no way the heat from the office fires--which all documentation
> shows were minor, certainly not "uncontrolled"--could have damaged the
> steel in any way.
>
> This explanation is total bullshit which is why it is being peddled by
> the paid disinfo agents here.

The "free-fall" argument is completely false and is directly addressed
on the FAQ I linked.

The problem is this -- you suffer from IOS -- Inverse Occam Syndrome
-- and, unaddressed, this will forever leave you outside the
evidentiary mainstream,looking over your shoulder at the gathering
horde of ordinary people whom you cannot distinguish from "paid
disinfo agents".

[Scott]

where is the "free-fall argument" addressed on the FAQ?

also, the speed with which matter falls in the air is not "false." It
was first observed by Galileo. (Paid disinfo agents don't care about
history--just show them the money and they're happy.)

[Scott]

On Sep 25, 8:25 am, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:

> On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 16:57:43 -0700 (PDT), TennisGuy
>

Bob asks: "so what?"

http://nymag.com/news/articles/wtc/1year/numbers.htm

343 firefighters and paramedics are said to have died. that's ok with
Bob, though. "they did what they had to do."

[Vlado]

> the paid disinfo agents here.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

for anyone looking to cut through non sense put out by Scott, listen
to
this podcast from 10min. Basicaly WTC had no steel girders or steel
beems
in order to make more space. It had a thin steel structure that was
easily
weakened
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/3705191

[number_six]

On Sep 25, 10:22 am, Scott <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sep 25, 1:01 pm, number_six <cyberi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 25, 9:47 am, Scott <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > snip <
> > > WTC7, like the Towers, fell at a free fall, in its own footprint.
> > > There's no way the heat from the office fires--which all documentation
> > > shows were minor, certainly not "uncontrolled"--could have damaged the
> > > steel in any way.
>
> > > This explanation is total bullshit which is why it is being peddled by
> > > the paid disinfo agents here.
>
> > The "free-fall" argument is completely false and is directly addressed
> > on the FAQ I linked.
>
> > The problem is this -- you suffer from IOS -- Inverse Occam Syndrome
> > -- and, unaddressed, this will forever leave you outside the
> > evidentiary mainstream,looking over your shoulder at the gathering
> > horde of ordinary people whom you cannot distinguish from "paid
> > disinfo agents".
>
> where is the "free-fall argument" addressed on the FAQ?

> snip <

In FAQ 11 --

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm

11. In a video, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free fall,
something that would not occur in the structural collapse that you
describe. How can NIST ignore basic laws of physics?

In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/wtc_draftreports.cfm), NIST
stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the
portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on
video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40
percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if
the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall
conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST
was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for
it in greater detail.

To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the
downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from
first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the
video. Numerical analyses were conducted to calculate the velocity and
acceleration of the roofline point from the time-dependent
displacement data. The instant at which vertical motion of the
roofline first occurred was determined by tracking the numerical value
of the brightness of a pixel (a single element in the video image) at
the roofline. This pixel became brighter as the roofline began to
descend because the color of the pixel started to change from that of
the building façade to the lighter color of the sky.

The approach taken by NIST is summarized in NIST NCSTAR Report 1A,
Section 3.6, and detailed in NIST NCSTAR Report 1-9, Section 12.5.3.

The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the
roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration
of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages
characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:

* Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of
gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
* Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free
fall)
* Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less
than that of gravity

This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared
to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which
corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower
stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended
essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the
structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis
model, which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their
capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3,
the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face
encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the
debris pile below.

[number_six]

On Sep 25, 10:27 am, Vlado <vlado2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> snip <

> for anyone looking to cut through non sense put out by Scott, listen
> to
> this podcast from 10min. Basicaly WTC had no steel girders or steel
> beems
> in order to make more space. It had a thin steel structure that was
> easily
> weakened
>  http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/3705191

Its uphill work, isn't it?

[TT]

25.9.2011 20:01, number_six kirjoitti:
> The problem is this -- you suffer from IOS -- Inverse Occam Syndrome

lol...brilliant.

[Scott]

no steel beems? both Towers were made of 200,000 tons of steel. both
Towers were built to withstand an airplane crash:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1340225/Twin-towers-built-to-withstand-plane-crash.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/cleanup.html

claiming it had no steel beems and was easily weakened is nutty. you
would be a more valuable paid disinfo agent if you could only post
something that withstood a few seconds of scrutiny.

[number_six]

Oops, that should be *it's* uphill work.

I remember that line from Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Having
traveled back in time, one of the characters was playing scrabble with
a caveman and described it as "uphill work."

[Calimero]

> WTC7, like the Towers, fell at a free fall, ....

That is a lie.

Max

[Calimero]

> Towers were built to withstand an airplane ...

If you are suggesting that they were built to withstand an airplane of
this size you are lying again.

Say, is Mahmoud paying you good money?


Max

[Calimero]

Both of course, you idiot.


Max

[Calimero]

It is you who is mocking the victims of 9/11.
With the sole purpose of advancing your crazy political ideas.
Extremely despicable.

Max

[Scott]

LOL. did you watch too much TV or sniff glue when you were a younger
creep?

[Whisper]

You still think a massive plane crashing into a skyscraper at speed
would only be expected to cause small camp fires.....?

Wow man.

[Whisper]

What I saw was what I would have expected if a big jet crashed into a
building. Scott must be watching too many cartoons if he expects planes
to bounce off buildings & fall to the ground, small spot fires etc.
He's off his rocker.

[Scott]

Wow man, indeed. There's no evidence a plane hit either Tower. Also,
no one has claimed that a plane hit WTC 7. there's also no evidence
that the small office fires in WTC 7 were anything but small office
fires.

It is a lot for paid disinfo agents to have to defend, man.

[Scott]

the 9/11 psyop we saw on TV was as believable as your average Road
Runner cartoon. If science fiction is what you're after, then believe
Whisper's nonsense.

[kaennorsing]

On 23 sep, 21:18, Calimero <calimero...@gmx.de> wrote:

> Son, there is really no controversy among the scientific community
> anymore that the planes brought the Towers down. And with "scientific
> community" I mean "scientific community" and not some nutters who have
> studied physics for two or three years and thinks they are "experts".

False, there is lots of controversy among the scientific community as
1,599 verified architectural and engineering professionals have signed
the petition demanding of Congress a truly independent investigation;
http://www.ae911truth.org/

[Whisper]

There's also no evidence Djokovic won Wimbledon & USO this yr. Don't
tell me you believe what they transmit on the tv?

[Whisper]

On 26/09/2011 8:31 PM, Scott wrote:
> On Sep 26, 4:50 am, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>> On 26/09/2011 5:00 AM, Calimero wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 25 Sep., 18:49, Scott<scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sep 25, 11:17 am, number_six<cyberi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> The first several floors of WTC 7 were seriously weakened by debris
>>>>> from the collapse of the towers. This was not understood immediately
>>>>> because of the scope of the triage situation and because the damaged
>>>>> area itself was occluded by smoke in most photos of the building.
>>
>>>> if the documentation is showing a lot of smoke it isn't also showing
>>>> fires hot enough to weaken steel.
>>
>>>> You can't have it both ways. (You can if you're a paid disinfo agent,
>>>> but nowhere else.)
>>
>>>> Either the fires were hot enough to weaken steel or they were much
>>>> cooler and gave off a lot of black smoke. Which was it?
>>
>>> Both of course, you idiot.
>>
>>> Max
>>
>> What I saw was what I would have expected if a big jet crashed into a
>> building. Scott must be watching too many cartoons if he expects planes

>> to bounce off buildings& fall to the ground, small spot fires etc.

>> He's off his rocker.
>
> the 9/11 psyop we saw on TV was as believable as your average Road
> Runner cartoon. If science fiction is what you're after, then believe
> Whisper's nonsense.
>

Lay off the pot man.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYOwJ5gVnLA

[Scott]

there is a marijuana thread going. This thread is about 9/11.

Having trouble remembering what the current topic is?

[Vlado]

> It is a lot for paid disinfo agents to have to defend, man.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

I can't believe Scitt is making a whisper a reasonable poster in this
thread.
That truelly takes a lot of effort. Here is 106 different views of
planes hitting
one of the towers. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDcTwYkiU0g&list=FL0q4R2ZT1MgYr_mqOV5sHjQ&index=1
There is only 1 view of the first tower hit but it's a good one
as well.

It must be said what Scott is doing here. He is not just same crazy ,
confused
soul believing anything he says. He is making an opposition to the
zionazi
regime look insane , unreasonable, desparate, kooky so that normal
people
would reject any real criticism of that regime. In their circles ,
it's called
false opposition.

[Vlado]

I am not impressed by scientists but rather by science itself ,
especially when they act in packs

[Scott]

we all are certainly concerned with what impresses "Vlado."

[kaennorsing]

An overwhelming majority opinion does not prove or disprove
anything... And 1,599 petitioning scientist is not a 'pack of
scientist' to you?

[drew]

On Sep 24, 4:39 am, Calimero <calimero...@gmx.de> wrote:
.
> Of course you being my son would be near impossible. I mean, my genes
> and your intellectual level, no way ...

I agree... but it is possible that your normal offspring resulted from
the impregnation
of your wife by the pizza delivery man.

Next time don't order the sausage topping....and don't be such a lazy
cunt....don't make
your wife come to the door and pay for it.....then again, natural
selection might be alive
and well...we shouldn't complain.

[bob]

On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 03:19:27 -0700 (PDT), Scott <scot...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

it's far easier to convince people of bullcrap conspiracies when you
leave in the undisputable parts.

> Also, no one has claimed that a plane hit WTC 7. there's also no evidence
>that the small office fires in WTC 7 were anything but small office
>fires. It is a lot for paid disinfo agents to have to defend, man.

did you have TV on in 2001 by chance?

bob

[bob]

On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 09:44:57 -0700 (PDT), Scott <scot...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Sep 25, 8:25 am, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 16:57:43 -0700 (PDT), TennisGuy
>>
>> <Jeffery21...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >On Sep 23, 8:46 pm, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> i'm not saying i agree that WTC 7 was brought down, only that if it
>> >> was (it does appear to fall differently thatn other 2, of course it's
>> >> a much different structure) then so what?
>>
>> > So what? So what?
>> >You cannot rig a building for controlled demolition in an afternoon.
>> >That fact alone should answer your "So what?" and get you thinking of
>> >all the implications it raises.
>>
>> perhaps you can bring it down in an afternoon, per what i've read.
>> and even if not, if the building was rigged to be brought down *just
>> in case* of something like this, and they did, then so what?
>> the bldg housed extreme national security offices, if the gov't was
>> afraid the bldg could be compromised or security breached, then they
>> did what they had to do, and made sure the building was vacant first.
>>
>> bob
>
>343 firefighters are said to have died. Is that OK with you--"they
>did what they had to do"?

none of the 343 in that building.

if you're disputing WTC1 and WTC2 fell for the accepted reasons, you
are completely nuts. if you want to discuss WTC7, we can discuss it,
but you're still mostly nuts.

bob

[bob]

On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 10:21:15 -0700 (PDT), Scott <scot...@yahoo.com>

wrote:

>On Sep 25, 8:25 am, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 16:57:43 -0700 (PDT), TennisGuy
>>
>> <Jeffery21...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >On Sep 23, 8:46 pm, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> i'm not saying i agree that WTC 7 was brought down, only that if it
>> >> was (it does appear to fall differently thatn other 2, of course it's
>> >> a much different structure) then so what?
>>
>> > So what? So what?
>> >You cannot rig a building for controlled demolition in an afternoon.
>> >That fact alone should answer your "So what?" and get you thinking of
>> >all the implications it raises.
>>
>> perhaps you can bring it down in an afternoon, per what i've read.
>> and even if not, if the building was rigged to be brought down *just
>> in case* of something like this, and they did, then so what?
>> the bldg housed extreme national security offices, if the gov't was
>> afraid the bldg could be compromised or security breached, then they
>> did what they had to do, and made sure the building was vacant first.
>>
>> bob
>

>Bob asks: "so what?"
>
>http://nymag.com/news/articles/wtc/1year/numbers.htm
>
>343 firefighters and paramedics are said to have died. that's ok with
>Bob, though. "they did what they had to do."

i said "so what" if the gov't brought down WTC7, after the muslim
terrorist attacks brought down WTC1 and WTC2 and it became apparent
that WTC7 security could/would be breached. and i'm by no means
agreeing the gov't brought WTC7 down, just "if" they did.

nobody was injured in WTC7, quit lying. last wk i talked at length to
a guy, a normal everyday guy, who was there working and he described
everything. he wasn't a member of the government, not a newscaster,
not a nusto, nobody famous, nobody in any commission, just a guy who
saw it. he refutes all your b.s.

bob

[Scott]

On Sep 26, 12:45 pm, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 03:19:27 -0700 (PDT), Scott <scott...@yahoo.com>

> >> >> exterior fa ade buckled at the lower floors where the impact damage

yes. are you going to respond to the posts on this thread or ask
stupid questions?

[drew]

On Sep 26, 12:57 pm, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:

> i said "so what" if the gov't brought down WTC7, after the muslim
> terrorist attacks brought down WTC1 and WTC2 and it became apparent
> that WTC7 security could/would be breached. and i'm by no means
> agreeing the gov't brought WTC7 down, just "if" they did.

Detonating a building is a strange way of making sure there are no
security breaches.

Nixon used a paper shredder. I guess he should have used dynamite.

[Scott]

was dynamite used on the WTC???

[bob]

On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 09:50:54 -0700 (PDT), Scott <scot...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

again: it's far easier to convince people of bullcrap conspiracies

when you leave in the undisputable parts.

bob

[bob]

On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 12:27:57 -0700 (PDT), drew <dr...@technologist.com>
wrote:

actually, if the building were intact, but people in all the confusion
were able to enter, that would be very troublesome. previously working
in highly sensitive areas like this, i know how they think. still, i
don't believe the gov't brought WTC7 down.

bob

[Scott]

On Sep 26, 5:41 pm, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 09:50:54 -0700 (PDT), Scott <scott...@yahoo.com>

The official story of 19 suicidal Muslims working for an Afghan man in
a cave is a conspiracy theory. What disputable parts are you
referring to?

[bob]

On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 16:19:42 -0700 (PDT), Scott <scot...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

i said undisputable parts, i.e. planes crashing into the towers.
(something you questioned couple paragraphs back). if you want to be
even slightly believable, try poking at the disputable parts.

bob

[Scott]

On Sep 26, 7:32 pm, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 16:19:42 -0700 (PDT), Scott <scott...@yahoo.com>

what is disputable about saying the "planes" were not real? (What
evidence do you have that suggests they were?)

[bob]

On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 16:42:22 -0700 (PDT), Scott <scot...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

what evidence do you have that 343 firemen were killed or for that
matter, that we ever had a war in afghanistan or iraq and that anybody
has been killed in either of those? none. it didnt' happen.

bob

[Scott]

On Sep 26, 5:43 pm, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 12:27:57 -0700 (PDT), drew <d...@technologist.com>

we certainly are grateful for your foray into science fiction.

[bob]

see, that's what i get for engaging you int his conversation, end up
saying terrible things.

bob

[Scott]

On Sep 26, 7:48 pm, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 16:42:22 -0700 (PDT), Scott <scott...@yahoo.com>

Bob, how about not changing the subject? In your present assignment,
does HQ allow you to stay on the present topic?

[Scott]

On Sep 26, 7:56 pm, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:

> see, that's what i get for engaging you int his conversation, end up
> saying terrible things.
>
> bob

no, they're paying you a lot more for "engaging" (i.e., torpeding)
this conversation. They're paying you big $.

[Vlado]

> evidence do you have that suggests they were?)- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

I think I have found a nema for you and other disinfo agents like
you.
You are a "911 denier" or even "911 confuser" . Trying to spread as
much
BS as possible and hope it sticks to cloud as many people's judgement
so that they
don't look where the trail leads.

[Vlado]

On Sep 26, 7:05 am, kaennorsing <ljubit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 23 sep, 21:18, Calimero <calimero...@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> > Son, there is really no controversy among the scientific community
> > anymore that the planes brought the Towers down. And with "scientific
> > community" I mean "scientific community" and not some nutters who have
> > studied physics for two or three years and thinks they are "experts".
>
> False, there is lots of controversy among the scientific community as
> 1,599 verified architectural and engineering professionals have signed
> the petition demanding of Congress a truly independent investigation;http://www.ae911truth.org/

why don't they do their own "investigation" then ?
Especially as there are 1599 of them ...
or they expect everyone to believe to believe in that regime ?

[Scott]

change the subject. Obfuscate. distract.

good one, Vlado. you're serving your Commie bosses well.

[bob]

On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 18:48:42 -0700 (PDT), Scott <scot...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

have you personally witnessed 1 soldier or 1 civilian die in iraq or
afghanistan? answer the question.

bob

[Scott]

On Sep 27, 6:18 am, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 18:48:42 -0700 (PDT), Scott <scott...@yahoo.com>

lol. stop changing the subject, paid disinfo agent.

[Vlado]

> good one, Vlado.  you're serving your Commie bosses well.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Now you are just projecting things on others . Your role is to make
any critics
of the zionazi regime look insane , unreasonable, desperate and
confused amongh
other things. Here is something about people like you
Exposing the 9/11 "Truth" Movement
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7216643725166640147#

[TT]

Are you a paid Muslim disinfo agent?

[Scott]

changing the subject again. are you communicating with HQ as you do
this?

[bob]

On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 03:35:55 -0700 (PDT), Scott <scot...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

you find the topic of dead soldiers and civilians funny?

bob

[Scott]

On Sep 27, 11:55 am, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 03:35:55 -0700 (PDT), Scott <scott...@yahoo.com>

you're pathetic attempts at changing the subject is funny. in other
words, *you* are funny. We laugh at paid shills who are dumber than
doorknobs.

[bob]

On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 09:09:27 -0700 (PDT), Scott <scot...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

you laugh at dead soldiers rather than answer the question. slick.

bob

[Scott]

On Sep 27, 12:51 pm, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 09:09:27 -0700 (PDT), Scott <scott...@yahoo.com>

you're the Commie sicko. on this thread you said it was ok that 343
firefighters had been killed.

WhisperBob, how much do you make selling out your country? if someone
offered you $1 more to be a patriot, would you accept it?

[bob]

On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 09:53:36 -0700 (PDT), Scott <scot...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

the hell i did. i said nobody died in WTC7.

>WhisperBob, how much do you make selling out your country? if someone
>offered you $1 more to be a patriot, would you accept it?

again, you offer no proof that anybody died in afghannistan or iraq.

bob

[Scott]

On Sep 27, 7:14 pm, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 09:53:36 -0700 (PDT), Scott <scott...@yahoo.com>

Commie Bob wants us not to talk about 9/11. he's getting *paid* to
change this subject no matter what.

[bob]

On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 16:25:02 -0700 (PDT), Scott <scot...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

will you or will you not offer proof that any civilians or soldiers
have died in iraq or afghanistan?

i see you are changing the subject again calling me comrade.

bob

[Gracchus]

On Sep 27, 7:48 am, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:

> what evidence do you have that 343 firemen were killed or for that
> matter, that we ever had a war in afghanistan or iraq and that anybody
> has been killed in either of those? none. it didnt' happen.

We are at war with Eurasia. We have always been at war with Eurasia.

[Scott]

[drew]

On Sep 27, 7:25 pm, Scott <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Commie Bob wants us not to talk about 9/11.  he's getting *paid* to

> change this subject no matter what.-

Bob isn't a commie...I'M a commie.....err, are there any real commies
nowadays?

Maybe I'll have to settle for being a liberal....damned left-right
political spectrum...what's
the opposite of red shift...whoops, wrong discipline.

Did ya know that Nazi stood for National Socialist....so Hitler was a
socialist, not a fascist.
Opposite ends of the political spectrum...damned confusing, no?

[Scott]

the thread is about the Iranian president's observations about 9/11.
have any thoughts there?