Report Says Fire, Not Explosion, Felled 7 WTC - Kooks Will Cry Fowl
Clay
By Eric Lipton
August 22, 2008
GAITHERSBURG, Md. — Fires in the 47-story office tower at the edge of
the World Trade Center site undermined floor beams and critical
structural columns, federal investigators concluded Thursday, as they
attempted to curb still-rampant speculation that explosives or fuel
fires were responsible for the building’s collapse of Sept. 11, 2001.
The long-delayed report by engineers here at the National Institute of
Standards and Technology in suburban Washington is intended to solve
one of still lingering central questions about the 2001 attacks: Why
did 7 World Trade Center fall, if it was not hit by an airplane.
“Heating of floor beams and girders caused a critical support column
to fail,” said Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator. “Video and
photographic evidence combined with detailed computer simulations show
that neither explosives nor fuel oils played a role in the collapse
that brought the building down.”
No one died when 7 World Trade Center fell, nearly seven hours after
the twin towers came down. But the collapse of the adjacent tower —
once home to branch offices of the Central Intelligence Agency, the
Secret Service and to the Giuliani administration’s emergency
operations center — is cited in hundreds of books and Internet sites
as perhaps the most compelling evidence that an insider secretly
planted explosives, intentionally destroying the tower.
It is the first skyscraper in modern times to collapse primarily as a
result of a fire.
Mainstream engineers and government officials have rejected the
speculation as ridiculous. But national polls have shown that perhaps
as many as 1 in 7 Americans believe that the destruction of the World
Trade Center towers was an inside job.
The investigators determined that debris from the falling twin towers
ignited fires on at least 10 floors at 7 World Trade Center, which was
about 400 feet north of where the city’s two tallest buildings once
stood. The blazes burned out of control for six hours, as the city
fire department, devastated by the collapse of the twin towers,
abandoned its efforts to extinguish the fire, and the sprinkler system
was incapacitated.
The heat from these fires, the investigators said, caused the beams on
the lower floors of the east side of the tower to expand, ultimately
causing a girder on the 13th floor to disconnect from a critical
interior column that supported the building’s long floor spans. Once
the 13th floor gave way, a cascade of floor failures started down to
the fifth floor, leading to the overall collapse of the tower.
Skeptics have questioned if explosives were planted at 7 World Trade
Center, as well as the twin towers and the Pentagon, as the Bush
administration was seeking a justification to invade Iraq and
Afghanistan. What started as a small number of such conspiracy
theorists has only ballooned into a movement of sorts, largely fed by
Internet sites that promote the theories.
“Seven World Trade Center is one of the key points of evidence, one of
the smoking guns,” said Richard Gage, a California architect who
leader a group called Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. “There
have been much hotter, longer lasting and larger fires in skyscrapers
that have not fallen down.”
The investigators said that if the city water main had not been broken
during the collapse of the twin towers, the sprinkler system would
likely have put out the fires at 7 World Trade Center, and the
building would not have fallen.
The engineers also examined whether diesel fuel tanks in the building
— to power the Giuliani administration’s emergency operations center
and other government offices — might have been a fuel source that
caused the collapse. The investigators determined, based in part on
computer models and videos of smoke coming from the tower, that the
heat generated from any fuel-fed fires would not have been enough to
cause the collapse.
Dr. Sunder said the investigation pointed to how expansion that can
occur in steel as it heats up in a fire needs to be considered to
prevent skyscraper collapses.
“Our take-home message today is the reason for the collapse of World
Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery,” Dr. Sunder said. “It did not
collapse from explosives or fuel oil fires.”
A new, substantially different, 52-story 7 World Trade Center opened
in 2006.
---------------
-C-
zasochimti
"Clay" <clays...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:5a02c137-3ea3-4b0a...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
---------------
Too late, too late, whahahacko debunker(s)!
Freedom Fighter
disappearance of the hens with still more lies.
Throughout history, various malevolent, antisocial individuals and groups
have gained control of governments and proceeded to use their forces for
personal gain and to sadistically inflict suffering and death upon
innocents. They succeed in this - for a while at least - through the
ignorance, apathy, and gullibility of the people over which they rule.
Given the ignorance, apathy, and gullibility of far too many Americans,
those that realize the truth about 9/11, the various politically motivated
assassinations from 1963 to the present, etc., must for the sake of their
own happiness and wellbeing take a position of passive resistance to this
fascism.
Though they may gather wealth and succeed in covering up their crimes
against humanity for the rest of their lives, these evil people have not
won, nor will they ever win, for they will never know happiness - the peace
of mind of a clear conscience. They will forever be psychological slaves to
their own sins; in everpresent fear of exposure, and of any afterlife
consequences they believe possible. That is a living hell, and their just
punishment.
Stutterin' John McKook
"Clay" <clays...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5a02c137-3ea3-4b0a...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Hmmmmmmm....... Ya think a coupla planes crashing into the buildings had
somethin' ta so with it?
Al Dykes
Freedom Fighter <lib...@once.net> wrote:
>No surprise that the fox guarding the henhouse lamely explains the
>disappearance of the hens with still more lies.
>
>Throughout history, various malevolent, antisocial individuals and groups
>have gained control of governments and proceeded to use their forces for
>personal gain and to sadistically inflict suffering and death upon
>innocents. They succeed in this - for a while at least - through the
>ignorance, apathy, and gullibility of the people over which they rule.
>
All of which has nothing to do with the engineering analysis of the
collapse of WTC7.
--
Al Dykes
News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising.
- Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail
Al Dykes
Freedom Fighter <lib...@once.net> wrote:
>disappearance of the hens with still more lies.
>
>Throughout history, various malevolent, antisocial individuals and groups
>have gained control of governments and proceeded to use their forces for
>personal gain and to sadistically inflict suffering and death upon
>innocents. They succeed in this - for a while at least - through the
>ignorance, apathy, and gullibility of the people over which they rule.
>
Al Dykes
Freedom Fighter <lib...@once.net> wrote:
>disappearance of the hens with still more lies.
>
>Throughout history, various malevolent, antisocial individuals and groups
>have gained control of governments and proceeded to use their forces for
>personal gain and to sadistically inflict suffering and death upon
>innocents. They succeed in this - for a while at least - through the
>ignorance, apathy, and gullibility of the people over which they rule.
None of which has anything to do with the engineering analysis of the
Clay
<Kook>:
...
> "Clay" <clays0nl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:5a02c137-3ea3-4b0a...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> Hmmmmmmm....... Ya think a coupla planes crashing into the buildings had
> somethin' ta so with it?
7WTC was not hit by planes, junior.
OBTW... if a Senator dies, POTUS does not appoint his/her replacement.
<LOL>
Too fucking stupid.
-C-
El Kabong
Thursday 8/21/08 9am PDT / 12pm EDT
Critical Response to NIST Final Report
on the Mysterious Collapse of WTC Building 7
Join the 430 Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth for an important live
(audio) Press Conference. The subject is the collapse of World Trade Center
Building 7 which was a 47-story, steel-framed, fire-proofed high-rise - the
3rd tower to fall straight down symmetrically at nearly free-fall speed on
9/11/01 with numerous reports of explosions and several tons of molten metal
found in the basement carrying the "thermite fingerprint".
The AE911Truth tele-conference will follow immediately after the NIST
(National Institute for Standards & Technology) slide presentation and Q&A
of their WTC 7 Final Report which will be Webcast beginning at 8am PDT /
11am EDT. See the NIST webcast announcement & details here.
In our AE911Truth response we will be documenting major flaws in the NIST
report as well as the most serious omissions such as the collapse features
of WTC 7 and the scientific forensic evidence of its explosive controlled
demolition.
http://www.ae911truth.org/actionalerts/
Welcome to Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth!
429 architectural and engineering professionals
and 2148 other supporters including A&E students
have signed the petition demanding of Congress
a truly independent investigation.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
clouddreamer
> AE911Truth Press Conference
> Thursday 8/21/08 9am PDT / 12pm EDT
> Critical Response to NIST Final Report
> on the Mysterious Collapse of WTC Building 7
> Join the 430 Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth for an important live
> (audio) Press Conference. The subject is the collapse of World Trade Center
> Building 7 which was a 47-story, steel-framed, fire-proofed high-rise - the
> 3rd tower to fall straight down symmetrically at nearly free-fall speed on
> 9/11/01 with numerous reports of explosions and several tons of molten metal
> found in the basement carrying the "thermite fingerprint".
>
Oh fer god's sake....give it up already.
..
--
We must change the way we live,
or the climate will do it for us.
El Kabong
+
"Stutterin' John McKook" <vie...@jail.net> wrote in message
news:gdjrk.18919$mh5....@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
> Hmmmmmmm....... Ya think a coupla planes crashing into the buildings had
somethin' ta so with it?
>
>
Twin Towers' Designers Anticipated Jet Impacts Like September 11th's
Structural engineers who designed the Twin Towers carried out studies in the
mid-1960s to determine how the buildings would fare if hit by large
jetliners. In all cases the studies concluded that the Towers would survive
the impacts and fires caused by the jetliners.
Evidence of these studies includes interviews with and papers and press
releases issued by engineers who designed and oversaw construction of the
World Trade Center.
1960s-era Jetliners Compared to Boeing 767s
Contrary to widely promoted misconceptions, the Boeing 767-200s used on
9/11/01 were only slightly larger than 707s and DC 8s, the types of
jetliners whose impacts the World Trade Center's designers anticipated.
Given the differences in cruise speeds, a 707 in normal flight would
actually have more kinetic energy than a 767, despite the slightly smaller
size. Note the similar fuel capacities of both aircraft. The 767s used on
September 11th were estimated to be carrying about 10,000 gallons of fuel
each at the time of impact, only about 40% of the capacity of a 707.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html
--
+
Pucker your lips for the Apocalypse!
Johnny Asia, Guitarist from the Future
http://music.download.com/johnnyasia
-
El Kabong
+
"Stutterin' John McKook" <vie...@jail.net> wrote in message
news:gdjrk.18919$mh5....@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
> Hmmmmmmm....... Ya think a coupla planes crashing into the buildings had
somethin' ta so with it?
>
Statements by Engineers
Engineers who participated in the design of the World Trade Center have
stated, since the attack, that the Towers were designed to withstand
jetliner collisions. For example, Leslie Robertson, who is featured on many
documentaries about the attack, said he "designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to
hit it." 2 Statements and documents predating the attack indicate that
engineers considered the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, but also
of ensuing fires.
John Skilling
John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center.
In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to
withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large
jetliner such as Boeing 707 or McDonald Douglas DC-8.
Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all
the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a
horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure
would still be there. 3
A white paper released on February 3, 1964 states that the Towers could have
withstood impacts of jetliners travelling 600 mph -- a speed greater than
the impact speed of either jetliner used on 9/11/01.
The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an
assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707-DC 8) traveling at
600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in
only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to
the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in
the immediate area of impact. 4
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html
clouddreamer
> +
> "Stutterin' John McKook" <vie...@jail.net> wrote in message
> news:gdjrk.18919$mh5....@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
>> Hmmmmmmm....... Ya think a coupla planes crashing into the buildings had
> somethin' ta so with it?
>>
> Twin Towers' Designers Anticipated Jet Impacts Like September 11th's
> Structural engineers who designed the Twin Towers carried out studies in the
> mid-1960s to determine how the buildings would fare if hit by large
> jetliners. In all cases the studies concluded that the Towers would survive
> the impacts and fires caused by the jetliners.
Unfortunately, they were wrong. They knew the fire wouldn't melt the
infrastructure but never anticipated the fire weakening the trusses.
Steel loses 50% of its strength at 1100 degrees. The fire burned as hot
as 1800 degrees which reduced it's strength to as much as 10% of normal.
When the trusses started to lose their integrity, there was no way they
could support the millions of tons sitting on top of them.
This could not have been anticipated as a widespread fire ignited by
tons of fuel over several stories had never happened before.
Iarnrod
Well, son, it looks like they were wrong, don't it.
SHOOTER586
430? I thought they wanted over a 1000?!? What happened?
george
> 1960s-era Jetliners Compared to Boeing 767s
> Contrary to widely promoted misconceptions, the Boeing 767-200s used on
> 9/11/01 were only slightly larger than 707s and DC 8s, the types of
> jetliners whose impacts the World Trade Center's designers anticipated.
No !
The largest 707 had a takeoff weight of 336,000 lb
The 767's takeoff weight was/is 412,000 lb.
Immediately your claim of kinetic energy is dead in the water.
Do you want to go back to your source and check on the fuel load for
the two different aircraft before you make asinine claims about the
difference ?
george
> September 11th were estimated to be carrying about 10,000 gallons of fuel
> each at the time of impact, only about 40% of the capacity of a 707.
Again bullshit !
The entire fuel load for the B707 was 11,500 gallons (US).
The B767 is capable of carrying 23,000 gallons (US)
clouddreamer
It's how the conspiracy nuts work. They spout false numbers to support
their POV and hope no one checks on the data. They can fool a lot that way.
Case in point...the assertion that the Pentagon plane would not have
disintegrated on impact against a building....yet when Swissair 111 hit
the water off Nova Scotia, it literally disintegrated into millions of
pieces no bigger than a fist except for the core of the engines. Two
million pieces were recovered.
Hunter
lib...@once.net says...
I notice your screed doesn't adress any of the points made. Sorry if the facts
destroy your conspiracy theory.
--
----->Hunter
"No man in the wrong can stand up against
a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'."
-----William J. McDonald
Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907
St Georges Day April 23rd
making aliyah...
animal02
> AE911Truth Press Conference
> Thursday 8/21/08 9am PDT / 12pm EDT
> Critical Response to NIST Final Report
> on the Mysterious Collapse of WTC Building 7
> Join the 430 Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth for an important live
> (audio) Press Conference.
Actually, only 68 = / - architects about 100 engineers but once you
weed out the none structural / civil ones you might have 40-50
Free hint to the clueless - only licensed individuals are entitled to
call themselves architects and engineers.
Considering there are approximately 90,000 licensed architects in the
country, your 68 don't amount to a pimple on a gnat's ass.
> The subject is the collapse of World Trade Center
> Building 7 which was a 47-story, steel-framed, fire-proofed high-rise - the
> 3rd tower to fall straight down symmetrically at nearly free-fall speed on
> 9/11/01 with numerous reports of explosions and several tons of molten metal
> found in the basement carrying the "thermite fingerprint".
In other words...the subject will be fantasies
animal02
Hey clueless.......they did withstand the impacts. What they could not
withstand was uncontrolled fires after the impact.
harry k
> In article <0Lirk.173390$102.76...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> libe...@once.net says...
>
> - Show quoted text -
Facts destroyed his theory years ago but he won't give up. Once a
kook, always a kook.
Harry K
Government Shill #2
The Kabong might notice that the towers, both of them, did, in fact,
withstand the collisions of a 767 apiece. Perhaps, had there been no
subsequent fire, they might be standing today. However, collision *and*
uncontrolled fires proved too much for the structures.
--
Shill #2
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge...others just gargle.
Government Shill #2
wrote:
>
>+
>"Stutterin' John McKook" <vie...@jail.net> wrote in message
>news:gdjrk.18919$mh5....@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
>>
>> Hmmmmmmm....... Ya think a coupla planes crashing into the buildings had
>somethin' ta so with it?
>>
>
>Statements by Engineers
>Engineers who participated in the design of the World Trade Center have
>stated, since the attack, that the Towers were designed to withstand
>jetliner collisions.
And they did. The stood until the resulting fires further weakened the
structures. The collapses were a result of the collisions *and* the fires.
Orson Wells as CitizenCain
"Stutterin' John McKook" <vie...@jail.net> wrote in message
news:gdjrk.18919$mh5....@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
Nah. Those were special effects. Miniatures and CGI.
BDK
zasoc...@gmail.com says...
>
> "Clay" <clays...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:5a02c137-3ea3-4b0a...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> By Eric Lipton
> August 22, 2008
>
> the World Trade Center site undermined floor beams and critical
> structural columns, federal investigators concluded Thursday, as they
> attempted to curb still-rampant speculation that explosives or fuel
>
> The long-delayed report by engineers here at the National Institute of
> Standards and Technology in suburban Washington is intended to solve
> one of still lingering central questions about the 2001 attacks: Why
> did 7 World Trade Center fall, if it was not hit by an airplane.
>
> to fail,=3F said Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator. =3FVideo and
> photographic evidence combined with detailed computer simulations show
> that neither explosives nor fuel oils played a role in the collapse
>
> No one died when 7 World Trade Center fell, nearly seven hours after
> once home to branch offices of the Central Intelligence Agency, the
> operations center =3F is cited in hundreds of books and Internet sites
> as perhaps the most compelling evidence that an insider secretly
> planted explosives, intentionally destroying the tower.
>
> It is the first skyscraper in modern times to collapse primarily as a
> result of a fire.
>
> Mainstream engineers and government officials have rejected the
> speculation as ridiculous. But national polls have shown that perhaps
> as many as 1 in 7 Americans believe that the destruction of the World
> Trade Center towers was an inside job.
>
> The investigators determined that debris from the falling twin towers
> ignited fires on at least 10 floors at 7 World Trade Center, which was
> stood. The blazes burned out of control for six hours, as the city
> fire department, devastated by the collapse of the twin towers,
> abandoned its efforts to extinguish the fire, and the sprinkler system
> was incapacitated.
>
> The heat from these fires, the investigators said, caused the beams on
> the lower floors of the east side of the tower to expand, ultimately
> causing a girder on the 13th floor to disconnect from a critical
> the 13th floor gave way, a cascade of floor failures started down to
> the fifth floor, leading to the overall collapse of the tower.
>
> Skeptics have questioned if explosives were planted at 7 World Trade
> Center, as well as the twin towers and the Pentagon, as the Bush
> administration was seeking a justification to invade Iraq and
> Afghanistan. What started as a small number of such conspiracy
> theorists has only ballooned into a movement of sorts, largely fed by
> Internet sites that promote the theories.
>
> the smoking guns,=3F said Richard Gage, a California architect who
> leader a group called Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. =3FThere
> have been much hotter, longer lasting and larger fires in skyscrapers
>
> The investigators said that if the city water main had not been broken
> during the collapse of the twin towers, the sprinkler system would
> likely have put out the fires at 7 World Trade Center, and the
> building would not have fallen.
>
> The engineers also examined whether diesel fuel tanks in the building
> and other government offices =3F might have been a fuel source that
> caused the collapse. The investigators determined, based in part on
> computer models and videos of smoke coming from the tower, that the
> heat generated from any fuel-fed fires would not have been enough to
> cause the collapse.
>
> Dr. Sunder said the investigation pointed to how expansion that can
> occur in steel as it heats up in a fire needs to be considered to
> prevent skyscraper collapses.
>
> Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery,=3F Dr. Sunder said. =3FIt did not
> collapse from explosives or fuel oil fires.=3F
>
> A new, substantially different, 52-story 7 World Trade Center opened
> in 2006.
>
> ---------------
>
> Too late, too late, whahahacko debunker(s)!
>
>
>
ROTFL, it's too late, far too late for you to recover, if you ever had
it, your sanity...as your poor parents were told long, long ago, in a
mental hospital, far far away..
--
BDK
BDK Klan leader?
kOOk Magnet!
NJJ CLUB #1
Shillmaster
Harold And Perkoff Go To White Castle
<noem...@here.invalidd> wrote:
> "Stutterin' John McKook" <viet...@jail.net> wrote in messagenews:gdjrk.18919$mh5....@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
>
>
> > "Clay" <clays0nl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:5a02c137-3ea3-4b0a...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Hmmmmmmm....... Ya think a coupla planes crashing into the buildings had
> > somethin' ta so with it?
>
> Nah. Those were special effects. Miniatures and CGI.
No plane crashed into building 7. Real or CGI.
You should know this dude, it's common knowledge.
William December Starr
Re...@reduce.recycIe.reincarnate said:
> It's how the conspiracy nuts work. They spout false numbers to
> support their POV and hope no one checks on the data. They can
> fool a lot that way.
>
> Case in point...the assertion that the Pentagon plane would not
> have disintegrated on impact against a building....yet when
> Swissair 111 hit the water off Nova Scotia, it literally
> disintegrated into millions of pieces no bigger than a fist except
> for the core of the engines. Two million pieces were recovered.
But that was *water*! Everybody knows that water is harder than
concrete!
-- wds
Al Dykes
Freedom Fighter <lib...@once.net> wrote:
>disappearance of the hens with still more lies.
>
>Throughout history, various malevolent, antisocial individuals and groups
>have gained control of governments and proceeded to use their forces for
Which has to do wth the subject line and the NIST report that says
that fire caused the collapse of WTC7.
Al Dykes
El Kabong <bayin...@mypacks.net> wrote:
>AE911Truth Press Conference
>Thursday 8/21/08 9am PDT / 12pm EDT
>Critical Response to NIST Final Report
>on the Mysterious Collapse of WTC Building 7
>Join the 430 Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth for an important live
>(audio) Press Conference. The subject is the collapse of World Trade Center
>Building 7 which was a 47-story, steel-framed, fire-proofed high-rise - the
>3rd tower to fall straight down symmetrically at nearly free-fall speed on
>9/11/01 with numerous reports of explosions and several tons of molten metal
>found in the basement carrying the "thermite fingerprint".
>
>The AE911Truth tele-conference will follow immediately after the NIST
>(National Institute for Standards & Technology) slide presentation and Q&A
>of their WTC 7 Final Report which will be Webcast beginning at 8am PDT /
>11am EDT. See the NIST webcast announcement & details here.
>
Why don't you wait to read the full report?
I bet less than 100 people dial in, and maybe as few as 10.
Al Dykes
El Kabong <bayin...@mypacks.net> wrote:
>
>+
>"Stutterin' John McKook" <vie...@jail.net> wrote in message
>news:gdjrk.18919$mh5....@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
>>
>> Hmmmmmmm....... Ya think a coupla planes crashing into the buildings had
>somethin' ta so with it?
>>
>>
>Twin Towers' Designers Anticipated Jet Impacts Like September 11th's
>Structural engineers who designed the Twin Towers carried out studies in the
>mid-1960s to determine how the buildings would fare if hit by large
>jetliners. In all cases the studies concluded that the Towers would survive
But they didn't calculate the effect of the fire started by the
thousands of gallons of fuel.
Fire was the final cause the collapse of WTC1, 2, and 7.
Real engineers think that had there been little fuel on those planes,
the buildings would have withstood the impact.
Al Dykes
Freedom Fighter <lib...@once.net> wrote:
>No surprise that the fox guarding the henhouse lamely explains the
>disappearance of the hens with still more lies.
>
>Throughout history, various malevolent, antisocial individuals and groups
>have gained control of governments and proceeded to use their forces for
>personal gain and to sadistically inflict suffering and death upon
Which has nothing to do with the subject line or the fact that fire
caused the collapse of WTC7.
--
Al Dykes
El Kabong <bayin...@mypacks.net> wrote:
>AE911Truth Press Conference
>Thursday 8/21/08 9am PDT / 12pm EDT
>Critical Response to NIST Final Report
>on the Mysterious Collapse of WTC Building 7
>Join the 430 Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth for an important live
>(audio) Press Conference. The subject is the collapse of World Trade Center
How many people dialed in? 100? 10?
Is the unedited audio online?
If not, why?
Al Dykes
El Kabong <bayin...@mypacks.net> wrote:
>
>+
>"Stutterin' John McKook" <vie...@jail.net> wrote in message
>news:gdjrk.18919$mh5....@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
>>
>> Hmmmmmmm....... Ya think a coupla planes crashing into the buildings had
>somethin' ta so with it?
>>
>>
>Twin Towers' Designers Anticipated Jet Impacts Like September 11th's
>Structural engineers who designed the Twin Towers carried out studies in the
>mid-1960s to determine how the buildings would fare if hit by large
>jetliners. In all cases the studies concluded that the Towers would survive
>the impacts and fires caused by the jetliners.
>
>Evidence of these studies includes interviews with and papers and press
>releases issued by engineers who designed and oversaw construction of the
>World Trade Center.
>
>1960s-era Jetliners Compared to Boeing 767s
>Contrary to widely promoted misconceptions, the Boeing 767-200s used on
>9/11/01 were only slightly larger than 707s and DC 8s, the types of
The 1970s study didn't factor in the thousands of gallons of fuel and
the resulting sustaned fire.
The fire initiated by that fuel made the difference. Fire was the
final cause of the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2.
The Half-Truth Movement" strikes out again with a cherry-picked, out
of context statement:
"Contrary to widely promoted misconceptions, the Boeing 767-200s
used on 9/11/01 were only slightly larger than 707s and DC 8s,
the types of"
While true, the complete statement would note that it *was* bigger and
on 9/11 the planes were going several times faster than the 1960
study and the net effect was that in 2001, the planes had about 5
times the impact energy of that envisioned in the 60s study.
And fire, not impact, caused the towers to collapse, anyway.
Al Dykes
animal02 <wher...@tuesday.com> wrote:
>El Kabong wrote:
>> AE911Truth Press Conference
>> Thursday 8/21/08 9am PDT / 12pm EDT
>> Critical Response to NIST Final Report
>> on the Mysterious Collapse of WTC Building 7
>> Join the 430 Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth for an important live
>> (audio) Press Conference.
>
>Actually, only 68 = / - architects about 100 engineers but once you
>weed out the none structural / civil ones you might have 40-50
>Free hint to the clueless - only licensed individuals are entitled to
>call themselves architects and engineers.
None of the 40-50 people in AE911 with relevant credentials will speak
in public to state their reasoning and to discuss relevant questions
from other people with relevant credentials.
Why should I believe these 40-50 people if they hide behind web sites
and YouTube videos.
And to have the title "architect" doesn't require any structural
engineering expertise. On large projects, the detailed engineering
analysis gets handed over to structural engineers.
Richard Gage has no relevant expertise on his resume to support his
claims.
Al Dykes
I want to ask one of these k00ks, face-to-face, how the CGI people
added the roar of the jets that attracted attention the length of
Manhattan Island.
None of the single-digit number of people that invent these claims
will speak in public and address polite questions from relevant
experts. Everyone else in "Half Truth Movement" is just a parrot.
Heywood Jablowmi
"Orson Wells as CitizenCain" <noe...@here.invalidd> wrote in message
news:79b18$48ae4bc5$a6666805$84...@ALLTEL.NET...
Actually at the time of the planes crashing into the trade centers it was
explained that it was the
fire from the jet fuel and not the planes crashing into the buildings
that brought the towers
down. The heat generated from the fire weakend the supports, that were
not properly insulated
and caused them to give and the floors to pancake.
The building itself could have taken the planes crahing into the
building, and they did as they
did not topple till the fire from the fuel weakend the floor supports.
It was explained over
and over for months after the incident.
Lord Gow333, Conservative Fullback!
"Orson Wells as CitizenCain" <noe...@here.invalidd> wrote in message
news:79b18$48ae4bc5$a6666805$84...@ALLTEL.NET...
>
Same studio that did the moon landing as I recall...
LG
--
"To oppose everything while proposing nothing is irresponsible." - George
W.Bush
Iarnrod
Tens of thousands of tons of free-falling steel girders and flaming
debris from WTC1 crashed into WTC7.
You should know *this,* dude, it's common knowledge.
Freedom Fighter
news:MPG.2317cf4db...@news.optonline.net...
You want scientific facts? Here you go - you asked for them:
SIMPLE PHYSICS EXPOSES THE BIG 9/11 LIE -
GOVERNMENT BUILDING COLLAPSE
EXPLANATION FAILS REALITY CHECK
On September 11, 2001, the world watched in horror as the World Trade Center
(WTC) Twin Towers collapsed, killing thousands of innocent people. Videos of
the collapses were replayed ad nauseam on TV for days. About 5 hours after
the towers fell, WTC building 7 also collapsed suddenly, completely, and
straight down at near free-fall speed. This steel-framed building was not
touched by the planes that struck the towers, and had sustained relatively
minor debris damage and small fires. Nearby buildings far more heavily
damaged remained standing.
In June 2005, in an apparent response to an article by Morgan Reynolds,
former CIA Director and current Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated,
"The American people know what they saw with their own eyes on September 11,
2001. To suggest any kind of government conspiracy in the events of that day
goes beyond the pale."
We will prove here, with scientific rigor, that it's the government's tale
that's "beyond the pale"!
Did most of the American people really understand the unprecedented
phenomena they had witnessed? Could a lack of knowledge of physics, and the
emotional shock of this mass-murderous "terrorist attack" have stymied
objective thinking and led to the blind acceptance of authoritarian
assertions?
The government and the media TOLD US what we saw. The government told us
that we had witnessed a "gravitational" collapse; what is now referred to as
a "pancake collapse". According to the government claims, the plane crashes
and subsequent kerosene (like lamp oil - jet fuel is NOT exotic) fires
heated the UL-certified structural steel to the point where it was
significantly weakened, which is very difficult to believe, never mind
repeat in an experiment. Even with massive fires that incinerate everything
else, the steel frames of such buildings generally remain standing.
According to the "pancake theory", this purported (all physical evidence was
quickly and illegally destroyed) weakening supposedly caused part of the
tower to collapse downward onto the rest of the tower, which, we've been
repeatedly told, somehow resulted in a chain reaction of the lower floors
sequentially, one at a time, yielding to the weight falling from above.
There are some problems with that theory - it does not fit the observed
facts:
* It cannot account for the total failure of the immense vertical steel core
columns - as if they were there one moment and gone the next.
* The collapse times were near free-fall, far too rapid to be due to gravity
alone. This article focuses on the latter of these two discrepancies.
Those that concocted the "pancake theory" made a fatal error - they didn't
check their story against the inviolate laws of physics! This is easy to do,
even without any physical evidence to examine. We can test that incredible
pancake tale using basic high-school physics. Let's do that - use a simple,
unassailable, incontrovertible conservation-of-energy analysis to perform a
reality check that establishes once and for all that the government, and
such government story backers as PBS, Popular Mechanics, and Scientific
American have falsified the true nature of the 9/11 disaster.
How Gravity Acts:
Sir Isaac Newton noticed that apples fell from trees. Others had also
noticed this, but none had ever devised a theory of gravity from the
observation. Over the years, mankind has learned that the force of gravity
at and near Earth's surface produces an acceleration of known constant
magnitude. That doesn't mean we know HOW it works, or WHY, but we have
become able to predict its effects with a high degree of precision and
certainty - gravity has always had the same, predictable, effect.
Galileo Galilei used the leaning tower of Pisa to demonstrate that a large
ball and a small one (of lesser mass) fell (accelerated downward) at the
same rate. Prior to Galileo, people had just assumed that heavier objects
fall faster, much the way they had assumed the Earth was flat.
So while an object of greater mass will exert more force (its weight) upon
anything supporting it against gravity's pull, it does not experience any
greater acceleration when gravity's pull is not opposed - when it is
falling. Earth's gravity at and near the surface of the planet can only
accelerate objects downward at one known, constant rate: 32 feet per second
for each second of free fall. As Galileo demonstrated centuries ago, heavier
objects are not accelerated any quicker than are lighter objects.
So Earth's gravity produces a downward acceleration of 32 feet per second
per second. This means that an object, after falling one second, will be
falling at a speed of 32 ft/sec. After the 2nd second, it will be falling at
64 ft/sec. After the 3rd second, it will be falling at 96 ft/sec., and so
on.
Further, since gravity's acceleration is constant, and an object is falling
at 32 ft/sec after one second has elapsed, we know that it has averaged 16
ft/sec for the entire distance. Thus after one second, the object has fallen
16 feet.
Scientists have derived simple free-fall equations that can be used to
harness this knowledge mathematically. These equations can be found in any
high-school physics book:
* Falling velocity = acceleration of gravity x time. (V = G x T)
And
* Distance fallen = 1/2 x acceleration of gravity x time squared. (D = 1/2
x G x T x T)
So if we want to know how far an object has free-fallen after 3 seconds:
Distance = 1/2 x 32 x 9 = 144 feet
So after 3 seconds in Earth's gravity, an object will have fallen 144 feet
and will be falling at 96 ft/sec.
Checking Our Work:
We've just solved a simple physics problem. Now let's check our work, using
conservation of energy.
We know that energy can neither be created nor destroyed - it merely changes
form. If we take the potential (in this case chemical, molecular) energy in
a barrel of oil and burn it, it changes to heat energy. When we burn
gasoline in our car's engine, we get kinetic (motional) energy, plus some
heat, as an engine is not 100% efficient. When we use our car's brakes to
bleed off some of that kinetic energy (slow down), that energy is converted
into heat (the brakes get hot). Explosives convert potential energy
[molecular or atomic] to kinetic energy (explosive force) quickly enough to
shatter or even pulverize concrete.
In the case of the free-falling object, the two kinds of energy we are
concerned with are kinetic energy and potential energy. Examples of
potential (gravitational) energy are the energy available from water stored
up high in a water tower, or a boulder perched atop a hill. If whatever is
holding it up there is removed, it will fall under the influence of
gravity's pull. As it accelerates downward, the potential energy is
converted to the kinetic energy of the object's motion.
So, as an object falls, it changes its potential energy into kinetic energy.
The equation for potential energy is:
* Potential Energy = Mass (or weight) x Gravity x Height. (PE = M x G x H)
The equation for kinetic energy is:
* Kinetic Energy = 1/2 x Mass x Velocity squared. (KE = 1/2 x M x V x V)
So let's just say, for the sake of simplicity, that our falling object has a
mass of 1. (Remember, the object's mass will affect its energy, and its
momentum, but not its rate of free-fall.)
The potential energy given up by falling 3 seconds (144 ft) is: 1 x 32 x 144
= 4608
The kinetic energy gained after falling 3 secs is 1/2 x 1 x 96 squared = 1/2
x 9216 = 4608
So, the available potential energy was converted into kinetic energy. Seeing
that energy was, in fact, conserved is how we know that the answer in the
simple case above was correct. We've checked our work, using an independent
analysis, based upon the sound physical principle of conservation of energy.
Now, and only now, we can be certain that our answer was correct.
One Little Complication - the effect of air resistance:
The free-fall equations above reflect a perfect, frictionless world. They
perfectly predict the behavior of falling bodies in a vacuum. In fact, you
may have seen a science class demonstration in which the air is pumped out
of a tube and then a feather will fall, in that vacuum, just as fast as will
a solid metal ball.
That's how parachutes work: much of the falling object's potential energy
gets expended doing the work of pushing a lot of air out of the way in order
for the object to fall. As a result, not all of the gravitational potential
energy can go towards accelerating the object downward at gravity's rate of
32 ft/sec/sec.
In other words, only when there is zero frictional resistance can any
falling object's potential energy be completely converted into kinetic
energy. Anything that resists a falling object's downward velocity reduces
its acceleration from the maximum gravitational acceleration of 32 feet per
second per second, as some of gravity's potential energy is consumed in
overcoming frictional resistance.
This explains the phenomena of "terminal velocity". The free-fall equations
predict that a falling object's velocity will continue to increase without
limit. But in air, once a falling object reaches a certain speed, its
propensity to fall will be matched by the air's resistance to the fall. At
that point the object will continue to fall, but its speed will no longer
increase over time. Another way of looking at it is this: gravity's
incessant force produces a downward acceleration, but friction with the air
creates an upward force and thus an upward acceleration. When falling at
terminal velocity, the acceleration downward equals the acceleration upward,
they cancel each other out, and a constant downward velocity is maintained.
Thus the parachute, with its high air friction resistance, allows the person
attached to it to float to earth unharmed.
A Quick Recap:
Earth's gravity causes objects to fall, and they fall according to precise
physical equations. The equations assume no air or other resistance. Any
resistance at all will cause the object to fall less rapidly than it would
without that resistance. If a falling object is affected by air resistance
it falls slower than it would if free-falling, and it will take longer to
fall a given distance.
Free-fall From WTC Building Heights:
The towers were 1350 and 1360 feet tall; average = 1355 feet. Let's start by
using our free-fall equation to see how long it should take an object to
free-fall from the towers' height.
Distance = 1/2 x Gravity x Time squared. (D = 1/2 x G x T x T)
With a little basic algebra, we solve the equation for the fall time, T:
2 x Distance = Gravity x Time(squared) (2 x D = G x T x T)
Time squared = (2 x Distance) / Gravity (T x T = 2 x D / G)
Time squared = 2 x 1355 / 32 = 84.7 (T = square root of (2 x D / G))
Time = 9.2
So our equation tells us that it takes 9.2 seconds to free-fall to the
ground from the height of the WTC towers.
Using our simpler equation, V = G x T, we can see that at 9.2 seconds, the
free-falling object's velocity must be about 295 ft/sec, which is just over
200 mph.
But that can only occur IN A VACUUM.
Since the WTC was in Earth's atmosphere at sea level, you might be able to
imagine how much air resistance that represents. Think about putting your
arm out the window of a car moving even half that fast! Most free-falling
objects reach their terminal velocity long before they reach 200 mph. For
example, the terminal velocity of a free-falling human body is around 120
mph. The terminal velocity of a free-falling cat is around 60 mph.
Therefore, it is clear that air resistance alone will make it take longer
than 9.2 seconds for anything falling from the towers' height to reach the
ground.
Observations from 9/11:
On page 305 of the 9/11 Commission Report, we are told, in the government's
"complete and final report" on 9/11, that the South Tower collapsed in 10
seconds. Here is the exact quote:
"At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds". That's the
government's official number. With all the videos that show it, they could
not lie about this.
But as we've determined above, the FREE-FALL TIME IN A VACUUM is 9.2
seconds, and 10 seconds is an exceptionally short fall time through the air.
This "collapse" was not without far more physical resistance than from the
air alone. It proceeded through all the lower stories of the tower. Those
undamaged floors below the plane impact zone offered resistance thousands of
times greater than that of air. Those lower stories, and the central steel
core columns, had successfully supported the mass of the tower for 30 years
despite hurricane-force winds and tremors. Air cannot do that.
Can anyone possibly imagine undamaged lower floors getting out of the way of
the upper floors as gracefully and relatively frictionlessly as air would?
Can anyone possibly imagine the lower stories slowing the fall of the upper
floors less than would, say, a parachute?
It is beyond the scope of the simple but uncontested physics here to tell
you how long such a collapse should have taken. Would it have taken a
minute? Ten minutes? Hard to say, but certainly it would take far more than
10 seconds!
What is certain, beyond any shadow of a doubt, is that the towers could not
have collapsed gravitationally, through their intact lower stories, as
rapidly as was observed on 9/11. Not even close. This is shown above to be
physically impossible!
Not only was tremendous energy expended in causing the observed massive
high-speed sideways debris ejections, but virtually all the concrete and
glass of the tower was pulverized - actually dissociated is a better word.
Never mind what happened to all the supporting steel core columns! The
energy requirements to do anything like that, alone, rival the total amount
of potential energy that the entire tower had to give. Gravity alone is
sufficient to cause some things to fall that far, even through air, in close
to the observed 10 second collapse time. But that is without the huge
expenditure of energy necessary to pulverize all of that concrete and glass,
eject debris, plus cause the steel core columns to effectively disappear.
The gravitational potential energy present was certainly not enough to have
done all these things at once.
Energy can neither be created nor destroyed; it only changes form. So WHERE
DID ALL THAT ADDITIONAL DESTRUCTIVE ENERGY COME FROM?
Conclusions:
In order for the towers to have collapsed "gravitationally" in the observed
duration, as we've been told over and over again, one or more of the
following zany-sounding conditions must have been met:
* The undamaged structure below the impact zone offered zero resistance to
the collapse.
* The glass and concrete spontaneously disintegrated without any expenditure
of energy.
* The massive vertical steel core columns simply vanished, as if by magic.
* On 9/11 alone, in that location alone, gravity was much stronger than
gravity.
* On 9/11 alone, in that location alone, energy was not conserved.
None of these laws-of-physics-violating, and thus impossible, conditions can
be accounted for by the official government theory of 9/11, nor by any of
the subsequent analyses and arguments designed to prop up this official myth
of 9/11.
The Bottom Line:
The government explanations for the WTC collapses fail the most basic
conservation-of-energy reality check. Therefore the government theory is
FALSE; it does not fit the observed facts, and the notion of a "pancake
collapse" cannot account for what happened. The "pancake collapse"
explanation is impossible, and thus absurd. It is A LIE.
It is utterly impossible for a gravitational collapse to proceed so
destructively through a path of such great resistance in anywhere near
free-fall time. This fact debunks the preposterous contention that the WTC
collapses can be blamed solely upon damage resulting from the plane impacts.
The unnaturally short durations of the top-down collapses reveal that the
towers did not disintegrate because they were coming down, but rather they
came down because something else was causing them to disintegrate.
So, to the extent that people accept the ridiculous "pancake collapse"
story, former CIA Director and current Secretary of Defense Gates' other
premise, that people know what they saw, is also false. It is left to you to
decide if his conclusion, which was based upon clearly incorrect
presumptions, is also flawed.
The collapse of WTC building 7, which was NOT hit by any plane, and which
also collapsed within a second of free-fall time later that same day,
similarly fails the conservation-of-energy analysis. The 9/11 Commission
made no attempt to explain it.
Just how and why so many highly-accredited and credentialed people all so
miserably failed to check the "pancake collapse" theory, by giving it this
basic physics reality check, is beyond the scope of this analysis.
---------------------------------
FURTHER IRREFUTABLE PROOF BY PHYSICS OF THE 9/11 INSIDE JOB:
http://vehme.blogspot.com/2007/12/glaring-proof-of-something-hotter-than.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck's_law_of_black_body_radiation
Freedom Fighter
news:0f6bc302-6f52-4918...@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Harry K
----------
Ad-hominem attack is the refuge of unintelligent and immature people
incapable of disproving a valid assertion with facts or logic, so in
frustration they resort to childish name-calling.
Welcome to my killfile, Harry!
Oh by the way - here are some scientific facts for you, if you are capable
of comprehending them:
clouddreamer
First paragraph and you're already full of it. WTC 7 was badly damaged
by debris from the falling towers. A gouge was taken out of the side of
it...some 20 stories or more (there are pics out there for those that
WANT to see them) and the fires were not small.
And it didn't fall altogether, straight down. One side of the building
collapsed before the other, taking that side with it as it went. There
are pictures of that too, but we all know how much you hate looking at
proof.
<remainder of the non-peer reviewed crap deleted>
Al Dykes
The coward still won't post this wehre anyone with relevent expertise
can comment on it.
Clay
...
> "harry k" <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
No one is calling names, kook.
I'm just calling them as I see them, kook.
You must be loved at summer barbeques... with all of that aluminum and
all.
Too fucking funny.
-C-
Perkoffstation 3
Actually that is not common knowledge, it's just some conspiracy
bullshit that the conspiracy theroists believe in.
You should know this.
Lord Gow333, Conservative Fullback!
"Perkoffstation 3" <per...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ec547f11-ea0f-4161...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
You should know this.
~~~~
So that big pile of smoking debris WAS just a studio prop then?
LG
--
Failure is the opportunity to begin again more intelligently. - Henry Ford
Whoshaq
P-Dub
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcRs1fv8i3I
This proves nothing. That sound could've been pieces of building hitting
the ground.
The facts remain the same: 19 Muslim terrorists from Saudi Arabia got up
in the morning, read verses from the "Holy" Quran, commandeered planes,
and commenced to murder over 3000 people IN THE NAME OF ISLAM on
September 11, 2001. The victims were mostly Americans.
In Muslim countries - school children are taught today that September 11
was a Jewish conspiracy, and no Muslims were involved. There are some
morons here who believe pieces of this 'conspiracy' lie. It's important
to note that Osama Bin Laden has praised the Muslim terrorists
responsible for this mass murder - calling them 'martyrs'.
May they rot in hell.
God Bless America.
P-Dub
Iarnrod
Nope, it happened, It's on video. Its fact. Itr was seen live. The
damage was recorded and reported.
> You should know this.
What I know is what's true.
Al Dykes
P-Dub <pwol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Whoshaq wrote:
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcRs1fv8i3I
>
The explosion audio in the first bit of this video of yours is fake
and a fraud.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw&feature=related
Here's why I know that.
Here's the video it was clipped from.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5473538148606824512
1) That video credits Lucia Davis for it and says it was shot at
"Murray St." Below are several other videos that credit Davis and
show that she was shooting video around Church & Murray St on 9/11.
I know that part of Manhattan very well and was at that
intersection early on 9/11 in my morning commute.
Google maps will show you that Church & Murray is about 1,000 ft
from the closest WTC building.
Any explosion that loud at 1,000 ft or more from WTC would have been
heard and remembered by about a million people that were that close
and captured on countless video cams that were in operation at that
instant.
No such explosions were recorded.
2) An audio engineer acquaintance has shown that the audio track is in
mono except the explosion, which is in stereo.
It's been added by someone after the fact.
More Davis video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8455825628437824228
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5473538148606824512
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcRs1fv8i3I
http://youtube.com/watch?v=DpAHh-yT25Q&feature=related
http://www.hbo.com/docs/911/credits.html
Davis' IMDB entry
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0205059/
http://www.nordicom.gu.se/common/publ_pdf/32_117-126.pdf
-----------------------------------------------
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8455825628437824228
"Murray St
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5473538148606824512
17 second clip of firemen at a pay phone apparently reacting to an
explosion is shown to have "explsions" added to the sound track.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcRs1fv8i3I
As shown in tis video, athat clip was shot by Lucia Davis and it was
on Chambers St (I know the area) Chambers St. is about half a mile from WTC and
if teh blast was this large at Chambers, it would have broken eardrums
all over lower manhattan.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=DpAHh-yT25Q&feature=related
News camcorder mics are mono as general practice. There just isn't
any percentage in having a stereo mic as you'd tie-up two tape tracks
for production quality that would virtually never be used.
No, youtube doesn't change the audio settings (and couldn't make
stereo out of a mono signal). Listening to that clip, the
"explosion" is inconsistent with any of the other audio in that
clip. As presented, the whole clip's in mono but the "explosion" by
virtue of its presence and general sound quality is inconsistent
with any of the other sync audio. That's a polite way of saying the
"explosion" audio wasn't recorded by the microphone that was
recording the guys in the clip. That waves a big red flag of FAIL
insofar as this being an actual, unmodified clip from the day. This
is a clear fake and on the 'evidence' of this clip alone, it isn't
incumbent on anybody else to waste time digging for the original to
additionally prove otherwise.
Pyro cloud
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8455825628437824228
DAvis' IMDB entry
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0205059/
http://www.nordicom.gu.se/common/publ_pdf/32_117-126.pdf
http://www.hbo.com/docs/911/credits.html
007
> In article <48b060a2$0$26217$882e0...@news.ThunderNews.com>,
>
> P-Dub <pwolf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Whoshaq wrote:
> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcRs1fv8i3I
>
> The explosion audio in the first bit of this video of yours is fake
> and a fraud.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw&feature=related
>
> Here's why I know that.
>
> Here's the video it was clipped from.
>
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5473538148606824512
>
> 1) That video credits Lucia Davis for it and says it was shot at
> "Murray St." Below are several other videos that credit Davis and
> show that she was shooting video around Church & Murray St on 9/11.
That doesn't mean that this shot was near the corner of Church Street
and Murray Street. It might have been on Murray Street, but closer to
building 7.
> I know that part of Manhattan very well and was at that
> intersection early on 9/11 in my morning commute.
>
> Google maps will show you that Church & Murray is about 1,000 ft
> from the closest WTC building.
According to http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?country=US&city=manhattan&state=NY,
Murray Street is about 600 feet north of Vesey Street. And according
to the interactive map at http://www.amny.com/news/local/groundzero/,
the corner of Murray Street and Church Street is about as far away
from the corner of Church Street and Vesey Street as it was from the
northeast corner of building 7.
> Any explosion that loud at 1,000 ft or more from WTC would have been
> heard and remembered by about a million people that were that close
> and captured on countless video cams that were in operation at that
> instant.
That's very speculative. How do you know they weren't? How do you
know that none of the witnesses to explosions were describing this?
> No such explosions were recorded.
How do you know? What do you think the firefighters were reacting to
if it wasn't the sound that's in the video?
> 2) An audio engineer acquaintance has shown that the audio track is in
> mono except the explosion, which is in stereo.
>
> It's been added by someone after the fact.
That conclusion doesn't necessarily follow. Does "has shown" mean
that you've verified it or that you're taking his word for it? He
might be wrong. He might have lied. And for all I know, even ruling
those possibilities out, I don't know that one part of an audio track
being in stereo and another part being in mono means it has been
doctored. I recall old cassette tapes doing that. The "stereo" light
would flicker on and off.
> More Davis video:
>
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8455825628437824228
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5473538148606824512
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcRs1fv8i3I
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=DpAHh-yT25Q&feature=related
> http://www.hbo.com/docs/911/credits.html
>
> Davis' IMDB entry
> http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0205059/
>
> http://www.nordicom.gu.se/common/publ_pdf/32_117-126.pdf
>
> -----------------------------------------------
>
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8455825628437824228
>
> "Murray Sthttp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5473538148606824512
>
> 17 second clip of firemen at a pay phone apparently reacting to an
> explosion is shown to have "explsions" added to the sound track.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcRs1fv8i3I
>
> As shown in tis video, athat clip was shot by Lucia Davis and it was
> on Chambers St (I know the area) Chambers St. is about half a mile from WTC and
> if teh blast was this large at Chambers, it would have broken eardrums
> all over lower manhattan.
You wrote above that it was shot on Murray Street. According to
http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?country=US&city=manhattan&state=NY,
Chambers Street is about 400 feet north of Murray Street.
I like your estimate of 1000 feet a lot better than your estimate of ½
mile. But 600 feet looks even better and even smaller estimates can't
be ruled out. The sound in this video seems a lot closer than 600
feet away from them and I'd agree with you that if it were ½ mile
away, it might have broken the eardrums of those who were a lot
closer, but, besides your belief that it was doctored, how do you know
that it was further than 600 feet away? And how do you know that it
even came from a building at the World Trade Center, anyway?
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=DpAHh-yT25Q&feature=related
>
> News camcorder mics are mono as general practice. There just isn't
> any percentage in having a stereo mic as you'd tie-up two tape tracks
> for production quality that would virtually never be used.
>
> No, youtube doesn't change the audio settings (and couldn't make
> stereo out of a mono signal). Listening to that clip, the
> "explosion" is inconsistent with any of the other audio in that
> clip. As presented, the whole clip's in mono but the "explosion" by
> virtue of its presence and general sound quality is inconsistent
> with any of the other sync audio. That's a polite way of saying the
> "explosion" audio wasn't recorded by the microphone that was
> recording the guys in the clip. That waves a big red flag of FAIL
> insofar as this being an actual, unmodified clip from the day. This
> is a clear fake and on the 'evidence' of this clip alone, it isn't
> incumbent on anybody else to waste time digging for the original to
> additionally prove otherwise.
>
> Pyro cloudhttp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8455825628437824228
Orson Wells as CitizenCain
"Al Dykes" <ady...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:g8mcm3$o9g$1...@panix5.panix.com...
> In article <79b18$48ae4bc5$a6666805$84...@ALLTEL.NET>,
> Orson Wells as CitizenCain <noe...@here.invalidd> wrote:
>>
>>"Stutterin' John McKook" <vie...@jail.net> wrote in message
>>news:gdjrk.18919$mh5....@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>>
>>> "Clay" <clays...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:5a02c137-3ea3-4b0a...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>
>>> Hmmmmmmm....... Ya think a coupla planes crashing into the buildings
>>> had
>>> somethin' ta so with it?
>>>
>>
>>Nah. Those were special effects. Miniatures and CGI.
>
>
> I want to ask one of these k00ks, face-to-face, how the CGI people
> added the roar of the jets that attracted attention the length of
> Manhattan Island.
George Lucas did it.
>
> None of the single-digit number of people that invent these claims
> will speak in public and address polite questions from relevant
> experts. Everyone else in "Half Truth Movement" is just a parrot.
>
Dude, it was CGI. Didn't you see Neo waving to everyone from Seat 3, Row 11?
Orson Wells as CitizenCain
"Heywood Jablowmi" <hsqu...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:48aed173$0$7358$607e...@cv.net...
Doesn't explain why they found the bodies of those three firemen and the
little boy underneath the rubble...
>
Orson Wells as CitizenCain
"Lord Gow333, Conservative Fullback!" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Bt-dnTSUqIXKdzPV...@posted.localnet...
>
> "Orson Wells as CitizenCain" <noe...@here.invalidd> wrote in message
> news:79b18$48ae4bc5$a6666805$84...@ALLTEL.NET...
>>
>> "Stutterin' John McKook" <vie...@jail.net> wrote in message
>> news:gdjrk.18919$mh5....@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>>
>>> "Clay" <clays...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:5a02c137-3ea3-4b0a...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>
>>> Hmmmmmmm....... Ya think a coupla planes crashing into the buildings
>>> had somethin' ta so with it?
>>>
>>
>> Nah. Those were special effects. Miniatures and CGI.
>
> Same studio that did the moon landing as I recall...
Paramount, of course.
charles bash
Al Dykes
007 <0...@embarqmail.com> wrote:
>On Aug 23, 1:56=A0pm, ady...@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote:
>> In article <48b060a2$0$26217$882e0...@news.ThunderNews.com>,
>>
>>
>> The explosion audio in the first bit of this video of yours is fake
>> and a fraud.
>>
>>
>> Here's why I know that.
>>
>> Here's the video it was clipped from.
>>
>>
>> 1) That video credits Lucia Davis for it and says it was shot at
>> =A0 =A0show that she was shooting video around Church & Murray St on 9/11=
>.
>
>That doesn't mean that this shot was near the corner of Church Street
>and Murray Street. It might have been on Murray Street, but closer to
>building 7.
>
>> =A0 =A0intersection early on 9/11 in my morning commute.
>>
>> =A0 =A0Google maps will show you that Church & Murray is about 1,000 ft
>> =A0 =A0from the closest WTC building.
>
>According to http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?country=3DUS&city=3Dmanha=
>ttan&state=3DNY,
>Murray Street is about 600 feet north of Vesey Street. And according
>to the interactive map at http://www.amny.com/news/local/groundzero/,
>the corner of Murray Street and Church Street is about as far away
>from the corner of Church Street and Vesey Street as it was from the
>northeast corner of building 7.
>
>en
>> =A0 =A0heard and remembered by about a million people that were that clos=
>e
>> =A0 =A0and captured on countless video cams that were in operation at tha=
>t
>> =A0 =A0instant.
>
>That's very speculative. How do you know they weren't? How do you
>know that none of the witnesses to explosions were describing this?
>
POINT A
100s of thousands of people watched the towers collapse from points
close enough to hear an explosion if it was as loud as that "Church
and Murray" video would have us believe. All New Yorkers know many
people that witnesses the collapse, many from moments after the first
impact. Any explosion that loud would have been reported on and
widely discussed. It wasn't. I know many people that were below
Canal St on 9/11. All New Yorkers do. We all know people that ware IN
a WTC tower on 9/11.
If you believe the k00k videos, "9/11 Eyewitness" by James Brewster
and "9/11 Mysteries" by Sophia Shafquat, these explosions were audible
from the Jersey shore, a couple miles away. That radius would put
millions of people within listening range of any explosions. There is
no other report of "explosions" consistent with a collapse of a WTC
tower.
(Rick Siegel, The original film maker testifies that the audio is a
fraud [See below]. We know he speaks the truth because the sounds on
the k00k videos isn't delayed by 5 seconds/mile. )
I'm a New Yorker that was in Manhattan on 9/11. I saw parts of what we
call "9/11".
I know when the "Half Truth Movement" speaks of things I saw, they get
it wrong, sometimes hilariously so. The "Truth Movement" events in NYC
have essentially zero attendance, the place with the highest
concentration of witnesses to the events of WTC.
I live in the suburb to Manhattan that has, I'm informed, the highest
concentration of dead firemen, 9/11 First Responders and families of
victims of 9/11, anywhere. To say that these people find the claims
of the "Truth Movement" silly is an understement.
POINT B
There is no same-day reporting of anything consistent with man-made
demolition. All the archives for the media coverage of WTC are
online. I know there is nothing because I read those papers and
watched the local TV news on 9/11 and afterwards.
POINT C;
Because the video archives of hundreds of hours of WTC video have
nothing consistent with a man-made demolition. collapse.
There are hundreds of hours of video of WTC "in the can". These are
public archives that are the source of the stuff that the "Half Truth
Movement" cherry-picks from.
Here are three.
The Internet Archive
http://www.archive.org/details/sept_11_tv_archive
Video Archive:
http://www.cameraplanet.com/
...images, captured largely by amateurs, are moments from more
than 500 hours of videos and films, the largest collection of raw
visual data from what historians say is the best-documented
catastrophe in history. About 1,700 clips from the collection have
attracted more than a million hits in the three months since they
were put on Google Video.
POINT D; Sources:
My own eye and ears and the eyes and eyes of the people I know that
were in WTC buildings on 9/11 and on "the pile" for weeks, afterwards.
Book: _Nine Months at Ground Zero_ By Stout, Vitchers, & Gray
Book: _A nation challenged : a visual history of 9/11 and its aftermath_ By Callaway
Book: _Watching The world change; The Stories behind the images of 9/11_ By David Friend
Book: _102 Minutes_ by Dwyer & Flynn
Transcripts of FDNY responders at WTC on 911
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/
20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html
http://preview.tinyurl.com/7e62l
XXXXXX VIDEO FAKERY XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Rick Siegel, the person that shot video of the WTC collapse
from Hoboken, 2 miles away, shows his original video and
compares it to the the versions used in two "Truth Movement"
conspiracy videos; "9/11 Eyewitness" by James Brewster and
"9/11 Mysteries" by Sophia Shafquat.
Siegel shows that the "explosions" heard on 9/11 Mysteries and
9/11 Eyewitness are, in fact, not on his the original tape.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jir7yWTroN8
Brewster & Shafquat claim the sounds are evidence of man-made
explosives at WTC. Someone manipulated the sound track to make
those noises.
Of the dozens of video tapes we have from WTC on 9/11, there are
no recordings that show explosions that sound like man-made
blasts and are loud enough and timed to be consistent with any
building collapse. The 1993 bombing, equal to 1,000 bounds of TNT
and loud enough to be heard throughout the WTC complex and for
blocks around, was not large enough to do any structural damage to
the WTC tower it was under.
WTC on 9/11 was probably the most-witnessed disaster in history.
For more information about all the imagery we have for it read the
book, "Watching The world change; The Stories behind the images
of 9/11" by David Friend
For more information about fact-based 9/11, go to
http://911mysteriesguide.com/
and
911myths.com
--------------------------------------------
Clay
illness medications <LOL>:
...
> BUILDING 7 was brought down by CIA operatives. The CIA placed crude
> sticks of dynamite in building 7 days BEFORE the 9/11 pre-planned USA
> gov't attacks.
>
> Few know this but the gov't required all 9/11 video to be 'cleared' by
> the CIA in the days AFTER 9/11. The CIA cleaned up the explosion
> noises. Building 7 obviously was an inside job because of the gravity
> factor.
>
> The Tri-Latteral commision, the CFR and Bilderburgers and met together
> on 9/8 to finalize the plans with the CIA on 9/11. GW Bush knew of the
> 9/11 plan just after taking office. BILL CLINTON started the 9/11
> plans in 1997. Few people know this but many thousands of documents
> show the planning stages of 9/11 by our own gov't.
>
> Open your eyes SHEEPLE!
KOO-KOO, KOO-KOO, KOO-KOO
-C-
Al Dykes
>> In article <48b060a2$0$26217$882e0...@news.ThunderNews.com>,
>>
>>
>> The explosion audio in the first bit of this video of yours is fake
>> and a fraud.
>>
>>
>> Here's why I know that.
>>
>> Here's the video it was clipped from.
>>
>>
>> 1) That video credits Lucia Davis for it and says it was shot at
>> =A0 =A0show that she was shooting video around Church & Murray St on 9/11=
>.
>
>That doesn't mean that this shot was near the corner of Church Street
>and Murray Street. It might have been on Murray Street, but closer to
>building 7.
>
>> =A0 =A0intersection early on 9/11 in my morning commute.
>>
>> =A0 =A0Google maps will show you that Church & Murray is about 1,000 ft
>> =A0 =A0from the closest WTC building.
>
>According to http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?country=3DUS&city=3Dmanha=
>ttan&state=3DNY,
>Murray Street is about 600 feet north of Vesey Street. And according
>to the interactive map at http://www.amny.com/news/local/groundzero/,
>the corner of Murray Street and Church Street is about as far away
>from the corner of Church Street and Vesey Street as it was from the
>northeast corner of building 7.
>
>en
>> =A0 =A0heard and remembered by about a million people that were that clos=
>e
>> =A0 =A0and captured on countless video cams that were in operation at tha=
>t
>> =A0 =A0instant.
>
>That's very speculative. How do you know they weren't? How do you
>know that none of the witnesses to explosions were describing this?
>
>
>How do you know? What do you think the firefighters were reacting to
>if it wasn't the sound that's in the video?
Fake or , whatever they heard wasn't part of a man-made demoliiton at
WTC. Tat video was shot by Lucia Davis and she is in the IMDb
database. I am workigng on getting in touch with her to see what she
says.
POINT A
100s of thousands of people watched the towers collapse from points
close enough to hear an explosion if it was as loud as that "Church
and Murray" video would have us believe. All New Yorkers know many
people that witnessed the collapse, many from moments after the first
POINT B
POINT C;
Here are three.
Video Archive:
http://www.cameraplanet.com/
POINT D; Sources:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/
20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html
http://preview.tinyurl.com/7e62l
XXXXXX VIDEO FAKERY XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jir7yWTroN8
WTC on 9/11 was probably the most-witnessed disaster in history.
For more information about all the imagery we have for it read the
book, "Watching The world change; The Stories behind the images
of 9/11" by David Friend
For more information about fact-based 9/11, go to
http://911mysteriesguide.com/
and
911myths.com
--------------------------------------------
Al Dykes
Americans want FREE Healthcare NOW <FreeHea...@NOW.gov> wrote:
>BUILDING 7 was brought down by CIA operatives. The CIA placed crude
>sticks of dynamite in building 7 days BEFORE the 9/11 pre-planned USA
>gov't attacks.
>
>Few know this but the gov't required all 9/11 video to be 'cleared' by
>the CIA in the days AFTER 9/11. The CIA cleaned up the explosion
>noises. Building 7 obviously was an inside job because of the gravity
>factor.
What a loon.
Millions of New Yorkers saw "real time" video of the events of 9/11
and then spoke to their friends who were eyewitnesses to the collapse
and even inside the towers prior to collapse. On the evening of 9/11
and afterwords, nobody said they heard anything that we know of.
We all know that the video, if not edited, tells the truth.
I was a witness to some of the events of 9/11 and I know that the
claims made by the "Half Truth Movement" are silly when they describe
things I saw. There is essentially no "Truth Movement" in NYC, where
most of the eyewitnesses are. New Yorkers know that the claims of the
"Truth Movement" are silly.
There is hundreds of hours of video "in the can" in the archives.
Anyone, including Twoofers is free to look for evidence in them. So
far, nobody has found any video consistent with man-made demolition.
That would be a few seconds of video with a very loud noise on the
sound track followed by the beginning of a collapse. The noise would
be loud enough to be recorded on more than one camera.
Book: _A nation challenged : a visual history of 9/11 and its aftermath_
By Callaway
Book: _Watching The world change; The Stories behind the images of 9/11
By David Friend
The Internet Archive
http://www.archive.org/details/sept_11_tv_archive
Video Archive:
http://www.cameraplanet.com/
...images, captured largely by amateurs, are moments from more
than 500 hours of videos and films, the largest collection of raw
visual data from what historians say is the best-documented
catastrophe in history. About 1,700 clips from the collection have
attracted more than a million hits in the three months since they
were put on Google Video.
Transcripts of NYFD responders at WTC on 911
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/
20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html
http://preview.tinyurl.com/7e62l
What We saw - WTC7 & fire
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5370762387415552903
http://wtcbpc.blogspot.com/index.html
Fire - 10:25
11 02
13 17
17 26
"The 9 - 11 Conspiracies - Fact or Fiction"
http://www.torrentbox.com/torrent_details?id=125450
http://www.torrentbox.com/torrent_details?id=125450
http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/02/ups-on-81st-floor-of-wtc2.html
"Inside 9/11: War on America"
First 2 hours
http://torrents.thepiratebay.org/3785698/Inside_9_11__War_on_America.3785698.TPB.torrent
Second 2 hours
http://www.torrentbox.com/torrent_details?id=126485
"On the Stress Analysis of Structures Subjected to Aircraft Impact Forces."
by Jorge Riera published in the journal Nuclear Engineering
and Design, Volume 8, (1968).
This would be about the time that the WTC designers were
thinking about essentially the same problem for an office
tower instead of a nuclear reactor.
By the way, Riera's calculations are for a Boeing 720
and a Boeing 707, ..... each travelling at 200 knots....
Al Dykes
>> In article <48b060a2$0$26217$882e0...@news.ThunderNews.com>,
>>
>>
>> The explosion audio in the first bit of this video of yours is fake
>> and a fraud.
>>
>>
>> Here's why I know that.
>>
>> Here's the video it was clipped from.
>>
>>
>> 1) That video credits Lucia Davis for it and says it was shot at
>> =A0 =A0show that she was shooting video around Church & Murray St on 9/11=
>.
>
>That doesn't mean that this shot was near the corner of Church Street
>and Murray Street. It might have been on Murray Street, but closer to
>building 7.
>
>> =A0 =A0intersection early on 9/11 in my morning commute.
>>
>> =A0 =A0Google maps will show you that Church & Murray is about 1,000 ft
>> =A0 =A0from the closest WTC building.
>
>According to http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?country=3DUS&city=3Dmanha=
>ttan&state=3DNY,
>Murray Street is about 600 feet north of Vesey Street. And according
>to the interactive map at http://www.amny.com/news/local/groundzero/,
>the corner of Murray Street and Church Street is about as far away
>from the corner of Church Street and Vesey Street as it was from the
>northeast corner of building 7.
>
>en
>> =A0 =A0heard and remembered by about a million people that were that clos=
>e
>> =A0 =A0and captured on countless video cams that were in operation at tha=
>t
>> =A0 =A0instant.
>
>That's very speculative. How do you know they weren't? How do you
>know that none of the witnesses to explosions were describing this?
>
POINT A
100s of thousands of people, maybe a million, watched the towers
collapse from points close enough to hear an explosion if it was as
loud as that "Church and Murray" video would have us believe. All New
Yorkers know many people that witnesses the collapse, many from
moments after the first impact. Any explosion that loud would have
been reported on and widely discussed. It wasn't. I know many people
that were below Canal St on 9/11. All New Yorkers do. We all know
people that ware IN a WTC tower on 9/11.
If you believe the k00k videos, "9/11 Eyewitness" by James Brewster
and "9/11 Mysteries" by Sophia Shafquat, these explosions were audible
from the Jersey shore, two miles away. That radius would put millions
of people within listening range of any explosions. There is no other
report of "explosions" consistent with a collapse of a WTC tower.
(Rick Siegel, The original film maker testifies that the audio is a
fraud [See below]. We know he speaks the truth because the sounds on
the k00k videos isn't delayed by 5 seconds/mile. )
I'm a New Yorker that was in Manhattan on 9/11. I saw parts of what we
call "9/11".
I know when the "Half Truth Movement" speaks of things I saw, they get
it wrong, sometimes hilariously so. The "Truth Movement" events in NYC
have essentially zero attendance, the place with the highest
concentration of witnesses to the events of WTC.
I live in the suburb to Manhattan that has, I'm informed, the highest
concentration of dead firemen, 9/11 First Responders and families of
victims of 9/11, anywhere. To say that these people find the claims
of the "Truth Movement" silly is an understement.
POINT B
There is no same-day reporting of anything consistent with man-made
demolition. All the archives for the media coverage of WTC are
online. I know there is nothing because I read those papers and
watched the local TV news on 9/11 and afterwards.
POINT C;
Because the video archives of hundreds of hours of WTC video have
nothing consistent with a man-made demolition.
There are hundreds of hours of video of WTC "in the can". These are
public archives that are the source of the stuff that the "Half Truth
Movement" cherry-picks from. Anyone can examine this material. Nobody
has found so much as a few seconds of video with a very loud noise
followed by the beginning of the collapse in the video. As described
in one of the books named below, there were many video cameras on
operation filming the WTC towers from all angles starting moments
after the first impact.
Here are three.
The Internet Archive
http://www.archive.org/details/sept_11_tv_archive
Video Archive:
http://www.cameraplanet.com/
...images, captured largely by amateurs, are moments from more
than 500 hours of videos and films, the largest collection of raw
visual data from what historians say is the best-documented
catastrophe in history. About 1,700 clips from the collection have
attracted more than a million hits in the three months since they
were put on Google Video.
POINT D; Sources:
My own eye and ears and the eyes and eyes of the people I know that
were in WTC buildings on 9/11 and on "the pile" for weeks, afterwards.
Book: _Nine Months at Ground Zero_ By Stout, Vitchers, & Gray
Book: _A nation challenged : a visual history of 9/11 and its aftermath_ By Callaway
Book: _Watching The world change; The Stories behind the images of 9/11_ By David Friend
Book: _102 Minutes_ by Dwyer & Flynn
Transcripts of FDNY responders at WTC on 911
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/
20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html
http://preview.tinyurl.com/7e62l
XXXXXX VIDEO FAKERY XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Rick Siegel, the person that shot video of the WTC collapse
from Hoboken, 2 miles away, shows his original video and
compares it to the the versions used in two "Truth Movement"
conspiracy videos; "9/11 Eyewitness" by James Brewster and
"9/11 Mysteries" by Sophia Shafquat.
Siegel shows that the "explosions" heard on 9/11 Mysteries and
9/11 Eyewitness are, in fact, not on his the original tape.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jir7yWTroN8
Brewster & Shafquat claim the sounds are evidence of man-made
explosives at WTC. Someone manipulated the sound track to make
those noises.
WTC on 9/11 was probably the most-witnessed disaster in history.
For more information about all the imagery we have for it read the
book, "Watching The world change; The Stories behind the images
of 9/11" by David Friend
For more information about fact-based 9/11, go to
http://911mysteriesguide.com/
and
911myths.com
--------------------------------------------
--
Al Dykes
Americans want FREE Healthcare NOW <FreeHea...@NOW.gov> wrote:
>BUILDING 7 was brought down by CIA operatives. The CIA placed crude
>sticks of dynamite in building 7 days BEFORE the 9/11 pre-planned USA
>gov't attacks.
>
>Few know this but the gov't required all 9/11 video to be 'cleared' by
>the CIA in the days AFTER 9/11. The CIA cleaned up the explosion
>noises. Building 7 obviously was an inside job because of the gravity
>factor.
>
This has nothing to do with all the evidence and engineering studies
tha show that no man-made demolition was involved with the collapse of
WTC1, 2, and 7.
What a loon.
The "truth Movement" has confused "asking questions" with making
unsubstantiated assertionsbased on false information phrased as
questions, and not listening to the polite responses and shouting
"Inside Job!" over a bullhorn, and selling books and DVDs to children.
To believe that something other than 4 hijacked airplanes caused all
the destruction on 9/11 is to look stupid and IMO, this is the real
purpose of the "Truth Movement", to make critics of the administration
look like idiots
Screw Bush and the Bush administration.
Screw the "Truth Movement".
Liars, all of them.
Al Dykes
>> In article <48b060a2$0$26217$882e0...@news.ThunderNews.com>,
>>
>>
>> The explosion audio in the first bit of this video of yours is fake
>> and a fraud.
>>
>>
>> Here's why I know that.
>>
>> Here's the video it was clipped from.
>>
>>
>> 1) That video credits Lucia Davis for it and says it was shot at
>> =A0 =A0show that she was shooting video around Church & Murray St on 9/11=
>.
>
>That doesn't mean that this shot was near the corner of Church Street
>and Murray Street. It might have been on Murray Street, but closer to
>building 7.
If you look at all the copies of this video, it seems that it was near
the intersection of Church & Murray and the film maker, Lucia Davis
was shooting other video near there. It is also consistent with what
the intersection looks like. It's part of my regular travels. If and
when I can contact her, I'll find out. That's what real investigators
do, investigate, something that seems to be absent from the "Half
Truth Movement".
POINT A
POINT B
POINT C;
Here are three.
Video Archive:
http://www.cameraplanet.com/
POINT D; Sources:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/
20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html
http://preview.tinyurl.com/7e62l
XXXXXX VIDEO FAKERY XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jir7yWTroN8
--------------------------------------------
--
Al Dykes
>> In article <48b060a2$0$26217$882e0...@news.ThunderNews.com>,
>>
>>
>> The explosion audio in the first bit of this video of yours is fake
>> and a fraud.
>>
>>
>> Here's why I know that.
>>
>> Here's the video it was clipped from.
>>
>>
>> 1) That video credits Lucia Davis for it and says it was shot at
>> =A0 =A0show that she was shooting video around Church & Murray St on 9/11=
>.
>
>That doesn't mean that this shot was near the corner of Church Street
>and Murray Street. It might have been on Murray Street, but closer to
>building 7.
>
>> =A0 =A0intersection early on 9/11 in my morning commute.
>>
>> =A0 =A0Google maps will show you that Church & Murray is about 1,000 ft
>> =A0 =A0from the closest WTC building.
>
>According to http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?country=3DUS&city=3Dmanha=
>ttan&state=3DNY,
>Murray Street is about 600 feet north of Vesey Street. And according
>to the interactive map at http://www.amny.com/news/local/groundzero/,
>the corner of Murray Street and Church Street is about as far away
>from the corner of Church Street and Vesey Street as it was from the
>northeast corner of building 7.
>
>en
>> =A0 =A0heard and remembered by about a million people that were that clos=
>e
>> =A0 =A0and captured on countless video cams that were in operation at tha=
>t
>> =A0 =A0instant.
>
>That's very speculative. How do you know they weren't? How do you
>know that none of the witnesses to explosions were describing this?
>
POINT A
POINT B
POINT C;
Here are three.
Video Archive:
http://www.cameraplanet.com/
POINT D; Sources:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/
20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html
http://preview.tinyurl.com/7e62l
XXXXXX VIDEO FAKERY XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jir7yWTroN8
--------------------------------------------
--
Al Dykes
Whoshaq <who...@aol.com> wrote:
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcRs1fv8i3I
You have yet to provide the name of someone that says they heard an
explosion consistent with man-made demolition.
You have yet to provide the URL for a few seconds of video that is
consistent with man-made demolition.
That would be a video with a loud noiseon teh sound track abd video of
something that establishes the time and that the time immediately
precedes the onset of collapseof one of the towers,
You have yet to provide a single instance of a silent demolition video
you claim exists.
Al Dykes
>> In article <48b060a2$0$26217$882e0...@news.ThunderNews.com>,
>>
>>
>> The explosion audio in the first bit of this video of yours is fake
>> and a fraud.
>>
>>
>> Here's why I know that.
>>
>> Here's the video it was clipped from.
>>
>>
>> 1) That video credits Lucia Davis for it and says it was shot at
>> =A0 =A0show that she was shooting video around Church & Murray St on 9/11=
>.
>
>That doesn't mean that this shot was near the corner of Church Street
>and Murray Street. It might have been on Murray Street, but closer to
>building 7.
>
>> =A0 =A0intersection early on 9/11 in my morning commute.
>>
>> =A0 =A0Google maps will show you that Church & Murray is about 1,000 ft
>> =A0 =A0from the closest WTC building.
>
>According to http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?country=3DUS&city=3Dmanha=
>ttan&state=3DNY,
>Murray Street is about 600 feet north of Vesey Street. And according
>to the interactive map at http://www.amny.com/news/local/groundzero/,
>the corner of Murray Street and Church Street is about as far away
>from the corner of Church Street and Vesey Street as it was from the
>northeast corner of building 7.
>
>en
>> =A0 =A0heard and remembered by about a million people that were that clos=
>e
>> =A0 =A0and captured on countless video cams that were in operation at tha=
>t
>> =A0 =A0instant.
>
>That's very speculative. How do you know they weren't? How do you
>know that none of the witnesses to explosions were describing this?
Your use of the word, "speculative" would be closest to definition 4.
Speculation .noun
1. the contemplation or consideration of some subject: to engage in
speculation on humanity's ultimate destiny.
2. a single instance or process of consideration.
3. a conclusion or opinion reached by such contemplation: These
speculations are impossible to verify.
4. conjectural consideration of a matter; conjecture or surmise: a
report based on speculation rather than facts.
5. engagement in business transactions involving considerable risk
but offering the chance of large gains, esp. trading
in commodities, stocks, etc., in the hope of profit
from changes in the market price.
6. a speculative commercial venture or undertaking.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=Speculation
My points, below are not baed on "conjectural consideration of a
matter; conjecture or surmise: a report based on speculation rather
than fact."
My points are based on actual evidence and the actual experience of
all the people within a couple miles of WTC on 9/11.
POINT A
POINT B
POINT C;
Here are three.
Video Archive:
http://www.cameraplanet.com/
POINT D; Sources:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/
20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html
http://preview.tinyurl.com/7e62l
XXXXXX VIDEO FAKERY XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jir7yWTroN8
--------------------------------------------
BDK
FreeHea...@NOW.gov says...
> BUILDING 7 was brought down by CIA operatives. The CIA placed crude
> sticks of dynamite in building 7 days BEFORE the 9/11 pre-planned USA
> gov't attacks.
>
> Few know this but the gov't required all 9/11 video to be 'cleared' by
> the CIA in the days AFTER 9/11. The CIA cleaned up the explosion
> noises. Building 7 obviously was an inside job because of the gravity
> factor.
>
> on 9/8 to finalize the plans with the CIA on 9/11. GW Bush knew of the
> 9/11 plan just after taking office. BILL CLINTON started the 9/11
> plans in 1997. Few people know this but many thousands of documents
> show the planning stages of 9/11 by our own gov't.
>
> Open your eyes SHEEPLE!
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAA! I think it's time you open your pill bottle and go back
on the meds..or are they part of a vast CIA conspiracy too?
--
BDK
BDK Klan leader?
kOOk Magnet!
NJJ CLUB #1
Shillmaster
007
>From: ady...@panix.com (Al Dykes)
>If you believe the k00k videos, "9/11 Eyewitness" by James Brewster
>and "9/11 Mysteries" by Sophia Shafquat, these explosions were audible
>from the Jersey shore, two miles away. That radius would put millions
>of people within listening range of any explosions. There is no other
>report of "explosions" consistent with a collapse of a WTC tower.
I'm noticing a pattern here. With each different video that shows a
loud explosion, you comment that no other video caught it, so it must
have been faked. How do you know that no other video caught it? You
respond to the many reports of witnesses to explosions, including just
before the buildings collapsed, by just saying that they weren't
consistent with a controlled demolition without saying why. How do
you know they weren't? How do you know what an explosion which would
have been designed to sound as unlike a controlled demolition
explosive as possible might sound like?
>(Rick Siegel, The original film maker testifies that the audio is a
>fraud [See below]. We know he speaks the truth because the sounds on
>the k00k videos isn't delayed by 5 seconds/mile. )
What is your source for him saying that the audio in "9/11 Eyewitness"
is a fraud? And only part of the audio in "9/11 Mysteries" is
"fraudulent."
>XXXXXX VIDEO FAKERY XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
>
>
>Rick Siegel, the person that shot video of the WTC collapse
>from Hoboken, 2 miles away, shows his original video and
>compares it to the the versions used in two "Truth Movement"
>conspiracy videos; "9/11 Eyewitness" by James Brewster and
>"9/11 Mysteries" by Sophia Shafquat.
>
>Siegel shows that the "explosions" heard on 9/11 Mysteries and
>9/11 Eyewitness are, in fact, not on his the original tape.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jir7yWTroN8
You're implying that all of the explosions heard in "911 Mysteries"
weren't in his original, which is false. This video doesn't show Mr.
Siegel "showing" anything. All it showed about Mr. Siegel was his
contention that "911 Mysteries" was dishonest in how they used his
film without saying how. And it explicitly says that the audio in
"9/11 Eyewitness" is true to Mr. Siegel's original.
After showing the north tower collapsing, the maker of this video then
speculates on what else, besides explosions in the north tower, might
have caused those sounds, such as wind against the camera microphone,
trains going by, or "by something else entirely." But in literally,
precisely, a "half truth," it doesn't also show the fact that Mr.
Siegel's original footage, according to how it was shown in "911
Eyewitness," which Mr. Siegel regards as authentic, also had very
similar sounds just before the south tower collapsed and, as far as I
can tell, at no other point. And it doesn't even speculate on what
the white cloud at the base of the north tower, just before it
collapsed, is.
Towards the end, it says "Even Rick Siegel disagrees with "911
Eyewitness" that the rumbling sounds (and the "base smoke") are the
products of explosions." I found 2 sources that support the opposite
conclusion and none that support it. And it says "Sophia Shafquat
stole Rick Siegel's footage and replaced his audio with her own sound
effects." Well, "stole" is debatable and how she used sound, let's
say creatively (we all know how careless women are with the truth),
hardly entails the conclusion that Mr. Siegel doesn't believe the
sounds in his video are of explosions.
This video also implies that Mr. Siegel doesn't believe the government
was in on 9/11. But he believes his tape is "so powerful a testimony
to the fraud and corruption surrounding that day," that "the
government are the primary suspects," and this his tape is "impossible
for the perpetrators to bear."
See:
http://www.ricksiegel.com/web2/node/10
David Shaw (Mr. Siegel's partner -
http://209.85.135.104/search?q=cache:POxmNB6i01oJ:www.911weknow.com/index.php)
believes the sounds in Mr. Siegel's video were from explosions and
that someone besides the hijackers was responsible. He regards the
sounds as "authentic audio evidence of explosions recorded before the
towers fell" which, due to the legal wrangling between Sofia and Mr.
Siegel, "therefore cannot be used in a court of law to convict the
criminals responsible for 9.11."
In commenting on what he disapproved of in the film "911 Mysteries,"
Mr. Siegel wrote, about the scene in which she's showing the north
tower and saying "smoke rises from the base of the building as an
explosion is heard,” "Basically this is OK and with original sound
from DVD." This implies both that the sound is as it was in his
original and that he concurs with her conclusion that the sounds are
of explosions. Just after this, she shows the north tower collapsing,
during which there is what he says is audio that she added. See the
video at:
http://www.911mysteriesguide.com
Further down, he also says that "Sophia proceeded with no knowledge of
time code or effort at making a legitimate documentation of the
explosions; it was done to make a Hollywood effect to further an
agenda of more explosions than were." This, of course, again says
that he believes there were explosions. See:
http://www.911researchers.com/node/114
>Brewster & Shafquat claim the sounds are evidence of man-made
>explosives at WTC. Someone manipulated the sound track to make
>those noises.
The video at
http://www.911mysteriesguide.com
shows what you're referring to much better than the video to which you
gave a link does. But the dispute is over the sounds during, not
before, the collapse. You're being dishonest to imply that because
Mr. Siegel disapproves of some of the use that Sofia made of his
video, he therefore doesn't believe there were explosions in the
towers just before they collapsed. His original has many such sounds
that, as far as I can tell, he believes were of explosions.
Al Dykes
007 <0...@embarqmail.com> wrote:
>>Date: Sun, Aug 24 2008 5:48=A0am
>>From: ady...@panix.com (Al Dykes)
>
>>If you believe the k00k videos, "9/11 Eyewitness" by James Brewster
>>and "9/11 Mysteries" by Sophia Shafquat, these explosions were audible
>>from the Jersey shore, two miles away. That radius would put millions
>>of people within listening range of any explosions. There is no other
>>report of "explosions" consistent with a collapse of a WTC tower.
>
>I'm noticing a pattern here. With each different video that shows a
>loud explosion, you comment that no other video caught it, so it must
You keep cliaming there are videos of man-made demoliiotn atWTC with
no video as proof. Many people had their cameras running starting
from moments after the first impact.
There is no video of a WTC tower that has loud noises on the sound
track that immediately precedes the onset of collapse.
You could prove me wrong by posting the URL for one.
007
> In article <43a8f8af-3208-44f1-a42e-21a4ad2a9...@w24g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
>
> 007 <0...@embarqmail.com> wrote:
> >>Date: Sun, Aug 24 2008 5:48=A0am
> >>From: ady...@panix.com (Al Dykes)
>
> >>If you believe the k00k videos, "9/11 Eyewitness" by James Brewster
> >>and "9/11 Mysteries" by Sophia Shafquat, these explosions were audible
> >>from the Jersey shore, two miles away. That radius would put millions
> >>of people within listening range of any explosions. There is no other
> >>report of "explosions" consistent with a collapse of a WTC tower.
>
> >I'm noticing a pattern here. With each different video that shows a
> >loud explosion, you comment that no other video caught it, so it must
>
> You keep cliaming there are videos of man-made demoliiotn atWTC with
> no video as proof. Many people had their cameras running starting
> from moments after the first impact.
>
> There is no video of a WTC tower that has loud noises on the sound
> track that immediately precedes the onset of collapse.
>
> You could prove me wrong by posting the URL for one.
That's about as hypocrically dishonest as it can get. You just ranted
for hundreds of lines about the "half truth" movement and then,
knowing full well that the very video you referred to in the message
to which I responded ("911 Eyewitness") has the very thing you're
asking about, you challenge me to give you a link!
There’s no way around the fact that it’s inconsistent to say, about
all 3 buildings that collapsed, that, after what damage the planes did
to the towers and the debris from the north tower’s collapse did to
building 7, whereas fire then gradually brought all 3 buildings to the
point of a quick, complete collapse, explosives couldn’t have
gradually weakened them enough to do the same thing. The young man
who asked several questions along these lines at the NIST Webcast said
it awkwardly, but well. If the building can collapse without any
explosives, couldn’t it have also collapsed with some explosives?
Maybe the blast that William Rodriguez heard just before the plane hit
the tower he was in was meant to knock the building down in a way that
looked like the plane had done it. When that failed, another
explosive was set off, and so on until it succeeded. All of your
repetitious, unsubstantiated propaganda about there not being any
possibility of a controlled demolition because no “controlled
demolition explosives” were used hasn’t done the slightest bit to
convince me that there aren’t other ways of deliberately demolishing a
building than are normally used, particularly since those who would
have done it would have been motivated to make it look and sound as
little like a controlled demolition as possible. Maybe your
propaganda campaign is directed towards an audience and you don’t care
what I think. To convince me, you’re going to have to address my
points and show me how I’m wrong instead of simply repeating that I’m
wrong. You've asked for "just one" reference to any witness or video
that's consistent with a controlled demolition. I've given you many
references to many witnesses to explosions, including many to
explosions just before the buildings fell and many who referred to the
kind of sequenced explosions that I think sound like those of a
controlled demolition. I'm not a demolition expert. I don't know why
those aren't "consistent with a controlled demolition." Are you an
expert? Do you know why they aren't? If you do, why don't you just
tell me instead of going on and on and on and on with your propaganda
campaign? I haven't the slightest idea why what explosions were
testified to and heard in the videos couldn't have brought those
buildings down. More repetition that they couldn't have isn't going
to change that.
There are also all kinds of falsehoods and exaggerations in that long
rant you just posted, but why would I bother pointing them out? If
those who have the courage to go against the grain and seek and stand
by an unpopular truth are the "half truth" movement, maybe you and
your dishonest ilk, 90% of whom merely "go with the flow," are the
"10% truth" movement. The average "9/11 truther" knows far more about
September 11 and is far more intelligent than the average person who
believes in the official conspiracy theory. To emulate the kind of
exaggeration you gave in your rant, 99.999% of those who believe in
the official conspiracy theory don't know any more than I do about
controlled demolition. I suspect you're included.
Clay
...
> In article <43a8f8af-3208-44f1-a42e-21a4ad2a9...@w24g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
> 007 <0...@embarqmail.com> wrote:
> >>Date: Sun, Aug 24 2008 5:48=A0am
> >>From: ady...@panix.com (Al Dykes)
>
> >>If you believe the k00k videos, "9/11 Eyewitness" by James Brewster
> >>and "9/11 Mysteries" by Sophia Shafquat, these explosions were audible
> >>from the Jersey shore, two miles away. That radius would put millions
> >>of people within listening range of any explosions. There is no other
> >>report of "explosions" consistent with a collapse of a WTC tower.
>
> >I'm noticing a pattern here. With each different video that shows a
> >loud explosion, you comment that no other video caught it, so it must
>
> You keep cliaming there are videos of man-made demoliiotn atWTC with
> no video as proof. Many people had their cameras running starting
> from moments after the first impact.
>
> There is no video of a WTC tower that has loud noises on the sound
> track that immediately precedes the onset of collapse.
>
> You could prove me wrong by posting the URL for one.
HEHEHEHEHEHE... why would you ever think you can get anything that
makes sense from kooks?
By definition... these tin-foil-hatters do not operate with all of
their pistons firing.
-C-
Al Dykes
007 <0...@embarqmail.com> wrote:
>On Aug 25, 4:34=A0am, ady...@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote:
>> In article <43a8f8af-3208-44f1-a42e-21a4ad2a9...@w24g2000prd.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>>
>> 007 =A0<0...@embarqmail.com> wrote:
>> >>Date: Sun, Aug 24 2008 5:48=3DA0am
>> >>From: ady...@panix.com (Al Dykes)
>>
>> >>If you believe the k00k videos, "9/11 Eyewitness" by James Brewster
>> >>and "9/11 Mysteries" by Sophia Shafquat, these explosions were audible
>s
>> >>of people within listening range of any explosions. =A0There is no othe=
>r
>> >>report of "explosions" consistent with a collapse of a WTC tower.
>>
>> >loud explosion, you comment that no other video caught it, so it must
>>
>> You keep cliaming there are videos of man-made demoliiotn atWTC with
>> from moments after the first impact.
>>
>> There is no video of a WTC tower that has loud noises on the sound
>> track that immediately precedes the onset of collapse.
>>
>> You could prove me wrong by posting the URL for one.
>
>That's about as hypocrically dishonest as it can get. You just ranted
>for hundreds of lines about the "half truth" movement and then,
If I have my k00ks straight, you posted two URLS that came to 105
minutes of obfuscation and music tracks and voice-over verbiage that
obscured the fact that there were no noises consistent with man-made
demolition on the tape.
Post one URL and give us a time, to the minute, in which a noise is
heard followed immediatly by the video of the onset of collapse. All
it has to be is about 10 seconds of video.
No such video exists, apparently.
There were countless video cameras filming WTC from moments after the
first impact from all angles.
Source:
Book: _Watching The world change; The Stories behind the images of 9/11
By David Friend
BDK
@z11g2000prl.googlegroups.com>, 0...@embarqmail.com says...
> On Aug 25, 4:34 am, ady...@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote:
> > In article <43a8f8af-3208-44f1-a42e-21a4ad2a9...@w24g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > 007 <0...@embarqmail.com> wrote:
> > >>Date: Sun, Aug 24 2008 5:48=A0am
> > >>From: ady...@panix.com (Al Dykes)
> >
> > >>If you believe the k00k videos, "9/11 Eyewitness" by James Brewster
> > >>and "9/11 Mysteries" by Sophia Shafquat, these explosions were audible
> > >>from the Jersey shore, two miles away. That radius would put millions
> > >>of people within listening range of any explosions. There is no other
> > >>report of "explosions" consistent with a collapse of a WTC tower.
> >
> > >I'm noticing a pattern here. With each different video that shows a
> > >loud explosion, you comment that no other video caught it, so it must
> >
> > You keep cliaming there are videos of man-made demoliiotn atWTC with
> > no video as proof. Many people had their cameras running starting
> > from moments after the first impact.
> >
> > There is no video of a WTC tower that has loud noises on the sound
> > track that immediately precedes the onset of collapse.
> >
> > You could prove me wrong by posting the URL for one.
>
> That's about as hypocrically dishonest as it can get. You just ranted
> for hundreds of lines about the "half truth" movement and then,
> knowing full well that the very video you referred to in the message
> to which I responded ("911 Eyewitness") has the very thing you're
> asking about, you challenge me to give you a link!
Tap dance away from the edge.. Post an unedited video that shows the
explosions that would have needed to occur to begin the collapse IF the
building had been demoed. These explosions would have occurred right at
the beginning of the collapse, and had a definite pattern.
That's all you need to do. Easy, right?
Watch any of the videos of real demos and maybe even you can see the
very obvious differences. If you've already watched them and can't see
those differences, well, you've apparently crossed the line into
kookdumb, and can't come back to the sane side again.
>
> There=3Fs no way around the fact that it=3Fs inconsistent to say, about
> all 3 buildings that collapsed, that, after what damage the planes did
> to the towers and the debris from the north tower=3Fs collapse did to
> building 7, whereas fire then gradually brought all 3 buildings to the
> point of a quick, complete collapse, explosives couldn=3Ft have
> gradually weakened them enough to do the same thing. The young man
> who asked several questions along these lines at the NIST Webcast said
> it awkwardly, but well. If the building can collapse without any
> explosives, couldn=3Ft it have also collapsed with some explosives?
Holy shit, you'll do anything to keep from admitting your faith in the
kookpages is a joke, won't you? There could have been UFOs firing
invisible beams into the building too, but it's only slightly more
unlikely than your above scenario. It takes time, a lot of planning and
effort, and most of all, cutting to prepare a building for demolition,
something that would have been noticed if it happened. Unless you
believe in invisible CIA agents beamed in and did the work, cutting
silently, and planting invisible explosives.
> Maybe the blast that William Rodriguez heard just before the plane hit
> the tower he was in was meant to knock the building down in a way that
> looked like the plane had done it. When that failed, another
> explosive was set off, and so on until it succeeded. All of your
> repetitious, unsubstantiated propaganda about there not being any
> possibility of a controlled demolition because no =3Fcontrolled
> demolition explosives=3F were used hasn=3Ft done the slightest bit to
> convince me that there aren=3Ft other ways of deliberately demolishing a
> building than are normally used, particularly since those who would
> have done it would have been motivated to make it look and sound as
> little like a controlled demolition as possible. Maybe your
> propaganda campaign is directed towards an audience and you don=3Ft care
> what I think. To convince me, you=3Fre going to have to address my
> points and show me how I=3Fm wrong instead of simply repeating that I=3Fm
> wrong. You've asked for "just one" reference to any witness or video
> that's consistent with a controlled demolition. I've given you many
> references to many witnesses to explosions, including many to
> explosions just before the buildings fell and many who referred to the
> kind of sequenced explosions that I think sound like those of a
> controlled demolition.
You think wrong. Sounds like a lifetime problem for you. Sad, maybe even
tragic for you and your family.. But funny. You should hear even a 5/8"
bolt snap from being stretched or sheared, it sounds a lot like an
"explosion" too, but it's not, of course.
> I'm not a demolition expert.
No!!! Really???
> I don't know why
> those aren't "consistent with a controlled demolition." Are you an
> expert? Do you know why they aren't? If you do, why don't you just
> tell me instead of going on and on and on and on with your propaganda
> campaign? I haven't the slightest idea why what explosions were
> testified to and heard in the videos couldn't have brought those
> buildings down. More repetition that they couldn't have isn't going
> to change that.
ROTFL! Your questions have been answered many times, for like, oh,
almost 7 years now. Yet you kooks stubbornly cling to your faith in the
sacred kookpages...weird.
>
> There are also all kinds of falsehoods and exaggerations in that long
> rant you just posted, but why would I bother pointing them out? If
> those who have the courage to go against the grain and seek and stand
> by an unpopular truth are the "half truth" movement, maybe you and
> your dishonest ilk, 90% of whom merely "go with the flow," are the
> "10% truth" movement. The average "9/11 truther" knows far more about
> September 11 and is far more intelligent than the average person who
> believes in the official conspiracy theory. To emulate the kind of
> exaggeration you gave in your rant, 99.999% of those who believe in
> the official conspiracy theory don't know any more than I do about
> controlled demolition. I suspect you're included.
You obviously are wrong, since you still can't see that controlled demo
is NOT possible.
>
> > --
> > Al Dykes
> > News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising.
> > - Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail
>
>
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA! That was hilarious. How is it possible for you to be
so utterly clueless, yet be able to put sentences together? Why won't
any of you kooks ever just TALK TO AN ENGINEER? You guys will take the
word of ministers, and other non-experts, but yet you refuse to talk to
an engineer? Why? Is it fear of embarrassment, or a fear you won't be
one of the special few who "knows what really happened" anymore? Of
course, the usual 911 kooktard response seems to be that most engineers
are "in on it", and can't be trusted. If you're that far gone, just
check yourself into the Hoo-hoo Hotel, and get it over with, as you're
headed there anyway, no doubt.
Al Dykes
Freedom Fighter <lib...@once.net> wrote:
>"harry k" <turnk...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:0f6bc302-6f52-4918...@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>On Aug 21, 5:16 pm, Hunter <buffhun...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> In article <0Lirk.173390$102.76...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>> libe...@once.net says...
>>
>>
>>
>> > No surprise that the fox guarding the henhouse lamely explains the
>> > disappearance of the hens with still more lies.
>>
>> > Throughout history, various malevolent, antisocial individuals and
>> > groups
>> > have gained control of governments and proceeded to use their forces for
>> > personal gain and to sadistically inflict suffering and death upon
>> > innocents. They succeed in this - for a while at least - through the
>> > ignorance, apathy, and gullibility of the people over which they rule.
>>
>> > Given the ignorance, apathy, and gullibility of far too many Americans,
>> > those that realize the truth about 9/11, the various politically
>> > motivated
>> > assassinations from 1963 to the present, etc., must for the sake of
>> > their
>> > own happiness and wellbeing take a position of passive resistance to
>> > this
>> > fascism.
>>
>> > Though they may gather wealth and succeed in covering up their crimes
>> > against humanity for the rest of their lives, these evil people have not
>> > won, nor will they ever win, for they will never know happiness - the
>> > peace
>> > of mind of a clear conscience. They will forever be psychological slaves
>> > to
>> > their own sins; in everpresent fear of exposure, and of any afterlife
>> > consequences they believe possible. That is a living hell, and their
>> > just
>> > punishment.
>>
>> ---
>> I notice your screed doesn't adress any of the points made. Sorry if the
>> facts
>> destroy your conspiracy theory.
>> --
>> ----->Hunter
>>
>> "No man in the wrong can stand up against
>> a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'."
>>
>> -----William J. McDonald
>> Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Facts destroyed his theory years ago but he won't give up. Once a
>kook, always a kook.
>
>Harry K
>----------
>Ad-hominem attack is the refuge of unintelligent and immature people
>incapable of disproving a valid assertion with facts or logic, so in
>frustration they resort to childish name-calling.
>
>Welcome to my killfile, Harry!
>
>Oh by the way - here are some scientific facts for you, if you are capable
>of comprehending them:
>
>SIMPLE PHYSICS EXPOSES THE BIG 9/11 LIE -
>GOVERNMENT BUILDING COLLAPSE
>EXPLANATION FAILS REALITY CHECK
>
>On September 11, 2001, the world watched in horror as the World Trade Center
>(WTC) Twin Towers collapsed, killing thousands of innocent people. Videos of
Tell it to a fireman.
Post it where people that mightt have relevant expertise might comment on it.
Post it j911s, if they'll have it.
Coward.
Al Dykes
Freedom Fighter <lib...@once.net> wrote:
>----------
>Ad-hominem attack is the refuge of unintelligent and immature people
>incapable of disproving a valid assertion with facts or logic, so in
>frustration they resort to childish name-calling.
An Ad-hominem response is correct when directed to someone who arguues
from authority, Argumentum ad verecundiam.
I don't recall you providing any sources for the alleged facts and
evidence the "physics" paper you post endlessly, hence you are basing
the entire paper on your own knowledge and authority and nobody can
check your facts.
In this case, a polite and specific Ad-hominem response is the correct
response.
Day Brown
> In article <8CErk.175349$102....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> Freedom Fighter <lib...@once.net> wrote:
>
>> ----------
>
>
>> Ad-hominem attack is the refuge of unintelligent and immature people
>> incapable of disproving a valid assertion with facts or logic, so in
>> frustration they resort to childish name-calling.
>
>
>
> An Ad-hominem response is correct when directed to someone who arguues
> from authority, Argumentum ad verecundiam.
>
> I don't recall you providing any sources for the alleged facts and
> evidence the "physics" paper you post endlessly, hence you are basing
> the entire paper on your own knowledge and authority and nobody can
> check your facts.
>
> In this case, a polite and specific Ad-hominem response is the correct
> response.
>
your assessment. And if they are fools as well, they pay no attention to
your characterization or appeals to whatever authority you think you have.
Day Brown
is the first to point out that which everyone else misses. Even those in
mental institutions sometimes have rational times when they see what
others do not.
You havta step thru it, but the video supplied with this link and many
others looks like the collapse started at the top floors, not that which
was hit by the planes. Which is curious. I dont claim to know what
happened, but await more reliable data. People dont work for the media
and government without going along with the group think, so I cant rely
on their opinions. They have careers at risk.
Disneygeek
> El Kabong wrote:
> > AE911Truth Press Conference
> > Thursday 8/21/08 9am PDT / 12pm EDT
> > Critical Response to NIST Final Report
> > on the Mysterious Collapse of WTC Building 7
> > Join the 430 Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth for an important live
> > (audio) Press Conference. The subject is the collapse of World Trade Center
> > Building 7 which was a 47-story, steel-framed, fire-proofed high-rise - the
> > 3rd tower to fall straight down symmetrically at nearly free-fall speed on
> > 9/11/01 with numerous reports of explosions and several tons of molten metal
> > found in the basement carrying the "thermite fingerprint".
>
> Oh fer god's sake....give it up already.
Then what would they have?
Disneygeek
> +
> "Stutterin' John McKook" <viet...@jail.net> wrote in messagenews:gdjrk.18919$mh5....@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
>
>
> > Hmmmmmmm....... Ya think a coupla planes crashing into the buildings had
>
> somethin' ta so with it?
>
> Twin Towers' Designers Anticipated Jet Impacts Like September 11th's
> Structural engineers who designed the Twin Towers carried out studies in the
> mid-1960s to determine how the buildings would fare if hit by large
> jetliners. In all cases the studies concluded that the Towers would survive
> the impacts and fires caused by the jetliners.
What part of "they were using the Empire State Building impact as a
guideline" do you not understand? i.e., they modeled their potential
results on a plane traveling slowly and low on fuel, hardly on one
with a great deal of fuel and travelling at 500+ MPH
Disneygeek
<perk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 22, 12:19 am, "Orson Wells as CitizenCain"
>
> <noem...@here.invalidd> wrote:
> > "Stutterin' John McKook" <viet...@jail.net> wrote in messagenews:gdjrk.18919$mh5....@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
> > >news:5a02c137-3ea3-4b0a...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > Hmmmmmmm....... Ya think a coupla planes crashing into the buildings had
> > > somethin' ta so with it?
>
>
> No plane crashed into building 7. Real or CGI.
>
> You should know this dude, it's common knowledge.
Nope, just tons of flaming debris.
Disneygeek
> In article <2a999$48ade88f$1...@news.teranews.com>,
> >news:gdjrk.18919$mh5....@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
> >somethin' ta so with it?
>
> >Structural engineers who designed the Twin Towers carried out studies in the
> >mid-1960s to determine how the buildings would fare if hit by large
> >jetliners. In all cases the studies concluded that the Towers would survive
>
> thousands of gallons of fuel.
>
> Fire was the final cause the collapse of WTC1, 2, and 7.
>
> Real engineers think that had there been little fuel on those planes,
> the buildings would have withstood the impact.
Well, since they've stated time and again that they were expecting the
impacting aircraft to be "lost, low on fuel and traveling slowly" it
probably makes sense that they didn't take that large a fire into
account.
Disneygeek
> "Hunter" <buffhun...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>
> news:MPG.2317cf4db...@news.optonline.net...
> You want scientific facts? Here you go - you asked for them:
>
> SIMPLE PHYSICS EXPOSES THE BIG 9/11 LIE -
> GOVERNMENT BUILDING COLLAPSE
> EXPLANATION FAILS REALITY CHECK
How do your "simple physics" explain that fact that there was no
demoliton explosions heard or recorded on ANY of the three collapses?
Disneygeek
>
> This proves nothing. That sound could've been pieces of building hitting
> the ground.
...and if it WERE the sound of a "controlled demoliton," why the HELL
is the fireman saying; "Don't worry about me, you need to make calls
right now?"
Nobody's suggesting things didn't go "BOOM" on 9/11, only that what
was going "BOOM" wasn't a demoltion charge!
zasochimti
"clouddreamer" <St...@Cllmate.change.net> wrote in message news:j7SdnXICVpsxdTDV...@supernews.com...
> El Kabong wrote:
>> AE911Truth Press Conference
>> Thursday 8/21/08 9am PDT / 12pm EDT
>> Critical Response to NIST Final Report
>> on the Mysterious Collapse of WTC Building 7
>> Join the 430 Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth for an important live
>> (audio) Press Conference. The subject is the collapse of World Trade Center
>> Building 7 which was a 47-story, steel-framed, fire-proofed high-rise - the
>> 3rd tower to fall straight down symmetrically at nearly free-fall speed on
>> 9/11/01 with numerous reports of explosions and several tons of molten metal
>> found in the basement carrying the "thermite fingerprint".
>>
>
>
>
> Oh fer god's sake....give it up already.
Oh, empathy itself decided to speak.
zasochimti
"clouddreamer" <St...@Cllmate.change.net> wrote in message news:kM6dnVdeWae4hjLV...@supernews.com...
> Freedom Fighter wrote:
>> "Hunter" <buffh...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:MPG.2317cf4db...@news.optonline.net...
>>> In article <0Lirk.173390$102....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>>> lib...@once.net says...
>> (WTC) Twin Towers collapsed, killing thousands of innocent people. Videos of
>> the towers fell, WTC building 7 also collapsed suddenly, completely, and
>> straight down at near free-fall speed. This steel-framed building was not
>> touched by the planes that struck the towers, and had sustained relatively
>> minor debris damage and small fires. Nearby buildings far more heavily
>> damaged remained standing.
>
> First paragraph and you're already full of it. WTC 7 was badly damaged by debris from the falling towers. A gouge was taken out of
> the side of it...some 20 stories or more (there are pics out there for those that WANT to see them) and the fires were not small.
20 stories? Wuahahaha.
Yes, do post pics, dickdreamer!
> And it didn't fall altogether, straight down. One side of the building collapsed before the other, taking that side with it as it
> went. There are pictures of that too, but we all know how much you hate looking at proof.
>
> <remainder of the non-peer reviewed crap deleted>
Then explain how each and every supporting element of that building
failed simulteneously.
And interesting enough, the part of the building first to collapse (according
to your bullshit, cuntdreamer) was on the exact opposite side from the "gouge".
GO explain that, cockdreamer.
Clay
...
Did you post this from a mental institution?
<LOL>
-C-
Disneygeek
> "clouddreamer" <S...@Cllmate.change.net> wrote in messagenews:kM6dnVdeWae4hjLV...@supernews.com...
> > Freedom Fighter wrote:
> >> "Hunter" <buffhun...@my-deja.com> wrote in messagenews:MPG.2317cf4db...@news.optonline.net...
> >>> In article <0Lirk.173390$102.76...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> >>> libe...@once.net says...
Well *sigh* once again, since the firefighters reported that the
building was "tilting and bulging" for three HOURS before the final
collapse, it's fairly obvious that the supporting elements were in the
process of failing for those three hours. (Note; THREE HOURS, not
"simulteneously.")
Al Dykes
Clay
...
Thanks for providing sense to this thread.
-C-
Day Brown
>>> 9/11/01 with numerous reports of explosions and several tons of molten metal
>>> found in the basement carrying the "thermite fingerprint".
>> Oh fer god's sake....give it up already.
>
>
> Then what would they have?
debunker site, showing a yellow hot piece of steel to prove the metal
was not molten.
Agreed. But I usta have a forge in the barn at my old place, still have
my welding torch, have worked with hot and molten steel... and I know
you dont get that color steel, burning jet fuel or anything else,
without providing forced oxygen to the point of combustion. Its why
forges have blowers and oxy/acetylene torches have tanks.
Ergo, the official report is wrong.
Day Brown
> Well *sigh* once again, since the firefighters reported that the
> building was "tilting and bulging" for three HOURS before the final
> collapse, it's fairly obvious that the supporting elements were in the
> process of failing for those three hours. (Note; THREE HOURS, not
> "simulteneously.")
Day Brown
Freud noted, that when you challenge a delusion of a neurotic with the
facts, he gets angry and calls you names. Not educated.
george
> No, but I have a psych degree and have worked in clinical settings. Dr.
> Freud noted, that when you challenge a delusion of a neurotic with the
> facts, he gets angry and calls you names. Not educated.
Its right up there with some-one claiming an education that the
remainder of his posts disprove
Iarnrod
Physics. Gravity. Pulls down, not over. This is planet Earth. Where
are *you* posting from?
Iarnrod
That is yet another tendency of the kookers that we have noticed. They
don't like their physically impossible delusions to be challenged by
all of the facts that show what actually happened, so they start name-
calling instead of debating and possibly being cured of their
delusions.
They actually prefer the comfort of staying within the group think of
the kooker conspiracy crowd to the plain light of day.
Clay
...
You hit the nail on the head.
Very well put.
-C-
Al Dykes
So what, anyway? These buildings were 95% air with exterior walls
that were designed to be as light and thin as possible. The buildings
were balloons waiting to deflate.
Does a balloon "fall over" when it deflates?
Who says WTC7 don't fall to the south, anyway? We have no video of
what happened on the south side, where the fire and damage was,
because to the south was a hell of debris from the north tower.
On the left and right, the debris was contained by old masonry
buildings that were separated from WTC7 by very narrow 2 lane roads.
Photos show debris washing to the sides of those buildings like the
tide. The buildings on the left and right suffered damage but did't
burn hecuase they had effective fireproofing over the steel. WTC7
didn't.
Any collapse to the south just became part of "the pile" that was the
remains of WTC7 and WTC2.
Disneygeek
Quoth the sparrow; "One does what one can!"