Do you believe your own eyes, the principles of physics, and reality?
Henry
This brief video is further proof that the twin towers
were deliberately demolished. As always, when one takes
the time to study and understand the evidence, the insanity
of the government's 9-11 conspiracy theory, as well as the
related lies, become not only blatant, but comically absurd.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG2y50Wyys4
--
"The broad mass of a nation will more easily fall victim to a big lie
than a small one."
Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf (1933)
http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.ae911truth.org
โà¸à¸¡ มณี ปัทเม หุม
> Â "The broad mass of a nation will more easily fall victim to a big lie
> than a small one."
> Â Â Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf (1933)
My copy says that he wrote that in 1924.
g,d,r....
S'mee
Proof of what? Where is the hundreds of trucks hauling explosives?
PROVE your logistical support and plan...hell prove you have a brain
with a higher functioning power than a cocker spaniel or an irish
setter!
PROVE IT or fuck off and talk motorcycle you punk....I don't want some
shitbag FAKES proofs. I want your proofs, logistics, actual explosive
types (free clue the nano-thermite can't do it) and for that matter
prove you aren't a troll and you really believe it! Best way would to
be to take down a building similar to the towers by yourself with a
plan like the one alledgedly used.
So prove it or admit you are a fraud.
Henry
> Proof of what?
Proof that the upper block couldn't have crushed its way
through the heavier, stronger, undamaged steel frame below
it, quite obviously. You really should try thinking before
you post someday...
Autymn D. C.
> S'mee wrote:
> > Proof of what?
>
> Proof that the upper block couldn't have crushed its way
> through the heavier, stronger, undamaged steel frame below
> it, quite obviously. You really should try thinking before
> you post someday...
What undamaged the frame?
By the way, know anything about catastrofè theory and tipping points?
Henry
>>> Proof of what?
>> Proof that the upper block couldn't have crushed its way
>> through the heavier, stronger, undamaged steel frame below
>> it, quite obviously. You really should try thinking before
>> you post someday...
> What undamaged the frame?
The frame below the impact wasn't damaged.
<link restored>
MikeWhy
"Henry" <9-11...@experts.org> wrote in message
news:heh2vf$4gv$1...@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
> Autymn D. C. wrote:
>> On Nov 24, 7:17 am, Henry <9-11tr...@experts.org> wrote:
>>> S'mee wrote:
>
>>>> Proof of what?
>
>>> Proof that the upper block couldn't have crushed its way
>>> through the heavier, stronger, undamaged steel frame below
>>> it, quite obviously. You really should try thinking before
>>> you post someday...
>
>> What undamaged the frame?
>
> The frame below the impact wasn't damaged.
>
> <link restored>
>
> This brief video is further proof that the twin towers
> were deliberately demolished. As always, when one takes
> the time to study and understand the evidence, the insanity
> of the government's 9-11 conspiracy theory, as well as the
> related lies, become not only blatant, but comically absurd.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG2y50Wyys4
Watch it all you like. It comes down to this: the collapse was from the top
down, not bottom up, as would have to happen with a lower floor demolished
to take down the tower. Surely, we're now completely done with this.
Henry
> "Henry" <9-11...@experts.org> wrote
>>>>> Proof of what?
>>>> Proof that the upper block couldn't have crushed its way
>>>> through the heavier, stronger, undamaged steel frame below
>>>> it, quite obviously. You really should try thinking before
>>>> you post someday...
>>> What undamaged the frame?
>> The frame below the impact wasn't damaged.
>>
>> <link restored>
>>
>> This brief video is further proof that the twin towers
>> were deliberately demolished. As always, when one takes
>> the time to study and understand the evidence, the insanity
>> of the government's 9-11 conspiracy theory, as well as the
>> related lies, become not only blatant, but comically absurd.
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG2y50Wyys4
> Watch it all you like. It comes down to this:
The laws of physics, which the government's insane cartoon
conspiracy theory blatantly violates. I take it that you agree
with the points made in the video.
> the collapse was from the
> top down, not bottom up, as would have to happen with a lower floor
> demolished to take down the tower. Surely, we're now completely done
> with this.
What makes you think that demolition charges can't be detonated in any
sequence desired? Here's another top down demolition
http://911blogger.com/node/11538
Henry
> On Nov 24, 12:37 pm, Henry wrote:
>> "The broad mass of a nation will more easily fall victim
>> to a big lie than a small one."
>> Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf (1933)
> The fact that the broad mass of the nation is NOT falling for the huge
> lie that you and your fellow America-despisers are attempting to
> perpetuate through your conspiracy theories and false science is but
> one more repudiation of the charlatan that you quote.
I see that you also agree with the evidence, physics, and
points raised in the video. It must be strange to have your
ignorance and blind faith in government propaganda force you
believe in something that you know is both physically impossible
and at odds with expert research, hard evidence, and reality.
That's why you're forced to humiliate yourself by resorting to
emotional, fact free kook rants rather than think or address
the actual evidence.
And of course, it's rather pathetic that you've also convinced
yourself that challenging the lies, crimes, and injustices of
government is an indication of hatred for one's country. Of course,
the opposite is the truth, and what our Country was founded on.
You must really despise our Founding Fathers and feel nothing but
contempt for the strength and courage they displayed.
<link to expert research restored because we can't afford
to let America hating extremists, mass murdering terrorists,
or their misguided, clueless apologists hide the truth>
This brief video is further proof that the twin towers
were deliberately demolished. As always, when one takes
the time to study and understand the evidence, the insanity
of the government's 9-11 conspiracy theory, as well as the
related lies, become not only blatant, but comically absurd.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG2y50Wyys4
Henry
> Henry wrote:
>> Tim wrote:
>>> On Nov 24, 12:37 pm, Henry wrote:
>>>> "The broad mass of a nation will more easily fall victim
>>>> to a big lie than a small one."
>>>> Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf (1933)
>>> The fact that the broad mass of the nation is NOT falling for the huge
>>> lie that you and your fellow America-despisers are attempting to
>>> perpetuate through your conspiracy theories and false science is but
>>> one more repudiation of the charlatan that you quote.
>> I see that you also agree with the evidence, physics, and
>> points raised in the video. It must be strange to have your
>> ignorance and blind faith in government propaganda force you
>> believe in something that you know is both physically impossible
>> and at odds with expert research, hard evidence, and reality.
>> That's why you're forced to humiliate yourself by resorting to
>> emotional, fact free kook rants rather than think or address
>> the actual evidence.
> Where do you 'see' that?
Are you saying that Tim lacks the intelligence to articulate
the points in the video that he disagrees with, and that he's
limited to spewing emotional, fact free kook drivel when he's
challenged to think or defend his beliefs? I suppose you could
be right, as that's about all we ever see from mindless parrots
of the government's insane 9-11 fairy tale - not at all unlike
like explaining to a learning disabled child why Santa isn't
real.
For some reason, I still expect sane adults to be able to
express their views in detail. Perhaps magic fire/Super Arab
cartoon conspiracy kooks are somewhat less than sane... ;-)
<link to expert research restored because we can't afford
to let America hating extremists, mass murdering terrorists,
or their misguided, clueless apologists hide the truth>
This brief video is further proof that the twin towers
were deliberately demolished. As always, when one takes
the time to study and understand the evidence, the insanity
of the government's 9-11 conspiracy theory, as well as the
related lies, become not only blatant, but comically absurd.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG2y50Wyys4
Henry
> On Nov 24, 12:37 pm, Henry wrote:
>> I see that you also agree with the evidence, physics, and
>> points raised in the video.
> Nothing could be further from the truth. Your conclusion, or your
> video.
But, for some reason (you believe in an insane, physics
and reality defying cartoon fairy tale on ignorance and
blind faith alone) you can't tell us what it is you disagree
with or why, so you humiliate yourself and amuse your
betters by spewing fact free kook drivel. As predicated <g>
<link to expert research restored because we can't afford
to let America hating extremists, mass murdering terrorists,
or their misguided, clueless apologists hide the truth>
This brief video is further proof that the twin towers
were deliberately demolished. As always, when one takes
the time to study and understand the evidence, the insanity
of the government's 9-11 conspiracy theory, as well as the
related lies, become not only blatant, but comically absurd.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG2y50Wyys4
MikeWhy
> MikeWhy wrote:
>> "Henry" <9-11...@experts.org> wrote
>>> Autymn D. C. wrote:
>>>> On Nov 24, 7:17 am, Henry <9-11tr...@experts.org> wrote:
>>>>> S'mee wrote:
>
>>>>>> Proof of what?
>
>>>>> Proof that the upper block couldn't have crushed its way
>>>>> through the heavier, stronger, undamaged steel frame below
>>>>> it, quite obviously. You really should try thinking before
>>>>> you post someday...
>
>>>> What undamaged the frame?
>
>>> The frame below the impact wasn't damaged.
>>>
>>> <link restored>
>>>
>>> This brief video is further proof that the twin towers
>>> were deliberately demolished. As always, when one takes
>>> the time to study and understand the evidence, the insanity
>>> of the government's 9-11 conspiracy theory, as well as the
>>> related lies, become not only blatant, but comically absurd.
>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG2y50Wyys4
>
>> Watch it all you like. It comes down to this:
>
> The laws of physics, which the government's insane cartoon
> conspiracy theory blatantly violates. I take it that you agree
> with the points made in the video.
The only argument I have is they didn't demonstrate that only a controlled
demolition can account for the average constant acceleration of 1/3 G. It
collapsed from top to bottom. The simplest explanation is still that it
collapsed that way of itself. The overly complicated explanation of
controlled and carefully sequenced demolition, floor by floor on every floor
including those wrecked by the aircraft, is much more unlikely and much less
believable. No, I don't accept the conclusion. No, I don't agree with the
points made. I accept the measurements they present.
Autymn D. C.
> Autymn D. C. wrote:
> > On Nov 24, 7:17 am, Henry <9-11tr...@experts.org> wrote:
> >> S'mee wrote:
> >>> Proof of what?
> >> Proof that the upper block couldn't have crushed its way
> >> through the heavier, stronger, undamaged steel frame below
> >> it, quite obviously. You really should try thinking before
> >> you post someday...
> > What undamaged the frame?
>
> Â The frame below the impact wasn't damaged.
Then it wasn't undamaged.
Henry
> "Henry" <9-11...@experts.org> wrote in message
>> MikeWhy wrote:
>>>> This brief video is further proof that the twin towers
>>>> were deliberately demolished. As always, when one takes
>>>> the time to study and understand the evidence, the insanity
>>>> of the government's 9-11 conspiracy theory, as well as the
>>>> related lies, become not only blatant, but comically absurd.
>>
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG2y50Wyys4
>>
>>> Watch it all you like. It comes down to this:
>> The laws of physics, which the government's insane cartoon
>> conspiracy theory blatantly violates. I take it that you agree
>> with the points made in the video.
> The only argument I have is they didn't demonstrate that only a
> controlled demolition can account for the average constant acceleration
> of 1/3 G.
Since we know that the falling block is exerting only 36% of the
force it exerted while it was at rest, what do you suppose is causing
the undamaged steel frame below it to violently explode, disintegrate,
and melt?
Henry
> <snip more fact free kook rant>
What part of the video do you disagree with? Any idea at all
what's on your "mind", or is this more of a religious, emotional
type of thing for you? <chuckle>
Henry
> On Nov 24, 3:24 pm, Henry <9-11tr...@experts.org> wrote:
>> But, for some reason (you believe in an insane, physics
>> and reality defying cartoon fairy tale on ignorance and
>> blind faith alone) you can't tell us what it is you disagree
>> with or why, so you humiliate yourself and amuse your
>> betters by spewing fact free kook drivel. As predicated <g>
> Oh Henry! You poor, deluded fool. I'm paid well to convince the
> others in this newsgroup that you are an insane kook, and I'm doing a
> great job of it.
What part of the video do you disagree with? Any idea at all
what's on your "mind", or is this more of a religious, emotional
type of thing for you? <chuckle>
S'mee
> MikeWhy wrote:
> > "Henry" <9-11tr...@experts.org> wrote in message
> >> MikeWhy wrote:
> >>>> Â This brief video is further proof that the twin towers
> >>>> were deliberately demolished. As always, when one takes
> >>>> the time to study and understand the evidence, the insanity
> >>>> of the government's 9-11 conspiracy theory, as well as the
> >>>> related lies, become not only blatant, but comically absurd.
>
> >>>> Â http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG2y50Wyys4
>
> >>> Watch it all you like. It comes down to this:
> >> Â The laws of physics, which the government's insane cartoon
> >> conspiracy theory blatantly violates. I take it that you agree
> >> with the points made in the video.
> > The only argument I have is they didn't demonstrate that only a
> > controlled demolition can account for the average constant acceleration
> > of 1/3 G.
>
> Â Since we know that the falling block is exerting only 36% of the
> force it exerted while it was at rest, what do you suppose is causing
> the undamaged steel frame below it to violently explode, disintegrate,
> and melt?
Nope a falling block exertes more force when falling than when at
rest...always. I can PROVE it in your presence and you'd call me a
liar and say I rigged it somehow...which would make you a bald faced
liar.
I'm what you some might call a "Practical Expert of Gravity". See,
math is theory most idiots like you never demonstrate your theory not
on paper but actually SHOW it.
You are one of those fucktards who claims there is no gravity between,
say, they earth and uranus...there most assuradly is.
Henry
> On Nov 25, 5:30 am, Henry <9-11tr...@experts.org> wrote:
>> MikeWhy wrote:
>>> "Henry" <9-11tr...@experts.org> wrote in message
>>>> MikeWhy wrote:
>>>>>> This brief video is further proof that the twin towers
>>>>>> were deliberately demolished. As always, when one takes
>>>>>> the time to study and understand the evidence, the insanity
>>>>>> of the government's 9-11 conspiracy theory, as well as the
>>>>>> related lies, become not only blatant, but comically absurd.
>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG2y50Wyys4
>>>>> Watch it all you like. It comes down to this:
>>>> The laws of physics, which the government's insane cartoon
>>>> conspiracy theory blatantly violates. I take it that you agree
>>>> with the points made in the video.
>>> The only argument I have is they didn't demonstrate that only a
>>> controlled demolition can account for the average constant acceleration
>>> of 1/3 G.
>> Since we know that the falling block is exerting only 36% of the
>> force it exerted while it was at rest, what do you suppose is causing
>> the undamaged steel frame below it to violently explode, disintegrate,
>> and melt?
> Nope a falling block exertes more force when falling than when at
> rest...always.
Absolutely dead wrong. Take a high school physics class - and some
tutoring...
Tim
> Â Since we know that the falling block is exerting only 36% of the
> force it exerted while it was at rest.
Geez, Henry, you expect to CONVINCE others when you know so little
yourself? Get back to us when you "know" the force exerted down to 10
decimal places, and have video to back it up.
Sheesh, you kooks....
Tim
> You are one of those fucktards who claims there is no gravity between,
> say, they earth and uranus...
I knew Henry would dispute this, dispite the obvious fact that the
gravity between earth and his anus is the only thing keeping his ass
from flying off into orbit!
Henry
> Sheesh, you kooks....
There's actually a pretty easy method to determine if
someone is a deluded nutjob, or a rational, logical, and
intelligent person.
If you ask the latter to defend or explain his/her beliefs,
the intelligent, rational person will cite hard evidence,
credible expert research, science, physics, etc., and do so
in a clear, logical, calm, and articulate manner.
OTOH, ask a nutjob to defend or explain its beliefs, and
the nutjob becomes offended, uncomfortable, and irrational,
and its "thought" process pretty much shuts down. The nutjob,
rather than defend its beliefs with evidence, research, or
logic, will do one of several things - change the subject,
shamefully run away confused and frustrated, or "attack"
the person who's challenged its beliefs with childishly comical
"insults", such as "You're a communist", "You're a janitor",
"Your mother smokes crack", "You're a desperate, squirming,
evasive, poor loser", etc..
What the nutjob is pitifully and comically incapable of doing,
is engaging in a calm, rational, open, and honest dialog of the
relevant facts, research, and evidence.
Let's give it a go, shall we? This little experiment is usually
quite revealing - and fun - unless, of course, you happen to be
a deluded and confused nutjob.... <vbg>
The demolitions shown in the video below both display all
the characteristics of controlled demolition, and none of
fire induced failure, yet followers of the government's 9-11
conspiracy theory try to tell us that one was caused by the
partial, gradual, and random weakening of a small percentage
of support columns due to gradual heating, and the other was
caused by the total, instant, and symmetric destruction of all
the support columns due to demolition. But obviously, partial
is not total, gradual is not instant, and random is not
symmetric. The contradiction is blatant and extreme. That's why
no one can produce even *one* example of a steel framed high rise
that dropped due to fire. Not one. Not ever. Not anywhere. It's
physically impossible.
Now, look at the buckled column in the photo linked below. That's
the sort of gradual bending and sagging that would be caused by
*extreme* heat. Of course, the fires in WTC7 never even got that
hot nor did they even make contact with most of WTC7's massive
hurricane and earth quake resistant steel frame.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI-3-6.jpg
Photo from: http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI.htm
Here is some more expert research. Please tell us where you believe
they are all mistaken as they use logic, physics, detailed evidence,
and common sense, to prove that random, gradual heating can not possibly
cause the free fall and symmetric drop of a steel framed high rise.
http://wtc7proof.blogspot.com/
http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/02/destruction-of-wtc-7.html
Proof that WTC 7 was demolished professionally
(This is a summary of the argument presented here, complete with more
detailed source links, including Architects and Engineers for 9/11
Truth.)
WTC 7 was the third steel-framed skyscraper that was completely
destroyed on 9/11. Unlike the Twin Towers, it was not hit by a plane.
Its height was 174 meters, and it had 47 floors. It was located in a
block separate from the other WTC buildings, 110 meters from the closest
tower. The implosion of WTC 7 is shown below (note the dropping of the
penthouse).
Investigations. As this was one of the biggest building disasters in
world history, the remains of the skyscraper should have been
painstakingly investigated. If the building collapsed in seconds to the
ground as a result of fires ? as FEMA speculated in 2002 ? the
significance of the event for building safety, building codes, etc. is
enormous. It would have been easy to properly examine the debris from
the building, as it landed mostly within its own footprint. This was not
done, and the physical research material was quickly removed and
destroyed. According to NIST, the governmental agency that is still ?
well after 6.5 years from the event ? trying to come up with a plausible
report, ?no steel was recovered from WTC 7?. This can be seen as either
suspicious or absurd, and I don?t think building disasters are
investigated absurdly.
The speed of destruction. WTC 7 fell into a pile of debris in
approximately 6.5 seconds. The corresponding free fall time is 5.95
seconds, while an apple dropped from the roof would have taken 7 seconds
to fall to the ground (Kurttila 2005; the exact time varies with the air
resistance of the object). The 80 steel support pillars of the building,
therefore, did not in practice resist the destruction. However,
destroying the support structures throughout the floors of the 174-meter
building demanded energy that would have been away from pure kinetic
energy; in other words, gravitational destruction of those structures
would necessarily have slowed down the collapse. No slowing down
required by destruction work can have taken place within the short time
it took WTC 7 to collapse. To simplify: the roof came down as if mere
air (and not 47 stories) had separated it from the ground. This can only
be explained by the removal of structural resistance in a controlled
demolition. In controlled demolitions, the roofs of highrises typically
reach the ground in a time that is slightly longer than free fall. [1]
The sudden onset and symmetry of the destruction. WTC 7 dropped suddenly
straight down. This means that the 80 support pillars had to give in
simultaneously. To believe that random fires on separate floors and
damage to one side caused the sudden vertical collapse is to believe in
a miracle (as pointed out by professor David Ray Griffin). Moreover,
achieving the outcome of a controlled demolition by means of matches and
damaging one side of a highrise would mean that companies specialized in
controlled demolition would have to start thinking about new business ideas.
Hot debris. According to NASA?s thermal imaging, the surface temperature
of the WTC 7 debris pile exceeded 700 degrees Celcius ? five days after
the destruction. Residual temperatures like this cannot be explained by
fires or gravitational collapse. The latter can only result in a few
degrees' increase in temperature.
Molten and vaporized steel. As in the case of the Twin Towers, molten
steel was reportedly found in the remains of WTC 7. Some steel samples
that the researchers did manage to examine were also partially
vaporized. In a New York Times interview, professor Jonathan Barnett
points out that fires cannot explain this. Evidently, not even these
samples were kept, and NIST has ignored this finding. Molten steel can
be explained by explosives but not by fires, as their temperature simply
cannot rise anywhere close to the melting point of steel, let alone the
temperature required by vaporization.
Expert statements. The Dutch demolition expert Danny Jowenko, who owns a
demolition firm and has been in the business for 30 years, regards it as
certain that WTC 7 was demolished. His view is shared by numerous
architects, engineers and other demolition professionals ? see
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, http://www.ae911truth.org/, and
this page exemplifying people with demolition expertise who question the
official account.
The testimony of first responders. Several rescue personnel have
testified to being told that WTC 7 would be brought down.
[1] Another way of looking at this:
1) In a vacuum, an object falls the height of WTC 7 in 5.95 seconds. An
object falling in a vacuum does not crush, twist or displace anything ?
not even air. If WTC 7 had collapsed in 5.95 seconds, not even air (let
alone the rest of the building) would have separated its roof from the
ground.
2) WTC 7 collapsed into a rubble pile in approximately 6.5 seconds.
3) As an object falling freely does not crush or twist anything, the
time available for gravitational crushing or twisting of the building's
~80 steel columns throughout its 47 floors is slightly over 0.5 seconds
(6.5 - 5.95 seconds) ? or, if you like, ~0.01 seconds per floor ( 0.5 / 47).
4) The 0.5 seconds is not enough even in theory for a total
gravitational collapse of a 174-meter highrise. Ergo, the structural
resistance was removed by means of explosives.
Let us know if you disagree with anything written below, and
if so, what and why. The writer proves that gradual weaken due
to heat couldn't possibly have caused WTC7's sudden, free fall,
and symmetric drop, and he uses a clear, logical combination of
evidence, basic physics, and common sense to do it.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/f/LeggeLastTry4.pdf
"If you think about the nature of the collapse, supposedly due to
fire weakening the steel, you will agree that it would only be
necessary to follow the early stages of the collapse to determine
its character. If heat is the cause, the steel will weaken gradually
and will start to sag in the region where the fire is most intense.
At that moment the steel will have almost enough strength to hold up
the weight of the building, but not quite. So we have the force of
gravity acting downwards, trying to produce an acceleration of 32
feet per second per second, and the force of the hot steel pushing
upwards, a force a bit less than that of gravity. Let us say we are
looking at it at the moment when the strength has declined to the
point where the steel is capable of pushing upwards with 90% of the
force required to hold the building up against gravity. There would
thus be a net downward force of 10% of gravity. Now acceleration is
proportional to force and we have a net force of 10% of gravity
so we would see an acceleration downwards of 3.2 feet per second
per second.
When you graph the data you find that the fall did not start with a
motion which could be ascribed to a small net force of that order.
The downward acceleration of the roof was very close to free fall
right from the start, 30 feet per second per second, and continued
at that rate until out of sight. There is no hint of a slow start.
This tells us that the steel supports went from adequate strength to
virtually no strength in an instant. For reasons stated above this is
absolutely impossible if the loss of strength is due to the application
of heat."
Henry
> I knew Henry would dispute this, dispite the obvious fact that the
> gravity between earth and his anus is the only thing keeping his ass
> from flying off into orbit!
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI-3-6.jpg
Photo from: http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI.htm
http://wtc7proof.blogspot.com/
http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/02/destruction-of-wtc-7.html
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/f/LeggeLastTry4.pdf
--
Henry
>On Nov 25, 11:32 am, Henry <9-11tr...@experts.org> wrote:
>> What part of the video do you disagree with? Any idea at all
>> what's on your "mind", or is this more of a religious, emotional
>> type of thing for you? <chuckle>
> People were asking about you, afraid that you had gotten yourself
> locked up in some secret government prison
When, instead of defending your faith based beliefs with even
a trace of logic or reason, you act like a frustrated, learning
disabled child who just had an adult explain to him why Santa
isn't real, you prove my point - which of course, is that mindless
parrots of the government's insane magic and physically impossible
9-11 cartoon conspiracy theory believe their fairy tale based on
nothing but blind faith and extreme ignorance. Thanks Tim... <chuckle>
What part of the video do you disagree with? Any idea at all
what's on your "mind", or is this more of a religious, emotional
type of thing for you? <chuckle>
<link to expert research restored because we can't afford
to let America hating extremists, mass murdering terrorists,
or their misguided, clueless apologists hide the truth>
This brief video is further proof that the twin towers
were deliberately demolished. As always, when one takes
the time to study and understand the evidence, the insanity
of the government's 9-11 conspiracy theory, as well as the
related lies, become not only blatant, but comically absurd.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG2y50Wyys4
Rob Kleinschmidt
> Â Since we know that the falling block is exerting only 36% of the
> force it exerted while it was at rest, what do you suppose is causing
> the undamaged steel frame below it to violently explode, disintegrate,
> and melt?
Try this experiment, Mr. science.
Observe and measure the force that you feel while
standing on your head.
Now have a friend drop you on your head from a
second story window.
Report back to us with your observations.
Does being dropped on your head and contacting the
ground at 36% less force than you felt while standing
on your head cause you believe even more strongly
than before in your controlled demolition theory ?
I predict it will.
Henry
>On Nov 25, 11:32 am, Henry <9-11tr...@experts.org> wrote:
>> What part of the video do you disagree with? Any idea at all
>> what's on your "mind", or is this more of a religious, emotional
>> type of thing for you? <chuckle>
> You see, eventually it just gets annoying.
Actually, I find your simple minded, childish, fact free, and
moronic kook rants slightly amusing and somewhat comforting.
After all, if you were able to defend your reality defying nut
job conspiracy theory with anything even remotely close to logic,
reason, research, or evidence, I'd have to give you and your
conspiracy theory some consideration.
When, instead of defending your faith based beliefs, you act like
a frustrated, learning disabled child who just had an adult explain
to him why Santa isn't real, you prove my point - which of course,
is that mindless parrots of the government's insane magic and
physically impossible 9-11 cartoon conspiracy theory believe their
fairy tale based on nothing but blind faith and extreme ignorance.
Thanks Tim... <chuckle>
What part of the video do you disagree with? Any idea at all
what's on your "mind", or is this more of a religious, emotional
type of thing for you? <chuckle>
<link to expert research restored because we can't afford
to let America hating extremists, mass murdering terrorists,
or their misguided, clueless apologists hide the truth>
This brief video is further proof that the twin towers
were deliberately demolished. As always, when one takes
the time to study and understand the evidence, the insanity
of the government's 9-11 conspiracy theory, as well as the
related lies, become not only blatant, but comically absurd.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG2y50Wyys4
Henry
> Now have a friend drop you on your head from a
> second story window.
Hey Rob, tell us more about your imaginary, magic, steel
melting, skyscraper exploding paint chips. That was kinda
funny... <chuckle>
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI-3-6.jpg
Photo from: http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI.htm
http://wtc7proof.blogspot.com/
http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/02/destruction-of-wtc-7.html
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/f/LeggeLastTry4.pdf
--
*us*
>... know so little ...
Did you know that Bush and Cheney lied about 9/11?
If you could manage to find out that fact, how would
you attempt to explain it, were you able?
Rob Kleinschmidt
> Rob Kleinschmidt wrote:
> > Now have a friend drop you on your head from a
> > second story window.
>
> Â Hey Rob, tell us more about your imaginary, magic, steel
> melting, skyscraper exploding paint chips. That was kinda
> funny... Â <chuckle>
So as I predicted, being dropped on your head
caused you to believe 36% more strongly in a
controlled thermite demolition.
Henry
> On Nov 25, 12:07 pm, Henry <9-11tr...@experts.org> wrote:
>> When, instead of defending your faith based beliefs with even
>> a trace of logic or reason, you act like a frustrated, learning
>> disabled child who just had an adult explain to him why Santa
>> isn't real, you prove my point - which of course, is that mindless
>> parrots of the government's insane magic and physically impossible
>> 9-11 cartoon conspiracy theory believe their fairy tale based on
>> nothing but blind faith and extreme ignorance. Thanks Tim... <chuckle>
> Excuse me, Henry, but you've apparently confused me with someone who
> is interested in LISTENING to your kooktales.
Not at all. As I said, I know you don't read, think, or listen.
Like the child described above, you spew your childish fact free
drivel out of confusion, ignorance, and frustration. But thanks
for proving my point again...
What part of the video do you disagree with? Any idea at all
what's on your "mind", or is this more of a religious, emotional
type of thing for you? <chuckle>
<link to expert research restored because we can't afford
to let America hating extremists, mass murdering terrorists,
or their misguided, clueless apologists hide the truth>
This brief video is further proof that the twin towers
were deliberately demolished. As always, when one takes
the time to study and understand the evidence, the insanity
of the government's 9-11 conspiracy theory, as well as the
related lies, become not only blatant, but comically absurd.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG2y50Wyys4
--
Henry
> So as I predicted, being dropped on your head
> caused you to believe 36% more strongly in a
> controlled thermite demolition.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI-3-6.jpg
Photo from: http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI.htm
http://wtc7proof.blogspot.com/
http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/02/destruction-of-wtc-7.html
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/f/LeggeLastTry4.pdf
--
"The broad mass of a nation will more easily fall victim to a big lie
MikeWhy
> MikeWhy wrote:
>> "Henry" <9-11...@experts.org> wrote in message
>>> MikeWhy wrote:
>
>>>>> This brief video is further proof that the twin towers
>>>>> were deliberately demolished. As always, when one takes
>>>>> the time to study and understand the evidence, the insanity
>>>>> of the government's 9-11 conspiracy theory, as well as the
>>>>> related lies, become not only blatant, but comically absurd.
>>>
>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG2y50Wyys4
>>>
>>>> Watch it all you like. It comes down to this:
>
>>> The laws of physics, which the government's insane cartoon
>>> conspiracy theory blatantly violates. I take it that you agree
>>> with the points made in the video.
>
>> The only argument I have is they didn't demonstrate that only a
>> controlled demolition can account for the average constant acceleration
>> of 1/3 G.
>
> Since we know that the falling block is exerting only 36% of the
> force it exerted while it was at rest, what do you suppose is causing
> the undamaged steel frame below it to violently explode, disintegrate,
> and melt?
Every engineer and scientist understands the peer review process well enough
to know, to be taken seriously, she has to address the obvious and unobvious
concerns the audience might, will, or have already raised. What else can
cause the tower to fall from top to bottom at an average constantly
accelerating rate of some fraction of the natural acceleration of gravity?
Why are these explanations not reasonable? Why is controlled demolition at a
quadratically increasing rate the only feasible explanation? The video
doesn't answer those questions. It's your job, not mine, to anticipate and
answer them. As it stands, the presentation delivers only (unverified)
measurements of the collapse rate that graph out to a constant acceleration
of .36 G. That is its only value.
From my chair, it seems obvious that there is no upward force equalling .64
G to offset the steady pull of gravity on the constantly increasing collapse
mass. The .36 G is only an average then, with some portion of time in free
fall, some at rest, and the remainder at some other value.
Henry
>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG2y50Wyys4
What explanations? By the way, I appreciate the fact that you're
actually reading, thinking, and replying coherently. That's pretty
rare among followers of the "official" 9-11 conspiracy theory... ,g>
> Why is controlled demolition at a quadratically increasing rate the only
> feasible explanation? The video doesn't answer those questions.
The video proves that something other than the falling upper block
(which disintegrated and ceased to exist in a matter of seconds)
is destroying massive undamaged steel frames in the towers. Can you
think of any cause other than controlled demolition? Whatever you
come up with also has to explain the massive explosions, the molten
metal, the destruction of evidence, and the refusal of the Bush regime
to investigate the crime.
Here, read this. There's a reason why fires - even raging infernos -
have never dropped a steel framed high rise.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI-3-6.jpg
Photo from: http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI.htm
http://wtc7proof.blogspot.com/
http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/02/destruction-of-wtc-7.html
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/f/LeggeLastTry4.pdf
--
Rob Kleinschmidt
> Rob Kleinschmidt wrote:
> > So as I predicted, being dropped on your head
> > caused you to believe 36% more strongly in a
> > controlled thermite demolition.
>
> There's actually a pretty easy method to determine if
> someone is a deluded nutjob, or a rational, logical, and
> intelligent person.
There is indeed. The sanity of the poster is inversely
proportional to the size of the posting. As a rule, rational,
logical, intelligent people don't feel the need to spew tens
of thousands on lines of drivel all over usenet.
Twibil
>
> On Nov 25, 7:30Â am, Henry <9-11tr...@experts.org> wrote:
>
> > Â Since we know that the falling block is exerting only 36% of the
> > force it exerted while it was at rest.
>
> Geez, Henry, you expect to CONVINCE others when you know so little
> yourself? Â
Oh GAWD! He didn't *really* say that did he? (Note: rhetorical
question. Of *course* he did.) Poor Hen3ry either thinks that the
laws concerning mass and kinetic energy are just "theories", or he
doesn't know that there *are* any such laws.
Suggested change to Rob's original Modest Proposal: (A) Restrain
Hen3ry securely. (B) Place a bowling ball gently atop one of Hen3ry's
feet and let it sit there at rest. (C) Now drop that same bowling ball
on the same foot from a height of, oh, let's say, twenty feet.... (D)
Record Hen3ry's reaction to the differing effects of (B) and (C), and
post the video to U-Tube.
As compared to Rob's suggestion, this has the added benefit of keeping
Hen3ry alive to suffer the humiliation of seeing his agony shared with
millions of hysterically laughing viewers, a result which I'm sure we
all agree is much preferable to merely mulching his remains after
having dropped him head-first from a second-story window.
Best of all, it leaves him with no room to complain about anything*.
For if his statement that a falling object exerts only 36% of the
force it exerts at rest is *true*, he cannot possibly be harmed by the
falling bowling ball... QED.
I'm quite looking forward to this!
(* Note: My wife has pointed out that Rob's proposal also leaves
Hen3ry with nothing to complain about by reason of his being recently
deceased. Pooh.)
Henry
> BTW, everything that Henry has faithfully copied and regurgitated in
> reeky over the years is neatly, dispassionately, scientifically, and
> totally debunked in multiple places on the web, but the best is
> possibly:
Tim, your anonymous kook site needs to update its lies. It still
claims that WTC7 suffered significant structural damage from debris
impacts, which contributed to its "collapse".
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
That's a lie. The "official" conspiracy theory now blames WTC7's
free fall and symmetric drop on nothing but minor, ordinary office
fires.. Even NIST has been forced to finally admit that fact thanks
to the meticulous research of 9-11 truth experts.
The anonymous authors of your kook site also deny WTC7 's free fall.
But NIST has been forced to admit that fact, too. Their lies are very
silly and blatant to all but the severely deluded, ignorant, and
confused.
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc082108.html
"Finally, the report notes that ?while debris impact from the
collapse of WTC 1 initiated fires in WTC 7, the resulting
structural damage had little effect in causing the collapse
of WTC 7."
Also, what do the anonymous authors of your kook site mean by
the drivel quoted below? It looks like they're saying that tall
buildings can't topple sideways, but smaller ones can. WTF? You
and your fellow conspiracy kooks are severely deluded, incoherent,
and confused - but at least slightly amusing... <chuckle>
"But the building doesn't look like it fell over, it fell "in its own
foot print" you might say. That's because it is impossible for a 47
story steel building to fall over like that. It's not a small steel
reinforced concrete building like the ones shown as *Examples* of
buildings which fell over. Building 7 is more like the towers, made up
of many pieces put together. It's not so much a solid block as those
steel reinforced concrete buildings."
But of course, you won't be able to answer these questions or
defend your kook site, because as you have so clearly demonstrated
on numerous occasions, your belief in the government's insane 9-11
conspiracy is based on nothing but your blind faith and extreme
ignorance. That being the case, you either get even more stupid or
simply run away whenever you're challenged to defend your comical
lies, delusions, and fantasies. But thanks for proving my point...
Henry
> The sanity of the poster is inversely
> proportional to the size of the posting.
No doubt, if someone sent out a post with nothing but a
"0" in it, Rob would "think" he discovered a real genius.
<chuckle>
I'd like to thank you for not only helping to keep this great
thread alive, but also for so clearly demonstrating the severely
challenged "intellect" of a typical Bush parroting magic fire
cartoon conspiracy kook. Couldn't have done it much better myself.
<chuckle>
One way to identify an ignorant, helpless, and confused
Bush parroting cartoon conspiracy kook, is by its tendency
to spew childish lies, drivel, or =simply= obsess over
its betters when it's challenged to think or address the
evidence.. <chuckle>
Now, back to the facts and evidence:
Videos of "squibs":
Squibs everywhere, but especially at the 10 and
20 second marks:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjfoXbyffso&feature=related
Please explain the violent 75 foot explosions seen
coming out the sides of both towers hundred of feet
below the "collapse" zone. Let us know if you dispute
or don't understand any of what is written below.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/Ryan_HVBD.pdf
"In videos we can see these bursts being ejected from the sides of the
towers nearly thirty floors below the collapse front.[3] The bursts
continue throughout the duration of each tower?s destruction, and all of
them are similar in shape and velocity. Each of these was a sharp
emission that appeared to come from a point-like source, ejecting
approximately 50 to 100 feet from the side of the building in a fraction
of a second. From the extracted frames of the KTLA video (ref. 2), we
can estimate that one of the first bursts was fully ejected in
approximately 0.45 seconds. This gives an average burst velocity of
approximately 170 feet per second (fps). Others have estimated the
velocity of these ejections at over 1100 fps.[4]
These bursts were ignored by government investigators for a period of
several years, as was all other evidence for the demolition hypothesis.
But after being forced to field many "frequently asked questions",
NIST's Shyam Sunder finally provided a semiofficial explanation. In a
March 2005 article by Popular Mechanics, Sunder called these bursts
"puffs of dust?", and explained "When you have a significant portion of
a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the
window. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled
demolition, but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."[5]
Unfortunately for Sunder, NIST was forced to abandon that answer, in
the summer of 2006, saying "NIST's findings do not support the "pancake
theory" of collapse." In an attempt to maintain their faltering
fire-induced collapse hypothesis, NIST tried to retain the essence of
the explanation, despite having forsaken pancaking floors. They did so
by saying "the falling mass of the building compressed the air ahead of
it "much like the action of a piston" forcing smoke and debris out the
windows as the stories below failed sequentially."[6]
3
Although the piston analogy might have made some minimal sense for the
discarded pancake theory, it does not work at all for NIST's current
pile-driver theory. A piston is a sliding shaft that fits within an
enclosed cylinder, whose action within the cylinder causes the volume
and pressure to change. But the WTC buildings did not have sections
acting like pistons at any time before, or during, their disintegration.
Without pancaking floors, there is no internal shaft to slide down
within the "enclosed cylinder" of these tall buildings.
Because the government scientists never did any physical testing to
support this latest compression argument, we must try to imagine for
ourselves how the disintegrating building could have created the
ejections of debris.
To be the result of overpressures created from the falling mass, these
bursts had to emanate from highly pressurized containers that were
tightly sealed on all sides except the point of ejection. With his 2005
pancaking floors hypothesis, NIST?s Shyam Sunder suggested that these
pressurized containers were entire floor areas, compressed by the
falling mass. The reason these containers cannot be smaller than a full
floor area is because the office floors were wide-open spaces, with no
floor to ceiling partitions as normally found in other office buildings.
The effective partition-less area in each floor was approximately 3000
square meters.
It's difficult to imagine how 283 steel columns in each of the Twin
Towers could have been compressed so rapidly and uniformly, while
collapsing at nearly free-fall speed through a vertical distance of 350
meters. But even if this feature of the fire-induced hypothesis was a
given, to initiate the gas pressure below, we would need to imagine the
falling mass as a flat plate, or a continuous sheet, exerting uniform
pressure at all points. If discontinuous, the falling mass would allow
pressure to be released upward. But we can infer that the falling mass
was probably not a uniform flat plate or a continuous sheet because
workers who cleaned up the site described how the debris at ground zero
was all pulverized, except for the steel assemblies. Photographic
evidence (as in Fig. 1 above) also indicates that the falling debris,
which appeared to explode outward to some extent, was cloud-like. Such
cloud-like debris could not form the continuous falling surface that
would be needed to create the downward pressure and compress the air
below.
The lack of a continuous compressive force in itself repudiates the
compressive piston hypothesis. But it is not enough to simply discredit
this latest weak answer from NIST. By showing how completely ineffective
NIST's new argument is, we can better understand how desperate those
supporting the government?s ever-changing fire-based hypotheses have
become. Not only was there no way to compress the gas below, the floors
were not air tight, enclosed containers either, which means that, even
if the falling mass could exert a uniform downward pressure, it would
not be contained. There were eight large air supply and return
ventilation shafts located in the core areas of each floor.[7] There
were also three stairwells running throughout the building, and over
thirty elevator shafts at any given level. Any compressed air would have
had to equilibrate with open stairwells and elevator shafts, and with
any openings from these shafts to other parts of the building (i.e.
vent ducts). Additionally, we know that the fire in the north tower in
1975 was spread by means of openings in the floor slabs, of more than
one square foot area, used to transfer telephone cables.[8] All of these
facts indicate that any pressurized air would be forced to equilibrate
over large sections of the building, if not the entire lower section,
and could not be contained on one floor alone.
The only explanation for an array of interconnected
steel box columns measuring over four feet by two
feet with five inch thick walls suddenly disintegrating
and falling thought itself following the path of most
resistance - after it had been stripped of its load -
is controlled demolition. That's also the only explanation
to can account for the molten metal observed in the rubble.
If you've got another theory, structural engineers and
other experts all over the globe would love to hear it.
So would I....
Core remnant disintegration:
http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg
http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/New_Spire/
http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/spire/The%20Strange%20Collapse%20of%20the%20Spire.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDVap83AEmc
Core photos and facts:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc1cons1.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html
Here are some photos of WTC4, which was much closer to the towers
than WTC7, and was completely gutted by severe fires and partially
crushed by heavy impacts.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc4des1.html
This photo of WTC4 really demonstrates the incredible strength of
steel framed buildings.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/bjh/14.jpg
Here are some photos of WTC5 & 6 after the tower demolitions.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/gzpo1.html
WTC7 was a tall narrow 47 story steel framed skyscraper.
It was not hit by a plane.
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/9-11%20Picture1.jpg
This illustration shows the location of the various WTC buildings
as well as the range of debris impact.
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/b7/collateral.html
Here are photos of WTC7's "inferno".
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc7fire1.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/wtc7.html
Here is a video of WTC7's picture perfect controlled demolition.
http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/wtc7_collapse2.mpg
Here are more videos of WTC7's demolition.
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html
We're still waiting for followers of the "official" conspiracy
theory to provide us with a logical explanation other than
controlled demolition for the fact that the buildings closest to
the towers remained standing, while WTC7's massive hurricane
resistant steel frame suddenly disintegrated and dropped at virtual
free fall speed and perfect symmetry. Limited, isolated fires can
not possibly cause such a failure. In fact, no steel framed building
has ever collapsed due to fire. Not one. Ever. Controlled demolition
is the only possible cause of WTC7's free fall speed and symmetric
drop. Even Bush's FEMA was forced to admit the following:
"The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building
to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel
on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis
has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research,
investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue."
More expert analysis on the demolition of WTC7 can be found here:
http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/02/destruction-of-wtc-7.html
This is what happens to steel framed buildings exposed to raging
infernos for hours on end.
http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html
As you can see, these steel framed structures suffered gradual
deformation, but nothing even remotely close to a total symmetric
and free fall speed collapse - and those fires were far hotter
and of much longer duration than the small, isolated fires in
WTC7.
Twin Towers:
The massive reserve strength designed into the steel frames of
the towers could not possibly have been overcome by the force
of gravity alone. The fact that it was exceeded to such an
extreme degree that the undamaged steel frame offered no
measurable resistance, proves conclusively that the lower
structures were destroyed before being impacted by the upper
structures.
From:
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060327100957690
"The Twin Towers and Why They Fell
It would help to begin with an accurate description of the WTC towers
in terms of quality of design and construction. In July of 1971, the
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) presented a national award
judging the buildings to be "the engineering project that demonstrates
the greatest engineering skills and represents the greatest
contribution to engineering progress and mankind."3 Others noted that
"the World Trade Center towers would have an inherent capacity to
resist unforeseen calamities." This capacity stemmed from the use of
special high-strength steels. In particular, the perimeter columns
were designed with tremendous reserve strength whereby "live loads on
these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs.
More on the incredible strength of the towers can be found here:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html
"There is evidence that the Twin Towers were designed with an even
greater measure of reserve strength than typical large buildings.
According to the calculations of engineers who worked on the Towers'
design, all the columns on one side of a Tower could be cut, as well
as the two corners and some of the columns on each adjacent side, and
the building would still be strong enough to withstand a
100-mile-per-hour wind. 3"
The massive steel frames of the towers were far too strong to
collapse only under their own weight. That's been proved through
physics, and that's why no other steel framed buildings have ever
collapsed that way unless they were demolished. See Gordon Ross'
research paper on momentum transfer here:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf
As common sense would dictate, even if all the perimeter and
core columns near the top of the tower were somehow destroyed
simultaneously so that the top 20 stories or so dropped onto the
remaining undamaged frame, after some bending and compression,
the collapse would have stopped, or the upper block would have
fallen off to the side. Gordon Ross proves that with physics.
The official conspiracy requires us to believe that falling
directly =through= the massive undamaged steel frames, including
the 47 interconnected central core columns:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html
provided little more resistance than air. This is proved by
the fact that debris falling outside the towers hit the ground
about the same time as the debris falling through the towers.
Making the government's conspiracy theory even more implausible,
is the fact that the steel at the top of the towers was over
ten times lighter and thinner than the undamaged steel in the
lower section. Look at the massive core column cross section in
the bottom photo.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html
The official conspiracy theory says that crushing 47 of those
columns, all interconnected with even more steel, =and= destroying
all the perimeter columns, =and= "pancaking" all the floors, and
stairways, produced about the same kinetic friction as falling
though air. That, of course, is not physically possible.
Observe the rotating and disintegrating block on the South
Tower.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc2exp4.html
Notice that the corners are curved, as the block's internal
destruction is already taking place. If it had not been destroyed
through demolition, it would have continued to rotate and fall off
the building as an intact block. Also, notice that the block is
tilting towards the corner where it was impacted. The opposite
corner was undamaged by impact or fire, as proved by photo
evidence.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc2exp1.html
As the top section of that tower is rotating, the high strength,
fire resistant perimeter columns on one side of the building are
being compressed, and on the opposite side, where the building
was not damaged by fire or impact, the weight above them is greatly
reduced.
Why do you think the undamaged steel perimeter frame with reduced
weight above it is exploding and collapsing at the same rate as
the fire and impact damaged side that has most of the weight of the
rotating block on it? Seems more than a little odd, doesn't it? Here's
some information on the perimeter columns.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/perimeter.html
Now watch this video:
http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/wtc-2_explodes.avi
That's not gradual bending and buckling of an over heated steel
frame. Those are huge explosions not unlike those we see in a
controlled demolition. Keep in mind that this is at the onset of
the collapse, so nothing is falling quickly at this point.
More good information on 9-11 can be found here:
http://stopthelie.com/1-hour_guide_to_911.html
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200703/Sudden_collapse_initiation_impossible.pdf
9/11 and the Twin Towers:
Sudden Collapse Initiation was Impossible
By Frank Legge, PhD (Chemistry) and Tony Szamboti, Mechanical Engineer
23 Dec 2007
Numerous arguments have been presented that the Twin
Towers at the World Trade Centre could not have
collapsed in the observed manner due to the cause
asserted in the NIST report, namely damage from plane
impact and fire. 1 The bases of these arguments include
the rapidity and symmetry of collapse, 2 the adequacy of
the steel supports, 3 and the finding of incendiary
residues in the dust. 4 It has also been argued that the
initiating event in the official explanation, the sudden
collapse of one storey, 1 could not have occurred because
the steel was not hot enough. 5 This argument is based on
data set out in the NIST report itself. There is another
argument, as will be described here, that is based simply
on the behaviour of hot steel under load. No calculations
are involved and no knowledge of the temperature of the
steel is required.
In the official explanation the collapse occurs in two
stages. In the first stage one storey, damaged by plane
impact and fire, suddenly collapses. This allows the
section of the tower above to fall freely down and hit the
lower section. In the second stage the energy of this
impact is said to be sufficient to cause the top of the
lower section to disintegrate. This material adds to the
falling mass and further impacts cause disintegration to
continue in a rapid sequence all the way to the ground.6
Let us consider the situation just prior to the first stage.
There are some damaged columns, some fire, and a claimed
ack of fireproofing. Given the substantial safety factor
in the building design, the number of damaged columns is far
too few to put the buildings at risk without the fire. This
is elaborated on in the NIST report and elsewhere.1, 7 We
will ignore the fact that according to the physical evidence
data within the body of the NIST report, and contrary to its
conclusion, the steel did not get very hot. We will assume
the strongest case for the official theory: the fire was
uniform over the whole area and very hot. The fire has to
heat the steel, which takes time. Eventually the steel gets
hot enough that it cannot carry the load in the initiating
storey. It starts to sag. At this point there has been no
disruption of the columns, other than that caused by the
plane impact, hence most of the columns are still attached
to the floors above and below and are continuous, passing up
and down into other storeys, giving the columns rigidity. The
length of the columns between attachments is too short for
buckling to occur. 8 Failure must therefore be by compression.
As the steel sags two things will happen: the columns, as
they shorten, will become wider, which is obvious; and the
inherent strength of the steel will increase, which is not
obvious. It is well established however that the yield
strength of steel increases as the degree of distortion
increases. This tendency increases with rising temperature
and is pronounced at the temperatures required for collapse,
as can be seen in the graph below. 9 For both of these
reasons the initial sag cannot be catastrophic but will be
very slow and the rate will depend on the rate of heat input.
A rising temperature will be needed to offset both the
significant increase in yield strength and the slight
increase in cross-section area, if collapse is to progress.
It is clear therefore that the upper section should only
have moved down slowly and only continued to do so if
additional heat was supplied. A slow, protracted, and
sagging collapse was not observed however with either tower.
As observed in videos of both tower collapses, the upper
sections suddenly start to fall and disintegrate.10 In the
case of the south tower, initially a lean of the upper
section developed but within the first second this turned
into a rapid collapse with upper section disintegration,
just as was observed with the north tower. It appears
therefore that the official concept of a free fall collapse
of the upper portion through the initiation storey, due to
heat effects from fire, is a fantasy. If the temperature
did become high enough for collapse to occur it could not
have happened in the observed manner. 9 In particular it
could not have been sudden and thus could not have produced
the velocity, and hence the momentum and kinetic energy,
upon which the official story depends for the second stage
of collapse. In contrast, all observations are in accord with
the use of explosives in a timed sequence.
The case that the NIST report must be corrected is confirmed.
If this report is not corrected the suspicion will remain
that its purpose was not so much to inform as to deceive.
Henry
> On Nov 25, 6:55 am, Tim <tomorrowerolsdot...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 25, 7:30 am, Henry <9-11tr...@experts.org> wrote:
>>> Since we know that the falling block is exerting only 36% of the
>>> force it exerted while it was at rest.
>> Geez, Henry, you expect to CONVINCE others when you know so little
>> yourself?
> Oh GAWD! He didn't *really* say that did he?
Proved it, too. As always, here's the proof.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG2y50Wyys4
Were you not spewing your silly drivel while hiding and
cowering behind your killfile, you might not make quite
such a fool of yourself. But as my most psychotic and
rabidly obsessed "critic", I prefer you to be fool, so
please do continue to spew your drivel from a position
of total ignorance <chuckle>
Vito
| Rob Kleinschmidt wrote:
|
| > Now have a friend drop you on your head from a
| > second story window.
|
| Hey Rob, tell us more about your imaginary, magic, steel
| melting, skyscraper exploding paint chips. That was kinda
| funny... <chuckle>
|
|
| There's actually a pretty easy method to determine if
| someone is a deluded nutjob, or a rational, logical, and
| intelligent person.
| If you ask the latter to defend or explain his/her beliefs,
| the intelligent, rational person will cite hard evidence,
| credible expert research, science, physics, etc., and do so
| in a clear, logical, calm, and articulate manner.
| OTOH, ask a nutjob to defend or explain its beliefs, and
| the nutjob becomes offended, uncomfortable, and irrational,
| and its "thought" process pretty much shuts down. The nutjob,
| rather than defend its beliefs with evidence, research, or
| logic, will do one of several things - change the subject,
Ahhh, what did you just do in response to Rob's valid, albiet tougue in
cheek, illustration?
You changed the subject.
Rob Kleinschmidt
> Rob Kleinschmidt wrote:
> > The sanity of the poster is inversely
> > proportional to the size of the posting.
>
> No doubt, if someone sent out a post with nothing but a
> "0" in it, Rob would "think" he discovered a real genius.
> <chuckle>
Not necessarily a genius, just a mite saner than you.
MikeWhy
> MikeWhy wrote:
>> Why is controlled demolition at a quadratically increasing rate the only
>> feasible explanation? The video doesn't answer those questions.
>
> The video proves that something other than the falling upper block (which
> disintegrated and ceased to exist in a matter of seconds)
> is destroying massive undamaged steel frames in the towers. Can you think
> of any cause other than controlled demolition?
I'm outa here after this... The video doesn't prove or even illustrate
anything of the sort. It looks to me, as a non-expert, how a building should
look as the top floors collapse onto the lower floors.
Henry
Rob posted moronic, irrelevant kook drivel and ignored the
research - like you did. Thanks for proving my point...
This brief video is further proof that the twin towers
were deliberately demolished. As always, when one takes
the time to study and understand the evidence, the insanity
of the government's 9-11 conspiracy theory, as well as the
related lies, become not only blatant, but comically absurd.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG2y50Wyys4
Henry
> "Henry" <9-11...@experts.org> wrote in message
> news:heju15$4hv$1...@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> MikeWhy wrote:
>>> Why is controlled demolition at a quadratically increasing rate the
>>> only feasible explanation? The video doesn't answer those questions.
>> The video proves that something other than the falling upper block
>> (which disintegrated and ceased to exist in a matter of seconds)
>> is destroying massive undamaged steel frames in the towers. Can you
>> think of any cause other than controlled demolition?
> I'm outa here after this... The video doesn't prove or even illustrate
> anything of the sort.
Of course it does. Watch it again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG2y50Wyys4
> It looks to me, as a non-expert, how a building
> should look as the top floors collapse onto the lower floors.
Impossible. The upper block was far too light. Imagine building
a 15 foot high steel tower by welding a stack of steel shopping
cart baskets together. Now get on a step ladder and heat up the
bars near the top. Do you think that could cause the top cart to
suddenly crush it's way through the carts below it? The upper block
had nowhere near enough mass to crush the undamaged, thicker, stronger,
heavier steel frame belwo it. Besides, the videops show the upper block
disintegrating at the start of the demoltion.
Henry
>>> Rob Kleinschmidt wrote:
>>> <snipped comments reposted to keep things in context>
>>> Try this experiment, Mr. science.
>>> Observe and measure the force that you feel while
>>> standing on your head.
>>> Now have a friend drop you on your head from a
>>> second story window.
>>> Report back to us with your observations.
>>> Does being dropped on your head and contacting the
>>> ground at 36% less force than you felt while standing
>>> on your head cause you believe even more strongly
>>> than before in your controlled demolition theory ?
>>>
>>> I predict it will.
> Henry wrote:
>> Hey Rob, tell us more about your imaginary, magic, steel
>> melting, skyscraper exploding paint chips. That was kinda
>> funny... <chuckle>
> <snip more unrelated comments>
> C'mon Henry, you can do better than that? Rob makes a valid point
Actually Rob (and you)entirely miss the key point. Of course the
upper block would exert more force if it had decelerated after
it began its drop, than it would resting motionless. That's explained
in the video. Fact is, it never decelerated. So Rob's analogy would
have to be a comparison between standing on his head stationary
compared to standing on his head while the surface his head was
resting on accelerated downwards at 67% of free fall. Get it? Yet?
Wow. This really is *very* basic logic and physics.
Did you even bother to watch the video? If so, you definitely
failed to comprehend the basic point made.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG2y50Wyys4
eric gisse
[snip spew]
Go away, dishonest spamming moron.
BTW, nice crosspost.
S'mee
FUckyou you hypocrite. I answered All your old questions and destroied
every fucking theory with FACT. You've always lied cheated and ran
like a little scared pogue from mine. So fuck you and fuck your flm if
you are not smart enough to figure out your theory is as fucked as a
woman 8 months pregnant you fucking failure at life.
S'mee
> S'mee wrote:
> > On Nov 25, 5:30 am, Henry <9-11tr...@experts.org> wrote:
> >> MikeWhy wrote:
> >>> "Henry" <9-11tr...@experts.org> wrote in message
> >>>> MikeWhy wrote:
> >>>>>> Â This brief video is further proof that the twin towers
> >>>>>> were deliberately demolished. As always, when one takes
> >>>>>> the time to study and understand the evidence, the insanity
> >>>>>> of the government's 9-11 conspiracy theory, as well as the
> >>>>>> related lies, become not only blatant, but comically absurd.
> >>>>>> Â http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG2y50Wyys4
> >>>> Â The laws of physics, which the government's insane cartoon
> >>>> conspiracy theory blatantly violates. I take it that you agree
> >>>> with the points made in the video.
> >>> The only argument I have is they didn't demonstrate that only a
> >>> controlled demolition can account for the average constant acceleration
> >>> of 1/3 G.
> >> the undamaged steel frame below it to violently explode, disintegrate,
> >> and melt?
> > rest...always.
>
> Â Absolutely dead wrong. Take a high school physics class - and some
> tutoring...
>
and you obviously want to suck my cock you dirty old man. I'm correct
and you are a LIAR and THIEF and CHEATING SLUM LORD...not only that
you hate the fact you never could answer my questions whilst I a
greater expert on those subjects than YOU destroied every post you've
made so far you plageristic fucking communist.
Henry
> BrianNZ <br...@itnz.co.nz> wrote:
>> Now have a friend drop you on your head from a
>> second story window.
> If only.....
The mind of deluded nut jobs - they don't make any sense or
address the facts, evidence and expert reseqch, but they do
slightly amuse their many betters....
Actually Rob (and you)entirely miss the key point. Of course the
upper block would exert more force if it had decelerated after
it began its drop, than it would resting motionless. That's explained
in the video. Fact is, it never decelerated. So Rob's analogy would
have to be a comparison between standing on his head stationary
compared to standing on his head while the surface his head was
resting on accelerated downwards at 67% of free fall. Get it? Yet?
Wow. This really is *very* basic logic and physics.
Did you even bother to watch the video? If so, you definitely
failed to comprehend the basic point made.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG2y50Wyys4
Henry
>>> Rob Kleinschmidt wrote:
>>> <snipped comments reposted to keep things in context>
>>> Try this experiment, Mr. science.
>>> Observe and measure the force that you feel while
>>> standing on your head.
>>> Now have a friend drop you on your head from a
>>> second story window.
>>> Report back to us with your observations.
>>> Does being dropped on your head and contacting the
>>> ground at 36% less force than you felt while standing
>>> on your head cause you believe even more strongly
>>> than before in your controlled demolition theory ?
>>>
>>> I predict it will.
> Henry wrote:
>> Hey Rob, tell us more about your imaginary, magic, steel
>> melting, skyscraper exploding paint chips. That was kinda
>> funny... <chuckle>
> <snip more unrelated comments>
> C'mon Henry, you can do better than that? Rob makes a valid point
Actually Rob (and you)entirely miss the key point. Of course the
upper block would exert more force if it had decelerated after
it began its drop, than it would resting motionless. That's explained
in the video. Fact is, it never decelerated. So Rob's analogy would
have to be a comparison between standing on his head stationary
compared to standing on his head while the surface his head was
resting on accelerated downwards at 67% of free fall. Get it? Yet?
Wow. This really is *very* basic logic and physics.
Did you even bother to watch the video? If so, you definitely
failed to comprehend the basic point made.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG2y50Wyys4
Henry
> On Nov 25, 3:15 pm, BrianNZ <br...@itnz.co.nz> wrote:
>>> Now have a friend drop you on your head from a
>>> second story window.
>>> If only.....
>> First he has to find one! :)
> Oh, second-story windows are quite common;
I'd like to thank you silly clowns for not only helping
to keep this great thread alive, but also for so clearly
demonstrating the severely challenged "intellect" of a
typical Bush parroting magic fire cartoon conspiracy kook.
Couldn't have done it much better myself. <chuckle>
One way to identify an ignorant, helpless, and confused
Bush parroting cartoon conspiracy kook, is by its tendency
to spew childish lies, drivel, or =simply= obsess over
its betters when it's challenged to think or address the
evidence. At the low end of this group of clowns are those
who spew their childlike idiocy and lies while hiding behind
their killfiles. Petie "twitbull" Roehling operates at that
level. Pitiful, but at least slightly amusing. <chuckle>
Videos of "squibs":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjfoXbyffso&feature=related
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/Ryan_HVBD.pdf
Core remnant disintegration:
Core photos and facts:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc1cons1.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc4des1.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/bjh/14.jpg
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/gzpo1.html
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/9-11%20Picture1.jpg
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/b7/collateral.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc7fire1.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/wtc7.html
http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/wtc7_collapse2.mpg
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html
http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/02/destruction-of-wtc-7.html
http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html
From:
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060327100957690
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html
http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc2exp4.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc2exp1.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/perimeter.html
Now watch this video:
http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/wtc-2_explodes.avi
http://stopthelie.com/1-hour_guide_to_911.html
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200703/Sudden_collapse_initiation_impossible.pdf
--
Henry
> On Nov 24, 8:17 am, Henry <9-11tr...@experts.org> wrote:
> FUckyou you hypocrite.
Nut job alert. You go, boy... <chuckle>
There's actually a pretty easy method to determine if
someone is a deluded nutjob, or a rational, logical, and
intelligent person.
If you ask the latter to defend or explain his/her beliefs,
the intelligent, rational person will cite hard evidence,
credible expert research, science, physics, etc., and do so
in a clear, logical, calm, and articulate manner.
OTOH, ask a nutjob to defend or explain its beliefs, and
the nutjob becomes offended, uncomfortable, and irrational,
and its "thought" process pretty much shuts down. The nutjob,
rather than defend its beliefs with evidence, research, or
logic, will do one of several things - change the subject,
shamefully run away confused and frustrated, or "attack"
the person who's challenged its beliefs with childishly comical
"insults", such as "You're a communist", "You're a janitor",
"Your mother smokes crack", "You're a desperate, squirming,
evasive, poor loser", etc..
What the nutjob is pitifully and comically incapable of doing,
is engaging in a calm, rational, open, and honest dialog of the
relevant facts, research, and evidence.
Let's give it a go, shall we? This little experiment is usually
quite revealing - and fun - unless, of course, you happen to be
a deluded and confused nutjob.... <vbg>
The demolitions shown in the video below both display all
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI-3-6.jpg
Photo from: http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI.htm
http://wtc7proof.blogspot.com/
http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/02/destruction-of-wtc-7.html
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/f/LeggeLastTry4.pdf
--
Henry
> A quick game of whack-a-troll.
You're definitely whacked, but you lack the intelligence to be
a decent troll. Did you figure out the difference between constant
velocity and sudden deceleration yet? It is basic high school
physics, so it's easy to see why you can't comprehend it... <chuckle>
Actually Rob (and you)entirely miss the key point. Of course the
upper block would exert more force if it had decelerated after
it began its drop, than it would resting motionless. That's explained
in the video. Fact is, it never decelerated. So Rob's analogy would
have to be a comparison between standing on his head stationary
compared to standing on his head while the surface his head was
resting on accelerated downwards at 67% of free fall. Get it? Yet?
Wow. This really is *very* basic logic and physics.
Did you even bother to watch the video? If so, you definitely
failed to comprehend the basic point made.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG2y50Wyys4
Henry
> Any opportunity to display your insanity
> again is fun.
It's kinda cute how not one of you helpless, deluded, and
confused nut jobs has disputed or addressed any of the points
made in the video yet. High school physics appears to be *well*
beyond your comprehension. <chuckle>
This brief video is further proof that the twin towers
were deliberately demolished. As always, when one takes
the time to study and understand the evidence, the insanity
of the government's 9-11 conspiracy theory, as well as the
related lies, become not only blatant, but comically absurd.
Henry
> On Nov 25, 3:59 pm, Henry <9-11tr...@experts.org> wrote:
>> Of course the
>> upper block would exert more force if it had decelerated after
>> it began its drop, than it would resting motionless. That's explained
>> in the video. Fact is, it never decelerated.
> Good point, Henry!
Actually, I have to give the credit to the expert who produced
the video. But as you've admitted, it does make perfect sense and
it does prove that the upper block couldn't have crushed the
undamaged frame below it...
Henry
> On Nov 26, 12:02 pm, Twibil <nowayjo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 26, 2:25 am, "tomor...@erols.com"
>> <tomorrowaterolsdot...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Poor Hen3ry
>>>>> Oh, has he popped up again? Blimey.
>>>> And people are feeding his obsession. Again.
>>> You should try it, it's FUN!
>
>> Well, it *is* the holiday fruitcake season, so poor Hen3ry's posts are
>> at least seasonal!
>> Now wait just a cotton pickin' min...you know, the boy does have a
>> point there. Fortunately I keep all my feathers numbered for occasions
>> such as this.
There's actually a pretty easy method to determine if
someone is a deluded nutjob, or a rational, logical, and
intelligent person.
If you ask the latter to defend or explain his/her beliefs,
the intelligent, rational person will cite hard evidence,
credible expert research, science, physics, etc., and do so
in a clear, logical, calm, and articulate manner.
OTOH, ask a nutjob to defend or explain its beliefs, and
the nutjob becomes offended, uncomfortable, and irrational,
and its "thought" process pretty much shuts down. The nutjob,
rather than defend its beliefs with evidence, research, or
logic, will do one of several things - change the subject,
shamefully run away confused and frustrated, or "attack"
the person who's challenged its beliefs with childishly comical
"insults", such as "You're a communist", "You're a janitor",
"Your mother smokes crack", "You're a desperate, squirming,
evasive, poor loser", etc..
What the nutjob is pitifully and comically incapable of doing,
is engaging in a calm, rational, open, and honest dialog of the
relevant facts, research, and evidence.
Let's give it a go, shall we? This little experiment is usually
quite revealing - and fun - unless, of course, you happen to be
a deluded and confused nutjob.... <vbg>
The demolitions shown in the video below both display all
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI-3-6.jpg
Photo from: http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI.htm
http://wtc7proof.blogspot.com/
http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/02/destruction-of-wtc-7.html
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/f/LeggeLastTry4.pdf
--
Henry
> The object in question is of no earthly use to you
> or the dog
Your "mind" is coming further undone, Rob. The object in
question is only experting about 36% of the force it would be
exerting if it was resting still. As always, here's the proof.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG2y50Wyys4
Apparently. you're not quite capable of grasping even basic
high school physics. No wonder you believe everything GWB
told you without thought or question... <chuckle>
I'd like to thank you for not only helping to keep this great
thread alive, but also for so clearly demonstrating the severely
challenged "intellect" of a typical Bush parroting magic fire
cartoon conspiracy kook. Couldn't have done it much better myself.
<chuckle>
One way to identify an ignorant, helpless, and confused
Bush parroting cartoon conspiracy kook, is by its tendency
to spew childish lies, drivel, or =simply= obsess over
its betters when it's challenged to think or address the
evidence.. <chuckle>
Videos of "squibs":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjfoXbyffso&feature=related
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/Ryan_HVBD.pdf
Core remnant disintegration:
Core photos and facts:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc1cons1.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc4des1.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/bjh/14.jpg
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/gzpo1.html
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/9-11%20Picture1.jpg
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/b7/collateral.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc7fire1.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/wtc7.html
http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/wtc7_collapse2.mpg
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html
http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/02/destruction-of-wtc-7.html
http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html
From:
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060327100957690
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html
http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc2exp4.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc2exp1.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/perimeter.html
Now watch this video:
http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/wtc-2_explodes.avi
http://stopthelie.com/1-hour_guide_to_911.html
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200703/Sudden_collapse_initiation_impossible.pdf
Henry
>> On Nov 26, 10:10 pm, "MikeWhy" <boat042-nos...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> It works both ways. I've thrown sticks that neither of us cared about for
>>> anything other than just something for him to swim after and fetch.
<snip>
Speaking of sticks, Rob, do you still "think" that
dropping a stick proves that tall buildings cant' be made to
topple sideways? That as some *really* stupid kook drivel... <chuckle>
Rob Kleinschmidt wrote:
> Henry wrote:
>> Are you denying that the massive undamaged steel frames below
>> the impact zone produced little more resistance than air, as
>> proven by the virtual free fall speed of the collapses, or do
>> you agree that's what took place and you think it makes perfect
>> sense?
> I'm suggesting that "little more resistance than air" and "virtual
> free fall" are meaningless phrases that you will keep repeating
> for the remainder of your life without a clue what they mean.
Do you think steel has about the same physical properties as
air? Seems like you'd feel more resistance riding through this
steel frame than through air. I bet your deceleration would
be quite measurable if you hit it while coasting at about
60mph.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html
I'm sure you would agree it would slow you and your bike
at least a few hundred times more than air, so why wouldn't
the same be true for falling debris? Please explain this
glaring inconsistency.
>> Apparently, your "expert" Thomas Eagar "thinks" that if
>> supports on only one side of a tall building are destroyed,
>> the building would still drop straight down, because - get this
>> - that's the direction gravity is pulling. For your sake, I really
>> hope you don't believe that sort of complete idiocy. Do you? <g>
> Take any object, a block or a stick for example. Hold it at
> an angle, then drop it. Does it fall over sideways, or does it
> travel straight to the ground at the same angle ?
Say WTF? Dropping an object and letting it free fall has nothing
to do with the tilting of a structure that's supported by the
ground. There's no fulcrum or pivot point in your analogy. Are
you trolling, or really unable to grasp these concepts? If you
kick two legs off one side of a four legged table, do you think
the table will drop straight down with the top remaining level?
What in the hell are you talking about with these flying blocks
and sticks?
Henry
> "Henry pops up, but then he poops out!" A Reeky cautionary tale.
There's actually a pretty easy method to determine if
someone is a deluded nutjob, or a rational, logical, and
intelligent person.
If you ask the latter to defend or explain his/her beliefs,
the intelligent, rational person will cite hard evidence,
credible expert research, science, physics, etc., and do so
in a clear, logical, calm, and articulate manner.
OTOH, ask a nutjob to defend or explain its beliefs, and
the nutjob becomes offended, uncomfortable, and irrational,
and its "thought" process pretty much shuts down. The nutjob,
rather than defend its beliefs with evidence, research, or
logic, will do one of several things - change the subject,
shamefully run away confused and frustrated, or "attack"
the person who's challenged its beliefs with childishly comical
"insults", such as "You're a communist", "You're a janitor",
"Your mother smokes crack", "You're a desperate, squirming,
evasive, poor loser", etc..
What the nutjob is pitifully and comically incapable of doing,
is engaging in a calm, rational, open, and honest dialog of the
relevant facts, research, and evidence.
Let's give it a go, shall we? This little experiment is usually
quite revealing - and fun - unless, of course, you happen to be
a deluded and confused nutjob.... <vbg>
The demolitions shown in the video below both display all
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI-3-6.jpg
Photo from: http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI.htm
http://wtc7proof.blogspot.com/
http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/02/destruction-of-wtc-7.html
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/f/LeggeLastTry4.pdf
--
Henry
>> He hates being thought of as a kook, but his "logical, scientific
>> reasoned, unassailable, infallible proof" of his theory hasn't
>> convinced ANYONE else, EVER
This is the sort of insane, easily refuted kook drivel that
keeps me coming back and amuses your many sane betters. Thanks,
Timmy.. <vbg>
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/11/911-roster.html
To Pick the Winning Team, You Have to Know Who The Players Are
You have to know who the players are before you can pick the winning
team, right?
So take a look at what the top military leaders, intelligence
professionals, scientists, structural engineers, architects, members of
Congress, 9/11 Commissioners, legal scholars, heroic first responders,
family members of 9/11 victims and psychiatrists say before you make up
your mind about who's on the winning side of the 9/11 debate:
MILITARY LEADERS
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Ronald Reagan
(Col. Ronald D. Ray) said that the official story of 9/11 is "the dog
that doesn't hunt" (bio)
Director of the U.S. "Star Wars" space defense program in both
Republican and Democratic administrations, who was a senior air force
colonel who flew 101 combat missions (Col. Robert Bowman) stated that
9/11 was an inside job. He also said:
"If our government had merely [done] nothing, and I say that as an
old interceptor pilot?I know the drill, I know what it takes, I know how
long it takes, I know what the procedures are, I know what they were,
and I know what they?ve changed them to?if our government had merely
done nothing, and allowed normal procedures to happen on that morning of
9/11, the Twin Towers would still be standing and thousands of dead
Americans would still be alive. [T]hat is treason!"
U.S. Army Air Defense Officer and NORAD Tac Director, decorated with the
Purple Heart, the Bronze Star and the Soldiers Medal (Capt. Daniel
Davis) stated:
"there is no way that an aircraft . . . would not be intercepted
when they deviate from their flight plan, turn off their transponders,
or stop communication with Air Traffic Control ... Attempts to obscure
facts by calling them a 'conspiracy Theory' does not change the truth.
It seems, 'Something is rotten in the State.' "
President of the U.S. Air Force Accident Investigation Board, who also
served as Pentagon Weapons Requirement Officer and as a member of the
Pentagon's Quadrennial Defense Review, and who was awarded Distinguished
Flying Crosses for Heroism, four Air Medals, four Meritorious Service
Medals, and nine Aerial Achievement Medals (Lt. Col. Jeff Latas) is a
member of a group which doubts the government's version of 9/11
U.S. General, Commanding General of U.S. European Command and Supreme
Allied Commander Europe, decorated with the Bronze Star, Silver Star,
and Purple Heart (General Wesley Clark) said "We've never finished the
investigation of 9/11 and whether the administration actually misused
the intelligence information it had. The evidence seems pretty clear to
me. I've seen that for a long time."
Air Force Colonel and key Pentagon official (Lt. Colonel Karen
Kwiatkowski) finds various aspects of 9/11 suspicious
Lieutenant colonel, 24-year Air Force career, Vice Chancellor for
Student Affairs at the Defense Language Institute (Lt. Colonel Steve
Butler) said "Of course Bush knew about the impending attacks on
America. He did nothing to warn the American people because he needed
this war on terrorism."
Two-Star general (Major General Albert Stubbelbine) questions the attack
on the Pentagon
U.S. Air Force fighter pilot, former instructor at the USAF Fighter
Weapons School and NATO?s Tactical Leadership Program, with a 20-year
Air Force career (Lt. Colonel Guy S. Razer) said the following:
"I am 100% convinced that the attacks of September 11, 2001 were
planned, organized, and committed by treasonous perpetrators that have
infiltrated the highest levels of our government ....
Those of us in the military took an oath to "support and defend the
Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and
domestic". Just because we have retired does not make that oath invalid,
so it is not just our responsibility, it is our duty to expose the real
perpetrators of 9/11 and bring them to justice, no matter how hard it
is, how long it takes, or how much we have to suffer to do it.
We owe it to those who have gone before us who executed that same
oath, and who are doing the same thing in Iraq and Afghanistan right
now. Those of us who joined the military and faithfully executed orders
that were given us had to trust our leaders. The violation and abuse of
that trust is not only heinous, but ultimately the most accurate
definition of treason!"
U.S. Marine Corps lieutenant colonel, a fighter pilot with over 300
combat missions flown and a 21-year Marine Corps career (Lt. Colonel
Shelton F. Lankford) believes that 9/11 was an inside job, and said:
"This isn't about party, it isn't about Bush Bashing. It's about
our country, our constitution, and our future. ...
Your countrymen have been murdered and the more you delve into it
the more it looks as though they were murdered by our government, who
used it as an excuse to murder other people thousands of miles away.
If you ridicule others who have sincere doubts and who know factual
information that directly contradicts the official report and who want
explanations from those who hold the keys to our government, and have
motive, means, and opportunity to pull off a 9/11, but you are too lazy
or fearful, or ... to check into the facts yourself, what does that make
you? ....
Are you afraid that you will learn the truth and you can't handle
it? ..."
U.S. Navy 'Top Gun' pilot (Commander Ralph Kolstad) who questions the
official account of 9/11 and is calling for a new investigation, says
"When one starts using his own mind, and not what one was told, there is
very little to believe in the official story".
The Group Director on matters of national security in the U.S.
Government Accountability Office said that President Bush did not
respond to unprecedented warnings of the 9/11 disaster and conducted a
massive cover-up instead of accepting responsibility
Additionally, numerous military leaders from allied governments have
questioned 9/11, such as:
Canadian Minister of Defense, the top military leader of Canada (Paul
Hellyer)
Assistant German Defense Minister (Andreas Von Bulow)
Commander-in-chief of the Russian Navy (Anatoli Kornukov)
Chief of staff of the Russian armed forces (General Leonid Ivashov)
INTELLIGENCE PROFESSIONALS
Former military analyst and famed whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg recently
said that the case of a certain 9/11 whistleblower is "far more
explosive than the Pentagon Papers". He also said that the government is
ordering the media to cover up her allegations about 9/11. And he said
that some of the claims concerning government involvement in 9/11 are
credible, that "very serious questions have been raised about what they
[U.S. government officials] knew beforehand and how much involvement
there might have been", that engineering 9/11 would not be humanly or
psychologically beyond the scope of the current administration, and that
there's enough evidence to justify a new, "hard-hitting" investigation
into 9/11 with subpoenas and testimony taken under oath.
A 27-year CIA veteran, who chaired National Intelligence Estimates and
personally delivered intelligence briefings to Presidents Ronald Reagan
and George H.W. Bush, their Vice Presidents, Secretaries of State, the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many other senior government officials
(Raymond McGovern) said ?I think at simplest terms, there?s a cover-up.
The 9/11 Report is a joke?, and is open to the possibility that 9/11 was
an inside job.
A 29-year CIA veteran, former National Intelligence Officer (NIO) and
former Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis
(William Bill Christison) said ?I now think there is persuasive evidence
that the events of September did not unfold as the Bush administration
and the 9/11 Commission would have us believe. ... All three [buildings
that were destroyed in the World Trade Center] were most probably
destroyed by controlled demolition charges placed in the buildings
before 9/11." (and see this).
20-year Marine Corps infantry and intelligence officer, the
second-ranking civilian in U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence, and former
CIA clandestine services case officer (David Steele) stated that "9/11
was at a minimum allowed to happen as a pretext for war", and it was
probably an inside job (see Customer Review dated October 7, 2006).
A decorated 20-year CIA veteran, who Pulitzer-Prize winning
investigative reporter Seymour Hersh called "perhaps the best
on-the-ground field officer in the Middle East?, and whose astounding
career formed the script for the Academy Award winning motion picture
Syriana (Robert Baer) said that"the evidence points at" 9/11 having had
aspects of being an inside job .
The Division Chief of the CIA?s Office of Soviet Affairs, who served as
Senior Analyst from 1966 - 1990. He also served as Professor of
International Security at the National War College from 1986 - 2004
(Melvin Goodman) said "The final [9/11 Commission] report is ultimately
a coverup."
Professor of History and International Relations, University of
Maryland. Former Executive Assistant to the Director of the National
Security Agency. Former military attach� in China. 21-year career in
U.S. Army Intelligence (Major John M. Newman, PhD, U.S. Army)
questions the government's version of the events of 9/11.
The head of all U.S. intelligence, the Director of National Intelligence
(Mike McConnel) said "9/11 should have and could have been prevented"
A number of intelligence officials, including a CIA Operations Officer
who co-chaired a CIA multi-agency task force coordinating intelligence
efforts among many intelligence and law enforcement agencies (Lynne
Larkin) sent a joint letter to Congress expressing their concerns about
?serious shortcomings,? ?omissions,? and ?major flaws? in the 9/11
Commission Report and offering their services for a new investigation
(they were ignored).
9/11 COMMISSIONERS
The 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials lied to the
Commission, and considered recommending criminal charges for such false
statements, yet didn't bother to tell the American people (free
subscription required).
Indeed, the co-chairs of the Commission (Thomas Keane and Lee Hamilton)
now admit that the Commission largely operated based upon political
considerations.
9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says "I don't believe for a minute
we got everything right", that the Commission was set up to fail, that
people should keep asking questions about 9/11, that the 9/11 debate
should continue, and that the 9/11 Commission report was only "the first
draft" of history.
9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that "There are ample reasons to
suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our
version . . . We didn't have access . . . ."
9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said "We were extremely frustrated with
the false statements we were getting"
Former 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission,
stating: "It is a national scandal"; "This investigation is now
compromised"; and "One of these days we will have to get the full story
because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House
wants to cover it up".
The Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) who led the 9/11
staff's inquiry, said "I was shocked at how different the truth was from
the way it was described .... The tapes told a radically different story
from what had been told to us and the public for two years.... This is
not spin. This is not true."
SCIENTISTS
A prominent physicist with 33 years of service for the Naval Research
Laboratory in Washington, DC (Dr. David L. Griscom) said that the
official theory for why the Twin Towers and world trade center building
7 collapsed "does not match the available facts" and supports the theory
that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition
A world-renowned scientist, recipient of the National Medal of Science,
America's highest honor for scientific achievement (Dr. Lynn Margulis) said:
"I suggest that those of us aware and concerned demand that the
glaringly erroneous official account of 9/11 be dismissed as a fraud and
a new, thorough, and impartial investigation be undertaken."
The former head of the Fire Science Division of the government agency
which claims that the World Trade Centers collapsed due to fire (the
National Institute of Standards and Technology), who is one of the
world?s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, a Ph.D.
in mechanical engineering (Dr. James Quintiere), called for an
independent review of the World Trade Center Twin Tower collapse
investigation. "I wish that there would be a peer review of this," he
said, referring to the NIST investigation. "I think all the records that
NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see
someone else take a look at what they've done; both structurally and
from a fire point of view. ... I think the official conclusion that NIST
arrived at is questionable."
Former Director for Research, Director for Aeronautical Projects, and
Flight Research Program Manager for NASA's Dryden Flight Research
Center, who holds masters degrees in both physics and engineering (Dwain
A. Deets) says:
"The many visual images (massive structural members being hurled
horizontally, huge pyroclastic clouds, etc.) leave no doubt in my mind
explosives were involved [in the destruction of the World Trade Centers
on 9/11].''
A prominent physicist, former U.S. professor of physics from a top
university, and a former principal investigator for the U.S. Department
of Energy, Division of Advanced Energy Projects (Dr. Steven E. Jones)
stated that the world trade centers were brought down by controlled
demolition
A U.S. physics professor who teaches at several universities (Dr.
Crockett Grabbe) believes that the World Trade Centers were brought down
by controlled demolition
An expert on demolition (Bent Lund) said that the trade centers were
brought down with explosives (in Danish)
A Dutch demolition expert (Danny Jowenko) stated that WTC 7 was imploded
A safety engineer and accident analyst for the Finnish National Safety
Technology Authority (Dr. Heikki Kurttila) stated regarding WTC 7 that
"The great speed of the collapse and the low value of the resistance
factor strongly suggest controlled demolition."
A 13-year professor of metallurgical engineering at a U.S. university,
with a PhD in materials engineering, a former Congressional Office of
Technology Assessment Senior Staff Member (Dr. Joel S. Hirschhorn), is
calling for a new investigation of 9/11
A Danish professor of chemistry (Dr. Niels Harrit) said, in a mainstream
Danish newspaper, "WTC7 collapsed exactly like a house of cards. If the
fires or damage in one corner had played a decisive role, the building
would have fallen in that direction. You don't have to be a woodcutter
to grasp this" (translated)
A former guidance systems engineer for Polaris and Trident missiles and
professor emeritus, mathematics and computer science at a university
concluded (Dr. Bruce R. Henry) that the Twin Towers "were brought down
by planted explosives."
A mechanical engineer with 20 years experience as a Fire Protection
Engineer for the U.S. Departments of Energy, Defense, and Veterans
Affairs, who is a contributing Subject Matter Expert to the U.S.
Department of Energy Fire Protection Engineering Functional Area
Qualification Standard for Nuclear Facilities, a board member of the
Northern California - Nevada Chapter of the Society of Fire Protection
Engineers, currently serving as Fire Protection Engineer for the city of
San Jose, California, the 10th largest city in the United States (Edward
S. Munyak) believes that the World Trade Center was destroyed by
controlled demolition.
The former Chief of the Strategic and Emergency Planning Branch, U.S.
Department of Energy, and former Director of the Office of Engineering
at the Public Service Commission in Washington, D.C., who is a
mechanical engineer (Enver Masud) , does not believe the official story,
and believes that there is a prima facie case for controlled demolition
of the World Trade Center.
A professor of mathematics (Gary Welz) said "The official explanation
that I've heard doesn't make sense because it doesn't explain why I
heard and felt an explosion before the South Tower fell and why the
concrete was pulverized"
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS AND ARCHITECTS
A prominent engineer with 55 years experience, in charge of the design
of hundreds of major building projects including high rise offices,
former member of the California Seismic Safety Commission and former
member of the National Institute of Sciences Building Safety Council
(Marx Ayres) believes that the World Trade Centers were brought down by
controlled demolition (see also this)
Two professors of structural engineering at a prestigious Swiss
university (Dr. Joerg Schneider and Dr. Hugo Bachmann) said that, on
9/11, World Trade Center 7 was brought down by controlled demolition
(translation here)
Charles Pegelow, structural engineer, of Houston, Texas (and see this)
Dennis Kollar, structural engineer, of West Bend, Wisconsin
Doyle Winterton, structural engineer (retired)
Haluk Akol, Structural Engineer and architect (ret.)
Michael T. Donly, P.E., structural engineer
William Rice, P.E., structural engineer, former professor of Vermont
Technical College
An architect, member of the American Institute of Architects, who has
been a practicing architect for 20 years and has been responsible for
the production of construction documents for numerous steel-framed and
fire-protected buildings for uses in many different areas, including
education, civic, rapid transit and industrial use (Richard Gage)
disputes the claim that fire and airplane damage brought down the World
Trade Centers and believes there is strong evidence of controlled
demolition (many other architects who question 9/11 are listed here)
LEGAL SCHOLARS
Former Federal Prosecutor, Office of Special Investigations, U.S.
Department of Justice under Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan;
former U.S. Army Intelligence officer, and currently a widely-sought
media commentator on terrorism and intelligence services (John Loftus)
questions the government's version of 9/11.
Former Inspector General, U.S. Department of Transportation; former
Professor of Aviation, Dept. of Aerospace Engineering and Aviation and
Professor of Public Policy, Ohio State University (Mary Schiavo)
questions the government's version of 9/11.
Professor of International Law at the University of Illinois, Champaign;
a leading practitioner and advocate of international law; responsible
for drafting the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, the
American implementing legislation for the 1972 Biological Weapons
Convention; served on the Board of Directors of Amnesty International
(1988-1992), and represented Bosnia- Herzegovina at the World Court,
with a Doctor of Law Magna Cum Laude as well as a Ph.D. in Political
Science, both from Harvard University (Dr. Francis Boyle) questions the
government's version of 9/11.
Former prosecutor in the Organized Crime and Racketeering Section of the
U.S. Justice Department and a key member of Attorney General Bobby
Kennedy?s anti-corruption task force; former assistant U.S. Attorney for
the Northern District of Illinois (J. Terrence "Terry" Brunner)
questions the government's version of 9/11.
Professor Emeritus, International Law, Professor of Politics and
International Affairs, Princeton University; in 2001 served on the
three-person UN Commission on Human Rights for the Palestine
Territories, and previously, on the Independent International Commission
on Kosovo (Richard Falk) questions the government's version of 9/11.
Bessie Dutton Murray Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus and
Director, Center for Human Rights, University of Iowa; Fellow, World
Academy of Art and Science. Honorary Editor, Board of Editors, American
Journal of International Law (Burns H. Weston) questions the
government's version of 9/11.
Former president of the National Lawyers Guild (C. Peter Erlinder), who
signed a petition calling for a real investigation into 9/11. And see
petition.
Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice at Troy University; associate
General Counsel, National Association of Federal Agents; Retired Agent
in Charge, Internal Affairs, U.S. Customs, responsible for the internal
integrity and security for areas encompassing nine states and two
foreign locations; former Federal Sky Marshall; 27-year U.S. Customs
career (Mark Conrad) questions the government's version of 9/11.
Professor of Law, University of Freiburg; former Minister of Justice of
West Germany (Horst Ehmke) questions the government's version of 9/11.
Director of Academic Programs, Institute for Policy and Economic
Development, University of Texas, El Paso, specializing in executive
branch secrecy policy, governmental abuse, and law and bureaucracy;
former U.S. Army Signals Intelligence officer; author of several books
on law and political theory (Dr. William G. Weaver) questions the
government's version of 9/11.
Famed trial attorney (Gerry Spence) questions the government's version
of 9/11.
Former Instructor of Criminal Trial Practice, Boalt Hall School of Law,
University of California at Berkeley 11-year teaching career. Retired
Chief Assistant Public Defender, Contra Costa County, California 31-year
career (William Veale) said:
"When you grow up in the United States, there are some bedrock
principles that require concerted effort to discard. One is the
simplest: that our leaders are good and decent people whose efforts may
occasionally warrant criticism but never because of malice or
venality... But one grows up. ... And with the lawyer's training comes
the reliance on evidence and the facts that persuade... After a lot of
reading, thought, study, and commiseration, I have come to the
conclusion that the attacks of 9/11 were, in their essence, an inside
job perpetrated at the highest levels of the U S government."
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Current U.S. Senator (Patrick Leahy) states "The two questions that the
congress will not ask . . . is why did 9/11 happen on George Bush's
watch when he had clear warnings that it was going to happen? Why did
they allow it to happen?"
Current Republican Congressman (Ron Paul) states that "we see the [9/11]
investigations that have been done so far as more or less cover-up and
no real explanation of what went on"
Current Democratic Congressman (Dennis Kucinich) hints that we aren't
being told the truth about 9/11
Former Democratic Senator (Mike Gravel) states that he supports a new
9/11 investigation and that we don't know the truth about 9/11
Former U.S. Republican Congressman and senior member of the House Armed
Services Committee, and who served six years as the Chairman of the
Military Research and Development Subcommittee (Curt Weldon) has shown
that the U.S. tracked hijackers before 9/11, is open to hearing
information about explosives in the Twin Towers, and is open to the
possibility that 9/11 was an inside job
FAMILY MEMBERS AND HEROIC FIRST RESPONDERS
A common criticism of those who question 9/11 is that they are being
"disrespectful to the victims and their families".
However, half of the victim's families believe that 9/11 was an inside
job (according to the head of the largest 9/11 family group, Bill Doyle)
(and listen to this interview). Many family and friends of victims not
only support the search for 9/11 truth, but they demand it (please
ignore the partisan tone). See also this interview.
Indeed, it has now become so clear that the 9/11 Commission was a
whitewash that the same 9/11 widows who called for the creation of the
9/11 Commission are now demanding a NEW investigation (see also this video).
And dying heroes, soon-to-be victims themselves, the first responders
who worked tirelessly to save lives on and after 9/11, say that
controlled demolition brought down the Twin Towers and that a real
investigation is necessary.
PSYCHIATRISTS AND PSYCHOLOGISTS
Finally, those who attack people who question the government's version
of 9/11 as "crazy" may wish to review the list of mental health
professionals who have concluded that the official version of 9/11 is false:
Psychiatrist Carol S. Wolman, MD
Psychiatrist E. Martin Schotz
Associate Clinical Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke
University Medical Center, as well as Radiology, at Duke University
Medical Center D. Lawrence Burk, Jr., MD
Board of Governors Distinguished Service Professor of Psychology and
Associate Dean of the Graduate School at Ruters University Barry R.
Komisaruk
Professor of Psychology at University of New Hampshire William Woodward
Professor of Psychology at University of Essex Philip Cozzolino
Professor of Psychology at Goddard College Catherine Lowther
Professor Emeritus of Psychology at California Institute of Integral
Studies Ralph Metzner
Professor of Psychology at Rhodes University Mike Earl-Taylor
Retired Professor of Psychology at Oxford University Graham Harris
Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology from the University of Nebraska and
licensed Psychologist Ronald Feintech
Ph.D. Clinical Neuropsychologist Richard Welser
THOUSANDS OF OTHERS
The roster above is only a sample. There are too many Ph.D. scientists
and engineers, architects, military and intelligence officials,
politicians, legal scholars and other highly-credible people who
question 9/11 -- literally thousands -- to list in one place. Here are a
few additional people to consider:
The former director of the FBI (Louis Freeh) says there was a cover up
by the 9/11 Commission
Former air traffic controller, who knows the flight corridor which the
two planes which hit the Twin Towers flew "like the back of my hand" and
who handled two actual hijackings (Robin Hordon) says that 9/11 could
not have occurred as the government says, and that planes can be tracked
on radar even when their transponders are turned off (also, listen to
this interview)
Perhaps "the premiere collapse expert in the country", who 9/11
Commissioner Timothy Roemer referred to as a "very, very respected
expert on building collapse", the head of the New York Fire Department's
Special Operations Command and the most highly decorated firefighter in
its NYFD history, who had previously "commanded rescue operations at
many difficult and complex disasters, including the Oklahoma City
Bombing, the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing, and many natural disasters
worldwide" thought that the collapse of the South Tower was caused by
bombs, because the collapse of the building was too even to have been
caused by anything else (pages 5-6).
Former Deputy Secretary for Intelligence and Warning under Nixon, Ford,
and Carter (Morton Goulder), former former Deputy Director to the White
House Task Force on Terrorism (Edward L. Peck), and former US Department
of State Foreign Service Officer (J. Michael Springmann), as well as a
who's who of liberals and independents) jointly call for a new
investigation into 9/11
Former FBI agent (Robert Wright) says "The FBI, rather than trying to
prevent a terrorist attack, was merely gathering intelligence so they
would know who to arrest when a terrorist attack occurred."
Former FBI translator, who the Department of Justice's Inspector General
and several senators have called extremely credible (free subscription
required) (Sibel Edmonds), said "If they were to do real investigations
we would see several significant high level criminal prosecutions in
this country. And that is something that they are not going to let out.
And, believe me; they will do everything to cover this up". She also is
leaning towards the conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job
--
http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.911truth.org
Henry
>> On Nov 27, 9:15 am, "tomor...@erols.com"
>>> "Henry pops up, but then he poops out!" A Reeky cautionary tale.
>> Yep, he's just got no staying power, that boy.
It's kinda cute how not one of you helpless, deluded, and
confused nut jobs has disputed or addressed any of the points
made in the video yet. High school physics appears to be *well*
beyond your comprehension. You clowns act exactly like a slow
kid who has just been told that Santa isn't real. Thanks for
repeatedly and convincingly proving my points and demonstrating
that your insane cartoon conspiracy theory is based on nothing but
child like blind faith and extreme ignorance.... <chuckle>
This brief video is further proof that the twin towers
were deliberately demolished. As always, when one takes
the time to study and understand the evidence, the insanity
of the government's 9-11 conspiracy theory, as well as the
related lies, become not only blatant, but comically absurd.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG2y50Wyys4
--
Henry
>> On Nov 27, 6:21 pm, Rob Kleinschmidt <Rkleinsch1216...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> On Nov 27, 11:29 am, Twibil <nowayjo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Nov 26, 10:48 pm, Rob Kleinschmidt <Rkleinsch1216...@aol.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> In this case though, it's not about swimming
>>>>> or fetching. More like "Try to take my conspiracy
>>>>> theory away from me. Betcha can't talk me out
>>>>> of it".
>>>> Good simile.
>>>> Makes me picture holding a 'squib' over Hen3ry's head and making him
>>>> jump for it. ("UP, boy! UP!")
>>> I think somebody beat you to this by at least
>>> five or six years.
>>
>> <nochalantly strolls away whistling innocently>
>>
>> t'weren't me...I'm not that nice.
I'd like to thank you silly clowns for not only helping
to keep this great thread alive, but also for so clearly
demonstrating the severely challenged "intellect" of a
typical Bush parroting magic fire cartoon conspiracy kook.
Couldn't have done it much better myself. <chuckle>
One way to identify an ignorant, helpless, and confused
Bush parroting cartoon conspiracy kook, is by its tendency
to spew childish lies, drivel, or =simply= obsess over
its betters when it's challenged to think or address the
evidence. At the low end of this group of clowns are those
who spew their childlike idiocy and lies while hiding behind
their killfiles. Petie "twitbull" Roehling operates at that
level. Pitiful, but at least slightly amusing. <chuckle>
Videos of "squibs":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjfoXbyffso&feature=related
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/Ryan_HVBD.pdf
Core remnant disintegration:
Core photos and facts:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc1cons1.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc4des1.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/bjh/14.jpg
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/gzpo1.html
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/9-11%20Picture1.jpg
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/b7/collateral.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc7fire1.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/wtc7.html
http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/wtc7_collapse2.mpg
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html
http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/02/destruction-of-wtc-7.html
http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html
From:
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060327100957690
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html
http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc2exp4.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc2exp1.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/perimeter.html
Now watch this video:
http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/wtc-2_explodes.avi
http://stopthelie.com/1-hour_guide_to_911.html
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200703/Sudden_collapse_initiation_impossible.pdf
--
S'mee
SNIP
You know. Once you trim the qoutes of other posters and THEN get rid
of the bullshit, THEN the outright LIES, then the obfuscations, then
the smoke to confuse the uneducated and inexperienced, well the only
thing left of henry's posts are whatever you type. Just like I just
did.
So explain and PROVE the logistical aspect of it all Dick Tracy...then
you MIGHT be qualified to have a discussion with me on the choice of
explosives etc.
You are nothing but a cut and paste artist of low skill, low
intelligence AND a impotence of the intellect of brobadignian
proportions.
S'mee
So sorry...I forgot to mention what a self righteous, self important,
pompus prick of a parasite you are. Now carry on bitch, dribble your
syphlitic ranting about as you flail uselessly at the air in a futile
attempt to keep your insane self out of the loony bin.
S'mee
Yep you sure showed me and the entire world what a nut job looks like.
I ought to add you are the laziest psycyhopath I've ever
encountered...the same post hundreds of times, over and over and over.
S'matter not smart enough to reply to seperate posts on their own
merits? Or are just juat a plageristic prick?
Twibil
>
>
> Yep you sure showed me and the entire world what a nut job looks like.
> I ought to add you are the laziest psycyhopath I've ever
> encountered...the same post hundreds of times, over and over and over.
> S'matter not smart enough to reply to seperate posts on their own
> merits? Or are just juat a plageristic prick?
It's simply a form of mental -and very public- masturbation. He does
the same thing over and over simply because it makes him feel better
than anything else in his life.
Good food, good music, good sex, good motorcycles, or intellectual
accomplishments don't stand a chance compared to the joy he gets from
repeatedly telling everyone within reach how smart he is and how
stupid they are by comparison.
This also explains why he only posts intermittently these days: you
can't type all that frequently when you have to shave the palms of
your hands as often as he does.
S'mee
Ah good point, wish it had occured to me.
Henry
> You are nothing but a cut and paste artist of low skill, low
> intelligence AND a impotence of the intellect of brobadignian
> proportions.
Smee is such a silly boy - especially when he's challenged
to think. <g>
Putting your silly hysterics, moronic kook rants, and childish
drivel aside for now, do you dispute any of the analysis or
points made in the video, particularly the fact that the falling'
upper block is only exerting about 36% of the force it would
be exerting if it was at rest? If so, please tell us where you
"think" the analysis is wrong.
(this is where Smee gets even more stupid and childish - like
a slow learning child who has just been told that Santa isn't
real) <chuckle>
This brief video is further proof that the twin towers
were deliberately demolished. As always, when one takes
the time to study and understand the evidence, the insanity
of the government's 9-11 conspiracy theory, as well as the
related lies, become not only blatant, but comically absurd.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG2y50Wyys4
Henry
> You have a video of the upper block continuing to accelerate through
> the core of the earth, out the other side, and out of the solar
> system?
Timmy is such a silly boy - especially when he's challenged
to think. <g>
Putting your silly hysterics, moronic kook rants, and childish
drivel aside for now, do you dispute any of the analysis or
points made in the video, particularly the fact that the falling'
upper block is only exerting about 36% of the force it would
be exerting if it was at rest? If so, please tell us where you
"think" the analysis is wrong.
(this is where Timmy gets even more stupid and childish - like
Henry
> It's simply a form of mental -and very public- masturbation.
Putting your masturbation, silly hysterics, moronic kook rants,
and childish drivel aside for now, do you dispute any of the
analysis or points made in the video, particularly the fact that
the falling upper block is only exerting about 36% of the force
it would be exerting if it was at rest? If so, please tell us
where you "think" the analysis is wrong.
(this is where twit gets even more stupid and childish - like
a slow learning child who has just been told that Santa isn't
real) <chuckle>
This brief video is further proof that the twin towers
were deliberately demolished. As always, when one takes
the time to study and understand the evidence, the insanity
of the government's 9-11 conspiracy theory, as well as the
related lies, become not only blatant, but comically absurd.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG2y50Wyys4
--
Henry
>>> Rob Kleinschmidt wrote:
>>> <snipped comments reposted to keep things in context>
>>> Try this experiment, Mr. science.
>>> Observe and measure the force that you feel while
>>> standing on your head.
>>> Now have a friend drop you on your head from a
>>> second story window.
>>> Report back to us with your observations.
>>> Does being dropped on your head and contacting the
>>> ground at 36% less force than you felt while standing
>>> on your head cause you believe even more strongly
>>> than before in your controlled demolition theory ?
>>>
>>> I predict it will.
> Henry wrote:
>> Hey Rob, tell us more about your imaginary, magic, steel
>> melting, skyscraper exploding paint chips. That was kinda
>> funny... <chuckle>
> <snip more unrelated comments>
> C'mon Henry, you can do better than that? Rob makes a valid point
Actually Rob (and you)entirely miss the key point. Of course
the upper block would exert more force if it had decelerated
after it began its drop, than it would resting motionless.
That's articulately and accurately explained in the video.
Fact is, the upper block didn't decelerate at all during the
demolition. In order for Rob's moronic "analogy" to be valid,
he would have to compare the forces between standing on his head
stationary, vs standing on his head while the surface his empty
head was resting on accelerated downwards at 67% of free fall.
Get it? Yet? Wow. This really is *very* basic logic and high
school physics.
Did you even bother to watch the video? If so, tell us where
you believe the author's analysis is wrong. Mindless babbling
about dropping people on their heads only proves my point - which
of course, is that followers of the "official" cartoon conspiracy
theory are extremely ignorant and incapable of grasping even the
most basic logic and physics or defending their comical and misguided
beliefs.
Henry
> On Nov 30, 7:39 am, Henry wrote:
>> Timmy is such a silly boy - especially when he's challenged
>> to think. <g>
>> Putting your silly hysterics, moronic kook rants, and childish
>> drivel aside for now, do you dispute any of the analysis or
>> points made in the video, particularly the fact that the falling
>> upper block is only exerting about 36% of the force it would
>> be exerting if it was at rest? If so, please tell us where you
>> "think" the analysis is wrong.
>> (this is where Timmy gets even more stupid and childish - like
>> a slow learning child who has just been told that Santa isn't
>> real) <chuckle>
>> This brief video is further proof that the twin towers
>> were deliberately demolished. As always, when one takes
>> the time to study and understand the evidence, the insanity
>> of the government's 9-11 conspiracy theory, as well as the
>> related lies, become not only blatant, but comically absurd.
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG2y50Wyys4
> Oops.
As predicted. You had help with that "explanation", didn't ya,
Timmy? It must be a very helpless and frustrating feeling to
believe in an insane cartoon fairy tale, told to you by known
liars, mass murderers, terrorists, and war criminals, that
not only contradicts the evidence but violates the basic
principles of physics. Sure is fun to watch you squirm,
disgrace yourself, and get even more stupid when you're
challenged to defend it, though. Thanks for making my job so
easy - and enjoyable, Timmy... <chuckle>
--
Henry
> On Nov 30, 7:36 am, Henry wrote:
>> It never decelerated during the demolition, you silly boy.
>> Putting your silly hysterics, moronic kook rants, and childish
>> drivel aside for now, do you dispute any of the analysis or
>> points made in the video, particularly the fact that the falling'
>> upper block is only exerting about 36% of the force it would
>> be exerting if it was at rest? If so, please tell us where you
>> "think" the analysis is wrong.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG2y50Wyys4
> What are you talking about?
Basic high school physics and how it proves your insane
cartoon fairy tale to be impossible. Thanks for proving
my point again. <chuckle>
Henry
>> "Henry" <9-11...@experts.org> wrote in message
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG2y50Wyys4
>> It never decelerated during the demolition, you silly boy.
>> Putting your silly hysterics, moronic kook rants, and childish
>> drivel aside for now, do you dispute any of the analysis or
>> points made in the video, particularly the fact that the falling'
>> upper block is only exerting about 36% of the force it would
>> be exerting if it was at rest? If so, please tell us where you
>> "think" the analysis is wrong.
> All of it is a child's cartoon of fiction. We may as well discuss the
> validity of Green Eggs and Ham.
With regard to your magic 1500F degree fires heating steel to
almost 3000F, or causing WTC7's free fall and symmetric drop,
hat's true, but we're not discussing that insanity, right now.
We're discussing hard evidence, physics, and reality. Do try
to keep up and leave your favorite reading material out of it
for now, kooker.
> Something is in free fall, or it isn't in free fall. It isn't in
> free fall if it isn't falling at the acceleration of gravity. If
> it isn't falling at the acceleration of gravity, it must be opposed
> by an upward force. A 100 lb mass is at rest, relative to gravity,
> if its downward acceleration is opposed by a 100 lb upward force.
> The same 100 lbm accelerates at .36 G when opposed by 64 lbf. Read
> that again. The opposing force needs to be 64 lbf, not 36 lbf as
> depicted in the video.
The block isn't accelerating at .36G. It's accelerating at .64
free fall. You failed to comprehend the the video. Perhaps you
should stick with your Dr. Seuss books. It's amazing how such
basic logic and reality are so far beyond the comprehension some folks....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG2y50Wyys4
Kevin
@ruby.cit.cornell.edu:
> Twibull admitted:
>
>> It's simply a form of mental -and very public- masturbation.
>
> Putting your masturbation, silly hysterics, moronic kook rants,
> and childish drivel aside for now, do you dispute any of the
> analysis or points made in the video, particularly the fact that
> the falling upper block is only exerting about 36% of the force
> it would be exerting if it was at rest? If so, please tell us
> where you "think" the analysis is wrong.
> (this is where twit gets even more stupid and childish - like
> a slow learning child who has just been told that Santa isn't
> real) <chuckle>
snoooooore!!!!!!!! KB
large snip of nutty stuff
--
THUNDERSNAKE #9
Protect your rights or "Lose" them
The 2nd Admendment guarantees the others
Henry
> On Nov 30, 7:36 am, Henry wrote:
>> It never decelerated during the demolition, you silly boy.
>> Putting your silly hysterics, moronic kook rants, and childish
>> drivel aside for now, do you dispute any of the analysis or
>> points made in the video, particularly the fact that the falling'
>> upper block is only exerting about 36% of the force it would
>> be exerting if it was at rest? If so, please tell us where you
>> "think" the analysis is wrong.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG2y50Wyys4
> What are you talking about?
Basic high school physics and how it proves your insane
cartoon fairy tale to be impossible. Thanks for proving
my point again. <chuckle>
--
Henry
Henry
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/11/911-roster.html
MILITARY LEADERS
INTELLIGENCE PROFESSIONALS
9/11 COMMISSIONERS
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS AND ARCHITECTS
LEGAL SCHOLARS
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
PSYCHIATRISTS AND PSYCHOLOGISTS
Psychiatrist E. Martin Schotz
THOUSANDS OF OTHERS
--
http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.911truth.org
Henry
>> On Nov 26, 10:10 pm, "MikeWhy" <boat042-nos...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> It works both ways. I've thrown sticks that neither of us cared about for
>>> anything other than just something for him to swim after and fetch.
<snip>
Speaking of sticks, Rob, do you still "think" that
dropping a stick proves that tall buildings can't be
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html
--
Henry
>> Of course the
>> upper block would exert more force if it had decelerated after
>> it began its drop, than it would resting motionless. That's explained
>> in the video. Fact is, it never decelerated during the demolition.
> Good point, Henry!
Actually, I have to give the credit to the expert who produced
the video. But as you've admitted, it does make perfect sense and
it does prove that the upper block couldn't have crushed the
undamaged frame below it. I see that you don't dispute any of
the analysis or points made in the video.
This brief video is further proof that the twin towers
were deliberately demolished. As always, when one takes
the time to study and understand the evidence, the insanity
of the government's 9-11 conspiracy theory, as well as the
related lies, become not only blatant, but comically absurd.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG2y50Wyys4
Henry
> Any opportunity to display your insanity
> again is fun.
It's kinda cute how not one of you helpless, deluded, and
confused nut jobs has disputed or addressed any of the points
made in the video yet. High school physics appears to be *well*
beyond your comprehension. <chuckle>
Henry
> On Nov 30, 4:11 pm, Mark Olson <ols...@tiny.invalid> wrote:
>> don (Calgary) wrote:
>>> Although the show, and by extension the CBC, have little or no
>>> credibility, they stated the majority of Americans now believe Bush
>>> had a role to play in the attack and had prior knowledge it was going
>>> to happen. One third of Canadians felt the same.
>> I cannot believe those figures are accurate. I sure as hell
>> hope not or there is really no hope for the future of either
>> country.
True, because that would show that that two thirds of the population
are ignorant gullible sheep who will reject not only what they
see with their own eyes, but expert research and the principles
of physics in favor of an insane and impossible cartoon conspiracy
theory.
> "prior knowledge" is a long way from a conspiracy.
Until you look at the expert research and evidence (which followers
of the "offical" conspiracy so desperately avoid) and then it
becomes a virtual certainty that the 9-11 attacks were an inside
job. The cave man couldn't shut down NORAD, force the Bush regime
to destroy evidence and thwart and investigation, nor could he gain
access to WTC7 and the towers for demolition. As this thread so clearly
demonstrates, blind faith followers of the Bush regime's insane
cartoon conspiracy theory refuse to address the facts, evidence and
expert research, and they display extreme ignorance of the relevant
facts.
http://www.projectcensored.org/assets-managed/pdf/DeconstructingDeceitOnlineEd.pdf
Deconstructing Deceit: 9/11, the Media, and Myth Information
by Mickey S. Huff and Paul W. Rea
For the past eight years, American culture has seen an outburst of
media-driven mythmaking. Corporate mainstream media organizations,
the pundits they sponsor, and politicians from both major parties
have formed a new contextual chorus singing the same refrain: �On
September 11th, 2001, everything changed." From cable TV to AM radio,
from the blogosphere to the town-hall meeting, Americans repeatedly
hear that "this is a post-9/11 world." Although there is some truth
to this platitude of pivotal change, independently minded citizens may
also wonder whether such mass media messages have become self-
fulfilling prophecies. This provides an interesting point of debate
about what has or has not changed in America since 9/11.
This chapter concerns itself with the ongoing phenomena of media
mythmaking and how, like many Americans surmised just after 9/11,
everything has not changed.1 Corporate mainstream media have
resurrected powerful myths from America�s past to shape public
perception in the present. Through the prism of 9/11, one can see
how the corporate mass media are in fact doing more mythmaking than
news reporting. Here, the authors will examine central historic
American myths the corporate media and even much of the alternative
independent media have extended into the post-9/11 era. This analysis
looks at how media mythmaking surrounding the events of 9/11,
exploiting the strong emotions these events aroused, has prevented
a dispassionate inquiry of its causes or of those responsible.
Telling Only the Official Story: An Act of Censorship
Both the corporate and independent media have typically not approached
the events of 9/11 with open inquiry. With very few exceptions, the
corporate mainstream media and their independent alternatives have
dismissed critical 9/11 questions as �conspiratorial� or "unpatriotic."
Even the left press, including The Nation, In These Times, Mother Jones,
and The Progressive, among others, have repeatedly demonstrated
resistance, even hostility, to full and free inquiry into the attacks.
Perhaps some muckraking progressives have forgotten the words of one of
their own icons, American anarchist and feminist Emma Goldman, who aptly
remarked, "The most unpardonable sin in society is independence of
thought."
Like their mainstream corporate counterparts, journalists in the
independent press have often highlighted eccentric personalities
and extreme statements rather than focus on the troubling evidence
skeptics have brought forth. This practice institutionalizes acts of
self-censorship based upon America's historical mythology, which will
be discussed later in this article. Traditional American mythology was
used to exalt the official story of 9/11, a story that has become the
only story. New York University historian Tony Judt recently lamented
that today's discourse centers almost exclusively on "official accounts
as officially rendered and received." Nowhere is this truer than in the
case of 9/11. The mainstream corporate media and even the progressive
press have repeatedly endorsed the government-sponsored official story
formalized in the 9/11 Commission Report. This narrative tells us that
nineteen Islamic extremists conspired and outwitted the best-defended
country in the world. Because government agencies ignored the many
pre-warnings, these terrorists were able to catch American defenders
by surprise, hijack four airliners, and ram three of them into targets
symbolic of American economic and military might.
But is this the full and true story? Are there other narratives that
square better with the evidence? Are significant details being ignored?
These are not questions that the American news media have asked, or
encouraged the public to ask. Resistance from the news media, both
corporate and independent, has effectively prevented adequate reportage,
fact-based discussions, and in-depth analyses of 9/11. This paradoxical
suppression has made the full story of 9/11 a recurring concern in the
publications of Project Censored. In fact, some pundits have actively
attacked those who have challenged the official story of 9/11, as if
they were blasphemers, and continue to rely upon strong religious
overtones in defense of American mythology and government-endorsed
interpretations of 9/11. MSNBC's Tucker Carlson exemplified this
tendency during an interview with 9/11 scholar and theologian Dr.
David Ray Griffin. On the program, Carlson attacked the professor for
challenging the official narrative of 9/11. As soon as Griffin claimed
he rejected the government's explanation for the events of 9/11, Carlson
interrupted and attacked: ". . . it is wrong, blasphemous, and sinful
for you to suggest, imply, or help other people come to the conclusion
that the US government killed 3,000 of its own citizens because it
didn't." In this case, as in many others, the interviewer attacked even
the prospect of discussion concerning alternative ideas about 9/11
before it began, thus framing the rest of the interview and reinforcing
the official myths of 9/11.
Here we arrive at a crucial corollary: media mythmaking discourages
pluralistic perspectives on reality, and thus involves a form of
censorship.
Historical Precedents for Unofficial Alternative Interpretations
Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present
controls the past. �George Orwell
Historical precedents can operate as counter narratives to national
myths. When looked at inclusively, they can be a great teacher.
Mainstream corporate media have largely excluded historical context of
the type that might generate critical inquiry surrounding the tragic
events of 9/11 and the War on Terror. The facts surrounding certain
important historical events have virtually been written out of history.
A walk down this �memory hole lane� can be an antidote to another kind
of censorship, the sin of omission. One may find stunning the following
US foreign policy events, especially given that that they are
historically and factually based. Given this pattern of provocations,
pretexts, and false flag operations, the alternative hypotheses about
9/11 fit the pattern of government deception, while the standard mythic
narrative becomes the anomaly. While this does not prove anything
outright about 9/11, it should at least pave the way for open inquiry by
the media. Observe:
1846: The Mexican-American War: After annexing �The Lone Star
Republic� of Texas, pushing the US border with Mexico southward,
President James
Polk turned his sights toward Mexico's vast lands. These included
California, which he had long wanted to "appropriate". To invade
Mexico, Polk needed a pretext, an incident enabling the US to invade a
far weaker country and seize much of its land. For this purpose, he sent
an army led by Gen. Zachery Taylor to build a fort below the Rio Grande.
This provocative incursion drew a predictable response: the Mexicans
tried to repel the American incursion, killing or capturing soldiers.
Although President Polk had initiated the provocation, he sent an
indignant message to Congress demanding a declaration of war. In
Congress, the war found ready supporters among Southerners fiercely
dedicated to expanding slavery. The war itself was short, but the gains
were huge. As a price for halting its drive southward, the US forced
Mexico to sign over a vast area, including all of what is now New
Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, California, and part of Colorado. A
pattern of provocation had begun.
1898: The Spanish-American War began after an accidental explosion took
place on the USS Maine as it was moored in the Havana Harbor. Though the
Spanish attempted to avert war, major US news outlets, with the Hearst
papers taking the lead, claimed that Spain had attacked a US warship
despite a lack of evidence. Waving the bloody shirt, the "yellow" press
popularized a well-known battle cry: "Remember the Maine and to Hell
with Spain!" In the war that ensued, the US seized not only Cuba, but
also the other Spanish colonies of Puerto Rico and the Philippines.
1915: At the outset of World War I, other "trigger incidents" occurred.
Among the most well known was the sinking of the British luxury liner
Lusitania, which also served as a pretext, this time for entry into WWI.
Though the US government was aware that the liner would be secretly
carrying munitions, it did little to alert the public. The stowaway
munitions included shells and cartridges intended for English forces
fighting the Germans. When a German U-boat sank the great liner, 1195
passengers and crew perished. As public outrage in response to the
German atrocity mounted, and as propaganda efforts intensified,
President Woodrow Wilson brought the US into World War I.
1941: The alleged sneak attack at Pearl Harbor is one of the most
powerful mythic tales in US history, a cataclysmic event that has been
used as propaganda to manipulate public opinion to this day. While Pearl
Harbor was and has long since been billed as a sneak attack, evidence
amassed by historian Robert Stinnett shows that the event was in fact
provoked by the US government and allowed to happen in order to
manipulate public. America's mythical Day of Infamy, long enshrined in
the American psyche, strongly reinforces the idea that America only
attacks when attacked. Pearl Harbor provides another example in a long
line of deceptive events used to marshal public support for wars
throughout American history. Utilizing the power of the Pearl Harbor
myth, the neoconservative Project for a New American Century used this
historical analogy in its Rebuilding America�s Defenses, published in
2000. In it, they hypothesized what might be necessary to justify a
radical shift in US foreign policy. The authors stated that a
transformation in US policy promoting a projecting force would be
difficult, as ". . . the process of transformation, even if it brings
revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event � like a new Pearl Harbor." The Bush
administration, along with the corporate press, used the events of 9/11
to revive the myth that America doesn�t strike first and fights only to
promote liberty.
1964: The Gulf of Tonkin "Incident" sparked mass escalation of the
Vietnam War. To ready a reluctant public for war, American planners
executed several raids along the North Vietnamese coast but became
frustrated when American ships took no return fire. President Lyndon
B. Johnson, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, and other top officials
concluded that some flashpoint, some pretext would be needed to arouse
public outrage. If there was no attack, then one must be contrived.
The �response� took the form of purported North Vietnamese torpedo-boat
attacks on two US destroyers. In August 1964, the first of these ships
was supposedly attacked by North Vietnamese torpedo boats.26 Two days
later, the news media announced that the North Vietnamese had attacked
a second American ship. Although the Pentagon insisted that its warships
frightened off the attackers, officers on the destroyers later revealed
that "our destroyers were just shooting at phantom targets�there were no
PT boats there." Nevertheless, within days Congress passed the Tonkin
Gulf Resolution, based on events that did not happen, plunging the
United States into a disastrous "police action" that lasted for a
decade, killed over two million people, and disgraced the United
States.
Observations
Those in the media reporting on relevant matters in the present should
recount these historical examples. Instead, important events that
counter official American mythologies are often ignored, a trend that
was formalized in the early twentieth century. The advent of World War
I catapulted the new science of propaganda to the forefront of
government operations. President Woodrow Wilson established the first
official propaganda system, placing public relations wizard George Creel
in charge of the Committee on Public Information. The role of the CPI
was to selectively inform the public to a desired end. The program was a
success. With the help of Edward Bernays, nephew of Sigmund Freud and an
early proponent of propaganda, the government developed new ways to
persuade a pacifistic American public into "The War to End all Wars" and
"The War to make the World Safe for Democracy." In his 1928 classic,
Propaganda, Bernays observed that "The conscious and intelligent
manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an
important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this
unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is
the true ruling power of our country." As it analyzes the role of the
media in popularizing myths in the public mind, this chapter will
further deconstruct the denials and deceptions of the official narrative
of 9/11.
Instant Mythmaking on 9/11
I. Immediate Construction of an Official Narrative
The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie, deliberate,
contrived and dishonest, but the myth�persistent, persuasive and
unrealistic. �John F. Kennedy
On September 11, 2001, government officials and media outlets began
to construct an official account with unprecedented dispatch. Even
before the attacks were over, the counterterrorism division of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) was telling National Security
Advisor Richard Clarke it was al Qaeda operatives who had attacked the
World Trade Center. This account was adapted and amplified in the days,
weeks, and months following the attacks.30 On the one hand, top
officials were claiming that these were sneak attacks and that they were
caught completely off guard. Yet by 11 a. m. on 9/11, the FBI had
started releasing the names, nationalities, and photos of the nineteen
suspected hijackers. Before the smoke and dust settled, media mythmakers
were ready to supply instant meaning, relying heavily on traditional
mythology and popular history. But if the federal establishment knew so
little as to be taken completely by surprise, how could they so rapidly
come up with an exact list of those responsible? Had federal agencies
been keeping close watch on these al Qaeda operatives? Adding to the
contradictions, the accuracy of this roster proved suspect. In the weeks
immediately following the attacks, several news outlets, including the
British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), reported that individuals on the
FBI�s list were still alive. Those reports had to raise doubts about the
validity of the official story, which may be one reason why they
received scant media coverage in the US.
II. News Networks Lead 9/11 Mythmaking
History is the present. That�s why every generation writes it anew.
But what most people think of as history is its end product, myth.
�E. L. Doctorow
If the rapidity of these initial identifications was amazing, the
instant involvements of the news media were even more so. Just two
hours after the Towers came down, Senator Orin Hatch (RUtah)
of the Senate Intelligence Committee implicated bin Laden in the
events of 9/11, even though few facts pointed to his involvement then
or later. Through media mythmaking, bin Laden became the ready-made,
chief suspect of the 9/11 attacks. The FBI would later drop him from
the Most Wanted list, citing lack of evidence. But, if these were
surprise attacks, then how, on the very day of the attacks, could
the government and some corporate media outlets have known who was
responsible? For example, CNN, at four o�clock in the afternoon on
9/11, blamed bin Laden "based on new and specific information developed
since the attacks." Corporate media and the federal government were
peering through the smoke of the day with amazing clarity, fashioning a
larger-than-life villain, foreshadowing future policy, and perhaps
generating a self-fulfilling prophesy in the ensuing War on Terror.
President Bush wrote in his diary the night of the attacks, "The Pearl
Harbor of the twenty-first century took place today. . . We think it�s
Osama bin Laden." The received myth about the Twin Towers also had its
genesis in the immediate aftermath. After the destruction of the Towers,
FOX News cut to a "man on the street," an eyewitness who foreshadowed
what would later become the official story born at Ground Zero.
FOX News interviewed the "passerby", who somehow explained, ". . . I
witness[ed] both Towers collapse, one first and then the second, mostly
due to structural failure because the fire was just too intense." This,
too, seems odd. In a state of near shock, using the jargon of structural
engineering, this man speculated on the cause of the catastrophe. In
doing so, he foreshadowed what later became the official view.
Alternative narratives were offered that first day and afterwards, but
were crowded out by this tale, born in the chaos of the street, which
would later become the official narrative of the 9/11 Commission Report.
Alternative Narratives: Suppression of First Responder Testimonies
Instead of simply interviewing a passerby, the news media might have
interviewed first responders about what might have brought down the
buildings. When news teams did interview first responders, however, they
typically focused on their accounts of heroism or the horror of their
experiences. Almost without exception, news coverage did not report the
vast number of first-responder testimonials about explosions before and
during the fall of the Towers. Anticipating the importance of their
eyewitness observations, some first responders made a tape of their
testimonials. On this tape, dozens of firefighters spoke of hearing
explosions, particularly �boom, boom, boom� sounds just as the Towers
began to come down. In 2002, similar reports emerged in interviews with
firefighters. Firefighter Thomas Turilli recalled that it "sounded like
bombs going off, like boom, boom, boom, like seven or eight, and then
just a huge wind gust just came and my officer just actually took all of
us and threw us down on the ground and kind of just jumped on top of us,
laid on top of us." This was only one of literally dozens of similar
first-responders testimonials, all of them speaking of explosions. Right
after the attacks, the City of New York impounded the firefighters� tape
and the Fire Department forbade anyone to discuss its contents because,
it claimed, the tape might later become evidence in court trials. This
suppression of evidence continued under mayors Rudy Giuliani and Michael
Bloomberg. Only three years later, after ongoing pressure from the
families of victims and a suit by the New York Times, would the city
finally release the taped oral histories. Because of the way the
buildings disintegrated and dropped, other observers also suspected that
the Towers had not simply "collapsed." In fact, CBS news anchor Dan
Rather reported on 9/11 that the collapse was �reminiscent of . . . when
a building was deliberately destroyed by well-placed dynamite to knock
it down." ABC News with Peter Jennings also pointed out this
resemblance. Since 9/11, however, no one in the corporate media has ever
made such a comparison again.
Henry
> Now, tell us again, Henry;
I'll answer your question after you answer mine.
Do you dispute any of the analysis or points made in the
video linked below, particularly the fact that the falling
upper block is only exerting about 36% of the force it would
be exerting if it was at rest? If so, please tell us where
you believe the analysis is wrong and why.
We both lift weights to stay fit. You should know that it
requires more strength to hold a weighted bar motionless
than it does to let it down. And of course, the faster you let
it down, the less weight you're resisting. As long as the upper
block is accelerating at 64% of free fall, it's being resisted by
a force equivalent to 36% of its weight. Newton's third law states
that it must also be exerting a downward force equivalent to 36%
of its weight.
"To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction:
or the forces of two bodies on each other are always equal and are
directed in opposite directions."
Do you agree? If not, why not?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG2y50Wyys4
Henry
> What pisses me off is the program was aired nationally. That alone
> would provide credibility to some, possibly many.
Followers of the government's 9-11 conspiracy theory hate
and fear nothing more than freedom of speech and an open,
honest discussion of the facts. Censorship, deception, lies,
ignorance, and apathy are the strongest allies.
Tell us why you "think" Bush and Cheney vehemently opposed
an investigation into the 9-11 attacks, as documented in the
brief video linked below..
http://www.911blogger.com/node/21992
Henry
> don (Calgary) wrote:
>> Although the show, and by extension the CBC, have little or no
>> credibility, they stated the majority of Americans now believe Bush
>> had a role to play in the attack and had prior knowledge it was going
>> to happen. One third of Canadians felt the same.
> I cannot believe those figures are accurate. I sure as hell
> hope not or there is really no hope for the future of either
> country. It's much more likely that the producers of the TV
> show are playing fast and loose with the numbers in order to
> boost their ratings.
Henry
> "Henry" <9-11...@experts.org> wrote
>> Do you dispute any of the analysis or points made in the
>> video linked below, particularly the fact that the falling
>> upper block is only exerting about 36% of the force it would
>> be exerting if it was at rest? If so, please tell us where
>> you believe the analysis is wrong and why.
>> We both lift weights to stay fit. You should know that it
>> requires more strength to hold a weighted bar motionless
>> than it does to let it down. And of course, the faster you let
>> it down, the less weight you're resisting. As long as the upper
>> block is accelerating at 64% of free fall, it's being resisted by
>> a force equivalent to 36% of its weight. Newton's third law states
>> that it must also be exerting a downward force equivalent to 36%
>> of its weight.
>> "To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction:
>> or the forces of two bodies on each other are always equal and are
>> directed in opposite directions."
>> Do you agree? If not, why not?
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG2y50Wyys4
>> Cut off the arms and there's nothing left to oppose the bar,
>> proving the exact opposite of what you set out to prove.
Actually that would prove what the experts are saying. You're
implying that only if the steel columns in the towers were cut
via demolition could the lighter, thinner steel in the upper
block crush its way through 80,000 tons of cold undamaged much
thicker stronger structural steel below it at a rate close to
64% of free fall.
MikeWhy
Nope. Of itself, the impact of the debris from the above floors is enough to
progressively collapse the undamaged structure of each lower floor. This is
sufficient to explain the collapse as we saw it. Collapsing the structure at
each floor offers enough resistance to the action of gravity, producing a
measured average acceleration you illustrated. If you cut off the arms,
there is nothing to oppose the falling debris. The collapse rate would then
have approached free fall. You have the problem of braking your 80,000 tons
debris with nothing but demolished structure below.
Henry
You're still missing the entire point. An impact would have
produced deceleration. There was no deceleration. That's the
point made in the video. The experts below explain that quite
well in the article linked below. Let us know if you disagree
with any of the points and if so, why.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt7.pdf
MikeWhy
Sure it was decelerating. Free fall at 1G is faster than falling at .36G. It
decelerated, from free fall at 1G to an apparent average of .36G. Neither of
us are disputing that. It did not fall at free fall speed; therefore an
external force was applied. Newton's 1st and 2nd laws apply. Where did the
opposing force come from if the lower floors were demolished? Where did the
energy to brake the 80000 ton collapse mass come from?
Tim
> Tim wrote:
> > Now, tell us again, Henry;
>
> Â I'll answer your question after you answer mine.
I'll answer your question after you answer mine:
Is the CIA and the Mossad really killing off scientists who have
invented a reactionless drive that would permit the construction of a
rocket powerful enough to retrieve the debris from the WTC demolition
that nver decelerated, that then passed through the earth's core,
blasted out the other side of the earth, soared past the earth's
gravity well, and has since accelerated out of the solar system?
I'm sure you know the truth about this.
Henry
> "Henry" <9-11...@experts.org> wrote in message
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG2y50Wyys4
>> You're still missing the entire point. An impact would have
>> produced deceleration. There was no deceleration. That's the
>> point made in the video. The experts below explain that quite
>> well in the article linked below. Let us know if you disagree
>> with any of the points and if so, why.
> Sure it was decelerating.
No, it most definitely was not decelerating. It was in
constant acceleration at about .64 free fall.
> It did not fall at free fall speed; therefore an external
> force was applied.
Correct. The force resisting the fall was approximately
.36 the mass of the block. Newton's third law states that
the block must also be exerting a downward force equivalent
to 36% of its mass.
"To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction:
or the forces of two bodies on each other are always equal and are
directed in opposite directions."
> Where did the opposing force come from if the lower floors
> were demolished?
Demolition doesn't move everything but air out of the way.
But you're still missing the main point. An impact would have
produced deceleration. There was no deceleration. The experts
below explain that quite well in the article linked below. Let
us know if you disagree with any of the points and if so, why.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt7.pdf
Henry
The answer to your newest insane fantasy is no. Now, it's your
turn to answer a question.
Tim
> Where did the opposing force come from if the lower
> floors were demolished? Where did the energy
> to brake the 80000 ton collapse mass come from?
Shhhhh! (Looks furtively both ways...)
Nano termites.
(Runs fearfully, looking behind him...)
Henry
> Nano termites.
One way to identify an ignorant, helpless, and confused
Bush parroting cartoon conspiracy kook, is by its tendency
to spew childish lies, drivel, or =simply= obsess over
its betters when it's challenged to think or address the
evidence. Pitiful, but at least slightly amusing. <chuckle>
Now, back to the facts and evidence:
Videos of "squibs":
Squibs everywhere, but especially at the 10 and
20 second marks:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjfoXbyffso&feature=related
Please explain the violent 75 foot explosions seen
coming out the sides of both towers hundred of feet
below the "collapse" zone. Let us know if you dispute
or don't understand any of what is written below.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/Ryan_HVBD.pdf
"In videos we can see these bursts being ejected from the sides of the
towers nearly thirty floors below the collapse front.[3] The bursts
continue throughout the duration of each tower?s destruction, and all of
them are similar in shape and velocity. Each of these was a sharp
emission that appeared to come from a point-like source, ejecting
approximately 50 to 100 feet from the side of the building in a fraction
of a second. From the extracted frames of the KTLA video (ref. 2), we
can estimate that one of the first bursts was fully ejected in
approximately 0.45 seconds. This gives an average burst velocity of
approximately 170 feet per second (fps). Others have estimated the
velocity of these ejections at over 1100 fps.[4]
These bursts were ignored by government investigators for a period of
several years, as was all other evidence for the demolition hypothesis.
But after being forced to field many "frequently asked questions",
NIST's Shyam Sunder finally provided a semiofficial explanation. In a
March 2005 article by Popular Mechanics, Sunder called these bursts
"puffs of dust?", and explained "When you have a significant portion of
a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the
window. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled
demolition, but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."[5]
Unfortunately for Sunder, NIST was forced to abandon that answer, in
the summer of 2006, saying "NIST's findings do not support the "pancake
theory" of collapse." In an attempt to maintain their faltering
fire-induced collapse hypothesis, NIST tried to retain the essence of
the explanation, despite having forsaken pancaking floors. They did so
by saying "the falling mass of the building compressed the air ahead of
it "much like the action of a piston" forcing smoke and debris out the
windows as the stories below failed sequentially."[6]
3
Although the piston analogy might have made some minimal sense for the
discarded pancake theory, it does not work at all for NIST's current
pile-driver theory. A piston is a sliding shaft that fits within an
enclosed cylinder, whose action within the cylinder causes the volume
and pressure to change. But the WTC buildings did not have sections
acting like pistons at any time before, or during, their disintegration.
Without pancaking floors, there is no internal shaft to slide down
within the "enclosed cylinder" of these tall buildings.
Because the government scientists never did any physical testing to
support this latest compression argument, we must try to imagine for
ourselves how the disintegrating building could have created the
ejections of debris.
To be the result of overpressures created from the falling mass, these
bursts had to emanate from highly pressurized containers that were
tightly sealed on all sides except the point of ejection. With his 2005
pancaking floors hypothesis, NIST?s Shyam Sunder suggested that these
pressurized containers were entire floor areas, compressed by the
falling mass. The reason these containers cannot be smaller than a full
floor area is because the office floors were wide-open spaces, with no
floor to ceiling partitions as normally found in other office buildings.
The effective partition-less area in each floor was approximately 3000
square meters.
It's difficult to imagine how 283 steel columns in each of the Twin
Towers could have been compressed so rapidly and uniformly, while
collapsing at nearly free-fall speed through a vertical distance of 350
meters. But even if this feature of the fire-induced hypothesis was a
given, to initiate the gas pressure below, we would need to imagine the
falling mass as a flat plate, or a continuous sheet, exerting uniform
pressure at all points. If discontinuous, the falling mass would allow
pressure to be released upward. But we can infer that the falling mass
was probably not a uniform flat plate or a continuous sheet because
workers who cleaned up the site described how the debris at ground zero
was all pulverized, except for the steel assemblies. Photographic
evidence (as in Fig. 1 above) also indicates that the falling debris,
which appeared to explode outward to some extent, was cloud-like. Such
cloud-like debris could not form the continuous falling surface that
would be needed to create the downward pressure and compress the air
below.
The lack of a continuous compressive force in itself repudiates the
compressive piston hypothesis. But it is not enough to simply discredit
this latest weak answer from NIST. By showing how completely ineffective
NIST's new argument is, we can better understand how desperate those
supporting the government?s ever-changing fire-based hypotheses have
become. Not only was there no way to compress the gas below, the floors
were not air tight, enclosed containers either, which means that, even
if the falling mass could exert a uniform downward pressure, it would
not be contained. There were eight large air supply and return
ventilation shafts located in the core areas of each floor.[7] There
were also three stairwells running throughout the building, and over
thirty elevator shafts at any given level. Any compressed air would have
had to equilibrate with open stairwells and elevator shafts, and with
any openings from these shafts to other parts of the building (i.e.
vent ducts). Additionally, we know that the fire in the north tower in
1975 was spread by means of openings in the floor slabs, of more than
one square foot area, used to transfer telephone cables.[8] All of these
facts indicate that any pressurized air would be forced to equilibrate
over large sections of the building, if not the entire lower section,
and could not be contained on one floor alone.
The only explanation for an array of interconnected
steel box columns measuring over four feet by two
feet with five inch thick walls suddenly disintegrating
and falling thought itself following the path of most
resistance - after it had been stripped of its load -
is controlled demolition. That's also the only explanation
to can account for the molten metal observed in the rubble.
If you've got another theory, structural engineers and
other experts all over the globe would love to hear it.
So would I....
Core remnant disintegration:
http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg
http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/New_Spire/
http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/spire/The%20Strange%20Collapse%20of%20the%20Spire.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDVap83AEmc
Core photos and facts:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc1cons1.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html
Here are some photos of WTC4, which was much closer to the towers
than WTC7, and was completely gutted by severe fires and partially
crushed by heavy impacts.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc4des1.html
This photo of WTC4 really demonstrates the incredible strength of
steel framed buildings.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/bjh/14.jpg
Here are some photos of WTC5 & 6 after the tower demolitions.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/gzpo1.html
WTC7 was a tall narrow 47 story steel framed skyscraper.
It was not hit by a plane.
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/9-11%20Picture1.jpg
This illustration shows the location of the various WTC buildings
as well as the range of debris impact.
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/b7/collateral.html
Here are photos of WTC7's "inferno".
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc7fire1.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/wtc7.html
Here is a video of WTC7's picture perfect controlled demolition.
http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/wtc7_collapse2.mpg
Here are more videos of WTC7's demolition.
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html
We're still waiting for followers of the "official" conspiracy
theory to provide us with a logical explanation other than
controlled demolition for the fact that the buildings closest to
the towers remained standing, while WTC7's massive hurricane
resistant steel frame suddenly disintegrated and dropped at virtual
free fall speed and perfect symmetry. Limited, isolated fires can
not possibly cause such a failure. In fact, no steel framed building
has ever collapsed due to fire. Not one. Ever. Controlled demolition
is the only possible cause of WTC7's free fall speed and symmetric
drop. Even Bush's FEMA was forced to admit the following:
"The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building
to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel
on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis
has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research,
investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue."
More expert analysis on the demolition of WTC7 can be found here:
http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/02/destruction-of-wtc-7.html
This is what happens to steel framed buildings exposed to raging
infernos for hours on end.
http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html
As you can see, these steel framed structures suffered gradual
deformation, but nothing even remotely close to a total symmetric
and free fall speed collapse - and those fires were far hotter
and of much longer duration than the small, isolated fires in
WTC7.
Twin Towers:
The massive reserve strength designed into the steel frames of
the towers could not possibly have been overcome by the force
of gravity alone. The fact that it was exceeded to such an
extreme degree that the undamaged steel frame offered no
measurable resistance, proves conclusively that the lower
structures were destroyed before being impacted by the upper
structures.
From:
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060327100957690
"The Twin Towers and Why They Fell
It would help to begin with an accurate description of the WTC towers
in terms of quality of design and construction. In July of 1971, the
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) presented a national award
judging the buildings to be "the engineering project that demonstrates
the greatest engineering skills and represents the greatest
contribution to engineering progress and mankind."3 Others noted that
"the World Trade Center towers would have an inherent capacity to
resist unforeseen calamities." This capacity stemmed from the use of
special high-strength steels. In particular, the perimeter columns
were designed with tremendous reserve strength whereby "live loads on
these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs.
More on the incredible strength of the towers can be found here:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html
"There is evidence that the Twin Towers were designed with an even
greater measure of reserve strength than typical large buildings.
According to the calculations of engineers who worked on the Towers'
design, all the columns on one side of a Tower could be cut, as well
as the two corners and some of the columns on each adjacent side, and
the building would still be strong enough to withstand a
100-mile-per-hour wind. 3"
The massive steel frames of the towers were far too strong to
collapse only under their own weight. That's been proved through
physics, and that's why no other steel framed buildings have ever
collapsed that way unless they were demolished. See Gordon Ross'
research paper on momentum transfer here:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf
As common sense would dictate, even if all the perimeter and
core columns near the top of the tower were somehow destroyed
simultaneously so that the top 20 stories or so dropped onto the
remaining undamaged frame, after some bending and compression,
the collapse would have stopped, or the upper block would have
fallen off to the side. Gordon Ross proves that with physics.
The official conspiracy requires us to believe that falling
directly =through= the massive undamaged steel frames, including
the 47 interconnected central core columns:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html
provided little more resistance than air. This is proved by
the fact that debris falling outside the towers hit the ground
about the same time as the debris falling through the towers.
Making the government's conspiracy theory even more implausible,
is the fact that the steel at the top of the towers was over
ten times lighter and thinner than the undamaged steel in the
lower section. Look at the massive core column cross section in
the bottom photo.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html
The official conspiracy theory says that crushing 47 of those
columns, all interconnected with even more steel, =and= destroying
all the perimeter columns, =and= "pancaking" all the floors, and
stairways, produced about the same kinetic friction as falling
though air. That, of course, is not physically possible.
Observe the rotating and disintegrating block on the South
Tower.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc2exp4.html
Notice that the corners are curved, as the block's internal
destruction is already taking place. If it had not been destroyed
through demolition, it would have continued to rotate and fall off
the building as an intact block. Also, notice that the block is
tilting towards the corner where it was impacted. The opposite
corner was undamaged by impact or fire, as proved by photo
evidence.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc2exp1.html
As the top section of that tower is rotating, the high strength,
fire resistant perimeter columns on one side of the building are
being compressed, and on the opposite side, where the building
was not damaged by fire or impact, the weight above them is greatly
reduced.
Why do you think the undamaged steel perimeter frame with reduced
weight above it is exploding and collapsing at the same rate as
the fire and impact damaged side that has most of the weight of the
rotating block on it? Seems more than a little odd, doesn't it? Here's
some information on the perimeter columns.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/perimeter.html
Now watch this video:
http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/wtc-2_explodes.avi
That's not gradual bending and buckling of an over heated steel
frame. Those are huge explosions not unlike those we see in a
controlled demolition. Keep in mind that this is at the onset of
the collapse, so nothing is falling quickly at this point.
More good information on 9-11 can be found here:
http://stopthelie.com/1-hour_guide_to_911.html
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200703/Sudden_collapse_initiation_impossible.pdf
9/11 and the Twin Towers:
Sudden Collapse Initiation was Impossible
By Frank Legge, PhD (Chemistry) and Tony Szamboti, Mechanical Engineer
23 Dec 2007
Numerous arguments have been presented that the Twin
Towers at the World Trade Centre could not have
collapsed in the observed manner due to the cause
asserted in the NIST report, namely damage from plane
impact and fire. 1 The bases of these arguments include
the rapidity and symmetry of collapse, 2 the adequacy of
the steel supports, 3 and the finding of incendiary
residues in the dust. 4 It has also been argued that the
initiating event in the official explanation, the sudden
collapse of one storey, 1 could not have occurred because
the steel was not hot enough. 5 This argument is based on
data set out in the NIST report itself. There is another
argument, as will be described here, that is based simply
on the behaviour of hot steel under load. No calculations
are involved and no knowledge of the temperature of the
steel is required.
In the official explanation the collapse occurs in two
stages. In the first stage one storey, damaged by plane
impact and fire, suddenly collapses. This allows the
section of the tower above to fall freely down and hit the
lower section. In the second stage the energy of this
impact is said to be sufficient to cause the top of the
lower section to disintegrate. This material adds to the
falling mass and further impacts cause disintegration to
continue in a rapid sequence all the way to the ground.6
Let us consider the situation just prior to the first stage.
There are some damaged columns, some fire, and a claimed
ack of fireproofing. Given the substantial safety factor
in the building design, the number of damaged columns is far
too few to put the buildings at risk without the fire. This
is elaborated on in the NIST report and elsewhere.1, 7 We
will ignore the fact that according to the physical evidence
data within the body of the NIST report, and contrary to its
conclusion, the steel did not get very hot. We will assume
the strongest case for the official theory: the fire was
uniform over the whole area and very hot. The fire has to
heat the steel, which takes time. Eventually the steel gets
hot enough that it cannot carry the load in the initiating
storey. It starts to sag. At this point there has been no
disruption of the columns, other than that caused by the
plane impact, hence most of the columns are still attached
to the floors above and below and are continuous, passing up
and down into other storeys, giving the columns rigidity. The
length of the columns between attachments is too short for
buckling to occur. 8 Failure must therefore be by compression.
As the steel sags two things will happen: the columns, as
they shorten, will become wider, which is obvious; and the
inherent strength of the steel will increase, which is not
obvious. It is well established however that the yield
strength of steel increases as the degree of distortion
increases. This tendency increases with rising temperature
and is pronounced at the temperatures required for collapse,
as can be seen in the graph below. 9 For both of these
reasons the initial sag cannot be catastrophic but will be
very slow and the rate will depend on the rate of heat input.
A rising temperature will be needed to offset both the
significant increase in yield strength and the slight
increase in cross-section area, if collapse is to progress.
It is clear therefore that the upper section should only
have moved down slowly and only continued to do so if
additional heat was supplied. A slow, protracted, and
sagging collapse was not observed however with either tower.
As observed in videos of both tower collapses, the upper
sections suddenly start to fall and disintegrate.10 In the
case of the south tower, initially a lean of the upper
section developed but within the first second this turned
into a rapid collapse with upper section disintegration,
just as was observed with the north tower. It appears
therefore that the official concept of a free fall collapse
of the upper portion through the initiation storey, due to
heat effects from fire, is a fantasy. If the temperature
did become high enough for collapse to occur it could not
have happened in the observed manner. 9 In particular it
could not have been sudden and thus could not have produced
the velocity, and hence the momentum and kinetic energy,
upon which the official story depends for the second stage
of collapse. In contrast, all observations are in accord with
the use of explosives in a timed sequence.
The case that the NIST report must be corrected is confirmed.
If this report is not corrected the suspicion will remain
that its purpose was not so much to inform as to deceive.
Tim
> Tim wrote:
> > On Dec 1, 12:06 pm, Henry <9-11tr...@experts.org> wrote:
> >> Tim wrote:
> >>> Now, tell us again, Henry;
> >> Â I'll answer your question after you answer mine.
> > I'll answer your question after you answer mine:
> > Is the CIA and the Mossad really killing off scientists who have
> > invented a reactionless drive that would permit the construction of a
> > rocket powerful enough to retrieve the debris from the WTC demolition
> > that nver decelerated, that then passed through the earth's core,
> > blasted out the other side of the earth, soared past the earth's
> > gravity well, and has since accelerated out of the solar system?
>
> Â The answer to your newest insane fantasy is no. Now, it's your
> turn to answer a question.
AHA!!! Then you ADMIT that the debris IS unretrievable and that the
truther cabal DID suspend the laws of gravity on 9/11/2001 in order to
cover-up their complicity by hiding the debris outside the solar
system so that the lack of nano termites CANNOT be proven by
responsible scientists!
Your flimsy fantasy construction teeters on the edge of annihilation!
Now, let me ask you one more question about your fellow truthers:
When did they stop beating their wives?????
Bob Myers
> On Dec 1, 2:58 pm, "MikeWhy" <boat042-nos...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Where did the opposing force come from if the lower
>> floors were demolished? Where did the energy
>> to brake the 80000 ton collapse mass come from?
>
> Shhhhh! (Looks furtively both ways...)
>
> Nano termites.
Would those be termites from the planet Ork?
Bob M.
BrianNZ
<snip>
>
> When did they stop beating their wives?????
>
Cook the man some fuckn eggs!!
Henry
I'd like to thank you silly clowns for not only helping
to keep this great thread alive, but also for so clearly
demonstrating the severely challenged "intellect" of a
typical Bush parroting magic fire cartoon conspiracy kook.
Couldn't have done it much better myself. <chuckle>
One way to identify an ignorant, helpless, and confused
Bush parroting cartoon conspiracy kook, is by its tendency
to spew childish lies, drivel, or =simply= obsess over
its betters when it's challenged to think or address the
evidence. At the low end of this group of clowns are those
who spew their childlike idiocy and lies while hiding behind
their killfiles. <chuckle>
Videos of "squibs":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjfoXbyffso&feature=related
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/Ryan_HVBD.pdf
Core remnant disintegration:
Core photos and facts:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc1cons1.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc4des1.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/bjh/14.jpg
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/gzpo1.html
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/9-11%20Picture1.jpg
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/b7/collateral.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc7fire1.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/wtc7.html
http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/wtc7_collapse2.mpg
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html
http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/02/destruction-of-wtc-7.html
http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html
From:
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060327100957690
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html
http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc2exp4.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc2exp1.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/perimeter.html
Now watch this video:
http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/wtc-2_explodes.avi
http://stopthelie.com/1-hour_guide_to_911.html
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200703/Sudden_collapse_initiation_impossible.pdf
--
Henry
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG2y50Wyys4
>>>> You're still missing the entire point. An impact would have
>>>> produced deceleration. There was no deceleration. That's the
>>>> point made in the video. The experts below explain that quite
>>>> well in the article linked below. Let us know if you disagree
>>>> with any of the points and if so, why.
>>>> Sure it was decelerating.
>> No, it most definitely was not decelerating. It was in
>> constant acceleration at about .64 free fall.
>>> It did not fall at free fall speed; therefore an external
>>> force was applied.
>> Correct. The force resisting the fall was approximately
>> .36 the mass of the block. Newton's third law states that
>> the block must also be exerting a downward force equivalent
>> to 36% of its mass.
>> "To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction:
>> or the forces of two bodies on each other are always equal and are
>> directed in opposite directions."
>>> Where did the opposing force come from if the lower floors were
>>> demolished?
>> Demolition doesn't move everything but air out of the way.
>> But you're still missing the main point. An impact would have
>> produced deceleration. There was no deceleration. The experts
>> below explain that quite well in the article linked below. Let
>> us know if you disagree with any of the points and if so, why.
>> No, Henry. I'm not missing the main point. I understand the main point
>> and disagree. Is that clear enough?
How can you say that the upper block is decelerating when it's
so easy to verify that it is, in fact, accelerating at about .67
free fall? The "collapse" gained speed all the way to the ground.
When speed increases, that's acceleration, not deceleration. If
you disagree with that, you're in way over your head here.
> With the lower floors demolished, there is nothing to provide
> an opposing force that comes even close to 36% of the mass above.
Obviously that would depend on what percentage of the steel supports
were severed through demolition, and on how many floors. Since you
don't have that information, you have no idea how much resistance
there should have been, and you comment is based in nothing but
speculation, rather than verifiable data.
Let us know if you disagree with any of the points made in the
research linked below, and if so, why.
Henry
>>>> Tell us why you "think" Bush and Cheney vehemently opposed
>>>> an investigation into the 9-11 attacks, as documented in the
>>>> brief video linked below..
>>>> http://www.911blogger.com/node/21992
>>> Tell me why you "think" anything posted on a site such
>>> as "911Blogger" would be considered to be any less kooky
>>> than hundreds of reekyites obviously consider you>
>> Are you disputing something in the video, or is your hatred for
>> the victims of the 9-11 attacks more of an emotional thing for
>> you?
>> Do you post your nonsense
What part of the video do you "think" is nonsense, and why?
Any idea at all what's on your "mind", or do you *simply* foam
at the face whenever your insane fairy tale is proved to be a
lie?
Henry
> On Dec 1, 3:37 pm, Henry <9-11tr...@experts.org> wrote:
>> Tim wrote:
>>> On Dec 1, 12:06 pm, Henry <9-11tr...@experts.org> wrote:
>>>> Tim wrote:
>>> I'll answer your question after you answer mine:
>>> Is the CIA and the Mossad really killing off scientists who have
>>> invented a reactionless drive that would permit the construction of a
>>> rocket powerful enough to retrieve the debris from the WTC demolition
>>> that nver decelerated, that then passed through the earth's core,
>>> blasted out the other side of the earth, soared past the earth's
>>> gravity well, and has since accelerated out of the solar system?
>> The answer to your newest insane fantasy is no. Now, it's your
>> turn to answer a question.
>> Do you dispute any of the analysis or points made in the
>> video linked below, particularly the fact that the falling
>> upper block is only exerting about 36% of the force it would
>> be exerting if it was at rest? If so, please tell us where
>> you believe the analysis is wrong and why.
>> We both lift weights to stay fit. You should know that it
>> requires more strength to hold a weighted bar motionless
>> than it does to let it down. And of course, the faster you let
>> it down, the less weight you're resisting. As long as the upper
>> block is accelerating at 64% of free fall, it's being resisted by
>> a force equivalent to 36% of its weight. Newton's third law states
>> that it must also be exerting a downward force equivalent to 36%
>> of its weight.
>>
>> "To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction:
>> or the forces of two bodies on each other are always equal and are
>> directed in opposite directions."
>>
>> Do you agree? If not, why not?
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG2y50Wyys4
> AHA!!!
Tim, you said you would answer my question after I answered
yours. As predicted, you lied. But no one is surprised that
the word of a mindless, government propaganda parroting nut
job is worth shit, and that you have exactly zero self respect,
integrity, or credibility. Thanks for proving another one of my
points so convincingly. That's one thing I couldn't have done
better myself. Damn, this is great thread....
Al Dykes
Henry <9-11...@experts.org> wrote:
>MikeWhy
>
> Obviously that would depend on what percentage of the steel supports
>were severed through demolition, and on how many floors. Since you
>don't have that information, you have no idea how much resistance
>there should have been, and you comment is based in nothing but
>speculation, rather than verifiable data.
>
> Let us know if you disagree with any of the points made in the
>research linked below, and if so, why.
>
> http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt7.pdf
>
Tony Szamboti debated his claims of no-jolt a couple weeks ago with
Ryan Mackey, a senior mechanical engineer that happens to work at
NASA. The video (in 3 parts) and powerpoint slides hare here:
http://911myths.com/index.php/Ryan_Mackey
--
Al Dykes
News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising.
- Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail