The amazing denial of conspiracy kooks....

[Henry]

Rob Kleinschmidt wrote:
> Henry wrote:

>>What is your explanation for the molten metal? We know the
>>fires were nowhere near hot enough to produce it, and you
>>deny thermite, so what produced it, in your opinion?

> My explanation for the molten metal is that it looks like
> a figment of imagination.

This firefighter say molten metal was flowing "like a foundry".

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...23273573302287

Photo evidence.

http://static.flickr.com/86/27952913...29f58c.jpg?v=0

October 21, 2001:

http://static.flickr.com/120/279514317_77de161f37_o.jpg

The short video below was filmed six weeks after the demolitions.

http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/v...ow_quality.wmv

Unless you think the eyewitnesses are all lying or mistaken
and that the photo/video evidence is all faked, then you agree
that the molten metal observed at all three 9-11 demolition
sites is real, not imaginary. If you do think the eyewitnesses
are all lying or mistaken and that the photo/video evidence is
all faked, please tell us how smoldering, low temperature, oxygen
starved fires near the top of the towers melted steel deep in
the sub basement. Seems rather magical... <chuckle>




-

http://911research.wtc7.net

Here's what happens to steel framed buildings exposed
to raging infernos for hours on end.

http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html

On 9-11-01, WTC7, a 47 story steel framed building, which
had only small, random fires, dropped in perfect symmetry
at near free fall speed as in a perfectly executed controlled
demolition.

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html

[Joe Humble]

On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 19:04:39 -0500, Henry <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Rob Kleinschmidt wrote:
>> Henry wrote:
>
>>>What is your explanation for the molten metal? We know the
>>>fires were nowhere near hot enough to produce it, and you
>>>deny thermite, so what produced it, in your opinion?
>
>> My explanation for the molten metal is that it looks like
>> a figment of imagination.
>
> This firefighter say molten metal was flowing "like a foundry".
>
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...23273573302287
>
> Photo evidence.
>
> http://static.flickr.com/86/27952913...29f58c.jpg?v=0

Interesting but I think a building of that size collapsing could cause
enough friction to actually melt pockets of steel. It doesn't sound
all that strange to me given the amount of mass/momentum involved.

--
Is this thing on?

[kirb]

Henry wrote:
> the same tired stuff for the last 5 years.

Just to get this straight, Hanky....YOU are the conspiracy theorist
(kook). You think different of the published events and that Bush
conspirared to drop the towers for whatever reason.

By definition, YOU are the one beating the conspiracy theory drum.

Another thing that keeps the conspiracy therorists from finding a
mainstream voice is the constant focus on single points with only one
alternate answer-

"there was molten metal, so it could only have been thermite"
"thermite is used as a demolition method"
"The buildings must have been demoed"
"You can't prove that I'm wrong, so I must be right"

Can you see why NOT ONE SINGLE MEDIA OUTLET, no matter how liberal,
will publish the crackpot method you come to your conclusions?

Do you spam news media with emails as well? It's not hard to imagine
what your agenda is with an email such as "[email protected]".
Yet another reason a clear thinking person is going to RUN in the
opposite direction of your "facts". You cannot be biased and as such
your opinions and research are tainted. You do the 911 truth bowel
movement a true disservice.

You can cut and paste the crap out of this post, add on your tired
rants, but in the end it YOU and YOUR METHODS that keep your voice from
being heard.

Kirb

[Damian]

Dude, seek help!...theres more to life than being stuck on and re-living
9-11

It happened 5 years ago, its done, cant take it away, move on.


and BTW, you ****ed up your own subject line...you just told us YOU are
on denial because you are the one stuck on the conspiracy theory

[Henry]

kirb wrote:
> Henry wrote:

>> This firefighter says molten metal was flowing "like a foundry".
>>
>> http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...23273573302287
>>
>> Photo evidence.
>>
>> http://static.flickr.com/86/27952913...29f58c.jpg?v=0
>>
>> October 21, 2001:
>>
>> http://static.flickr.com/120/279514317_77de161f37_o.jpg
>>
>> The short video below was filmed six weeks after the demolitions.
>>
>> http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/v...ow_quality.wmv
>>
>> Unless you think the eyewitnesses are all lying or mistaken
>> and that the photo/video evidence is all faked, then you agree
>> that the molten metal observed at all three 9-11 demolition
>> sites is real, not imaginary. If you do think the eyewitnesses
>> are all lying or mistaken and that the photo/video evidence is
>> all faked, please tell us how smoldering, low temperature, oxygen
>> starved fires near the top of the towers melted steel deep in
>> the sub basement. Seems rather magical... <chuckle>

> Just to get this straight, Hanky....

I notice that neither you nor any other gullible magic fire/Super
Arab conspiracy kook can explain how a low temperature, oxygen
starved, smoldering fire near the top of the tower produced
molten and glowing metal deep in the sub basement. Just more hard
evidence that must be ignored or denied in order to make your
silly fairy tale "work", eh? <vbg>
But hey, your ruling masters told you that the magic fires
did it, so there's no need for further "thought" is there? Your
ruling masters would never lie to you about anything, right?
The denial and ignorance of thoughtless, clueless conspiracy
kooks sure is amazing... <chuckle>



Look at the height of WTC7:

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/...20Picture1.jpg

Then look at how it collapsed:

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html

Small random fires can't possibly make a steel framed building
do that. Not even a raging inferno can cause a steel building to
do anything even remotely close to that. Only a very well executed
controlled demolition can cause the total, instant, and symmetric
failure of all steel support columns that took place in WTC7.
That was very solidly braced and virtually undamaged steel frame.
It was dramatically over engineered to withstand hurricane force
winds and mild earth quakes. Look at the still photos at 1 second
intervals. The building stays perfectly straight and level all the
way down. Every one of the 58 steel perimeter columns failed at
exactly the same time, and they all failed totally, putting up
essentially zero resistance. That's proved by the collapse time of
6.6 seconds compared to 6 seconds free fall. The southwest corner
of WTC7 was damaged by debris from the north tower, and there were
small random fires in the building, although it's anyone's guess how
they were ignited. But asymmetric damage and random fires don't cause
steel framed buildings to collapse even slowly and asymmetrically.
The near free fall speed and perfectly symmetric collapse of a
steel framed building can only be caused by a very well executed
synchronized demolition.

Here's what happens to steel framed buildings exposed
to raging infernos for hours on end.

http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html

Perhaps you should learn more about the extreme (2000%) reserve
strength designed into the steel frames of the towers. How was the
2000% reserve strength of the undamaged steel frame exceeded by only
the force of gravity, in your opinion? And how was it exceeded to such
an extreme degree that the undamaged steel frame with a 2000% reserve
strength capacity offered no measurable resistance with only the force
of gravity working against it?

From:
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?...60327100957690

"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 with
physics, and that's why no other steel framed buildings have ever
collapsed that way unless they were demolished. See Gordon Ross'
excellent paper on momentum transfer on this page:

http://worldtradecentertruth.com/

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.

To believe that the towers could fall through themselves at virtual
free fall speed and in perfect symmetry is comical nonsense. What you
are saying, is 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 proven by the
fact that debris falling outside the towers hit the ground about the
same time as the debris falling through the towers. Making your
theory even more impossible, is the fact that the steel at the top
of the towers was ten times lighter and thinner than the undamaged
steel in the lower section.
Your magic fire conspiracy theory is an utterly idiotic and
comical fantasy - and it violates the laws of physics.

Look at the massive core column cross section in the
bottom photo.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html

Your magic fire theory says that crushing 47 of those bad boys,
all interconnected with even more steel, =and= destroying all the
perimeter columns, =and= "pancaking" all the floors, produced
about the same kinetic friction as falling though air. That's some
crazy, crazy, ****. It's amazing what some people can programmed
to believe.

[Proctologically Violated©®]

You may not like how the OP says what he says, but there is much to what he
says.
#6 oil-fired boilers contain their very-hot highly-tuned flame in steel
boilers likely of much inferior steel to what is used in buildings.
With no melting, in a fuel that has easily 30% more btu's per gal than other
fuels, in a super-white-hot fireball flame.
The "conspiracy theorists" have a large amount evidence for their case. I
think our inability to cope with it is more the problem.
Vaporized planes? Yeah, mebbe in a nuclear explosion.
You can do the experiments yourself, burning kerosene in a drum. See if you
can get even a bedframe to melt. Bend mebbe, but not melt.
btw, Guiliani has become a billionaire since 9/11.
--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY

Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!

entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs

"kirb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected] ups.com...
>
> Henry wrote:
>> the same tired stuff for the last 5 years.
>
> Just to get this straight, Hanky....YOU are the conspiracy theorist
> (kook). You think different of the published events and that Bush
> conspirared to drop the towers for whatever reason.
>
> By definition, YOU are the one beating the conspiracy theory drum.
>
> Another thing that keeps the conspiracy therorists from finding a
> mainstream voice is the constant focus on single points with only one
> alternate answer-
>
> "there was molten metal, so it could only have been thermite"
> "thermite is used as a demolition method"
> "The buildings must have been demoed"
> "You can't prove that I'm wrong, so I must be right"
>
> Can you see why NOT ONE SINGLE MEDIA OUTLET, no matter how liberal,
> will publish the crackpot method you come to your conclusions?
>
> Do you spam news media with emails as well? It's not hard to imagine
> what your agenda is with an email such as "[email protected]".
> Yet another reason a clear thinking person is going to RUN in the
> opposite direction of your "facts". You cannot be biased and as such
> your opinions and research are tainted. You do the 911 truth bowel
> movement a true disservice.
>
> You can cut and paste the crap out of this post, add on your tired
> rants, but in the end it YOU and YOUR METHODS that keep your voice from
> being heard.
>
> Kirb
>
>

[Joe Humble]

On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 17:14:42 -0500, Henry <[email protected]>
wrote:

>kirb wrote:
>> Henry wrote:
>
>>> This firefighter says molten metal was flowing "like a foundry".

Honestly, it sounds more like they are talking about a trickle down
one of the I beams. Not something out of Star Wars.

>>>
>>> http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...23273573302287
>>>
>>> Photo evidence.
>>>
>>> http://static.flickr.com/86/27952913...29f58c.jpg?v=0
>>>
>>> October 21, 2001:
>>>
>>> http://static.flickr.com/120/279514317_77de161f37_o.jpg
>>>
>>> The short video below was filmed six weeks after the demolitions.
>>>
>>> http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/v...ow_quality.wmv
>>>
>>> Unless you think the eyewitnesses are all lying or mistaken
>>> and that the photo/video evidence is all faked, then you agree
>>> that the molten metal observed at all three 9-11 demolition
>>> sites is real, not imaginary. If you do think the eyewitnesses
>>> are all lying or mistaken and that the photo/video evidence is
>>> all faked, please tell us how smoldering, low temperature, oxygen
>>> starved fires near the top of the towers melted steel deep in
>>> the sub basement. Seems rather magical... <chuckle>
>
>> Just to get this straight, Hanky....
>
> I notice that neither you nor any other gullible magic fire/Super
>Arab conspiracy kook can explain how a low temperature, oxygen
>starved, smoldering fire near the top of the tower produced
>molten and glowing metal deep in the sub basement. Just more hard
>evidence that must be ignored or denied in order to make your
>silly fairy tale "work", eh? <vbg>

Friction. Millions (100s of thousands?) of tons of weight moving at
high velocity into the ground cause a lot of friction. Friction
generates heat. Would it generate enough heat to melt steel? I dunno
but someone could probably calculate how much energy was released by
the collapse.

Even without breaking out Ye Olde Physics Book I'll go out on a limb
and say " a lot".

--
Is this thing on?

[kirb]

Proctologically Violated©® wrote:
> You may not like how the OP says what he says, but there is much to what he
> says.
> #6 oil-fired boilers contain their very-hot highly-tuned flame in steel
> boilers likely of much inferior steel to what is used in buildings.
> With no melting, in a fuel that has easily 30% more btu's per gal than other
> fuels, in a super-white-hot fireball flame.
> The "conspiracy theorists" have a large amount evidence for their case. I
> think our inability to cope with it is more the problem.
> Vaporized planes? Yeah, mebbe in a nuclear explosion.
> You can do the experiments yourself, burning kerosene in a drum. See if you
> can get even a bedframe to melt. Bend mebbe, but not melt.
> btw, Guiliani has become a billionaire since 9/11.

Dude, lay off the booze, pick up a websters, or at least re-adjust your
tinfoil hat.

Kirb

[P.Roehling]

"Proctologically Violated©®" <[email protected]> wrote

> #6 oil-fired boilers contain their very-hot highly-tuned flame in steel
> boilers likely of much inferior steel to what is used in buildings.
> With no melting, in a fuel that has easily 30% more btu's per gal than
> other fuels, in a super-white-hot fireball flame.

Dear "Violated": steel boilers have an outside and an inside. The inside
absorbs heat, and the outside radiates it away at the same time, so the
steel normally never reaches it's melting point. Also, the boiler is
designed to reach a certain temperature and then remain there. The little
machine that does this is called a "thermostat", and that's another reason
why steel boilers seldom melt.
None of this is true in a situation where a piece of steel is surrounded by
fire on all sides, and has no way to radiate off any of the heat it absorbs.
In such a situation, the steel just keeps getting hotter and hotter until it
softens and loses it's tensile strength. (Duh.)

This is why when you're blacksmithing you don't heat a steel bar by placing
it *around* the forge where it would be able to radiate off most of the heat
it absorbed: you put it *into* the forge where it's completely surrounded by
flame on all sides. And *that's* why building codes say that steel beams
must be coated with fire-resistant insulating materials: the guys who wrote
the building codes *knew* that steel beams will soften enough to collapse if
they're heated long enough and hot enough. If this weren't common knowlege,
construction codes wouldn't universally be written that way.

If pretending that the WTC was knocked down by some incredible conspiracy
makes you feel better, then feel free to indulge yourself; but pointing out
"facts" that show us you have no basic understanding of the simple
engineering principals that made the steam engine possible almost 200 years
ago won't go very far towards supporting your delusion if you insist on
displaying them in public.

[Henry]

Damian wrote:

> It happened 5 years ago, its done, cant take it away, move on.

The perpetrators have not been held accountable, so it's not
done, and we should not "move on". Silence is complicity. Also,
the treasonous war criminals and terrorists on the Bush regime
use 9-11 to justify their policy of fear, hate, violence, death,
destruction, terrorism, and oppression.

> and BTW, you ****ed up your own subject line...you just told us YOU are
> on denial because you are the one stuck on the conspiracy theory

There are two conspiracy theories. The official conspiracy theory
has been proved to be physically impossible and it contradicts the
hard evidence as well as the laws of physics. Also it could never be
duplicated. The demolition theory is supported by the evidence, and
could be duplicated.



Look at the height of WTC7:

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/...20Picture1.jpg

Then look at how it collapsed:

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html

Small random fires can't possibly make a steel framed building
do that. Not even a raging inferno can cause a steel building to
do anything even remotely close to that. Only a very well executed
controlled demolition can cause the total, instant, and symmetric
failure of all steel support columns that took place in WTC7.
That was very solidly braced and virtually undamaged steel frame.
It was dramatically over engineered to withstand hurricane force
winds and mild earth quakes. Look at the still photos at 1 second
intervals. The building stays perfectly straight and level all the
way down. Every one of the 58 steel perimeter columns failed at
exactly the same time, and they all failed totally, putting up
essentially zero resistance. That's proved by the collapse time of
6.6 seconds compared to 6 seconds free fall. The southwest corner
of WTC7 was damaged by debris from the north tower, and there were
small random fires in the building, although it's anyone's guess how
they were ignited. But asymmetric damage and random fires don't cause
steel framed buildings to collapse even slowly and asymmetrically.
The near free fall speed and perfectly symmetric collapse of a
steel framed building can only be caused by a very well executed
synchronized demolition.

Here's what happens to steel framed buildings exposed
to raging infernos for hours on end.

http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html

Perhaps you should learn more about the extreme (2000%) reserve
strength designed into the steel frames of the towers. How was the
2000% reserve strength of the undamaged steel frame exceeded by only
the force of gravity, in your opinion? And how was it exceeded to such
an extreme degree that the undamaged steel frame with a 2000% reserve
strength capacity offered no measurable resistance with only the force
of gravity working against it?

From:
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?...60327100957690

"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 with
physics, and that's why no other steel framed buildings have ever
collapsed that way unless they were demolished. See Gordon Ross'
excellent paper on momentum transfer on this page:

http://worldtradecentertruth.com/

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.

To believe that the towers could fall through themselves at virtual
free fall speed and in perfect symmetry is comical nonsense. What you
are saying, is 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 proven by the
fact that debris falling outside the towers hit the ground about the
same time as the debris falling through the towers. Making your
theory even more impossible, is the fact that the steel at the top
of the towers was ten times lighter and thinner than the undamaged
steel in the lower section.
Your magic fire conspiracy theory is an utterly idiotic and
comical fantasy - and it violates the laws of physics.

Look at the massive core column cross section in the
bottom photo.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html

Your magic fire theory says that crushing 47 of those bad boys,
all interconnected with even more steel, =and= destroying all the
perimeter columns, =and= "pancaking" all the floors, produced
about the same kinetic friction as falling though air. That's some
crazy, crazy, ****. It's amazing what some people can programmed
to believe.


http://911research.wtc7.net

Here's what happens to steel framed buildings exposed
to raging infernos for hours on end.

http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html

On 9-11-01, WTC7, a 47 story steel framed building, which
had only small, random fires, dropped in perfect symmetry
at near free fall speed as in a perfectly executed controlled
demolition.

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html


http://911research.wtc7.net

[Henry]

kirb wrote:

> tinfoil hat.

When you mindlessly babble about your tin foil hat while
cowering and hiding from the hard evidence, you only reveal
your weak intellect and your inability to think for yourself.
It's hard to imagine just how weak minded you need be in order
to believe in something that you can't explain, you don't
understand, and has been proved to be physically impossible...
<chuckle>


Look at the height of WTC7:

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/...20Picture1.jpg

Then look at how it collapsed:

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html

Small random fires can't possibly make a steel framed building
do that. Not even a raging inferno can cause a steel building to
do anything even remotely close to that. Only a very well executed
controlled demolition can cause the total, instant, and symmetric
failure of all steel support columns that took place in WTC7.
That was very solidly braced and virtually undamaged steel frame.
It was dramatically over engineered to withstand hurricane force
winds and mild earth quakes. Look at the still photos at 1 second
intervals. The building stays perfectly straight and level all the
way down. Every one of the 58 steel perimeter columns failed at
exactly the same time, and they all failed totally, putting up
essentially zero resistance. That's proved by the collapse time of
6.6 seconds compared to 6 seconds free fall. The southwest corner
of WTC7 was damaged by debris from the north tower, and there were
small random fires in the building, although it's anyone's guess how
they were ignited. But asymmetric damage and random fires don't cause
steel framed buildings to collapse even slowly and asymmetrically.
The near free fall speed and perfectly symmetric collapse of a
steel framed building can only be caused by a very well executed
synchronized demolition.

Here's what happens to steel framed buildings exposed
to raging infernos for hours on end.

http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html

Perhaps you should learn more about the extreme (2000%) reserve
strength designed into the steel frames of the towers. How was the
2000% reserve strength of the undamaged steel frame exceeded by only
the force of gravity, in your opinion? And how was it exceeded to such
an extreme degree that the undamaged steel frame with a 2000% reserve
strength capacity offered no measurable resistance with only the force
of gravity working against it?

From:
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?...60327100957690

"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 with
physics, and that's why no other steel framed buildings have ever
collapsed that way unless they were demolished. See Gordon Ross'
excellent paper on momentum transfer on this page:

http://worldtradecentertruth.com/

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.

To believe that the towers could fall through themselves at virtual
free fall speed and in perfect symmetry is comical nonsense. What you
are saying, is 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 proven by the
fact that debris falling outside the towers hit the ground about the
same time as the debris falling through the towers. Making your
theory even more impossible, is the fact that the steel at the top
of the towers was ten times lighter and thinner than the undamaged
steel in the lower section.
Your magic fire conspiracy theory is an utterly idiotic and
comical fantasy - and it violates the laws of physics.

Look at the massive core column cross section in the
bottom photo.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html

Your magic fire theory says that crushing 47 of those bad boys,
all interconnected with even more steel, =and= destroying all the
perimeter columns, =and= "pancaking" all the floors, produced
about the same kinetic friction as falling though air. That's some
crazy, crazy, ****. It's amazing what some people can programmed
to believe.

[Henry]

P. "I'm not psychotic at all" Roehling wrote:

> Dear "Violated": steel boilers have an outside and an inside. The inside
> absorbs heat, and the outside radiates it away at the same time, so the
> steel normally never reaches it's melting point.

My wood burning stove is exposed directly to intense flames.
Guess what, it has yet to suddenly melt, disintegrate, or shatter
into pieces, Petie. Of course, there are no magic fires in
that wood stove - or any other. <vbg>

> None of this is true in a situation where a piece of steel is
> surrounded by fire on all sides,

There are quite a few problems with your mindless parroting
of the Bush regime's thoroughly debunked and impossible magic
fire/super Arab conspiracy theory, Petie.
When steel is gradually heated to very high temperatures, if
it fails at all, the failure will be very gradual. It doesn't
reach some magic temperature and then suddenly and instantly
disintegrate. Also, very little of the steel in WTC7 was exposed
to any fire at all, and thge fires in the towers were nowhere near
as hot as fires in other steel framed buildings. And of course,
everyone agrees that the oxygen starved, smoldering, low temperature
fires in the towers and WTC7 were nowhere near hot enough to melt
the steel, yet molten metal was documented at all three demolition
sites, deep in the rubble.
Also, none of the steel in the towers below the impact zone was
exposed to any fire all. Yet, it still totally and instantly disintegrated, producing no more resistance to falling debris
than air. You can't explain that, the perfect symmetry, the
squibs, the Bush regime's many lies, it's destruction and
confiscation of evidence, or it's vehement opposition to an
investigaton. Demolition explains all the hard evidence.
Tell us how your magic fires near the top of the towers
produced molten metal deep in the sub basement, Petie? <vbg>

> This is why when you're blacksmithing you don't heat a steel
> bar by placing it *around* the forge where it would be able
> to radiate off most of the heat it absorbed: you put it *into*
> the forge where it's completely surrounded by flame on all
> sides.

And yet, the steel still doesn't melt or suddenly shatter into
pieces. It weakens very gradually, not instantly. How about that,
Petie? And of course, most of the steel in WTC7 and towers was
never exposed to fires, anyway.

> If pretending that the WTC was knocked down by some incredible
> conspiracy makes you feel better, then feel free to indulge
> yourself;


Amazing thing is, you're not predending. You're so ignorant and
gullible that you believe every lie spewed by the Bush regime,
even though their conspiracy theory contradicts the hard evidence
and violates the laws of physics.
Fires can't make a steel framed building suddenly disintegrate
and drop straight down at virtual free fall speed and perfect
symmetry, Petie. They never have, and they never will. Also,
some guy in a cave thousands of miles away can't order NORAD
to stand down while commercial jets fly off course for over an
hour in the most heavily guarded air space on the planet. It's
hard to imagine just how simple minded and gullible you need to
be in order to believe in such an impossible, easily debunked,
and comical fairy tale.... <chuckle>

Look at the height of WTC7:

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/...20Picture1.jpg

Then look at how it collapsed:

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html

Small random fires can't possibly make a steel framed building
do that. Not even a raging inferno can cause a steel building to
do anything even remotely close to that. Only a very well executed
controlled demolition can cause the total, instant, and symmetric
failure of all steel support columns that took place in WTC7.
That was very solidly braced and virtually undamaged steel frame.
It was dramatically over engineered to withstand hurricane force
winds and mild earth quakes. Look at the still photos at 1 second
intervals. The building stays perfectly straight and level all the
way down. Every one of the 58 steel perimeter columns failed at
exactly the same time, and they all failed totally, putting up
essentially zero resistance. That's proved by the collapse time of
6.6 seconds compared to 6 seconds free fall. The southwest corner
of WTC7 was damaged by debris from the north tower, and there were
small random fires in the building, although it's anyone's guess how
they were ignited. But asymmetric damage and random fires don't cause
steel framed buildings to collapse even slowly and asymmetrically.
The near free fall speed and perfectly symmetric collapse of a
steel framed building can only be caused by a very well executed
synchronized demolition.

Here's what happens to steel framed buildings exposed
to raging infernos for hours on end.

http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html

Perhaps you should learn more about the extreme (2000%) reserve
strength designed into the steel frames of the towers. How was the
2000% reserve strength of the undamaged steel frame exceeded by only
the force of gravity, in your opinion? And how was it exceeded to such
an extreme degree that the undamaged steel frame with a 2000% reserve
strength capacity offered no measurable resistance with only the force
of gravity working against it?

From:
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?...60327100957690

"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 with
physics, and that's why no other steel framed buildings have ever
collapsed that way unless they were demolished. See Gordon Ross'
excellent paper on momentum transfer on this page:

http://worldtradecentertruth.com/

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.

To believe that the towers could fall through themselves at virtual
free fall speed and in perfect symmetry is comical nonsense. What you
are saying, is 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 proven by the
fact that debris falling outside the towers hit the ground about the
same time as the debris falling through the towers. Making your
theory even more impossible, is the fact that the steel at the top
of the towers was ten times lighter and thinner than the undamaged
steel in the lower section.
Your magic fire conspiracy theory is an utterly idiotic and
comical fantasy - and it violates the laws of physics.

Look at the massive core column cross section in the
bottom photo.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html

Your magic fire theory says that crushing 47 of those bad boys,
all interconnected with even more steel, =and= destroying all the
perimeter columns, =and= "pancaking" all the floors, produced
about the same kinetic friction as falling though air. That's some
crazy, crazy, ****. It's amazing what some people can programmed
to believe.

Observe the rotating and disintegrating block on the South Tower.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evid.../wtc2exp4.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, they're being pulled
apart. Why do you think the steel perimeter frame with no weight above
it is exploding and collapsing at the same rate as the compressed side?
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

[Al Dykes]

In article <emkclg$lq6$[email protected]>,
Henry <"9-11"@inside job.gov> wrote:
>P. "I'm not psychotic at all" Roehling wrote:
>
>> Dear "Violated": steel boilers have an outside and an inside. The inside
>> absorbs heat, and the outside radiates it away at the same time, so the
>> steel normally never reaches it's melting point.
>
> My wood burning stove is exposed directly to intense flames.
>Guess what, it has yet to suddenly melt, disintegrate, or shatter
>into pieces, Petie. Of course, there are no magic fires in
>that wood stove - or any other. <vbg>
>
>> None of this is true in a situation where a piece of steel is
>> surrounded by fire on all sides,
>
> There are quite a few problems with your mindless parroting
>of the Bush regime's thoroughly debunked and impossible magic
>fire/super Arab conspiracy theory, Petie.
> When steel is gradually heated to very high temperatures, if
>it fails at all, the failure will be very gradual. It doesn't
>reach some magic temperature and then suddenly and instantly
>disintegrate. Also, very little of the steel in WTC7 was exposed
>to any fire at all, and thge fires in the towers were nowhere near
>as hot as fires in other steel framed buildings. And of course,
>everyone agrees that the oxygen starved, smoldering, low temperature
>fires in the towers and WTC7 were nowhere near hot enough to melt
>the steel, yet molten metal was documented at all three demolition
>sites, deep in the rubble.
> Also, none of the steel in the towers below the impact zone was
>exposed to any fire all. Yet, it still totally and instantly disintegrated, producing no more resistance to falling debris
>than air. You can't explain that, the perfect symmetry, the
>squibs,


Squibs? Where's the evidence, other than "it must have been",
which is no arguement, at all.


To believe the "alternative" explanations of the "Truth Movement"
about the collapse of WTC1/2/7 requires that you ignore the
conclusions from the work of hundreds of engineers at NIST, published.
The results have been examined by thousands of engineers, worldwide,
all with expertese on some aspect of the event. The raw data and the
work of NIST is published at http://wtc.nist.gov/ and these people
have examined the NIST case and agree with the general analysis, even
if some details are unknown or subject to debate.

Yet the "9-11 Truth Movement" requires that all these people are part
of a coverup.

The "Truth Movement" has joined the people the look for Bigfoot and
that believe in UFOs and Nellie as a permanent part of the
intellectual landscape, unfortunately. I guess the ubiquity of digital
cameras has made the non-existence of these old warhorses obvious so
the people that used to hawk "Area 51" have now picked on something
that was a one-time event and, as such, can't be observed again and
there is no chance that new factual evidence can be found in support
of their claims.

It is futile to try to change the minds of people that repeat this
crap. I don't write this for them; I write for all the Lurkers out
there that read this thread or may find it with Google and to give
them facts and citations for they can counter the bull**** when the
find it, next time.

I think that all the smoke generated by the "Truth Movement" people
serves to distract us from real problems with the FAA and the rest of
the government and that the energy applied by the "Truth" people could
be better applied to working in American politics and mainstream
activism to bring more transparency to our government, which needs it
badly. Instead the people that originate this crap serve people that
are not working in our interests.


http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2006/...e-vs-bull.html

Thursday, December 21, 2006
Science Vs. Bull
Joseph Cannon

As mentioned in a comment below, my sympathies for conspiracy
theories evaporate when the subject switches from investigative
reporting to science. I'm all for tracking Lee Harvey Oswald's
spooky pals in Guy Banister's office; I'm all for telling the story
of what really went down in Allende's Chile; I'm all for sorting out
the ins and outs of the Litvinenko case; I'm all for tracking the
shadowy world inhabited by guys like Michael Ledeen and groups like
the Pinay Circle.

But when the subject turns to science, I advise extreme caution.

And that's when the conspiracy buffs become pluperfectly pissed off
with me, because many of them just love, love, love that
pseudoscience. From radionics to Roswell, they dig it.

A discursive example:

I can't tell you how many times I've argued with film-illiterate
conspiracy buffs who knew -- just bloody knew -- that subliminal
images appear in The Exorcist. Every time I encounter this claim, I
explain that, while quick cuts do exist in that movie, subliminals
are impossible. Film runs at 24 frames a second, and 1/24th of a
second is not subliminal; that's why you can see scratches and
splices in a bad print. 1/3000th of a second is subliminal, but to
flash an image so briefly requires a specialized piece of equipment
called a tachistiscope. (For the same reason, no subliminals can
ever appear on television, which has a 30 fps refresh rate.)

The usual response: "There must have been a tachisti-whatzit in the
theater!"

Actually, I've spoken with the projectionist who ran The Exorcist
during its first run at the National in Los Angeles back in '73. (In
those days, big films did not open wide.) There was no such device.

Point won? Nope. The ne'er-say-die conspiracy buff would invariably
accuse me of not knowing anything about movie technology (!) or of
being part of the conspiracy.

(Before you say it: Yes, I know all about Vicary's stunt in the
1950s. He used a tachistiscope, and his results had no scientific
value due to the lack of controls. And yes, I know about the
Silverman/Weinberger experiments of the 1980s, which have been
questioned due to some unsuccessful attempts at replication.)

All of which is my way of coming back to Dylan Avery, director of
Loose Change, the film which many controlled demolition believers
consider the Matrix-style "red pill" that awoke them to the
horrible, horrible truth of what really happened on 9/11. In a
recent comment, Dylan revealed that his film is a religious
enterprise, not an attempt at scientific inquiry.

The giveaway quotation comes from a debate between Dylan Avery,
partner Jason Bermas, and debunker Ronald Wieck. You can see the
debate here; a partial transcript is here.

The revelatory words:

Wieck: I want to ask both of you quickly, what would falsify your
beliefs? What would it take? What would we need to change your
mind about this?

Avery: There is nothing.

Nothing could falsify this belief? Then -- by definition -- we have
left the edifice of science and entered the realm of religion.

The existence of God is the most commonly-heard non-falsifiable
assertion. If you're as ancient as I am, you may recall this
exchange from an old Bill Cosby routine, which demonstrates the
principle:

Dad: Don't step out the bed. I've placed a dozen poisonous snakes
on the floor.

Young Bill: I don't see no snakes...

Dad: They're invisible!

What would falsify my assertion that controlled demolitions did not
take down those buildings? A commenter on the Screw Loose Change
blog offered some sensible suggestions:

- a consensus among structural engineers and demolition experts
that there was a demolition

- peer-reviewed research supporting twoofer claims

- whistleblowers from within the massive conspiracy

- a logical narrative would be nice too

Actually, I find it odd that we haven't yet had any putative
whistleblowers. The hard-core JFK buffs can name about a dozen guys
who, over the years, have made dubious "confessions" that they were
either one of the shooters or one of the mystery tramps.

Back to the main point. My standards for falsification are less
demanding. I'm not asking for a consensus of physicists -- a mere
twenty would be nice. When the CD-ers can count among their number a
certain number of demolition experts -- twenty? Fifteen? -- I will
listen respectfully. Right now, the number of demolition experts who
believe in the CD theory of 911 is an embarrassing zero.

The CD-ers claim that their writings have passed muster in a "peer
reviewed" journal, But that publication, The Journal of 911 Studies,
does not count among its peers a single person with professional
expertise in the area of controlled demolition. And yet it is
devoted to "proving" the controlled demolition hypothesis!

Why have the editors not recruited any experts in the very field
under discussion? Perhaps because those experts would say things
that the CD believers may not wish to hear.

The fact is, no pro-CD theories have appeared in any peer-reviewed
scientific periodical founded before the events in question
occurred. As far as I know, all articles published in actual science
journals have led readers in a very different direction.

Some conspiracists will counter: The editors of those journals must
have been paid to print lies! Welcome to the wonderful world of
non-falsifiability.

If dozens, hundreds of eyewitnesses see a commercial jet smashing
into the Pentagon, those witnesses stand damned as liars. Welcome to
the wonderful world of non-falsifiability.

"The buildings came down at free-fall speeds!" bleat the
CD-ers. That argument has been refuted more than once. See here and
here and here. Also see the Screw Loose Change video itself -- or
any video of the collapse, which shows rubble free-falling at a rate
faster than the building collapse.

Doesn't matter: Those rebuttals were written in bad faith, and any
video evidence that challenges the theory must have been
Photoshopped.

Welcome to the world of non-falsifiability.

Should we extend Avery and Bermas the excuse of youth? Could it be
that they did not know how the concept of falsifiability works in
science?

My High School Science teacher explained the basic principle to me,
just as yours probably told you. One can only hope that Avery and
Bermas had a similar instructor. Beyond that, everyone must admit
that Avery and Bermas are playing with the big boys now. They made a
film which spoke to millions about scientific questions, and (unlike
most actual scientists) they feel quite comfortable speaking in
terms of definitely instead of perhaps.

If they did not make it their business to learn the scientific
method, they deserve contempt.



--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
Harrison for Congress in NY 13CD www.harrison06.com
Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001

[kirb]

Henry wrote:
> kirb wrote:
>
> > tinfoil hat.
>
> When you mindlessly babble about your tin foil hat while
> cowering and hiding from the hard evidence, you only reveal
> your weak intellect and your inability to think for yourself.
> It's hard to imagine just how weak minded you need be in order
> to believe in something that you can't explain, you don't
> understand, and has been proved to be physically impossible...
> <chuckle>

Your personal attacks still fail to explain why NO ONE in the media
will pick up your "facts" and expose these "truths"

It doesn't matter how much YOU believe your story...it's being able to
sell it to others. You can't.

Kirb

[kirb]

Henry wrote:
> kirb wrote:
>
> > tinfoil hat.
>
> When you mindlessly babble about your tin foil hat while
> cowering and hiding from the hard evidence, you only reveal
> your weak intellect and your inability to think for yourself.
> It's hard to imagine just how weak minded you need be in order
> to believe in something that you can't explain, you don't
> understand, and has been proved to be physically impossible...
> <chuckle>

You keep up with the personal attacks because you fail to answer the
following:

Why has NOT ONE ultra liberal press picked up your story? NO one is
reporting your "proofs" or "theories".

You always cut and paste around that one, hanky boy.

Another thing that keeps the conspiracy therorists from finding a
mainstream voice is the constant focus on single points with only one
alternate answer-

"there was molten metal, so it could only have been thermite"
"thermite is used as a demolition method"
"The buildings must have been demoed"
"You can't prove that I'm wrong, so I must be right"

Can you see why NOT ONE SINGLE MEDIA OUTLET, no matter how liberal,
will publish the crackpot method you come to your conclusions?

Do you spam news media with emails as well? It's not hard to imagine
what your agenda is with an email such as "impeachb...@treason.gov".
Yet another reason a clear thinking person is going to RUN in the
opposite direction of your "facts". You cannot be biased and as such
your opinions and research are tainted. You do the 911 truth bowel
movement a true disservice.

You can cut and paste the crap out of this post, add on your tired
rants, but in the end it YOU and YOUR METHODS that keep your voice from

being heard.

You can keep ignoring that fact, but it still is true.

Kirb

[Proctologically Violated©®]

You proved my case:
Forge a piece of steel.
Get it *white hot*.
What happens?
Not much until you beat it/bend it.
But it dudn't melt.
I didn't say the towers wouldn't collapse, didn't say that steel doesn't get
soft under heat.
But it does not become *molten*, not without super-intense heat, way beyond
that of a poorly-oxygenated pile of kerosene.

Beyond that, near-perfect implosion from some softened girders high up is
perty suspicious to me. You may be an expert in implosion/building
collapse, but I know a lot of other knowledgeable people are perplexed.

I think, tho, that a frame-by-frame analysis of how the building fell would
help. I also think it would be useful to build a similar skyscraper for the
sole purpose of duplicating the WTC collapse.
--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY

Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!

entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs

"P.Roehling" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]..
>
> "Proctologically Violated©®" <[email protected]> wrote
>
>> #6 oil-fired boilers contain their very-hot highly-tuned flame in steel
>> boilers likely of much inferior steel to what is used in buildings.
>> With no melting, in a fuel that has easily 30% more btu's per gal than
>> other fuels, in a super-white-hot fireball flame.
>
> Dear "Violated": steel boilers have an outside and an inside. The inside
> absorbs heat, and the outside radiates it away at the same time, so the
> steel normally never reaches it's melting point. Also, the boiler is
> designed to reach a certain temperature and then remain there. The little
> machine that does this is called a "thermostat", and that's another reason
> why steel boilers seldom melt.
> None of this is true in a situation where a piece of steel is surrounded
> by fire on all sides, and has no way to radiate off any of the heat it
> absorbs. In such a situation, the steel just keeps getting hotter and
> hotter until it softens and loses it's tensile strength. (Duh.)
>
> This is why when you're blacksmithing you don't heat a steel bar by
> placing it *around* the forge where it would be able to radiate off most
> of the heat it absorbed: you put it *into* the forge where it's completely
> surrounded by flame on all sides. And *that's* why building codes say that
> steel beams must be coated with fire-resistant insulating materials: the
> guys who wrote the building codes *knew* that steel beams will soften
> enough to collapse if they're heated long enough and hot enough. If this
> weren't common knowlege, construction codes wouldn't universally be
> written that way.
>
> If pretending that the WTC was knocked down by some incredible conspiracy
> makes you feel better, then feel free to indulge yourself; but pointing
> out "facts" that show us you have no basic understanding of the simple
> engineering principals that made the steam engine possible almost 200
> years ago won't go very far towards supporting your delusion if you insist
> on displaying them in public.
>
>

[High Plains Thumper]

kirb wrote:
> Henry wrote:
>> kirb wrote:
>>
>>> tinfoil hat.
>>
>> When you mindlessly babble about your tin foil hat while
>> cowering and hiding from the hard evidence, you only
>> reveal your weak intellect and your inability to think for
>> yourself. It's hard to imagine just how weak minded you
>> need be in order to believe in something that you can't
>> explain, you don't understand, and has been proved to be
>> physically impossible... <chuckle>

I decided an English to Japanese, then Japanese back to
English translation using Google Language Tools. Ah, now I
understand clearly:

>> The evidence which does not move, it thinks for the sake
>> of that just the thought, hides fearfully from you
>> yourself, while making intelligence and your helplessness
>> where you are weak clear, when clattering heartlessly,
>> concerning the hat of your tin foil. Unless it can make in
>> order to explain, to imagine exactly, it is weak and in
>> order to believe what which makes the hard how air it is
>> necessary to be, when you do not understand and, it is, it
>> was proven physically the impossibility…

> Your personal attacks still fail to explain why NO ONE in
> the media will pick up your "facts" and expose these
> "truths"
>
> It doesn't matter how much YOU believe your story...it's
> being able to sell it to others. You can't.

--
HPT

[Al Dykes]

In article <7aqjh.109$[email protected]>,
Proctologically Violated©® <[email protected]> wrote:
>You proved my case:
>Forge a piece of steel.
>Get it *white hot*.
>What happens?
>Not much until you beat it/bend it.
>But it dudn't melt.
>I didn't say the towers wouldn't collapse, didn't say that steel doesn't get
>soft under heat.
>But it does not become *molten*, not without super-intense heat, way beyond
>that of a poorly-oxygenated pile of kerosene.
>
>Beyond that, near-perfect implosion from some softened girders high up is
>perty suspicious to me. You may be an expert in implosion/building
>collapse, but I know a lot of other knowledgeable people are perplexed.


The "knowledgeable people" that are knowledgeable about building
engineering have differences in professional opinion about exactly how
the plane crashes resulted in the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 but none of
them say that outside forces were necessary. [11]


>
>I think, tho, that a frame-by-frame analysis of how the building fell would
>help. I also think it would be useful to build a similar skyscraper for the
>sole purpose of duplicating the WTC collapse.
>--

NIST had done frame analysis and recreated some aspects of 9-11 and
done lots more in computer simulation. Read [3]



Read/view the following links. They address many of the claims made by
the "Truth Movement". You will find hard facts with citations that
contradict most of their bull**** about the events of 9-11-2001. The
focus is on WTC/1/2/7 and the Pentagon.

[1] http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...42.html?page=1

[2] http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2006/...e-vs-bull.html

[3] http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

[4] http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/

[5] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BtLbDnUES0

[6] http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...73182328817124

[7] http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...32614662229339

[8] http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...enn+teller+911

[9] http://www.unf.edu/~tbratina/hec/exa...lingobject.htm
(Free fall from the roof of the WTC (1368 ft) would take about
9.1 seconds. The equation is 1386 = ((32 x (T squared) / 2)
For T = 9 seconds it works out to 1296 ft.

[10] http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/usterror.html

[11] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaps...d_Trade_Center

To believe the "alternative" explanations of the "Truth Movement"
about the collapse of WTC1/2/7 requires that you ignore the
conclusions from the work of hundreds of engineers at NIST, published.
The results have been examined by thousands of engineers, worldwide,
all with expertese on some aspect of the event. The raw data and the
work of NIST is published at http://wtc.nist.gov/ and these people
have examined the NIST case and agree with the general analysis, even
if some details are unknown or subject to debate.

Yet the "9-11 Truth Movement" requires that all these people are part
of a coverup.

The "Truth Movement" has joined the people the look for Bigfoot and
that believe in UFOs and Nellie as a permanent part of the
intellectual landscape, unfortunately. I guess the ubiquity of digital
cameras has made the non-existence of these old warhorses obvious so
the people that used to hawk "Area 51" have now picked on something
that was a one-time event and, as such, can't be observed again and
there is no chance that new factual evidence can be found in support
of their claims.

It is futile to try to change the minds of people that repeat this
crap. I don't write this for them; I write for all the Lurkers out
there that read this thread or may find it with Google and to give
them facts and citations for they can counter the bull**** when the
find it, next time.

I think that all the smoke generated by the "Truth Movement" people
serves to distract us from real problems with the FAA and the rest of
the government and that the energy applied by the "Truth" people could
be better applied to working in American politics and mainstream
activism to bring more transparency to our government, which needs it
badly. Instead the people that originate this crap serve people that
are not working in our interests.


http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2006/...e-vs-bull.html

Thursday, December 21, 2006
Science Vs. Bull
Joseph Cannon

As mentioned in a comment below, my sympathies for conspiracy
theories evaporate when the subject switches from investigative
reporting to science. I'm all for tracking Lee Harvey Oswald's
spooky pals in Guy Banister's office; I'm all for telling the story
of what really went down in Allende's Chile; I'm all for sorting out
the ins and outs of the Litvinenko case; I'm all for tracking the
shadowy world inhabited by guys like Michael Ledeen and groups like
the Pinay Circle.

But when the subject turns to science, I advise extreme caution.

And that's when the conspiracy buffs become pluperfectly pissed off
with me, because many of them just love, love, love that
pseudoscience. From radionics to Roswell, they dig it.

A discursive example:

I can't tell you how many times I've argued with film-illiterate
conspiracy buffs who knew -- just bloody knew -- that subliminal
images appear in The Exorcist. Every time I encounter this claim, I
explain that, while quick cuts do exist in that movie, subliminals
are impossible. Film runs at 24 frames a second, and 1/24th of a
second is not subliminal; that's why you can see scratches and
splices in a bad print. 1/3000th of a second is subliminal, but to
flash an image so briefly requires a specialized piece of equipment
called a tachistiscope. (For the same reason, no subliminals can
ever appear on television, which has a 30 fps refresh rate.)

The usual response: "There must have been a tachisti-whatzit in the
theater!"

Actually, I've spoken with the projectionist who ran The Exorcist
during its first run at the National in Los Angeles back in '73. (In
those days, big films did not open wide.) There was no such device.

Point won? Nope. The ne'er-say-die conspiracy buff would invariably
accuse me of not knowing anything about movie technology (!) or of
being part of the conspiracy.

(Before you say it: Yes, I know all about Vicary's stunt in the
1950s. He used a tachistiscope, and his results had no scientific
value due to the lack of controls. And yes, I know about the
Silverman/Weinberger experiments of the 1980s, which have been
questioned due to some unsuccessful attempts at replication.)

All of which is my way of coming back to Dylan Avery, director of
Loose Change, the film which many controlled demolition believers
consider the Matrix-style "red pill" that awoke them to the
horrible, horrible truth of what really happened on 9/11. In a
recent comment, Dylan revealed that his film is a religious
enterprise, not an attempt at scientific inquiry.

The giveaway quotation comes from a debate between Dylan Avery,
partner Jason Bermas, and debunker Ronald Wieck. You can see the
debate here; a partial transcript is here.

The revelatory words:

Wieck: I want to ask both of you quickly, what would falsify your
beliefs? What would it take? What would we need to change your
mind about this?

Avery: There is nothing.

Nothing could falsify this belief? Then -- by definition -- we have
left the edifice of science and entered the realm of religion.

The existence of God is the most commonly-heard non-falsifiable
assertion. If you're as ancient as I am, you may recall this
exchange from an old Bill Cosby routine, which demonstrates the
principle:

Dad: Don't step out the bed. I've placed a dozen poisonous snakes
on the floor.

Young Bill: I don't see no snakes...

Dad: They're invisible!

What would falsify my assertion that controlled demolitions did not
take down those buildings? A commenter on the Screw Loose Change
blog offered some sensible suggestions:

- a consensus among structural engineers and demolition experts
that there was a demolition

- peer-reviewed research supporting twoofer claims

- whistleblowers from within the massive conspiracy

- a logical narrative would be nice too

Actually, I find it odd that we haven't yet had any putative
whistleblowers. The hard-core JFK buffs can name about a dozen guys
who, over the years, have made dubious "confessions" that they were
either one of the shooters or one of the mystery tramps.

Back to the main point. My standards for falsification are less
demanding. I'm not asking for a consensus of physicists -- a mere
twenty would be nice. When the CD-ers can count among their number a
certain number of demolition experts -- twenty? Fifteen? -- I will
listen respectfully. Right now, the number of demolition experts who
believe in the CD theory of 911 is an embarrassing zero.

The CD-ers claim that their writings have passed muster in a "peer
reviewed" journal, But that publication, The Journal of 911 Studies,
does not count among its peers a single person with professional
expertise in the area of controlled demolition. And yet it is
devoted to "proving" the controlled demolition hypothesis!

Why have the editors not recruited any experts in the very field
under discussion? Perhaps because those experts would say things
that the CD believers may not wish to hear.

The fact is, no pro-CD theories have appeared in any peer-reviewed
scientific periodical founded before the events in question
occurred. As far as I know, all articles published in actual science
journals have led readers in a very different direction.

Some conspiracists will counter: The editors of those journals must
have been paid to print lies! Welcome to the wonderful world of
non-falsifiability.

If dozens, hundreds of eyewitnesses see a commercial jet smashing
into the Pentagon, those witnesses stand damned as liars. Welcome to
the wonderful world of non-falsifiability.

"The buildings came down at free-fall speeds!" bleat the
CD-ers. That argument has been refuted more than once. See here and
here and here. Also see the Screw Loose Change video itself -- or
any video of the collapse, which shows rubble free-falling at a rate
faster than the building collapse.

Doesn't matter: Those rebuttals were written in bad faith, and any
video evidence that challenges the theory must have been
Photoshopped.

Welcome to the world of non-falsifiability.

Should we extend Avery and Bermas the excuse of youth? Could it be
that they did not know how the concept of falsifiability works in
science?

My High School Science teacher explained the basic principle to me,
just as yours probably told you. One can only hope that Avery and
Bermas had a similar instructor. Beyond that, everyone must admit
that Avery and Bermas are playing with the big boys now. They made a
film which spoke to millions about scientific questions, and (unlike
most actual scientists) they feel quite comfortable speaking in
terms of definitely instead of perhaps.

If they did not make it their business to learn the scientific
method, they deserve contempt.


--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
Harrison for Congress in NY 13CD www.harrison06.com
Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001

[Damian]

WTC7 housed offices with very sensitive government information, so I
would not be surprised if it was demolished as the "last resort" part of
the Destruction Plan.

Actually, if that was the case, I'm glad they did.


Damian

[Proctologically Violated©®]

Mebbe conspiracy theory is a conspiracy?
--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY

Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!

entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs

"Al Dykes" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:emlu5v$l90$[email protected]..
> In article <7aqjh.109$[email protected]>,
> Proctologically Violated©® <[email protected]> wrote:
>>You proved my case:
>>Forge a piece of steel.
>>Get it *white hot*.
>>What happens?
>>Not much until you beat it/bend it.
>>But it dudn't melt.
>>I didn't say the towers wouldn't collapse, didn't say that steel doesn't
>>get
>>soft under heat.
>>But it does not become *molten*, not without super-intense heat, way
>>beyond
>>that of a poorly-oxygenated pile of kerosene.
>>
>>Beyond that, near-perfect implosion from some softened girders high up is
>>perty suspicious to me. You may be an expert in implosion/building
>>collapse, but I know a lot of other knowledgeable people are perplexed.
>
>
> The "knowledgeable people" that are knowledgeable about building
> engineering have differences in professional opinion about exactly how
> the plane crashes resulted in the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 but none of
> them say that outside forces were necessary. [11]
>
>
>>
>>I think, tho, that a frame-by-frame analysis of how the building fell
>>would
>>help. I also think it would be useful to build a similar skyscraper for
>>the
>>sole purpose of duplicating the WTC collapse.
>>--
>
> NIST had done frame analysis and recreated some aspects of 9-11 and
> done lots more in computer simulation. Read [3]
>
>
>
> Read/view the following links. They address many of the claims made by
> the "Truth Movement". You will find hard facts with citations that
> contradict most of their bull**** about the events of 9-11-2001. The
> focus is on WTC/1/2/7 and the Pentagon.
>
> [1]
> http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...42.html?page=1
>
> [2] http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2006/...e-vs-bull.html
>
> [3] http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
>
> [4] http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/
>
> [5] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BtLbDnUES0
>
> [6] http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...73182328817124
>
> [7] http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...32614662229339
>
> [8]
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...enn+teller+911
>
> [9]
> http://www.unf.edu/~tbratina/hec/exa...lingobject.htm
> (Free fall from the roof of the WTC (1368 ft) would take about
> 9.1 seconds. The equation is 1386 = ((32 x (T squared) / 2)
> For T = 9 seconds it works out to 1296 ft.
>
> [10] http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/usterror.html
>
> [11] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaps...d_Trade_Center
>
> To believe the "alternative" explanations of the "Truth Movement"
> about the collapse of WTC1/2/7 requires that you ignore the
> conclusions from the work of hundreds of engineers at NIST, published.
> The results have been examined by thousands of engineers, worldwide,
> all with expertese on some aspect of the event. The raw data and the
> work of NIST is published at http://wtc.nist.gov/ and these people
> have examined the NIST case and agree with the general analysis, even
> if some details are unknown or subject to debate.
>
> Yet the "9-11 Truth Movement" requires that all these people are part
> of a coverup.
>
> The "Truth Movement" has joined the people the look for Bigfoot and
> that believe in UFOs and Nellie as a permanent part of the
> intellectual landscape, unfortunately. I guess the ubiquity of digital
> cameras has made the non-existence of these old warhorses obvious so
> the people that used to hawk "Area 51" have now picked on something
> that was a one-time event and, as such, can't be observed again and
> there is no chance that new factual evidence can be found in support
> of their claims.
>
> It is futile to try to change the minds of people that repeat this
> crap. I don't write this for them; I write for all the Lurkers out
> there that read this thread or may find it with Google and to give
> them facts and citations for they can counter the bull**** when the
> find it, next time.
>
> I think that all the smoke generated by the "Truth Movement" people
> serves to distract us from real problems with the FAA and the rest of
> the government and that the energy applied by the "Truth" people could
> be better applied to working in American politics and mainstream
> activism to bring more transparency to our government, which needs it
> badly. Instead the people that originate this crap serve people that
> are not working in our interests.
>
>
> http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2006/...e-vs-bull.html
>
> Thursday, December 21, 2006
> Science Vs. Bull
> Joseph Cannon
>
> As mentioned in a comment below, my sympathies for conspiracy
> theories evaporate when the subject switches from investigative
> reporting to science. I'm all for tracking Lee Harvey Oswald's
> spooky pals in Guy Banister's office; I'm all for telling the story
> of what really went down in Allende's Chile; I'm all for sorting out
> the ins and outs of the Litvinenko case; I'm all for tracking the
> shadowy world inhabited by guys like Michael Ledeen and groups like
> the Pinay Circle.
>
> But when the subject turns to science, I advise extreme caution.
>
> And that's when the conspiracy buffs become pluperfectly pissed off
> with me, because many of them just love, love, love that
> pseudoscience. From radionics to Roswell, they dig it.
>
> A discursive example:
>
> I can't tell you how many times I've argued with film-illiterate
> conspiracy buffs who knew -- just bloody knew -- that subliminal
> images appear in The Exorcist. Every time I encounter this claim, I
> explain that, while quick cuts do exist in that movie, subliminals
> are impossible. Film runs at 24 frames a second, and 1/24th of a
> second is not subliminal; that's why you can see scratches and
> splices in a bad print. 1/3000th of a second is subliminal, but to
> flash an image so briefly requires a specialized piece of equipment
> called a tachistiscope. (For the same reason, no subliminals can
> ever appear on television, which has a 30 fps refresh rate.)
>
> The usual response: "There must have been a tachisti-whatzit in the
> theater!"
>
> Actually, I've spoken with the projectionist who ran The Exorcist
> during its first run at the National in Los Angeles back in '73. (In
> those days, big films did not open wide.) There was no such device.
>
> Point won? Nope. The ne'er-say-die conspiracy buff would invariably
> accuse me of not knowing anything about movie technology (!) or of
> being part of the conspiracy.
>
> (Before you say it: Yes, I know all about Vicary's stunt in the
> 1950s. He used a tachistiscope, and his results had no scientific
> value due to the lack of controls. And yes, I know about the
> Silverman/Weinberger experiments of the 1980s, which have been
> questioned due to some unsuccessful attempts at replication.)
>
> All of which is my way of coming back to Dylan Avery, director of
> Loose Change, the film which many controlled demolition believers
> consider the Matrix-style "red pill" that awoke them to the
> horrible, horrible truth of what really happened on 9/11. In a
> recent comment, Dylan revealed that his film is a religious
> enterprise, not an attempt at scientific inquiry.
>
> The giveaway quotation comes from a debate between Dylan Avery,
> partner Jason Bermas, and debunker Ronald Wieck. You can see the
> debate here; a partial transcript is here.
>
> The revelatory words:
>
> Wieck: I want to ask both of you quickly, what would falsify your
> beliefs? What would it take? What would we need to change your
> mind about this?
>
> Avery: There is nothing.
>
> Nothing could falsify this belief? Then -- by definition -- we have
> left the edifice of science and entered the realm of religion.
>
> The existence of God is the most commonly-heard non-falsifiable
> assertion. If you're as ancient as I am, you may recall this
> exchange from an old Bill Cosby routine, which demonstrates the
> principle:
>
> Dad: Don't step out the bed. I've placed a dozen poisonous snakes
> on the floor.
>
> Young Bill: I don't see no snakes...
>
> Dad: They're invisible!
>
> What would falsify my assertion that controlled demolitions did not
> take down those buildings? A commenter on the Screw Loose Change
> blog offered some sensible suggestions:
>
> - a consensus among structural engineers and demolition experts
> that there was a demolition
>
> - peer-reviewed research supporting twoofer claims
>
> - whistleblowers from within the massive conspiracy
>
> - a logical narrative would be nice too
>
> Actually, I find it odd that we haven't yet had any putative
> whistleblowers. The hard-core JFK buffs can name about a dozen guys
> who, over the years, have made dubious "confessions" that they were
> either one of the shooters or one of the mystery tramps.
>
> Back to the main point. My standards for falsification are less
> demanding. I'm not asking for a consensus of physicists -- a mere
> twenty would be nice. When the CD-ers can count among their number a
> certain number of demolition experts -- twenty? Fifteen? -- I will
> listen respectfully. Right now, the number of demolition experts who
> believe in the CD theory of 911 is an embarrassing zero.
>
> The CD-ers claim that their writings have passed muster in a "peer
> reviewed" journal, But that publication, The Journal of 911 Studies,
> does not count among its peers a single person with professional
> expertise in the area of controlled demolition. And yet it is
> devoted to "proving" the controlled demolition hypothesis!
>
> Why have the editors not recruited any experts in the very field
> under discussion? Perhaps because those experts would say things
> that the CD believers may not wish to hear.
>
> The fact is, no pro-CD theories have appeared in any peer-reviewed
> scientific periodical founded before the events in question
> occurred. As far as I know, all articles published in actual science
> journals have led readers in a very different direction.
>
> Some conspiracists will counter: The editors of those journals must
> have been paid to print lies! Welcome to the wonderful world of
> non-falsifiability.
>
> If dozens, hundreds of eyewitnesses see a commercial jet smashing
> into the Pentagon, those witnesses stand damned as liars. Welcome to
> the wonderful world of non-falsifiability.
>
> "The buildings came down at free-fall speeds!" bleat the
> CD-ers. That argument has been refuted more than once. See here and
> here and here. Also see the Screw Loose Change video itself -- or
> any video of the collapse, which shows rubble free-falling at a rate
> faster than the building collapse.
>
> Doesn't matter: Those rebuttals were written in bad faith, and any
> video evidence that challenges the theory must have been
> Photoshopped.
>
> Welcome to the world of non-falsifiability.
>
> Should we extend Avery and Bermas the excuse of youth? Could it be
> that they did not know how the concept of falsifiability works in
> science?
>
> My High School Science teacher explained the basic principle to me,
> just as yours probably told you. One can only hope that Avery and
> Bermas had a similar instructor. Beyond that, everyone must admit
> that Avery and Bermas are playing with the big boys now. They made a
> film which spoke to millions about scientific questions, and (unlike
> most actual scientists) they feel quite comfortable speaking in
> terms of definitely instead of perhaps.
>
> If they did not make it their business to learn the scientific
> method, they deserve contempt.
>
>
> --
> a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
> Harrison for Congress in NY 13CD www.harrison06.com
> Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001
>

[Road Glidin' Don]

On 24 Dec 2006 08:09:19 -0500, [email protected] (Al Dykes) wrote:

<snip>
> Back to the main point. My standards for falsification are less
> demanding. I'm not asking for a consensus of physicists -- a mere
> twenty would be nice. When the CD-ers can count among their number a
> certain number of demolition experts -- twenty? Fifteen? -- I will
> listen respectfully. Right now, the number of demolition experts who
> believe in the CD theory of 911 is an embarrassing zero.
>
> The CD-ers claim that their writings have passed muster in a "peer
> reviewed" journal, But that publication, The Journal of 911 Studies,
> does not count among its peers a single person with professional
> expertise in the area of controlled demolition. And yet it is
> devoted to "proving" the controlled demolition hypothesis!
>
> Why have the editors not recruited any experts in the very field
> under discussion? Perhaps because those experts would say things
> that the CD believers may not wish to hear.
<snip>

Heh, heh, heh. Sad it is.

--

Home page: http://xidos.ca

[Henry]

kirb wrote:

> Your personal attacks

I post the hard evidence. You ignore it or deny it because
your conspiracy theory can't explain it.

> still fail to explain why NO ONE in the media
> will pick up your "facts" and expose these "truths"

Slowly, they are.

http://911truth.org/article.php?stor...132153814#news

The reasons corporate owned and censored media avoid
discussions of the facts and causes of 9-11 should be
obvious, even to you.


--

http://911research.wtc7.net

Here's what happens to steel framed buildings exposed
to raging infernos for hours on end.

http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html

On 9-11-01, WTC7, a 47 story steel framed building, which
had only small, random fires, dropped in perfect symmetry
at near free fall speed as in a perfectly executed controlled
demolition.

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html

[Henry]

Al Dykes wrote:
> Henry <"9-11"@inside job.gov> wrote:

>> There are quite a few problems with your mindless parroting
>> of the Bush regime's thoroughly debunked and impossible magic
>> fire/super Arab conspiracy theory, Petie.
>> When steel is gradually heated to very high temperatures, if
>> it fails at all, the failure will be very gradual. It doesn't
>> reach some magic temperature and then suddenly and instantly
>> disintegrate.
>> Also, none of the steel in the towers below the impact zone was
>> exposed to any fire all. Yet, it still totally and instantly >> disintegrated, producing no more resistance to falling debris
>> than air. You can't explain that, the perfect symmetry, the squibs,

> Squibs? Where's the evidence, other than "it must have been",
> which is no arguement, at all.

"It must have been" is the "argument" of the magic fire
conspiracy theorists.
Those of us who assert controlled demolition support our position
with irrefutable hard evidence - something we have yet to see from
magic fire conspiracy theorists. Why do you even bother making
assertions about a subject you obviously know very little?

http://911research.wtc7.net/material...v12b_w_cov.pdf
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/anal...es/squibs.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/squibs.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evid...eos/index.html


--

http://911research.wtc7.net


Here's what happens to steel framed buildings exposed
to raging infernos for hours on end.

http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html

On 9-11-01, WTC7, a 47 story steel framed building, which
had only small, random fires, dropped in perfect symmetry
at near free fall speed as in a perfectly executed controlled
demolition.

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html

[Henry]

Proctologically Violated©® wrote:

> Beyond that, near-perfect implosion from some softened girders
> high up is perty suspicious to me. You may be an expert
> in implosion/building collapse, but I know a lot of other
> knowledgeable people are perplexed.
> I think, tho, that a frame-by-frame analysis of how the building
> fell would help. I also think it would be useful to build a similar
> skyscraper for the sole purpose of duplicating the WTC collapse.

This is probably the best site available for detailed analysis
of the demolitions. The search feature is a great time saver.
Not =one= magic fire conspiracy theorist has been able to quote
even =one= false or misleading claim on that site, so it's very
well researched.

http://911research.wtc7.net


--

Here's what happens to steel framed buildings exposed
to raging infernos for hours on end.

http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html

On 9-11-01, WTC7, a 47 story steel framed building, which
had only small, random fires, dropped in perfect symmetry
at near free fall speed as in a perfectly executed controlled
demolition.

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html

[Henry]

Al Dykes wrote:

> The "knowledgeable people" that are knowledgeable about building
> engineering have differences in professional opinion about exactly how
> the plane crashes resulted in the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 but none of
> them say that outside forces were necessary. [11]

None of them can explain how low temperature, oxygen starved fires
near the top of the towers caused the massive undamaged steel frames
below to suddenly disintegrate and fall through themselves following
the path of most resistance and doing it in perfect symmetry and
free fall speed. They can't explain it because it's impossible.
Demolition is the only possible explanation.

>> I think, tho, that a frame-by-frame analysis of how the building fell would
>> help. I also think it would be useful to build a similar skyscraper for the
>> sole purpose of duplicating the WTC collapse.

> NIST had done frame analysis and recreated some aspects of 9-11 and
> done lots more in computer simulation. Read [3]

The NIST report is a joke that has been thoroughly debunked.

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/...FAQ_reply.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/offi...ist/index.html

Same is true for Popular Mechanics' 25 year old "senior researcher"
Ben Chertoff, who is not a physicist or an engineer. But he is related
to homeland security chief Michael Chertoff. You should try to get
your "facts" from more credible sources....

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/gopm/index.html
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...offscousin.htm


--


http://911research.wtc7.net

Here's what happens to steel framed buildings exposed
to raging infernos for hours on end.

http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html

On 9-11-01, WTC7, a 47 story steel framed building, which
had only small, random fires, dropped in perfect symmetry
at near free fall speed as in a perfectly executed controlled
demolition.

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html

[Henry]

Road Glidin' Don wrote:

> Heh, heh, heh. Sad it is.

That significant numbers of sheeple mindlessly swallow
and parrot the impossible fairy tales of known liars - liars
with a clear incentive to lie - is more pitiful than sad.
Look at the absurdities these gullible sheep are forced to
accept in order to believe the comical fantaises and lies
of their ruling masters... <vbg>

http://100777.com/node/963

The Coincidence Theorist's Guide to 9/11
September 15, 2004 - 19:29

Filed under: 911
by:
http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.co...de-to-911.html

I posted an earlier version of this last week at Democratic Underground
.. I've added a number of more entries, and links for all.





Happy coincidenting!

That governments have permitted terrorist acts against their own people
, and have even themselves been perpetrators in order to find strategic
advantage is quite likely true, but this is the United States we're
talking about.

That intelligence agencies, financiers, terrorists and narco-criminals
have a long history together is well established, but the Nugan Hand
Bank , BCCI , Banco Ambrosiano , the P2 Lodge , the CIA/Mafia
anti-Castro/Kennedy alliance, Iran/Contra and the rest were a long time
ago, so there's no need to rehash all that . That was then, this is now !

That Jonathan Bush's Riggs Bank has been found guilty of laundering
terrorist funds and fined a US-record $25 million must embarrass his
nephew George, but it's still no justification for leaping to paranoid
conclusions.

That George Bush's brother Marvin sat on the board of the Kuwaiti-owned
company which provided electronic security to the World Trade Centre,
Dulles Airport and United Airlines means nothing more than you must
admit those Bush boys have done alright for themselves.

That George Bush found success as a businessman only after the
investment of Osama's brother Salem and reputed al Qaeda financier
Khalid bin Mahfouz is just one of those things - one of those crazy things.

That Osama bin Laden is known to have been an asset of US foreign policy
in no way implies he still is .

That al Qaeda was active in the Balkan conflict, fighting on the same
side as the US as recently as 1999, while the US protected its cells, is
merely one of history's little aberrations .

The claims of Michael Springman , State Department veteran of the Jeddah
visa bureau, that the CIA ran the office and issued visas to al Qaeda
members so they could receive training in the United States, sound like
the sour grapes of someone who was fired for making such wild accusations.

That one of George Bush's first acts as President, in January 2001 , was
to end the two-year deployment of attack submarines which were
positioned within striking distance of al Qaeda's Afghanistan camps,
even as the group's guilt for the Cole bombing was established, proves
that a transition from one administration to the next is never an easy
task.

That so many influential figures in and close to the Bush White House
had expressed, just a year before the attacks, the need for a "new Pearl
Harbor" before their militarist ambitions could be fulfilled,
demonstrates nothing more than the accidental virtue of being in the
right place at the right time.

That the company PTECH , founded by a Saudi financier placed on
America's Terrorist Watch List in October 2001, had access to the FAA's
entire computer system for two years before the 9/11 attack, means he
must not have been such a threat after all.

That whistleblower Indira Singh was told to keep her mouth shut and
forget what she learned when she took her concerns about PTECH to her
employers and federal authorities, suggests she lacked the big picture.
And that the Chief Auditor for JP Morgan Chase told Singh repeatedly, as
she answered questions about who supplied her with what information,
that "that person should be killed," suggests he should take an anger
management seminar.

That on May 8, 2001 , Dick Cheney took upon himself the job of
co-ordinating a response to domestic terror attacks even as he was
crafting the administration's energy policy which bore implications for
America's military, circumventing the established infrastructure and
ignoring the recommendations of the Hart-Rudman report, merely shows the
VP to be someone who finds it hard to delegate.

That the standing order which covered the shooting down of hijacked
aircraft was altered on June 1, 2001, taking discretion away from field
commanders and placing it solely in the hands of the Secretary of
Defense, is simply poor planning and unfortunate timing. Fortunately the
error has been corrected, as the order was rescinded shortly after 9/11.

That in the weeks before 9/11, FBI agent Colleen Rowley found her
investigation of Zacarias Moussaoui so perversely thwarted that her
colleagues joked that bin Laden had a mole at the FBI, proves the
stress-relieving virtue of humour in the workplace.

That Dave Frasca of the FBI's Radical Fundamentalist Unit received a
promotion after quashing multiple, urgent requests for investigations
into al Qaeda assets training at flight schools in the summer of 2001
does appear on the surface odd, but undoubtedly there's a good reason
for it, quite possibly classified.

That FBI informant Randy Glass , working an undercover sting, was told
by Pakistani intelligence operatives that the World Trade Center towers
were coming down, and that his repeated warnings which continued until
weeks before the attacks, including the mention of planes used as
weapons, were ignored by federal authorities, is simply one of the many
"What Ifs" of that tragic day.

That over the summer of 2001 Washington received many urgent,
senior-level warnings from foreign intelligence agencies and governments
- including those of Germany, France, Great Britain, Russia, Egypt,
Israel, Morocco, Afghanistan and others - of impending terror attacks
using hijacked aircraft and did nothing, demonstrates the pressing need
for a new Intelligence Czar.

That John Ashcroft stopped flying commercial aircraft in July 2001 on
account of security considerations had nothing to do with warnings
regarding September 11, because he said so to the 9/11 Commission.

That former lead counsel for the House David Schippers says he'd taken
to John Ashcroft's office specific warnings he'd learned from FBI agents
in New York of an impending attack – even naming the proposed dates,
names of the hijackers and the targets – and that the investigations had
been stymied and the agents threatened, proves nothing but David
Schipper's pathetic need for attention.

That Garth Nicolson received two warnings from contacts in the
intelligence community and one from a North African head of state, which
included specific site, date and source of the attacks, and passed the
information to the Defense Department and the National Security Council
to evidently no effect, clearly amounts to nothing, since virtually
nobody has ever heard of him.

That in the months prior to September 11, self-described US intelligence
operative Delmart Vreeland sought, from a Toronto jail cell, to get US
and Canadian authorities to heed his warning of his accidental discovery
of impending catastrophic attacks is worthless, since Vreeland was a
dubious character , notwithstanding the fact that many of his claims
have since been proven true .

That FBI Special Investigator Robert Wright claims that agents assigned
to intelligence operations actually protect terrorists from
investigation and prosecution, that the FBI shut down his probe into
terrorist training camps, and that he was removed from a
money-laundering case that had a direct link to terrorism, sounds like
yet more sour grapes from a disgruntled employee.

That George Bush had plans to invade Afghanistan on his desk before 9/11
demonstrates only the value of being prepared .

The suggestion that securing a pipeline across Afghanistan figured into
the White House's calculations is as ludicrous as the assertion that oil
played a part in determining war in Iraq.

That Afghanistan is once again the world's principal heroin producer is
an unfortunate reality, but to claim the CIA is still actively involved
in the narcotics trade is to presume bad faith on the part of the agency.

Mahmood Ahmed , chief of Pakistan's ISI, must not have authorized an al
Qaeda payment of $100,000 to Mohammed Atta days before the attacks, and
was not meeting with senior Washington officials over the week of 9/11,
because I didn't read anything about him in the official report.

That Porter Goss met with Ahmed the morning of September 11 in his
capacity as Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence has no bearing whatsoever upon his recent selection by the
White House to head the Central Intelligence Agency.

That Goss's congressional seat encompasses the 9/11 hijackers' Florida
base of operation, including their flight schools, is precisely the kind
of meaningless factoid a conspiracy theorist would bring up.

It's true that George HW Bush and Dick Cheney spent the evening of
September 10 alone in the Oval Office, but what's wrong with old
colleagues catching up? And it's true that George HW Bush and Shafig bin
Laden, Osama's brother, spent the morning of September 11 together at a
board meeting of the Carlyle Group, but the bin Ladens are a big family.

That FEMA arrived in New York on Sept 10 to prepare for a scheduled
biowarfare drill, and had a triage centre ready to go that was larger
and better equipped than the one that was lost in the collapse of WTC 7,
was a lucky twist of fate.

Newsweek's report that senior Pentagon officials cancelled flights on
Sept 10 for the following day on account of security concerns is only
newsworthy because of what happened the following morning.

That George Bush's telephone logs for September 11 do not exist should
surprise no one, given the confusion of the day.

That Mohamed Atta attended the International Officer's School at Maxwell
Air Force Base, that Abdulaziz Alomari attended Brooks Air Force Base
Aerospace Medical School, that Saeed Alghamdi attended the Defense
Language Institute in Monterey merely shows it is a small world , after
all.

That Lt Col Steve Butler , Vice Chancellor for student affairs of the
Defense Language Institute during Alghamdi's terms, was disciplined ,
removed from his post and threatened with court martial when he wrote
"Bush knew of the impending attacks on America. He did nothing to warn
the American people because he needed this war on terrorism. What
is...contemptible is the President of the United States not telling the
American people what he knows for political gain," is the least that
should have happened for such disrespect shown his Commander in Chief.

That Mohammed Atta dressed like a Mafioso, had a stripper girlfriend,
smuggled drugs, was already a licensed pilot when he entered the US,
enjoyed pork chops, drank to excess and did cocaine, was closer to
Europeans than Arabs in Florida, and included the names of defence
contractors on his email list, proves how dangerous the radical
fundamentalist Muslim can be.

That 43 lbs of heroin was found on board the Lear Jet owned by Wally
Hilliard , the owner of Atta's flight school, just three weeks after
Atta enrolled – the biggest seizure ever in Central Florida – was just
bad luck . That Hilliard was not charged shows how specious the claims
for conspiracy truly are.

That Hilliard's plane had made 30-round trips to Venezuela with the same
passengers who always paid cash, that the plane had been supplied by a
pair of drug smugglers who had also outfitted CIA drug runner Barry Seal
, and that 9/11 commissioner Richard ben-Veniste had been Seal's
attorney before Seal's murder , shows nothing but the lengths to which
conspiracists will go to draw sinister conclusions .

Reports of insider trading on 9/11 are false, because the SEC
investigated and found only respectable investors who will remain
nameless involved, and no terrorists, so the windfall profit-taking was
merely, as ever, coincidental.

That heightened security for the World Trade Centre was lifted
immediately prior to the attacks illustrates that it always happens when
you least expect it.

That Hani Hanjour, the pilot of Flight 77, was so incompetent he could
not fly a Cessna in August, but in September managed to fly a 767 at
excessive speed into a spiraling, 270-degree descent and a level impact
of the first floor of the Pentagon, on the only side that was virtually
empty and had been hardened to withstand a terrorist attack, merely
demonstrates that people can do almost anything once they set their
minds to it.

That none of the flight data recorders were said to be recoverable even
though they were located in the tail sections, and that until 9/11, no
solid-state recorder in a catastrophic crash had been unrecoverable,
shows how there's a first time for everything.

That Mohammed Atta left a uniform, a will, a Koran, his driver's license
and a "how to fly planes" video in his rental car at the airport means
he had other things on his mind.

The mention of Israelis with links to military-intelligence having been
arrested on Sept 11 videotaping and celebrating the attacks, of an
Israeli espionage ring surveiling DEA and defense installations and
trailing the hijackers, and of a warning of impending attacks delivered
to the Israeli company Odigo two hours before the first plane hit, does
not deserve a response. That the stories also appeared in publications
such as Ha'aretz and Forward is a sad display of self-hatred among
certain elements of the Israeli media.

That multiple military wargames and simulations were underway the
morning of 9/11 – one simulating the crash of a plane into a building;
another, a live-fly simulation of multiple hijackings – and took many
interceptors away from the eastern seaboard and confused field
commanders as to which was a real hijacked aircraft and which was a
hoax, was a bizarre coincidence, but no less a coincidence.

That the National Military Command Center ops director asked a rookie
substitute to stand his watch at 8:30 am on Sept. 11 is nothing more
than bad timing.

That a recording made Sept 11 of air traffic controllers' describing
what they had witnessed, was destroyed by an FAA official who crushed it
in his hand, cut the tape into little pieces and dropped them in
different trash cans around the building, is something no doubt that
overzealous official wishes he could undo.

That the FBI knew precisely which Florida flight schools to descend upon
hours after the attacks should make every American feel safer knowing
their federal agents are on the ball.

That a former flight school executive believes the hijackers were
"double agents," and says about Atta and associates, "Early on I gleaned
that these guys had government protection. They were let into this
country for a specific purpose," and was visited by the FBI just four
hours after the attacks to intimidate him into silence, proves he's an
unreliable witness, for the simple reason there is no conspiracy .

That Jeb Bush was on board an aircraft that removed flight school
records to Washington in the middle of the night on Sept 12th
demonstrates how seriously the governor takes the issue of national
security.

To insinuate evil motive from the mercy flights of bin Laden family
members and Saudi royals after 9/11 shows the sickness of the
conspiratorial mindset.

Le Figaro's report in October 2001, known to have originated with French
intelligence, that the CIA met Osama bin Laden in a Dubai hospital in
July 2001, proves again the perfidy of the French.

That the tape in which bin Laden claims responsibility for the attacks
was released by the State Department after having been found
providentially by US forces in Afghanistan, and depicts a fattened Osama
with a broader face and a flatter nose, proves Osama, and Osama alone,
masterminded 9/11.

That at the battle of Tora Bora, where bin Laden was surrounded on three
sides, Special Forces received no order to advance and capture him and
were forced to stand and watch as two Russian-made helicopters flew into
the area where bin Laden was believed hiding, loaded up passengers and
returned to Pakistan, demonstrates how confusing the modern battlefield
can be.

That upon returning to Fort Bragg from Tora Bora, the same Special
Operations troops who had been stood down from capturing bin Laden,
suffered a unusual spree of murder/suicides , is nothing more than a
series of senseless tragedies.

Reports that bin Laden is currently receiving periodic dialysis
treatment in a Pakistani medical hospital are simply too incredible to
be true.

That the White House went on Cipro September 11 shows the
foresightedness of America's emergency response.

That the anthrax was mailed to perceived liberal media and the
Democratic leadership demonstrates only the perversity of the terrorist
psyche.

That the anthrax attacks appeared to silence opponents of the Patriot
Act shows only that appearances can be deceiving.

That the Ames-strain anthrax was found to have originated at Fort
Detrick , and was beyond the capability of all but a few labs to refine,
underscores the importance of allowing the investigation to continue
without the distraction of absurd conspiracy theories .

That Republican guru Grover Norquist has been found to have aided
financiers and supporters of Islamic terror to gain access to the Bush
White House, and is a founder of the Islamic Institute, which the
Treasury Department believes to be a source of funding for al Qaeda,
suggests Norquist is at worst, naive, and at best, needs a wider circle
of friends.

That the Department of Justice consistently chooses to see accused 9/11
plotters go free rather than permit the courtroom testimony of al Qaeda
leaders in American custody looks bad, but only because we don't have
all the facts.

That the White House balked at any inquiry into the events of 9/11, then
starved it of funds and stonewalled it, was unfortunate, but since the
commission didn't find for conspiracy it's all a non issue anyway.

That the 9/11 commission's executive director and "gatekeeper," Philip
Zelikow, was so closely involved in the events under investigation that
he testified before the the commission as part of the inquiry, shows
only an apparent conflict of interest.

That commission chair Thomas Kean is, like George Bush, a Texas oil
executive who had business dealings with reputed al Qaeda financier
Khalid bin Mafouz , suggests Texas is smaller than they say it is.

That co-chair Lee Hamilton has a history as a Bush family "fixer,"
including clearing Bush Sr of the claims arising from the 1980 "October
Surprise" , is of no concern, since only conspiracists believe there was
such a thing as an October Surprise.

That FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds accuses the agency of intentionally
fudging specific pre-9/11 warnings and harboring a foreign espionage
ring in its translation department , and claims she witnessed evidence
of the semi-official infrastructure of money-laundering and narcotics
trade behind the attacks, is of no account, since John Ashcroft has
gagged her with the rare invocation of "State Secrets Privilege," and
retroactively classified her public testimony. For the sake of national
security, let us speak no more of her.

That, when commenting on Edmond's case, Daniel Ellsberg remarked that
Ashcroft could go to prison for his part in a cover-up, suggests
Ellsberg is giving comfort to the terrorists, and could, if he doesn't
wise up, find himself declared an enemy combatant .







--

http://911research.wtc7.net

Here's what happens to steel framed buildings exposed
to raging infernos for hours on end.

http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html

On 9-11-01, WTC7, a 47 story steel framed building, which
had only small, random fires, dropped in perfect symmetry
at near free fall speed as in a perfectly executed controlled
demolition.

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html

[Henry]

P. "I'm not psychotic at all" Roehling wrote:
> "The Older Gentleman" wrote

>> He's a nutter.

> Well said.

Actually, desperately avoiding a logical discussion of the hard
evidence and resorting to mindless grade school insults is merely
proof of a weak argument and an even weaker "mind". But no one is
surprised that such impotent and childish behavior impresses you,
Petie. <chuckle>


Look at the height of WTC7:

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/...20Picture1.jpg

Then look at how it collapsed:

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html

Small random fires can't possibly make a steel framed building
do that. Not even a raging inferno can cause a steel building to
do anything even remotely close to that. Only a very well executed
controlled demolition can cause the total, instant, and symmetric
failure of all steel support columns that took place in WTC7.
That was very solidly braced and virtually undamaged steel frame.
It was dramatically over engineered to withstand hurricane force
winds and mild earth quakes. Look at the still photos at 1 second
intervals. The building stays perfectly straight and level all the
way down. Every one of the 58 steel perimeter columns failed at
exactly the same time, and they all failed totally, putting up
essentially zero resistance. That's proved by the collapse time of
6.6 seconds compared to 6 seconds free fall. The southwest corner
of WTC7 was damaged by debris from the north tower, and there were
small random fires in the building, although it's anyone's guess how
they were ignited. But asymmetric damage and random fires don't cause
steel framed buildings to collapse even slowly and asymmetrically.
The near free fall speed and perfectly symmetric collapse of a
steel framed building can only be caused by a very well executed
synchronized demolition.

Here's what happens to steel framed buildings exposed
to raging infernos for hours on end.

http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html

Perhaps you should learn more about the extreme (2000%) reserve
strength designed into the steel frames of the towers. How was the
2000% reserve strength of the undamaged steel frame exceeded by only
the force of gravity, in your opinion? And how was it exceeded to such
an extreme degree that the undamaged steel frame with a 2000% reserve
strength capacity offered no measurable resistance with only the force
of gravity working against it?

From:
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?...60327100957690

"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 with
physics, and that's why no other steel framed buildings have ever
collapsed that way unless they were demolished. See Gordon Ross'
excellent paper on momentum transfer on this page:

http://worldtradecentertruth.com/

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.

To believe that the towers could fall through themselves at virtual
free fall speed and in perfect symmetry is comical nonsense. What you
are saying, is 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 your
theory even more impossible, is the fact that the steel at the top
of the towers was ten times lighter and thinner than the undamaged
steel in the lower section.
Your magic fire conspiracy theory is an utterly idiotic and
comical fantasy - and it violates the laws of physics.

Look at the massive core column cross section in the
bottom photo.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html

Your magic fire theory says that crushing 47 of those bad boys,
all interconnected with even more steel, =and= destroying all the
perimeter columns, =and= "pancaking" all the floors, produced
about the same kinetic friction as falling though air. That's some
crazy, crazy, ****. It's amazing what some people can programmed
to believe.


Observe the rotating and disintegrating block on the SOuth
Tower.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evid.../wtc2exp4.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, they're being pulled apart. Why
do you think the steel perimeter frame with no weight above it is
exploding and collapsing at the same rate as the compressed side?
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





--

http://911research.wtc7.net

Here's what happens to steel framed buildings exposed
to raging infernos for hours on end.

http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html

On 9-11-01, WTC7, a 47 story steel framed building, which
had only small, random fires, dropped in perfect symmetry
at near free fall speed as in a perfectly executed controlled
demolition.

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html

[Curt]

Henry wrote:
[...]

> Those of us who assert controlled demolition <snip>

Without my going to the trouble of clicking all 82 of your links, who
would you say executed that asserted controlled demolition?

And why? To kill more people? To create a greater cry for retaliation?

Also how much work would be involved or, rather, how easy would it be
to install the hardware/explosives and then execute a controlled
demolition in a functioning and, I'm assuming, busy office setting?

That'd be a sweet trick, too.

Anyway, I'd extend my condolences to all concerned, but, hey, Cohen
might have a fit and so I'll simply offer you a wish for a prosperous
2007, Henry.

--
Curt

[Road Glidin' Don]

On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 18:52:36 -0500, Henry <"9-11"@inside job.gov>
wrote:

>Road Glidin' Don wrote:
>
>> Heh, heh, heh. Sad it is.
>
> That significant numbers of sheeple mindlessly swallow
>and parrot the impossible fairy tales of known liars - liars
>with a clear incentive to lie - is more pitiful than sad.
>Look at the absurdities these gullible sheep are forced to
>accept in order to believe the comical fantaises and lies
>of their ruling masters... <vbg>

Heh, heh, heh. I could have predicted before you knew it yourself
that you would be drawn to that conspiracy theory, Henry. No lie.
The theory *had* to come up so types with pre-existing issues could
latch onto it to supply their lives some grand sense of meaning.
History has shown it time and again.

--

Home page: http://xidos.ca

[David Cohen]

"Curt" <[email protected]> wrote
> Henry wrote:
> [...]
>
>> Those of us who assert controlled demolition <snip>
>
> Without my going to the trouble of clicking all 82 of your links, who
> would you say executed that asserted controlled demolition?
>
> And why? To kill more people? To create a greater cry for retaliation?
>
> Also how much work would be involved or, rather, how easy would it be
> to install the hardware/explosives and then execute a controlled
> demolition in a functioning and, I'm assuming, busy office setting?
>
> That'd be a sweet trick, too.

That's right, encourage the paranoid schizophrenic. King just peed on your
leg.

> Anyway, I'd extend my condolences to all concerned, but, hey, Cohen
> might have a fit

Equal condolences for the hijackers and the hijacked, huh? Interesting moral
code you got going there.

> and so I'll simply offer you a wish for a prosperous
> 2007, Henry.

We all wish Mr Hankey an effective psychiatric treatment this or any year.
One of these years, who knows? Miracles do happen.

David

[JMW]

[email protected] (Road Glidin' Don) wrote:

>On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 18:52:36 -0500, Henry <"9-11"@inside job.gov>
>wrote:
>
>>Road Glidin' Don wrote:
>>
>>> Heh, heh, heh. Sad it is.
>>
>> That significant numbers of sheeple mindlessly swallow
>>and parrot the impossible fairy tales of known liars - liars
>>with a clear incentive to lie - is more pitiful than sad.
>>Look at the absurdities these gullible sheep are forced to
>>accept in order to believe the comical fantaises and lies
>>of their ruling masters... <vbg>
>
>Heh, heh, heh. I could have predicted before you knew it yourself
>that you would be drawn to that conspiracy theory, Henry. No lie.
>The theory *had* to come up so types with pre-existing issues could
>latch onto it to supply their lives some grand sense of meaning.
>History has shown it time and again.

Ask Henry about the explosive charges that George W. Bush planted on
the giant Buddhas of Bamiyan.

[Curt]

Cohen wrote:
> "Curt" wrote
> > Henry wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> >> Those of us who assert controlled demo<snip>
> >
> > <snip> or, rather, how easy would it be to install the hardware/
> > explosives and then execute a controlled demolition in a functioning
> > and, I'm assuming, busy office setting?
> >
> > That'd be a sweet trick, too.
>
> That's right, encourage the paranoid schizophrenic.

Actually, he cross-posted. Probably won't even see my post. AND
regardless of all that, he obviously doesn't need much, if any,
encouragement.

> King just peed on your leg.

Nuh uh. King looooves me. I have doggy snacks. King is, of course,
faithful to you, but, hey, it's doggy snacks and HE's a dog. A dog,
David. Dogs like treats.

> > Anyway, I'd extend my condolences to all concerned, but,
> > hey, Cohen might have a fit
>
> Equal condolences for the hijackers and the hijacked, huh?

See? I knew you'd have a fit.

> Interesting moral code you got going there.

Interesting lack of a sense of what is and what is not, oh, what the
hell, let's call it humor.

I mean, if Sally Ride jokes are fair game then I can joke about you
having a fit over the phrase "condolences to all concerned," right?
Right.

> > and so I'll simply offer you a wish for a prosperous 2007,
> > Henry.
>
> We all wish Mr Hankey an effective psychiatric treatment
> this or any year.
> One of these years, who knows?

THE SHADOW! HOW MANY TIMES MUST I TELL YOU PEOPLE!!!!???

> Miracles do happen.

Hmm. You said you're an atheist Jew? Miracles are non-denominational
anyway. Well, that's my guess.

> David

--
Curt

[The Older Gentleman]

Road Glidin' Don <[email protected]> wrote:

> Heh, heh, heh.

Just leave the kook to his own ravings and leave ukrm out of it.

Thanks.


--
BMW K1100LT 750SS CB400F CD250 Z650
GAGARPHOF#30 GHPOTHUF#1 BOTAFOT#60 ANORAK#06 YTC#3
BOF#30 WUSS#5 The bells, the bells.....

[Al Dykes]

In article <emsc5l$e1$[email protected]>,
Henry <"9-11"@inside job.gov> wrote:
>Proctologically Violated©® wrote:
>
>> Beyond that, near-perfect implosion from some softened girders
>> high up is perty suspicious to me. You may be an expert
>> in implosion/building collapse, but I know a lot of other
>> knowledgeable people are perplexed.



Name one?

So what?

The fact genuine experts differ on how, exactly, the buildings fell
doesn't mean that anyone with expertise has come forward and shows why
there is a problem with the explaination that bombs or thermite or
some othe rforce was needed to explain it.



>> I think, tho, that a frame-by-frame analysis of how the building
>> fell would help. I also think it would be useful to build a similar

It's been done

"....Some 200 technical experts reviewed tens of thousands of
documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000
segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236
pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and
sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that
occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they
began to collapse.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm



--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
Harrison for Congress in NY 13CD www.harrison06.com
Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001

[Al Dykes]

In article <emsc81$e1$[email protected]>,
Henry <"9-11"@inside job.gov> wrote:
>Al Dykes wrote:
>
>> The "knowledgeable people" that are knowledgeable about building
>> engineering have differences in professional opinion about exactly how
>> the plane crashes resulted in the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 but none of
>> them say that outside forces were necessary. [11]
>
> None of them can explain how low temperature, oxygen starved fires
>near the top of the towers caused the massive undamaged steel frames


"suddenly disintegrate" ?

Do you make this **** up?

No expert in building demolition or construction has suggested that
explosives are needed to show how the WTC towers fell.


--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
Harrison for Congress in NY 13CD www.harrison06.com
Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001

[Al Dykes]

In article <emsc81$e1$[email protected]>,
Henry <"9-11"@inside job.gov> wrote:
>Al Dykes wrote:
>
>> The "knowledgeable people" that are knowledgeable about building
>> engineering have differences in professional opinion about exactly how
>> the plane crashes resulted in the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 but none of
>> them say that outside forces were necessary. [11]
>
> None of them can explain how low temperature, oxygen starved fires
>near the top of the towers caused the massive undamaged steel frames
>below to suddenly disintegrate and fall through themselves following
>the path of most resistance and doing it in perfect symmetry and
>free fall speed. They can't explain it because it's impossible.
>Demolition is the only possible explanation.
>
>>> I think, tho, that a frame-by-frame analysis of how the building fell would
>>> help. I also think it would be useful to build a similar skyscraper for the
>>> sole purpose of duplicating the WTC collapse.
>
>> NIST had done frame analysis and recreated some aspects of 9-11 and
>> done lots more in computer simulation. Read [3]
>
> The NIST report is a joke that has been thoroughly debunked.


Can you please shoe one specific debunking so we can discus it.



--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
Harrison for Congress in NY 13CD www.harrison06.com
Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001

[Rob Kleinschmidt]

JMW wrote:

> Ask Henry about the explosive charges that George W. Bush planted on
> the giant Buddhas of Bamiyan.

If you think the government's not hiding anything, then how
do you explain the recent parthenogenetic offspring produced
by Flora and Sunga, two female Komodo dragons in UK zoos ?

Parthenogenesis is extremely rare among vertebrates, and in
the rare known instances, the Komodo dragon is among the
few species capable of producing a sufficiently large male offspring.

The truth is out there, and you heard it first on rec.moto

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...ukomodo120.xml

"Parthenogenesis, the production of offspring without fertilization
by a male, is carried out by King Edward potatoes, bees and
greenfly but is rare in vertebrate species.

.......

Even if a human virgin birth could occur, Jesus
should have been a girl, not a boy, because all
his genes must have come from Mary.

She would only have the genetic wherewithal - in
humans, a bundle of genes called the X chromosome
to make a female.

.................

But this is not so for the Komodo.

................

Thus, female dragons can produce both sexes with
sexual reproduction, however, with
parthenogenesis each egg only gets half of the
mother's genetic material (that is a W or a Z
chromosome, but not both) so females (which
require a W and a Z) are not produced, only males."

[Henry]

Al Dykes wrote:
> Henry <"9-11"@inside job.gov> wrote:

> The NIST report is a joke that has been thoroughly debunked.

>> http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html
>> http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/...FAQ_reply.html
>> http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/offi...ist/index.html

> Can you please shoe one specific debunking so we can discus it.

Three is too many, eh? Try to read just this one,
then.

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html

The NIST report fails to address collapse of WTC7, and
fails to explain the collapse of the towers' massive
undamaged steel frames below the in pact zone. Like
I said, it's been thoroughly debunked and exposed as a
fraud and a joke.



--

http://911research.wtc7.net

[Henry]

Al Dykes wrote:
> Henry <"9-11"@inside job.gov> wrote:

>> There are quite a few problems with your mindless parroting
>> of the Bush regime's thoroughly debunked and impossible magic
>> fire/super Arab conspiracy theory, Petie.
>> When steel is gradually heated to very high temperatures, if
>> it fails at all, the failure will be very gradual. It doesn't
>> reach some magic temperature and then suddenly and instantly
>> disintegrate.
>> Also, none of the steel in the towers below the impact zone was
>> exposed to any fire all. Yet, it still totally and instantly >> disintegrated, producing no more resistance to falling debris
>> than air. You can't explain that, the perfect symmetry, the squibs,

> Squibs? Where's the evidence, other than "it must have been",
> which is no arguement, at all.

"It must have been" is the "argument" of the magic fire
conspiracy theorists.
Those of us who assert controlled demolition support our position
with irrefutable hard evidence - something we have yet to see from
magic fire conspiracy theorists. Why do you even bother making
assertions about a subject you obviously know very little?

http://911research.wtc7.net/material...v12b_w_cov.pdf
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/anal...es/squibs.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/squibs.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evid...eos/index.html


--

http://911research.wtc7.net


Here's what happens to steel framed buildings exposed
to raging infernos for hours on end.

http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html

On 9-11-01, WTC7, a 47 story steel framed building, which
had only small, random fires, dropped in perfect symmetry
at near free fall speed as in a perfectly executed controlled
demolition.

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html

[Henry]

Rob Kleinschmidt wrote:
> JMW wrote:

>> Ask Henry about the explosive charges that George W. Bush
>> planted on the giant Buddhas of Bamiyan.

That appears to be your fantasy, Johnny mouse Williams.
You tell it. Just don't tell it here... <chuckle>

> If you think the government's not hiding anything, then how
> do you explain the recent parthenogenetic offspring produced
> by Flora and Sunga, two female Komodo dragons in UK zoos ?

The "mind" of a gullible, government propaganda parroting
conspiracy kook is very predictable. It can be counted upon
to mindlessly "attack" the messenger and/or change the subject,
but what it can't do, is address the relevant facts and evidence,
as that would require intellectual competence, courage, and
integrity.
Rob's denial of molten metal at all three WTC sites has
been exposed as utter nonsense. But rather than admit his
error and try to understand the evidence, he's been reduced
to mindless babbling and kook talk - as predicted... <chuckle>


Look at the height of WTC7:

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/...20Picture1.jpg

Then look at how it collapsed:

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html

Small random fires can't possibly make a steel framed building
do that. Not even a raging inferno can cause a steel building to
do anything even remotely close to that. Only a very well executed
controlled demolition can cause the total, instant, and symmetric
failure of all steel support columns that took place in WTC7.
That was very solidly braced and virtually undamaged steel frame.
It was dramatically over engineered to withstand hurricane force
winds and mild earth quakes. Look at the still photos at 1 second
intervals. The building stays perfectly straight and level all the
way down. Every one of the 58 steel perimeter columns failed at
exactly the same time, and they all failed totally, putting up
essentially zero resistance. That's proved by the collapse time of
6.6 seconds compared to 6 seconds free fall. The southwest corner
of WTC7 was damaged by debris from the north tower, and there were
small random fires in the building, although it's anyone's guess how
they were ignited. But asymmetric damage and random fires don't cause
steel framed buildings to collapse even slowly and asymmetrically.
The near free fall speed and perfectly symmetric collapse of a
steel framed building can only be caused by a very well executed
synchronized demolition.

Here's what happens to steel framed buildings exposed
to raging infernos for hours on end.

http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html

Perhaps you should learn more about the extreme (2000%) reserve
strength designed into the steel frames of the towers. How was the
2000% reserve strength of the undamaged steel frame exceeded by only
the force of gravity, in your opinion? And how was it exceeded to such
an extreme degree that the undamaged steel frame with a 2000% reserve
strength capacity offered no measurable resistance with only the force
of gravity working against it?

From:
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?...60327100957690

"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 with
physics, and that's why no other steel framed buildings have ever
collapsed that way unless they were demolished. See Gordon Ross'
excellent paper on momentum transfer on this page:

http://worldtradecentertruth.com/

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.

To believe that the towers could fall through themselves at virtual
free fall speed and in perfect symmetry is comical nonsense. What you
are saying, is 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 your
theory even more impossible, is the fact that the steel at the top
of the towers was ten times lighter and thinner than the undamaged
steel in the lower section.
Your magic fire conspiracy theory is an utterly idiotic and
comical fantasy - and it violates the laws of physics.

Look at the massive core column cross section in the
bottom photo.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html

Your magic fire theory says that crushing 47 of those bad boys,
all interconnected with even more steel, =and= destroying all the
perimeter columns, =and= "pancaking" all the floors, produced
about the same kinetic friction as falling though air. That's some
crazy, crazy, ****. It's amazing what some people can programmed
to believe.


Observe the rotating and disintegrating block on the SOuth
Tower.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evid.../wtc2exp4.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, they're being pulled apart. Why
do you think the steel perimeter frame with no weight above it is
exploding and collapsing at the same rate as the compressed side?
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






--

http://911research.wtc7.net

"They are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And
there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to
take... men with blind hatred and armed with lethal weapons
who are capable of any atrocity... they respect no laws of
warfare or morality."
-bu$h describing his own illegal invasion of Iraq.
http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm