posted by Reality Check
Regarding the above diagram showing the 'triangular arch' redistributing the loads as you state, it seems to me that at each end of the BASE of that arch, ALL the forces must negotiate THROUGH ONLY THOSE WALL-SEGMENTS LEFT on that face of the tower. So the loads, irrespective of where/what type, would have concentrated all the previous loads into those few remaining segments----again, IRRESPECTIVE of how that load is re-distributed AROUND the 'hole'----
<br>You are still not understanding how the Vierendeel truss works to redistribute the loads. The loads are not merely shifted to the 'few remaining wall segments on that one face' but are spread through the vierendeel action essentially to all the other columns around the building through the spandrels which acted like 'belts' wrapping the entire building. You are correct that the highest redistributed percentage is at the 'base corners' of the imaginary arch, but those actual load percentages are not nearly as massive as you imagine. Read again the quotes from engineers and NIST (which you left out).
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | posted by Reality Check
Regarding the above diagram showing the 'triangular arch' redistributing the loads as you state, it seems to me that at each end of the BASE of that arch, ALL the forces must negotiate THROUGH ONLY THOSE WALL-SEGMENTS LEFT on that face of the tower. So the loads, irrespective of where/what type, would have concentrated all the previous loads into those few remaining segments----again, IRRESPECTIVE of how that load is re-distributed AROUND the 'hole'----
<br>You are still not understanding how the Vierendeel truss works to redistribute the loads. The loads are not merely shifted to the 'few remaining wall segments on that one face' but are spread through the vierendeel action essentially to all the other columns around the building through the spandrels which acted like 'belts' wrapping the entire building. You are correct that the highest redistributed percentage is at the 'base corners' of the imaginary arch, but those actual load percentages are not nearly as massive as you imagine. Read again the quotes from engineers and NIST (which you left out).
...the 'missing' wall-segments (previously going 'through' the space where the 'hole' is) would NOT now BALANCE/SPREAD the 'pull' on the HAT TRUSS all along its full-face length.
<br>You have been listening to the boogie-woogie engineering of the computer programmer, and putting far too much stock in his erroneous 'explainations'. The columns were not 'pulling on' or 'suspended from' the hat truss. This is utter nonsense. The columns/vierendeel truss WALL was self supporting. The hat truss was there to strengthen the core, tie the core to the perimeter walls, and supported the antenna. Although WTC 2 did not have an antenna, it was originally meant to have one.
| QUOTE | The hat truss structure strengthened the core structure, unified the core and perimeter structures, and helped to support the large antenna mounted atop the North Tower. The hat truss, which contained both horizontal and sloping I-beams, connected core columns to each other, and connected the core to the perimeter walls. Most the beams connected core columns to each other, while a set of sixteen horizontal and sloping beams spanned the distance the core and perimeter walls. Eight of these, the outrigger trusses, connected the corners of the core to the perimeter walls, while another eight connected the centers of the core's periphery to the perimeter walls.
<a href='http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/hattruss.html' target='_blank' rel='nofollow'>http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/hattruss.html
Ask yourself, " how on earth are the perimeter walls going to be suspended from the hat truss when only 16 'outrigger trusses' spanned from the core to the perimeter walls".
Schneibster is just 'making-up' his nonsensical theory about the perimeter walls being suspended from the hat truss, with no understanding of the structural engineering involved.
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | The hat truss structure strengthened the core structure, unified the core and perimeter structures, and helped to support the large antenna mounted atop the North Tower. The hat truss, which contained both horizontal and sloping I-beams, connected core columns to each other, and connected the core to the perimeter walls. Most the beams connected core columns to each other, while a set of sixteen horizontal and sloping beams spanned the distance the core and perimeter walls. Eight of these, the outrigger trusses, connected the corners of the core to the perimeter walls, while another eight connected the centers of the core's periphery to the perimeter walls.
<a href='http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/hattruss.html' target='_blank' rel='nofollow'>http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/hattruss.html
Ask yourself, " how on earth are the perimeter walls going to be suspended from the hat truss when only 16 'outrigger trusses' spanned from the core to the perimeter walls".
Schneibster is just 'making-up' his nonsensical theory about the perimeter walls being suspended from the hat truss, with no understanding of the structural engineering involved.
All this ignores anything to do with whether the columns/walls were THEMSELVES designed to take the FULL load (or not) of everything connected to them at each level; or whether those walls were (or not) designed to basically hold ONLY THEMSELVES up (ie, with the HAT TRUSS supposed to take any load of floor structure weight, and 'statically' re-transmit that to the core structure...I'm still not clear on that).
<br>Man, Schneibster has filled you with utter nonsense. The truss floors were supported at one end by seats welded to spandrel bands which were welded to the central core columns, and supported at the other end by seats welded to the spandrels of the perimeter wall. The perimeter columns held up the floors at the outer wall. The hat truss had nothing whatsoever to do with supporting the weight of the floors.
Guest
3rd December 2005 - 03:24 AM
Interesting... QUOTE Interview with Mary Baldizzi, WTC 1 survivor who was located on the 104th floor of the building when it was hit by Flight 11. Confirmation that Mary Baldizzi is a WTC survivor can be found here. 1.3 MB WMV video downloadWe are told that there were no survivors from above the aircraft impact level of WTC 1... QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | Interview with Mary Baldizzi, WTC 1 survivor who was located on the 104th floor of the building when it was hit by Flight 11. Confirmation that Mary Baldizzi is a WTC survivor can be found here.
1.3 MB WMV video download
We are told that there were no survivors from above the aircraft impact level of WTC 1...
The jet fuel caused the fire to spread so far and so fast that it effectively cut the building into two. For the 6,000 people below where the plane had hit the staircases still offered a means of escape, but for the 950 caught above the point of impact and the fire there was no way out. [BBC Horizon]
<br>...but the above interview aired on 9/12/2001 proves this is untrue as it documents Mary Baldizzi's escalator descent from the 104th floor of the building.
There were no passenger lifts directly to the ground floor from floor 104, but there was a freight lift...
| QUOTE | In addition to normal freight service one freight elevator in each of the towers will serve a total of 112 stops from the fifth basement to the 108th floor. [Otis.com]
<br>...so this is how Mary Baldizzi and her fellow survivors escaped the building.
Their escape demonstrates there was little fire in the building after the initial impact. It also demonstrates the core of WTC 1 was solid.
More:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_core_baldizzi.html
RealityCheck
3rd December 2005 - 04:07 AM
Hi Foxx.
Just browsing again before signing off for a bit. Saw your reply to mine. Thanks.
I'd like to get some things clear, if I may:-
(1) I ALREADY understood that the 'outrigger' arrangement AT EACH LEVEL is as shown in your picture, BUT it now seems that you are saying that the HAT TRUSS ALSO consisted of THAT meager 'outrigger' arrangement ONLY, and that no MORE SUBSTANTIAL steelwork structure went to make up the hat truss...is that so?
(2) I ALREADY understood that the 'outriggers' (at each level) were NOT meant to 'hold up' any exterior structures, but ONLY to 'steady' them etc.; but that the HAT TRUSS structure VIA THE TOP OF THE BUILDING STRUCTURE was supposed to take SOME of the 'overall' external loads---but NOT via EACH floor (as it appears you think I think), but rather ONLY via the TOP connection to the hat truss.
(3) And I also already understood that the 'floors' were 'connected' to the perimeter walls, naturally. However, I did get the idea that those perimeter walls had strength enough to basically hold themselves up (as an ALL-ROUND & SIDEWAYS STIFFENING structure for things coming off the core structure and for all-around stability, like you say). BUT, I ALSO got the impression that if the HAT TRUSS support was not there, the perimeter walls would not be able to hold up against BOTH there OWN weight AND AS WELL hold up ALL of its share of the weight of ALL the things connected to it radiating from the core structure up the height of the tower. Is this so or not?
I'll catch up when I get back later on this arvo...that's afternoon, in case no-one here 'speaks strine' (and that's 'speaks Australian', hehehe).
RealityCheck.
.
Foxx
3rd December 2005 - 04:15 AM
Reality Check, Does this quote answer your questions? If I understand your questions correctly, then, it should...
| QUOTE | The purpose of the hat truss was to support gravity and wind loads on the antenna. It was not designed to resist lateral forces on the towers, and in an undamaged state, it did not have a significant role in carrying gravity loads... The hat truss provided minimal redistribution of loads (less than 10 percent) from perimeter columns to core columns. Most of the load redistributed due to aircraft impact damage occured on the external face through vierendeel action.
<br>source: pg 5 http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixq.pdf.
Schneibsters 'story' about Vierendeel truss actions and the relevance of the hat truss are mere quackery. Most 'government story supporters' at least cherry pick statements from official government sources to support the official fairy tale. Schneibster, (as infallible as he is), has no need of looking up official government statements - he just makes up his own story as he goes along and expects people to believe his nonsense simply because he purports to be infallible and supremely knowledgeable about all physical sciences (including civil engineering), and through pronouncements such as...
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | The purpose of the hat truss was to support gravity and wind loads on the antenna. It was not designed to resist lateral forces on the towers, and in an undamaged state, it did not have a significant role in carrying gravity loads... The hat truss provided minimal redistribution of loads (less than 10 percent) from perimeter columns to core columns. Most of the load redistributed due to aircraft impact damage occured on the external face through vierendeel action.
<br>source: pg 5 http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixq.pdf.
Schneibsters 'story' about Vierendeel truss actions and the relevance of the hat truss are mere quackery. Most 'government story supporters' at least cherry pick statements from official government sources to support the official fairy tale. Schneibster, (as infallible as he is), has no need of looking up official government statements - he just makes up his own story as he goes along and expects people to believe his nonsense simply because he purports to be infallible and supremely knowledgeable about all physical sciences (including civil engineering), and through pronouncements such as...
Originally posted by Schneibster
Based on what I've written in this post alone, I'd have to say that my understanding of the structural framework of the central core considerably exceeds yours.
<br>
| QUOTE | posted by Reality Check
"I ALREADY understood that the 'outrigger' arrangement AT EACH LEVEL is as shown in your picture, BUT it now seems that you are saying that the HAT TRUSS ALSO consisted of THAT meager 'outrigger' arrangement ONLY, and that no MORE SUBSTANTIAL steelwork structure went to make up the hat truss...is that so?"
<br>Ehhhhh !! ??? The picture I posted, IS the hat truss...
It comes from the NIST reports.
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | posted by Reality Check
"I ALREADY understood that the 'outrigger' arrangement AT EACH LEVEL is as shown in your picture, BUT it now seems that you are saying that the HAT TRUSS ALSO consisted of THAT meager 'outrigger' arrangement ONLY, and that no MORE SUBSTANTIAL steelwork structure went to make up the hat truss...is that so?"
<br>Ehhhhh !! ??? The picture I posted, IS the hat truss...
It comes from the NIST reports.
posted by Reality Check
"BUT, I ALSO got the impression that if the HAT TRUSS support was not there, the perimeter walls would not be able to hold up against BOTH there OWN weight AND AS WELL hold up ALL of its share of the weight of ALL the things connected to it radiating from the core structure up the height of the tower. Is this so or not?"
<br>... is NOT so, (as is clearly shown in the NIST quote above).
Where DO you get these ideas? ... oh, never mind... I think I have a fair idea. 
adoucette
3rd December 2005 - 05:58 AM
QUOTE (RC+) 3) And I also already understood that the 'floors' were 'connected' to the perimeter walls, naturally. However, I did get the idea that those perimeter walls had strength enough to basically hold themselves up (as an ALL-ROUND & SIDEWAYS STIFFENING structure for things coming off the core structure and for all-around stability, like you say). BUT, I ALSO got the impression that if the HAT TRUSS support was not there, the perimeter walls would not be able to hold up against BOTH there OWN weight AND AS WELL hold up ALL of its share of the weight of ALL the things connected to it radiating from the core structure up the height of the tower. Is this so or not? <br>I'd have to think not. If you see how the tower was built, the outside had to hold up itself and along with the central columns, the floors. The Hat Truss couldn't have played such a key role as it was thhe last thing added to the structure. I do think the hat truss was instrumental in redistributing loads as the internal failure progressed. So in a sense I think it would actually be a contributing factor to the way the collapse occured, but thats just my opinion. Arthur
RealityCheck
3rd December 2005 - 06:00 AM
Hi Foxx.
I’m only back for just a mo’ (moment). Thanks for that reply. [BTW, about that image of the hat truss: when I posted the question that made you go “Ehhhhh!! ???”, the image was either not there or my old computer had not loaded it (we’re not ALL rich and up-to-date as everyone else seems to be in these forums, hehehe); either way, sorry for any consternation caused!]
Anyhow, I just read the info you posted for my benefit. Does all this mean that:-
(1) If the hat truss structure was ‘fixed’ to the core, then the hat-truss connections could have ‘sheared’ across/through the ‘top’ end’ of the core structure when strong impact from plane made the perimeter rock sideways and shoved people ‘sideways’ (about ‘a metre’, I understand)?
I’ll surf back a little later for your reply, mate....I’ll be busy for a couple of hours with some cosmology mind-benders (not a new name for ‘magic mushrooms, hehehe). Speak to you then!
RealityCheck.
PS: ADOUCETTE....Hi, mate! Just caught your post. Thanks for that. I still am not 100% clear on that aspect. What weight of floor-fixtures/fittings/services and wall-cladding/windows etc was added to that perimeter-held-share of weight ‘after’ the framework-and-hat-truss construction stage was complete? I’ll catch you later, as well. RC.
.
adoucette
3rd December 2005 - 04:51 PM
Hi RC,
If Broadband is that expensive or your budget just too tight, consider that a lot of my daughter's friends (also on tight budgets as most just out of college) use wireless cards in their laptops (most used, bought cheap, don't need lot of CPU power to surf the net) to get on the internet for free. So many people don't put security on their wireless networks that they can almost always find an available hot spot. My daughter has been using one of several in her apt complex for over a year now.
I don't believe the force of impact of the plane would have sheared any of the hat truss connections. The bending was more than the design called for (about twice as much IIRC from the NIST doc), but not that much more, and those connections would have been very strong. So while possible I wouldn't presume it.
As far as the Hat Truss, the loading on the perimeter structure (including wind loads since the windows aren't added till after the structure is complete, and as you say a lot of the interior finish work isn't added till after the windows are installed.) would have been much less than when in service. i.e. floor loading would have just been the building, no windows, flooring, ceiling fixtures, people, furniture etc. So its quite possible that the hat truss helped to transfer perimeter loads to the core, but I just don't know for sure.
It appears to me that one function of the hat truss was to help distribute wind loads (wind side in tension, lee side in compression), secondly I think that there was a lot of building support systems on the roof, including a lot of water for the fire suppression system, Elevator support, and so the hat truss appears to be designed to support a lot of weight on the very top floors and transfer that load to the central columns.
What its purpose was in the design and what it did during the event may not have been quite the same. The NIST document goes into some length describing how the Hat Truss was at least partly responsible for transferring loads as the main structure weakened during the fire.
I can't cut and past from my copy of the NIST document, but I suggest you download it and read their description of the collapse process.
Cheers mate,
Arthur
frater plecticus
3rd December 2005 - 06:29 PM
Scneibster
| QUOTE | Thought we were gonna knock the intimidation stuff off, frater. It's costing you cred when you do this. I don't respect it, and I don't respect you when you do it.
<br>I think 3 years of spreading disinformation supporting the most incredulous neocon wetdream ever devised, that in turn has led to 2 illegal wars and an occupation, albeit on the flimsiest of evidence speaks for itself. (not including the 3000 dead Americans in NYC)
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | Thought we were gonna knock the intimidation stuff off, frater. It's costing you cred when you do this. I don't respect it, and I don't respect you when you do it.
<br>I think 3 years of spreading disinformation supporting the most incredulous neocon wetdream ever devised, that in turn has led to 2 illegal wars and an occupation, albeit on the flimsiest of evidence speaks for itself. (not including the 3000 dead Americans in NYC)
08-13-2002, 07:34 PM
http://www.airdisaster.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53044
09-11-2002, 08:51 AM
http://www.airdisaster.com/forums/showthre...44&page=7&pp=25
==> So now the CIA is part of the conspiracy?
adoucette
Posted: Oct 25 2005, 08:42 PM
I'm new to this conspiracy idea that we blew the WTC.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=3108&st=255
<br>3 YEARS SPREADING PROPAGANDA. YOU SHOULD THINK DEEP AND HARD BEFORE YOU REPLY TO THIS.
yesitdid
3rd December 2005 - 08:02 PM
QUOTE (frater plecticus+Dec 3 2005, 06:29 PM) 08-13-2002, 07:34 PM http://www.airdisaster.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5304409-11-2002, 08:51 AM http://www.airdisaster.com/forums/showthre...44&page=7&pp=25==> So now the CIA is part of the conspiracy? adoucette Posted: Oct 25 2005, 08:42 PM I'm new to this conspiracy idea that we blew the WTC. http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=3108&st=255[/QUOTE] 3 YEARS SPREADING PROPAGANDA. YOU SHOULD THINK DEEP AND HARD BEFORE YOU REPLY TO THIS. frater, do you not notice quite a difference in topic between the 'airdisaster' forum and the physorg forum? In the former all that is being argued is the ability of the FAA and NORAD to respond to a circumstance that had never occured before. Here, on physorg, the topic has been whether or not the WTC buildings had pre-set explosives or other, unnamed, technological assistance that caused them to collapse. So, adoucette's claim , "I'm new to this conspiracy idea that we blew the WTC." is perfectly true. In neither of the threads you post from 2002 is there any mention of explosives in the WTC buildings.
frater plecticus
3rd December 2005 - 08:30 PM
QUOTE pedant is a person who overrates or overuses book learning or pure technical knowledge. Such a person values simple knowledge (in the form of often obscure facts and rules) over common sense and more general knowledge.
Some pedants are ostentatious in their pedantry, as if displaying their knowledge, and pointing out the errors of others, gives them great pleasure. Such pedants would be more likely to expound at length on subjects, taking every opportunity to demonstrate the breadth of their knowledge.
Some pedants are simply nit-pickers, people who are annoyed by what they see as egregious errors. They take no pleasure in correcting your mistakes, yet they cannot let such mistakes go uncorrected. Such pedants will correct your pronunciation in conversation, and the bolder (or less socially adept) pedant might even correct your use of grammar while you converse with another person.
The on-line community has spawned a whole new breed of pedants, allowing free platform for ostentatious pedants to hold forth, and ample opportunity for the nit-pickers to comb for trivial errors that seek correction; the term Grammar Nazi is a popular appellation for such individuals. Many of these type use this as a red herring to discredit someone they are arguing with on completely unrelated matters that are so minute no one would know if they were wrong or not.
Being called a pedant, or pedantic, is considered insulting. People who wish to make a correction often preface it with "not wishing to be pedantic, but ..." or "without being a pedant, ..." in order to indicate that the correction is made in good spirit and implies no criticism.
Pedantry can come about as the overzealous application of intellectual rigour, but equally can just be an annoying habit brought on by lack of social interaction.
Pedantry can also be an indication of certain developmental disorders. In particular those suffering from Asperger Syndrome, or Higher Functioning Autism, often have behavior characterized by pedantic speech [1]. Those with Asperger tend to obsess over the minutiae of subjects, and are prone to giving long detailed expositions, and the related corrections, and may gravitate to careers in academia or science where such obsessive attention to detail is often rewarded.
Obsessive Compulsive Personality Disorder is also in part characterized by a form of pedantry that is overly concerned with the correct following of rules, procedures and practices.[2] Sometimes the rules that OCPD sufferers obsessively follow are of their own devising, or are corruptions or re-interpretations of the letter of actual rules. <br>3 YEARS SPREADING PROPAGANDA. 08-10-2002, 07:06 PM #52 adoucette Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Atlanta Posts: 4,961 QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | pedant is a person who overrates or overuses book learning or pure technical knowledge. Such a person values simple knowledge (in the form of often obscure facts and rules) over common sense and more general knowledge.
Some pedants are ostentatious in their pedantry, as if displaying their knowledge, and pointing out the errors of others, gives them great pleasure. Such pedants would be more likely to expound at length on subjects, taking every opportunity to demonstrate the breadth of their knowledge.
Some pedants are simply nit-pickers, people who are annoyed by what they see as egregious errors. They take no pleasure in correcting your mistakes, yet they cannot let such mistakes go uncorrected. Such pedants will correct your pronunciation in conversation, and the bolder (or less socially adept) pedant might even correct your use of grammar while you converse with another person.
The on-line community has spawned a whole new breed of pedants, allowing free platform for ostentatious pedants to hold forth, and ample opportunity for the nit-pickers to comb for trivial errors that seek correction; the term Grammar Nazi is a popular appellation for such individuals. Many of these type use this as a red herring to discredit someone they are arguing with on completely unrelated matters that are so minute no one would know if they were wrong or not.
Being called a pedant, or pedantic, is considered insulting. People who wish to make a correction often preface it with "not wishing to be pedantic, but ..." or "without being a pedant, ..." in order to indicate that the correction is made in good spirit and implies no criticism.
Pedantry can come about as the overzealous application of intellectual rigour, but equally can just be an annoying habit brought on by lack of social interaction.
Pedantry can also be an indication of certain developmental disorders. In particular those suffering from Asperger Syndrome, or Higher Functioning Autism, often have behavior characterized by pedantic speech [1]. Those with Asperger tend to obsess over the minutiae of subjects, and are prone to giving long detailed expositions, and the related corrections, and may gravitate to careers in academia or science where such obsessive attention to detail is often rewarded.
Obsessive Compulsive Personality Disorder is also in part characterized by a form of pedantry that is overly concerned with the correct following of rules, procedures and practices.[2] Sometimes the rules that OCPD sufferers obsessively follow are of their own devising, or are corruptions or re-interpretations of the letter of actual rules.
<br>3 YEARS SPREADING PROPAGANDA.
08-10-2002, 07:06 PM #52
adoucette
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 4,961
It was geologists who determined there were no secondary explosions at the base of the World Trade Center towers 3 YEARS SPREADING ILLEGAL DISINFORMATION
Guest
3rd December 2005 - 09:22 PM
Congratulations frater, on making that at least 6 places on the web where that article appears now. So sorry if the physics forum gets to 'technical' for you. Perhaps you would be better served by a more pedestrian forum that offers a more obtuse discussion of these events. 
RealityCheck
3rd December 2005 - 09:26 PM
QUOTE (adoucette+Dec 3 2005, 04:51 PM) Hi RC,
If Broadband is that expensive or your budget just too tight, consider that a lot of my daughter's friends (also on tight budgets as most just out of college) use wireless cards in their laptops (most used, bought cheap, don't need lot of CPU power to surf the net) to get on the internet for free. So many people don't put security on their wireless networks that they can almost always find an available hot spot. My daughter has been using one of several in her apt complex for over a year now.
I don't believe the force of impact of the plane would have sheared any of the hat truss connections. The bending was more than the design called for (about twice as much IIRC from the NIST doc), but not that much more, and those connections would have been very strong. So while possible I wouldn't presume it.
As far as the Hat Truss, the loading on the perimeter structure (including wind loads since the windows aren't added till after the structure is complete, and as you say a lot of the interior finish work isn't added till after the windows are installed.) would have been much less than when in service. i.e. floor loading would have just been the building, no windows, flooring, ceiling fixtures, people, furniture etc. So its quite possible that the hat truss helped to transfer perimeter loads to the core, but I just don't know for sure.
It appears to me that one function of the hat truss was to help distribute wind loads (wind side in tension, lee side in compression), secondly I think that there was a lot of building support systems on the roof, including a lot of water for the fire suppression system, Elevator support, and so the hat truss appears to be designed to support a lot of weight on the very top floors and transfer that load to the central columns.
What its purpose was in the design and what it did during the event may not have been quite the same. The NIST document goes into some length describing how the Hat Truss was at least partly responsible for transferring loads as the main structure weakened during the fire.
I can't cut and past from my copy of the NIST document, but I suggest you download it and read their description of the collapse process.
Cheers mate,
Arthur . . Hi adoucette. Thanks for taking the trouble over MY troubles, mate! But what you suggest is not an option in my situation. Because of my health problems, I'm more or less 'grounded' in a little seaside town with few if any 'hot spots' and very bad communications (of all sorts) to the outside world, hehehe. The isolation and sea air is good for what ails me, but medical bills and internet 'insecurity' constrain my net-surfing somewhat. In any case, I have a specially designed 'system' (old computer/software) which, although not 'efficient' on the net, it at least seems to be immune to 'viruses' and the like...so I'll stick with this 'safe' old thing rather than risk my blood pressure by using all this new-fangled (but virus-easy) stuff everyone else I know is using (and cursing practically non-stop because of the massive amount of 'house-cleaning/patching' they have to do to keep it operating...an 'in' joke greeting between myself and my (good) friends goes something like, Me:"You poor sucker(s)!"...Them: "You lucky b*stard!"). Anyhow, I might spend some big money when I get some 'super' and see what I can get and 'customise' that will do all I want...dream on RC, heh?, hehehe. Thanks anyway, mate. . Interesting about the added weight of WATER and stuff in roof and floors. I wonder if the 'sloshing' water had any part in CONSTANT 'dynamic' de-stabilisation of top structure since everything initially went skew-wiff up there. I also wonder if water from broken pipes fed the 'metal fire' of Aluminium plane. As you probably know, Aluminium is a 'getter' when heated, and pouring water on that burning plane would be like pouring Liquid Oxygen on it and making an EXTREMELY SHORT-LIVED but EXTREMELY HOT 'SPOT-FIRE'. The Oxygen would be 'stripped' easily from the Hydrogen to produce Al203 and COPIOUS HEAT, quicksmart; leaving the 'dissociated' Hydrogen to RISE instantly and burn almost INVISIBLY/smokelessly in the air up the shafts to the roof (which is probably why there could have been more 'heat' in there than the VISIBLE hydroCARBON fires would show; and which could have caused more 'hidden' internal damage to the core under the hat truss than realised). And I wonder if some Aluminium 'spot' fires occurred adjacent any columns, what the 'hot-spot' effect would be on the strength/integrity of said columns. Anyhow, just more 'peripheral' thoughts that occur to me. Ciao y'all. RealityCheck. .PS: TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Before anyone gets the idea that that 'Guest' post was me in disguise: IT WASN'T ME! Thank you. RC. .
Foxx
3rd December 2005 - 09:45 PM
| QUOTE | posted by Reality Check
(1) If the hat truss structure was ‘fixed’ to the core, then the hat-truss connections could have ‘sheared’ across/through the ‘top’ end’ of the core structure when strong impact from plane made the perimeter rock sideways and shoved people ‘sideways’ (about ‘a metre’, I understand)?
The hat truss wasn't just set on top of the core columns. Massive diagonal beams ran through a number of the top floors and were joined at various levels with various central core columns. The following schematic diagram (from a FEMA report) shows the complexity of how the 'hat truss' was interspersed between the core columns at various levels. The 'section' (side elevation) view shows how it is not possible for the hat truss to just shear off from the core (as if it was a separate assembly attached to the top of core columns). It was an 'integral' assembly to the structure of the building - not just 'separate' and 'placed on top' of the core.
source: Chapter 2 of the FEMA report...
(for ease of download this FEMA pdf has been transferred to html by the unknown author of 'Guardian/Nerdcities'. Since his mysterious disappearance the page is now cached at 911 Research)...the commentary in red was added to the report by the unknown author.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...wtc/WTC_ch2.htm
The previous picture I posted from NIST is a little confusing due to the complexity of the diagonal beams passing through a number of floors in a '3d' schematic...
Not your fault about missing the picture in my first post. You must have checked my post before I had finished editing it. The first time I posted the picture it didn't show up, so I had to download it to my website server and post it again from there. I notice that the forum here also has a habit of automatically downsizing the photos, (which also makes the pictures less clear). For the larger full-size pics which I have been using regarding the vierendeel and hat-truss posts, check my page here...(26 kb)
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/vierendeel.html
As I have said earlier, the mass media (and official government sources) are very hesitant to give accurate details about the actual construction of the WTC towers for some reason ???.
I have been studying the construction for about two years from everything I have been able to find (which is very limited). After 9/11 the web was apparently 'cleansed' of numerous articles related to the actual construction of the towers. Very few sources are left, but if you are interested, here are a few good links ...
http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread.php3?threadid=145615
Cheers (from Canada)
Foxx
3rd December 2005 - 09:52 PM
Hi frater...
Interesting article on pedants - it certainly describes a couple of government-story supporters here (IMO).
adoucette
3rd December 2005 - 09:55 PM
QUOTE (yesitdid+Dec 3 2005, 08:02 PM) [QUOTE=frater plecticus,Dec 3 2005, 06:29 PM] 08-13-2002, 07:34 PM http://www.airdisaster.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5304409-11-2002, 08:51 AM http://www.airdisaster.com/forums/showthre...44&page=7&pp=25==> So now the CIA is part of the conspiracy? adoucette Posted: Oct 25 2005, 08:42 PM I'm new to this conspiracy idea that we blew the WTC. http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=3108&st=255[/QUOTE] 3 YEARS SPREADING PROPAGANDA. YOU SHOULD THINK DEEP AND HARD BEFORE YOU REPLY TO THIS. [/QUOTE] frater, do you not notice quite a difference in topic between the 'airdisaster' forum and the physorg forum? In the former all that is being argued is the ability of the FAA and NORAD to respond to a circumstance that had never occured before. Here, on physorg, the topic has been whether or not the WTC buildings had pre-set explosives or other, unnamed, technological assistance that caused them to collapse. So, adoucette's claim , "I'm new to this conspiracy idea that we blew the WTC." is perfectly true. In neither of the threads you post from 2002 is there any mention of explosives in the WTC buildings. Frater, you missed some of the better threads that I was active in: On Flight 93 (299 posts) http://www.airdisaster.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53041On Flt 77 & 93 (144 posts) http://www.airdisaster.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53048What have we learned summary on 93 (77 posts) http://www.airdisaster.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53058More on Flt 93 (326 posts) http://www.airdisaster.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53040More on Flt 93 (247 posts) http://www.airdisaster.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53080On use of RF weapons to bring down 93 (137 posts) http://www.airdisaster.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53082By the way, including the thread you posted, these represent over 1,400 posts in a subforum with 141 threads and a total of 3,041 posts. Its been over 2 years since I posted there, so I would say these represent most of my posts on that forum. Feel free to read them and post anything you believe is "propaganda". As to 'disinformation', please post any information that would be regarded as "disinformation". Since I generally stick to data already in the public domain, I'm curious how that qualifies. The INFORMATION is already out there and your opinion of it doesn't really make it disinformation unless you can show that what I've posted is FALSE and that I KNEW it was false when I posted it. I'd ask you to "put up or shut up" but don't expect you will. You seem to like to try to paint anyone who disagrees with you as being complicit in the murders of 9/11 and by extension what you believe to be 2 illegal wars. Some of us though, just like to know what happened, and like to discuss it with others. I don't have any websites or do anything to promote my view. Do You? And finally, considering the relatively few "views" that either of these sites get (every time one of the frequent posters selects the topic it registers as a view), so NO, there are NOT 30,000 people watching. I'd suspect the total number is well less than 1,000. If I was actually interested in spreading disinformation, don't you think I could find a better way to do it than two obscure internet forums? You obviously have a distorted view of the importance of all this. I mean, talk about a tempest in a teapot. Sheesh. Arthur
frater plecticus
3rd December 2005 - 10:08 PM
quote guest
| QUOTE | Congratulations frater, on making that at least 6 places on the web where that article appears now.
So sorry if the physics forum gets to 'technical' for you. Perhaps you would be better served by a more pedestrian forum that offers a more obtuse discussion of these events.
<br>Yeah, like Physics is going to solve the wtc collapse.
I mean, talk about a tempest in a teapot.
Sheesh.
Arthur
Foxx
3rd December 2005 - 11:01 PM
| QUOTE | posted by Schneibster
"This non-traditional design has not been widely copied."
<br>As I have previously stated, another error on Schneibsters part. The innovative design by Yamasaki et al, was definately a bold step away from traditional 'post & beam' construction where columns were placed throughout the floorplan. However, the 'new' design set a benchmark for buildings constructed after the towers. This 'tube within a tube' was widely copied post WTC construction...
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | posted by Schneibster
"This non-traditional design has not been widely copied."
<br>As I have previously stated, another error on Schneibsters part. The innovative design by Yamasaki et al, was definately a bold step away from traditional 'post & beam' construction where columns were placed throughout the floorplan. However, the 'new' design set a benchmark for buildings constructed after the towers. This 'tube within a tube' was widely copied post WTC construction...
The design concept of tubular framing (the so-called tube within a tube architecture) has been employed in the construction of many of the world's tallest buildings. These include the John Hancock Center (1105 ft), the Standard Oil of Indiana Building (1125 ft), the World Trade Center Towers (1350 ft), and the Sears Tower (1450 ft). In fact, most modern skyscrapers use this design, a design which uses a specially reinforced perimeter wall to resist all lateral loading and some of the gravity loading, and a heavily reinforced central core to resist the bulk of the gravity loading. The lateral loading (horizontal force) on the building, is mainly due to the wind while the gravity loading (downward force) is due to the weight of the building (i.e., due to gravity).
<br>An interesting design study of the comparative Sixty State Street building in Boston can be found at the link below.
It is a mirror of one page from the anonymous author of the Guardian/Nerdcities website, (who was one of the first sceptics and demolishers of the 'official fairy tale').
Based upon the works of this unknown author, it seems that he had great 'inside' knowledge of the architectural details of the WTC towers (at a time when such architectural details were being closely guarded by the 'gatekeepers').
EDIT TO ADD - I really wonder whether this may be a reason why he is 'no longer with us' ? He/She was the first to promote the true structural details of the towers, at a time when the gatekeepers were doing everything in their power to obfuscate such details.
I know, I know... 'typical meanderings of a delusional conspiracy theorist'. (right, YID ?) Maybe he just died in an 'accident'... OR committed suicide by shooting himself in the back of the head with a shotgun 
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...onstruction.htm
adoucette
4th December 2005 - 12:27 AM
Frater,
Can you BE anymore dishonest?
Sheesh
Arthur
RealityCheck
4th December 2005 - 02:15 AM
QUOTE (Foxx+Dec 3 2005, 09:45 PM) | QUOTE | posted by Reality Check
(1) If the hat truss structure was ‘fixed’ to the core, then the hat-truss connections could have ‘sheared’ across/through the ‘top’ end’ of the core structure when strong impact from plane made the perimeter rock sideways and shoved people ‘sideways’ (about ‘a metre’, I understand)?
<br>The hat truss wasn't just set on top of the core columns. Massive diagonal beams ran through a number of the top floors and were joined at various levels with various central core columns. The following schematic diagram (from a FEMA report) shows the complexity of how the 'hat truss' was interspersed between the core columns at various levels. The 'section' (side elevation) view shows how it is not possible for the hat truss to just shear off from the core (as if it was a separate assembly attached to the top of core columns). It was an 'integral' assembly to the structure of the building - not just 'separate' and 'placed on top' of the core.
source: Chapter 2 of the FEMA report...
(for ease of download this FEMA pdf has been transferred to html by the unknown author of 'Guardian/Nerdcities'. Since his mysterious disappearance the page is now cached at 911 Research)...the commentary in red was added to the report by the unknown author.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...wtc/WTC_ch2.htm
The previous picture I posted from NIST is a little confusing due to the complexity of the diagonal beams passing through a number of floors in a '3d' schematic...
Not your fault about missing the picture in my first post. You must have checked my post before I had finished editing it. The first time I posted the picture it didn't show up, so I had to download it to my website server and post it again from there. I notice that the forum here also has a habit of automatically downsizing the photos, (which also makes the pictures less clear). For the larger full-size pics which I have been using regarding the vierendeel and hat-truss posts, check my page here...(26 kb)
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/vierendeel.html
As I have said earlier, the mass media (and official government sources) are very hesitant to give accurate details about the actual construction of the WTC towers for some reason ???.
I have been studying the construction for about two years from everything I have been able to find (which is very limited). After 9/11 the web was apparently 'cleansed' of numerous articles related to the actual construction of the towers. Very few sources are left, but if you are interested, here are a few good links ...
http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread.php3?threadid=145615
Cheers (from Canada)
.
.
Hi Foxx.
Thanks for the reply.
About the 'missing' picture: no worries, mate.
About the hat truss 'connection' to core: I realised after I viewed the 'missing' picture how the truss 'inter-connected' with core down some 'levels'. However, I was thinking along the same lines of that 'arch' in the face thing where the loads were re-distributed via the end-wall bits that remained (because ULTIMATELY that's where the 'transition-interface' was between the upper-wall and lower wall force re-distribution). Likewise here with the hat truss structure. As I understand from your info, the core/hat-truss were 'rigid' structures for static' loads. If so, any sudden-impact forces (capable of shoving people sideways by a meter, for example) must ULTIMATELY be transferred/re-distributed from rigid-core to rigid-core+hat-truss 'BOX' structure via the 'interface' connections somewhere at the 'overall' BOTTOM 'edge' of that rigid-core+rigid-hat-truss BOX assembly...no matter WHERE the EFFECTIVE 'bottom/interface' falls between the core-only and the core+hat box. You see? There had to be a 'weakest' stage somewhere between two rigid components where the MASS-DIFFERENTIAL is great: ie, the core-only 'end' and the core+hat-truss 'topping' were greatly DISSIMILAR in mass...and hence the core may have been shocked sideways enough to shove people a metre sideways WHILE THE GREATER INERTIA of the core+hat 'box' would 'lag' behind sufficiently to introduce the RELATIVE-action shear effect at that weakest-level 'transition-interface'. Am I making myself clear? I know it's not what other people might consider, but, me being me, I am compelled to consider such things until I'm convinced that it is not significant/possible. Sorry 'bout that; annoying, I know; I have no excuse other than sheer curiosity.
And about that 'silence' on actual construction details: If it is as you say, then I can conceive of some reasons why 'the establishment' (both architectural and govmnt/anti-terror bodies) would like to 'hush up' the fact that there DO exist these other (I take your word for it that they do) similarly-vulnerable buildings which could be likewise brought down by some disatrous fire/damage ON ONE/FEW LEVELS. I mean, imagine the glee now in would-be sabateurs who (as was mentioned by zocktoberfest, I think) can pack a lift or two with some high-explosives and incendiaries etc and send them to the appropriate 'level'. I ceratainly wouldn't want it to be known that MY design/building was such easy meat to 'copycat' attacks sans planes. Anyhow, I'm just looking at things from the poor architect/owner/govmt-anti-terror side of things (that's what I do best, I like to look at EVERYTHING from ALL SIDES irrespective of my personal opinions one way or the other...and if I were over there in yankyland, I reckon I'd make a great 'special prosecutor' to go after presidents and such like miscreants, hehehe.)
Ta-ta for now, mate.
RealityCheck.
PS : I don't know about you, Foxx, but frater plecticus' latest 'efforts' leave me cold from an objective point of view. I frankly think that last picture of his shows a ghoulish bent (reminiscent of .DREADS' ghoulish questionable 'contributions' to the 'debate' earlier on). But again, that's just me speaking my mind despite the risk of being branded something-or-other by the perpetrators...but, ce la vie for independent folk, heh? Ciao. RC.
.
metamars
4th December 2005 - 02:17 AM
| QUOTE | So, adoucette's claim , "I'm new to this conspiracy idea that we blew the WTC." is perfectly true. In neither of the threads you post from 2002 is there any mention of explosives in the WTC buildings.
<br>Frater, unless you can produce posts by adoucette that back up your contention that his claim specifically re WTC demolition conspiracy theories is false, I believe you should retract the charge.
As far as I can tell, you have shown that adoucette has been posting on the subject of 911 for a long time, and (though I didn't examine his posts in any detail, so I'm mostly guessing her) his other posts also exhibit 'pope-ish' characteristics.
That is not the same thing. It appears that you are assuming that one inevitably follows from the other.
metamars
4th December 2005 - 02:21 AM
By the way, speaking of planes... waynemadsenreport.com has the following QUOTE December 2, 2005 -- Cheney order to shoot down United Flight 93 confirmed again. Vice President *** Cheney ordered two U.S. Air Force fighters to shoot down United flight 93 over Shanksville, Pennsylvania on September 11, 2001, according to an intelligence officer who was monitoring the flow of intelligence between the Pentagon and the White House that morning. After the target was identified as United flight 93, Cheney gave the order to engage the target and shoot it down. There have been previous reports that Cheney ordered the shoot down.
Foxx
4th December 2005 - 04:25 AM
Hi All.
The subject has come up regarding 'animosity' between opposing sides of this debate.
Really... it is hard to 'get around' emotional aspects of the 9/11 debate.
Those who subscribe to the official 'fairy tale' view those who promulgate 'alternative theories' of what really happened, as somehow 'errant' or delusional.
Those who promote discussion of 'alternative theories' (or a good percentage of them) view those who support the 'official version of events' as 'complicit' - either through close association with the perps, or (through ignorance) acting as 'dupes/agents' of the perps.
The term 'shill' is often invoked by 'alternative theorists' to describe opponents.
In my view, this term ('shill') is no more 'insulting' than 'conspiracy theorist' .
What is the meaning of 'shill'?
| QUOTE | A shill is an associate of a person selling goods or services, who pretends no association to the seller and assumes the air of an enthusiastic customer. The intention of the shill is, using crowd psychology, to encourage other potential customers, unaware of the set-up, to purchase said goods or services.
<br>source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill
Taken in context of debates such as we are involved in here (related to 9/11 events) the term 'shill' relates to those who attempt to 'sell' the 'official government story', regardless of whether such persons are actually on gov't payrolls (i.e - 'Homeland Security'), or whether (through ignorance or other psychological aspects) they choose to attempt to 'sell' the 'official story' as promulgated by authoritative figures.
Shills in message boards
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | A shill is an associate of a person selling goods or services, who pretends no association to the seller and assumes the air of an enthusiastic customer. The intention of the shill is, using crowd psychology, to encourage other potential customers, unaware of the set-up, to purchase said goods or services.
<br>source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill
Taken in context of debates such as we are involved in here (related to 9/11 events) the term 'shill' relates to those who attempt to 'sell' the 'official government story', regardless of whether such persons are actually on gov't payrolls (i.e - 'Homeland Security'), or whether (through ignorance or other psychological aspects) they choose to attempt to 'sell' the 'official story' as promulgated by authoritative figures.
Shills in message boards
Many shills can pose as "experts" in certain fields in various public venues such as in the case of internet message boards. For example, when an online debate about a subject matter demands the expertise of a professor in a given field so as to strengthen the credibility of an argument, a shill may attempt to gain an advantage by stating that he or she has a degree or an education relative to the subject matter's central scope. Shills who engage in message board discussions commonly practice this strategy by cross posting in multiple message boards and forums where the general public can freely access and read potential disinformation or facts. Experienced internet shills may also extend their fraudulence by creating personal (.edu type) websites that have a list of their "credentials" in a specific educational field. Additionally, many internet shills often engage in using multiple usernames as reinforcements to his or her propaganda and often use the simple tactic of repetitive denial against an opposing argument.
<br>metamars...
I disagree with you that we 'cannot know' whether person "x" IS a 'shill'.
Just as our opponents can classify 'us' as 'conspiracy theorists', so also is the title 'shill' justifiable as applicable to those who attempt to sell the false fairy tales promulgated by 'official sources'...Regardless of the motives behind their support of the official 'story' ... (IMHO)
On the other hand, I agree with you that 'Adoucetts' previous discussions related to 'aircraft issues' are not 'evidence' that he had prior knowledge of WTC issues.
Nevertheless, his predisposition towards supporting the 'official story' is evidence of his being a 'shill' (according to the above descriptions).
No personal offense intended, adoucette
Reality Check...
I'm afraid that I am not fluent in 'strine' so please forgive me for not understanding what the heck you are talking about in your last post ???
Although pictures such as posted by 'frater' are very disturbing, we can not pretend that such issues are not 'relevant'.
It is unfortunate that the issue we are discussing do NOT involve 'atrocities' ( or extremely disturbing images).
The fact IS that (IF 'our' analysis - that is... that US 'spooks' were involved with these 'events', is correct) - THEN such murders of innocent human life is virtually unforgivable, and the perpetrators of such actions leading to the demise of such innocent victims (as presented in the photo presented by 'frater'), should face the FULL legal repercussions of a TREASON & MASS MURDER Trial.
As I (personally) am convinced that the 'PNAC crew' were highly involved in these 'events'... I think they themselves should be throw off a cliff.
No, wait... maybe that is too good for them.
How about 'draw & quartering'?
No wait... even that is too quick... Let them rot in hell forever!!!
These bastards need to be publicly executed !
Sorry for my 'emotional' response. Heh
RealityCheck
4th December 2005 - 05:49 AM
Hi Foxx.
s'OK; we all get emotional at times. Only it also can end up being counter-productive at times. Keep focused on truth and lies you can prove, and the bastards will get what's coming to them. But drop the ball because of illtimed emoting and 'using' of other people's misery and death (like ,dread and frater are doing) and you may actually be helping the culprits evade justice by missing some crucial evidence that you might not otherwise have missed if you had kept your cool wits around you. We don't want any (alleged) culprits to get away with it, do we? And please don't mistake my cool, dispassionate view of what went down on 9/11 as regards the victims. I just make it a rule that whenever I'm 'thinking' on a problem, I will do better to remain 'sort of disinterested' and 'personally removed' from the problem...then I can see 'around' the problem as well as 'at' it; do you get what I mean?
Anyway, sorry if my convoluted post before didn't make sense. Forget it. I haven't time to pursue it anyway because of other time/work pressures. Thanks for your info and patience so far, though, mate. Much appreciated, I assure you. And good luck getting the bastards if bastards there be involved in that tragedy. Ciao.
RealityCheck.
.
metamars
4th December 2005 - 05:50 AM
| QUOTE | The intention of the shill is, using crowd psychology, to encourage other potential customers, unaware of the set-up, to purchase said goods or services.
<br>Emphasis mine.
If you are claiming that it is the intention of Schneibster, adoucette, et. al., to sell the government version, my question is, "How do you know this?"
I believe it is an assumption. In order to know this, you would either have to produce a pay stub and contract from "Black Ops 'R Us", or else somehow peer into their souls and clearly see this motivation, perhaps springing from psychological (rather than financial) needs and desires.
In the case of my brilliant cousin, I can't imagine that anybody paid him to convince me of the Oswald myth, or that he had some deep-seated need to do so because, e.g., he felt it his duty to uphold the honor of the US. He certainly was not particularly patriotic, and, as often happens in the case of very smart individuals, tended to think of others as a bit dumb. That certainly includes people in the US government. In particular, I remember him telling me that he thought the CIA was comprised of "a bunch of idiots".
I don't know Schneibster, adoucette, etc., etc., but I did know my cousin. If I hit him with such an allegation, he'd think either that I was nuts, or perhaps be insulted, or maybe both.
metamars
4th December 2005 - 06:14 AM
Just to be clear about this. I certainly believe that there are paid shills whose goal is not just to "argue" for one government Fairy Tale or another, but also to sow FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) in the ranks of the citizenry who are aware or suspicous of their government's misdeeds, to one extent or another.
I certainly believe that our media is massively manipulated, and furthermore, according to research by Noam Chomsky, many of the huge amounts of newspapers of years ago (especially union newspapers) were deliberately targeted by monied elites for elimination, in a process that goes back perhaps 80 years or more.
Of course, this should be completely illegal, and if there's one monopoly that absolutely should not be tolerated in any way, shape, or form, it's a media monopoly.
If you check out the Randi Rhodes forum at therandirhodesshow.com, you can see the followng post by Xenon in the thread "Physics Prof: Bombs May Have Dropped WTC":
| QUOTE | At our Watchdog Site, chemtrailcentral, there were a few people like the shills here. In fact, for awhile, there was a shill who got into being mod, and was giving out IP addresses to a "debunker" site. Nice?!!!
Anyway, I finally became site admin, along with two other good people, and we threw that creep off. Finally, I got to see who these "debunkers" were. Listen to this......Air Force Intelligence, and some from Langley, VA. We blew it open in public, and they never returned. They were government, and they were there to dismantle every post about 9/11, Weather Control, Zionists, etc. Now they spoof and use proxies.
It was the same stupid arguments...potential energy melting steel, paper and furniture melting steel, the government never lies, we are crackpots, blah, blah, blah. Stallion4 posts there, as does reprenhensor.
You might like it there, if you like to discuss 9/11 form a rational point of view. No debunkers allowed, and lots of good posters.
http://www.chemtrailcentral.com
<br>Emphasis mine.
Frankly, one of the strongest arguments for believing in evil conspiracies wrt 911, JFK, etc, is the extraodinary amount of evidence of a coverup. Why cover up something that you're not ashamed of?
However, if somebody makes the leap from saying that shills exist to X,Y, or Z are shills, and furthermore state it as a FACT rather than an ASSUMPTION, they cross a line that I don't care to cross, and don't believe should be crossed.
adoucette
4th December 2005 - 06:22 AM
QUOTE (Foxx+) Those who promote discussion of 'alternative theories' (or a good percentage of them) view those who support the 'official version of events' as 'complicit' - either through close association with the perps, or (through ignorance) acting as 'dupes/agents' of the perps. <br>The problem is we don't agree on who the PERPS were. ONLY IF YOU ARE RIGHT could this logic apply. If you are NOT right, wouldn't that make you a 'dupe/agent' of the perps? Which is why this labeling of the people you are discussing this with MAKES NO SENSE. | QUOTE | The term 'shill' is often invoked by 'alternative theorists' to describe opponents.
In my view, this term ('shill') is no more 'insulting' than 'conspiracy theorist' .
What is the meaning of 'shill'?
<br>
A shill is an associate of a person selling goods or services, who pretends no association to the seller and assumes the air of an enthusiastic customer. The intention of the shill is, using crowd psychology, to encourage other potential customers, unaware of the set-up, to purchase said goods or services.
I find the term SHILL much more offensive than 'conspiracy theorist'. The latter, in its proper use, is someone who is trying to get at what they believe to be the hidden truth. This assumes that if the theorist studies the issue OBJECTIVELY and comes to the conclusion there is no conspiracy that they would admit it.
A shill on the other hand, KNOWS what they are 'selling' is wrong and does it for personal gain.
BIG DIFFERENCE.
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | The term 'shill' is often invoked by 'alternative theorists' to describe opponents.
In my view, this term ('shill') is no more 'insulting' than 'conspiracy theorist' .
What is the meaning of 'shill'?
<br>
A shill is an associate of a person selling goods or services, who pretends no association to the seller and assumes the air of an enthusiastic customer. The intention of the shill is, using crowd psychology, to encourage other potential customers, unaware of the set-up, to purchase said goods or services.
I find the term SHILL much more offensive than 'conspiracy theorist'. The latter, in its proper use, is someone who is trying to get at what they believe to be the hidden truth. This assumes that if the theorist studies the issue OBJECTIVELY and comes to the conclusion there is no conspiracy that they would admit it.
A shill on the other hand, KNOWS what they are 'selling' is wrong and does it for personal gain.
BIG DIFFERENCE.
Taken in context of debates such as we are involved in here (related to 9/11 events) the term 'shill' relates to those who attempt to 'sell' the 'official government story', regardless of whether such persons are actually on gov't payrolls (i.e - 'Homeland Security'), or whether (through ignorance or other psychological aspects) they choose to attempt to 'sell' the 'official story' as promulgated by authoritative figures.
<br>The problem with this 'definition' of Shill is it ASSUMES the 'official story' is wrong.
If that definition was simply biased the other way it would make you a shill for Al Queda.
Which is why I don't believe the definition applies to either side unless proof of a hidden agenda is shown.
Arthur
Schneibster
4th December 2005 - 07:50 AM
QUOTE (frater plecticus+) I think 3 years of spreading disinformation supporting the most incredulous neocon wetdream ever devised, that in turn has led to 2 illegal wars and an occupation, albeit on the flimsiest of evidence speaks for itself. (not including the 3000 dead Americans in NYC) |
Well, I think you're an @$$hole for practicing intimidation tactics just because someone's stuck to their guns.
frater plecticus
4th December 2005 - 10:16 AM
Adoucette QUOTE The problem with this 'definition' of Shill is it ASSUMES the 'official story' is wrong. The "official story" IS wrong. Adoucette QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | The problem with this 'definition' of Shill is it ASSUMES the 'official story' is wrong.
The "official story" IS wrong.
Adoucette
Frater,
Can you BE anymore dishonest?
<a href='http://cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&day_of_9/11=bush' target='_blank' rel='nofollow'>No, but this man can.
Metamars
| QUOTE | Frater, unless you can produce posts by adoucette that back up your contention that his claim specifically re WTC demolition conspiracy theories is false, I believe you should retract the charge.
<img width='450' src='http://plectic.com/wtc/arthur2.gif' border='0' alt='User posted image' />
Metamars, you should pay more attention, the link was 1 page ago.
3 YEARS SPREADING ILLEGAL DISINFORMATION
08-10-2002, 07:06 PM #52
adoucette
Senior Member
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | Frater, unless you can produce posts by adoucette that back up your contention that his claim specifically re WTC demolition conspiracy theories is false, I believe you should retract the charge.
<img width='450' src='http://plectic.com/wtc/arthur2.gif' border='0' alt='User posted image' />
Metamars, you should pay more attention, the link was 1 page ago.
3 YEARS SPREADING ILLEGAL DISINFORMATION
08-10-2002, 07:06 PM #52
adoucette
Senior Member
It was geologists who determined there were no secondary explosions at the base of the World Trade Center towers , Which of course, is pure assumption, geologists HAVE NOT determined that "there were no secondary explosions at the base of the World Trade Center towers", Adoucette (Arthur) HIMSELF has reached this erroneous conclusion which CONTRADICTS IN ABSOLUTE THE SCIENTIFIC OBSERVATIONS.
From page 40 of this thread
Frater Plecticus.
SEISMIC EVIDENCE| QUOTE |
The seismic effects of the collapse of the towers were observed and measured by
Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory just up the Hudson River in
Palisades, New York. Here seismographs recorded two spikes reflecting two shock waves
in the earth on the morning of 9/11. The crucial fact is that these two spikes came just
before the collapse of the towers began. Specifically, Columbia scientists at the facility
registered a tremor of 2.1 on the Richter scale at 9:59:04 EDT, just before the beginning
of the collapse of the South Tower, and a 2.3 shock just as the North Tower began to
come down at 10:28:31 EDT. Both tremors were recorded before the vast majority of the
mass of the buildings hit the ground. Although they were not of earthquake proportions,
these were considerable shocks, about twenty times more potent than any previously
measured shock wave generated by a falling building. The 1993 WTC truck bomb had
produced no seismic effects at all – it had failed to register. At 5:20 local time on the
afternoon of 9/11, there was also a 0.6 tremor from the collapse of WTC 7, also at the
beginning, rather than the end, of this building’s collapse. Dr. Arthur Lerner-Lam, the
director of the Columbia Center for Hazards and Risk Research, commented that “during
the collapse, most of the energy of the falling debris was absorbed by the towers and
neighboring structures, converting them into rubble and dust or causing other damage –
but not causing significant ground shaking.” But Lerner-Lam declined to draw any
conclusions from the glaring anomaly represented by his data, which the 9/11
commission has also avoided. (Marrs 39 ff.)
<br>adoucette
Posted: Dec 3 2005, 09:55 PM
Report Post
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE |
The seismic effects of the collapse of the towers were observed and measured by
Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory just up the Hudson River in
Palisades, New York. Here seismographs recorded two spikes reflecting two shock waves
in the earth on the morning of 9/11. The crucial fact is that these two spikes came just
before the collapse of the towers began. Specifically, Columbia scientists at the facility
registered a tremor of 2.1 on the Richter scale at 9:59:04 EDT, just before the beginning
of the collapse of the South Tower, and a 2.3 shock just as the North Tower began to
come down at 10:28:31 EDT. Both tremors were recorded before the vast majority of the
mass of the buildings hit the ground. Although they were not of earthquake proportions,
these were considerable shocks, about twenty times more potent than any previously
measured shock wave generated by a falling building. The 1993 WTC truck bomb had
produced no seismic effects at all – it had failed to register. At 5:20 local time on the
afternoon of 9/11, there was also a 0.6 tremor from the collapse of WTC 7, also at the
beginning, rather than the end, of this building’s collapse. Dr. Arthur Lerner-Lam, the
director of the Columbia Center for Hazards and Risk Research, commented that “during
the collapse, most of the energy of the falling debris was absorbed by the towers and
neighboring structures, converting them into rubble and dust or causing other damage –
but not causing significant ground shaking.” But Lerner-Lam declined to draw any
conclusions from the glaring anomaly represented by his data, which the 9/11
commission has also avoided. (Marrs 39 ff.)
<br>adoucette
Posted: Dec 3 2005, 09:55 PM
Report Post
You seem to like to try to paint anyone who disagrees with you as being complicit in the murders of 9/11 and by extension what you believe to be 2 illegal wars.
<br>The question is Arthur, if 9-11 HAD NOT HAPPENED, WHAT would have been THE REASON FOR THE WAR IN IRAQ ?
| QUOTE |
The following is taken from the M.I.T., Rotch Visual Collections article Sixty State Street - A Case Study. This teaching resource was available on the internet for years until the 9-11 cover-up required its withdrawal from the public domain. If one desires additional evidence pointing to the group behind the September 11 disaster, all one has to do is to endeavor to find pre-9-11 technical information concerning the World Trade Center (or in fact any other similarly built skyscraper). What one will find is that the internet has been swept clean of such information. Neither Al Qaeda, nor the Arabs, or any other group of Islamics, have the capability to do this. September 11, was clearly an inside job.
<a href='http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/sixty-state-street/construction.htm' target='_blank' rel='nofollow'>http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...onstruction.htm
The sacred scientist
4th December 2005 - 10:55 AM
1 unit of richter means 32 times the energy or 10 times the mechanical displacement. Confirm it for yourself.
The equation for Richter Magnitude is:
ML = log10(A) + (Distance correction factor)
Here A is the amplitude, in millimeters, measured directly from the photographic paper record of the Wood-Anderson seismometer, a special type of instrument.
Richter TNT for Seismic Example
Magnitude Energy Yield (approximate)
-1.5 6 ounces Breaking a rock on a lab table
1.0 30 pounds Large Blast at a Construction Site
1.5 320 pounds
2.0 1 ton Large Quarry or Mine Blast
2.5 4.6 tons
3.0 29 tons
3.5 73 tons
4.0 1,000 tons Small Nuclear Weapon
4.5 5,100 tons Average Tornado (total energy)
5.0 32,000 tons
5.5 80,000 tons Little Skull Mtn., NV Quake, 1992
6.0 1 million tons Double Spring Flat, NV Quake, 1994
6.5 5 million tons Northridge, CA Quake, 1994
7.0 32 million tons Hyogo-Ken Nanbu, Japan Quake, 1995; Largest Thermonuclear Weapon
7.5 160 million tons Landers, CA Quake, 1992
8.0 1 billion tons San Francisco, CA Quake, 1906
8.5 5 billion tons Anchorage, AK Quake, 1964
9.0 32 billion tons Chilean Quake, 1960
10.0 1 trillion tons (San-Andreas type fault circling Earth)
12.0 160 trillion tons (Fault Earth in half through center,
OR Earth's daily receipt of solar energy)
frater plecticus
4th December 2005 - 11:14 AM
Metamars QUOTE Frater, unless you can produce posts by adoucette that back up your contention that his claim specifically re WTC demolition conspiracy theories is false, I believe you should retract the charge.  LINKYou contemptous cocksucker arthur. Which of course, is pure assumption, geologists HAVE NOT determined that "there were no secondary explosions at the base of the World Trade Center towers", Adoucette (Arthur) HIMSELF has reached this erroneous conclusion which CONTRADICTS IN ABSOLUTE THE SCIENTIFIC OBSERVATIONS. It's not like there isn't already enough proof to hang these bastards, but the problem is getting some people to accept it. The more flaws we point out in the official story, the better our chances.QUOTE The seismic effects of the collapse of the towers were observed and measured by
Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory just up the Hudson River in
Palisades, New York. Here seismographs recorded two spikes reflecting two shock waves
in the earth on the morning of 9/11. The crucial fact is that these two spikes came just
before the collapse of the towers began. Specifically, Columbia scientists at the facility
registered a tremor of 2.1 on the Richter scale at 9:59:04 EDT, just before the beginning
of the collapse of the South Tower, and a 2.3 shock just as the North Tower began to
come down at 10:28:31 EDT. Both tremors were recorded before the vast majority of the
mass of the buildings hit the ground. Although they were not of earthquake proportions,
these were considerable shocks, about twenty times more potent than any previously
measured shock wave generated by a falling building. The 1993 WTC truck bomb had
produced no seismic effects at all – it had failed to register. At 5:20 local time on the
afternoon of 9/11, there was also a 0.6 tremor from the collapse of WTC 7, also at the
beginning, rather than the end, of this building’s collapse. Dr. Arthur Lerner-Lam, the
director of the Columbia Center for Hazards and Risk Research, commented that “during
the collapse, most of the energy of the falling debris was absorbed by the towers and
neighboring structures, converting them into rubble and dust or causing other damage –
but not causing significant ground shaking.” But Lerner-Lam declined to draw any
conclusions from the glaring anomaly represented by his data, which the 9/11
commission has also avoided. (Marrs 39 ff.) SYNTHETIC TERROR 2MB PDF
metamars
4th December 2005 - 03:19 PM
Not to pick nits (I hope), but the quote in question speaks to "secondary" explosions.
This is nowhere defined, but as the context is a thread about Flight 93, and a secondary explosion in this case would be the fuel catching on fire and exploding, one could interpret the statement re the WTC as meaning that no "natural" (fuel) explosion occurred in the basement.
Of course, since an "unnatural" (explosives) explosion is likely to be more powerful, this is misleading, on its face, since it would then clearly IMPLY that there were no explosives set off in the basement.
(William Rodriguez tells a different story, and IIRC, there were about 17 other eye witnesses who also said differently, though some have since been intimidated or gone silent for other reasons. Their eyewitness accounts indisputably point to explosives)
The question then becomes: did Adoucette KNOW that his source should not be taken as gospel, and did he KNOW that an "unnatural (explosives) secondary" explosion would likely be more powerful than a "natural (fuel) explosive"
I don't know. Perhaps there are additional postings that bear on this?
I have already remarked on adoucette's pope-ish characteristics. I'd been meaning to remark on one particularly outrageous pope-ish post that occurred in this thread. This is as good a time as any.
metamars, p. 57:
| QUOTE |
So, it would have been shocking if there was not any chunks at all. To make explicit Hoffman's thought process: since nearly all the non-steel content was turned to powder, an approximation of 100% is quite reasonable. If you wish to show that this is a bad approximation, please make your own, based on the photographic (in toto, of course) and eyewitness testimony, and then plug this number into model. Does it change the result? (Hint: correct answer is "no")
Hey, here's another explication: when Hoffman, for the sake of argument, pretendeded that 100% of the PE could represent as an energy source for the formation of the dust cloud, he's not really saying that fully, exactly 100% of this PE could actually have been used up to this end. If that were the case, then the chunks of building referred to above would have sufficient KE to convert themselves to dust upon impact with the ground. But nobody believes that.
<br>
adoucette, p. 59
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE |
So, it would have been shocking if there was not any chunks at all. To make explicit Hoffman's thought process: since nearly all the non-steel content was turned to powder, an approximation of 100% is quite reasonable. If you wish to show that this is a bad approximation, please make your own, based on the photographic (in toto, of course) and eyewitness testimony, and then plug this number into model. Does it change the result? (Hint: correct answer is "no")
Hey, here's another explication: when Hoffman, for the sake of argument, pretendeded that 100% of the PE could represent as an energy source for the formation of the dust cloud, he's not really saying that fully, exactly 100% of this PE could actually have been used up to this end. If that were the case, then the chunks of building referred to above would have sufficient KE to convert themselves to dust upon impact with the ground. But nobody believes that.
<br>
adoucette, p. 59
Hoffman makes FOUR key assumptions.
One, that 100 % of the concrete was pulverized
Two, that 100 % of the concrete was pulverized to an average 60 micron size
Three, that 100% of the concrete was heated to 1020 K
Four, that the expansion of the cloud was due to heating
One, patently false and as it applies to number 2
Two, unproven, and a gross assumption based on tests of distant fallout, ignoring the HUGE pile of rubble at or near ground zero
Three, unproven, but also unlikely, if so then no one would have walked on that rubble pile for weeks and we wouldn't see steel beams with primer still attached.
Four, unproven, but also unlikely, consider the dynamic forces at play as that much air gets expelled from the building. We see similar dust clouds from other buildings that fall that are nowhere near the size of the WTC.
Arthur
<br>
What is wrong with adoucette's post? Let me count the ways...
1) I had already spoken to his 1), and challenged him to pick his own number (in light of the photographic evidence), and then apply Hoffman's technique. Had he he done so, he would have found the conclusion the same. So, why didn't he? Well, I think the fact that he would have supported an argument contrary to his pope-ish position is why. That is a characteristic of his postings that he exhibits time and time again. All roads must lead not to Rome, but to the Vatican (so to speak). If that means blithely ignoring a counter-argument that demolishes his own, well, so much the worse for the counter-argument!
2) The key thing about the size of the concrete particles is NOT how much more energy you need to create very small vs. merely small particles, but rather how small do you have to make these particles in order for Hoffman's assumption that they must heat rapidly to the temperature of the ambient hot gasses. With a temperature of 1020 K at the source of the heating, I would expect the difference between heating rates to be insignificant. The energy sink represented by heating the concrete far exceeds the energy sink represented by grinding.
3) I had already spoken to the 1020K figure, by pointing out that
a) the source of the heating should be defined as confined to the rubble footprint and the height of the towers.
b ) rapid cooling away from the point of heating is to be expected
c) Hoffman guesstimates mixture with 1/3 ambient air
d) Hoffman himself makes explicit that the pyroclastic flow was NOT uniformly 1020 degrees (which is absurd, anyway, as that would imply no cooling at the frontier):
| QUOTE |
If all the expansion was due to thermodynamic expansion, it would require that the dust cloud was heated to an average temperature of about 1020 K. Certainly the temperatures of the cloud near the ground were no-where near that high. Eyewitness reports show that the cloud's ground-level temperatures more than a few hundred feet away from its center were humanly survivable. Most of these reports are from the South Tower collapse, and it is unclear how similar the dust cloud temperatures following the two collapses were. Although serious fires raged in Buildings 4, 5, and 6, other nearby buildings that suffered extensive window breakage from the tower collapses, such as the Banker's Trust Building, and Word Financial Center Buildings 1, 2, and 3, did not experience fires. Digital photographs and videos show a bright afterglow with a locus near the center of the cloud, commencing around 17 seconds after the onset of the North Tower's collapse. Once the afterglow started, the cloud developed large upwelling columns towering to over 600 feet, and the previously gray cloud appeared to glow with a reddish hue. This suggests that at lest the upper and central regions of the North Tower cloud reached very high temperatures, but the evidence is insufficient to draw even general quantitative conclusions about the ranges and distributions of temperatures.
<br>4) Saying on p.59 that "the expansion of the cloud was due to heating", implying that ALL of the expansion was due to heating, after it was pointed out to him (indirectly), on p. 55, that Hoffman is considering 1/3 the size of the dust cloud to be due to mixing with ambient air, is disingenuous:
adoucette:
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE |
If all the expansion was due to thermodynamic expansion, it would require that the dust cloud was heated to an average temperature of about 1020 K. Certainly the temperatures of the cloud near the ground were no-where near that high. Eyewitness reports show that the cloud's ground-level temperatures more than a few hundred feet away from its center were humanly survivable. Most of these reports are from the South Tower collapse, and it is unclear how similar the dust cloud temperatures following the two collapses were. Although serious fires raged in Buildings 4, 5, and 6, other nearby buildings that suffered extensive window breakage from the tower collapses, such as the Banker's Trust Building, and Word Financial Center Buildings 1, 2, and 3, did not experience fires. Digital photographs and videos show a bright afterglow with a locus near the center of the cloud, commencing around 17 seconds after the onset of the North Tower's collapse. Once the afterglow started, the cloud developed large upwelling columns towering to over 600 feet, and the previously gray cloud appeared to glow with a reddish hue. This suggests that at lest the upper and central regions of the North Tower cloud reached very high temperatures, but the evidence is insufficient to draw even general quantitative conclusions about the ranges and distributions of temperatures.
<br>4) Saying on p.59 that "the expansion of the cloud was due to heating", implying that ALL of the expansion was due to heating, after it was pointed out to him (indirectly), on p. 55, that Hoffman is considering 1/3 the size of the dust cloud to be due to mixing with ambient air, is disingenuous:
adoucette:
QUOTE
and the rolling cloud like motions are distinct evidence that ambient air is being included into the expanding cloud
<br>metamars
| QUOTE | Hint: search on the word "ambient" in Hoffman's article."
<br>
Thus, while it is not known to me if adoucette was aware of contradictory evidence/testimony to that of Wallace re seismic evidence in consideration of "secondary" explosions, I wouldn't put it past him, either.
adoucette
4th December 2005 - 04:18 PM
QUOTE (frater plecticus+Dec 4 2005, 10:16 AM) Adoucette
| QUOTE | The problem with this 'definition' of Shill is it ASSUMES the 'official story' is wrong.
The "official story" IS wrong.
So I take it you are GOD?
And so I guess we should just take YOUR word on it.
BS.
PROVE IT.
Hell, PROVE ANY OF IT, because you haven't yet.
All I've seen is a bunch of circumstantial evidence, the vast majority of which has more reasonable explanations than the contrived and tortured logic that you are applying.
Arthur
adoucette
4th December 2005 - 04:36 PM
| QUOTE | quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by 93questions:
If you think I'm selective in my data, then please develop your own counterexamples. None of your continuing trivial nitpicking can possibly be used to come close to explaining how an intact 757 supposedly hit the ground at 575 mph at a steep angle while registering a seismic event that was either NOT DISCERNIBLE AT ALL or NEGATIVE ON THE RICHTER SCALE!
My primary point is that Flight 93 could not have hit the ground intact, at a steep angle and at a speed in the vicinity of 575 mph. This is the current official story and the seismic data prove that it's utter bs. Of course, if any or all of these constraints were significantly relaxed, then the amazingly weak seismic reading might be able to be explained away using the all of the fudge factors you suggest. But this is exactly my point--simply that Flight 93 could not have possibly crashed as described by the officially sanctioned story.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please cite the source of your "officially santioned story" that the plane hit verically at 575 mph.
Pictures of site:
Showing significant mounding on side of crater towards woods.
The pattern of impact is consistent with an aircraft with significant lateral movement, a "fan" pattern where debris is blown in the direction the aircraft was headed.
I took your advice and did some searching on forensic seismology and although the science is not well developed I did find this:
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by 93questions:
If you think I'm selective in my data, then please develop your own counterexamples. None of your continuing trivial nitpicking can possibly be used to come close to explaining how an intact 757 supposedly hit the ground at 575 mph at a steep angle while registering a seismic event that was either NOT DISCERNIBLE AT ALL or NEGATIVE ON THE RICHTER SCALE!
My primary point is that Flight 93 could not have hit the ground intact, at a steep angle and at a speed in the vicinity of 575 mph. This is the current official story and the seismic data prove that it's utter bs. Of course, if any or all of these constraints were significantly relaxed, then the amazingly weak seismic reading might be able to be explained away using the all of the fudge factors you suggest. But this is exactly my point--simply that Flight 93 could not have possibly crashed as described by the officially sanctioned story.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please cite the source of your "officially santioned story" that the plane hit verically at 575 mph.
Pictures of site:
Showing significant mounding on side of crater towards woods.
The pattern of impact is consistent with an aircraft with significant lateral movement, a "fan" pattern where debris is blown in the direction the aircraft was headed.
I took your advice and did some searching on forensic seismology and although the science is not well developed I did find this:
How can geologists catch a terrorist? With their instruments, explains Terry Wallace, a geophysicist at the University of Arizona. There are about 16,000 seismometers installed around the world, many of which offer data on freely accessible Web sites. Seismometers detect motion in the Earth, which can be triggered by an earthquake, or possibly explosions.
By learning how to read these signals, Wallace hopes scientists might catch on to suspicious activity.
"We can study these signals and begin to develop a portfolio of different kinds of signatures of explosions," says Wallace. "It will be like have a set of fingerprints."
Geophysicists have already contributed critical data to terrorist investigations. It was geologists who determined there were no secondary explosions at the base of the World Trade Center towers — but only the impact of the airplanes and subsequent fires — that contributed to the towers' collapse on Sept. 11.
When Flight 93 plunged into a field in Pennsylvania, they were able to read impact measurements from the region, combine it with data on the airplane's speed and determine the craft was not shot down as some early reports had suggested.
<br>
So why don't you take your argument to Mr Wallace and let us know what he thinks.
Contact Information:
Terry C. Wallace
520-621-4849
wallace@geo.arizona.edu
Arthur
<br>This is the whole post that Frater snipped from.
I used the same bolding as in the original post.
http://www.airdisaster.com/forums/showthre...wallace+seismic
It was in the Thread Titled "A Little More UA93 information"
So it turns out, I posted an article that mentions secondary explosions in the WTC towers, but it is clear from this post, and the sentence that I put in BOLD, that my focus was on Flight 93, since we were discussing Flight 93, not the WTC towers.
Read the rest of the thread and see if there is any discussion about the WTC towers. There is not.
So, I stick by my original statement, when I came onto this forum I WAS new to the discussion about possible bombing of the WTC towers.
Arthur
PS Frater, do you eat with that mouth?
zoktoberfest
4th December 2005 - 07:57 PM
Personally, I think that much of the posting on this thread is metaphorically akin, to arranging and re-arranging the deck chairs, on the doomed "Titanic". What you to need to understand is that devoted apparatchiks', like arthur, will be rewarded with a warm blanket, a secure seat in a life boat, while the skeptics will be turning various shades of blue as they succumb to the frigid waters, of the north Atlantic. Ironically, it was at arthurs' directive, as the on-board shipping representative, that the nervous captain maintained full speed ahead, under a moonless night, through the treacherous field of ice burgs. After all, his companies bragging rights and a shipping empire, were on the line. What frater is attempting to do is shock your "code blue" consciousness, in the hope of finding a pulse. Meanwhile, arthur is surfing the tsunami created by the emergence of the New World Order. He understands in his own way, that it's really fascism turned on its' head. Instead of an autocratic government, permitting corporate activity for the good of the state, a multinational corporate culture permits governmental activity, for the good of its' business interest. Halliburton is the poster child of this New World Order. Its' former C.E.O. is war (chicken) hawk, Cheney. He is the gold standard against which those that follow, will be judged. He melded his corporate and governmental posts into a seamless "corpro-ment" and now, the U.S. military is being used to pave the way for the profits of no-bid contract, multinational corporations. As arthur implied, early in this thread, find a way to serve your new master or get the hell off the grid. Advice from a man who knows how it's going down.
adoucette
4th December 2005 - 08:01 PM
Paranoid much?
Arthur
Guest
4th December 2005 - 09:04 PM
Whilst metamars restraint is a good example to us all in many ways it begs the question -
How are we to deal with those such as adoucette?
We cannot assume they are stupid, clearly he is not. So, when such as he has been exposed to much of the evidence over a number of years yet only offers nitpicking and obfuscation how are we to treat them?
metamars example of his kin and JFK may be instructive regarding the understanable tendency of those less informed to think the best rather than the worst of those we are assured have our interest at heart but it is not really applicable in relation to September 11. The evidence was not there in the case of JFK - it is there in abundance re Sept 11.
Are we (911 truth) not actually damaging our cause by treating the likes of adoucette as if they had something to offer, giving them credibility to those who may be less informed? I would add that a lot of valuable information has been posted by metamars Foxx et al in their exposure of adoucette for example and I have called those such as adoucette useful idiots in an earlier post but am of the mind they should be exposed as such, not treated as genuine. The subject is of such importance that this applies even if their motives are driven by their emotional problem facing reality. They are part of the problem.
In adoucettes case - frater has exposed him, no doubt. It is inconceivable to my mind that he has not come across references to WTC explosions in his research on flight 93, the internet does not work that way in reality.
When Dr Griffin made the statement -
"It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government."
-he was making a statement that I would assume some here regard as fact. The case has been proven, how to move it on is the next step and I for one think that treating the likes of adoucette with anything other than ridicule, it can be good humoured, is detrimental to the the objective.
Mel
4th December 2005 - 09:28 PM
QUOTE Foxx:
As I (personally) am convinced that the 'PNAC crew' were highly involved in these 'events'... I think they themselves should be throw off a cliff.
No, wait... maybe that is too good for them.
How about 'draw & quartering'?
No wait... even that is too quick... Let them rot in hell forever!!!
These bastards need to be publicly executed !
The punishment should fit the crime: Find a room on the 50th floor of a sky-scraper. Completely fire-proof the inside walls. Create a door on the outside wall. Fill the room with combustible materials. Lock the perps in the room and light the combustibles on fire. They may now choose to burn, or jump to their death.
metamars
4th December 2005 - 10:20 PM
| QUOTE | Whilst metamars restraint is a good example to us all in many ways it begs the question -
How are we to deal with those such as adoucette?
.
.
.
Are we (911 truth) not actually damaging our cause by treating the likes of adoucette as if they had something to offer, giving them credibility to those who may be less informed?
<br>=============================================
This post has undertones that I find kind of spooky. Even spookier than the fact that Xenon reported IP addresses of debunkers that trace back to Langley and Air Force Intelligence.
I do not view "911 Truth" as some type of religion, that needs to pass judgement on alleged shills, nor adopt a uniform teaching on "heretics". In my view, the main question that 911 begs is not so much which set of all the myriad details are the correct ones (and this includes the details of who is a shill and who honestly disagrees, even, perhaps, stupidly so), but rather, are enough of the details true such that we can conclude that the US is a sick, twisted entity that murders it's own citizens, in a manner sickenly reminiscent of the Third Reich, and what are we going to do about it?
My college degree is in physics and math, and I have some insight into the psychology and mindset of physicists and mathematicians. I do not believe that they will be very appreciative of many of the essentially non-scientific arguments layed out here, and some of the "logic" I have seen described herein strikes me as not even rising to the level of common sense. (My own recent gaffe regarding the effects of linear momentum conservation, before I had calculated it - is also an example of illogic that a forum can quickly expose.)
The name of this forum is physorg. Thus, I had hoped there would be a large number of people visiting who are not afraid to make calculations and post them. However, only Schneibster shows any propensity for doing so, besides my my own high-school physics calculations.
If you do not see the value in some of adoucette's postings, severely flawed as they often are, then that is your right. But if you want me or anybody else to collectively adopt the mindset of the Spanish Inquisition, please count me out. And I say this as somebody who firmly believes that 911 was an inside job and that ultimately, we are dealing with mass murderers who are not much better than Nazis.
Should you want further insight into my "philosophical" views on 911, I refer you to my post "On Martin Luther and 911" on therandirhodesshow.com forum.
I would suggest that, rather than spending time and bandwidth on questions such as "How are we to deal with those such as adoucette?", printing out the Jones, Hoffman, and Trumpman papers and taking them to a college near you, in particular the physics, engineering, and applied math departments.
If adoucette IS a shill, and your fascination with his posts or desire to "out" him is keeping you from doing something actually USEFUL, as mentioned above, then it would appear that he has performed his job rather well.
yesitdid
5th December 2005 - 03:07 AM
QUOTE (frater plecticus+Dec 3 2005, 10:08 PM) quote guest
| QUOTE | Congratulations frater, on making that at least 6 places on the web where that article appears now.
So sorry if the physics forum gets to 'technical' for you. Perhaps you would be better served by a more pedestrian forum that offers a more obtuse discussion of these events.
<br>Yeah, like Physics is going to solve the wtc collapse.
I mean, talk about a tempest in a teapot.
Sheesh.
Arthur Then why are you here at all?
What does the picture of a victim of the terrorist attack on the WTC towers have to do with the topic at hand here?
Tempest in a teapot I have to agree. Frater look down, your paranoia is showing.
BTW the 'guest' posting was me. I sometimes don't log on when posting fom other than my own 'puter.
yesitdid
5th December 2005 - 03:25 AM
QUOTE (Mel+Dec 4 2005, 09:28 PM) | QUOTE | Foxx:
As I (personally) am convinced that the 'PNAC crew' were highly involved in these 'events'... I think they themselves should be throw off a cliff.
No, wait... maybe that is too good for them.
How about 'draw & quartering'?
No wait... even that is too quick... Let them rot in hell forever!!!
These bastards need to be publicly executed !
<br> Ectra-judicially Foxx, or should there actually be a trial and evidence before they are executed? Taking lessons from a well known railroad person?
adoucette
5th December 2005 - 05:46 AM
NOW I KNOW WHY FRATER and others are going after my claim that I'm new to the conspiracy idea that we blew up the WTC towers. BECAUSE THEY NEVER ANSWERED THE QUESTIONS IN THE POST IT CAME FROM. To refresh Frater's, Foxx et al memory: QUOTE (adoucette+) I'm new to this conspiracy idea that we blew the WTC.
Is there a reasonably consistent theory as to WHY we would do so?
If one makes the assumption that we did then I take it the following are logical assumptions:
The Govt either knew of or was behind the hijackings.
The Govt either knew when or approx when the hijackings would take place.
The Govt installed significant numbers of explosives and associated wiring into the WTC1, 2 and 7 prior to 9/11
The Govt installed these under some ruse so as to not draw suspicion to the nature of all the boxes it was installing on the supporting structure of the WTC, nor the wiring.
The Govt installed these such that after installation their actual purpose could not be ascertained.
The Govt came up with some "alternate" explanation to satisfy building management of the purpose of all of these boxes and wiring.
The wiring and control system was structured such that it would still work after the WTC was hit anywhere by a 757 and after the structure had burned uncontrollably for a decent period of time.
The black boxes would have to be self powered in that a central source of power could not be assumed.
The black boxes would have to be "On" from the time they were set up, which would necessitate a reasonable size power supply.
The black boxes would have to be set off via radio transmission as no physical wiring would be possible.
The transmission would need to be "highly secure" such that accidental tripping would not be a concern, yet they would have to still work in an environment with potentially a lot of other transmissions and other RFI noise.
The person setting off the black boxes would have to be in a safe location that had good visual position to see both towers.
The person setting off the black boxes would need an independent power supply as local power could not be assured.
The transmitter would have to be strong enough to send a good signal to all receivers with little chance of missed signal.
The black boxes (thousands of them I presume) were of a nature that if their parts were discovered in the wreckage that their purpose would not raise suspicion.
The blasts were further "directed" so that few if any visible clues would be generated even though hundreds if not thousands of these explosives were going off in a very set pattern.
Though the WTC were clearly demolished by the jets and ensuing fires, and the people above the impact zones were doomed, there was some additional reason for them to collapse the towers.
Since Jets WERE used against the WTC, the conspiracy of not using a Jet for the Pentagon seems mutually exclusive. If the US was behind the Jets into the WTC it makes no sense to use a cruise missile against the Pentagon.
Just checking to see if these are logical assumptions from the "we did it" crowd.
Arthur
<br>So over a month has gone by and not a peep. Wassamatta U? Or are you just going to continue with the stirring posts that we should "string them up" along with the ad hominums about those who disagree with you? By the way, who should we "draw and quarter" and for what SPECIFICALLY? Assume you are the DA, what are your charges and what is your key evidence you would present to a Grand Jury to get an indictment? Arthur
Foxx
5th December 2005 - 06:37 AM
| QUOTE | Originally posted by Adoucette
NOW I KNOW WHY FRATER and others are going after my claim that I'm new to the conspiracy idea that we blew up the WTC towers.
BECAUSE THEY NEVER ANSWERED THE QUESTIONS IN THE POST IT CAME FROM.
To refresh Frater's, Foxx et al memory:
<br>I see only one question...amidst a long winded erroneous rhetorics post. Here's the one question I see...
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | Originally posted by Adoucette
NOW I KNOW WHY FRATER and others are going after my claim that I'm new to the conspiracy idea that we blew up the WTC towers.
BECAUSE THEY NEVER ANSWERED THE QUESTIONS IN THE POST IT CAME FROM.
To refresh Frater's, Foxx et al memory:
<br>I see only one question...amidst a long winded erroneous rhetorics post. Here's the one question I see...
I'm new to this conspiracy idea that we blew the WTC.
Is there a reasonably consistent theory as to WHY we would do so?
<br>As for myself, I found nothing to 'answer' to... I thought everyone knew the plausible answer, however - (seeing as you claim to have been living in a box for the past 4 years)...You might find some validly plausible answers in the links below. I guess you never heard about these issues either?
http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=9383
9/11: Possible Motives Of The Bush Administration :
- The 9/11 Attacks as "Opportunities"
- "A New Pearl Harbor" To Advance The Pax Americana
- Generating Funds For The US Space Command
- The Plan To Attack Afghanistan
- The Plan To Attack Iraq
Of course, you also know that Cheney's one of the biggest liars on the face of the earth, don't you? ...
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2005/3247...ie_dossier.html
Don't waste our time with responding, unless you have read and understood the above links. Thanks.
Ciao
frater plecticus
5th December 2005 - 08:46 AM
Q: ARE YOU GOD?
A: YES
QUESTION | QUOTE | What does the picture of a victim of the terrorist attack on the WTC towers have to do with the topic at hand here?
<br>ANSWERQUOTE (-> | QUOTE | What does the picture of a victim of the terrorist attack on the WTC towers have to do with the topic at hand here?
<br>ANSWERBasic Physics, Correct Analysis of WTC Towers Collapse
<br>adoucette
Posted: Oct 28 2005, 07:09 AM
| QUOTE | As you can see, I am a computer system designer for bank systems, as I said.
I am in the SEC files because I am an officer of the company and receive stock options in it.
<br>Arthur, as we know you are a registered entity on the security and exchanges commision (SEC), maybe you could get some information, being an "insider" and all that regarding the unusual trading in the SEC pre 9-11 .......Like, WHO WERE THE INSIDE TRADERS?
LINK
http://www.sec.gov/edgar/NYU/cik.coleft.c.back
DOUCETTE ARTHUR:0001061807
September 10, 2001: Alarm Bells Sound over Unusual Trading in US Stock Options Market
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | As you can see, I am a computer system designer for bank systems, as I said.
I am in the SEC files because I am an officer of the company and receive stock options in it.
<br>Arthur, as we know you are a registered entity on the security and exchanges commision (SEC), maybe you could get some information, being an "insider" and all that regarding the unusual trading in the SEC pre 9-11 .......Like, WHO WERE THE INSIDE TRADERS?
LINK
http://www.sec.gov/edgar/NYU/cik.coleft.c.back
DOUCETTE ARTHUR:0001061807
September 10, 2001: Alarm Bells Sound over Unusual Trading in US Stock Options Market
According to CBS News, in the afternoon before the attack, “alarm bells were sounding over unusual trading in the US stock options market.” It has been documented that the CIA, the Mossad, and many other intelligence agencies monitor stock trading in real time using highly advanced programs such as Promis. Both the FBI and the Justice Department have confirmed the use of such programs for US intelligence gathering through at least this summer. This would confirm that the CIA should have had additional advance warning of imminent attacks against American and United Airlines planes. [CBS News, 9/19/01] There are even allegations that *bin Laden was able to get a copy of Promis. [Fox News, 10/16/01]
People and organizations involved: Central Intelligence Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation, US Department of Justice, Israel Institute for Intelligence and Special Tasks, Promis
<a href='http://cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&before_9/11=insiderTrading' target='_blank' rel='nofollow'>insider trading
frater plecticus (page 21)
Posted: Oct 28 2005, 08:35 AM
Report Post
| QUOTE | Hey, you know Arthur, I do ask myself (after reading the previous 21 pages of posts again), why would anyone continue defending the Official Version of events surrounding 9-11, when all the "official" information in the public domain "flows" in another direction? The posture of Bin Laden as culprit is untenable.
These people can be divided into two groups.
1)People incapable of believing that their certain factions within their own government would be involved in such a heinous plan.
2)People directly (or indirectly) involved in the pre-production, production and execution of 9-11.
<br>[18 USC 1001]:
"Whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully– (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both."
But my favorite is this baby from the US government site on misinformation (i´m sure it is supposed to be ironic)
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | Hey, you know Arthur, I do ask myself (after reading the previous 21 pages of posts again), why would anyone continue defending the Official Version of events surrounding 9-11, when all the "official" information in the public domain "flows" in another direction? The posture of Bin Laden as culprit is untenable.
These people can be divided into two groups.
1)People incapable of believing that their certain factions within their own government would be involved in such a heinous plan.
2)People directly (or indirectly) involved in the pre-production, production and execution of 9-11.
<br>[18 USC 1001]:
"Whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully– (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both."
But my favorite is this baby from the US government site on misinformation (i´m sure it is supposed to be ironic)
Insider Trading
Allegation: 9/11 Revealed repeats long-standing rumors of “insider trading [based] on advance warnings of the attack.”
Facts: The 9/11 Commission examined this issue in detail, stating, in The 9/11 Commission Report (p. 499):
Highly publicized allegations of insider trading in advance of 9/11 generally rest on reports of unusual pre-9/11 trading activity in companies whose stock plummeted after the attacks. Some unusual trading did in fact occur, but each such trade proved to have an innocuous explanation. For example, the volume of put options – investments that pay off only when a stock drops in price – surged in the parent companies of United Airlines [UAL] on September 6 and American Airlines on September 10 – highly suspicious trading on its face. Yet, further investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection with 9/11. A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10. Similarly, much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10 was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades. These examples typify the evidence examined by the investigation. The SEC [Security and Exchange Commission] and the FBI [Federal Bureau of Investigation], aided by other agencies and the securities industry, devoted enormous resources to investigating this issue, including securing the cooperation of many foreign governments. These investigators have found that the apparently suspicious consistently proved innocuous.
<a href='http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Sep/16-241966.html' target='_blank' rel='nofollow'>http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005.../16-241966.html
WHO WAS THE SINGLE US-BASED INVESTOR, ARTHUR?
WHY AND HOW IS IT PROVED THAT IS IT "INCONCEIVABLE" THAT THE INVESTOR HAD TIES TO "AL-QAEDA"?
Hey, Arthur good job I´m not paranoid, or I would be publicly accusing you of "directly (or indirectly) being involved in the pre-production, production and execution of 9-11, and the subsequent (impossible) attempt to stop the flow of information damaging to the "official fairy-tale".
ON A DECENTRALIZED NETWORK SUCH AS INTERNET...
Don´t worry if you can´t find the answer quickly Arthur, It would be nice to know in the next couple of days, however. Remember, this could be the single biggest clue to finding the people responsible for the murder of 3000 innocent people in NYC on September 11th 2001.
Jacta alea est
frater plecticus
5th December 2005 - 11:15 AM
Allen Poteshman, a professor of finance at the University of Illinois, publishes a paper demonstrating that the insider trading in options on United and American airline stocks indicates someone profited from foreknowledge of 9/11.
| QUOTE | VI. Conclusion Options traders, corporate managers, security analysts, exchange officials, regulators, prosecutors, policy makers, and – at times – the public at large have an interest in knowing whether unusual option trading has occurred around certain events. A prime example of such an event is the September 11 terrorist attacks, and there was indeed a great deal of speculation about whether option market activity indicated that the terrorists or their associates had traded in the days leading up to September 11 on advanced knowledge of the impending attacks. This speculation, however, took place in the absence of an understanding of the relevant characteristics of option market trading. This paper begins by developing systematic information about the distribution of option market activity. It constructs benchmark distributions for option market volume statistics which measure in different ways the extent to which non-market maker volume establishes option market positions which will be profitable if the underlying stock price rises or falls in value. The distributions of these statistics are calculated both unconditionally and when conditioning on the overall level of option activity on the underlying stock, the return and trading volume on the underlying stock, and the return on the overall market. These distributions are then used to judge whether the option market trading in AMR, UAL, the Standard and Poor’s airline index, and the S&P 500 market index in the days leading up to September 11 was, in fact, unusual. The option market volume ratios considered do not provide evidence of unusual option market trading in the days leading up to September 11. The volume ratios, however, are constructed out of long and short put volume and long and short call volume, while simply buying puts would have been the most straightforward way for someone to have traded in the option market on foreknowledge of the attacks. A measure of abnormal long put volume was also examined and seen to be at abnormally high levels in the days leading up to the attacks.
Consequently, the paper concludes that there is evidence of unusual option market activity in the days leading up to September 11 which is consistent with investors trading on advanced knowledge of the attacks.
<br>http://www.business.uiuc.edu/poteshma/Work...10March2004.pdf
LIKE FATHER LIKE SON ?
GEORGE BUSH: THE UNAUTHORIZED BIOGRAPHY byWebster Griffin Tarpley and Anton Chaitkin
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | VI. Conclusion Options traders, corporate managers, security analysts, exchange officials, regulators, prosecutors, policy makers, and – at times – the public at large have an interest in knowing whether unusual option trading has occurred around certain events. A prime example of such an event is the September 11 terrorist attacks, and there was indeed a great deal of speculation about whether option market activity indicated that the terrorists or their associates had traded in the days leading up to September 11 on advanced knowledge of the impending attacks. This speculation, however, took place in the absence of an understanding of the relevant characteristics of option market trading. This paper begins by developing systematic information about the distribution of option market activity. It constructs benchmark distributions for option market volume statistics which measure in different ways the extent to which non-market maker volume establishes option market positions which will be profitable if the underlying stock price rises or falls in value. The distributions of these statistics are calculated both unconditionally and when conditioning on the overall level of option activity on the underlying stock, the return and trading volume on the underlying stock, and the return on the overall market. These distributions are then used to judge whether the option market trading in AMR, UAL, the Standard and Poor’s airline index, and the S&P 500 market index in the days leading up to September 11 was, in fact, unusual. The option market volume ratios considered do not provide evidence of unusual option market trading in the days leading up to September 11. The volume ratios, however, are constructed out of long and short put volume and long and short call volume, while simply buying puts would have been the most straightforward way for someone to have traded in the option market on foreknowledge of the attacks. A measure of abnormal long put volume was also examined and seen to be at abnormally high levels in the days leading up to the attacks.
Consequently, the paper concludes that there is evidence of unusual option market activity in the days leading up to September 11 which is consistent with investors trading on advanced knowledge of the attacks.
<br>http://www.business.uiuc.edu/poteshma/Work...10March2004.pdf
LIKE FATHER LIKE SON ?
GEORGE BUSH: THE UNAUTHORIZED BIOGRAPHY byWebster Griffin Tarpley and Anton Chaitkin
At the heart of any effort at biography is the attempt to discover the
essence of the subject as a human personality. The essential character of
the subject is what the biographer must strive to capture, since this is
the indispensable ingredient that will provide coherence to the entire
story whose unity must be provided by the course of a single human life.
During the preparation of the present work, there was one historical moment
which more than any other delineated the character of George Bush. The
scene was the Nixon White House during the final days of the Watergate
debacle. White House officials, including George Bush, had spent the
morning of that Monday, August 5, 1974 absorbing the impact of Nixon's
notorious "smoking gun" tape, the recorded conversation between Nixon and
his chief of staff, H.R. Haldemann, shortly after the original Watergate
break-in, which could now no longer be withheld from the public. In that
exchange of June 23, 1972, Nixon ordered that the CIA stop the FBI from
further investigating how various sums of money found their way from Texas
and Minnesota via Mexico City to the coffers of the Committee to Re-Elect
the President (CREEP) and thence into the pockets of the "Plumbers"
arrested in the Democratic Party headquarters in the Watergate building.
These revelations were widely interpreted as establishing a "prima facie"
case of obstruction of justice against Nixon. That was fine with George,
who sincerely wanted his patron and benefactor Nixon to resign. George's
great concern was that the smoking gun tape called attention to a
money-laundering mechanism which he, together with Bill Liedtke of
Pennzoil, and Robert Mosbacher, had helped to set up at Nixon's request.
When Nixon, in the "smoking gun" tape, talked about "the Texans" and "some
Texas people," Bush, Liedtke, and Mosbacher were among the most prominent
of those referred to. The threat to George's political ambitions was great.
The White House that morning was gripped by panic. Nixon would be gone
before the end of the week. In the midst of the furor, White House
Congressional liaison William Timmons wanted to know if everyone who needed
to be informed had been briefed about the smoking gun transcript. In a
roomful of officials, some of whom were already sipping Scotch to steady
their nerves, Timmons asked Dean Burch, "Dean, does Bush know about the
transcript yet?"
"Yes," responded Burch.
"Well, what did he do?" inquired Timmons.
"He broke out into assholes and *** himself to death," replied Burch.
In this exchange, which is recorded in Woodward and Bernstein's "The Final
Days," we grasp the essential George Bush, in a crisis, and for all
seasons.
<a href='http://plectic.com/wtc/bushbook.zip' target='_blank' rel='nofollow'>COMPLETE BOOK 1MB HTML ZIP
Copy of Allen Poteshman´s paper
http://plectic.com/wtc/maths.pdf
Guest
5th December 2005 - 02:10 PM
QUOTE (frater plecticus+Dec 5 2005, 08:46 AM) QUESTION | QUOTE | What does the picture of a victim of the terrorist attack on the WTC towers have to do with the topic at hand here?
<br>ANSWERQUOTE (-> | QUOTE | What does the picture of a victim of the terrorist attack on the WTC towers have to do with the topic at hand here?
<br>ANSWERBasic Physics, Correct Analysis of WTC Towers Collapse
<br> Hmm, yes I see it now. When someone jumps out a window of a very tall building because the conditions inside that building are such that jumping will at least end the pain, they will fall to their death hundreds of feet below.
Physics meets biology.
Then again, please expand on how this will answer the question about how the towers fell.
adoucette
5th December 2005 - 02:13 PM
Frater, Being on that SEC list means they track MY trades in CANI stock to see if I'm engaging in INSIDER trading in CANI stock. Anyone who is an officer of any publicly traded company is tracked by the SEC for the same reason. I'm not allowed to buy/sell any CANI stock in a 6 week period prior to each quarter close. If I do, that SEC list will be used to flag the trade. QUOTE (Frater "GOD"+) Arthur, as we know you are a registered entity on the security and exchanges commision (SEC), maybe you could get some information, being an "insider" and all that regarding the unusual trading in the SEC pre 9-11 .......Like, WHO WERE THE INSIDE TRADERS? <br> It is amazing to me the BS you can spin out of an unrelated "fact". Yes, I'm on a list at the SEC. But No, I don't have any more information on what the SEC does than you do. QUOTE (Frater "GOD"+) WHO WAS THE SINGLE US-BASED INVESTOR, ARTHUR?
WHY AND HOW IS IT PROVED THAT IS IT "INCONCEIVABLE" THAT THE INVESTOR HAD TIES TO "AL-QAEDA"?
<br>Beats me. Why was it proved? Because if the person DID have knowledge his butt would be in jail How was it proved? As the article says, it was an INSTITUTIONAL investor. That means the guy was investing OTHER PEOPLES FUNDS. Thus he didn't stand to make big bucks from this investment. The article doesn't give much evidence to work with, but the fact that he BOUGHT American airline stocks and PUT United is a clue that this was probably a Stock Market Analyst who probably specialized in this industry. If he had a long record of such PUTS and BUYS then these would just be normal trades. But I'm just guessing. Arthur
metamars
5th December 2005 - 03:24 PM
Back to the Micro-NukesI recently reread most of the article by the Finnish military expert, found at http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/soldier5.htmOne of the obvious features of the WTC 1&2 demolitions is the upward directed "clouds" one sees at the top of the builiding. Hardly evidence of a gravity driven collapse, but hey, that's just my opinion! Anyway, I've long wondered what the reason was for the massive explosion reported by William Rodriguez in the basement of the WTC tower he was in. I understand how destroying a portion of all the central columns at the bottom could bias the collapse to occur inwardly. However, the notion that an explosion in the basement could somehow destroy the central columns all along their length strikes me as silly. Rereading the work of our Finnish friend, though, I see that he believes that not only were micro-nukes used, but that they were directed micro-nukes. This is what "bunker busters" amount to. I don't know why this didn't sink in previously, but this notion fits well with a localized source of explosion, and the fact that the columns were demolished along their entire lengths. If would also explain how Rodriguez could possibly survive - he was not in the path of the directed weapon, which was pointing upwards. Unfortunately, while our Finnish friend tells us that the extreme heat of a micro nuke would sublimate steel directly (which is why we don't observe liquid steel splattering around) he does not tell us how precisely the length of the directed blast can be controlled (though he does say it can extend hundreds of meters). He suggests that the blast can be tailored to the desired strength, though he is short on specifics: | QUOTE |
While looking for a bomb with a small size and a strong effect, a pure hydrogen bomb was an obvious solution. When no atomic device is needed for igniting, the size of the hydrogen bomb gets even smaller and the yield (effect) can be set within a wide range, for example between from 1 to 100. This succeeded in the 1980's, as well as the neutron bomb, which kills only living things and leaves most material untouched.
The former Soviet Union is said to have had more than 500 command centers durable for a small nuke. That led into the developing of different types of bunker busters. A working solution is a nuclear missile that directs 96% of its yield into a thin, all penetrating heat+blast wave forward, tunneling hundreds of meters downwards into solid rock. This type of a hydrogen bomb was developed somewhere in the early 1990's. Nowadays, both the yield and the direction of the destructive force of a small tactical hydrogen bomb can be somewhat controlled. The amount of fusion-able materials control the yield (effect) and the shape of the charge as well as the initiation arrangements impress the direction of the explosion wave.
<br>Now, consider further that, when you look at the photos of the ejecta, you see nothing but either large chunks of building, or powder.
http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/w3.jpg
You DON'T see people, desks, garbage cans, filing cabinets, hole punchers, copy machines, staplers, toilets, pipes, etc., etc.
How can this be?
Well, a micro-nuke would "cook" most of whatever it would destroy.
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE |
While looking for a bomb with a small size and a strong effect, a pure hydrogen bomb was an obvious solution. When no atomic device is needed for igniting, the size of the hydrogen bomb gets even smaller and the yield (effect) can be set within a wide range, for example between from 1 to 100. This succeeded in the 1980's, as well as the neutron bomb, which kills only living things and leaves most material untouched.
The former Soviet Union is said to have had more than 500 command centers durable for a small nuke. That led into the developing of different types of bunker busters. A working solution is a nuclear missile that directs 96% of its yield into a thin, all penetrating heat+blast wave forward, tunneling hundreds of meters downwards into solid rock. This type of a hydrogen bomb was developed somewhere in the early 1990's. Nowadays, both the yield and the direction of the destructive force of a small tactical hydrogen bomb can be somewhat controlled. The amount of fusion-able materials control the yield (effect) and the shape of the charge as well as the initiation arrangements impress the direction of the explosion wave.
<br>Now, consider further that, when you look at the photos of the ejecta, you see nothing but either large chunks of building, or powder.
http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/w3.jpg
You DON'T see people, desks, garbage cans, filing cabinets, hole punchers, copy machines, staplers, toilets, pipes, etc., etc.
How can this be?
Well, a micro-nuke would "cook" most of whatever it would destroy.
As seen in the following pictures, the cores of the towers were not distracted by thousands of powerful cutting charges but by a modern thermonuclear explosive, a small hydrogen bomb. In the picture below, a hydrogen bomb explosion, the bomb having been placed in the cellar and directed to the core, has reached the roof of the tower and the upper parts of the outer walls. On its way up the waves of fire pressure partially penetrated about 100 floors of concrete and steel. Over ten million degrees of heat caused by a hydrogen bomb sublimised all water within the concrete in a moment. Water exploded extremely quickly into 24-fold volume and totally pulverized the concrete. Even people and computers that were in the buildings disappeared turning into heat and light. That is why almost nothing of them was found in the ruins.
Burning radiation is absorbed in steel so quickly that steel heats up immediately over its melting point 1585 °C (approx. 2890 °F) and above its boiling point around 3000 C (approx. 5430 °F). In the pictures down below, super hot groups of steel pillars and columns, torn from wall by pressure wave, are sublimized. They immediately turn into a vaporized form, binding heat as quickly as possible. Bursts upwards, even visible in the picture below, are not possible for a gravitational collapse or for cutting charges which are used horizontally.
<br>
This hypothesis would also explain another (somewhat minor) mystery. And that is, that some of the squibs are FAR below the collapse zone. (20 floors below the bottom of the falling rubble, IIRC, and that. in turn, is below the actual collapse zone)
Our Finnish friend claims that cutter charges were used to break the external columns. So, why did the cutter charges go off so far below the collapse zone? Well, perhaps they DIDN'T. I.e., the pressure from the vaporized core may have simply overwhelmed the windows at a lower floor before their appropriate time.
Of course, a micro-nuke vaporizing steel would be expected to have really strange effects on non-vaporized steel. Is there any evidence of this? Read it and weep (note: Hoffman just interprest this as evidence for explosves, not necessarily nuclear explosives):
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/m...urgy/index.html
| QUOTE |
Forensic Metallurgy
Metallurgical Examination of WTC Steel Suggests Explosives
Although virtually all of the structural steel from the Twin Towers and Building 7 was removed and destroyed, preventing forensic analysis, FEMA's volunteer investigators did manage to perform “limited metallurgical examination” of some of the steel before it was recycled. Their observations, including numerous micrographs, are recorded in Appendix C of the WTC Building Performance Study. Prior to the release of FEMA's report, a fire protection engineer and two science professors published a brief report in JOM disclosing some of this evidence. 1
The results of the examination are striking. They reveal a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused "intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese." The New York Times described this as "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation." 2 WPI provides a graphic summary of the phenomenon.
<br>
adoucette
5th December 2005 - 04:31 PM
Guest
5th December 2005 - 04:37 PM
metamars, you appear to have misunderstood my post - you say -
"If adoucette IS a shill, and your fascination with his posts or desire to "out" him is keeping you from doing something actually USEFUL, as mentioned above, then it would appear that he has performed his job rather well."
Maybe my own fault but I was trying to achieve the opposite of what you took out of it.
It was not specifically about adoucette, he is just a prime example. I would argue that, "if he is a shill", by giving such as him any credibility means he would have, "perfomed his job rather well". Like Foxx has said it matters not a jot if they are shills or not, they wont impress the independent mind familiar with the evidence, my concern is that responding to the obfuscation AS IF it is worthy of a serious response gives them a credibility they do not deserve and may therefore be counterproductive to the goal of acheiving the critical mass needed to bring about an independent inquiry.
I made no suggestion that would require anyone to "adopt the mindset of the Spanish Inquisition", I merely suggested that informative good humoured ridicule would be appropriate.
Every aspect of the official tale regarding September 11 is farcical, to let wordsmiths tie such as yourself down with what is essentially nitpicking seems to me to be a waste of valuable time and resources which could be employed furthering the cause of an independent inquiry. Nothing religious or spooky about it.
With respect, after reading your Martin Luther ... I wonder why you choose to waste time and bandwidth on adoucette and his ilk.
adoucette
5th December 2005 - 04:51 PM
QUOTE (metamars+Dec 5 2005, 03:24 PM) Back to the Micro-NukesI recently reread most of the article by the Finnish military expert, found at http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/soldier5.htmOne of the obvious features of the WTC 1&2 demolitions is the upward directed "clouds" one sees at the top of the builiding. Hardly evidence of a gravity driven collapse, but hey, that's just my opinion! Anyway, I've long wondered what the reason was for the massive explosion reported by William Rodriguez in the basement of the WTC tower he was in. I understand how destroying a portion of all the central columns at the bottom could bias the collapse to occur inwardly. However, the notion that an explosion in the basement could somehow destroy the central columns all along their length strikes me as silly. Rereading the work of our Finnish friend, though, I see that he believes that not only were micro-nukes used, but that they were directed micro-nukes. This is what "bunker busters" amount to. I don't know why this didn't sink in previously, but this notion fits well with a localized source of explosion, and the fact that the columns were demolished along their entire lengths. If would also explain how Rodriguez could possibly survive - he was not in the path of the directed weapon, which was pointing upwards. Unfortunately, while our Finnish friend tells us that the extreme heat of a micro nuke would sublimate steel directly (which is why we don't observe liquid steel splattering around) he does not tell us how precisely the length of the directed blast can be controlled (though he does say it can extend hundreds of meters). He suggests that the blast can be tailored to the desired strength, though he is short on specifics: | QUOTE |
While looking for a bomb with a small size and a strong effect, a pure hydrogen bomb was an obvious solution. When no atomic device is needed for igniting, the size of the hydrogen bomb gets even smaller and the yield (effect) can be set within a wide range, for example between from 1 to 100. This succeeded in the 1980's, as well as the neutron bomb, which kills only living things and leaves most material untouched.
The former Soviet Union is said to have had more than 500 command centers durable for a small nuke. That led into the developing of different types of bunker busters. A working solution is a nuclear missile that directs 96% of its yield into a thin, all penetrating heat+blast wave forward, tunneling hundreds of meters downwards into solid rock. This type of a hydrogen bomb was developed somewhere in the early 1990's. Nowadays, both the yield and the direction of the destructive force of a small tactical hydrogen bomb can be somewhat controlled. The amount of fusion-able materials control the yield (effect) and the shape of the charge as well as the initiation arrangements impress the direction of the explosion wave.
<br>Now, consider further that, when you look at the photos of the ejecta, you see nothing but either large chunks of building, or powder.
http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/w3.jpg
You DON'T see people, desks, garbage cans, filing cabinets, hole punchers, copy machines, staplers, toilets, pipes, etc., etc.
How can this be?
Well, a micro-nuke would "cook" most of whatever it would destroy.
The description of how a bunker buster works in inaccurate. It is NOT a focused Nuclear Explosion, it burrows in and then explodes CONVENTIONALLY.
See: http://www.fas.org/faspir/2001/v54n1/weapons.htm
As to a "pure Hydrogen Bomb", please provide ANY reputable reference to same.
We are essentially trying to create a tiny version of a "pure hydrogen bomb" as we experiment with Nuclear Fusion.
Ever look at what it takes to make Hydrogen Fuse WITHOUT resorting to use of a Fission bomb?
The idea that we have developed the technology to do so and package it into a warhead strains credulity.
As to your picture of the WTC collapse, well what is clear is this is probably the best picture yet of material falling faster than the towers.
Other than that, the distance is such that the resolution (pixel size) is such that one COULD NOT make out most of the things you suggest as they would be too small (and of course most things, like desks wouldn't be in one piece anyway). In contrast, look at the piece of the exterior that is falling sideways to the camera. You can use it to estimate the size of other pieces. What you quickly realize is that any piece that is less then about 1 foot is going to be pretty much a speck in the photo.
So even your categorization that it was 'powder' is not necessarily accurate. At that distance a large marble would look like powder. I do think a LOT of it WAS powder, but don't try to read too much into the picture.
Arthur
frater plecticus
5th December 2005 - 05:55 PM
Arthur
| QUOTE | but don't try to read too much into the picture
<br>Yeah, we might find some truth....
Arthur
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | but don't try to read too much into the picture
<br>Yeah, we might find some truth....
Arthur
...Frater look downright civil in comparison.
<br>Thanks.
Arthur
| QUOTE | Because if the person DID have knowledge his butt would be in jail.
Seeing as the culprits are still occupying the whitehouse, I somehow doubt it.
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | Because if the person DID have knowledge his butt would be in jail.
Seeing as the culprits are still occupying the whitehouse, I somehow doubt it.
They reveal a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused "intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese." The New York Times described this as "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation."
<br>What is the BOLING POINT of carbon-reinforced steel?
metamars
5th December 2005 - 06:52 PM
| QUOTE | With respect, after reading your Martin Luther ... I wonder why you choose to waste time and bandwidth on adoucette and his ilk.
<br>Two reasons.
First, not every every fact or argument he posts is wrong. Thus, there's some benefit to having him contribute to the board, even if your worse suspicions about what master he is truly serving are correct. If you pretend everything he says is wrong, you certainly aren't going to come across as fair and objective.
Secondly, this board is called physorg.com. Yet, mosts of the posters aren't the Ph.D. level types (or even M.S. types) that I'd hope would post here. A board which takes up a lot of space trying to "out" shills is going to scare away exactly the types of posters who I wish would contribute. For exactly this reason, it also displeases me when people post insults, whether they are on my side of the debate, or not.
Let me ask you a question. What is the best way to encourage working, Ph.D. level physicists and engineers to contribute to this thread?
adoucette
5th December 2005 - 06:58 PM
QUOTE (frater plecticus+Dec 5 2005, 05:55 PM) Arthur
| QUOTE | but don't try to read too much into the picture
<br>Yeah, we might find some truth....
Arthur
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | but don't try to read too much into the picture
<br>Yeah, we might find some truth....
Arthur
Because if the person DID have knowledge his butt would be in jail.
Seeing as the culprits are still occupying the whitehouse, I somehow doubt it. Obviously you think TRUTH is EASY to come by.
Determining the size of particles from that photo is not something that is physically possible.
As to the last:
Since you have repeatedly stated that they are guilty:
Assume you are the DA, who are you charging, what are your charges and what is your key evidence that you would present to a Grand Jury to get an indictment?
Why will you not answer this most BASIC question?
Arthur
frater plecticus
5th December 2005 - 07:23 PM
| QUOTE | Obviously you think TRUTH is EASY to come by.
<br>No, but it is self-evident.
THE CHARGES ARE
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | Obviously you think TRUTH is EASY to come by.
<br>No, but it is self-evident.
THE CHARGES ARE
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PHILIP J. BERG, ESQ.
Attorney for Plaintiff
706 Ridge Pike
Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania 19444-1711
Telephone (610) 825-3134
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
WILLIAM RODRIGUEZ,
Plaintiff, No.
-against- COMPLAINT IN CIVIL ACTION
1. GEORGE HERBERT WALKER BUSH, TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED
2. GEORGE WALKER BUSH,3. JOHN “JEB” BUSH,
4. NEIL MALLON BUSH,
5. MARVIN BUSH,
6. RICHARD CHENEY,
7. DONALD H. RUMSFELD,
8. DOV ZAKHEIM,
9. COLIN POWELL,
10. RICHARD ARMITAGE,
11. CONDOLEEZA RICE,
12. JOHN ASHCROFT,
13. ROBERT S. MUELLER III,
14. DAVID FRASCA,
15. GEORGE J. TENET,
16. PORTER GOSS,
17. NORMAN Y. MINETA,
18. LARRY K. ARNOLD,
19. TOM RIDGE,
20. MARK RACICOT,
21. THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE, INC.,
22. ALAN GREENSPAN,
23. THOMAS A. KEAN,
24. JAMIE S. GORELICK,
25. PHILLIP D. ZELIKOW,
26. JOHN F. LEHMAN,
27. FRED F. FIELDING,
28. KARL ROVE,
29. THOMAS DeLAY,
30. RICHARD PERLE,
31. PAUL WOLFOWITZ
32. RICHARD MYERS,
33. RALPH E. EBERHART,
34. KENNETH R. FEINBERG,
35. HALLIBURTON COMPANY,
36. KELLOG BROWN & ROOT SERVICES,
37. THE PROJECT FOR THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY, INC.,
38. ELECTION SYSTEMS & SOFTWARE,
39. DIEBOLD VOTING SYSTEMS, INC.,
40. WALDEN O’DELL,
41. SEQUOIA VOTING SYSTEMS, INC.
42. CHUCK HAGEL,
43. SAXBY CHAMBLISS,
44. NEW BRIDGE STRATEGIES, LLC
45. JOE M. ALLBAUGH,
46. JAMES A. BAKER III,
47. JOHN SWEENEY,
48. MATTHEW SCHLAPP,
49. THOMAS PYLE,
50. MICHAEL MURPHY,
51. GARRY MALPHRUS,
52. CHARLES ROYAL,
53. KEVIN SMITH,
54. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
55. THE UNITED STATES. DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY,
56. THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
AGENCY; and
57. DOE #1 Through DOE #100,
PAGE 37
88. The essence of Plaintiff’s complaint is that a classic RICO “Enterprise,” having
gained control of key offices and instrumentalities of the United States government (including
semi-Constitutional “black ops” organizations, such as the CIA and FEMA) and the Armed
Forces, are guilty of (among other crimes that are “predicate acts” under RICO) kidnapping,
arson, and murder including, but not limited to, the carrying out of the 9-11 terror attacks that
resulted in the death of nearly 3,000 persons.
89. As will be described in more detail below, Plaintiff alleges that in carrying out, or
causing the air defenses of the United States to “stand down” so as to ensure the success of the 9- 11 attacks, the motives of the Enterprise included (but were not necessarily limited to) the
following:
a. To create and to maintain a climate of fear throughout the United States;
b. To create and to maintain a climate in which neither the public, the media,
nor Congress would resist or consider critically plans already made in
secret to launch military attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq;
c. By military action in Afghanistan, to secure a right-of-way for a natural
gas pipeline, for the benefit of private interests related to the Enterprise;
d. To benefit Kenneth Lay – the largest contributor to the Bush II
presidential campaign – and Enron Corporation, both by diverting public
attention away from the crimes committed by Enron executives and, if
possible, to enable Enron to avoid bankruptcy by helping to rescue
Enron’s troubled facility in Bhopal, India;25
e. By deposing the conservative Muslim clerics of the Taliban, to reverse the
clerics’ suppression of opium cultivation in Afghanistan;
f. By restoring large-scale opium production in Afghanistan, to re-establish
markets of opium and heroin trafficking that directly benefit CIA and
others’ “black ops,” and the vast proceeds of which are deposited to
financial institutions, thereby directly and indirectly benefiting the
Enterprise (certain of whom, notably Jeb Bush and other members of the
Bush family, upon information and belief, are intimately involved with
laundering drug and other criminal proceeds of Enterprise activities, for
which they are compensated with deposits to offshore accounts controlled
by them);
g. By overthrowing Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq, to remove a perceived
threat to the government of Israel;
h. By overthrowing Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq, to obtain by force
access to permanent military bases on Iraqi soil. (Retired Gen. Jay
Garner, who was in charge of planning and administering postwar
i. By overthrowing Saddam Hussein, establishing permanent military bases
in Iraq, and installing a government which, however the same might be
adorned with trappings of “democracy” and “sovereignty,” would lack
effective sovereignty, given limits on its power, a de facto U.S. veto over
its acts and appointments, provisions being imposed to exempt U.S.
civilian and military personnel from liability for crimes, including murder,
torture, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the spoliation of the
environment resulting from, among other things, the use of depleted
uranium-containing munitions, and the ongoing presence of hundreds of
thousands of heavily armed U.S. and other “coalition” forces on its
territory;
j. To ensure access to — indeed, control of — the petroleum of Iraq,
constituting the second-largest known reserves of any country (after Saudi
Arabia);
k. To eliminate or reduce any U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia, (a
sensitive issue especially given the precariousness of the Saudi rulers’
political situation in difficult economic times, and a source of particular
resentment amongst Muslims, due to the location of the holy sites of
Mecca and Medina in the Saudi kingdom) by taking, in effect at gunpoint,
long-term basing rights in Iraq;
l. To create political and military pressure against Iran through a substantial
and ongoing U.S. military presence in Afghanistan and Iraq;
m. To carry out one or several projected “regime changes” as advocated by
Wolfowitz and other “neo-cons,” and envisaged in the manifesto of the
Project for a New American Century; Jim Lobe, “Chalabi, Garner Provide New Clues to War,” Inter Press Service News Agency,
n. To create a political climate (fear and uncritical patriotic fervor) favorable
to the passage of unconstitutional legislation included in the “Patriot Act,”
and tolerance for extensive surveillance and the suppression of dissent;
o. To increase military and related spending at the expense of U.S. taxpayers,
while the wealthiest Americans receive unprecedented tax cuts;
p. By increases in military spending, to conceal misappropriation of monies
already appropriated for that purpose, and to bring about the award of
large, mostly “no-bid” contracts to Halliburton, Brown and Root, various
corporate “armies” (mercenaries) and contractors favorable to the
Enterprise;
q. To efface from the consciousness of the public the revelations made by
Defense Secretary Rumsfeld shortly before 9-11 that roughly one-fourth of
the nation’s vast military expenditures are disappearing, and cannot be
accounted for;
r. To keep from widespread public attention that Federal Reserve Chairman
Alan Greenspan, and financial institutions extensively tied to the
Enterprise, were accused of manipulating the price of gold over a period
of years, concealing their acts and, and lying about it;
s. To destroy records maintained in the World Trade Center offices of the
FBI, SEC, and other government agencies of investigations into the
burgeoning (but since unnoticed) gold price-fixing scandal, and possible
crimes committed in connection therewith, as well as literally thousands of
other corporate scandals under SEC investigation;28
t. To enable persons connected with the Enterprise to reap millions in profits
from short sales and put options on stocks of companies including the
affected air carriers (American and United) and companies based in the
World Trade Center;
u. To create and to maintain the illusion of George W. Bush, a corruptlyinstalled
President with an under-reported history of serious, long-term
alcohol and cocaine abuse, whose successes in life had been attributable to
amiability, amorality, and family connections, as a “strong leader” in a
phony “war against terrorism,” a significant part of such “terrorism” to be
created by the Enterprise itself;
v. To distract the attention of voters and financial markets from corporate
scandals, a stock market that dropped approximately 900 points just in the
three weeks immediately preceding 9-11, the outsourcing of American
jobs to foreign countries, outrageous favoritism benefiting the very rich,
and disastrous environmental policies;29
w. To distract public scrutiny away from the Cheney energy-policy group and
its formulating energy policy for the Bush II Administration as a virtual
“wish-list” for the fossil fuel companies;
x. To reward Larry Silverstein, the principal of Silverstein Properties (lessee
of the World Trade Center) and friend of Rupert Murdock (right-wing
media baron, and ardent Bush supporter) for his aid and assistance in
effecting and concealing the crimes involving the destruction of the World
Trade Center, by conspiring to commit a multi-billion dollar insurance
fraud, redounding to Silverstein’s benefit;
y. To prepare for future, even more odious operations (the launching of wars
overseas, possible martial law and wide-scale extra-judicial detentions and
killings within the United States) by testing the extent to which the
“mainstream,” corporate-controlled mass media will fail to report, or will
under-report, information concerning crimes committed by the Enterprise,
or otherwise unfavorable to the Enterprise and its principals;
z. By carrying out a relatively small-scale operation that, while disguised for
public consumption as an act of “Islamic terror,” would be recognized by
senior government and military figures as what it was — treason and mass
murder — thereby permitting the Enterprise to further corrupt the
government and the military, drive many government employees and
military officers loyal to the Constitution and not approving of the attacks
into retirement, and allowing the Enterprise to identify, isolate and
neutralize dissenters in sensitive positions, in anticipation of later, larger
operations yet to be carried out.
<br>http://plectic.com/wtc/RodriguezvsBush.pdf
THE CHARGE IS MURDER ARTHUR.
adoucette
5th December 2005 - 07:53 PM
Great, that's 2 of 3.
Now where is the evidence that any of these gave an order for the US Air Defenses to Stand Down?
Second, I don't think many on that list could give said order, so I'm not sure how they fit in, but hey, I'll let that slide.
Third, where is any evidence that the US Air Defenses DID stand down?
You ARE AWARE, are you not, that there is no conceivable way for anyone to have possibly stopped the FIRST jet from hitting the WTC tower.
You ARE AWARE, are you not, that even if the OTIS fighters made it to NYC before the second plane had hit, there were no Rules of Engagement that would have allowed them to shoot it down.
You ARE AWARE, are you not, that at or about the time said ROEs were established the 4th and final jet had crashed in a field in Penn.
Arthur
PS Can you actually charge the United States of America with a crime?
frater plecticus
5th December 2005 - 08:38 PM
I´d say we´ve pretty much covered the evidence over the last 85 pages or so, Maybe if you bothered reading the lawsuit. http://plectic.com/wtc/RodriguezvsBush.pdfTHE ONLY THING I AM SURE OF, from the swiss cheese metal, atomized bodies, the insider trading to the impossible phone-calls and indestructible passports, the evidence implicating the upper echelons of American Politics in the planning, production and execution of 9-11 is absolute and on MILLIONS OF PAGES on internet. Arthur..like I said before, this is about more than 9-11... It´s about the scientific paradigm. "an absolute act in a relative world" The quantity of information that SUPPORTS THE OFFICIAL CONSPIRACY STORY is minimal, and you know, it all comes from the same source... Why are you "false opposition" Arthur ? Vaporized steel cannot be explained by the official conspiracy story. Which conspiracy story would be required to vaporize steel? Hey, you don´t have to call me "God", that´s my formal name, Frater´s just fine.. Just directed my first videoclip, I´m just finishing the post-production... It´s in Spanish. not exactly related to physics... http://plectic.com/films/delito_first_cut.mov
adoucette
5th December 2005 - 09:02 PM
Talk about a shuck and jive.
You post that the charges are based on US Air Defenses being told to stand down.
Then when I ask for evidence of same you point to the last 85 pages.
None of which deal with that topic.
What you post is:
| QUOTE | THE ONLY THING I AM SURE OF, from the swiss cheese metal, atomized bodies, the insider trading to the impossible phone-calls and indestructible passports, the evidence implicating the upper echelons of American Politics in the planning, production and execution of 9-11 is absolute and on MILLIONS OF PAGES on internet.
<br>I can't recall any actual detail discussion about "swiss cheese metal" though it has been mentioned a few times. Not sure the relevance.
Don't recall any discussion about atomized bodies. Not sure the relevance.
You haven't shown that any of the named individuals were involved in any insider trading re Airline stocks pre 9/11.
I can't recall any detailed discussion of 'impossible' phone calls, though I have seen a lot of BS about them being impossible (which if you fly as often as I do you KNOW that not being able to call from a plane is BS as having phones go off as we descend or takeoff is not that uncommon (can't recall one while at cruise, but on 9/11 the jets quickly vacated cruising altitude))
Indestructible Passports? I can see a passport inside a briefcase surviving. We know material went right through the tower, as they say, CaCa Occurs.
The Evidence is ABSOLUTE, but the above is the best you can provide?
NONE of the ABOVE is evidence of ANYTHING.
Millions of pages on the Internet.
Well NOW THAT is damning.
Why didn't you say so in the first place.
Arthur
frater plecticus
5th December 2005 - 09:17 PM
Arthur
| QUOTE | Then when I ask for evidence of same you point to the last 85 pages.
I can´t be held responsible for your attention deficit disorder..
metamars
5th December 2005 - 09:25 PM
Frater! This is not swiss cheese! http://www.trygve.com/bg_swisscheese_310.jpgIt is PROVOLONE cheese, with local collapses of surface tension that will inevitably grow into a global collapse. I KNOW this is true because my intuition tells me so! Wh-h-h-y-y-y 30 years of making cheese sandwiches makes me quite an expert. Besides, I work for NIST, and we always tell it straight. (Especially when you slip us $20 million, if you catch my drift.  ) The only only mystery here is: how did these local collapses in surface tension develop? No doubt the heat from lamp used in the flash bulb from the camera did this! Why, provolone cheese was never designed to be illuminated under the intense, searing heat of a modern day camera flash bulb. If you simply look at a photo taken 12 seconds later, you will clearly see that the provolone cheese has disintegrated into provolone particles averaging 60-100 microns in width, as I knew all along it would. Now, please excuse me. I must go and bomb the nearest dairy farm, as soon as I'm done ducking the pyro-cheestic flow.
adoucette
5th December 2005 - 09:27 PM
QUOTE (frater plecticus+Dec 5 2005, 09:17 PM) Arthur
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
