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
<br>http://cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.js...=insiderTrading
*No, don´t tell me, the Fox "News" allegations about Bin Laden are true.
By the way, the "confession" (again not authenticated) is not admissable (as proof) in a court of law.
Yes, I am a scientist.
Ron
27th October 2005 - 08:14 PM
Hey FP,
Real classy move getting personal with Arthur.
Ron
frater plecticus
27th October 2005 - 08:46 PM
Yeah, I know, but not as classy as being complicit in the murder of 3000 Innocent Americans to help restructure the global economy.
frater plecticus
27th October 2005 - 09:21 PM
Looking at the figures of people reading this thread... nearly 8701 views..I think it would be somewhat scientific if we voted on this poll..... Who do you think was behind 9/11?http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=3373&hl=| QUOTE | 1.Al Queda and carried out by 19 Arab Hijackers [ 6 ] [42.86%]
2.Bush & Cheney [ 2 ] [14.29%]
3.A Rogue Psyopt Military or CIA group [ 0 ] [0.00%]
4.International Conspiracy of the REAL power brokers [ 2 ] [14.29%]
5.Don't know, but it wasn't Osama Bin Laden [ 1 ] [7.14%]
6.Don't know, but the Govt is covering up who really did it [ 1 ] [7.14%]
7.Don't know, but we knew is was going to happen [ 0 ] [0.00%]
8.Israel [ 1 ] [7.14%]
9.Saddam Hussein [ 0 ] [0.00%]
10.OTHER [ 1 ] [7.14%]
Total Votes: 14
<br>I personally think it was no 5, with elements of 2,3,4,6,7,8 and 10....but being forced to choose
just one, I chose 5.
But don´t let that influence you.
Pure science.
frater plecticus
27th October 2005 - 11:47 PM
Hey Arthur, tell ya something. I didn´t mean to get personal, I was just a little suprised when somebody (apparently) as articlulate and intelligent as yourself (I read a few of your debates in the creation forums) can blindly accept the "official" conspiracy theory regarding 9-11 which contextually contradicts in absolute the publicly-available evidence. I graduated in summer 1999 with a Degree in Communication for Design from the University of Portsmouth, England. I was awarded a first, primarily for my media theory, which accounted for 50% of the grade. (The University was staffed by a team of post-situationalists and ex-punks). I was then offered a scholarship to do a Master of Arts in European Media, which again contained a very heavy theoretical flavour, under the rueful eye of Dr Paul Newland. We studied Gregory Bateson (I later found out he was a Master of Black Propaganda in the pre-CIA OSS days) for one project and lots of other contemporary theoreticians/philosophers. Then (in the year 2000) I moved to Madrid, Spain where I finished the last year and I graduated with an MA in 2002. ADVANCED THEORY FOR MASTER http://plectic.com/advthrt.htmlhttp://www.envf.port.ac.uk/newmedia/lecturenotes/EMMA/AT.htmNON LINEAR PROJECT FOR MASTER http://www.plectic.com/non-linear.htmlART DIRECTION + PORTFOLIO http://plectic.com/I ALSO HAVE TWO BLOGS. I CAN´T VOUCH FOR ALL THE INFORMATION IN THEM. http://fuckingbritain.blogspot.com/http://plectic.blogspot.com/From my *earlier post. | QUOTE | My name is *Jon Pratt: Sometimes I post under the name *Plectic.
During 5 years Ihave helped construct many structures and roads, as structural engineer and setting-out engineer. I have a keen interest in occult science (with emphasis on science), and philosophy and media theory.
<br>QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | My name is *Jon Pratt: Sometimes I post under the name *Plectic.
During 5 years Ihave helped construct many structures and roads, as structural engineer and setting-out engineer. I have a keen interest in occult science (with emphasis on science), and philosophy and media theory.
<br> 'This sense of immediacy and truthfulness which is the result of watching a steady stream of images interpreted with authority is what George Gerbner warned about as'instant history' - that is, history constructed by technology which 'concentrates power, shrinks time, and speeds action to the point where reporting, making and writing history
merge'DISSERTATION FOR DEGREE (1999)
http://plectic.com/diss.pdf
<br>P.S: I certainly had no intention of personalizing the debate, but that´s the advantage of posting with real names, that you can actually find out the source of that information (it´s context) to help validate it worthiness. That´s why it´s important that we debate these (somewhat uncomfortable) themes publicly without fears of reprisals, in a mature, level-headed and transparent manner.
P.P.S: Arthur, pray tell, how did you vote in the poll?
*frater plecticus is my (as until now) anonymous name
Foxx
28th October 2005 - 01:48 AM
Well, I think the 'poll' is interesting in more ways that one. Here are the results after my vote...
| QUOTE | Al Queda and carried out by 19 Arab Hijackers [ 6 ] [40.00%]
Bush & Cheney [ 2 ] [13.33%]
A Rogue Psyopt Military or CIA group [ 0 ] [0.00%]
International Conspiracy of the REAL power brokers [ 2 ] [13.33%]
Don't know, but it wasn't Osama Bin Laden [ 1 ] [6.67%]
Don't know, but the Govt is covering up who really did it [ 2 ] [13.33%]
Don't know, but we knew it was going to happen [ 0 ] [0.00%]
Israel [ 1 ] [6.67%]
Saddam Hussein [ 0 ] [0.00%]
OTHER [ 1 ] [6.67%]
Total Votes .... 15
<br>The first thing I note is how the options have been broken up. I think polls can be manipulated by wording of choices to make the poll seem more weighted in one direction than another. However, if we consider a more proper list of choices for the above there would be only 2...
1 - Do you believe the official story... "Al Queda and carried out by 19 Arab Hijackers"
or...
2 - Do you NOT believe the official story ..."Al Queda and carried out by 19 Arab Hijackers"
By presenting numerous choices the 'poll' seems to present the simple analysis that more people believe the 'official story, than not.
The 'Osama Bin Boogeyman' story seems to come out on top with 40% whereas the highest score (in alternative choices presented) is "ONLY" 13 %.
However, if we look at the numbers, we find that only 40% of the 'voters' believe the Official Story.
I think you've outsmarted yourself this time, adoucette. Although you (and many others) promote the opinion that the 'official story' is overwhelmingly believed over all other 'theories', and that these alternative 'conspiracy theories' are only believed by a very small percentage of 'paranoid delusionists' (the small fringe of society), it is clear from even the above unscientific poll ... if you separate the question into two parts...
Osama... 'official story'... YES or NO ?
You (and those who believe the Osama bin Boogeyman Fairy Tale) will find yourself actually in the minority...
Of course the poll listed above is really not very scientific, is limited only to those who have chosen to respond on this forum at this time, and the total voters so far (with my one vote included in the above) represents only the view of 15 people.
Nevertheless, in view of the Zogby poll and others, I firmly believe that if a vote was taken over the entire US (or World) population...based up a yes or no question of whether a person believes the 'official story' as presented by the authorities, you will still find that you (and those who actually believe the unsupportable tripe of the 'Official Story') are seriously in the minority column.
So please quit pretending that there are only a very few 'unintelligent & paranoid' people who DON'T believe the 'Official Fairy Tale'.
You minority just seem unable to get over the emotional issues... ("I just cannot believe that such evil could be home-based").
Believe me, it was an earth-shattering realization when I came to the 'crossroads'. The crossroads is... do you choose the emotional belief, and close your eyes to hard basic physics?
According to science and basic high school physics it is simply IMPOSSIBLE for those buildings to have fallen anywhere NEAR free-fall speeds. It can't happen in the real world, sorry. If you think it can, then we are still waiting for your calculations to show how this might be plausibly possible.
Once you recognize that such is impossible according to known physics, you are left with only two options...
1 - the '19 evil muslim terrorists' survived the airline impacts... got out of the wreckage with their unexploded ordinance... ran around the building to place and set their explosive devices... and then exited the buildings to turn up alive in other parts of the world.
(this is really what you need to show in order to support the '19 evil muslims' theory). ...OR
2 - 'someone' else pre-wired the buildings 'somehow' (at some time).
(None of us KNOWS the 'who' & 'how', but that does not change the basic physics of the issue).
Regardless of your viewpoint on the above choices, in reality those are the only two.
adoucette
28th October 2005 - 02:10 AM
| QUOTE | P.P.S: Arthur, pray tell, how did you vote in the poll?
<br>I haven't yet.
The poll has to be around for a while longer, there are too few votes and too many of them are "self selected", thus skewing the numbers, for instance the one vote for Israel at the few number of votes so far, generates a percent value that is probably not going to hold up as as more votes come in.
Hopefully members from who post in the other threads will eventually find it and vote.
Its meaningless unless we get a decent sample size.
Arthur
adoucette
28th October 2005 - 02:15 AM
| QUOTE | The first thing I note is how the options have been broken up. I think polls can be manipulated by wording of choices to make the poll seem more weighted in one direction than another. However, if we consider a more proper list of choices for the above there would be only 2...
1 - Do you believe the official story... "Al Queda and carried out by 19 Arab Hijackers"
or...
2 - Do you NOT believe the official story ..."Al Queda and carried out by 19 Arab Hijackers"
By presenting numerous choices (if you believe that the 'official story' stinks), this seems to present the simple analysis that more people believe the 'official story; than not. The 'Osama Bin Boogeyman' story seems to come out on top with 40% whereas the highest score (in alternative choices presented) is "ONLY" 13 %.
However, if we look at the numbers, we find that only 40% of the 'voters' believe the Official Story.
I think you've outsmarted yourself this time, adoucette. Although you (and many others) promote the opinion that the 'official story' is overwhelmingly believed over all other 'theories', and that these alternative 'conspiracy theories' are only believed by a very small percentage of 'paranoid delusionists' (the small fringe of society), it is clear from even the above unscientific poll ... if you separate the question into two parts...
<br>I didn't give it that much thought.
I'm not a pollster, I just put choices that seemed to relate to the threads.
As you say though one CAN tally up the sub-groups, but I think it IS valuable to get details on WHAT people think, not just Believe/don't believe.
Besides, you can always make up your own poll, and structure it just the way you want.
Sheesh
Arthur
adoucette
28th October 2005 - 02:24 AM
| QUOTE | So please quit pretending that there are only a very few 'unintelligent & paranoid' people who DON'T believe the 'Official Fairy Tale'.
<br>So, ok, assume the people who accept the Govt version are in the minority.
Now, from what I can tell, if you Don't accept the Govt version, it is because (in most cases I presume) you have an ALTERNATE view of what happened, gleaned from sources like the many links that have been posted.
So:
Do you think that the MAJORITY of people who have an alternate view think that 9/11 was perpetrated by the US Govt on its own citizens?
Arthur
Foxx
28th October 2005 - 03:09 AM
QUOTE (adoucette+Oct 28 2005, 02:24 AM) | QUOTE | So please quit pretending that there are only a very few 'unintelligent & paranoid' people who DON'T believe the 'Official Fairy Tale'.
<br>So, ok, assume the people who accept the Govt version are in the minority.
Now, from what I can tell, if you Don't accept the Govt version, it is because (in most cases I presume) you have an ALTERNATE view of what happened, gleaned from sources like the many links that have been posted.
So:
Do you think that the MAJORITY of people who have an alternate view think that 9/11 was perpetrated by the US Govt on its own citizens?
Arthur Uhhhh... no Arthur. I think the majority of people recognize that there is 'something' seriously wrong with the official version of events. The 'Official Version' does not stand up even to a cursory examination of facts.
What is Required, is a completely Independant (and objective)Counsel Investigation, such as was set up in the Watergate case. This is what I promote.
Was this psyopts perpetrated by the US gov. ???
Way too vague.
Many believe vociferously that the 'Jews' were responsible (a position not shared by myself, although Israeli 'interactions' can not be denied).
When you say the US gov't, you seem to imply 'BUSH / CHENEY'.
Personally, I don't believe it is that simple. This 'exercise' was NOT (in my opinion) a simple 'politics' issue.
Actually, I don't care about US 'politics', because I'm Canadian. 9/11 (in my view) is not a 'political issue'... it goes much deeper. The real perps (in my opinion) are way beyond politics, and survive from one administration to another, regardless of republican/democrate issues.
The legitimate questions will not be addressed (in my opinion) until such time as an Independant Prosecutor is assigned to this case.
Foxx
28th October 2005 - 03:44 AM
QUOTE (Ron+Oct 27 2005, 08:14 PM) Hey FP,
Real classy move getting personal with Arthur.
Ron Hi Ron. I agree with you that 'personal attacks' are not really relevant to the physics related to the question posed by Andrew Johnson. Exposure of 'personal details' are very dangerous on the web. Nevertheless, adoucette opened himself to that attack by posting personal details. 'frater plecticus' also posted personal details. If you are comfortable with posting personal information on the web... that is your choice, but I advise against such. Let us be judged upon posted words, as opposed to 'personal details'. Thanks
adoucette
28th October 2005 - 07:09 AM
QUOTE (frater plecticus+Oct 27 2005, 11:47 PM)
P.S: I certainly had no intention of personalizing the debate, but that´s the advantage of posting with real names, that you can actually find out the source of that information (it´s context) to help validate it worthiness. That´s why it´s important that we debate these (somewhat uncomfortable) themes publicly without fears of reprisals, in a mature, level-headed and transparent manner.
You found the information, so you could verify to a reasonable extent, my assertions. But posting the information was simply the mark of a vindictive and immature individual. Implying I am complicit in the murder of 3000 people is nothing less than SLANDER. So I hope you got satisfaction out of it, because what you posted doesn't reflect bad on me, it does however indicate what kind of person you are. So what did you learn? Nada. As you can see, I've not worked for the Govt, ever. 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. No, if anything, we were severely hurt by 9/11 as it put the kibosh on numerous projects as banks started looking for Check 21 to pass. Thus they bought almost no software for over 2 years, while we spent millions to develop new software for a new payment system. We have had quarterly layoffs for almost every quarter for the last 2 years. Our company is roughly 1/3 smaller now then on 9/11. Its all in our quarterly reports and they are public as well. We can just now see the light at the end of the tunnel. So, most of my stock options are in the red, they were issued for more than they were worth. I'm not that into money, actually, I make all I need but I'll never be rich, don't really care to work that hard at making money. All my investments are in mutual funds. I couldn't even tell you their name, without looking them up and I have no idea what stocks the funds invest in. They do ok. Did a lot better before 9/11 though. The international fund has out performed all the others, but not by that much. So no, to your question, I lost money because of 9/11. I have only received bare minimum raises since 9/11. Forgot what a bonus was since 9/11. Happy now? Arthur
adoucette
28th October 2005 - 07:16 AM
QUOTE (Foxx+Oct 28 2005, 03:44 AM) Exposure of 'personal details' are very dangerous on the web. Nevertheless, adoucette opened himself to that attack by posting personal details.
I have nothing to hide. But that doesn't mean I appreciate his post. He could have checked and seen for himself that the details I posted agreed with what he found, but posting that information was uncalled for and childish and done out of lack of caring for those who don't agree with him. I don't agree with you either, but that doesn't mean we can't act in a civil manner towards each other. Which is all I ask. Arthur
frater plecticus
28th October 2005 - 08:35 AM
Quote Arthur
| QUOTE | Implying I am complicit in the murder of 3000 people is nothing less than SLANDER.
<br>Quot Foxx
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | Implying I am complicit in the murder of 3000 people is nothing less than SLANDER.
<br>Quot Foxx
Uhhhh... no Arthur. I think the majority of people recognize that there is 'something' seriously wrong with the official version of events. The 'Official Version' does not stand up even to a cursory examination of facts.
<br>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.
Quote Arthur
| QUOTE | Now, from what I can tell, if you Don't accept the Govt version, it is because (in most cases I presume) you have an ALTERNATE view of what happened, gleaned from sources like the many links that have been posted.
<br>We have proved that it wasn´t Bin Laden. Who did you vote for?, Arthur, I am curious.
adoucette
28th October 2005 - 03:22 PM
QUOTE (frater plecticus+Oct 28 2005, 08:35 AM) Quote Arthur
| QUOTE | Implying I am complicit in the murder of 3000 people is nothing less than SLANDER.
<br>Quot Foxx
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | Implying I am complicit in the murder of 3000 people is nothing less than SLANDER.
<br>Quot Foxx
Uhhhh... no Arthur. I think the majority of people recognize that there is 'something' seriously wrong with the official version of events. The 'Official Version' does not stand up even to a cursory examination of facts.
<br>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.
Quote Arthur
| QUOTE | Now, from what I can tell, if you Don't accept the Govt version, it is because (in most cases I presume) you have an ALTERNATE view of what happened, gleaned from sources like the many links that have been posted.
<br>We have proved that it wasn´t Bin Laden. Who did you vote for?, Arthur, I am curious.
Well actually, I don't think there has been much if any discussion as to WHO was responsible.
I must have missed the presentation of the "proof" that it wasn't Bin Laden via Al Queda cells. Got a link (on this board) ?
I posted several times asking WHO was presumably responsible.
To which I received basically nothing, hence the poll.
I don't think I've been defending the "official version", I have been debating the PHYSICS of the collapse. The actual analysis of the buildings fall seems to have petered out, witness my last post where I found that the Sq footage was 40,000 not 28,000 sq ft on the upper floors.
Totally ignored even though it changes the estimates of burnable material significantly.
Why?
Since I deal with logic for my livelihood, I approached much of this simply by applying logic.
I asked a series of questions to see if my logic about what the physical attributes to a secretly planted and executed demolition would be valid.
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | Now, from what I can tell, if you Don't accept the Govt version, it is because (in most cases I presume) you have an ALTERNATE view of what happened, gleaned from sources like the many links that have been posted.
<br>We have proved that it wasn´t Bin Laden. Who did you vote for?, Arthur, I am curious.
Well actually, I don't think there has been much if any discussion as to WHO was responsible.
I must have missed the presentation of the "proof" that it wasn't Bin Laden via Al Queda cells. Got a link (on this board) ?
I posted several times asking WHO was presumably responsible.
To which I received basically nothing, hence the poll.
I don't think I've been defending the "official version", I have been debating the PHYSICS of the collapse. The actual analysis of the buildings fall seems to have petered out, witness my last post where I found that the Sq footage was 40,000 not 28,000 sq ft on the upper floors.
Totally ignored even though it changes the estimates of burnable material significantly.
Why?
Since I deal with logic for my livelihood, I approached much of this simply by applying logic.
I asked a series of questions to see if my logic about what the physical attributes to a secretly planted and executed demolition would be valid.
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
<br>The only answers were to the the very broadest of the assumptions like: "the govt knew". The assumptions about how a controlled demolition could be done in secrecy were not touched at all. Why?
What I have argued about is that a 757 did hit the Pentagon, I have NOT argued about who or why that happened. So this is not the same as defending the "official position" since the question as to what hit the Pentagon is a totally separate issue.
Even if it is presumed that it was a 757, that doesn't negate the broader question of "Was someone other than Al Queda" complicit in the attack?"
I did argue that the story on Barbara Olson was a fabrication, based on the contents of the story. Its been a month now and there has been apparently no follow up on the story, so yes it does appear that the story has no legs.
That doesn't negate the broader question either. The fact that someone publishes a "story" that supports the broader allegations turns out to be false simply diminishes the credibility of the publisher, but does not, of itself, bolster the official position.
As to your groups, can not one believe that factions could be involved but still not be convinced by the sum of the "evidence" they have seen, that govt factions were involved?
Again, I resort to logic.
If you presume that a person who can believe such an action by our govt is not impossible, and who watches/reads the typical papers/news shows, would have little reason to not initially accept the "official version", then you have to presume that as the person learns of "alternate" explanations and/or inconsistencies in the official explanation, then one would not necessarily immediately JUMP to the alternate conclusion that the govt did it, but would in fact, want to rigorously TEST and VERIFY these alternate explanations.
Further, as can be seen by some of these posts, there ARE potentially logical counter arguments to some of these "alternate" explanations, and as the posts on the failure of the WTC indicates, it is a hugely complex issue, for which much of the data available to base conclusions on has to be approximated and also involves levels of knowledge (of structures, failure modes, materials, construction details, engineering etc) that very few are well versed in.
This presents a serious problem to someone, who even with an open mind, does not have sufficient back ground to ascertain if a well presented explanation of an alternate failure mode is accurate, accounts for all the critical variables, applies the relevant formulas correctly and uses reasonable estimates for those facts which are not precisely quantifiable. Thus though one may see a "proof", it takes much more mental effort to review the proof to see if there are in flaws in it. Because, cognitive dissonance, pretty much requires this level of proof, before discarding a previously held belief for a new paradigm.
While you may have been researching this for some time and have satisfied yourself of the veracity of these claims, I have not, and I suspect this is true for the majority of adults in the US. I have not had time to track down all the various links posted and review their material, so again, you may be basing your conclusions on information I have not yet seen.
Surely YOU KNOW this is a hugely complex and challenging problem, so why is it that you seem to want to smear anyone who is simply posting what they see as problems with your explanation. Challenges to your explanation of "what happened and why it happened" do not amount to "supporting the official position", they are just what they are, attempts to understand if there is veracity to your position.
I would presume that if you have concluded that some alternate explanation is in fact valid, then that would imply that you have already dealt with many if not most of the questions that I pose.
The problem that I am having is most of my questions have gone unanswered.
I find that strange, and further it forces me to find the answers myself, which of course takes much more time. If you say the answers to my questions are in the links provided, that helps, but again, since you (and others) are MUCH more familiar with this, one would expect that you could provide a little more direct help than just posting a URL.
Arthur
frater plecticus
28th October 2005 - 06:31 PM
| QUOTE | Libby Indicted In CIA Leak Case
Two-year probe nails Vice President Cheney's top aide
OCTOBER 28--Vice President *** Cheney's top aide was indicted today on perjury, false statement, and obstruction of justice charges in connection with a special counsel's probe into the leaking of a CIA officer's identity. A copy of the five-count felony indictment returned against I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Cheney's chief of staff, can be found below. The 55-year-old Libby, a White House power and proponent of the Iraq war, allegedly committed the crimes when questioned by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald before a federal grand jury. During two appearances under oath, Libby was questioned extensively about his contact with several reporters prior to published disclosures about Valerie Plame Wilson, the CIA operative. While not charged today, Karl Rove, President George W. Bush's chief political adviser, remains under scrutiny by Fitzgerald, who reportedly plans to continue his probe of the 2003 leak (the original grand jury panel's term expired today). Libby today resigned his White House post as a result of the criminal charges, which were handed up in U.S. District Court in Washington. He faces up to 30 years in prison and a $1.25 million fine if convicted of all counts. (22 pages)
<br>Click here to download a PDF version of the Libby indictment.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/graphics/pdf/libbyidict.pdf
9-11>afghanistan>iraq>indictment>prison>?
frater plecticus
28th October 2005 - 06:34 PM
second urlQUOTE 10:32 a.m.: Air Force One Threatened? Some Doubt Entire Story
Vice President Cheney reportedly calls President Bush and tells him of a threat to Air Force One and that it will take 40-90 minutes to get a protective fighter escort in place. Many doubt the existence of this threat. For instance, Representative Martin Meehan (D) says, “I don't buy the notion Air Force One was a target. That's just PR, that's just spin.” [Washington Times, 10/8/02] A later account calls the threat “completely untrue,” and says Cheney probably made the story up. A well-informed, anonymous Washington official says, “It did two things for [Cheney]. It reinforced his argument that the president should stay out of town, and it gave George W. an excellent reason for doing so.” [Daily Telegraph, 12/16/01]
People and organizations involved: Martin Meehan, George W. Bush, Richard ("***") Cheney
adoucette
29th October 2005 - 03:53 AM
Boy that was fun. NOT What does seem to come across quite strongly is the clear evidence that the planes were hijacked and by who. I wasn't fully aware of all the calls going into the various airline op centers detailing what was happening and who were responsible, down to the seat numbers. It does mention that these calls were going out on sky phones not cell phones, which I've seen mentioned in these threads often. The other first impression is this harping on: "x mins have gone by and the IDIOTS haven't called NORAD" "y mins have gone by and FOR THE LOVE OF GOD why didn't they call NORAD" etc etc As if this would have made ANY difference. It wouldn't. NORAD, pre 9/11 (until around the time the last flight, 93 crashed) performed an ESCORT duty for hijackings ONLY. So, UNTIL the FIRST plane crashed into the WTC there would be NO PRESUMPTION that this was the intent. The FAA and NORAD would have gone by the book. Here's the PRE 9-11 BOOK: http://faa.gov/ATpubs/MIL/Ch7/mil0701.html#7-1-1 Chapter 7. ESCORT OF HIJACKED AIRCRAFT Section 1. GENERAL 7-1-1. PURPOSE The FAA hijack coordinator (the Director or his designate of the FAA Office of Civil Aviation Security) on duty at Washington headquarters will request the military to provide an escort aircraft for a confirmed hijacked aircraft to: a. Assure positive flight following. b. Report unusual observances. c. Aid search and rescue in the event of an emergency. 7-1-2. REQUESTS FOR SERVICE The escort service will be requested by the FAA hijack coordinator by direct contact with the National Military Command Center (NMCC). Normally, NORAD escort aircraft will take the required action. However, for the purpose of these procedures, the term "escort aircraft" applies to any military aircraft assigned to the escort mission. When the military can provide escort aircraft, the NMCC will advise the FAA hijack coordinator the identification and location of the squadron tasked to provide escort aircraft. NMCC will then authorize direct coordination between FAA and the designated military unit. When a NORAD resource is tasked, FAA will coordinate through the appropriate SOCC/ROCC. 7-1-3. HANDLING PRIORITY When the situation requires an expedited departure of the escort aircraft, the aircraft shall be afforded priority consideration over other departing aircraft. ==> Note, it says consideration, not this takes priority. Remember, we are pre 9-11 7-1-4. CONTROL RESPONSIBILITIES FOR U.S. AIRSPACE a. When hijacked aircraft is within FAA radar coverage, escort aircraft shall be controlled by the appropriate FAA facility. b. When a hijacked aircraft is not within FAA radar coverage but within military radar coverage, escort aircraft may be controlled by the military for the escort phase only. c. When escort aircraft are under military control, separation between the escort aircraft/hijacked aircraft and other IFR traffic is the responsibility of the FAA. Separation shall be provided through the application of appropriate altitude reservations as required. d. When escort aircraft is under FAA control, standard air traffic control separation shall be applied. In no case shall any clearance or instruction to the aircraft compromise ATC standards. e. When tanker aircraft are employed, the designated tankers and escort aircraft shall be under FAA control, and appropriate aerial refueling procedures shall apply. ==> Notice, there were NO RULES for shooting down of hijacked aircraft ==> NOTICE, the words IMMEDIATELY CALL NORAD are nowhere to be found, in fact the FAA contacts the FAA hijack coordinator. ===> Point of FACT, the FAA does not contact the military and REQUEST an escort UNTIL a hijack is CONFIRMED. Also the join up rules: 7-2-3. VECTORS Escort aircraft shall be vectored to a position 5 miles directly behind the hijacked aircraft. The vectors shall be planned to approach the hijacked aircraft from the rear to avoid the possibility of being observed and to position the escort aircraft at the same altitude, speed, and heading as the hijacked aircraft. 7-2-6. RESPONSIBILITIES PRIOR TO JOIN-UP Until the escort aircraft has joined-up with the hijacked aircraft, the pilot shall be kept informed of the hijacked aircraft heading, speed, altitude, and destination (if known); also, its range and position relative to the escort aircraft. For fighter/interceptor aircraft, the application of "optimum cruise" will normally ensure sufficient overtake during the "join-up" phase. ==> So on a normal hijack they wouldn't have gone supersonic, optimal cruise for an f/15 is about 600mph. That day, they went MUCH faster, over Mach 1 from Otis. Assign an altitude which is either the altitude of the hijacked aircraft or the optimum altitude requested by the escort aircraft pilot when the hijacked aircraft is at a lower altitude. Descend the escort aircraft to the altitude of the hijacked aircraft prior to reaching a point 30 miles from the target. When the hijacked aircraft is at a low altitude where communications between the escort aircraft and the control facility would be questionable, a second escort aircraft (which will normally be available when NORAD interceptors are being utilized) may be stationed at a higher altitude near the hijacked aircraft's position for relay of information between the control facility and the escort aircraft maintaining visual surveillance. 7-2-7. POSITIONING INSTRUCTIONS Unless the escort pilot has a visual contact, plan the join-up at 30 miles and issue positioning instructions. EXAMPLE- "Echo Golf One Two, when contact is established, maintain surveillance. Approach no closer than five miles directly behind. Remain out of sight from cockpit or cabin, and report all actions observed." So, NOTHING in the time line suggests that the FAA did anything particularly wrong. Of course it DID get VERY HECTIC at the ATC centers that day. Being that I'm a pilot, I might have a better appreciation for this then most. I've been in several ATC centers. They are VERY busy people, the ones in Boston are some of the busiest. Sample of typical number of IFR aircraft in the system at one time. Morning on a work day in the NE is one of the most hectic times with planes departing and arriving at max rates from virtually all the surrounding airports. So, When you are an ATC controller and your plane's transponder goes off (you DON'T know that it WAS turned off) and you can't raise them on the radio (you DON'T know that they can hear you or transmit, just choose not to) and then they make an unauthorized turn towards one of the BUSIEST air spaces in the US, and WORSE, they are making an unauthorized descent (thus crossing MULTIPLE airways at multiple altitudes and putting MANY other aircraft at risk) Your FIRST response would NOT be to call friggin NORAD. Hell, it wouldn't be your 3 or even 4Th response. Why? Because first of all, NORAD can't really help, remember at this time their role is as an ESCORT. But most importantly, because you'd be to damn busy getting all the other traffic out of its way, (which they did) alerting other ATC centers (which they did), alerting towers in the area the plane was heading to (Which they did. Most likely scenario would be a pilot trying for an emergency landing, unable to communicate because of fire or some such), trying to raise the aircraft on other frequencies (which they did), asking other aircraft in the vicinity for assistance (which they did). Only when all this was done would you most likely get around to calling NORAD, because your FIRST priority is to maintain aircraft separation, your second priority is to try to re-establish contact. So, do I see ANYTHING sinister that day in the fact that NORAD was not the first people contacted? No, and I would be quite surprised if they were. Now just looking through the various events of that day, I notice numerous "suggestions" that things weren't quite kosher. But to keep this post to a reasonable length I'll just pick on one that I'm pretty familiar with. According to this time line: (After 8:52 a.m.): NORAD Scramble Delayed? Witness Casts Doubt on NORAD's Scramble Time William Wibel, principal of a school inside Otis Air National Guard Base, is inside the Otis base preparing for a meeting when he learns that the WTC has been attacked and his meeting is canceled. He says, “As I drove away, and was listening to the news on the radio, the 102nd was scrambling into duty.” [Cape Cod Times, 9/12/01] The WTC crash does not break on local news and radio until about 8:52 a.m. Even if he hears CNN's early reporting starting at 8:48 a.m., it still presumably takes time to learn the meeting is canceled, go back to his car and so forth. NORAD says the fighters took off from Otis at 8:52 a.m. People and organizations involved: North American Aerospace Defense Command, William Wibel So first of all, notice the LEADING header. So based on this seemingly REASONABLE interpretation, NORAD is probably lying about their scramble time. BUT, is that the best interpretation? Here is the story from the Cape Cod Newspaper, a tad different. Wibel was preparing for a meeting with military commanders when he first heard about the first World Trade Center crash. That meeting was abruptly canceled."As I drove away, and was listening to the news on the radio, the 102nd was scrambling into duty," said Wibel, who could hear four more jets launching as he spoke later in the day. OK, so lets look at that story a bit closer: As we learned from the first story, Wibel works ON THE BASE, thus he is well known, he is in fact the principal of the base school. We really don't know the time difference between when he heard about WTC and when he heard the "102 scrambling into duty", this whole time could have been but one minute as one can be told, "Sorry Wibel, the meeting has been canceled, a hijacked plane just crashed into the WTC and I don't have time to talk about it now" so he turns around, walks out a door, down to a car, gets in, turns the key, and begins driving away all within the same minute For all you know he may have wanted to get back to his classroom in a hurry. We don't really know the actual time line. Importantly, he says he "heard about the WTC" but it turns out he was at one of the few places where he could have heard about it BEFORE it was on the news. He does NOT say he saw it on TV or heard it on the radio, but the story leads you to this as an assumption. Finally, you really don't know if the jet he heard taking off (presumably when he went outside) is the first jet that took off. If he was inside when the first jet left he may not have heard that one. (if you work on a base as big as Otis (its HUGE) the last thing you pay attention to is departing aircraft) In any case, he doesn't say and we don't know. I picked this one because it is SO SUBTLE. The pages before this keep going over how NORAD wasn't notified, only to get to this story which implies they are either wrong or lying about when they scrambled. The point is there was NO WAY for the Otis jets to make it to NY before the two planes crashed. Even if you don't believe that, there is NOTHING they could do to stop the crashes. They WOULDN'T just shoot down a passenger jet. Why. First of all, the fighter pilots had no way of IDENTIFYING the target. Its not like it has a big sign on it saying "SHOOT ME", and since you don't want to shoot down the WRONG 767 (they all look remarkably alike, 767,757, A300s etc) it would take talking to the tower and tracking it for a while to get confirmation that you in fact had the right plane. But even given that it is identified, because at the speeds these jets were going, ~8 miles per min, they could have been a mile away from the WTC, which is not so close that its target is obvious, but only 8 seconds from impact. Finally, if the fighters were on scene, identified the target and decided to fire rockets (without authorization) when the Jet was say 1 mile away, it is unlikely they would have time to lock on their targeting radar, fire the missile and have an intercept before it hit. The missile IS faster than the jet, but only after a few seconds of acceleration, normal targeting distance is several miles, the missile would most likely arrive just about the time or most likely, slightly after the plane hit the tower. Arthur
Andrew Johnson
29th October 2005 - 07:36 AM
The basic physics is not here - telephone calls real or bogus have nothing to do with near free-fall collapse and videos of explosions.
frater plecticus
29th October 2005 - 12:57 PM
Fitzgerald's court filings appear to have zeroed in on, not just the leak fact pattern, but the Niger document fraud as well. 3rd link http://citizenspook.blogspot.com/2005/10/t...-rule-iraq.html | QUOTE | TREASONGATE: THE FELONY MURDER RULE - The Iraq War Fraud Could Lead To State Court Prosecutions For Murder Of American Soldiers
Ordinarily, the President, as Commander In Chief, and his Executive Branch, could not be held legally responsible for the death of US soldiers on the battlefield. But if congressional, military and monetary support for the Iraq war was procured through a fraudulent criminal conspiracy, the Bush syndicate will have no protection from prosecution in state courts -- out of jurisdicitonal reach of the President's pardon power -- which is limited by the Constitution to federal crimes against the United States.
There are plenty of violations of federal law to be found around the Niger uranium forgeries, and I expect Fitzgerald has found most if not all of them by now. When the president made his 2003 State of the Union address, and referred to Iraq's efforts to procure uranium in "an African country," the source of his allegation was a cache of documents that had been turned over to the American embassy in Rome under mysterious circumstances...
Whoever forged these documents and introduced them into the American intelligence stream is guilty of violating
[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."
And this law,
"If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."
[18 USC 371]
The laws cited above make it clear that both the "creation" and "use" of these documents was a felony.
The "cover up" of the documents' fraudulent nature was also a felony. Fraudulent statements about the veracity of the documents would also be a felony, i.e. Bush relying on them in his State of the Union address (the famous 16 words); and let's not forget Powell's reliance upon them at the UN as well as Condi's mushroom cloud speech.
If proved that government officials knew the documents were fraudulent then their criminal actions relating to such knowledge must be prosecuted.
<br>
SEPTEMBER 25, 2001 – WHAT A REAL PRESIDENT WOULD
HAVE SAID
A real president would have glanced at Cicero’s orations against Catiline, with which that
orator had gone into the Roman Senate to stop the impending coup d’etat of the bankrupt
aristocrat Lucius Sergius Catilina in 63 BC, who had planned to seize power through a
massacre of Roman political leaders. He would have been mindful of General de Gaulle’s
1962 speech in which he expressed his determination to defeat the coup attempt of four
fascist generals in Algiers.
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | TREASONGATE: THE FELONY MURDER RULE - The Iraq War Fraud Could Lead To State Court Prosecutions For Murder Of American Soldiers
Ordinarily, the President, as Commander In Chief, and his Executive Branch, could not be held legally responsible for the death of US soldiers on the battlefield. But if congressional, military and monetary support for the Iraq war was procured through a fraudulent criminal conspiracy, the Bush syndicate will have no protection from prosecution in state courts -- out of jurisdicitonal reach of the President's pardon power -- which is limited by the Constitution to federal crimes against the United States.
There are plenty of violations of federal law to be found around the Niger uranium forgeries, and I expect Fitzgerald has found most if not all of them by now. When the president made his 2003 State of the Union address, and referred to Iraq's efforts to procure uranium in "an African country," the source of his allegation was a cache of documents that had been turned over to the American embassy in Rome under mysterious circumstances...
Whoever forged these documents and introduced them into the American intelligence stream is guilty of violating
[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."
And this law,
"If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."
[18 USC 371]
The laws cited above make it clear that both the "creation" and "use" of these documents was a felony.
The "cover up" of the documents' fraudulent nature was also a felony. Fraudulent statements about the veracity of the documents would also be a felony, i.e. Bush relying on them in his State of the Union address (the famous 16 words); and let's not forget Powell's reliance upon them at the UN as well as Condi's mushroom cloud speech.
If proved that government officials knew the documents were fraudulent then their criminal actions relating to such knowledge must be prosecuted.
<br>
SEPTEMBER 25, 2001 – WHAT A REAL PRESIDENT WOULD
HAVE SAID
A real president would have glanced at Cicero’s orations against Catiline, with which that
orator had gone into the Roman Senate to stop the impending coup d’etat of the bankrupt
aristocrat Lucius Sergius Catilina in 63 BC, who had planned to seize power through a
massacre of Roman political leaders. He would have been mindful of General de Gaulle’s
1962 speech in which he expressed his determination to defeat the coup attempt of four
fascist generals in Algiers.
My fellow citizens:Tonight I would like to present, as promised, a progress report on the investigations into the events of September 11, investigations which have been the main task of your government over the past several weeks. The tidings I bring you this evening are very
grave, and they are related to the tempestuous events of the last few days which are
known to you in whole or in part.
As many of you may know, during the morning of 9/11 the White House received a
telephone call saying, “Angel is next.” “Angel” was the top-secret code word
designating my official aircraft, Air Force One, so this was a threat to shoot down Air
Force One. It was also something more: as I realized immediately, it was quite possible
that this telephone call had indeed come from the authors of the 9/11 terror attacks. If
that was so, there existed the definite possibility that this group, whoever they were, also
had access to other top-secret code words used by our government. This meant that there
was imminent danger that the terrorist group might possess the code words and related
signals that could be used to target thermonuclear ballistic missiles on targets in foreign
countries – or even here at home. A duplicate of the briefcase known as “the football,”
which follows me everywhere, might be in the hands of the plotters. I decided at once to
proceed as quickly as possible to the headquarters of the Strategic Air Command in
Nebraska with a small force of bodyguards for the purpose of countermanding, by the
immediate physical presence of the commander in chief, any and all illegal attack orders
that might be issued by the rogue terrorist network which had so plainly declared war on
our country. My intent was to assume direct personal control over the nuclear deterrent
forces of this country, wherever they might be located.
During my flight to Nebraska, I received a phone call which presented this threat in the
most concrete form. The call came from a man who identified himself as the spokesman
for a secret organization of clandestine operatives and special forces – clearly a
subversive and insurrectionary group acting as a tool for a coterie of very powerful,
wealthy, and ruthless persons. This spokesman told me that his organization had
orchestrated the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon as a means of
reversing the inexorable decline of American power in the world – a process which I and
my elected predecessors had been wholly negligent in allowing, he asserted. He also
demanded that I immediately make a televised public statement identifying al Qaeda,
Osama Bin Laden, Afghanistan, and Iraq as those responsible for the terror attacks, and
announcing our government’s plans to invade and occupy these two countries. Iran,
Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, he added, might have to come later. If I failed to accept this
ultimatum, the conspirators were determined to use the nuclear launch code words in
their possession to destroy Cairo, Baghdad, Teheran, Rabat, Tunis, Karachi, Jakarta,
Damascus, Pyongyang, Riyad, Havana, and possibly other cities. That would start 100
years of war of civilizations, they told me, and once it had started, nothing could stop it. I
told this spokesman that he and his group, in addition to being guilty of high treason,
were courting suicide. The Russian Federation might interpret the missile firings as the
beginning of a US first strike against Russian targets, and might respond by initiating
procedures for launch under attack, in an attempt to use their nuclear assets against us
before they were destroyed on the ground. The People’s Republic of China might respond
in the same way. These countries might also conclude that our government had been
taken over by madmen, and that their only hope of safety might lie in the use of military
means against us. The spokesman for the group of plotters replied that those dangers
were real, but that it was up to me to avoid this danger by granting the demands of the
terrorist controllers, which came down to US attacks on Afghanistan, and Iraq, with the
overthrow of the government of Saudi Arabia likely along the way. The terror group, he
boasted, welcomed the bloody global conflict that I seemed to fear, and even regarded
the prospect of world war engulfing this planet as preferable to the relative decline of the
United States for which he said I and those like me were responsible.
At this moment, our country faced the greatest danger in our entire history. To accept the
ultimatum of the plotters and to wage war against their target list of Arab and Islamic
states would have cast the United States adrift on an ocean of blackmail, lies, and
adventures. Blackmailers always escalate their demands, and the addiction to terrorism
of the victorious criminal network might have poisoned our national life for decades, or
even for centuries. If I had capitulated, I would have been a puppet of the plotters for as
long as I remained in office, indeed for the rest of my life. On the other side, the danger
of world war was immediate. I decided that the only honorable course coherent with my
oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution was to defy the terrorists. At this
point we had reached the SAC headquarters in Nebraska. I terminated my conversation
with the spokesman for the plotters.
At this point, I activated several units of the Secret Service and Army intelligence under
hand-picked officers whose constitutional loyalty I knew I could trust. I briefed them on
what I knew so far, and gave them the task of finding the rogue terror network and
rooting it out. These fine patriotic men and women went to work at once, and within 72
hours the main outlines of the plot were evident. Let me sum up what we have learned so
far.
A group of al Qaeda operatives, manipulated by a cabal of rogue CIA case officers, had
chosen September 11 to hijack several aircraft, force them to land, and use the
passengers as hostages to extort the liberation of certain prisoners being held in Egypt
and Saudi Arabia. Among these al Qaeda operatives were several double agents, also
under the control of rogue elements in our own intelligence community. These were
dissolute and evil persons, who had been trained using the infrastructure left over from
the Iran-contra affair.
Air defense that day was completely absent, in part because of four air exercises which
were taking place at the same time in various parts of North America. A number of
officers in critical positions at NORAD, its regional office in Rome, New York, and in the
FAA appear to have been party to the plot. By a kind of collective inertia, they ignored
the well-known and long-established standard operating procedures which govern the
cooperation of FAA and NORAD, and were able to misdirect our few remaining fighter
interceptors, out over the Atlantic Ocean in one case. More arrests are imminent as a
result of ongoing investigations in this area.
What the al Qaeda operatives apparently did not know was that the aircraft they had
chosen to hijack had been equipped with a new technology making it possible to seize
control of these aircraft and operate them by remote control from a command center on
the ground. It was this new technology, and not the dubious skills of the hijackers, which
allowed the planes to hit their targets with such precision.
But even direct hits by the two planes could not have been enough to bring down the
towers. According to the information we have developed, the collapse of World Trade
Center buildings one, two, and seven was the direct result of controlled demolition – the
result of explosive charges which had been placed in these buildings over the previous
days and weeks by the terror network, who infiltrated the buildings in the guise of
cleaning and security personnel. We have not yet been able to solve all the problems
posed by the collapse of the twin towers, since energy sources appear to have been at
work which go beyond the realm of today’s conventional technology. I will have more to
report on this later. In the meantime, I regret to report that I have had to order the arrest
of the Mayor of New York, who repeatedly attempted to bring about the destruction of
evidence at the crime scene.
As for the Pentagon, it was struck by a US Air Force cruise missile fired from an aircraft
above West Virginia, and not by one of the hijacked airliners. We have not yet been able
to determine what happened to American flight 77, and we call on citizens to come to our
aid in this matter. The launch of the cruise missile was the work of an entire Air Force
unit in Ohio, and these traitors have all been taken into custody.
The airplane that crashed in Shanksville was cynically shot down through the actions of a
rebel mole placed in a highly sensitive position at NORAD. This mole was aware that the
passengers had retaken control of the aircraft from the lightly armed hijackers, and
realized that the interrogation of the hijackers on board would have revealed critical
dimensions of the real plot in which the hijackers, although certainly acting with criminal
intent, were ultimately mere expendable pawns. The NORAD mole also feared that an
examination of the aircraft might reveal the presence of the remote control technology,
which had for some reason failed to function. Accordingly, the mole cynically directed jet
interceptors to destroy this airplane, even though it was far away from any target of
interest to the hijackers.
Several FBI officials and agents have been indicted for obstruction of justice; they have
been accused of destroying security camera tapes at the Pentagon, and intimidating
witnesses at the Pentagon and in Shanksville. Members of the FBI crime lab and the
NTSB team have been discovered attempting to sabotage the cockpit voice recorders of
the planes in question; the recordings we have heard are consistent with the account of
the 9/11 events I have just described.
Sadly, I must address the three mysterious suicides from the highest ranks of our own
government which have caused so much speculation over the past several days. The vice
president was found dead in his bunker at Site R last Thursday; the coroner has ruled this
a suicide, and has established that the cause of death was a potassium cyanide pill. The
same finding has been delivered in the case of the former deputy secretary of defense
some hours later on that same day. The death of the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff by a gunshot wound to the head in the Pentagon at around that same time has also
been ruled a suicide. I can only confirm that arrest warrants for all three had been issued
by a federal grand jury empanelled to investigate the tragic events of September 11.
The mutiny of the Delta Force battalion based near Fort Bragg, North Carolina, has
been quelled by loyal troops and planes. The appeal of the rebel commander for a
military rebellion against the legal government and for a military coup has been ignored.
As you may also know, a top former anti-terror official and several other high officials of
the CIA and FBI have been missing for over two weeks, and are presumed to have fled
abroad. I can confirm that arrest warrants have been issued for these persons. A number
of journalists have also disappeared, and this may also be related to the recent upheaval.
I can assure you that our constitutional procedures are just as vigorous as they have ever
been, that habeas corpus remains alive, well, and in full force. We have no secret prisons
and no secret prisoners, and I will tolerate none. Our open courts continue to function,
and they will continue to do so.
We have uncovered complicity between the rogue network in this country and a number
of foreign intelligence agencies. One of these is the British MI-6. After the raid by
Scotland Yard on the headquarters of MI-6 in Oxford Circus, and after the resignation of
Mr. Blair, I look forward to working with the new Labour Party prime minister to
eradicate any remaining insurrectionary elements. We continue to observe the situation
in several other countries we believe may have been involved in the 9/11 plot. I regret
that General Sharon has refused to cooperate, and I invite the Congress to consider what
response may be required.
I would like to thank President Putin of the Russian Federation and the leadership of the
People’s Republic of China for their wisdom and restraint, especially during the morning
of 9/11, when the rebel network engaged in visible preparations for a nuclear launch. I
am certain that the great powers, having weathered this storm, will be able to return to
the path of confidence building measures at our summit next week.
More details will be announced as soon as practicable. In conclusion, let me say a few
words about the state of the world.
I do not assert that terrorism is a spontaneous outgrowth of poverty and misery. In fact, I
assert the opposite: terrorism is usually organized by an outside agency, often by a
government or a network operating inside a government. But it is certainly true that
poverty and misery provide the indispensable environment in which terrorist groups can
recruit, or be created by intelligence agencies. In today’s world, there are about 2 billion
people who are attempting to get by on less than $1 per day. There are some 600 million
homeless – that is equal to about the entire population of Europe. About one and one half
billion people do not have clean water to drink. With about one billion people
unemployed, the unemployment rate in our world is about 33%, about one third. When
that happened in our own country during the 1930s, we called that a great depression,
and we must therefore acknowledge the existence of a world economic depression of
unprecedented severity today. Two thirds of the people in the world – 65% -- have never
made a phone call. About 40% do not have access to electricity for household use; I
would call that a clear need for rural and urban electrification. Every day in this world
of ours, some 40,000 human beings perish from malnutrition and from easily treated
diseases like diarrhea. Another 40,000 lose their lives each month as the result of
warfare, all of which is absolutely futile and which has often been cynically fomented by
foreign economic interests; I am thinking here of the crisis in Africa most specifically. In
Africa, the standard of living of the average family has declined by 20% over the last
twenty years. Eighty-nine countries are now worse off than they were at the beginning of
the 1990s. 175 million people leave their home countries every year in the desperate
search for jobs and food – about 3% of humanity. The price of a human slave on the
slave markets of southern Europe at this very moment is about 4,000 euros. In the midst
of all this, the two hundred fifty-eight richest persons in the world own more in the way of
assets and other property than the poorest 3 billion persons. When two hundred fifty
eight own more than half of the human population of the world, I hope you will agree
with me that such a world cannot be stable. Yet, this is the world that lies before us. I
plan to use my powers as president to ameliorate this situation with every means at my
disposal, and I call upon the Congress and upon all citizens to support these steps for a
new world economic order that will be more just, more equitable, more prosperous, and
more dynamic.
We have now been tested in the crucible of a brutal crisis. From this experience we must
take renewed devotion to our best values. The decade of globalization has been revealed
as a colossal failure, for ourselves as well as for others. We must find a better, more
humane, more equitable way of organizing the affairs of this planet. To do this, we must
work closely with almost two hundred sovereign states, and work out the details with
them, since every country has an inherent right to economic development, science,
technology, and dignity. The old imperialism denied these, and the old imperialism is
now on the junkheap of history. In the days to come, my two lodestars will be peace and
economic development, seen as the two sides of the same coin. Our world has turned over
several times in the past month, but I am more certain than ever that I can count on the
support of the American people in getting the world back on the right track. I ask you
once again to remember the victims of the recent tragedy in your prayers. Good night.
<br>CONCLUSIONS
So far we have come to the following conclusions:
1. The government’s assertion that the so-called hijackers operated without being
detected by official surveillance is untenable, and evidence is strong that the
alleged hijackers acted in coordination with a faction within the government itself.
The hijackers were therefore in all probability expendable double agents or, more
bluntly, patsies.
2. The government’s assertion that the four supposedly hijacked airliners were taken
over and piloted by the four accused hijackers identified by the FBI is at or
beyond the limits of physical and technical reality. The planes were in all
probability guided to their targets by some form of remote access or remote
control.
3. The government’s assertion that the failures of air defense were caused by the fog
of war is lame and absurd. Air defense was in all probability sabotaged by moles
operating inside the government.
4. The government’s assertion that a Boeing 757-200 hit the Pentagon is physically
impossible. Some other type of flying object, possibly a cruise missile, must
therefore be considered.
5. The government’s assertion that the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center
collapsed as a result of the impact of aircraft and of the subsequent fire is
physically impossible. The fall of the towers cannot be explained without the
hypothesis of controlled demolition of some form, possibly including
unconventional methods employing new physical principles.
6. The government’s assertion that World Trade Center 7 collapsed at 5:20 PM EDT
on September 11 purely as a result of fire is physically impossible. The collapse
of WTC 7 is coherent with controlled demolition of the conventional type.
7. The government’s assertion that United Flight 93 crashed because of actions by
the hijackers or because of a struggle in the cockpit is physically impossible,
given the pattern in which the wreckage was distributed. All evidence points
towards the hypothesis that United 93 was shot down by US military aircraft.
8. The government’s refusal to investigate insider trading in American Airlines and
United Airlines put options, the wholesale seizure and destruction of evidence, the
systematic intimidation of witnesses by the FBI, and a series of other incidents
point unmistakably to an attempted coverup on the part of the entire US
government and establishment.
BUSH IN HELL
At the bottom of Dante’s Inferno, in that third part of the traitors’ ninth circle which is
called Tolomea, Dante and Vergil encounter a certain Frate Alberigo of Faenza. Tolomea
is devoted to that species of traitors who have betrayed their own guests. The peculiarity
of Frate Alberigo is that he is apparently alive on earth, even while his soul is being
tormented in the depths of Hell. Frate Alberigo explains that in cases of particularly
heinous betrayal, the damned soul departs from the body and descends directly into Hell.
The body remains alive, but it is operated by a demon during the rest of its natural life
span. Something similar happened to Bush when he betrayed his oath of office by turning
the US government over to the rogue network on 9/11. The demon has been in control
ever since.
Foxx
29th October 2005 - 06:05 PM
| QUOTE | Originally posted by adoucetteWell actually, I don't think there has been much if any discussion as to WHO was responsible...I posted several times asking WHO was presumably responsible.
To which I received basically nothing, hence the poll.
<br>Well, the 'poll' does not seem to be going in support of your position at all. Last time I checked it was 2 to 1 in the belief that the Official Fairy Tale is not true.
Arthur, the question of WHO was responsible is an invalid question really. Many of us have come to different speculative answers to that question, and each can provide voluminous 'evidence' to support their suspicions. However, a suspicion is not 'proof'.
Prior to my arrival here, I spent a great deal of time 'debating' this issue at Pravda Ru. and it seems to me that all who believe the 'Official Fairy Tale', (once they get into trouble debating the scientific issues) always revert to the position of "Tell me who did it".
As I view it. this is just a 'cop-out'. It is unnecessary to 'prove' WHO did it.
When you come upon the scientific fact of an aircraft crash, is it necessary to prove the Who's, How's, and Why's of that crash, before you can accept the fact that what you are looking at is an aircraft crash?
The simple fact that the WTC buildings fell at NEAR the rate of free-fall, is evidence enough that something is seriously wrong with the 'Official story'. Alleged 'muslims' crashing planes, (and subsequent fires) can NOT explain this physics anomaly of buildings 'collapsing' to the ground at near free-fall rates. The physics (and engineering principles) of resistance simply will not allow such to happen in the 'Real World'.
I, nor anyone else, need not 'prove' WHO made this happen, in order to prove that it did happen. This 'near free-fall rate' is a scientific and basic physics fact. To imply that you can not accept alternative theories until such time as someone proves to you WHO made this happen, is like saying "although I see an aircraft crash, I will not accept that it IS an aircraft crash until such time as someone tells me WHO made that plane crash'. It is untenable logic.
new here
31st October 2005 - 05:00 AM
From 911research
| QUOTE | It is widely accepted that both towers completely fell (nearly everything but the dust reached the ground) in around ten seconds. This estimate appears to be based mainly on seismic data. However, video evidence of the North Tower collapse suggests that it took close to 15 seconds for the destruction to reach the ground
<br>
Free fall from the height of the towers would be 9 seconds. If the actual time was 15 seconds then is 1 2/3rds times longer than freefall, actually "near freefall"? The term "near" is vague.
As for "who done it", I have seen many of those who believe that it was not Arab hijackers claim it was George Bush and his bunch that did it. "Who done it" (if not hijackers) is very important and I would expect those people who believe that it wasn't as official lines say it was would have to have some theory about it.
"Who done it?" is as important as "how was it done?" and those in the conspiracy camp are also vague about this question as far as I have seen.
(though I admit I have not gone through all of 911research website)
cortez
31st October 2005 - 06:08 AM
Foxx
31st October 2005 - 03:16 PM
QUOTE (new here+Oct 31 2005, 05:00 AM) QUOTE As for "who done it", I have seen many of those who believe that it was not Arab hijackers claim it was George Bush and his bunch that did it. "Who done it" (if not hijackers) is very important and I would expect those people who believe that it wasn't as official lines say it was would have to have some theory about it.
"Who done it?" is as important as "how was it done?" and those in the conspiracy camp are also vague about this question as far as I have seen.
(though I admit I have not gone through all of 911research website) The 'WHO' done it, is completely unimportant to the basic physics that the buildings fell at near free-fall speed. Raising speculations or theories as to WHO may have been involved adds nor subtracts nothing from the physics anomaly pointed to by Andrew Johnson. It may be a subject for other threads but is not relevant to the science under discussion in this one. If you believe that buildings can ignore the physics of resistance, then we would be quite happy to see you attempt to prove that this law of physics can be abrogated, feel free to bring forward your calculations or other proof.
metamars
31st October 2005 - 05:48 PM
| QUOTE | Raising speculations or theories as to WHO may have been involved adds nor subtracts nothing from the physics anomaly pointed to by Andrew Johnson. It may be a subject for other threads but is not relevant to the science under discussion in this one.
<br>I basically agree with this, but with the minor complaint that Hoffman has claimed a greater collapse time, and if this is the case, the real question for skeptical physicists is:
were the forces of resistance to collapse small enough to slow it down by only x seconds, where x seconds is the collapse time?
If you want to claim a comparison with free fall speed as the key argument, you should at least attempt to quantify this. Without a serious attempt to quantify it, nobody can claim it as a decisive argument, pro or con.
(I have to admit that if one of the towers really did collapse at faster than free fall speed, it may be unnecessary to be quantitative, unless you are on the FEMA Fairy Tale side. Lol)
Does anybody know of another forum where there is more quantitative analysis of the WTC collapses? This forum has proven to be dissapointingly "light" on a more scientific/engineering approach. (Not unlike FEMA.  )
One would think that civil engineers must have discussed this on an open forum, at the very least.
I'm very pressed for time right now.....
metamars
31st October 2005 - 05:53 PM
| QUOTE | were the forces of resistance to collapse small enough to slow it down by only x seconds, where x seconds is the collapse time?
<br>Well, that was goofy of me. I should have written:
"were the forces of resistance to collapse small enough to slow it down by only x seconds, where x seconds is the difference from a free fall collapse time?"
adoucette
31st October 2005 - 05:57 PM
| QUOTE | Got Squibs?
<br>It appears to me that what you are seeing is air rushing out of an opening, carrying with it debris.
A squib would not continue to increase in intensity over time as this is obviously doing.
squibs would also have to be going off all around the building at the same time and there is no evidence that that is occuring.
Rough estimates would put the amount of air in a floor at ~400,000 cubic feet, if the top floors are pancaking, one would expect that one would get these type of explosive releases as the floors fell.
Arthur
adoucette
31st October 2005 - 06:02 PM
QUOTE (metamars+) I have to admit that if one of the towers really did collapse at faster than free fall speed, it may be unnecessary to be quantitative <br>If it fell faster than FF speed we would have to rewrite a number of basic physical laws. Arthur
Foxx
31st October 2005 - 06:08 PM
QUOTE (cortez+Oct 31 2005, 06:08 AM) Hi Cortez. Absolutely a great video / photoanalysis site! Thanks
adoucette
31st October 2005 - 06:12 PM
| QUOTE | If you want to claim a comparison with free fall speed as the key argument, you should at least attempt to quantify this. Without a serious attempt to quantify it, nobody can claim it as a decisive argument, pro or con.
<br>Totally agree and I've yet to see one. If you are part of a group claiming this (hell, a number in these threads claim that this is "proven") one would think this would be the FIRST order of business.
I don't think one needs to even concern themselves with the last half of the collapse, as I think everyone would agree that by the time the collapse progresses to that point, it would most likely be at near free fall speeds regardless of how the collapse was initiated. In any case, since rate of fall increases over time, very slight errors in absolute timing in the final stages can yield wildly different expectations vs results.
However what should be fairly easy to determine, from the available videos, is the relative collapse speed compared to free fall through the first half of the tower. One can measure distance over speed directly from the frames as they are not obscured by the dust cloud, as the end state is.
Why has this relatively simple calculation not been done?
If it has, where can we see it?
Arthur
Foxx
31st October 2005 - 07:01 PM
Although I personally cannot quantify the numbers, it is not difficult to see with ones own eyes that the rate of collapse of these towers is physically impossible unless all structural supports throughout the entire building were compromised sequentially within milliseconds. This is exactly how such rates of fall are accomplished by demolition teams. Apart from compromizing the structural integrity of every main support within milliseconds, the upward force of resistance will not allow such a circumstance to happen. It is all well and good for supporters of the Official Fairy Tale to claim that the fire compromized the structural integrity of the majority of the columns in the fire zone leading to the fictional dynamic drop as hypotheticized by Bazant-Zhou... (even though it didn't - as can be shown by the NIST report itself),... but even this will not lead to the fairy tale of complete global DISPROPORTIONATE progressive collapse at the speed evidenced right down to the base of the building. The resistance provided by the uncompromized 'cold steel' in the lower portion of the building MUST slow the collapsing upper mass well beyond the rate of near free-fall, due to resistance. Forget about the resistance of 'air' slowing the collapse, these buildings were not falling through thin air (although they fell close to as though they were). Consider that water is roughly 800 times the density of air. If you shoot a bullet through air it will travel at "x" speed. Shoot that same bullet through water and it will slow the momentum by roughly 800 times. This is resistance. Now try to shoot that bullet through a solid object (lets say 'steel') and it will be slowed exponentially as opposed through air, or water. Too many people have been brainswoggled by the 'pancaking floors scenario' where the 'floor' IS falling through air. If the towers were a simple column filled with floors supported by nothing other than the outer walls, then (IN THEORY) this 'progressive collapse' could possibly have fallen 'near' the rate of free-fall (although even in this case it would not be absolute free-fall due to the resistance put up by each consecutive floor). However, this 'belief' completely disregards the structure of the central core which was a post and beam structure. This structure can not collapse anywhere near the rate of simple suspended floors falling upon one another. The above weight is not falling on lateral beams (or trusses) but rather onto vertical columns (all of which are braced laterally with massive BEAMS - not trusses in the classic 'egg-crate' construction of all previous traditional buildings). There are those who mistakenly promote the idea (or deliberately attempt to deceive others), that the strength of the central core was derived by the lateral stiffness provided from the suspended truss floors. This is absolutely wrong structural thinking. Only a portion of the stability of the central core was derived from the lateral stiffening provided by the truss floors. The MAIN lateral support for the central core was derived by the transverse beams which were connected in all directions within the core itself. This 'latticework' of steel columns & beams cannot just simply collapse 'through itself' like suspended floors falling through thin air. It is impossible. If anyone thinks it can, I'd like to see the proof (or even THEORY) how such is possible... http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/untitled004.html
adoucette
31st October 2005 - 07:38 PM
| QUOTE | The resistance provided by the uncompromized 'cold steel' in the lower portion of the building MUST slow the collapsing upper mass well beyond the rate of near free-fall, due to resistance.
<br>Why MUST it?
The design was to support static loads. The forces generated by the collapse, particularly as it progressed, would have been many magnitudes greater than these design loads. There comes a point where the resistance is negligible compared to the forces applied. Yes it would have been more than FF times, but logic would indicate that it need not be much more. I've yet to see any accurate accounting for what the total elapsed time was.
And I repeat, analysis of the collapse of the upper half of the structure should be easily done and would indicate much more clearly how the rate of collapse relates to free fall.
Got one?
Arthur
Foxx
31st October 2005 - 08:03 PM
| QUOTE | The forces generated by the collapse, particularly as it progressed, would have been many magnitudes greater than these design loads.
<br>Show quantitatively that the forces generated by the collapse would have been many magnitudes greater than the design static loads.
stallion4
31st October 2005 - 10:20 PM
QUOTE (adoucette+Oct 31 2005, 05:57 PM) | QUOTE | Got Squibs?
<br>It appears to me that what you are seeing is air rushing out of an opening, carrying with it debris.
A squib would not continue to increase in intensity over time as this is obviously doing.
squibs would also have to be going off all around the building at the same time and there is no evidence that that is occuring.
Rough estimates would put the amount of air in a floor at ~400,000 cubic feet, if the top floors are pancaking, one would expect that one would get these type of explosive releases as the floors fell.
Arthur
<br>
Oh come on, Arthur. Squibs can be seen in several videos/photos ejecting from several different areas of the towers during their "collapse". Many of which occur well below the point of "collapse". Please explain this photo of an ejection or squib that occurs approximately 50-floors beneath the point of its "collapse", Arthur:
Watch this video to get a better idea when the ejection actually occurs (it happens at almost the same time that the tower begins to "collapse"):
VIDEO: http://tinyurl.com/7dkv3
Is it possible for smoke (from the floors "pancaking") to travel downward and eject approximately 50-floors beneath the point of "collapse" in that short amount of time?
Here's a few more images showing "squibs"
VIDEO: http://images.indymedia.org/imc/ontario/wt...ition_waves.mpg
Arthur, also please explain what these people could possibly be describing other than controlled demolition:
From THE NEW YORK TIMES:
Assistant Fire Commissioner: "I thought . . . before . . . No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. . . . I . . . saw a flash flash flash . . . [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they . . . blow up a building. . . ?”
Source:
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...ory_Stephen.txt
NYC firefighter: “It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit. . . [W]e originally had thought there was like an internal detonation, explosives, because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down.”
Source:
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...chia_Edward.txt
From The San Francisco Chronicle / SFGate.com:
Captain of Emergency Medical Services: "somewhere around the middle of the world trade center there was this orange and red flash coming out ... initially it was just one flash then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode ... and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides ... as far as could see these popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger going both up and down and then all around the building"
Source:
http://sfgate.com/gate/pictures/2005/09/10...rin_deshore.pdf
And just an FYI:
150+ 9/11 Smoking Guns Found in the Mainstream Media
http://killtown.911review.org/911smokingguns.html
adoucette
31st October 2005 - 11:26 PM
My that's an awful few squibs for a building that size.
I don't have to explain them, YOU need to explain why there aren't squibs going off all around the building, on multiple floors, in a progressive manner.
There aren't
What they heard was simply an acoustic event. It is not EVIDENCE of a chemical explosion. I can pop a paper bag and cause a pretty loud bang.
Try it.
Arthur
Foxx
1st November 2005 - 01:11 AM
Now this is an example of 'Free-Fall' showing some 'resistance' along the way... http://www.yeeguy.com/freefall/You may have to wait a few seconds for the animation to load. Enjoy !
Foxx
1st November 2005 - 02:25 AM
| QUOTE | Originally posted by Arthur
I don't have to explain them, YOU need to explain why there aren't squibs going off all around the building, on multiple floors, in a progressive manner.
<br>Why would we need to explain the above. That is your version of how it should appear. Can you show examples that that is what happens in a normal demolition? And who said it was a 'normal' demolition?
metamars
1st November 2005 - 02:50 AM
| QUOTE | The design was to support static loads. The forces generated by the collapse, particularly as it progressed, would have been many magnitudes greater than these design loads. There comes a point where the resistance is negligible compared to the forces applied. Yes it would have been more than FF times, but logic would indicate that it need not be much more.
<br>Emphasis mine.
Your argument is fallacious, in three different ways.
First off, you are glossing over how the building could begin to develop into a global collapse. I did a calculation that indicated that even with a 5 floor free fall running start (a 5 floor heated/completely-softened region directly above cold floors, if you will), you will still only end up with a local collapse. Merely stating "particularly as it progressed", which presupposes that it could and did without some kind of demolition force, doesn't make it so. If you presuppose that as an axiom, you are essentially assuming what you set out to prove. I pressuposed 5 floors of free fall, which, I figured, should satisfy the most ardent FEMA-believer. However, my generosity at granting false premises has it's limits.
Secondly, as my bolding indicates, while, even if you keep assuming a greater and greater free fall zone, such that at some point you may well be able to collapse the remaining floors, (or if you came up with some other halfway plausible scenario that would give you a global collapse), you don't really know what that rate of collapse would be - not without calculating it. It's not a question of logic, as much as a question of the details of the system. It's dissapointing that nobody has looked to calculate this, even using vastly simplifying assumptions, in even 1 scenario.
Thirdly, when you state " would have been many magnitudes greater than these design loads.", you are not distinguishing between the loads that a floor (in the sense of the area between supporting columns - call this the lateral part of the floor ) can handle and the load that the columns which support these floors can handle, on that particular floor. You can very easily see that, ito weight requirements, these probably varied by at least 2 orders of magnitude. The latteral floor on floor 1 had only to support the contents of a single floor. However, the columns at level = Floor 1 had to support 111 of these, plus the weight of the columns. As Foxx has reminded us:
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | The design was to support static loads. The forces generated by the collapse, particularly as it progressed, would have been many magnitudes greater than these design loads. There comes a point where the resistance is negligible compared to the forces applied. Yes it would have been more than FF times, but logic would indicate that it need not be much more.
<br>Emphasis mine.
Your argument is fallacious, in three different ways.
First off, you are glossing over how the building could begin to develop into a global collapse. I did a calculation that indicated that even with a 5 floor free fall running start (a 5 floor heated/completely-softened region directly above cold floors, if you will), you will still only end up with a local collapse. Merely stating "particularly as it progressed", which presupposes that it could and did without some kind of demolition force, doesn't make it so. If you presuppose that as an axiom, you are essentially assuming what you set out to prove. I pressuposed 5 floors of free fall, which, I figured, should satisfy the most ardent FEMA-believer. However, my generosity at granting false premises has it's limits.
Secondly, as my bolding indicates, while, even if you keep assuming a greater and greater free fall zone, such that at some point you may well be able to collapse the remaining floors, (or if you came up with some other halfway plausible scenario that would give you a global collapse), you don't really know what that rate of collapse would be - not without calculating it. It's not a question of logic, as much as a question of the details of the system. It's dissapointing that nobody has looked to calculate this, even using vastly simplifying assumptions, in even 1 scenario.
Thirdly, when you state " would have been many magnitudes greater than these design loads.", you are not distinguishing between the loads that a floor (in the sense of the area between supporting columns - call this the lateral part of the floor ) can handle and the load that the columns which support these floors can handle, on that particular floor. You can very easily see that, ito weight requirements, these probably varied by at least 2 orders of magnitude. The latteral floor on floor 1 had only to support the contents of a single floor. However, the columns at level = Floor 1 had to support 111 of these, plus the weight of the columns. As Foxx has reminded us:
There are those who mistakenly promote the idea (or deliberately attempt to deceive others), that the strength of the central core was derived by the lateral stiffness provided from the suspended truss floors.
<br>In my calculations, I am assuming that the lateral parts of the floors would not collapse, but would transfer all downward force onto the floor columns, so that they can collapse. (Otherwise, 1) you would either have a bigger problem to explain how the columns collapsed, since there's no mechanism (that I have heard of or can think of) to do it with and 2) nothing like this was observed, though there was the possible "exception" of the mysterious "spire" which survived after one of the towers collapsed for a few seconds, and then collapsed into it's footprint and apparently started turning into powder) Rather, a floor by floor collapse was observed, though it must be admitted that dust did obscure a lot of what was above the collapse zone..
It might be fun to try and figure out how many lateral floor areas would collapse if you allowed 1 or 2 fully loaded lateral floor areas (but nothing else) to coalesce into a solid weight and drop it from a delta height = 1 or 2 floors, respectively, onto a floor area. If there are any civil engineers out there, please tell us to what extent lateral floor strength is overengineered.
Unlike collapse of the floor columns, most "pure lateral floor collapse" scenarios should give you global collapse. If you overengineered to handle, say, 5x the maximum, and could somehow kick off a collapse of 5 consecutive, fully loaded floors, obviously you will have more than enough weight to collapse all lateral floor areas below. The rate of collapse would no doubt accelerate overall, but again, without a calculation, you don't really know what that rate is. *
And, of course, at the end of the day, you'd still have a massive steel frame which has not collapsed.
Could this be why the 911 commission, FEMA and NIST practice "core denial" or "core trivialization"? I think the answer is obvious.
* when I get around to it, I will probably post an estimate that actual loading weight maxed out at 18 lbs. per square foot, not the legal maximum of 50 lbs/ sq. ft. However, in that estimate I ignore the weight of walls, and just don't know if this is proper or not.
However, for purposes of a pure lateral floor collapse calculation, you would want to know the weight of the floor itself (including walls, excluding columns). Has anybody figured that out?
metamars
1st November 2005 - 04:05 AM
Here's an example of a building thousands of years old that suffered lateral collapse (of it's ceiling), but 7 columns are still going strong. The temple of Apollo at Ancient Corinth:   It's just a guess on my part, but I'd say that civil engineering has progressed a bit since then, and if the old-timer Greeks were smart enough to build building such that collapse of lateral segments did not collapse the supporting columns (well, all of them anyway), then modern engineers can do at least that good. Fortunately for both the Ancient Greeks as well as posterity, there was no FEMA around back then to tell them otherwise.....
adoucette
1st November 2005 - 06:03 AM
here are some ACTUAL controlled demolitions and some videos of them. Guess what, they look nothing like WTC's failure. Please note the HUGE number of explosives it takes to bring down a building a FRACTION of the size of one of the WTC towers. Please note the LONG time it takes for a crew of experienced people to set the charges. Please note the LONG time it takes for preparation of the structure FOR demolition, PRIOR to actually placing the charges. NO ONE has provided any explanation of how this INCREDIBLE amount of work could have gone on in both towers without someone knowing about it. The largest structure to be demolished this way, at 439 feet was less then 1/2 as tall as one WTC tower and it took 12 people 24 days to place the charges IN AN ABANDONED BUILDING. They used 5 miles of cable to do so, over 4,000 charges in over 1,000 locations. Read about them below, links to the demolition videos including the Hudson. CDI detonated 232.5 lb. of explosives in 863 different locations, in four (4) levels of the 21-level Aladdin Hotel Tower. The initiation and implosion sequence detonated over a 17 second period, with structural motion starting at the southwest corner of the structure, approximately 9.5 seconds into the program Utilizing approximately 350 kg of high velocity explosives, in 880 locations, CDI felled the structure at exactly 10AM before thousands of spectators http://www.controlled-demolition.com/defau...=20030324142951The 11-story, 900 room Hacienda Hotel ….CDI’s experience in and the application of its’ knowledge of progressive collapse patterns in dozens of other types of construction paid off on the Hacienda project. It took 1,125 lb. of explosives and 30,600-ft of detonating cord initiating charges in 4,128 different locations to bring the three towers down Hudson’s was the tallest department store in the country and was second in square footage only to Macy’s anchor Store in New York. It dominated the retail market in the city through the 1970’s before closing its doors in 1983. The complex had two retail basements and 23 above grade retail floors, including mezzanines. Two additional basements and six upper stories in a tower, provided storage and mechanical support for the 2.2 million square foot building. In all there were 33 levels in the structure.CDI’s 12 person loading crew took twenty four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. Over 36,000 ft of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay elements were installed in CDI’s implosion initiation system, some to create the 36 primary implosion sequence and another 216 micro-delays to keep down the detonation overpressure from the 2,728 lb of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition.CDI’s implosion of Hudson’s set three new records: At 439 ft. tall Hudson’s is the tallest building ever imploded, eclipsing the record held by CDI since 1975 with the felling of the 361 ft. tall Mendez Caldiera Building in Sao Palo, Brazil. At 439 ft. tall Hudson’s is the tallest structural steel building ever imploded, eclipsing the record CDI set in 1997 with the felling 344 sq. ft. tall #500 Wood Street Building in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. At 2.2 Million square feet, Hudson’s is the largest single building ever imploded. http://www.controlled-demolition.com/defau...=20030225133807#500 Wood Street Building ... CDI’s implosion of the 344.5 foot tall office building eclipses the world record for the explosives demolition of urban steel buildings which CDI has held since October 1977 for its’ demolition of the 28-story, 245-foot tall Biltmore Hotel in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. After two (2) months of preparation, CDI’s 13 person crew needed seven (7) days to place 1,590 linear shaped charges totaling 595 lb. of explosives on steel columns on 11 levels of the 27-story structureSeconds after the final warning signal blared Sunday afternoon at a downtown redevelopment site in Oklahoma City, precisely placed explosive charges dropped a 28-story building almost in its tracks. When it fell, the 245-ft-high structure became the tallest steel-frame building to be demolished with explosives. Built in 1932 of heavy beams and beefed-up steel columns, the Biltmore Hotel stood in the way of a $39-million urban renewal plan to construct a cultural and recreational complex. Some structures on the site have been removed while others await demolition. But none presented the problems that the Biltmore did. "It’ s the heaviest steel we’ve ever worked on," says Mark Loizeaux, of Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI), Towson, Md., which dropped the brick-clad structure for contractor Wells Excavating Co., Inc., Oklahoma City. "Because of the thickness of the steel, a single charge wouldn't penetrate completely through," he says. “We had to attack a single 3-in.-thick stem plate from both sides." Each 16-in. steel column with built-up flanges totals 2.5 to 3 tons per floor.To blast in this fashion, says Loizeaux, it is imperative that the charges on opposing sides go off simultaneously. If one goes off too soon, it will dislodge the other before it can cut through the steel. CDI placed 991 separate charges, about 800 lbs. of explosives in all, on seven floors from the basement to the 14th floor and detonated them over a five-second intervalBased on this evidence it is totally implausible that the WTC was imploded. Arthur
Foxx
1st November 2005 - 06:22 AM
No Arthur, wrong again.
It is unimportant to the science of this thread 'HOW' demolition charges were set, nor in what quantities, nor 'WHO' performed the actions. The only important thing is that it is impossible due to friction and resistance that a building can fall anywhere near the rate of free-fall... (especially given the structural make-up of the central core).
That is end of story for those who believe the Official Fairy Tale. Unless you can show quantitatively that a building can fall anywhere near free-fall, then there is only one other plausible alternative... that is: additional sources of energy must have been input to remove all structural columns sequentially in order for the buildings to fall anywhere near free-fall speeds. WHAT those sources of energy were, WHO or HOW they were 'planted' is completely irrelevant.
All of these whinings and cryings about WHO did it and/or HOW they did it and/or WHY they did it have no bearing whatsoever on the basic physics of the issue.
Besides that, who says they were traditional demolitions! I have never seen a traditional demolition effected in such a manner, therefore I myself reject all comparisons to traditional regular demolitions, which are for the most part IMPLOSION demolitions - (Like WTC 7).
However, your last statement is exactly true...
| QUOTE | Based on this evidence it is totally implausible that the WTC was imploded.
<br>The towers WERE NOT regular IMPLOSIVE demolitions. They weren't IMplosive demolitions at all, as is clearly seen in every photo and video taken of the phenomena. They were EXplosive demolitions.
Here is an example of Explosive demolition... on the right is a tall smokestack (too tall to be taken out with implosive demolition)... Notice any similarities?
manifespo
1st November 2005 - 07:31 AM
Could you obtain the extra energy through 1) Radiant energy 2) Chemical Lasers or 3)Thermonuclear weapons ?
Justin Tin
1st November 2005 - 07:35 AM
Here is a recent analysis of the north tower. It calculates the air volume of the first floor of collapse and shows that explosives is the only explanation. http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/09/324507.shtmlhttp://911research.wtc7.net/papers/trumpma...alysisFinal.htmMaybe a new thread should be started to discuss just the contents of this paper. It contains a decent amount of physics. As the author says, his work needs to be peer reviewed. If his analysis is correct then this debate about the official story is over.
cortez
1st November 2005 - 08:13 AM
Explosion Sounds and the World Trade Center - Twin Tower CollapsesVersion 1.23b Part I Introduction Many witnesses to the collapse of the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York City describe at least 1 "explosion" at the time of the collapses. A few eye-witness accounts specifically describe 3 explosions at the initiation of the collapse, whilst others some describe a "crackling" sound. Many people describe hearing a "pop-pop-pop-pop..." or "bang-bang-bang-bang..." as the towers came down. The reality of there being some kind of explosive events coinciding with the demise of each building, as reported by eye witnesses is well documented. However, any word of explosions essentially disappeared from mass-media reports of the the attacks very quickly and to this day are not part of the official narrative. Mainstream scientific attempts to describe the collapses as unforeseen catastrophic engineering failures (accidents) do not bother to take into account the widespread reports of explosions. Though video clips of the collapses can be found all over the internet and on video releases, most people will not really hear evidence of explosions on the available footage. What most people would describe hearing from the available media is the "roar" of the buildings coming down. The main reason for this is probably because there is not much actual audio content available of the events. Most angles of the collapse were recorded from quite a distance away and were presented without any sound other than that of news anchors, reporters, and interviewees speaking over-top. It is the preferred style of news agencies to constantly have human voices "giving shape" to history as it unfolds. Video footage which was shot very close to the towers as they came down is available and sometimes include audio. This audio does include evidence of explosions though it is not generally obvious for a number of reasons. Sounds of intense volume recorded at close distances will tend to overload and be distorted by the time they make it onto tape. If a very loud sound such as an explosion overloads the camera's sound circuitry and is followed very quickly by subsequent loud sounds, the individual sounds will be more difficult to identify because the shape of each sound, the attack and decay, will be masked as the audio circuits are completely saturated with signal. Results will vary depending on camera type, microphone type, specific settings, and proximity to the event. Some angles of the collapses are cut very short so they start playing only after the initiation of collapse sounds, perhaps because some videographers did not capture the first moments on tape or as a result of the news tending to only focus on the "juicy" bits in their presentations. Another problem with internet videos is that when there is sound, it is usually missing a lot of information and/or is distorted from various forms of data compression and/or sloppy transfers. Another problem with internet video in terms of close scrutiny can be audio which is encoded or played back slightly out of synch with the picture. From listening to audio with evidence of explosions, it seem that the intense "roar" associated with the towers coming down actually begins before any signs of typical explosions occur. This would raise many more questions about the nature of the building collapses and what actually caused them to come down. The initial "roar"/"rumble" might have masked the initial sounds of explosions in audio recordings and even to the ears of witnesses to varying degrees. The power of suggestion can have a very strong influence on what we think we are hearing and on what we remember hearing. Interpreting what we hear through audio playback equipment (and even in reality) will rely heavily on what our eyes see at the time and how the audio has been contextualized, pre-interpreted, and packaged for us. A dramatic example of this is how we can be made to hear hidden messages in songs which are played backwards; we will generally just hear nonsense in a backwards passage until someone points out to us what they want us to listen for, at which point we will hear what we are supposed to, clear as day, even though it may a vague, chance similarity. With this in mind, it is important to approach the evidence of audio recordings with very careful listening and analysis to try and be clear about what is actually there. With all the known eyewitness testimonies and the fact that clear signs of explosions can be heard on the available material calls for a detailed audio forensic analysis to be made. This would best be done with the original, uncompressed recordings since audio data compression by its very nature removes a lot of information, such as masked frequencies. Knowing the exact equipment used (microphone types, settings, etc.) and the location of each camera would also be an important factor. What follows is a basic analysis of some audio clips of the collapses, taken from video clips which are available on the internet and video release. Reasonable full-range speakers or full-range headphones should be preferred for listening as computer speakers tend to have quite a limited frequency range. The Trinity Church Clip Video LinkThe first video is screen-marked "10:28am" and is a very brief clip of the south tower collapse, recorded close by from the south east next to Trinity Church1. Though less than 5 seconds long, this clip offers fairly high quality audio, the most pronounced sound being that of 2 gigantic explosions. They are unmistakable and sound like 2 violent thunder claps.  audio only: converted to 44.kHz 16bit - stereo - aiff - uncompressed southtower-tinity1.aif 4.73 seconds - 820KB preview mp4: audio link... Going back to the first, unfiltered sound clip, the explosions, particularly the second, bear a remarkable resemblance to those of a conventional building demolition within a city of other high-rise buildings. Footage of the explosive demolition of the J.L. Hudson Department Store Building, also a very large building which once stood in Detroit is given for comparison. Camera distance could be estimated at roughly 200 meters away from the building... Video Link Audio Onlymuch more to the article (was placed by a researcher on another board), very interesting stuff more here
frater plecticus
1st November 2005 - 08:29 AM
Justin Tin
| QUOTE | Here is a recent analysis of the north tower. It calculates the air volume of the first floor of collapse and shows that explosives is the only explanation.
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/09/324507.shtml
http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/trumpma...alysisFinal.htm
Maybe a new thread should be started to discuss just the contents of this paper. It contains a decent amount of physics. As the author says, his work needs to be peer reviewed. If his analysis is correct then this debate about the official story is over.
<br>
I STARTED A NEW THREAD, WELCOMING ANALYSIS OF THE PAPER.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=3442
(ONLY MATHEMATICS PLEASE, CAVE DWELLERS NOT INCLUDED)
4th link
This charts military deaths in Iraq during the Libby indictment timeline. 1,590 died during the grand jury investigation from January 2004 to October 28, 2005.
http://cryptome.org/cia-dead/cia-leak-dead.htm
adoucette
1st November 2005 - 02:34 PM
QUOTE (Foxx+Nov 1 2005, 06:22 AM) No Arthur, wrong again.
It is unimportant to the science of this thread 'HOW' demolition charges were set, nor in what quantities, nor 'WHO' performed the actions. The only important thing is that it is impossible due to friction and resistance that a building can fall anywhere near the rate of free-fall... (especially given the structural make-up of the central core).
That is end of story for those who believe the Official Fairy Tale. Unless you can show quantitatively that a building can fall anywhere near free-fall, then there is only one other plausible alternative... that is: additional sources of energy must have been input to remove all structural columns sequentially in order for the buildings to fall anywhere near free-fall speeds. WHAT those sources of energy were, WHO or HOW they were 'planted' is completely irrelevant.
All of these whinings and cryings about WHO did it and/or HOW they did it and/or WHY they did it have no bearing whatsoever on the basic physics of the issue.
Besides that, who says they were traditional demolitions! I have never seen a traditional demolition effected in such a manner, therefore I myself reject all comparisons to traditional regular demolitions, which are for the most part IMPLOSION demolitions - (Like WTC 7).
However, your last statement is exactly true...
| QUOTE | Based on this evidence it is totally implausible that the WTC was imploded.
<br>The towers WERE NOT regular IMPLOSIVE demolitions. They weren't IMplosive demolitions at all, as is clearly seen in every photo and video taken of the phenomena. They were EXplosive demolitions.
Here is an example of Explosive demolition... on the right is a tall smokestack (too tall to be taken out with implosive demolition)... Notice any similarities?
The number and amount of explosives needed ARE important. The articles I posted show WHY that is so. I'm SURE you want us to ignore the many thousands of charges needed, the TONS of explosives it would take, the miles of detonating cord that would have to be strung BETWEEN the various charges, the large team of men it would take, FOR EACH TOWER. Now the company that I listed is the biggest in the business, holding the world record for largest tower imploded, and it is a significantly smaller building. Given UNIMPEDED ACCESS to these buildings it would take many MONTHs to make preparatory changes and then several more months to actually place the charges IN EACH TOWER, using a LARGE crew. THEY COULD NOT DO THIS UNNOTICED. It is BEYOND CREDULITY.
so the point is you CAN'T show that placing the explosives needed for this is AT ALL feasible.
You CERTAINLY can't explain how the explosives were NOT impacted by the plane crash.
So yes, it is pertinent to the WHOLE argument.
Your contention that it was "near free fall" has yet to be supported by any evidence.
YOU DON'T KNOW how long it took to fall. You estimate it, but if the estimate is off just a bit then there is enough time to fall. I have described a fairly simple means to determine if the fall of the top half of the structure is "near free fall" and as yet NADA, ZIP, ZILCH.
The fact that this simple calculation, where distance fallen over time could be ACCURATELY determined, is being ignored tells me you need the cloud of dust at the end of the fall to obscure the truth.
You HAVEN'T shown that the resistance of the building is sufficient to prevent the rate of fall as seen.
You SAY it was Explosive, but then you talk about squibs, about the floors failing in sequence ahead of the fall, which are all hallmarks of Implosive demolition. Can't have it both ways.
The only Similarity to the Explosive part and the scene you show is at the point where the initial collapse of the top of the tower into the bottom of the tower when the damaged area fails. So, yes this WOULD look Explosive.
Arthur
adoucette
1st November 2005 - 02:53 PM
QUOTE (cortez+) Video footage which was shot very close to the towers as they came down is available and sometimes include audio. This audio does include evidence of explosions though it is not generally obvious for a number of reasons. Sounds of intense volume recorded at close distances will tend to overload and be distorted by the time they make it onto tape. If a very loud sound such as an explosion overloads the camera's sound circuitry and is followed very quickly by subsequent loud sounds, the individual sounds will be more difficult to identify because the shape of each sound, the attack and decay, will be masked as the audio circuits are completely saturated with signal. Results will vary depending on camera type, microphone type, specific settings, and proximity to the event. Some angles of the collapses are cut very short so they start playing only after the initiation of collapse sounds, perhaps because some videographers did not capture the first moments on tape or as a result of the news tending to only focus on the "juicy" bits in their presentations. Another problem with internet videos is that when there is sound, it is usually missing a lot of information and/or is distorted from various forms of data compression and/or sloppy transfers. Another problem with internet video in terms of close scrutiny can be audio which is encoded or played back slightly out of synch with the picture.
From listening to audio with evidence of explosions, it seem that the intense "roar" associated with the towers coming down actually begins before any signs of typical explosions occur. This would raise many more questions about the nature of the building collapses and what actually caused them to come down. The initial "roar"/"rumble" might have masked the initial sounds of explosions in audio recordings and even to the ears of witnesses to varying degrees. <br>Which is all nice UNTIL you watch the videos on the links I provided, in which case the explosions are EASILY HEARD (and seen) and pretty unmistakable. Not so with the Videos from the WTC collapse. Arthur
adoucette
1st November 2005 - 03:35 PM
Cortez,
Any idea where to find a codec that will actually play that audio?
Arthur
cortez
1st November 2005 - 05:51 PM
adoucette,
I should have mentioned you would need quicktime for the .aif files
adoucette
1st November 2005 - 06:04 PM
Quicktime won't play it either.
Says it needs software that is not on the QT server.
I'm running Win2000 Pro
Arthur
Truthseeker
1st November 2005 - 11:05 PM
Hi folks,
Great discussion. Nobody appears to have disproven Andrew's physics of the collapse.
Congratulations Andrew and thanks for that.
The events of 911 based on the compelling evidence was in my opinion, an inside job. If you are still not convinced then read David Ray Griffins outstanding book "The New Pearl Harbour" (second edition).
Perhaps we should let the smoking guns, those independent witnesses who were there, have the final say on the root cause of the collapse of the twin towers:-
| QUOTE | RODERIGUEZ FEELS THE BASEMENT BOMB
Testimony from a Hero Blows Official Story Sky-high
The London 9/11 Sceptics were privileged to hear William Roderiguez, on June 3rd 2005, in the Reopen 9/11 Enquiry campaign. We are grateful for permission to reprint his story.
It’s a miracle that WTC worker William Rodriguez is still alive. Usually arriving to work at 8:30am, on the morning of 9/11 he reported 30 minutes late. Had he arrived on time, he’d have been up at the North Tower top floors just as the plane slammed into it. Instead, he was checking into work in an office on sub-level 1 when it was hit, and he heard the sound and concussion of a massive explosion in the sub-levels right below his feet. "When I heard the sound of the explosion, the floor beneath my feet vibrated, the walls started cracking and it everything started shaking," said Rodriguez.
He was huddled together with at least 14 other people in the office. Anthony Saltamachia, supervisor for the American Maintenance Co., was one of the people there ready to verify his story. "Seconds after the first massive explosion below in the basement still rattled the floor, I hear another explosion from way above," said Rodriguez. "Although I was unaware at the time, this was the airplane hitting the tower, it occurred moments after the first explosion."
Before he had time to think, co-worker Felipe David stormed into the basement office with severe burns on his face and arms, screaming for help and yelling "explosion! explosion! " David had been in front of a nearby freight elevator on sub-level 1 about 400 feet from the office when fire burst out of the elevator shaft, causing his injuries. "He was burned terribly," said Rodriguez. "The skin was hanging off his hands and arms. His injuries couldn’t have come from the airplane above, but only from a massive explosion below. I don’t care what the government says, or what scientists say. I saw a man burned terribly from a fire that was caused from an explosion below.
"I know there were explosives placed below the trade center. I helped a man to safety who is living proof, living proof the government story is a lie and a cover-up. "I have tried to tell my story to everybody, but nobody wants to listen. It is very strange what is going on here in supposedly the most democratic country in the world. In my home country of Puerto Rico and all the other Latin American countries, I have been allowed to tell my story uncensored - but here, I can’t even say a word."
Rodriguez escorted David to safety outside the WTC, then returned to lead the others in the basement to safety as well. While there, he also helped two other men trapped and drowning in the basement elevator shaft, another result he says of the explosives placed below the Tower. After leading these men to safety, he made another trip back into the North Tower, against police orders, in order to rescue people from the top floors.
"I never could make it to the top, but I got up to the 33rd floor after getting some of my equipment and a face mask out of the janitor’s closet," said Rodriguez, adding he heard a series of small explosions going off between the 20th and 30th floors, unrelated to the airplane strike, while making his way through the stairwell to the top floors. "Also, when I was on the 33rd floor, I heard strange sounds coming form the 34th floor, loud noises like someone moving and thumping heavy equipment and furniture. I knew this floor was empty and stripped due to construction work so I avoided it and continued to make my way up the stairs."
Rodriguez said he finally reached the 39th floor before being turned back by fire fighters and then, reluctantly, started his descent back down and his own flight to safety while, at the same time, hearing explosions coming from the South Tower.
Roderiguez brings a Lawsuit
William Rodriguez is the lead plaintiff in a federal RICO lawsuit filed against George W. Bush, Richard B. Cheney, Donald H. Rumsfeld and others, alleging that they and others were complicit in the 9-11 attacks, and either planned the attacks, or had foreknowledge of the attacks and permitted them to succeed, in order to exploit a “New Pearl Harbor” to launch wars against Afghanistan and Iraq. The case, filed last November in a Philadelphia federal district court, recently was moved to New York in a change of venue after a government’s motion to dismiss was overruled, allowing legal discovery to continue.
A native of Puerto Rico and US citizen, the 44-year old Roderiguez had worked for 19 years in the WTC in maintenance. As the only person on the site with the master key to the North Tower stairwells, he singlehandedly rescued at least 15 persons from death. He led firefighters up the stairwell, unlocking doors as they ascended. He was the last person to exit alive from the North tower, and survived its collapse only by diving beneath a fire truck to avoid the avalanche of concrete and steel.
He has received a National Hero Award from the Senate of Puerto Rico. But in the US he was sacked from his job and made homeless for a while. He has been active raising money for 9/11victims, being involved with charity groups that have raised more than $122 million. He says he has used over $60,000 of his own money, originally earmarked to buy a new house, in order to get at the truth behind 9/11. “I lost 200 friends and I am their voice now”, he says. “I tell them I will do everything in my power to find out the truth since I am living on borrowed time.”
Testimony Ignored
Rodriguez’s testimony has been ignored both by the 9/11 Commission and the National Institute of Safety and Technology (NIST). NIST, an independent investigative group funded by the government, put the finishing touches this week on its 2 year $35 million 9/11 investigation. This week Rodriguez made his final plea to have his story heard while testifying at the final public hearing held in New York.
“I disagree 100% with the government story,” said Rodriguez. “I met with the 9/11 Commission behind closed doors and they essentially discounted everything I said regarding the use of explosives to bring down the North Tower. And I contacted NIST previously four times without a response. Finally, this week I asked them before they came up with their conclusion that jet fuel brought down the towers, if they ever considered my statements or the statements of any of the other survivors who heard the explosions. They just stared at me with blank faces and didn’t have any answers.’
<br>Check out the UK911 truth campaign website www.nineeleven.co.uk or the latest outstanding website I have seen on 911 www.911smokingguns.com
TRUTH CONQUERS ALL
Avogadro
1st November 2005 - 11:54 PM
xyz
stallion4
2nd November 2005 - 04:19 AM
QUOTE (adoucette+Nov 1 2005, 06:03 AM) Please note the LONG time it takes for a crew of experienced people to set the charges.
Please note the LONG time it takes for preparation of the structure FOR demolition, PRIOR to actually placing the charges.
NO ONE has provided any explanation of how this INCREDIBLE amount of work could have gone on in both towers without someone knowing about it.
The largest structure to be demolished this way, at 439 feet was less then 1/2 as tall as one WTC tower and it took 12 people 24 days to place the charges IN AN ABANDONED BUILDING. They used 5 miles of cable to do so, over 4,000 charges in over 1,000 locations. Arthur: Please note the LONG time it takes for a crew of experienced people to set the charges.EXACTLY! I can't begin to tell you how many folks think WTC Building 7 was rigged with explosives on the day of 9-11. Impossible! It must have been rigged BEFORE 9-11, meaning that whoever gave the order to rig it with explosives had prior knowledge of 9-11. Thanks for clearing that up, Arthur.   Here's some more proof that WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolition. Below is an excerpt with ground zero rescue worker, Indira Singh: Radio host Bonnie Falkner: How long did you work as an emergency medical technician and exactly what is it that you were doing (at ground zero)?
Indira Singh: ...when I got there we were setting up triage sites (at ground zero), close, very close to the area. The triage site that I was setting up was behind, well, to the east of Building 7 where Building 7 came down...
...what we were doing was setting up different kinds of stations… IV stations, cardiac stations, wound stations, burn stations ...just trying to have an organized space. What happened with that particular triage site is that pretty soon afternoon, after mid-day on 9/11 we had to evacuate that because they told us Building 7 was coming down...
...I do believe that they brought Building 7 down, because I heard that they were going to bring it down because it was unstable, because of the collateral damage. That I don't know. I can't attest to the validity of that. All I can attest to is that by noon or one o'clock they told us we had to move from that triage site up to Pace University a little further away because Building 7 was going to come down or being brought down.
Bonnie Falkner: Did they actually use the word "brought" down and who was it that was telling you this?
Indira Singh: The fire department... the fire department and they did use the word "we're going to have to bring it down."
The entire interview can be listened to at the link below. The excerpt from above can be found approximately 10 minutes into the interview.
Guns & Butter Radio interview w/ Indira Singh hosted by Bonnie Falkner - April 27th 2005:
http://www.kpfa.org/cgi-bin/gen-mpegurl.m3...427-Wed1400.mp3 Arthur: NO ONE has provided any explanation of how this INCREDIBLE amount of work could have gone on in both towers without someone knowing about it. Several people have, Arthur. Here are a few: People magazine - United in Courage
September 12, 2001
Ben Fountain, 42, a financial analyst with Fireman's Fund, was coming out of the Chambers Street Station, headed for his office on the 47th floor of the south tower.
"How could they let this happen? They knew this building was a target. Over the past few weeks we'd been evacuated a number of times, which is unusual. I think they had an inkling something was going on."
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/people.html
Heightened Security Alert Had Just Been Lifted
September 12, 2001
Daria Coard, 37, a guard at Tower One, said the security detail had been working 12-hour shifts for the past two weeks because of numerous phone threats. But on Thursday, bomb-sniffing dogs were abruptly removed.
http://www.nynewsday.com/news/local/manhat...0,6794009.story
San Francisco Indy Media
WE RECEIVED THE FOLLOWING from someone who worked for Fiduciary Trust on the 90th, 94-97th floors of the South Tower:
"On the weekend of 9/8,9/9 there was a 'power down' condition in WTC tower 2, the south tower. This power down condition meant there was no electrical supply for approx 36 hrs from floor 50 up. I am aware of this situation since I work in IT and had to work with many others that weekend to ensure that all systems were cleanly shutdown beforehand ... and then brought back up afterwards. The reason given by the WTC for the power down was that cabling in the tower was being upgraded ...
"Of course without power there were no security cameras, no security locks on doors and many, many 'engineers' coming in and out of the tower. I was at home on the morning of 9/11 on the shore of Jersey City, right opposite the Towers, and watching events unfold I was convinced immediately that something was happening related to the weekend work."
http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2004/04/1691636.php
WORLD TRADE CENTER RESCUE HERO (William Rodriguez) SUES BUSH AND OTHERS UNDER RICO STATUTE, ALLEGES WILLFUL COMPLICITY IN ATTACKS THAT KILLED 3,000
The full RICO lawsuit can be downloaded here (pdf file)
Excerpt from the lawsuit:
99. Plaintiff notes also that there was a "power down"? condition in the South Tower, ostensibly due to the need to carry out a "cabling upgrade"? on the weekend of September 8-9, 2001. This could have afforded Enterprise demolition agents the opportunity to implant explosives in the South Tower, without being recorded on security cameras. Plaintiff notes further that Stratesec, a company of which Marvin Bush, the President's brother, was formerly a director, provided security in the WTC Complex.
http://www.911forthetruth.com/pages/RodriguezComplaint6.htm
Bush-Linked Company Handled Security for the WTC, Dulles and United
George W. Bush's brother was on the board of directors of a company providing electronic security for the World Trade Center, Dulles International Airport and United Airlines, according to public records. The company was backed by an investment firm, the Kuwait-American Corp., also linked for years to the Bush family.
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0204-06.htm
SECRECY SURROUNDS A BUSH BROTHER'S ROLE IN 9/11 SECURITY
Two planes hijacked on Sept. 11, 2001 were United Airlines planes, and another took off from Dulles International Airport; two, of course, slammed into the World Trade Center. But the Bush Administration has never disclosed the ties of a presidential brother (Marvin Bush) and the Bush family with the firm that intersected the weapons and targets on a day of national tragedy.
http://anderson.ath.cx:8000/911/hj05.html
Secrecy Surrounds 9/11 Investigation
...Such an investigation could reveal some embarrassing Bush family connections with a company “that intersected the weapons and targets on a day of national tragedy.” As Margie Burns reports in The American Reporter, an electronic daily newspaper, Marvin P. Bush, the president’s younger brother, was a principal in a company called Securacom (aka Stratesec) that provided security for the World Trade Center, United Airlines, and Dulles International Airport...
http://www.utne.com/web_special/web_specia...es/10292-1.html Larry Silverstein took over the lease of the entire WTC complex 7 weeks before 9-11 (the first time in the WTC's 30 year history that the lease had ever changed hands). It's probably a good idea to have the lease holder of the WTC complex on your team if you're going to "Pull" some buildings there on 9-11, no? Even Larry Silverstein admitted in a PBS documentary that WTC 7 was "pulled", which is an industry term for controlled demolition: 
"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."
- World Trade Center lease holder, Larry Silverstein, commenting on the collapse of Building 7 in the PBS documentary "America Rebuilds" that aired in September of 2002
Listen here: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/PULLIT.mp3
In the same documentary a clean up worker also uses the term "Pull" to describe the controlled demolition of WTC 6 weeks after 9-11:
"... we're getting ready to pull building six."
Listen here: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/pull-it2.mp3
“Amazing, incredible pick your word. For the third time today, it’s reminiscent of those pictures we’ve all seen too much on television before, where a building was deliberately destroyed by well placed dynamite to knock it down.”
- CBS News anchor Dan Rather commenting on the collapse of Building 7 - September 11, 2001 at approx 5:20pm EST
Video of the WTC 7 "collapse":
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/w..._demolition.mpg
Arthur: They used 5 miles of cable to do so, over 4,000 charges in over 1,000 locations.Remote control ? Wireless technology has come a long way since its inception, no? Is wireless explosives/detonations used on 9-11-01 out of the realm of possibility? Just asking. Also, Arthur, you never answered my question; What could these people possibly be talking about other than controlled demolition? : From THE NEW YORK TIMES:
Assistant Fire Commissioner: "I thought . . . before . . . No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. . . . I . . . saw a flash flash flash . . . [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they . . . blow up a building. . . ?”
Source:
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...ory_Stephen.txt
NYC firefighter: “It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit. . . [W]e originally had thought there was like an internal detonation, explosives, because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down.”
Source:
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...chia_Edward.txt
From The San Francisco Chronicle / SFGate.com:
Captain of Emergency Medical Services: "somewhere around the middle of the world trade center there was this orange and red flash coming out ... initially it was just one flash then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode ... and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides ... as far as could see these popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger going both up and down and then all around the building"
Source:
http://sfgate.com/gate/pictures/2005/09/10...rin_deshore.pdf
Related articles:
Another 9/11 Smoking Gun
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/...moking-gun.html
Below the Belt
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/10/below-belt.html
Compare these building demolition videos to the statements above:
* J.L. Hudson Department Store - Detroit, Michigan
http://www.controlled-demolition.com/image...nt/jlhudson.mpg
* Seattle Kingdome
http://www.controlled-demolition.com/image...nt/kingdome.mpg
* Various building demolitions
http://www.implosionworld.com/cinema.htm
More statements from 9-11 witnesses:
Firemen recall "detonations" in South Tower:
fireman2: We made it outside, we made it about a block.
fireman1: We made it at least 2 blocks.
fireman2: 2 blocks.
fireman1: and we started runnin'
fireman2: poch-poch-poch-poch-poch-poch-poch
fireman1: Floor by floor it started poppin' out ..
fireman2: It was as if as if they had detonated, det..
fireman1: yea detonated yea
fireman2: as if they had planned to take down a building,
boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom ...
fireman1: All the way down, I was watchin it, and runnin'
(60 second video clip):
http://911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos...n_firehouse.mpg
Member of the FDNY:
"We were trying to get some of the people out, but then there was secondary explosions and then subsequent collapses."
Video: http://www.911blimp.net/videos/FDNY-explosions.mov
Firefighter:
"As we were getting our gear on and making our way to the stairway, there was a heavy duty explosion."
Video: http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/heavy.duty.explosion.wmv
September 12, 2001, New York City, People.com
Louie Cacchioli, 51, is a firefighter assigned to Engine 47 in Harlem.
We were the first ones in the second tower after the plane struck. I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there was bombs set in the building...
Source:
http://prisonplanet.com/louie_cacchioli.htm
NBC Reporter, Pat Dawson:
[Albert Turi the Chief of Safety for the New York Fire Department] received word of the possibility of a secondary device, that is another bomb going off. He tried to get his men out as quickly as he could, but he said there was another explosion which took place, and then an hour after the first hit, the first crash that took place, he said there was another explosion that took place in one of the towers here, so obviously according to his theory he thinks that there were actually devices that were planted in the building. One of the secondary devices he thinks that took place after the initial impact he thinks may have been on the plane that crashed into one of the towers. The second device, he thinks, he speculates, was probably planted in the building.“
Video clip of Pat Dawson reporting on the comments made by Albert Turi, Chief of Safety for the New York City Fire Department, claiming there were bombs planted in the WTC:
Video: http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.reporter.1.wmv
MSNBC Reporter, Rick Sanchez:
"Police have found what they believe to be a suspicious device and they fear that it may lead to another explosion...I spoke with some police officials moments ago, Chris, and they told me they have reason to believe that one of the explosion at the WTC besides the ones made with the planes, may have been caused by a van that was parked on the building that may have had an explosive device in it."
Rick Sanchez video clip:
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/comments/911.w....explosives.wmv
War Corespondent, Jack Kelley:
"Apparently what appears to happen was that at the same time two planes hit the building that there... that the FBI most likely thinks that there was a car or truck packed with explosives underneath the buildings which also exploded at the same time..."
Video clip:
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/comments/911.w....jack.kelley.rm
MSNBC Reporter, Ann Thompson:
"At 10:30 I tried to leave the building, but as I got outside I heard a second explosion and another rumble and more smoke and more dust. I ran inside the building and the chandelier shook and again black smoke filled the air. Within another five minutes we were covered again with more soot and more dust. And then a fire marshal came in and said we had to leave, because if there was a third explosion this building might not last.."
Video: http://www.terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.....explosions.wmv
Street Reporter:
"45 minutes into the taping we were doing, there was an explosion. It was way up where the fire was and the whole building at that point bellied out in flames and everybody ran."
Video: http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.reporter.2.wmv
Witness / 9-11 survivor:
"I was about five blocks away when I heard explosions... three thuds and turned around to see the building that we just got out of... tip over and fall in on itself."
Video: http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.witness.1.wmv
Witness / 9-11 survivor:
"...and then all of a sudden it started like... it sounded like gunfire... you know, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang and then all of a sudden three big explosions."
Video: http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.witness.2.wmv
"When we got to about 50 feet from the South Tower, we heard the most eerie sound that you would ever hear. A high-pitched noise and a popping noise made everyone stop. We all looked up. At the point, it all let go. The way I see it, it had to be the rivets. The building let go. There was an explosion and the whole top leaned toward us and started coming down. I stood there for a second in total awe, and then said, "What the F###?" I honestly thought it was Hollywood."
- Eye-witness Jeff Birnbaum, president of Broadway Electrical Supply Co., New York
http://september11.ceenews.com/ar/electric...trical_supplys/
Terror in the City, September 12 , 2001, Notes from Robert Ivy, FAIA Editor-in-chief
...we felt a rumble like faraway thunder and turned. The impossible was happening. The south tower of the World Trade Center shook, and in what resembled an elemental act, fell to earth in a mighty shout. The entire dissolution, the changeover from solid elements to ash, took only seconds, and it was gone...
http://www.archrecord.com/news/fromTheFiel.../0109terror.asp
An Eye-Witness Account of the World Trade Center Attacks
from Neil deGrasse Tyson
The following is the text from an email Neil deGrasse Tyson sent to his family and friends on 12 September 2001. Neil witnessed the attacks on the twin towers from his apartment only six blocks from the World Trade Center. He is Director of the Hayden Planetarium of the American Museum of Natural History, which is located in New York City. Neil also serves as The Planetary Society's Vice President...
From: Neil deGrasse Tyson
Sent: 10AM, Wednesday, 12 September 2001
Subject: The Horror, The Horror
...4) As more and more and more and more and more emergency vehicles descended on the World Trade Center, I hear a second explosion in WTC 2, then a loud, low-frequency rumble that precipitates the unthinkable -- a collapse of all the floors above the point of explosion. First the top surface, containing the helipad, tips sideways in full view. Then the upper floors fall straight down in a demolition-style implosion, taking all lower floors with it, even those below the point of the explosion...
...6) I decide it's time to get my daughter, who was taken by the parents of a friend of hers to a small office building, six blocks farther from the WTC than my apartment. As I dress for survival: boots, flashlight, wet towels, swimming goggles, bicycle helmet, gloves, I hear another explosion followed by a now all-too familiar rumble that signaled the collapse of WTC 1, the first of the two towers to have been hit. I saw the iconic antenna on this building descend straight down in an implosion twinning the first...
Tuesday, 11 September, 2001, Eyewitnesses tell of horror, BBC News
"...I saw everything from my balcony in Soho. The first plane tried to veer off the tower but slammed straight into it, followed by the second plane," Nadine Keller of New York City wrote in an e-mail to BBC News Online.
"There was smoke everywhere. I heard the bomb and saw both buildings crumble like biscuits," Ms Keller said.
The BBC received more than 1,300 e-mails from witnesses and other concerned readers within the first few hours after the attack.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1537500.stm
9/11 Survivor Describes Multiple Explosions
"There were explosions going off everywhere. I was convinced that there were bombs planted all over the place and someone was sitting at a control panel pushing detonator buttons. I was afraid to go down Church Street toward Broadway, but I had to do it. I ended up on Vesey Street. There was another explosion. And another. I didn't know where to run."
Source: "Teresa Veliz: A Prayer to Die Quickly and Painlessly," in September 11: An Oral History by Dean E. Murphy (Doubleday, 2002), pp 9-15. http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/veliz-bombs.htm And how does smoke instantly travel downward 50-floors below the point of collapse and eject outside of the tower?: VIDEO: http://tinyurl.com/7dkv3Please provide "any explanation", Arthur.
Foxx
2nd November 2005 - 07:04 AM
Excellent points, Stallion4.
Keep up the good work, B'rer !
cortez
2nd November 2005 - 08:47 AM
Engineers Suspect Diesel Fuel in Collapse of 7 World Trade Center http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/29/nyregion/29TOWE.html...Within the building, the diesel tanks were surrounded by fireproofed enclosures. But some experts said that like the jet fuel in the twin towers, the diesel fuel could have played a role in the collapse of 7 World Trade…. ...A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said. Link -New York Times (11/29/01)
cortez
2nd November 2005 - 08:50 AM
 ‘You are being lied to’ featuring a bunch of eye witness comments referring to explosions inside of the WTC. I personally hadn’t seen quite a few of these clips, so it may be worth checking out. Link to Video
Guest
2nd November 2005 - 03:17 PM
abcd
adoucette
2nd November 2005 - 03:48 PM
The problem is that when someone is saying they heard an EXPLOSION. What they are simply saying is they heard a LOUD SHARP REPORT.
The actual SOURCE of the sound is not discernable.
A building going through failure, as the WTC is doing is BOUND to create stress fractures of materials that, when they fail, they do so EXPLOSIVELY.
Like I said before, I can create a pretty good bang with just a paper bag, no explosives needed.
On the other hand, a controlled demolition is unmistakeable (as the Hudson video clearly shows), and no one has presented an audio clip that sounds even remotely like a controlled demolition.
Arthur
adoucette
2nd November 2005 - 03:54 PM
| QUOTE | All I can attest to is that by noon or one o'clock they told us we had to move from that triage site up to Pace University a little further away because Building 7 was going to come down or being brought down.
Bonnie Falkner: Did they actually use the word "brought" down and who was it that was telling you this?
Indira Singh: The fire department... the fire department and they did use the word "we're going to have to bring it down."
<br>So first he says they say it is going to come down, then he changes it.
Maybe his first recollection is more honest.
On the otherhand, maybe the fire dept thought they should do something to bring the building down to limit damage, but the building beat them to it.
Finally, considering the fires raging within the building, the idea that explosives would have sat around waiting to go off, in a controlled manner is somewhat hard to believe.
The same goes for the WTC towers. Supposedly the tower is rigged with explosives, but the impact and subsequent fires have no impact on their ability to go off on time.
Arthur
adoucette
2nd November 2005 - 04:04 PM
| QUOTE | And how does smoke instantly travel downward 50-floors below the point of collapse and eject outside of the tower?:
<br>obviously it doesn't.
At that distance smoke is any cloud of small debris.
On the other hand, do we know there were no fires burning on the lower floors from all that jet fuel, some of which probably made its way down many floors (via elevator shafts, stand pipe openings etc?
These fires may not have been significant, as in the fires near the impact, but it certainly wouldn't surprise me to find fires burning 50 floors below the impact site.
Not saying they were, as I have no data one way or the other, but it certainly does seem a plausible scenario.
Arthur
gmilam
2nd November 2005 - 04:17 PM
I have a question... Forgive me if it has already been covered. There's a lot to go through here.
On the "first explosion" that William Rodriguez felt/heard in the basement... Which would arrive in the basement first - the shock wave from the plane hitting the building or the sound wave of the plane hitting the building?
adoucette
2nd November 2005 - 04:35 PM
| QUOTE | Arthur: They used 5 miles of cable to do so, over 4,000 charges in over 1,000 locations.
Remote control ? Wireless technology has come a long way since its inception, no? Is wireless explosives/detonations used on 9-11-01 out of the realm of possibility? Just asking.
<br>Out of the realm of possibility, No.
On the other hand, this would require that each explosive was numbered and placed in its assigned position, with a self contained power supply to run the receiver and to then detonate the explosive. Considering the length of time it would take to install these, the required power supply would be a significant issue.
Think of it this way, in a normal demolition, one would have hundreds of identical explosives and any one of them could be used at a particular location, because the order of firing is controlled by the detonation cord. In an RF system, each explosive would have a unique ID and could only be placed in its assigned spot. The logistics of doing this are formidable when dealing with many thousands of explosives. Could this be managed, yes, but it would require the installers to consult with extensive documentation as they put each one in place which would ultimately slow the process down, and there is already a significant issue with available time to do this.
What has been left out of the calculations is the points where these explosives need to be set is typically not accessible in a finished building, which is why the preparation step, before the explosives are placed, is SIGNIFICANTLY longer than the time it takes to actually place the explosives. One has to create access to parts of the structure. You can't just walk up to a beam and stick your bomb.
Further, as reported within the tower, communication gear worked poorly, which would likely have applied to any attempt to set all of these of in a planned manner via an RF signal.
RF signals interact with each other, and when you have a lot of transmitters in an area it makes it difficult for a receiver to pick out its assigned frequency, even if the other transmitters are not on its frequency. This has to do with 2nd and 3rd level harmonics. A local transmitter will screw up a more distant transmitter on many other frequencies besides the one it is transmitting on. Worse, multiple transmitters will generate new harmonics depending on their primary frequency. In this environment, it is not surprising that even voice transmission was very difficult via RF. To further make the problem more difficult, the receivers would have to be highly selective in order to prevent the possibility of premature activation. This though also makes them subject to cross channel interference preventing them from working when you want them to.
The technology used by digital cell phones would be my choice, as they are highly selective and addressable, but as anyone will tell you, big steel buildings make them less than reliable as well.
So do I think, that under the circumstances one could reliable set off thousands of remote explosives via an RF transmitter or a proprietary digital cellular network.
No I don't.
The inherent complexity and risks of failure for this type of detonation would be such that it wouldn't be a logical choice.
Arthur
adoucette
2nd November 2005 - 04:54 PM
As to controlled demolitions.
I've been to two.
One several years ago in Las Vegas and one back in the mid 70s in Norfolk,Va.
In the Norfolk one they were bringing down a ~14 story hotel in the middle of downtown. It was built almost entirely out of brick as I recall, with brick walls 8 or more layers thick.
We watched the demolition from the steps of the Norfolk Public Library, maybe 100 or so yards away.
It went off, much like the videos you see, but then after the explosives had gone off and the building was about 1/2 way through its collapse, we heard a crash BEHIND us.
We could see that one of the large glass panels of the Library (it was almost all glass) had a big hole in it.
It turned out to be a single brick, which had got launched from forces generated during the collapse, not from the explosives.
I have no proof of this, save my word, but some enterprising person might be able to find the story in the Virginian Pilot or Ledger Star. I wish I could give you the date, or the name of the hotel but both escape me. As best I can recall it would have been around 1976 +/- a year or so, and it wasn't cold out and it was on a Sunday morning, so the story would be in a Monday paper.
Arthur
Ron
2nd November 2005 - 05:29 PM
HI Andrew, Have you even read the first refute given to your theory by Solidspin? This excerpt is taken from the paper he provide this link to. http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/test/new...antwtcstory.pdfOver and over again I've read other's touting that no one can disprove this logic, when both Solidspin and Arthur have, imo, done very well. If we sceptics are to keep an open mind, I'd like to ask the conspirisists to do the same. Thanks, Ron "Analysis of Inelastic Energy Dissipation The inelastic deformation of the steel of the towers involves plasticity and fracture. Since we are not attempting to model the details of the real failure mechanism but seek only to prove that the towers must have collapsed and do so in the way seen (Engineering 2001, American 2001), we will here neglect fracture, even though the development of fractures is clearly discerned in the photographs of the collapse. Assuming the steel to behave plastically, with unlimited ductility, we are making the most optimistic assumption with regard to the survival capacity of the towers (in reality, the plastic hinges, especially the hinges at column connections, must have fractured, and done so at relatively small rotation, causing the load capacity to drop drastically). The basic question to answer is: Can the fall of the upper part be arrested by energy dissipation during plastic buckling which follows the initial elastic deformation? Many plastic failure mecha- nisms could be considered, for example: (a) the columns of the underlying floor buckle locally (Fig. 1, stage 2); (  the floor-supporting trusses are sheared o. at the connections to the framed tube and the core columns and fall down within the tube, depriving the core columns and the framed tube of lateral support, and thus promoting buckling of the core columns and the framed tube under vertical compression (Fig. 1, stage 4, Fig. 2c); or © the upper part is partly wedged within the emptied framed tube of the lower part, pushing the walls of the framed tube apart (Fig. 1, stage 5). Although each of these mechanism can be shown to lead to total collapse, a combination of the last two seems more realistic (the reason: multi-story pieces of the framed tube, with nearly straight boundaries apparently corresponding to plastic hinge lines causing buckles on the framed tube wall, were photographed falling down; see, e.g., Engineering 2001, American 2001). Regardless of the precise failure mode, experience with buckling indicates that the while many elastic buckles simultaneously coexist in an axially compressed tube, the plastic deformation local- izes (because of plastic bifurcation) into a single buckle at a time (Fig. 1, stage 4; Fig. 2c), and so the buckles must fold one after another. Thus, at least one plastic hinge, and no more than four plastic hinges, per column line are needed to operate simultaneously in order to allow the upper part to continue moving down (Fig. 2b, Ba¡zant and Cedolin 1991) (this is also true if the columns of only one floor are buckling at a time). At the end, the sum of the rotation angles .i (i = 1; 2; :  of the hinges on one column line, P.i, cannot exceed 2. (Fig. 2b). This upper-bound value, which is independent of the number of floors spanned by the buckle, is used in the present calculations since, in regard to survival, it represents the most optimistic hypothesis, maximizing the plastic energy dissipation. Calculating the dissipation per column line of the framed tube as the plastic bending moment Mp of one column (Jir´asek and Ba¡zant 2002), times the combined rotation angle P.i = 2. (Fig. 2b), and multiplying this by the number of columns, one concludes that the plastically dissipated energy Wp is, optimistically, of the order of 0.5 GN m (for lack of information, certain details such as the wall thickness of steel columns, were estimated by carrying out approximate design calculations for this building). To attain the combined rotation angle P.i = 2. of the plastic hinges on each column line, the upper part of the building must move down by the additional distance of one buckle, which is at least one floor below the floor where the collapse started. So the additional release of gravitational potential energy Wg . mg ? 2h . 2 . 2:1 GN m = 4.2 GN m. To arrest the fall, the kinetic energy of the upper part, which is equal to the potential energy release for a fall through the height of at least two floors, would have to be absorbed by the plastic hinge rotations of one buckle, i.e., Wg=Wp would have to be less than 1. Rather, Wg=Wp . 8:4 (3) if the energy dissipated by the columns of the critical heated floor is neglected. If the first buckle spans over n floors (3 to 10 seems likely), this ratio is about n times larger. So, even under by far the most optimistic assumptions, the plastic deformation can dissipate only a small part of the kinetic energy acquired by the upper part of building. When the next buckle with its group of plastic hinges forms, the upper part has already traveled many floors down and has acquired a much higher kinetic energy; the percentage of the kinetic 3 energy dissipated plastically is then of the order of 1%. The percentage continues to decrease further as the upper part moves down. If fracturing in the plastic hinges were considered, a still smaller (in fact much smaller) energy dissipation would be obtained. ****So the collapse of the tower must be an almost free fall.**** This conclusion is supported by the observation that the duration of the collapse of the tower, observed to be 9 s, was about the same as the duration of a free fall in a vacuum from the tower top (416 m above ground) to the top of the final heap of debris (about 25 m above ground), which is t = p2 (416m € 25m)=g = 8.93 s. It further follows that the brunt of vertical impact must have gone directly into the columns of the framed tube and the core and that any delay ?t of the front of collapse of the framed tube behind the front of collapsing (‘pancaking’) floors must have been negligible, or else the duration of the total collapse of the tower, 9 s + ?t, would have been significantly longer than 9 s. ****However, even for a short delay ?t, the floors should have acted like a piston running down through an empty tube, which helps to explain the smoke and debris that was seen being expelled laterally from the collapsing tower.****"
Foxx
2nd November 2005 - 05:42 PM
| QUOTE | the floor-supporting trusses are sheared o. at the connections to the framed tube
and the core columns and fall down within the tube, depriving the core columns and the framed
tube of lateral support,
<br>Bhazant & Zhou are completely wrong here; not that I blame them for this error due to the fact that, at that time they (as well as most of the engineering world)were unaware of the actual construction of the central core of the WTC towers. Only a very small part of the lateral support & stiffness of the central core columns came from the truss floor system. The majority of lateral stiffness & support of the core, was derived from the fact that the central core (like all previous traditionally designed buildings) was based upon a post & beam construction. Had Bhazant-Zhou known this they never would have made the above statement which is ridiculous in light of this post & beam structure.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/untitled001.html
Andrew Johnson
2nd November 2005 - 06:18 PM
Ron,
Sorry - the info you mentioned refers to elasticity and plasticity. How would this allow freefall? If something is plastic or elastic does it lose *all* its strength? 60%? 70%? 90%? Think about it... this explanation is bogus - really it is.
Essentially then, I fundamentally disagree with all the versions of this idea which have been posted as a refutation. The fundamental physics question is what mechanism takes away 99% or even 100% of the strength of the steel to support itself? Softening etc is not sufficient. Destruction is. It's that simple. Everything else is wishful thinking - in my opinion (and Professor David Ray Griffin's for example)
I do however, need to look at some of the calculations posted and intend to try and write an article summarising some of the points raised on this thread.
Andrew
Foxx
2nd November 2005 - 06:55 PM
QUOTE Defenders of the gravity collapse theory consistently invoke the explanation that the ejections of dust are caused by pancaking floors squeezing out air and dust. The Popular Mechanics article attacking 9/11 Truth contains the following passage.
Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air--along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse--was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."
There are several problems with this explanation, which we designate the 'piston theory'.
The squibs contain thick dust of a light color, apparently from crushed concrete and gypsum. But these materials would not have been crushed until the pancaking floors above impacted the floor emitting the squib. Thus the dust would not be produced until the air was already squeezed out, so there was no source of the dust for the squib.
The squibs emerge from the facade 10 to 20 floors below the exploding rubble cloud inside of which the tower is disintegrating. The thick clouds appear to contain the pulverized concerete of the floor slabs, which was the only concrete component of the tower. But the piston theory requires that the floors have already pancaked down to the level of the squib, making them unavailable for the production of the concrete dust more than 10 floors above.
The piston theory requires a rather orderly pancaking of the floor diaphragms within the intact sleeve of the perimeter wall. Such a process should have left a stack of floor diaphragms at the tower's base at the end of the collapse. But there was no such stack. In fact, it is difficult to find recognizable pieces of floor slabs of any size in Ground Zero photographs.
The North Tower exhibits three distinct sets of squibs at different elevations of the building. Each set is visible as two distinct squibs on the same floor, one emerging from about the horizontal center of each of the tower's two visible faces. This pattern is is far too focused and symmetric to be explained by the piston theory.
The pancaking of floors within the perimeter wall would have created underpressures in the region above the top pancaking floor. But we seen no evidence of dust being sucked back into the tower. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/c...ses/squibs.htmlThe proponents of gravity-driven collapse maintain that the tops of the towers crushed the floors below the impact zones as they fell. The tops functioned as pistons, according to Bazant and Zhou, crushing the stories one by one. What one actually sees in the case of the South Tower is that their piston disintegrated even before it started to fall. A gravity-driven collapse cannot account for that disintegration, nor for how a cloud of rubble could crush the intact structure below the impact zone.
adoucette
2nd November 2005 - 07:37 PM
| QUOTE | What one actually sees in the case of the South Tower is that their piston disintegrated even before it started to fall. A gravity-driven collapse cannot account for that disintegration, nor for how a cloud of rubble could crush the intact structure below the impact zone.
<br>You are playing with words, the top of the South Tower did not "disintegrate" before it started to fall, nor was what came crashing down in any sense a "cloud of rubble".
Arthur
Foxx
2nd November 2005 - 08:03 PM
QUOTE (adoucette+Nov 2 2005, 07:37 PM) | QUOTE | What one actually sees in the case of the South Tower is that their piston disintegrated even before it started to fall. A gravity-driven collapse cannot account for that disintegration, nor for how a cloud of rubble could crush the intact structure below the impact zone.
<br>You are playing with words, the top of the South Tower did not "disintegrate" before it started to fall, nor was what came crashing down in any sense a "cloud of rubble".
Arthur It most certainly did so, and that is more than evident from a critical analysis of the videos.
adoucette
2nd November 2005 - 09:06 PM
While I disagree with your "critical analysis", I assume you have seen some video of its collapse that I have not. Post a link to the Video that MOST supports your contention that the top of the towers DISINTEGRATED prior to their collapse.
In the meantime, how about tower 2? It can be seen clearly to be relatively intact as it falls.
Arthur
Foxx
2nd November 2005 - 10:07 PM
| QUOTE | top of the towers DISINTEGRATED prior to their collapse
<br>Just to clarify your above quote: the tops of the towers 'disintegrated' / turned to rubble PRIOR to the lower portion of the building beginning to collapse... Or at least the majority of it did.
The Bhazant-Zhou theory is proven wrong by their own 'disclaimer' in their theory that IF the towers tops turned to 'rubble' prior to dynamically impacting the lower portion, THEN the lower portion (or most of it) would not have collapsed according to their gravity-driven theory...
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | top of the towers DISINTEGRATED prior to their collapse
<br>Just to clarify your above quote: the tops of the towers 'disintegrated' / turned to rubble PRIOR to the lower portion of the building beginning to collapse... Or at least the majority of it did.
The Bhazant-Zhou theory is proven wrong by their own 'disclaimer' in their theory that IF the towers tops turned to 'rubble' prior to dynamically impacting the lower portion, THEN the lower portion (or most of it) would not have collapsed according to their gravity-driven theory...
"The main purpose of the present analysis is to prove that the whole tower must have collapsed if the fire destroyed the load capacity of the majority of columns of a single floor. ...
An important hypothesis implied in this analysis is that the impacting upper part, many floors in height, is so stiff that it does not bend nor shear on vertical planes, and that the distribution of column displacements across the tower is almost linear, like for a rigid body.
If, however, the upper part spanned only a few floors (say, 3 to 6), then it could be so flexible that different column groups of the upper part could move down separately at different times, producing a series of small impacts that would not be fatal (in theory, if people could have escaped from the upper part of the tower, the bottom part of the tower could have been saved if the upper part were bombed, exploded or weakened by some "smart" structure mechanism to collapse onto the lower part gradually as a pile of rubble, instead of impacting it instantly as an almost rigid body)."
<a href='http://www.tam.uiuc.edu/news/200109wtc/' target='_blank' rel='nofollow'>http://www.tam.uiuc.edu/news/200109wtc/
Implied in the above is that IF the floors above the impact zone 'disintegrated' (collapsed into rubble) prior to impact with the lower portion, there would not be enough structural integrity within that upper section to have the upper section 'collapse' as a rigid 'one-piece' structure onto the lower portion of the building.
Bazant-Zhou speculate that IF the top portion collapsed into 'separate pieces' prior to impacting the lower section, then those 'pieces' collapsing onto the lower section would NOT prove structurally 'fatal' to the lower portion... i.e. would NOT collapse the lower portion of the building to the ground (according to their calculations & theory).
In other words, ONLY IF the top section fell as 'one-piece' the height of one 'floor' - ( 12' ), could the top-section impart sufficient dynamic energy to theoretically 'progressively collapse' the lower undamaged section of building... (personally, I don't believe that even IF there was some sort of 'magical drop' of 12' this would be sufficient to collapse the entire lower portion).
The subsequently shown facts, that the upper section did NOT fall as one piece, and disintegrated (from the bottom up) as it reached the impact zone negates the Bazant-Zhou Theory (by the terms of it's own admission).
Here's one analysis for starters. In the second group of video capture pictures the top of the south tower is bordered in red. It is clear that it is demolishing / disintegrating before smashing through the lower section...
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...-explosions.htm
The same can be seen for the north tower through an animated graphic on that same page.
There are links to the videos on the same page.
There was a 'break' in the corner column of the south tower about halfway between the impact zone and the top of the tower. here is a picture showing the location of this 'break'...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/wtc_break.jpg
here is a close-up, slow-motion video of this area which clearly shows it 'breaking up', and turning into rubble long before reaching the impact zone...
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc_corner_slow.wmv
adoucette
3rd November 2005 - 05:37 AM
Your statement is clearly false as the Videos and Stills you link to CLEARLY show.
You can PLAINLY see the rectangular outline of the top of the building, intact well into the collapse.
Frame 241 is particularly telling, as one can see that below the collapse, the tower is intact (note position of corner of tower nearest to camera, which is fairly well inline with the tip of the building to its right) while the top section of the tower has fallen a great number of stories (20 or so) and is well tilted to one side.
ONE side does buckle, but does not break, and claiming that this is equal to it "disintegrating" is patently false, particularly when you note how far into the collapse process it is before it buckles.
One other photo, posted on the poll thread, clearly debunks all of this, "fell at near free fall speed" as one can clearly see the material from the collapse a full 40 or so stories beyond the point of collapse.
Seems the more "evidence" you post the worse your fairy tale becomes.
Keep it up, you are proving my points.
Arthur
frater plecticus
3rd November 2005 - 12:10 PM
can´t you delete multiple posts ?
frater plecticus
3rd November 2005 - 12:12 PM
here
frater plecticus
3rd November 2005 - 12:26 PM
 George shows off his most recent, and highly successful, campaign slogan Hey, maybe it was Bin Laden then? Without explosives? http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush http://media2.audiostreet.net/playsong.m3u...F34E47894A0352BThe party party
Temp
3rd November 2005 - 03:46 PM
In all the above calculations I see no mention of the 50,000 gallon water tanks that were at the top of the each of the WTC's. Could this be factored in to the collapse dynamics? Would it have been a contribuitng factor in the collapse (weight)? Why does all that water never get mentioned?
This also begs the question, what about the sprinkler system? Don't tell me., it wasn't working that day.
metamars
3rd November 2005 - 04:06 PM
| QUOTE | One other photo, posted on the poll thread, clearly debunks all of this, "fell at near free fall speed" as one can clearly see the material from the collapse a full 40 or so stories beyond the point of collapse.
Seems the more "evidence" you post the worse your fairy tale becomes.
<br>Err, no, not really. The FEMA Fairy Tale can be discredited in many different ways, mostly due to all the salient aspects of the collapses that it does not explain. (Nobody can ever prove/disprove the collapses in ALL their details, of course.)
Does the FFT explain how the top of South Tower can lose it's angular momentum?
No.
Does the FFT explain how, from the very beginning of the collapse, chunks of building can be ejected that are "fizzling" - streaming powdery, smoky stuff as it falls to the side?
No.
Does the FFT explain most all the metal pieces recovered were 30 feet or less, many of which were ejected laterally at high velocity?
No.
Does the FFT explain how a local collapse, even if it could be started, could turn into a global collapse?
No.
Does the FFT explain the testimony of the fireman who reported that not a single desk was found in the rubble, and the biggest piece of a phone was about half the size of the keypad - or how so much of the building was turned into dust, smaller than 100 microns?
No.
Does the FFT explain the really wierd telescoping collapse --> "powderization" of the remaining spire which survived the WTC1 collapse for about 13 seconds? (see http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/spire/s..._from_north.avi )
No.
Does the FFT address the energy requirements of forming the dust cloud, and compare to the available energy sources?
No.
Even the NIST report does not even attempt to explain how a local collapse could turn into a global collapse. This after 4 years and $20 million. That alone calls into question why anybody should take it seriously.
The fact that the widely quoted "free fall collapse" time(s) are also Fairy Tales (perhaps disinfo??) doesn't change these other facets of the Official Fairy Tales one iota.
There are serious people on both sides of the issue of whether or not even a local collapse is possible. In my opinion, this can only be settled definitively via computer simulation, with full disclosure of methodology and algorithms, and peer review. Unfortunately, we do not even have that.
Does that not bother you at all?
adoucette
3rd November 2005 - 08:29 PM
QUOTE (metamars+Nov 3 2005, 04:06 PM) | QUOTE | One other photo, posted on the poll thread, clearly debunks all of this, "fell at near free fall speed" as one can clearly see the material from the collapse a full 40 or so stories beyond the point of collapse.
Seems the more "evidence" you post the worse your fairy tale becomes.
<br>Err, no, not really. The FEMA Fairy Tale can be discredited in many different ways, mostly due to all the salient aspects of the collapses that it does not explain. (Nobody can ever prove/disprove the collapses in ALL their details, of course.)
Does the FFT explain how the top of South Tower can lose it's angular momentum?
No.
Does the FFT explain how, from the very beginning of the collapse, chunks of building can be ejected that are "fizzling" - streaming powdery, smoky stuff as it falls to the side?
No.
Does the FFT explain most all the metal pieces recovered were 30 feet or less, many of which were ejected laterally at high velocity?
No.
Does the FFT explain how a local collapse, even if it could be started, could turn into a global collapse?
No.
Does the FFT explain the testimony of the fireman who reported that not a single desk was found in the rubble, and the biggest piece of a phone was about half the size of the keypad - or how so much of the building was turned into dust, smaller than 100 microns?
No.
Does the FFT explain the really wierd telescoping collapse --> "powderization" of the remaining spire which survived the WTC1 collapse for about 13 seconds? (see http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/spire/s..._from_north.avi )
No.
Does the FFT address the energy requirements of forming the dust cloud, and compare to the available energy sources?
No.
Even the NIST report does not even attempt to explain how a local collapse could turn into a global collapse. This after 4 years and $20 million. That alone calls into question why anybody should take it seriously.
The fact that the widely quoted "free fall collapse" time(s) are also Fairy Tales (perhaps disinfo??) doesn't change these other facets of the Official Fairy Tales one iota.
There are serious people on both sides of the issue of whether or not even a local collapse is possible. In my opinion, this can only be settled definitively via computer simulation, with full disclosure of methodology and algorithms, and peer review. Unfortunately, we do not even have that.
Does that not bother you at all? You posted a number of questions.
Which MIGHT be interesting to you, but SO?
The other questions are interesting, but I suspect anyone could come up with literally hundreds of "unanswered questions". SO?
I don't think their job was to explain EVERY FACET of the collapse and the precise behavior of all parts of the structure, or the damage to everything within the towers.
The only question you listed that I COULD see them addressing is of the collapse dynamics, BUT, since NO ONE KNEW exactly what damage was done by the collision, how hot the fires were, where the fires were, how much insulation was knocked off, etc etc, its not like anyone could model exactly what happened anyway.
In the BEST CASE one would have to make many assumptions. A number of them fairly critical. Considering the multitude of interactions among the supporting structures, every set of assumptions would then lead to another model of the collapse. What would be the point? What would be learned?
What you are you claiming is that under NO PLAUSIBLE ASSUMPTIONS of damage, fire intensity, duration, location, etc could cause a global collapse, even if the ASSUMPTIONS are Worst Case.
I know you can't prove it, so you rely on these far fetched questions that in all likelihood no one will ever do the work to determine the "answer", because they are essentially pointless.
Arthur
brian
3rd November 2005 - 09:39 PM
I am unable to post this photograph (invalid format) which to my mind anyone would find genuinely impossible to describe as anything other than an explosive collapse. Can anyone help please? It is available at link below - http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/col...te/site1085.jpg
Foxx
3rd November 2005 - 10:30 PM
Hi Brian, the original seems a little large. I downsized it a bit for easier loading. A picture is definately worth a thousand words. It doesn't take any stretch of the imagination to see trajectories in the picture... http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/Ejections2.jpg
adoucette
4th November 2005 - 12:23 AM
 Trajectories? The whole friggin top of the building just came crashing down. And you expect NO pieces of it will be ejected laterally? Get REAL. WHAT is clear on this picture is that the stuff heading down is falling at FREE FALL rates, which is obviously FASTER than the tower is falling. Arthur
Foxx
4th November 2005 - 02:36 AM
| QUOTE | The whole friggin top of the building just came crashing down.
And you expect NO pieces of it will be ejected laterally?
<br>Well, actually NO. I see no reason under basic physics laws for material to be forcefully ejected horizontally from a gravity-driven collapse.
Never in the history of the 'normal' building collapses has it ever been known that materials are forcefully ejected 2 - 3 times the width of the building (prior to reaching the ground and sloughing off in a landslide / avalanche of collapsing material).
I have challenged numerous others to provide evidence that such phenomena occur during a standard 'progressive building collapse'. I am still waiting for them to provide any evidence that such is an occurance associated with building failures... but perhaps you can put an end to my search for this evidence, and provide such?
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | The whole friggin top of the building just came crashing down.
And you expect NO pieces of it will be ejected laterally?
<br>Well, actually NO. I see no reason under basic physics laws for material to be forcefully ejected horizontally from a gravity-driven collapse.
Never in the history of the 'normal' building collapses has it ever been known that materials are forcefully ejected 2 - 3 times the width of the building (prior to reaching the ground and sloughing off in a landslide / avalanche of collapsing material).
I have challenged numerous others to provide evidence that such phenomena occur during a standard 'progressive building collapse'. I am still waiting for them to provide any evidence that such is an occurance associated with building failures... but perhaps you can put an end to my search for this evidence, and provide such?
Get REAL.
<br>I assure you I am quite serious.
| QUOTE | WHAT is clear on this picture is that the stuff heading down is falling at FREE FALL rates, which is obviously FASTER than the tower is falling.
<br>I have never said the buildings fell at FREE FALL rates, however the slightly slower rate does not explain how the buildings fell at NEAR FF rates. The few seconds longer that it took in no way can account for resistance which the sound portion of the building would have exerted against the 'collapsing mass'.
You seem to think that buildings can collapse through themselves at near free fall rates. Think of how nonsensical that belief is. What you are basically promoting is that buildings can fall through solid structures very near as fast as a solid object can fall through thin air. I have yet to see you provide any evidence whatsoever how such a phenomena can occur (outside of the use of explosives to remove resistance from supporting columns below the path of falling debris).
Of course in the case of the twin towers there really wasn't much debris actually falling on top of the lower section of building anyway. As can be seen in the photo video records, as well as the debris maps put together by FEMA. The vast majority of the debris jumped away from the path that would have been followed in a normal gravity-driven event.
Can you suggest a physics law which can account for this forceful ejection of material, outside of some type of explosive force?
Let me save you the trouble of posting the standard response to this debris map...
"Where do you expect the debris to fall ... inside the box representing the building footprint?"
Certainly not, I would expect it to mass upon the ground in an essential landslide / avalanche of material, building outwards as it lands upon the ground, NOT expanding to those dimensions horizontally from the building FIRST... and THEN free-falling to the ground.
This runs contrary to the physics of how landslides / avalanches work in the REAL world, AFAIK.
adoucette
4th November 2005 - 06:51 AM
QUOTE (foxx+) Never in the history of the 'normal' building collapses has it ever been known that materials are forcefully ejected 2 - 3 times the width of the building (prior to reaching the ground and sloughing off in a landslide / avalanche of collapsing material).
I have challenged numerous others to provide evidence that such phenomena occur during a standard 'progressive building collapse'. I am still waiting for them to provide any evidence that such is an occurance associated with building failures... but perhaps you can put an end to my search for this evidence, and provide such? <br> Ok, Take a straw, cut it in half. Now you have a column, that is rigid. Stand the straw on a table, placing your fingertip on the top of the straw to keep it stable. Press down quickly on the straw till it fails. Where does the straw go? How far does it go? Why? Assume no wind. I shoot a high velocity bullet from a horizontal barrel mounted 10 ft over level ground and I drop a bullet at the same time from 10 ft. Which hits the ground first? Why? Again, assume no wind. I throw a ball horizontally, while standing on a platform 10 feet in the air. I then throw a ball horizontally, while standing on a platform 100 ft in the air. Both are thrown with the same force. Which ball lands further away (horizontally) from the platform? Why? If I drop a 10 ft stack of bricks 10 ft onto another stack of bricks, how close would you be willing to stand to the bricks? Before you answer this last question, ever see the comedian Gallager perform. He used to end his show with the Sledgomatic, where he would proceed to wack various items with a large sledge hammer. His favorite item being a watermellon. Why did the people in the front row of his shows come with plastic ponchos since the sledge applied a vertical force to the watermellon? By the way, he would then show it in slow motion, and virtually all of the watermellon went horizontally. What would make it do that? Answer these questions and you will answer the question about the tower material. Arthur
Foxx
4th November 2005 - 07:33 AM
QUOTE (adoucette+Nov 4 2005, 06:51 AM) QUOTE (foxx+) Never in the history of the 'normal' building collapses has it ever been known that materials are forcefully ejected 2 - 3 times the width of the building (prior to reaching the ground and sloughing off in a landslide / avalanche of collapsing material).
I have challenged numerous others to provide evidence that such phenomena occur during a standard 'progressive building collapse'. I am still waiting for them to provide any evidence that such is an occurance associated with building failures... but perhaps you can put an end to my search for this evidence, and provide such? <br> Ok, Take a straw, cut it in half. Now you have a column, that is rigid. Stand the straw on a table, placing your fingertip on the top of the straw to keep it stable. Press down quickly on the straw till it fails. Where does the straw go? How far does it go? Why? Assume no wind. I shoot a high velocity bullet from a horizontal barrel mounted 10 ft over level ground and I drop a bullet at the same time from 10 ft. Which hits the ground first? Why? Again, assume no wind. I throw a ball horizontally, while standing on a platform 10 feet in the air. I then throw a ball horizontally, while standing on a platform 100 ft in the air. Both are thrown with the same force. Which ball lands further away (horizontally) from the platform? Why? If I drop a 10 ft stack of bricks 10 ft onto another stack of bricks, how close would you be willing to stand to the bricks? Before you answer this last question, ever see the comedian Gallager perform. He used to end his show with the Sledgomatic, where he would proceed to wack various items with a large sledge hammer. His favorite item being a watermellon. Why did the people in the front row of his shows come with plastic ponchos since the sledge applied a vertical force to the watermellon? By the way, he would then show it in slow motion, and virtually all of the watermellon went horizontally. What would make it do that? Answer these questions and you will answer the question about the tower material. Arthur Total Bunk. I have addressed these exact same questions too many times on other forums to go round the mulberry bush here with you on it. I will leave it to others to address this total nonsense. Geez, you guys (gov't shills) must be given a script by Homeland Security to read from... >---Shakes Head----< and goes to bed.
frater plecticus
4th November 2005 - 11:59 AM
the story far.... a_ht Posted: Oct 1 2005, 10:16 PM QUOTE That suggestion leads me to believe you think there was a conspiracy by the US goverment going on here, and therefore what you suggest is a theory that is safe from falsification... permanantly. SPECULATION (CONCLUSION FALSE) London to SF Oct 3 2005, 11:29 PM QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | | That suggestion leads me to believe you think there was a conspiracy by the US goverment going on here, and therefore what you suggest is a theory that is safe from falsification... permanantly. |
SPECULATION (CONCLUSION FALSE)
London to SF
Oct 3 2005, 11:29 PM
What Andrew Johnson has suggested is simply irrefutable, even though a couple of "characters" (naming no names as to whom I'm referring to (but it wouldnt take "a degree in structural engineering" to figure it out)) have attempted to, and then resorted to insults and slander having failed. |
(TRUE) page 2Sinclair Oct 4 2005, 04:17 PM QUOTE I believe I am correct in stating that only 3 steel framed buildings have ever collapsed as a result of fire damage. All three of these buildings collapsed on 11th September 2001; WTC-1, WTC-2 & WTC-7. (TRUE) Guest Oct 5 2005, 06:37 PM QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | | I believe I am correct in stating that only 3 steel framed buildings have ever collapsed as a result of fire damage. All three of these buildings collapsed on 11th September 2001; WTC-1, WTC-2 & WTC-7. |
(TRUE)
Guest
Oct 5 2005, 06:37 PM
There are a number of anomolies with the whole 9/11 official story.
It seems that anyone expressing any doubt is labelled a conspiracy theorist. To me, the biggest conspiracy is that the events were orchestrated soley by 19 arab terrorists, masterminded by Osama Bin Laden. |
(TRUE) farang Oct 6 2005, 05:30 AM QUOTE It is heartening to see that the horrific crime of 911, for which NO ONE has been apprehended in my country, is still a burning issue for those that see a real problem in officialdom's explanation (or in the case of WTC 7, simply ignoring the issue entirely, which is cause of suspicion in and of itself for any reasonable person) of that day's events. (TRUE) .....the cat comes out the bag..... a_ht Oct 6 2005, 04:28 PM QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | | It is heartening to see that the horrific crime of 911, for which NO ONE has been apprehended in my country, is still a burning issue for those that see a real problem in officialdom's explanation (or in the case of WTC 7, simply ignoring the issue entirely, which is cause of suspicion in and of itself for any reasonable person) of that day's events. |
(TRUE) .....the cat comes out the bag..... a_ht Oct 6 2005, 04:28 PM I am not an Israely information agent, and I take offense. I work at the American society of civil engineer, an office which contributed massively at the NIST report. I work at the public relation department, so if I seem angry when I post, its because my *** is on the line; they want to shut down our department because of people like you who oppose the official version. Politicians don't want another scandal. |
(NOT PROVED) page 3Andrew Johnson Oct 13 2005, 05:06 PM QUOTE
There are many areas of details which can be argued, but the basic evidence - video, scientific, much witness testimony, photographs etc show explosives were used to demolish all 3 buildings and this issue must ultimately be dealt with somehow. (I don't know how). (TRUE) page 5London to SF Oct 13 2005, 07:07 PM QUOTE (-> | QUOTE |
There are many areas of details which can be argued, but the basic evidence - video, scientific, much witness testimony, photographs etc show explosives were used to demolish all 3 buildings and this issue must ultimately be dealt with somehow. (I don't know how). |
(TRUE) page 5London to SF Oct 13 2005, 07:07 PM This post was started to challenge the official report on what exactly took place on 9/11, from the standpoint of debunking the official/govt. facts and figures. This has been done conclusively, and by reading ALL the previous posts you can see clearly that there is sufficient evidence to QUESTION and REFUTE the official "story" - which is all that Andrew was intending to do |
(NOT PROVED) page 6Guest Oct 13 2005, 09:02 PM QUOTE A knowledge of physics is not required to KNOW that the official explanation of the collapse of WTC 1 & 2 is a lie. The cumulative evidence is overwhelming, so much so it led to a top Bush administration official, Morgan Reynolds, publishing the essay linked below. http://physics911.net/reynolds.htmFurthermore, for anyone familiar with the construction of the towers common sense alone is sufficient to understand the official version CANNOT be correct. The towers were supported by 47 heavy duty beams running up the core of the buildings, it is simply impossible that gravity alone could effect the type of collapse that occurred. NEVER in history has a high rise steel framed building collapsed due to fire yet on September 11 two do so in a short space of time after suffering what was in the nature of these things relatively small fires. Apart from the visual evidence of black smoke, meaning inneficient burning, we have the firemens evidence and the survivors from the crash level who would have been literally cooked if the temperature required to critically affect steel had even been approached let alone met. So not only did these two towers collapse for no apparent reason, they did so in a manner that under normal circumstances could only be achieved by contolled demolition. (TRUE) jon pratt Oct 13 2005, 10:21 PM QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | A knowledge of physics is not required to KNOW that the official explanation of the collapse of WTC 1 & 2 is a lie. The cumulative evidence is overwhelming, so much so it led to a top Bush administration official, Morgan Reynolds, publishing the essay linked below.
http://physics911.net/reynolds.htm
Furthermore, for anyone familiar with the construction of the towers common sense alone is sufficient to understand the official version CANNOT be correct. The towers were supported by 47 heavy duty beams running up the core of the buildings, it is simply impossible that gravity alone could effect the type of collapse that occurred.
NEVER in history has a high rise steel framed building collapsed due to fire yet on September 11 two do so in a short space of time after suffering what was in the nature of these things relatively small fires. Apart from the visual evidence of black smoke, meaning inneficient burning, we have the firemens evidence and the survivors from the crash level who would have been literally cooked if the temperature required to critically affect steel had even been approached let alone met.
So not only did these two towers collapse for no apparent reason, they did so in a manner that under normal circumstances could only be achieved by contolled demolition. |
(TRUE) jon pratt Oct 13 2005, 10:21 PM A massive amount of valid evidence exists to show that elements of the official story (itself a conspiracy theory because it is not verifiable), are false. It is not possible, however, to use the newly discovered evidence as the basis for a conclusion about what actually happened and who was responsible. At least not yet. There are many indications, and there is a long trail of evidence suggesting US government complicity, but that is all there is. That much is a theory, but the evidence itself is comprised of facts. That evidence can not be dismissed simply because the theories that are wrapped around them are inconclusive. The proverbial baby cannot be thrown out with the bath water. |
(TRUE) page 7Piper Oct 14 2005, 03:23 AM QUOTE The whole "MAGIC X-RAY EYES AND CAN SEE UP A THOUSAND FEET AND THROUGH CONCRETE AND STEEL TO KNOW JUST HOW BAD THE FIRES ARE" is an obvious attempt at the old "make them look so stupid no one will want to believe them" trick... rolleyes.gif
(DECONSTRUCTING DISINFORMATION) RealityCheck Oct 15 2005, 12:25 AM QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | The whole "MAGIC X-RAY EYES AND CAN SEE UP A THOUSAND FEET AND THROUGH CONCRETE AND STEEL TO KNOW JUST HOW BAD THE FIRES ARE" is an obvious attempt at the old "make them look so stupid no one will want to believe them" trick... rolleyes.gif
|
(DECONSTRUCTING DISINFORMATION)
RealityCheck
Oct 15 2005, 12:25 AM
(1) A steel frame skyscraper which, UNLIKE ALL PREVIOUS SKYSCRAPERS, used ONLY an outer ‘SHELL’ of steel and glass to essentially produce a ‘square tube’ from whose ‘walls’ were suspended floor slabs fixed at their edges by welds/rivets etc. to that ‘exo-skeleton’ framework; |
(FALSE) page 8 (TRUE) RealityCheck Oct 15 2005, 06:59 AM QUOTE Hello London to SF.
...and it certainly won't stop VIs coming in to SCIENCE FORUMS and insulting the intelligence of everyone there. Nothing in the rules says one and all must suffer without demur such wilful stupidity, dishonesty, cowardice, ignorance and downright loony posts as all you VIs have 'presented' here for supposed 'scientific' debate which YOU shy away from by evading the questions begged by your 'evidence'. And then YOU have the temerity to lecture us on OUR behaviour. True VI disconnection from reality if ever there was. Keep your advice and go, if the facts are inconvenient to whatever it is you're trying to do...because whatever it is, it's certainly NOT 'science' but conspiracy-mongering for those who have books to sell to gullible VIs like you and your "anonymous guest' aliases. Puhleeese! You are not expressing your opinions here...you are ACCUSING PEOPLE OF CRIMES, AND DOING SO WITHOUT THE LEAST CREDIBLE SHRED OF EVIDENCE. Gullible sickos, false accusers, and VIs...what a 'dream team' of 'scientific' debaters you have there, mate! Who needs YOUR advice, considering the competency/trustworthiness level of the source.
RealityCheck. (FALSE) QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | Hello London to SF.
...and it certainly won't stop VIs coming in to SCIENCE FORUMS and insulting the intelligence of everyone there. Nothing in the rules says one and all must suffer without demur such wilful stupidity, dishonesty, cowardice, ignorance and downright loony posts as all you VIs have 'presented' here for supposed 'scientific' debate which YOU shy away from by evading the questions begged by your 'evidence'. And then YOU have the temerity to lecture us on OUR behaviour. True VI disconnection from reality if ever there was. Keep your advice and go, if the facts are inconvenient to whatever it is you're trying to do...because whatever it is, it's certainly NOT 'science' but conspiracy-mongering for those who have books to sell to gullible VIs like you and your "anonymous guest' aliases. Puhleeese! You are not expressing your opinions here...you are ACCUSING PEOPLE OF CRIMES, AND DOING SO WITHOUT THE LEAST CREDIBLE SHRED OF EVIDENCE. Gullible sickos, false accusers, and VIs...what a 'dream team' of 'scientific' debaters you have there, mate! Who needs YOUR advice, considering the competency/trustworthiness level of the source.
RealityCheck. |
(FALSE)
guest
Posted: Oct 15 2005, 08:00 AM
QUOTE ("RealityCheck")
you are ACCUSING PEOPLE OF CRIMES, AND DOING SO WITHOUT THE LEAST CREDIBLE SHRED OF EVIDENCE.
RealityCheck, laugh.gif , I think you need one. there's an orgy of credible evidence pointing toward government complicity in 9/11, but when you're on your knees licking your master's boots you can't see it. Duh. |
(COMPLICITY:TRUE, BOOTLICKING: NOT PROVED) page 9( adoucette Oct 23 2005, 05:24 PM QUOTE There are TOO MANY UNKNOWNS to make the conclusion that there was not sufficient heat. Most significantly we don't really know the damage that was caused by the impact.
Wild conspiracy theories that the towers were pre-rigged with explosives fail the BS test because of the huge number of people who would have had to be involved to pull something like this off.
It also fails the "reasonableness" test, because you are saying the US would not be pissed off "enough" if just two jet planes had been flown into the WTC towers, that they actually had to fall down to get us upset. Hardly likely.
Arthur (FALSE) page 15frater plecticus Oct 26 2005, 11:00 AM QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | There are TOO MANY UNKNOWNS to make the conclusion that there was not sufficient heat. Most significantly we don't really know the damage that was caused by the impact.
Wild conspiracy theories that the towers were pre-rigged with explosives fail the BS test because of the huge number of people who would have had to be involved to pull something like this off.
It also fails the "reasonableness" test, because you are saying the US would not be pissed off "enough" if just two jet planes had been flown into the WTC towers, that they actually had to fall down to get us upset. Hardly likely.
Arthur |
(FALSE) page 15frater plecticus Oct 26 2005, 11:00 AM Wow, all the VISIBLE evidence points to crazy arab terrorists who want to destoy israel, but the PHYSICAL evidence points elsewhere. I think this debate is just about where it points to, a theoretical physics debate is just that....theoretical. Hard physical evidence on the other hand... |
(TRUE) page 18metamars Oct 27 2005, 12:39 AM QUOTE In fact, my main motivation for spending time on this is concern over the maniacal path that the Bush Administration (heeding the neocons) is taking us on. If we really do allow 911 to take us directly to WW3, those who knew and kept their mouths shut out of cowardice will have no consolation when their city gets nuked, or even when the radioactive fallout from Middle East eventually wafts over the US (or wherever you happen to live.)
I often listen to physicist Michio Kaku (wbai.org, Exploration in Understanding), who often reminds us that you can take a geiger counter and hold it up against your body, and you will hear clicks corresponding to fallout from a single Chinese above ground nuclear test.
If you'd like your children and/or grandchildren to have 5 fingers, instead of 4 or 6, and you agree with the "conspiracy theorists", my advice is to grow a spine. (TRUE) adoucette Oct 27 2005, 06:03 PM QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | In fact, my main motivation for spending time on this is concern over the maniacal path that the Bush Administration (heeding the neocons) is taking us on. If we really do allow 911 to take us directly to WW3, those who knew and kept their mouths shut out of cowardice will have no consolation when their city gets nuked, or even when the radioactive fallout from Middle East eventually wafts over the US (or wherever you happen to live.)
I often listen to physicist Michio Kaku (wbai.org, Exploration in Understanding), who often reminds us that you can take a geiger counter and hold it up against your body, and you will hear clicks corresponding to fallout from a single Chinese above ground nuclear test.
If you'd like your children and/or grandchildren to have 5 fingers, instead of 4 or 6, and you agree with the "conspiracy theorists", my advice is to grow a spine. |
(TRUE)
adoucette
Oct 27 2005, 06:03 PM
QUOTE (frater plecticus @ Oct 27 2005, 05:10 PM)
because there is no LEGAL proof, that Bin Laden (or Al Quada) was responsible for 9-11
I thought an admission of guilt was legal proof?
Dis you miss that al jazerra broadcast where OBL fessed up?
Or was that part of the conspiracy as well?
Arthur |
(NO, NO, YES) frater plecticus Oct 28 2005, 08:35 AM QUOTE
Quote Arthur
QUOTE
Implying I am complicit in the murder of 3000 people is nothing less than SLANDER.
Quot Foxx
QUOTE
Uhhhh... no Arthur. I think the majority of people recognize that there is 'something' seriously wrong with the official version of events. The 'Official Version' does not stand up even to a cursory examination of facts.
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.
(TRUE) page 21frater plecticus Oct 29 2005, 12:57 PM QUOTE (-> | QUOTE |
Quote Arthur
QUOTE
Implying I am complicit in the murder of 3000 people is nothing less than SLANDER.
Quot Foxx
QUOTE
Uhhhh... no Arthur. I think the majority of people recognize that there is 'something' seriously wrong with the official version of events. The 'Official Version' does not stand up even to a cursory examination of facts.
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.
|
(TRUE) page 21frater plecticus Oct 29 2005, 12:57 PM TREASONGATE: THE FELONY MURDER RULE - The Iraq War Fraud Could Lead To State Court Prosecutions For Murder Of American Soldiers Ordinarily, the President, as Commander In Chief, and his Executive Branch, could not be held legally responsible for the death of US soldiers on the battlefield. But if congressional, military and monetary support for the Iraq war was procured through a fraudulent criminal conspiracy, the Bush syndicate will have no protection from prosecution in state courts -- out of jurisdicitonal reach of the President's pardon power -- which is limited by the Constitution to federal crimes against the United States. There are plenty of violations of federal law to be found around the Niger uranium forgeries, and I expect Fitzgerald has found most if not all of them by now. When the president made his 2003 State of the Union address, and referred to Iraq's efforts to procure uranium in "an African country," the source of his allegation was a cache of documents that had been turned over to the American embassy in Rome under mysterious circumstances... Whoever forged these documents and introduced them into the American intelligence stream is guilty of violating [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." And this law, "If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both." [18 USC 371] The laws cited above make it clear that both the "creation" and "use" of these documents was a felony. The "cover up" of the documents' fraudulent nature was also a felony. Fraudulent statements about the veracity of the documents would also be a felony, i.e. Bush relying on them in his State of the Union address (the famous 16 words); and let's not forget Powell's reliance upon them at the UN as well as Condi's mushroom cloud speech. If proved that government officials knew the documents were fraudulent then their criminal actions relating to such knowledge must be prosecuted. |
(TRUE) page 22frater plecticus Nov 1 2005, 08:29 AM QUOTE This charts military deaths in Iraq during the Libby indictment timeline. 1,590 died during the grand jury investigation from January 2004 to October 28, 2005. http://cryptome.org/cia-dead/cia-leak-dead.htm (TRUE) page 23So, in conclusion, the practice of blaming "hermetically sealed terrorists" for the atrocities of 9-11, with NO EVIDENCE by KNOWINGLY using disinformation is a criminal offence, punishable by prison.(TRUE) You know who you are (NOT PROVED) 11 thousand reads. Jacta alea est Found this jewel yesterday, chapter 13 is particularly applicable... MEN AMONG THE RUINS Postwar Reflections of a Radical Traditionalist JULIUS EVOLA QUOTE (-> (TRUE) page 23So, in conclusion, the practice of blaming "hermetically sealed terrorists" for the atrocities of 9-11, with NO EVIDENCE by KNOWINGLY using disinformation is a criminal offence, punishable by prison.(TRUE) You know who you are (NOT PROVED) 11 thousand reads. Jacta alea est Found this jewel yesterday, chapter 13 is particularly applicable... MEN AMONG THE RUINS Postwar Reflections of a Radical Traditionalist JULIUS EVOLA Thirteen OCCULT WAR WEAPONS OF THE OCCULT WAR Various causes have been adduced to explain the crisis that has affected and still affects the life of modern peoples: historical, social, socioeconomic, political, moral, and cultural causes, according to different perspectives. The part played by each of these causes should not be disputed. However, we need to ask a higher and essential question: are these always the first causes and do they have an inevitable character like those causes found in the material world? Do they supply an ultimate explanation or, occasionally, is it necessary to identify influences of a higher order, which may cause what has occurred in the West to appear very suspicious, and which, beyond the multiplicity of individual aspects, suggest there is the same logic at work? The concept of occult war must be defined within the context of the di-lemma. The occult war is a battle that is waged imperceptibly by the forces of global subversion, with means and in circumstances ignored by current historiography. The notion of occult war belongs to a three-dimensional view of history: this view does not regard as essential the two superficial dimensions of time and space (which include causes, facts, and visible leaders) but rather emphasizes the dimension of depth, or the "subterranean" dimension in which forces and influences often act in a decisive manner, and which, more often not than not, cannot be reduced to what is merely human, whether at an individual or a collective level. Having said that, it is necessary to specify the meaning of the term subterranean. We should not think, in this regard, of a dark and irrational background that stands in relation to the known forces of history as the unconscious stands to consciousness, in the way the latter relationship is discussed in the recently developed "Depth Psychology" If anything, we can talk about the unconscious only in regard to those who, according to the three-dimensional view, appear to be history's objects rather than its subjects, since in their thoughts and conduct they are scarcely aware of the influences they obey and the goals they contribute toward achieving. In these people, the center falls more in the unconscious and the preconscious than in the clear reflected consciousness, no matter what they—who are often men of action and ideologues—believe. Considering this relation, we can say the most decisive actions of the occult war take place in the human unconscious. However, if we consider the true agents of history in the special aspects we are now discussing, things are otherwise: here we cannot talk of the subconscious or the unconscious, for we are dealing with intelligent forces that know very well what they want and the means most suited to achieve their objectives. The third dimension of history should not be diluted in the fog of abstract philosophical or sociological concepts, but rather should be thought of as a "backstage" dimension where specific "intelligences" are at work. An investigation of the secret history that aspires to be positivist and scientific should not be too lofty or removed from reality. However, it is necessary to assume as the ultimate reference point a dualistic scheme not dissimilar from the one found in an older tradition. Catholic historiography used to regard history not only as a mechanism of natural, political, economic, and social causes, but also as the unfolding of divine Providence, to which hostile forces are op-posed. These forces are sometimes referred to in a moralistic fashion as "forces of evil," or in a theological fashion as the "forces of the Antichrist." Such a view has a positive content, provided it is purified and emphasized by bringing it to a less religious and more metaphysical plane, as was done in Classical and Indo-European antiquity: forces of the cosmos against forces of chaos. To the former corresponds everything that is form, order, law, spiritual hierarchy, and tradition in the higher sense of the word; to the latter correspond every influence that disintegrates, subverts, degrades, and promotes the predominance of the inferior over the superior, matter over spirit, quantity over quality. This is what can be said in regard to the ultimate reference points of the various influences that act upon the realm of tangible causes behind known history. These must be kept into account, though with some prudence. Let me repeat: aside from this necessary metaphysical background, let us never lose sight of concrete history. <a href='https://publish.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/11/327220.html' target='_blank' rel='nofollow'>men among the ruins
metamars
4th November 2005 - 01:48 PM
| QUOTE | The other questions are interesting, but I suspect anyone could come up with literally hundreds of "unanswered questions". SO?
I don't think their job was to explain EVERY FACET of the collapse and the precise behavior of all parts of the structure, or the damage to everything within the towers.
<br>Each and every one of those questions point to an answer at odds with the Fairy Tale of a gravity driven collapse, just considered individually. Collectively, they indicate that the FEMA Fairy Tale isn't just wrong, it's absurd. I think this makes them more than of idiosyncratic, personal interest......
The real problem with some of these questions is that I can't get a good handle on what they point to, even if I'm sure what they point away from. E.g., what can I say about the uber-weird collapsing spire? I have speculated that some type of exotic military weapon was used. AFAIK, steel spires don't do telescoping collapses while simulaneously turning into powder. Anybody who claims that this happened due to gravity is not serious. Even so, it'd be nice if I could say what could cause this, even in principle, with any confidence. Alas, I cannot.
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | The other questions are interesting, but I suspect anyone could come up with literally hundreds of "unanswered questions". SO?
I don't think their job was to explain EVERY FACET of the collapse and the precise behavior of all parts of the structure, or the damage to everything within the towers.
<br>Each and every one of those questions point to an answer at odds with the Fairy Tale of a gravity driven collapse, just considered individually. Collectively, they indicate that the FEMA Fairy Tale isn't just wrong, it's absurd. I think this makes them more than of idiosyncratic, personal interest......
The real problem with some of these questions is that I can't get a good handle on what they point to, even if I'm sure what they point away from. E.g., what can I say about the uber-weird collapsing spire? I have speculated that some type of exotic military weapon was used. AFAIK, steel spires don't do telescoping collapses while simulaneously turning into powder. Anybody who claims that this happened due to gravity is not serious. Even so, it'd be nice if I could say what could cause this, even in principle, with any confidence. Alas, I cannot.
In the BEST CASE one would have to make many assumptions. A number of them fairly critical. Considering the multitude of interactions among the supporting structures, every set of assumptions would then lead to another model of the collapse. What would be the point? What would be learned?
What you are you claiming is that under NO PLAUSIBLE ASSUMPTIONS of damage, fire intensity, duration, location, etc could cause a global collapse, even if the ASSUMPTIONS are Worst Case.
I know you can't prove it, so you rely on these far fetched questions that in all likelihood no one will ever do the work to determine the "answer", because they are essentially pointless.
<br>
GLOBAL COLLAPSE
You are correct when you say that I am claiming that global collapse is impossible without a very large additional source of energy, under anyplausible set of conditions. Even ignoring the energy sink of the huge dust cloud, I can prove this is the case under vastly simplifying assumptions, though I have to admit that this is not conclusive in the real world, due mostly to my ignorance of the engineering specifics and knowledge. Even having these engineering tools and knowldege probably would not suffice without computer simulations. I absolutely believe that a full blown computer simulation, even granting generous concessions to the FEMA Fairy Tale that all reasonble people would agree on, would conclusively show that global collapse is impossible. Of course, my belief does not make global collapse impossible any more than your belief does.
While simple physics calculations, of the sort that I have done, do not nail the case down for a problem that is more in the realm of engineering, Hoffman's dust cloud calculations are another matter entirely. ( http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/volumev3.html ) A full treatment would also involve computer modelling, but there are no serious engineering-type constraints of knowledge that anybody has pointed to that would refute his findings. What this tells me is that, even if you did model this on a computer, it would not affect the results significantly. So, his simple physics/chemistry type calculations almost certainly suffice.
Make no mistake about it, even if you take his more modest set of energy numbers, where water is not consider supply - limited, you are still short by about an order of magnitude. Assuming you believe in conservation of energy, you cannot accept the FEMA Fairy Tale type scenarios without serious hand waving. (I am being polite, here.) The only hand-waving that you can hang your hat on, that serious people might respect, is again the "argument from ignorance". I.e., what if we did model this on a computer, and thus get a better handle on mixing at the frontier of the expanding dust cloud, for example? How would that affect the energy sink?
So, while you may be technically correct if you say that I haven't proven global collapse is impossible, your implication that nobody has shown that global collapse is impossible is wrong. If you can refute Hoffman's work, by all means, don't be bashful. Post it here. Like I indicated, a full blown computer analysis is desirable, but if you seriously think this would change the net result, at least do us the honor of telling us why you think this is so.
The fact that Hoffman's results are so conclusive, while "speed of free fall" arguments, using wrong collapse times at that, are so unconvincing (in a quantitative sense), suggests that perhaps some folks focussing on that are agents of disinformation. But I am speculating , here....
LOCAL COLLAPSE
There are too many unknowns, both in the details of the collapse zone, as well as in my lack of engineering knowledge and resources for me to hold any firm conclusion regarding whether or not local collapse is possible under any reasonable scenario. I happen to believe that it was not possible, but wouldn't bet my life on it. Perhaps even if you did the most thorough analysis possible, in the end all you could say is "There is a probabily of X that there was a local collapse of 1 floor, plus or minus Y."
No doubt, since you really want to get to the bottom of this, you fully support such investigations being done, right?
frater plecticus
4th November 2005 - 02:18 PM
Open-source investigation. not like this, but more like that, although both examples exhibit modular and organic form. "Cognitive linguistics professor George Lakoff , founder of the progressive think tank the Rockridge Institute, has argued, with respect to the phrase "War on Terror", "Terror is a general state, and it's internal to a person. Terror is not the person we're fighting, the 'terrorist.' The word terror activates your fear, and fear activates the strict father model, which is what conservatives want. The 'war on terror' is not about stopping you from being afraid, it's about making you afraid." He adds "...terrorists are actual people, and relatively small numbers of individuals, considering the size of our country and other countries. It's not a nation-state problem. War is a nation-state problem." Lakoff believes that the frame invoked by the phrase plays a key role in the political changes enacted by President Bush through the implication of the frame."
adoucette
4th November 2005 - 04:38 PM
QUOTE (Foxx+Nov 4 2005, 07:33 AM) QUOTE (adoucette+Nov 4 2005, 06:51 AM) QUOTE (foxx+) Never in the history of the 'normal' building collapses has it ever been known that materials are forcefully ejected 2 - 3 times the width of the building (prior to reaching the ground and sloughing off in a landslide / avalanche of collapsing material).
I have challenged numerous others to provide evidence that such phenomena occur during a standard 'progressive building collapse'. I am still waiting for them to provide any evidence that such is an occurance associated with building failures... but perhaps you can put an end to my search for this evidence, and provide such? <br> Ok, Take a straw, cut it in half. Now you have a column, that is rigid. Stand the straw on a table, placing your fingertip on the top of the straw to keep it stable. Press down quickly on the straw till it fails. Where does the straw go? How far does it go? Why? Assume no wind. I shoot a high velocity bullet from a horizontal barrel mounted 10 ft over level ground and I drop a bullet at the same time from 10 ft. Which hits the ground first? Why? Again, assume no wind. I throw a ball horizontally, while standing on a platform 10 feet in the air. I then throw a ball horizontally, while standing on a platform 100 ft in the air. Both are thrown with the same force. Which ball lands further away (horizontally) from the platform? Why? If I drop a 10 ft stack of bricks 10 ft onto another stack of bricks, how close would you be willing to stand to the bricks? Before you answer this last question, ever see the comedian Gallagher perform. He used to end his show with the Sledgomatic, where he would proceed to wack various items with a large sledge hammer. His favorite item being a watermelon. Why did the people in the front row of his shows come with plastic ponchos since the sledge applied a vertical force to the watermelon? By the way, he would then show it in slow motion, and virtually all of the watermelon went horizontally. What would make it do that? Answer these questions and you will answer the question about the tower material. Arthur Total Bunk. I have addressed these exact same questions too many times on other forums to go round the mulberry bush here with you on it. I will leave it to others to address this total nonsense. Geez, you guys (gov't shills) must be given a script by Homeland Security to read from... >---Shakes Head----< and goes to bed. Fine, then you just have to cut and paste your replies. What, is that too much work? Or, as I suspect, you really DON'T want to answer the questions. At least publicly. Though, your asking others to answer the questions does make me wonder if you CAN answer them. Arthur
adoucette
4th November 2005 - 04:44 PM
| QUOTE | Each and every one of those questions point to an answer at odds with the Fairy Tale of a gravity driven collapse, just considered individually. Collectively, they indicate that the FEMA Fairy Tale isn't just wrong, it's absurd. I think this makes them more than of idiosyncratic, personal interest......
<br>No they point to questions for which answers are not in the official report. Mainly because they were not deemed to be relevant. YOU PRESUME that the answers would support your theory, thus making them relevant. You have NOT SHOWN that they do so.
The point is there are probably hundreds of similar questions.
So?
Arthur
frater plecticus
4th November 2005 - 04:54 PM
so the point is........
| QUOTE | So, in conclusion, the practice of blaming "hermetically sealed terrorists" for the atrocities of 9-11, with NO EVIDENCE by KNOWINGLY using disinformation is a criminal offence, punishable by prison.(TRUE)
<br>whoa. nearly 12 000 reads of this post.
metamars
4th November 2005 - 05:40 PM
| QUOTE | No they point to questions for which answers are not in the official report. Mainly because they were not deemed to be relevant. YOU PRESUME that the answers would support your theory, thus making them relevant. You have NOT SHOWN that they do so.
<br>They were not deemed to be relevant? How do you know this? Since they all point away from the gravity driven collapse Fairy Tale, it's a fair bet that they were deliberately ignored for this very reason. Certainly, NIST not showing how a local collapse could develop into a global collapse, after a 3 year $20 millions study is completely unforgiveable. When we ask the question, "how did the towers collapse", we are really asking "how did the towers collapse globally". And you really think, via sophistry, you can convince anybody that this is not a relevant question? It is THE question. Who do you think you're fooling?
It's forgiveable that the uber-weird spire collapse was ignored because of it's high-strangeness features. Not so, the rest of those questions.
If you can't see how they point away from a gravity driven collapse, you probably don't know anything about physics. What exactly are your credentials in this area? Assuming that they are not non-existent, please calculate for us the approximate angular momentum of the top of South Tower, how much energy would be required to negate this angular momentum, where this energy came from, and, how on earth this energy would even be applied, even if the top of the South Tower was still a rigid body.
Foxx
4th November 2005 - 05:49 PM
| QUOTE | Fine, then you just have to cut and paste your replies. What, is that too much work? Or, as I suspect, you really DON'T want to answer the questions. At least publicly. Though, your asking others to answer the questions does make me wonder if you CAN answer them. Arthur
<br>*******************
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | Fine, then you just have to cut and paste your replies. What, is that too much work? Or, as I suspect, you really DON'T want to answer the questions. At least publicly. Though, your asking others to answer the questions does make me wonder if you CAN answer them. Arthur
<br>*******************
Take a straw, cut it in half. Now you have a column, that is rigid. Stand the straw on a table, placing your fingertip on the top of the straw to keep it stable.
Press down quickly on the straw till it fails. Where does the straw go? How far does it go? Why?
<br>Implies an energy input to which the straw is not otherwise subjected and is disproportionate to forces to which the towers were subjected (in a gravity-driven collapse).
| QUOTE | Again, assume no wind. I throw a ball horizontally, while standing on a platform 10 feet in the air. I then throw a ball horizontally, while standing on a platform 100 ft in the air. Both are thrown with the same force. Which ball lands further away (horizontally) from the platform? Why?
<br>Implies an energy input to which the ball is not otherwise subjected and is disproportionate to forces to which the towers were subjected (in a gravity-driven collapse).
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | Again, assume no wind. I throw a ball horizontally, while standing on a platform 10 feet in the air. I then throw a ball horizontally, while standing on a platform 100 ft in the air. Both are thrown with the same force. Which ball lands further away (horizontally) from the platform? Why?
<br>Implies an energy input to which the ball is not otherwise subjected and is disproportionate to forces to which the towers were subjected (in a gravity-driven collapse).
If I drop a 10 ft stack of bricks 10 ft onto another stack of bricks, how close would you be willing to stand to the bricks?
<br>Implies an energy input to which the towers were not subjected and is disproportionate to forces to which the towers were subjected (in a gravity-driven collapse).
| QUOTE | Why did the people in the front row of his shows come with plastic ponchos since the sledge applied a vertical force to the watermelon? By the way, he would then show it in slow motion, and virtually all of the watermelon went horizontally. What would make it do that?
<br>Implies an energy input to which the towers were not subjected and is disproportionate to forces to which the towers were subjected (in a gravity-driven collapse).
Yawn... I am finished feeding this troll.
Hidden_Tiger
4th November 2005 - 09:02 PM
QUOTE (Andrew Johnson+Nov 2 2005, 06:18 PM) Ron,
Sorry - the info you mentioned refers to elasticity and plasticity. How would this allow freefall? If something is plastic or elastic does it lose *all* its strength? 60%? 70%? 90%? Think about it... this explanation is bogus - really it is.
Essentially then, I fundamentally disagree with all the versions of this idea which have been posted as a refutation. The fundamental physics question is what mechanism takes away 99% or even 100% of the strength of the steel to support itself? Softening etc is not sufficient. Destruction is. It's that simple. Everything else is wishful thinking - in my opinion (and Professor David Ray Griffin's for example) Did you actually read the article or just the title? Bazant and Zhou use real numbers to show that the loss in kinetic energy would be on the order of 1%, allowing for the observed near-freefall. Most of us don't observe the collapse of 1000 ft buildings on a regular basis, so I don't think anyone can appeal to "intuition" to prove the argument either way. There are massive amounts of energy involved and an even more massive number of variables, so the best we can do is do some order-of-magnitude estimates and see if things check out. By the way, people who DO work with skyscrapers believe the official story: From http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.htmlNOVA: After the planes struck and you saw those raging fires, did you think the towers would collapse? Eagar: No. In fact, I was surprised. So were most structural engineers. The only people I know who weren't surprised were a few people who've designed high-rise buildings. The NOVA interview is actually a pretty good summary of how rapid heating could melt the center supports. Take a look at the rest of it if you're interested.
CHUCKLES
4th November 2005 - 09:17 PM
hooooeee FOXXY! Dementia finally kicking in from all that goup-wanking with your conspiracy buddies? Careful, clod, your sharp wit is exposed and you might castrate yourself if you trip over it. What a maroon!
hahahahaha...they don't stop do they? The morons don't have a clue of an answer on even the basic stuff!yet they challenge others to "intelligent combat"...no contest I say edoucette, you're a legend! But what are they in it for? That is worth such public displays of stupidity and all that goes with it???....that's what I wanna know...are they selling add-space on their blog sites...selling books to idiots like themselves...what?...what drives these perpetrators of offensive excretions to do their best to increase the crap index of this once-beautiful thing called the internet. Maybe they're just nutters in a 'home' somewhere, and their keepers provide internet access where they can work out their fantasies without any sharp instruments involved. Ah well, what can't be cured must be endured....so laugh and smile through the crap-crap-crap-crap-crap repetition of obvious nutjobs. hahahahahaha...what a riot! I think I'll visit more often, when I need to appreciate the old saying "there but for the grace of god go I". Thankful isn't the word for it, edoucette! [You're BRILLIANT BTW..should consider teaching the mentally challenged...because your patience with these 'sub-standards' is truly amazing!
frater plecticus
4th November 2005 - 09:30 PM
HEY WHATS WRONG WITH GROUP WANKING?
CHUCKLES
You were right about the conspiracy rubbish, though..look what I found, on the "once sacred Internet".
| QUOTE | On September 11, 2001, confused amateur pilots, LaToya Jackson/Janet Jackson and several Phantom Japanese Log Riders, an unknown rider flying an EVIL-5 Hippo and SpongeBob, crashed into the Twin Towers (which were having sex with each other at the time) while smoking a bong. (All together now: TIMBERRRRRR! Oh - and run for your life.) The crash brought the towers to premature orgasm, whereupon both fell down. This made New York resemble a Godzilla scene, only in a more confusing way and without the stomping dinosaur. Everything promptly closed down, too: businesses, police stations, fire hydrants, Mom's cat, the wooden floor of Auntie Em's house, Ghengis Khan's golden horde, the Tau Beta Kappa Crappa Partay, and whatever comes to mind after that, which, frankly, is not too much. The collapse also caused Uncle Sam to order all planes in the sky to promptly leave the sky. Thus, all planes suddenly stopped, did a little Wile E Coyote take, fell, and left holes all about them in the ground, while they remained intact, albeit with a bump on their cockpit roofs. Of course, this meant that airport terminals would become Lollapalooza and then Woodstock, only without the music and with even more crap.
Swinging immediately into action (right after the story about the goat) the Bush Administration made the attack the cornerstone of both the Foreign and Domestic policies of the United States, the justification for the so-called Patriot Act, the theme of President Bush's reelection campaign and New York City the site of the Republican National Convention in 2004, as well as numerous other doohickies, until he got pwned by Hurricane Katrina. So pleased by this last honor were the people of NY City that they staged a truly grand welcoming parade and sex orgy (Roman style) for the Delegates, composed of more people than the entire State of Montana, which is to say about a half the left-wing whackos in Manhattan.
Before 9/11 there was no such thing as fear and everyone lived lives of perfect peace in a constant state of happiness unless of course you had the misfortune to be poor (or someone from Philadelphia). However after 9/11 terrorism and fear were invented and the US Government made it their selfless mission to spread this radical new idea throughout the world by making as many people scared of them as possible.
<br>http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/September_11th
adoucette
4th November 2005 - 09:42 PM
Thanks, Chuckles. I was not surprised that Foxx again failed to actually ANSWER any of the questions. Arthur
Andrew Johnson
4th November 2005 - 10:25 PM
Hidden Tiger Indeed you are Hidden - yet another person with some odd handle - whom I know nothing about. Such a strange habbit people have of using handles almost all the time. I really can't understand it. I did read the paper and have read about the PBS documentary. It does not address the basic physics questions. There are too many replies here to these points that have been made to bother repeating them further. Other people have done the energy calculations to which you refer. Some qualified people disagree with other qualified people - the basic physics to which I refer has still not been properly addressed by anyone. I already said what I thought of Bazant and Zhou in this post: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=3108&st=16more here: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=3108&st=65and some futher clarifcations here. Why don't read Schneibsters posts? I tried to reply to them as best I could. I will stand by these remarks until someone can show me good evidence that they are incorrect. (And not just a "simple analysis" - my analysis is simpler and it is more accurate, in my view). I won't re-iterate all the other points about video evidence and witness testimony to the use of explosives to destroy WTC 1 & 2 Thanks
adoucette
4th November 2005 - 10:49 PM
QUOTE (Andrew Johnson+) witness testimony to the use of explosives to destroy WTC 1 & 2 <br>I don't believe there is ANY witness testimony to the use of EXPLOSIVES. Witness statements that they heard EXPLOSIONS are not the same as testimony that the LOUD REPORTS they heard were created by EXPLOSIVES. Or should I pop another paper bag for you? How about I SNAP a hardwood dowel? Get the point? Arthur
manifespo
4th November 2005 - 11:46 PM
http://www.karlschwarz2008.com/home.htmhttp://spoey.comGod Bless America! We will not be overcome by evil- however deceitful its forms may be. Liberty will pop the brutal shadow of hate over our country! Just remember, three skyscrapers fell into their footprint in under 12 seconds. Skyscrapers do that, they fall down!!
adoucette
4th November 2005 - 11:49 PM
Video that convincingly disproves the "we blew it up" theory. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc_corner_slow.wmvThis is a slow motion shot of the collapse of one tower. (note all references to TIME are to the SLOW MOTION times, don't equate them to actual times) To see what is happening a piece of paper with a straight edge is all that is required. You will have to watch it several times to follow along. It helps to enlarge the video screen to do this. I will use the second counter, bottom right in Real Player as a reference. First, at 0:00 seconds, hold your paper edge next to the left edge of the tower and confirm that the tower is straight, above and below the damage area. Stop the video at 16 to 20 seconds. Use your straight edge to confirm that by this time the top of the tower is tilting. Note the amount of tilt. Note that even though the tower is now tilting there is no prior evidence of any EXPLOSION. Go back and watch it carefully through the first 20 seconds, just paying attention to the fire and smoke, see ANYTHING unusual? OK, so now we have a decent tilt to the tower, indicating failure is occurring, but no explosions to explain the failure. Play it again and stop at 25. Now the failure is underway, and now one can see the smoke cloud blossoming out from the corner where the failure is occurring. Why do we know its failing here? because of the DIRECTION the tower is tilted. Check the angle of the tower again and note that the tilt is quite a bit more extreme. For the tower to tilt this way the floor below the point of tilt HAS to be failing. But while the amount of smoke has gone up, it is WAY short of what would be called EXPLOSIVE. Notice nothing SOLID is being ejected. Play it again and stop at 30. Again, no explosion is evident, but the tower continuing its way down is now OFFSET inward from the normal line. One can project the line and see that this corner is now crashing downward. It is not however having much impact on the external column structure below it, BECAUSE OF ITS TILT. Play it again and stop at 35. NOW, one sees a definite pouring out of smoke and fire during this time period, but considering that the tower is definitely on its way down this IS TO BE EXPECTED. Still, nothing similar to an EXPLOSION has been seen. Explosions generate TREMENDOUS VELOCITIES to the local air mass, none such is seen. The fire and smoke are being squeezed out at a pretty good rate, but not explosively. Now, to recap, at 16 seconds the tilt becomes noticeable. At 30 seconds the tilt is quite pronounced, and the tower is offset to the lower structure. But NOTHING of an explosive nature has occurred. At 35 seconds there is a blossoming but of course the collapse has been in progress for a while by then. OK, play it again stopping it at 55 seconds. Now what you will see coming into the frame is the buckled part of the upper structure. It serves as a good marker. Now notice you can still see in the bottom part of the screen the tower's outside columns, still intact. So what this means is that a substantial amount of the upper tower has now fallen within the lower section. Play it from here and and watch the buckled point accelerate into the tower. Goodbye tower. All with nary an explosion. Thanks for the video clip link, I believe this is what Shakespeare referred to as being "hoisted on your own petard" Arthur
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
