Hey Schneibster I did appreciate what you wrote (in the post before last):

<br>The evidence is:
1. There was massive damage to 7 WTC from flying perimeter columns. This was considerably in excess of the damage done to Banker's trust, and apparently penetrated to the second row of interior load-bearing columns from the South face, compromising at least four columns in the first row and at least two in the second. This conclusion is based on multiple pieces of testimentary evidence, some of which I have provided links to here. There is, unfortunately, no accompanying photographic evidence, partly because the entire South face was covered with smoke from the time it was damaged (the fall of 1 WTC) to the time that the building collapsed, and partly because the only realistic vantage point would have been right in the middle of the pile of 1 WTC rubble.
NOT PROVED (SPECULATION)

2. The collapse of 7 WTC began inside the building. This is based on the fact that the East penthouse was the first thing to go, followed by the West penthouse and the curtain wall between them; finally, after all that, the global collapse began. But the interior of the building by that time was no longer a load-bearing structure. Finally, examining aerial views of the building after the collapse, we find perimeter sections on top of the pile of debris, indicating that all of the interior had already fallen. (TRUE*-BASED ON PHOTO/VIDEO EVIDENCE)


3. The collapse of 7 WTC started with a vertical failure on the East side of the building, most likely in column 79, next most likely in column 80. The supporting evidence for this is the breaking windows in a line running up the North face to the East penthouse, followed by the East penthouse developing a kink in its roof directly over the line of breaking windows, and not coincidentally directly over column 79 and very close to column 80. (NOT PROVED-SPECULATION)


4. This vertical failure caused the east side of the building's interior to collapse due to diaphragm failures (diaphragms are floors, which transfer some of the stress on the perimeter columns to interior columns) in the structures that were no longer supported by the column that had broken and initiated the vertical failure. This is evident from the fact that the sky is visible in the upper story windows below the East penthouse after its collapse. (NOT PROVED-SPECULATION)

5. This interior collapse caused a horizontal progressive failure across the area between floors 5 and 7, of the horizontal trusses that distributed weight from the upper building columns to the original ground-level columns that were put in with the Con Ed power station. These horizontal trusses were deformed and pulled down by the local collapse on the East side. I have no direct evidence to support this assertion, but the subsequent events almost require it; please read on.
(NOT PROVED-EXTRAPOLATION)

6. This horizontal progressive failure caused a corresponding interior progressive collapse that proceeded up the building to the roof and caused the disappearance of the West penthouse and the curtain wall. The evidence for this is the disappearance of those structures, and the subsequent view of the sky through the top windows on the West side.
(NOT PROVED-EXTRAPOLATION)

7. During this horizontal progressive failure, an enormous load was placed on the balance ends of the North side cantilevers; this load was transferred by the cantilevering beams and the weight of the North facade to the pivot beams, which were columns on the North side of the building inset about 9 feet into the building. When the full load came on these pivot beams, they failed. I also have no supporting evidence for this assertion; and again, the subsequent events almost require it.
(NOT PROVED-EXTRAPOLATION)

8. Now the North perimeter begins to fall, with a "kink" near the damage caused by the original failure on the East side near column 79. It is falling because the pivots below its cantilevered support have failed.
(NOT PROVED-EXTRAPOLATION)

It falls 5 to 7 floors. The supporting evidence is on video; the building appears to "fall into the ground," indicating that there is no interior structure any more, and that the bottom level has failed.
(TRUE*-BASED ON PHOTO/VIDEO EVIDENCE)

9. The North perimeter strikes the ground, sending a wave of systematic breakage up the facade which reaches the top slightly before it hits the ground. There is no interior of the building, because it has all already collapsed. The evidence again is on video.
(TRUE*-BASED ON PHOTO/VIDEO EVIDENCE)

10: After most of the pile was removed, experts found that there were pools of what appeared
to have been molten metal which had congealed on foundations of the buildings many
levels underground. Some steel appeared to have partially melted, other steel had
undergone alternations to its crystalline structure, and still other steel was full of holes,
like a Swiss cheese.

Two structural steel samples from the WTC site were observed to have unusual erosion patterns. One sample is believed to be from WTC 7 and the other from either WTC 1 or WTC 2
http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_ch8.pdf
(TRUE*-BASED ON OFFICIAL LEGAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE)

11: At 5:20 local time on the afternoon of 9/11, there was also a 0.6 tremor from the collapse of WTC 7, also at the beginning, rather than the end, of this building’s collapse.
(TRUE*-BASED ON OFFICIAL LEGAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE)

When I assert something is true*, it is in a relative (contextual) sense, based on the current information/evidence available at hand. Mathematics maybe the purest language that we have, but even a mathematician would be hard-pressed to fit the actual data with the official narrative surrounding the SPECIFIC EVENT that led to such a catastrophic collapse of WTC7. It it is a shame that there are ramifications and geo-political consequences implicit with working with the data. Sometimes I get the feeling Schneibster is playing "devils advocate".

QUOTE

Stick to the facts; that's the only way you'll get anywhere. Make sure you are competent to analyze the math, and that you understand the engineering principles involved. If you don't, and you ask politely, you'll get a polite explanation. If you want to see how it's done, you might try my ongoing thread on polarization with hexa. Hexa observes that what s/he's seeing and what I'm saying seem different- but never calls me a liar. S/he is polite and points out the discrepancies and asks for an explanation. I happily provide one. If you don't understand where I got a particular equation, or how I made a step from one form to another, ask. I'll happily explain. DON'T call me a liar, and DON'T make nasty comments about me being a "shill" of some sort; I'm unlikely to be polite after that. <br>The evidence is: 1. There was massive damage to 7 WTC from flying perimeter columns. This was considerably in excess of the damage done to Banker's trust, and apparently penetrated to the second row of interior load-bearing columns from the South face, compromising at least four columns in the first row and at least two in the second. This conclusion is based on multiple pieces of testimentary evidence, some of which I have provided links to here. There is, unfortunately, no accompanying photographic evidence, partly because the entire South face was covered with smoke from the time it was damaged (the fall of 1 WTC) to the time that the building collapsed, and partly because the only realistic vantage point would have been right in the middle of the pile of 1 WTC rubble. NOT PROVED (SPECULATION) 2. The collapse of 7 WTC began inside the building. This is based on the fact that the East penthouse was the first thing to go, followed by the West penthouse and the curtain wall between them; finally, after all that, the global collapse began. But the interior of the building by that time was no longer a load-bearing structure. Finally, examining aerial views of the building after the collapse, we find perimeter sections on top of the pile of debris, indicating that all of the interior had already fallen. (TRUE*-BASED ON PHOTO/VIDEO EVIDENCE) 3. The collapse of 7 WTC started with a vertical failure on the East side of the building, most likely in column 79, next most likely in column 80. The supporting evidence for this is the breaking windows in a line running up the North face to the East penthouse, followed by the East penthouse developing a kink in its roof directly over the line of breaking windows, and not coincidentally directly over column 79 and very close to column 80. (NOT PROVED-SPECULATION) 4. This vertical failure caused the east side of the building's interior to collapse due to diaphragm failures (diaphragms are floors, which transfer some of the stress on the perimeter columns to interior columns) in the structures that were no longer supported by the column that had broken and initiated the vertical failure. This is evident from the fact that the sky is visible in the upper story windows below the East penthouse after its collapse. (NOT PROVED-SPECULATION) 5. This interior collapse caused a horizontal progressive failure across the area between floors 5 and 7, of the horizontal trusses that distributed weight from the upper building columns to the original ground-level columns that were put in with the Con Ed power station. These horizontal trusses were deformed and pulled down by the local collapse on the East side. I have no direct evidence to support this assertion, but the subsequent events almost require it; please read on. (NOT PROVED-EXTRAPOLATION) 6. This horizontal progressive failure caused a corresponding interior progressive collapse that proceeded up the building to the roof and caused the disappearance of the West penthouse and the curtain wall. The evidence for this is the disappearance of those structures, and the subsequent view of the sky through the top windows on the West side. (NOT PROVED-EXTRAPOLATION) 7. During this horizontal progressive failure, an enormous load was placed on the balance ends of the North side cantilevers; this load was transferred by the cantilevering beams and the weight of the North facade to the pivot beams, which were columns on the North side of the building inset about 9 feet into the building. When the full load came on these pivot beams, they failed. I also have no supporting evidence for this assertion; and again, the subsequent events almost require it. (NOT PROVED-EXTRAPOLATION) 8. Now the North perimeter begins to fall, with a "kink" near the damage caused by the original failure on the East side near column 79. It is falling because the pivots below its cantilevered support have failed. (NOT PROVED-EXTRAPOLATION) It falls 5 to 7 floors. The supporting evidence is on video; the building appears to "fall into the ground," indicating that there is no interior structure any more, and that the bottom level has failed. (TRUE*-BASED ON PHOTO/VIDEO EVIDENCE) 9. The North perimeter strikes the ground, sending a wave of systematic breakage up the facade which reaches the top slightly before it hits the ground. There is no interior of the building, because it has all already collapsed. The evidence again is on video. (TRUE*-BASED ON PHOTO/VIDEO EVIDENCE) 10: After most of the pile was removed, experts found that there were pools of what appeared to have been molten metal which had congealed on foundations of the buildings many levels underground. Some steel appeared to have partially melted, other steel had undergone alternations to its crystalline structure, and still other steel was full of holes, like a Swiss cheese. Two structural steel samples from the WTC site were observed to have unusual erosion patterns. One sample is believed to be from WTC 7 and the other from either WTC 1 or WTC 2 http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_ch8.pdf (TRUE*-BASED ON OFFICIAL LEGAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE) 11: At 5:20 local time on the afternoon of 9/11, there was also a 0.6 tremor from the collapse of WTC 7, also at the beginning, rather than the end, of this building’s collapse. (TRUE*-BASED ON OFFICIAL LEGAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE) When I assert something is true*, it is in a relative (contextual) sense, based on the current information/evidence available at hand. Mathematics maybe the purest language that we have, but even a mathematician would be hard-pressed to fit the actual data with the official narrative surrounding the SPECIFIC EVENT that led to such a catastrophic collapse of WTC7. It it is a shame that there are ramifications and geo-political consequences implicit with working with the data. Sometimes I get the feeling Schneibster is playing "devils advocate". The complexity and efficiency of the physicist's technical apparatus is matched, if not surpassed, by that of the mystic's consciousness - both physical and spiritual - in deep meditation. The scientists and the mystics, then, have developed highly sophisticated methods of observing nature. A page from a journal of modern experimental physics will be as mysterious to the uninitiated as a Tibetan mandala. Both are records of inquiries into the nature of the universe. -Franz Capra, physicist and author <br>Schneibster, almost forgot, RE: the telepathy comment: Non-local Consciousness, Synchrony, Meditation and Resonance QUOTE "Metachor’s overview of two new studies, one on meditation and the other on non-local consciousness: Hypothetically, clusters of individuals with similar EM shifts result in ionic feedback, that is, individuals’ EM dynamics come to resonate with each other through similar patterns of ionized molecules surrounding the group. When this process occurs on the order of thousands or millions of individuals, perhaps the EM vibration resonates with the ionosphere, carrying the signal across the globe near instantly." http://vortexegg.blogspot.com/2005/10/non-local-consciousness-synchrony.html and this.. APPARENT TELEPATHY BETWEEN BABIES AND NURSING MOTHERS: A SURVEY by Rupert Sheldrake QUOTE (-> QUOTE "Metachor’s overview of two new studies, one on meditation and the other on non-local consciousness: Hypothetically, clusters of individuals with similar EM shifts result in ionic feedback, that is, individuals’ EM dynamics come to resonate with each other through similar patterns of ionized molecules surrounding the group. When this process occurs on the order of thousands or millions of individuals, perhaps the EM vibration resonates with the ionosphere, carrying the signal across the globe near instantly." http://vortexegg.blogspot.com/2005/10/non-local-consciousness-synchrony.html and this.. APPARENT TELEPATHY BETWEEN BABIES AND NURSING MOTHERS: A SURVEY by Rupert Sheldrake I have 7 children, the eldest is now 12 and the youngest 7 months. I have fed 6 of my children and each time have experienced the ‘let down reflex’ when I leave them. I know when my baby cries when we are apart. The very second I think she may be crying I leak. When I get home she has usually been crying at the time I have leaked. My husband says that my boobs are like arials. I’m sure I can pick up their crying for miles. (Mrs P.B., Blackburn, Lancashire) <a href='http://www.sheldrake.org/papers/Telepathy/babies.html' target='_blank' rel='nofollow'>http://www.sheldrake.org/papers/Telepathy/babies.html george washington 15th November 2005 - 10:23 AM QUOTE 9-11 End Game We are finally there: the idea that explosives brought down the Twin Towers and building 7 of the World Trade Center is now starting to go mainstream. Dr. Steven Jones, the physics professor from Brigham Young University, was interviewed tonight on MSNBC's The Situation Room with Tucker Carlson, after being interviewed Thursday by Utah's largest television station. Dr. Jones argues that the world trade centers were brought down by controlled demolition. Jones, along with David Ray Griffin and other writers on controlled demolition, are starting to get exposure throughout the country. The perpetrators of the 9-11 attacks and their allies undoubtedly long-ago realized that the truth about the bombs in the towers would eventually come out. Therefore, I can guarantee that they've thought of a cover story to deal with this eventuality: namely, that Osama and the boys planted explosives in the buildings. This conclusion is bolstered by the fact that Dr. Jones is not stating who planted the bombs. Therfore, in addition to attempting to smear Dr. Jones, the disinformation agents will likely try to fall back on an argument like this: "we don't think there were bombs (and these guys are crazy who say so); but if there were bombs, Bin Laden and his followers planted them". <br> QUOTE (-> QUOTE 9-11 End Game We are finally there: the idea that explosives brought down the Twin Towers and building 7 of the World Trade Center is now starting to go mainstream. Dr. Steven Jones, the physics professor from Brigham Young University, was interviewed tonight on MSNBC's The Situation Room with Tucker Carlson, after being interviewed Thursday by Utah's largest television station. Dr. Jones argues that the world trade centers were brought down by controlled demolition. Jones, along with David Ray Griffin and other writers on controlled demolition, are starting to get exposure throughout the country. The perpetrators of the 9-11 attacks and their allies undoubtedly long-ago realized that the truth about the bombs in the towers would eventually come out. Therefore, I can guarantee that they've thought of a cover story to deal with this eventuality: namely, that Osama and the boys planted explosives in the buildings. This conclusion is bolstered by the fact that Dr. Jones is not stating who planted the bombs. Therfore, in addition to attempting to smear Dr. Jones, the disinformation agents will likely try to fall back on an argument like this: "we don't think there were bombs (and these guys are crazy who say so); but if there were bombs, Bin Laden and his followers planted them". <br>(1) The story that Al-Qaeda planted bombs logically fails. First of all, a couple of truck bombs wouldn't have done it. It took a coordinated and controlled demolition, involving bombs in the basements and throughout the buildings. Controlled demolitions of large buildings take many months of planning, expert timing, and complete control and coordination. (2) The Twin Towers were some of the world's largest buildings, and they were demolished with near perfection, causing very little damage to surrounding buildings. This is not something that a bunch of rag-tag terrorists could have done on their own. (3) Additionally, the sudden "straightening out" of the upper 34 floors of the South Tower after they had precipitously leaned over and started toppling like a tree could ONLY have been accomplished through very sophisticated demolition techniques. There are only a handful of demolition experts in the world who could have changed the direction of a toppling building in mid-air through destruction of the support structures underneath the falling building, so that the building would not topple sideways and destroy surrounding buildings. Osama and the boys? Impossible. (4) Security for the trade centers was provided by a Bush-linked company. How did a couple of sent-from-a-cave terrorists, unconnected with the military or intelligence resources of the United States (or Israel), have gained the access necessary to have installed the elaborate network of explosives and triggers required to implement these controlled demolitions? (5) Even if the first tower had been brought down by Al-Qaeda, why didn't the government jam the radio frequencies or cell phones which would have been needed to orchestrate the controlled demolition of the second tower and of building 7? Why didn't the military send in an AWACS plane and jam all communications signals in the entire area (its easy to do)? (6) Why did the 9-11 Commission and NIST lie and say fires brought down the buildings? This is evidence of guilt, and a cover-up. "We didn't want to scare the people" does not cut it. Covering up with a lie is evidence of guilt. 9/11 researchers and writers who are better informed than me will be able to add points I missed, and to take points off the list which are weak or unimportant. I'm providing a rough first draft, not a finished product. If we can refute the coming limited hang out story that Al-Qaeda done it, we can win the 9-11 end game -- getting the full truth out there and imprisoning all of those responsible. http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/11/9-11-end-game_14.html bin laden 15th November 2005 - 10:37 AM Following is the text of Usama Bin Laden's interview conducted by a "special correspondent" and published in the daily Ummat on Friday, 28 September 2001. [The place and date of the interview was not given by Ummat.] QUOTE Then there are intelligence agencies in the U.S., which require billions of dollars worth of funds from the Congress and the government every year. This [funding issue] was not a big problem till the existence of the former Soviet Union but after that the budget of these agencies has been in danger. They needed an enemy. So, they first started propaganda against Usama and Taleban and then this incident happened. You see, the Bush Administration approved a budget of 40 billion dollars. Where will this huge amount go? It will be provided to the same agencies, which need huge funds and want to exert their importance. Now they will spend the money for their expansion and for increasing their importance. I will give you an example. Drug smugglers from all over the world are in contact with the U.S. secret agencies. These agencies do not want to eradicate narcotics cultivation and trafficking because their importance will be diminished. The people in the U.S. Drug Enforcement Department are encouraging drug trade so that they could show performance and get millions of dollars worth of budget. General Noriega was made a drug baron by the CIA and, in need, he was made a scapegoat. In the same way, whether it is President Bush or any other U.S. President, they cannot bring Israel to justice for its human rights abuses or to hold it accountable for such crimes. What is this? Is it not that there exists a government within the government in the United Sates? That secret government must be asked as to who carried out the attacks. <a href='http://www.public-action.com/911/oblintrv.html' target='_blank' rel='nofollow'>http://www.public-action.com/911/oblintrv.html frater plecticus 15th November 2005 - 01:25 PM QUOTE Miller and Cooper asserted they had a journalistic privilege to keep their sources in confidence, but Judge Thomas F. Hogan – appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1982 – disagreed, declaring in his opinion: "Special Counsel outlines in great detail the developments in this case and the investigation as a whole. The ex parte affidavit establishes that the government's focus has shifted as it has acquired additional information during the course of the investigation. Special Counsel now needs to pursue different avenues in order to complete its investigation. … The subpoenas were not issued in an attempt to harass the [reporters], but rather stem from legitimate needs due to an unanticipated shift in the grand jury's investigation." In reviewing the classified information provided by Fitzgerald in his ex parte affidavit, Judge Hogan furthermore opined: "Assuming, arguendo, that the DOJ guidelines did vest a right in the movants in these cases, this Court holds that the DOJ guidelines are fully satisfied by the facts of this case as presented to the court in the ex parte affidavit of Patrick Fitzgerald. Furthermore, assuming arguendo that this Court were to determine that the journalists did possess a qualified privilege – a holding which this Court has explained is simply not supported by case law – the ex parte affidavit has also established that Special Counsel would be able to meet even the most stringent of balancing tests." Hogan's decision was upheld by the D.C. Court of Appeals. All of which implies there is more to this than just Libby. Which leads me to believe a number of unindicted co-conspirators are named, or not named, in this first indictment – and that this isn't the last indictment we'll be seeing posted on Fitzgerald's brand-new Website. The "unanticipated shift" in the investigation occurred in mid-July, and is presumably why, as Fitzgerald put it, "it's not over." We may be a lot closer to the beginning than to the end. The prospect of more indictments – and not just of Karl Rove – is alive and well. Fitzgerald's probe into the secretive cabal at the heart of our government continues http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=7825 QUOTE (-> QUOTE Miller and Cooper asserted they had a journalistic privilege to keep their sources in confidence, but Judge Thomas F. Hogan – appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1982 – disagreed, declaring in his opinion: "Special Counsel outlines in great detail the developments in this case and the investigation as a whole. The ex parte affidavit establishes that the government's focus has shifted as it has acquired additional information during the course of the investigation. Special Counsel now needs to pursue different avenues in order to complete its investigation. … The subpoenas were not issued in an attempt to harass the [reporters], but rather stem from legitimate needs due to an unanticipated shift in the grand jury's investigation." In reviewing the classified information provided by Fitzgerald in his ex parte affidavit, Judge Hogan furthermore opined: "Assuming, arguendo, that the DOJ guidelines did vest a right in the movants in these cases, this Court holds that the DOJ guidelines are fully satisfied by the facts of this case as presented to the court in the ex parte affidavit of Patrick Fitzgerald. Furthermore, assuming arguendo that this Court were to determine that the journalists did possess a qualified privilege – a holding which this Court has explained is simply not supported by case law – the ex parte affidavit has also established that Special Counsel would be able to meet even the most stringent of balancing tests." Hogan's decision was upheld by the D.C. Court of Appeals. All of which implies there is more to this than just Libby. Which leads me to believe a number of unindicted co-conspirators are named, or not named, in this first indictment – and that this isn't the last indictment we'll be seeing posted on Fitzgerald's brand-new Website. The "unanticipated shift" in the investigation occurred in mid-July, and is presumably why, as Fitzgerald put it, "it's not over." We may be a lot closer to the beginning than to the end. The prospect of more indictments – and not just of Karl Rove – is alive and well. Fitzgerald's probe into the secretive cabal at the heart of our government continues http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=7825 Two questions: 1. Why isn't this official decision of the District Court included at the Special Counsel's website? My best guess is that Fitz may not have wanted certain people to focus on the inflammatory information contained in that statement. Out of sight out of mind, right? But once Raimondo's column zeroed in on this decision, it must have become obvious that people would be hunting for the official court document. And now it's back online. I don't really know what this means, if anything, but the document sure led this blogger on an interesting journey. The second question, and by far the more relevant one is: 2. Where has this "unanticipated shift" taken Fitzgerald? When you examine the shift in Fitzgerald's publications and official utterances on the topic of motivation, it becomes reasonable to believe that Fitzgerald is not buying the argument/spin that this outing of a CIA officer was done with purely political or retaliatory motivations. Something -- or someone -- changed Fitzgerald's mind around October 2004. I think this is a mind-blowing development because the 75 page brief to the Court of Appeals makes no less than four references to the "political or retaliatory" motive, but that brief is the very last time Fitz published such language. Now reexamine the words Fitz chose in the press conference -- words that clearly indicate he's not been able to determine "why they did it" -- and you come away with an "ah ha" moment. Fitz is just walking out to the mound, people. The first inning hasn't even started. Nothing, and I mean nothing at all, can be found in the press conference, press release or indictment which even remotely suggests that Plame and Wilson are innocent victims in this affair. Fitz certainly doesn't suggest that they were co-conspirators either. But his published language has changed drastically as far as it pertains to the motive for these crimes. When Fitz submitted his brief to the Court of Appeals around the time of late October 2004, he was apparently comfortable repeating the common perception that the motive was "political gain" or "retaliation" of a critic. But that was before he was able to get some of the dirt out of his eyes. Seeing things more clearly now, he realizes -- and in fact has unequivocally stated -- that he does not know the motive -- "why they did it" was the exact words he used. Please notice that Judge Hogan's "unanticipated shift" memorandum is a direct result of Cooper's objection to Fitzgerald's second set of subpoenas. Fitz had finally got some of the *** out of his eyes when Cooper was forced to answer the initial questions and this clarity led him in another direction. Judge Hogan's decision comes down on November 10, 2004. By this time Fitz would have submitted the 75 page brief containing the original "political or retaliation" motives probably a week or two prior to Hogan's Nov. 10 decision. Mark October 2004 on your calendar as the time Fitz started to see the possibility of a much larger and more intricate conspiracy involving more sinister and pre-meditated intentions. I think that's a fair assessment when you carefully examine everything that Fitz has said since submitting that 75 page brief. In case you've been sleeping, he's not mentioning the word "retaliation" any longer. But the gatekeepers of the left continue to focus on the "small picture" insisting that these dangerous crimes were committed as retaliation against a whistleblower/hero. Y'all better get educated soon. Fitzgerald has signaled that he's not satisfied this investigation has uncovered the genuine motive. And he's also signaled through his press conference that he will not rest until he can look us in the eye and tell us he did everything he could to solve the riddle of this crime. Fitzgerald is "drilling it down". Rats are cornered. You know what rats do when they're cornered. He's got them cornered. I feel it. I believe it. I am impressed. Those involved with this conspiracy are going to figure it out soon. They are the Moriarty to Fitz as Sherlock Holmes. But Moriarty was no idiot. I don't think they will sit back and wait for the thing to play out relying on the pardon. That's a risky strategy. Given time, Fitzgerald will convict every one of them eventually. His eyes are wide open and he's the better man. And they know it. That's the scary part. They know he's going to beat them. Pray for the prosecutor. <a href='http://citizenspook.blogspot.com/2005/11/treasongate-whats-mysteriously-missing.html' target='_blank' rel='nofollow'>http://citizenspook.blogspot.com/2005/11/t...ly-missing.html Charles W.(Bill) White P.O. Box 130241, Houston, Texas 77219 November 1, 2005 Patrick J. Fitzgerald, Special Counsel Bond Federal Building 1400 New York Ave. NW, 9th floor Washington, D.C. 20530 Re: Open Letter QUOTE Dear Mr. Fitzgerald, I am writing to advise you that I have evidence that debunks Bush administration claims that your indictment of Vice President Cheney’s Chief of Staff is evidence that the outing of CIA undercover agent Valerie Plame was not a conspiracy, but rather an isolated incident carried out by a rouge administration official. I am living proof that both Bush administrations have a sordid history of launching brutal attacks against uncorrupt Americans when the Bushes believe that their political ambitions are in jeopardy. Based on my experience, I can assure you that what the Bush administration did in the Wilson/Plame matter amounts to little more than “business as usual”. As your investigation into the CIA agent outing matter so aptly demonstrates, the Bush Administration routinely employs its intelligence agencies’ 3-Ds tactic to cover up when neutral parties stumble upon their dealings. They “Deny” involvement even when confronted with incontrovertible evidence, they attempt to “Discredit” the source of the truthful information, and finally, they attempt to “Divert” attention to some unrelated matter. They hide their activities behind the smoke screen of “national security” whenever an outsider gets too close while access, money and self-serving leaking are used to intimidate and control the news media. I became a target of this methodology when I stumbled upon illegal dealings between the Bush family, the Saudis and the Israelis in the mid to late 1980’s. My former business partner, CIA cutout and W. Bush crony James R. Bath got himself in hot water when he misappropriated over a half million dollars from the Bin Laden family, for whom he served as trustee. Discovery in the litigation threatened to unearth bank records showing the laundering of Bin Laden money through Houston banks, the funneling of funds to Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan, and Bath’s diversion of Bin Laden money to W. Bush. Politically influenced members of both the Federal and State judiciary who were trying these cases never compelled production of the incriminating banking records or permitted the cases to go to trial. Instead, the compromised judges disposed of the cases by awarding Bath and Bush’s bank “death penalty” sanctions and striking my pleadings. I lost my income, my business, my home, my family and nearly all of my personal property because I steadfastly refused to participate in the cover-up. The Harris County District Attorney’s office was unwilling to go after the Bushes or the Saudis while FBI, Comptroller of the Currency, and FINCEN investigations were stopped dead in their tracks by Bush political appointees. Time Magazine reported on one facet of this story in its October 1990 article reporting accusations that W. Bush engaged in insider trading when he dumped his Harken Energy stock just before the price nosedived. The Manhattan District Attorney’s office followed up Time’s investigation by bringing charges against Saudi banker Sheikh Khalid Bin Mahfouz (National Commercial Bank) in the BCCI banking scandal matter. Still, the full story has never been told. Opportunistic judges, who were all-too-willing to ingratiate themselves with the Bush family, covered up for them while complicit lawyers have been rewarded by Bush administration appointments to judgeships and prestigious, career-enhancing positions within governmental agencies. There is no telling how many others have been the victims of the two Bush Administrations’ abuse. While the President blithely dismisses his conduct as “just politics”, the unsavory conduct routinely engaged in by he and his staff is making a mockery of our Constitution, diminishing the stature of the United States as the world’s “good-guy” and threatening the legitimacy of the rule of law in America. The ability of our Country to survive the damage done by the Bush administration may well depend upon the outcome of your investigation. I sincerely hope that the Office of Special Counsel will be able to rid the Bush White house of each and every occupant who routinely engages in malicious character assassination and stand ready to provide you with any and all evidence in my possession that you deem relevant to your investigation. <br>Yours truly, Bill White Enclosures: BinLaden trust agreement Time Magazine article BinMahfouz indictment Cc: Office of the Manhattan District Attorney By LARRY NEUMEISTER -- Associated Press Writer November 7, 2005, 5:11 PM EST QUOTE (-> QUOTE Dear Mr. Fitzgerald, I am writing to advise you that I have evidence that debunks Bush administration claims that your indictment of Vice President Cheney’s Chief of Staff is evidence that the outing of CIA undercover agent Valerie Plame was not a conspiracy, but rather an isolated incident carried out by a rouge administration official. I am living proof that both Bush administrations have a sordid history of launching brutal attacks against uncorrupt Americans when the Bushes believe that their political ambitions are in jeopardy. Based on my experience, I can assure you that what the Bush administration did in the Wilson/Plame matter amounts to little more than “business as usual”. As your investigation into the CIA agent outing matter so aptly demonstrates, the Bush Administration routinely employs its intelligence agencies’ 3-Ds tactic to cover up when neutral parties stumble upon their dealings. They “Deny” involvement even when confronted with incontrovertible evidence, they attempt to “Discredit” the source of the truthful information, and finally, they attempt to “Divert” attention to some unrelated matter. They hide their activities behind the smoke screen of “national security” whenever an outsider gets too close while access, money and self-serving leaking are used to intimidate and control the news media. I became a target of this methodology when I stumbled upon illegal dealings between the Bush family, the Saudis and the Israelis in the mid to late 1980’s. My former business partner, CIA cutout and W. Bush crony James R. Bath got himself in hot water when he misappropriated over a half million dollars from the Bin Laden family, for whom he served as trustee. Discovery in the litigation threatened to unearth bank records showing the laundering of Bin Laden money through Houston banks, the funneling of funds to Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan, and Bath’s diversion of Bin Laden money to W. Bush. Politically influenced members of both the Federal and State judiciary who were trying these cases never compelled production of the incriminating banking records or permitted the cases to go to trial. Instead, the compromised judges disposed of the cases by awarding Bath and Bush’s bank “death penalty” sanctions and striking my pleadings. I lost my income, my business, my home, my family and nearly all of my personal property because I steadfastly refused to participate in the cover-up. The Harris County District Attorney’s office was unwilling to go after the Bushes or the Saudis while FBI, Comptroller of the Currency, and FINCEN investigations were stopped dead in their tracks by Bush political appointees. Time Magazine reported on one facet of this story in its October 1990 article reporting accusations that W. Bush engaged in insider trading when he dumped his Harken Energy stock just before the price nosedived. The Manhattan District Attorney’s office followed up Time’s investigation by bringing charges against Saudi banker Sheikh Khalid Bin Mahfouz (National Commercial Bank) in the BCCI banking scandal matter. Still, the full story has never been told. Opportunistic judges, who were all-too-willing to ingratiate themselves with the Bush family, covered up for them while complicit lawyers have been rewarded by Bush administration appointments to judgeships and prestigious, career-enhancing positions within governmental agencies. There is no telling how many others have been the victims of the two Bush Administrations’ abuse. While the President blithely dismisses his conduct as “just politics”, the unsavory conduct routinely engaged in by he and his staff is making a mockery of our Constitution, diminishing the stature of the United States as the world’s “good-guy” and threatening the legitimacy of the rule of law in America. The ability of our Country to survive the damage done by the Bush administration may well depend upon the outcome of your investigation. I sincerely hope that the Office of Special Counsel will be able to rid the Bush White house of each and every occupant who routinely engages in malicious character assassination and stand ready to provide you with any and all evidence in my possession that you deem relevant to your investigation. <br>Yours truly, Bill White Enclosures: BinLaden trust agreement Time Magazine article BinMahfouz indictment Cc: Office of the Manhattan District Attorney By LARRY NEUMEISTER -- Associated Press Writer November 7, 2005, 5:11 PM EST NEW YORK -- Long before Patrick Fitzgerald was introduced to the nation as a special prosecutor, he worked in near obscurity, a key component of a team of anti-terrorism prosecutors who were part of a new frontier in American law enforcement. Through the 1990s, Fitzgerald and more than a dozen other prosecutors in New York discovered a growing international terrorist threat, indicted Osama bin Laden and brought charges against more than three dozen suspected terrorists, winning every major trial. Besides Fitzgerald, who is U.S. attorney in Chicago, several other prosecutors have taken coveted jobs in the legal profession. Two have been appointed federal judges, three became U.S. attorneys and one became second in command at the Justice Department. The prosecutors, who were part of a U.S. attorney office that is one of the most prominent in the nation, forged new legal ground when the nation's laws were not yet equipped to confront international terrorists. After a bomb plot to bring down the World Trade Center in 1993 killed six people and injured more than 1,000 others, prosecutors learned there was not even a death penalty on the books. U.S. Attorney Michael Garcia, who helped prosecute six men sentenced to life in prison for the attack, recalled prosecutors cobbling together laws about commerce, destruction of vehicles, assault on federal officers and immigration _ anything to create long potential sentences. "We were left with a big hole in the ground, six people dead, and there really was no crime, no terrorism statutes. We had to struggle to find crimes in the books that fit the conduct here," Garcia said. Another member of the team was Andrew McCarthy, who prosecuted Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, a blind Egyptian leader who the government maintained approved a plot to blow up five New York City landmarks, including the United Nations. McCarthy searched the law books until he found a seditious conspiracy statute that had been barely used since the Civil War but which criminalizes waging war against the United States. It was such a novel use of the statute that prosecutors had to go to Washington and make a presentation worthy of a trial to convince the Justice Department it could be used against terrorists. "The charging ammunition we had was awful," said McCarthy, now a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracy. McCarthy recalls that joining the terrorism team meant long hours, almost no days off and a feeling "like being in the seventh game of the World Series." He said there were occasional security threats, adding to the feeling that it was dangerous work, but ultimately they were left with "a feeling like you're doing something meaningful for the country." Fitzgerald, or "Fitzy" as he was called by colleagues, became one of the nation's first experts on al-Qaida, able to spell and define Middle East names for jurors as easily as a baseball fan reciting a player's batting average. His prosecution of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby has given him a measure of fame and the public a glimpse into the nature of prosecutors who helped alert the nation in the 1990s to a worldwide network of terrorists led by bin Laden. Former U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White, who began in 1993 assembling the team of investigators which included Fitzgerald, said she chose the "best and the brightest" to focus on terrorism. "They were a success from day one. I'm very proud of them," said White, who left the job three years ago for private practice. In 2001, Fitzgerald left the U.S. attorney's office in Manhattan to become U.S. attorney in Chicago, just after outlining for the first time in a courtroom the makeup of the al-Qaida terrorism network that days later would strike America. Jamal Ahmed Al-Fadl, a founding member of al-Qaida, testified during the trial of four men in a conspiracy to bomb two U.S. embassies in Africa, that bin Laden in 1989 was thinking about creating al-Qaida to expand the militant Muslim cause. Fitzgerald was not alone among veteran terrorism prosecutors moving on. When he took over as U.S. attorney several weeks ago after working in Washington as the Department of Homeland Security assistant secretary, Garcia chose Lev Dassin, who worked with him on the first trade center trial, to head the criminal division. Kenneth Karas, was appointed a federal judge in Manhattan while another, Joseph Bianco, has been appointed to a federal judgeship in Brooklyn and is awaiting final approval. James Comey, who worked with Fitzgerald in Manhattan on mob cases, became U.S. attorney in Manhattan after Sept. 11 and was appointed the No. 2 lawyer at the Justice Department in 2003. Comey recently resigned to become Lockheed Martin's new general counsel. David Kelley, who prosecuted Ramzi Yousef, the architect of the 1993 trade center bombing, just completed an 18-month stint as U.S. Attorney in Manhattan and has entered private practice. Kelley said he was not surprised that so many on the team have gone so far. "The stakes were very high and the field was one that was not yet plowed," he said. "It made everybody better lawyers for it." <br>The Associated Press There can be no doubt that Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald gave at best a grossly incomplete depiction of known OBL associate and likely double or triple agent, Ali Mohamed, who plead guilty in the trial over the Embassy bombings for which he carried out surveillance. [Be sure to check out Peter Dale Scott sourcing in his footnotes for more background. Some lawyers have suggested that Fitzgerald made things a lot tougher on himself by not bringing a conspiracy indictment which some say was warranted. Sergeant Ali Mohamed and U.S. Intelligence Links to the Al Qaeda Leadership QUOTE The Report describes Ali Mohamed as ³a former Egyptian army officer who had moved to the United States in the mid-1980s, enlisted in the U.S. Army, and become an instructor at Fort Bragg,² as well as helping to plan the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Kenya (68). In fact Ali Mohamed was an important al Qaeda agent who, as the 9/11 Commission was told, "trained most of al Qaeda's top leadership," including "persons who would later carry out the 1993 World Trade Center bombing."[25] But the person telling the 9/11 Commission this, U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald, misrepresented Ali Mohamed¹s FBI relationship. He told the Commission that, "From 1994 until his arrest in 1998, [Mohamed] lived as an American citizen in California, applying for jobs as an FBI translator and working as a security guard for a defense contractor."[26] Ali Mohamed was not just an FBI job applicant. Unquestionably he was an FBI informant, from at least 1993 and maybe 1989.[27] And almost certainly he was something more. A veteran of the CIA-trained bodyguards of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, he was able, despite being on a State Department Watch List, to come to America around 1984, on what an FBI consultant has called ³a visa program controlled by the CIA², and obtain a job, first as a security officer, then with U.S. Special Forces.[28] In 1988 he took a lengthy leave of absence from the U.S. Army and went to fight in Afghanistan, where he met with Ayman al-Zawahiri (later bin Laden¹s chief deputy in al Qaeda) and the ³Arab Afghan² leadership.[29] Despite this, he was able to receive an Honorable Discharge one year later, at which point he established close contact with bin Laden in Afghanistan. Ali Mohamed clearly enjoyed U.S. protection: in 1993, when detained by the RCMP in Canada, a single phone call to the U.S. secured his release. This enabled him to play a role, in the same year, in planning the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Kenya in 1998.[30] Congress should determine the true relationship of the U.S. Government to Ali Mohamed, who was close to bin Laden and above all Zawahiri, who has been called the ³main player² in 9/11.[31] (Al-Zawahiri is often described as the more sophisticated mentor of the younger bin Laden.)[32] In particular Congress should determine why Patrick Fitzgerald chose to mislead the American people about Mohamed¹s FBI status. In short, the al Qaeda terror network accused of the 9/11 attacks was supported and expanded by U.S. intelligence programs and covert operations, both during and after the Soviet Afghan War. Congress should rethink their decision to grant still greater powers and budget to the agencies responsible for fostering this enemy in the first place. Sane voices clamor from the Muslim world that the best answer to terrorism is not war but justice. We should listen to them. By using its energies to reduce the injustices tormenting Islam, the United States will do more to diminish terrorism than by creating any number of new directorates in Washington. <br>Footnotes: [25] Cf. 9/11 Commission Report, 68. [26] Patrick Fitzgerald, Testimony before 9/11 Commission, June 16, 2004, http://www.911commission.gov/hearings/hearing12.htm, emphasis added. [27] Fitzgerald must have known he was dissembling. Even the mainstream account by Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon (The Age of Sacred Terror [New York: Random House, 2002], 236) records that ³When Mohamed was summoned back from Africa in 1993 [sic, Mohamed in his confession says 1994] to be interviewed by the FBI in connection with the case against Sheikh Rahman and his coconspirators, he convinced the agents that he could be useful to them as an informant.² Cf. Lawrence Wright, New Yorker, 9/16/02: ³In 1989...Mohamed talked to an F.B.I. agent in California and provided American intelligence with its first inside look at Al Qaeda.² Larry C. Johnson, a former State Department and CIA official, faulted the FBI publicly for using Mohamed as an informant, when it should have recognized that the man was a high-ranking terrorist plotting against the United States. In Johnson's words, "It's possible that the FBI thought they had control of him and were trying to use him, but what's clear is that they did not have control² (San Francisco Chronicle, 11/04/01). [28] Lance, 1000 Years, 30 (Watch List); Williams, Al Qaeda: Brotherhood of Terror, 117 (visa program); Bergen, Holy War, Inc., 128 (security officer). [29] Yossef Bodansky, Bin Laden: The Man Who Declared War on America (New York: Random House/Prima, 2001), 106; cf. Richard H. Shultz, Jr. and Ruth Margolies Beitler, Middle East Review of International Affairs, June 2004, http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2004/issue2/jv8n2a6.html. In 1995 Mohamed accompanied Ayman al-Zawahiri of Islamic Jihad, already effectively merged with al-Qaeda, on a secret fund-raising trip through America (Bodansky, Bin Laden, 105; Peter L. Bergen, Holy War, Inc. [New York: Free Press, 2001], 201). [30] Cf. 9/11 Commission Report, 68. The Globe and Mail later concluded that Mohamed "was working with U.S. counter-terrorist agents, playing a double or triple game, when he was questioned in 1993² (Globe and Mail, 11/22/01, http://www.mail-archive.com/hydro@topica.com/msg00224.html). [31] al-Zayyat, The Road to Al-Qaeda, 98: ³I am convinced that [Zawahiri] and not bin Laden is the main player in these events.² In contrast the 9/11 Commission Report (151) assigns no role to Zawahiri in the 9/11 plot. Was Mohamed in touch with Zawahiri at this time? The San Francisco Chronicle has written that ³until his arrest in 1998 [by which time the 9/11 plot was already under way], Mohamed shuttled between California, Afghanistan, Kenya, Somalia and at least a dozen other countries² (San Francisco Chronicle, 10/21/01). [32] Burke, Al-Qaeda, 150. Foxx 15th November 2005 - 01:29 PM Schneibster QUOTE by Foxx We are well aware what NIST is saying... "no steel was recovered from WTC 7". <br>Reply from Schneibster: Well, I'm not, considering as how THAT'S NOT WHAT THEY SAID. Yes, It is precisely and exactly what NIST states in NISTNCSTAR1-3Draft Structural Steel http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3Draft.pdf [Executive Summary - page xliv] QUOTE (-> QUOTE by Foxx We are well aware what NIST is saying... "no steel was recovered from WTC 7". <br>Reply from Schneibster: Well, I'm not, considering as how THAT'S NOT WHAT THEY SAID. Yes, It is precisely and exactly what NIST states in NISTNCSTAR1-3Draft Structural Steel http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3Draft.pdf [Executive Summary - page xliv] Section E.6 Structural Steel in WTC 7 No steel was recovered from WTC 7 <br>Just for the record - this is the third time you have been advised of this fact. Schneibster says: But you QUOTED it like that's what they said. Because that is what they state in black & white. There is no question about what they state. Schneibster says : Again, as I have said repeatedly, you LIE. You do not quote people properly, you have them saying things they DID NOT SAY, and you make grandiose claims based on it. Once again you are proven wrong, and every time you are proven wrong you resort to childish tantums and claims that it is the other person who LIES. I have quoted NIST 'properly'. I have quoted them word for word. They DID SAY it and the reference source is above so that anyone who wants to check the actual facts (rather than your constant bullshit) can verify that NIST stated "No steel was recovered from WTC 7" - an outright lie. Schneibster says : And to top it all off, you apparently think the entire US government employs only telepaths, or people who are capable of using magic and all instantaneously know what every one of the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of other government employees are doing, all the time. What are babbling about? Who exactly is in charge of the WTC investigation? {Gee, last I heard that would be NIST}. Are you saying that those who are in charge of that investigation don't have any idea what the people under their auspices are doing? People like Barnett & Biederman are handed forensic evidence to investigate it through a chain of custody, and you imply that the organization who has legal custody of that forensic evidence don't know 'who' are doing what with that evidence? Give your head a shake you blathering fool... who do you think you are fooling with such nonsense? Worcester Polytech Institute (Barnett & Biederman) had to apply to NIST for funding and additional samples to do further studies. They were turned down, and now you are saying NIST doesn't even know who is doing what in this investigation. Scniebster says : You have absolutely no idea what it even MEANS to quote someone, nor have you any compunction in misstating what they have said, or any realization that there's even anything wrong with doing it! You are either the most incredible liar I have ever come across, or the most ignorant inbred hillbilly I have ever heard of. Thanks for the compliments, but I have proven that I know what it means to quote someone, and I have provided the quote from the NIST NCSTAR final (Draft) which shows the quote is exact & true. Schneibster says : So, let me make sure I have this right. These guys are busily working away on figuring all this stuff out, but because they work for "duh gummint," Duh, well all least you got that figured out. Yes, NIST is working for the government, and are doing an investigation under government auspices. Schneibster says : you think they ought to be including the results of every study by every group that works for "duh gummint" in the entire country No, that is not what I said nor implied. They should not be aware of every study of everyone working for the government. I don't expect that they should be aware of environmental studies by the forestry dept, nor the latest military hardware under development by the DoD, etc, etc, etc... They only have the duty to to include the honest results of every study by every group who is working for NIST related to the WTC investigation. Schneibster says : and if they don't happen to know about one, or they didn't care about it, or what they had in mind was their own effort so they didn't bother to go find out whether anyone else had done any looking into it, then "there a'lyin," I got that right? They do know about the studies of Barnett & Biederman, because obviously through a chain of custody those scientists received the wtc 7 samples directly from NIST. It is their job to 'care about it' and their job to gather all the information together related to the investigation. It is their mandate and their job to 'bother to find out what everyone' under their auspices is doing. So yes, you understand correctly, and you 'got that right' ... they ARE LYING ! Schneibster says : "You know, Faux, I don't know when I've come across a more complete fool in all my born days. Are you REALLY this stupid? I mean, I figured there were some pretty ingrown, ignorant hilljacks out there, but this really takes the cake. I am beginning to believe that you actually are this dumb, that it's really not an act. Oh, c'mon now Schneibster... confess up. You are looking in the mirror when you make that statement aren't you. Schneibster says : Listen, dumb****, precisely how are they even supposed to know that? Why would they care? How and why would they ever bother to find out? And supposing they DID know, why in the WORLD would they put it into a report on THEIR findings, BEING AS HOW IT'S THE FINDINGS OF SOMEONE ELSE??? It is their job to know about all studies done under their auspices. It is their job to 'care'. It is their job to 'bother to find out' the results of studies that they themselves have commissioned. The studies done by all scientists who have been commissioned by NIST are supposed to go into THEIR findings. The studies done by others and commissioned by them, is by extension, studies done by NIST. Schneibster says : Are you even permitted to EAT WITH A FORK???!!!??? I can't IMAGINE how you operate a computer well enough to post on the Internet. Another time, keep your ingrown nose out of a conversation of your betters. You certainly are not included in my 'betters', as (once again) you have demonstrated your lying ignorance to all. Your hypocrisy of whining about others not respecting you oozes out of your every pore. NIST is LYING, and those who support their lies are LIARS also. metamars 15th November 2005 - 02:30 PM QUOTE Yes, It is precisely and exactly what NIST states in NISTNCSTAR1-3ADraft Structural Steel http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3ADraft.pdf [Executive Summary - page xliv] QUOTE Section E.6 Structural Steel in WTC 7 No steel was recovered from WTC 7 <br>I clicked on the link you gave, but could not find this information. I search for both "xliv", "No steel was recovered from WTC 7" and "Section E.6" and came up empty. Please check your reference and explain. Also, please give the page number in the Adobe document. Note that this document is entitled "contemporaneous structural steel specifications" Foxx 15th November 2005 - 02:45 PM QUOTE (metamars+Nov 15 2005, 02:30 PM) QUOTE Yes, It is precisely and exactly what NIST states in NISTNCSTAR1-3ADraft Structural Steel http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3ADraft.pdf [Executive Summary - page xliv] QUOTE Section E.6 Structural Steel in WTC 7 No steel was recovered from WTC 7 <br>I clicked on the link you gave, but could not find this information. I search for both "xliv", "No steel was recovered from WTC 7" and "Section E.6" and came up empty. Please check your reference and explain. Also, please give the page number in the Adobe document. Note that this document is entitled "contemporaneous structural steel specifications" Hmmm ? Must've added the wrong NIST report. I'll have to check later - off to work now. Here is a scanned page from the proper NIST document... http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/NIST_1_3_008.html I'll find the proper NIST link later. Thanks for the correction. Foxx 15th November 2005 - 02:54 PM My mistake of adding the 'A'. It is the report preceeding that one... http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3Draft.pdf Adobe page - 46 metamars 15th November 2005 - 03:00 PM Took a quick look and found: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3BDraft.pdf QUOTE The lack of WTC 7 steel precludes tests on actual material from the structure; <br>So, you seem to be correct. From: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/ QUOTE (-> QUOTE The lack of WTC 7 steel precludes tests on actual material from the structure; <br>So, you seem to be correct. From: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/ Draft NIST Report on the World Trade Center Investigation NOTE: The NIST investigation of the WTC 7 building collapse is not yet complete. The report on the WTC 7 collapse investigation will be released in draft form for public comment and posted on this web site as soon as it is available. <br> Looks like they're going to wait for Bush 43 to die of old age. frater plecticus 15th November 2005 - 04:15 PM 'You are either with us or against us' WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush said Tuesday that there was no room for neutrality in the war against terrorism. November 6, 2001 Posted: 10:13 p.m. EST (0313 GMT QUOTE WASHINGTON 21 Sept. (IPS) In an address to the US Congress on Thursday, President George W. Bush told other nations that "you are either with us or with the terrorists". In his 45 minutes speech interrupted more than twenty times with standing ovations, President Bush also sent an ultimatum to the Afghan Taleban, warning them either they arrest and extradite Osama Ben Laden, the prime suspect in the devastating 11 September terrorist operations in New York and in Washington to the American justice or they would face the same fate as he would soon. <br> QUOTE (-> QUOTE WASHINGTON 21 Sept. (IPS) In an address to the US Congress on Thursday, President George W. Bush told other nations that "you are either with us or with the terrorists". In his 45 minutes speech interrupted more than twenty times with standing ovations, President Bush also sent an ultimatum to the Afghan Taleban, warning them either they arrest and extradite Osama Ben Laden, the prime suspect in the devastating 11 September terrorist operations in New York and in Washington to the American justice or they would face the same fate as he would soon. <br>Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime. <br>http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/11/06/gen.attack.on.terror Foxx QUOTE NIST is LYING, and those who support their lies are LIARS also <br>Does that make NIST terrorists, liars, neither or both? metamars 15th November 2005 - 04:33 PM QUOTE Does that make NIST terrorists, liars, neither or both? <br>Ha ha. NIST as terrorists. Now there's an interesting meme! I still prefer to think of NIST as a plain old "accomplice after the fact". For the uber-terrorists, you have to look at military and/or non-military covert ops people. Having said that, whatever individual or individuals at NIST decided not to procure WTC 7 steel are certainly traitors in my book. Stupidity and incompetence are not reasonable interpretations. frater plecticus 15th November 2005 - 05:09 PM QUOTE The present study embodies a number of criteria which I believe derive directly from the 9/11 events. 9/11 was an example of state-sponsored, false-flag, synthetic terrorism, hereinafter called synthetic terrorism. My thesis is that the 9/11 events were organized and directed by a rogue network of high government and military officials of the United States, with a certain participation by the intelligence agencies of Britain and Israel, and with a more general backup from the intelligence agencies of the other Echelon states (Australia, New Zealand, Canada). This US network represents the current form of the Dulles Brothers-Lemnitzer-Landsdale network of the early 1960s, of the Bay of Pigs- Kennedy assassination-Gulf of Tonkin networks of a slightly later era, and of the invisible government/secret government/parallel government/shadow government that was widely understood to have been the prime mover of the Iran-contra affair. The 9/11 rogue network subsumed some of the asteroids of the 1990s, that is to say, the privatized intelligence enterprises operating under Reagan’s executive order 12333. The September criminals were financiers, top-level bureaucrats, flag-rank military officers, top intelligence officials, and technical specialists; the prime focus of their operations was in all probability a series of private sector locations, where confidentiality could be best assured by excluding elements loyal to the constitution. It is therefore probably misleading to think of people like Cheney as the hand-on field commanders of the terrorist forces of 9/11, although Cheney appears to have been complicit in other ways. Bush was expendable enough to undergo an assassination attempt that morning; he owes his continued tenure in office to his speedy capitulation to the demands of the September criminals. As time has gone on, Bush has undoubtedly learned something more about the invisible government he allowed to take over his administration. By 2004, Bush had to be considered as witting as it was possible for a person of his faculties to be about the basic facts of terrorism. Because of the wretched performance of the Kean-Hamilton 9/11 commission, many well established facts and timelines pertaining to 9/11 have been blurred and defaced. The 9/11 commission has corrupted and confused public awareness of the basic facts of 9/11 far more than it has enhanced it. It is a rule of thumb for researchers that some of the most revealing information on a cataclysmic event like 9/11 generally becomes available in media reports in the immediate aftermath of the event. This is before the editors and producers have fully assimilated the party line of the oligarchy on what has happened, so they may well publicize facts which are incompatible with the official, mythical version of events. As time goes by, such heuristic revelations become rarer, although they may yet inflict fatal blows on the official story, particularly if the official story is beginning to break up. The 9/11 commission represents the triumph of oligarchical scholasticism, the embalming of what had been a living tragedy into a smoothed-over textbook account from which virtually all of the truth has been drained. This book therefore often gives priority to materials generated soon after 9/11, before the mind-control line of the regime became totally hegemonic. The reader will understand this book better after a short note on the criteria of selection which have informed it. There already exist encyclopedias and encyclopedic timelines on 9/11 by such writers as Nico Haupt and Paul Thompson, to both of whom I am indebted for much empirical material. My aim has not been to compete with them in exhaustive completeness, but rather to offer a definite hypothesis about what happened on 9/11. This book has therefore been constructed along the following conceptual lines: 1. Mass gullibility about the events of 9/11 is based on unmediated sense certainty re-enforced by merciless and repetitious media bombardment. Receptivity to the 9/11 myth is correlated with a Hollywood-style, sense-impressionist naïve epistemology, complicated by the schizophrenic and autistic elements present in Anglo-American culture. Belief in the 9/11 myth is agreeable to a way of thinking in the tradition of John Locke’s empiricism, which is here formally rejected and repudiated. I do not offer information so much as a method, and the method used here is that of Plato, Machiavelli, and Leibniz. I join Plato in refusing the illusions of the cave in favor of dialectical reason. I assert that understanding 9/11 requires a conceptual framework; my approach is therefore conceptual and empirical, but not empiricist. The framework here is that of patsies, moles, and expert professionals discussed below. 2. This book stresses those aspects of 9/11 which indicate state sponsorship by a rogue network or invisible government operating inside the US government and military. Other aspects are given less consideration or omitted entirely. 3. This book stresses those aspects of the official version which are physically impossible. Many dubious aspects and contradictions of the official story are not treated if they can be construed as a matter of opinion, rather than being susceptible to rigorous physical proof. The same goes for physical evidence, such as pictorial evidence, where individual interpretations of what is seen may diverge. At the same time, I urge researchers interested in these aspects of the problem to continue their efforts so that the catalogue of physical impossibilities can be expanded as it doubtless deserves to be. 4. I have sought to be guided by Machiavellian political realism, rather than by the irrational appeals of propaganda. <br> QUOTE (-> QUOTE The present study embodies a number of criteria which I believe derive directly from the 9/11 events. 9/11 was an example of state-sponsored, false-flag, synthetic terrorism, hereinafter called synthetic terrorism. My thesis is that the 9/11 events were organized and directed by a rogue network of high government and military officials of the United States, with a certain participation by the intelligence agencies of Britain and Israel, and with a more general backup from the intelligence agencies of the other Echelon states (Australia, New Zealand, Canada). This US network represents the current form of the Dulles Brothers-Lemnitzer-Landsdale network of the early 1960s, of the Bay of Pigs- Kennedy assassination-Gulf of Tonkin networks of a slightly later era, and of the invisible government/secret government/parallel government/shadow government that was widely understood to have been the prime mover of the Iran-contra affair. The 9/11 rogue network subsumed some of the asteroids of the 1990s, that is to say, the privatized intelligence enterprises operating under Reagan’s executive order 12333. The September criminals were financiers, top-level bureaucrats, flag-rank military officers, top intelligence officials, and technical specialists; the prime focus of their operations was in all probability a series of private sector locations, where confidentiality could be best assured by excluding elements loyal to the constitution. It is therefore probably misleading to think of people like Cheney as the hand-on field commanders of the terrorist forces of 9/11, although Cheney appears to have been complicit in other ways. Bush was expendable enough to undergo an assassination attempt that morning; he owes his continued tenure in office to his speedy capitulation to the demands of the September criminals. As time has gone on, Bush has undoubtedly learned something more about the invisible government he allowed to take over his administration. By 2004, Bush had to be considered as witting as it was possible for a person of his faculties to be about the basic facts of terrorism. Because of the wretched performance of the Kean-Hamilton 9/11 commission, many well established facts and timelines pertaining to 9/11 have been blurred and defaced. The 9/11 commission has corrupted and confused public awareness of the basic facts of 9/11 far more than it has enhanced it. It is a rule of thumb for researchers that some of the most revealing information on a cataclysmic event like 9/11 generally becomes available in media reports in the immediate aftermath of the event. This is before the editors and producers have fully assimilated the party line of the oligarchy on what has happened, so they may well publicize facts which are incompatible with the official, mythical version of events. As time goes by, such heuristic revelations become rarer, although they may yet inflict fatal blows on the official story, particularly if the official story is beginning to break up. The 9/11 commission represents the triumph of oligarchical scholasticism, the embalming of what had been a living tragedy into a smoothed-over textbook account from which virtually all of the truth has been drained. This book therefore often gives priority to materials generated soon after 9/11, before the mind-control line of the regime became totally hegemonic. The reader will understand this book better after a short note on the criteria of selection which have informed it. There already exist encyclopedias and encyclopedic timelines on 9/11 by such writers as Nico Haupt and Paul Thompson, to both of whom I am indebted for much empirical material. My aim has not been to compete with them in exhaustive completeness, but rather to offer a definite hypothesis about what happened on 9/11. This book has therefore been constructed along the following conceptual lines: 1. Mass gullibility about the events of 9/11 is based on unmediated sense certainty re-enforced by merciless and repetitious media bombardment. Receptivity to the 9/11 myth is correlated with a Hollywood-style, sense-impressionist naïve epistemology, complicated by the schizophrenic and autistic elements present in Anglo-American culture. Belief in the 9/11 myth is agreeable to a way of thinking in the tradition of John Locke’s empiricism, which is here formally rejected and repudiated. I do not offer information so much as a method, and the method used here is that of Plato, Machiavelli, and Leibniz. I join Plato in refusing the illusions of the cave in favor of dialectical reason. I assert that understanding 9/11 requires a conceptual framework; my approach is therefore conceptual and empirical, but not empiricist. The framework here is that of patsies, moles, and expert professionals discussed below. 2. This book stresses those aspects of 9/11 which indicate state sponsorship by a rogue network or invisible government operating inside the US government and military. Other aspects are given less consideration or omitted entirely. 3. This book stresses those aspects of the official version which are physically impossible. Many dubious aspects and contradictions of the official story are not treated if they can be construed as a matter of opinion, rather than being susceptible to rigorous physical proof. The same goes for physical evidence, such as pictorial evidence, where individual interpretations of what is seen may diverge. At the same time, I urge researchers interested in these aspects of the problem to continue their efforts so that the catalogue of physical impossibilities can be expanded as it doubtless deserves to be. 4. I have sought to be guided by Machiavellian political realism, rather than by the irrational appeals of propaganda. <br> MI-6 AND MOSSAD 9/11 was carried out primarily by a US-centered rogue network or invisible government faction, but it was not carried out alone. The foreign intelligence service which contributed the most indirect support to 9/11 was unquestionably the British MI-6. The cooperation and interpenetration of the Anglo-American intelligence agencies is so overwhelming and so thoroughly institutionalized that it is hardly noticed by US commentators. The CIA and MI-6 are virtually Siamese twins sharing a number of vital organs. This fact is much deplored by those of us who believe that the British Crown, the City of London, the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and Oxford Circus (the London home of MI-6) are among the most baneful factors influencing American national life, but it is by now a well-established and entrenched fact. Whatever is known to the US National Security Agency at Fort Meade, Maryland, is known simultaneously to the British GCHQ at Cheltenham, by virtue of bilateral intelligence sharing agreements. Some light has been thrown on this phenomenon by Claire Short, when she reported that the red boxes sent to her by the UK intelligence service contained texts of private conversations of Kofi Annan which had been bugged by the Anglo-Americans. GCHQ has also had a recent whistle-blower who has fleshed out other parts of this picture. Many of these arrangements go back to World War II, and they have never been abrogated. The British functioned as the junior partners of the US invisible government during the Iran-contra affair, and they continue to do so today. In addition, although the British may be the junior partners in terms of military assets and disposable resources, they are often very much the senior partner when it comes to developing strategies an plans. Who could know the Arab and Moslem worlds better than the British orientalists? The overall Anglo-American plan for the balkanization of the Middle East, the Bernard Lewis plan, is really a distillation of two centuries of historical experience by the British Arab Bureau and the British India Office. The extraordinarily close US-UK alliance lets the British side do what it wants within institutional channels, discretely, and silently. If we were to detail the extent of British participation in the history of NATO statesponsored terrorism, in the Afghan guerilla movement against the Soviets, in the foundation of al Qaeda, in the development of the figure of Bin Laden (who once reportedly kept a pied-à-terre in the London suburb of Wembley) in the role of London as the premier world center of Islamic fundamentalism and of other terrorism, and a host of other subjects, we would essentially have to re-write almost this entire book from a slightly different point of view. There can be in short no doubt that the main supporting role in 9/11 was played by British intelligence and British assets generally. CIA and MI-5/MI-6 have also practiced a certain division of labor. Although congressional and parliamentary oversight is usually derisory, there is always the chance that an investigation may reveal embarrassing secrets. Therefore it has sometimes seemed advantageous to have the CIA undertake certain tasks in the UK, and to have MI-6 do certain jobs in the US – precisely to avoid the problem of legislative oversight in the country whose territory was being violated. During World War I and World II, the British were happy to run operations designed to get the US embroiled in war – operations which were welcomed by the Wall Street finance oligarchy. In 1976, by contrast, CIA Director George Bush was implicated in a campaign to overthrow the Labour Party government of Britain by helping to orchestrate a series of scandals. (Tarpley 1992 internet edition) This campaign was part of a transatlantic effort to install the unspeakable Margaret Thatcher as British Prime Minister. The Israelis, by contrast, have never wanted to accept the reciprocity of intelligence sharing which the British have more or less instituted. Israel is far less willing to share its state secrets than the British have been. The result has been that the Israelis have had to work hard to purloin the kind of US secrets which the British have obtained as a matter of course. The archetypal British deployment in this regard occurred when they staffed their Washington Embassy with Kim Philby, Donald MacLean, and Guy Burgess. The British got the information they wanted, and some of it even ended up in Moscow and Beijing – thanks to these three dedicated triple agents of the British Crown. This trio had some close scrapes, but they never saw the inside of jail. The Israelis, by contrast, had to rely on US Navy civilian employee Jonathan Pollard, who was found out in the mid-1980s and sentenced to life in prison, where he still remains despite pleas on his behalf by Netanyahu. British espionage can use the existing channels set up by treaties and agreements; the Israelis have to improvise networks informally as they go along, which can often be more risky. download 2 mb yesitdid 15th November 2005 - 07:05 PM Foxx writes; QUOTE RE: Morgan Reynolds The 'errors' I referred to in Reynolds essay have nothing to do with the WTC 'collapses', I was referring to errors regarding the Pentagon, Flight 93, and his statements regarding no plane parts were found at the WTC site (implying that no planes had crashed into the towers), as well as his erroneous figure for the collapse time. These have nothing whatsoever to do with his convictions on the demolitions regarding the towers, and do not affect that part of his thesis. The only part of his demolition discussion which was blantantly in error was his repetition of a near free-fall speed of 10 seconds, which we all pretty much agree can not be considered accurate. <br>Okie Dokie QUOTE (-> QUOTE RE: Morgan Reynolds The 'errors' I referred to in Reynolds essay have nothing to do with the WTC 'collapses', I was referring to errors regarding the Pentagon, Flight 93, and his statements regarding no plane parts were found at the WTC site (implying that no planes had crashed into the towers), as well as his erroneous figure for the collapse time. These have nothing whatsoever to do with his convictions on the demolitions regarding the towers, and do not affect that part of his thesis. The only part of his demolition discussion which was blantantly in error was his repetition of a near free-fall speed of 10 seconds, which we all pretty much agree can not be considered accurate. <br>Okie Dokie These things do not diminish the truths he presents that: - the majority of concrete as well as other non-steel contents of the buildings were pulverized. <br>Unproven at best. So far no one has provided much that can back up this claim. QUOTE - the horizontal ejection of material from the very beginning of the collapses <br>Explianed by the forces of impact at each floor. QUOTE (-> QUOTE - the horizontal ejection of material from the very beginning of the collapses <br>Explianed by the forces of impact at each floor. - the collapses were 'total' leaving none of the massive central core structure intact <br>Unsurprising to Bazant and Zhou whose qualifications far outstrip those of Reynolds to make such a claim. QUOTE - the steel sections came down in convenient lengths, and there is no evidence to show buckling or softening in these fallen sections due to fire stress <br>Those "convenient lengths" coincide with the length of sections of the columns. It is not at all unusual for columns to 'break' at a connection. The size of the column sections was dictated partially by the difficulty in getting long sections of steel into downtown Manhattan during construction of the WTC towers. QUOTE (-> QUOTE - the steel sections came down in convenient lengths, and there is no evidence to show buckling or softening in these fallen sections due to fire stress <br>Those "convenient lengths" coincide with the length of sections of the columns. It is not at all unusual for columns to 'break' at a connection. The size of the column sections was dictated partially by the difficulty in getting long sections of steel into downtown Manhattan during construction of the WTC towers. - photos and videos show demolition waves (confluent rows of explosive force) symmetrically exploding from all four sides of the buildings as the destruction moved down the towers. <br>Or they show damage occuring downward as columns bend under the impacts higher up. QUOTE - evidence of secondary explosions far below the collapsing 'floors' <br>See previous QUOTE (-> QUOTE - evidence of secondary explosions far below the collapsing 'floors' <br>See previous - testimony of substantially large numbers of witnesses who spoke of explosions <br>In such a situation lod bangs would be interpreted as "explosions. All loud noises are not explosions. QUOTE - the production of molten steel at the base of the structures and anomalous underground fires which burned for months. <br>Yes, anomalous. Similar to the term UFO where "unexplained does not necessarily mean extraterrestrial craft, 'anomalous' does not necessarily mean anything other than unexplained. QUOTE (-> QUOTE - the production of molten steel at the base of the structures and anomalous underground fires which burned for months. <br>Yes, anomalous. Similar to the term UFO where "unexplained does not necessarily mean extraterrestrial craft, 'anomalous' does not necessarily mean anything other than unexplained. None of the above can be explained by gravity-driven collapse... According to many without qualifications that would match those who state the opposite. QUOTE but also... the fact that Reynolds drifts off into unrelated peripherals such as 'no-plane theories' does not affect the above list at all (IMO)... any more than Hufschmids theory that the Apollo moon-landings were faked, changes his analysis of the WTC collapses. They are totally separate issues not dependant on each other in any way. <br>I beg to differ, if one subscribes to off-the-wall eccentricities(to put it nicely) then one's credibility is suspect in any other pronouncements. This MOST certainly applies to Hufschmid who is in turn quoted as a reference by Reynolds. Schneibster 15th November 2005 - 07:20 PM Good analysis, but you left some holes. QUOTE (frater plecticus+) QUOTE (Schneibster+) 1. There was massive damage to 7 WTC from flying perimeter columns. This was considerably in excess of the damage done to Banker's trust, and apparently penetrated to the second row of interior load-bearing columns from the South face, compromising at least four columns in the first row and at least two in the second. NOT PROVED (SPECULATION) There's a problem here: there is testimony from multiple witnesses that there was a huge hole in the south side of that building. I have posted testimony from three witnesses that supports it, and NIST has more than I do; they were actually able to estimate the size and placement of the hole based on what they got. So I have to ask, what do you base your assertion that this is speculation on? It isn't speculation, it's supported. Either you accept evidence, or you don't; if you don't, I have no more time, because whatever you're doing, it doesn't have anything to do with finding out what really happened. The same thing with #3; let me ask you, there's a line of window breakages running up the building; directly above this line, the East penthouse falls into the building; before it falls, it develops a kink in its roof directly in line with the line of broken windows; and when the building eventually falls, it also develops a kink in its roof directly above this line. What do you conclude happened? As far as evidence, it's all there in the video record. In #4, you can see the sky through the highest windows in the building after the East penthouse falls. What is your conclusion? #5 is and deserves to be called speculation; no one can prove what happened there. #6 has evidence; again, after the West penthouse disappears, you can see sky through the windows. What is your conclusion? Obviously, there's nothing behind it. If there's nothing behind it, where did it go? #7 is also speculation; but I have to point out that both #5 and #7 are directed speculation, rather than free association. #8 has very strong evidence: the facade of the building doesn't break as it falls, but only as it reaches the ground. We know the inside is damaged or destroyed at this point; we can see the sky through the windows. The kink in the roof on the video is undeniable. Look for yourself. Now, let me ask another question: if it was the cantilevers that failed, can you see why that would break up the facade? So if the cantilevers DIDN'T fail, then why did the facade fall? Simple, no? #10 I will require evidence for. I am aware that there was molten metal underneath the collapsed towers; but I have never seen credible evidence that there was molten metal underneath 7 WTC. Please provide it or abandon this claim. I require photographic or testimentary evidence, and if it is testimentary, I require at least two independent sources. I am very interested in the steel that has holes in it or has had its crystalline structure altered; but you do know that this is evidence of heat, don't you? There were, after all, fires burning in all three buildings. I also require evidence for #11, and I'd like to know (given that there were no seismographs at ground zero, and that the propagation of sounds and tremors through the ground is an inexact science) precisely on what grounds you assert that whatever tremor there was happened at the beginning of the collapse and not at the end. I'd like to point something out: you asked what I BELIEVE, not what I KNOW. And those are two different things. You might consider being a little more careful what you ask next time. You cannot possibly seriously be proposing that telepathy among government investigators should be expected, and that they should be called liars if they don't have it. Schneibster 15th November 2005 - 07:52 PM Faux, the words you quoted do not occur in the document you linked. Just for the record. The link: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3ADraft.pdf The quote: "no steel was recovered from WTC 7." The words "no steel" and "No steel" do not occur in the document; the reader is encouraged to download the document and use the search function in Acrobat Reader to verify this. I don't think there is anything else that needs be said, Faux. frater plecticus 15th November 2005 - 08:29 PM Schneibster QUOTE I'll happily explain. DON'T call me a liar, and DON'T make nasty comments about me being a "shill" of some sort; I'm unlikely to be polite after that. <br> Schneibster QUOTE (-> QUOTE I'll happily explain. DON'T call me a liar, and DON'T make nasty comments about me being a "shill" of some sort; I'm unlikely to be polite after that. <br> Schneibster There's a problem here: there is testimony from multiple witnesses that there was a huge hole in the south side of that building. I have posted testimony from three witnesses that supports it, and NIST has more than I do; they were actually able to estimate the size and placement of the hole based on what they got. So I have to ask, what do you base your assertion that this is speculation on? It isn't speculation, it's supported. Either you accept evidence, or you don't; if you don't, I have no more time, because whatever you're doing, it doesn't have anything to do with finding out what really happened. <br>I would hardly call it scientific truth. Your accusation about my motives is unfounded and vindictive. I even put up the telepathic links (primarily because of their scientific content) as a show of good will. Schneibster is a fake, fraud and liar, his pseudoscience symbolized by the pathetic attempt to regurgitate the NIST report regarding the collapse of wtc 7 in a bizarre disjointed speculative theory using a cumulative "domino" theory regarding specific trusses....leading to columns.... leading to....erm........ global collapse. (no planes this time) Is insulting to the scientific method. I have been diplomatic, courteous and well-mannered for 40 pages, of what, has up until now been a very interesting and lucid debate, but the scientific method of Scheisbster is at best erroneous, and at worst criminal. We are, after all talking about an as-yet unsolved crime. (With enormous repercussions) STEEL WAS* RECOVERED FROM WTC 7 QUOTE Two structural steel samples from the WTC site were observed to have unusual erosion patterns. One sample is believed to be from WTC 7 and the other from either WTC 1 or WTC 2 http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_ch8.pdf STEEL WAS* RECOVERED FROM WTC 7 (TRUE*-BASED ON OFFICIAL LEGAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE) Schneibster 15th November 2005 - 08:58 PM QUOTE (frater plecticus+) I would hardly call it scientific truth. Your accusation about my motives is unfounded and vindictive. What accusation about your motives? I questioned them; if they're pure, how come you're ignoring multi-sourced testimentary evidence? This is not an accusation; it is an observation. If it's incorrect, prove it. Show some evidence that's got good provenance and that contradicts it, or impeach the witnesses' reliability. An accusation would be a direct statement that you have problems with them, which I did not make. Your bad. Read what I SAID, not what you THINK I said. "Speculation" is scientifically valid, and I had no problem with some of the things I said being labeled that way; you DID, after all, ask what I BELIEVE, which is an invitation to speculation. But labelling something that is supported by multi-sourced testimentary evidence as "speculation" isn't valid without supporting evidence impeaching the witnesses; it's denial of reality. QUOTE I even put up the telepathic links (primarily because of their scientific content) as a show of good will. This is one of the more convoluted arguments I have ever heard in my life. I saw no way to interpret it as being done out of "good will;" I said, "what, the researchers are all supposed to be telepathic?" and you posted articles purporting to show that telepathy is real; how do you interpret that sequence of events? I didn't see much room for question. All of this aside from whether telepathy is real or not; that's another thread. And I suspect you wouldn't much like my conclusions, being as how they're based on evidence in peer-reviewed articles from reputable scientific journals. Now, I have a question for you here. Are you going to answer a single one of the objections I raised? Or are you going to just to the Faux thing and call me a liar without ever presenting a single shred of evidence, and ignore questions you can't answer? The choice is entirely yours; but I have to tell you, if you just want to play name-calling, I'd have to say that objectively, I think I'm better at it than you are, given what I've seen so far. frater plecticus 15th November 2005 - 09:58 PM No, that was my first and last venture into the name-calling "thing", I don´t doubt you prowess in name calling. The telepathy theme was first introduced into the debate by yourself, as a condescending (if I remember rightly) put-down analogous to conspiracy theory. (again erroneous). As a coincidence, causal event, synchronicity, conspiracy or whatever you want to call it (depending on your world view) I remember reading a scientific study into telepathy and your mention of it, hence the reference. Don´t think science and telepathy are mutually exclusive. As you can see from my posts, nearly all of my references are from government and scientific sources, I personally have no fixed opinion regarding the culprits of 9-11, except that they are symptomatic of a sick, corrupt and structurally defective global political body that is incapable to rid it´s dependency on war (for money). (and IT WASN´T Bin Laden) You are absolutely wrong in suggesting that no WTC 7 steel was recovered. STEEL WAS* RECOVERED FROM WTC 7 QUOTE Two structural steel samples from the WTC site were observed to have unusual erosion patterns. One sample is believed to be from WTC 7 and the other from either WTC 1 or WTC 2 http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_ch8.pdf STEEL WAS* RECOVERED FROM WTC 7 (TRUE*-BASED ON OFFICIAL LEGAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE) Almost forgot... Published this today. I´ve never seen it anywhere else. These are 2 short clips of a plane captured flying over NYC on 9-11. Can anyone identify the plane? mystery plane 911-(one) sound http://plectic.com/wtc/mystery_plane.aif download (48khz) 2.7mb aiff mystery plane 911-(two) sound http://plectic.com/wtc/mystery_plane2.aif download (48khz) 2.2mb aiff mystery plane 911-(one) video http://plectic.com/wtc/mystery_plane.m2v download (m2v) 7.8mb mpg2 mystery plane 911-(two) video http://plectic.com/wtc/mystery_plane2.m2v download (m2v) 6.5mb mpg2 IT WAS GIVEN TO ME ON THE 12TH SEPTEMBER 2001 (I THINK, OR THAT SAME WEEK). If you have problems viewing the footage (converted with quicktime pro), please goto http://www.videolan.org/vlc/ to download the free player adoucette 15th November 2005 - 10:00 PM Been away from this for a while, What is absolutely hilarious is the notion of setting off of a "mini-nuke" in one tower, and having the other tower still standing, and looking relatively the same after it has gone off. As to WTC 7, why not wait for the official report before you claim its bunk? Arthur frater plecticus 15th November 2005 - 10:37 PM Not as hilarious as being complict in covering up the deaths of 3000 innocent Americans in NYC after knowingly wrongfully implicating an entire religous group (on the flimsiest of evidence), leading to two illegal wars and an increase in general global instability. The wtc 7 analysis is/will be bunk without doing a analysis of a collapse with explosives (for all we know Bin Laden/al queda had infiltrated the building), because without explosives it requires such a theoretical/mathematical leap of faith to make the data "fit" the hypothesis, will make it worthless as both a scientific and historical document. These clips were captured from a mini-dv tape given to me on 12th september 2001 via a national spanish tv station. wtc7 sound http://plectic.com/wtc/wtc%207.aif download (48khz) 2.41mb aiff wtc7 video http://plectic.com/wtc/wtc%207.m2v download (m2v) 9.3mb mpg2 If you have problems viewing the footage (converted with quicktime pro), please goto http://www.videolan.org/vlc/ to download the free player Schneibster 15th November 2005 - 11:36 PM We ain't gettin into telepathy on this thread. Suffice it to say that I was indeed being sarcastic and engaged in ridicule when I brought it up. It was not, however, my intent to be more than mildly chiding toward your support of it. QUOTE (frater plecticus+) You are absolutely wrong in suggesting that no WTC 7 steel was recovered. I never said any such thing. Please show where I did or admit that this is incorrect. What I did say is that Faux is misrepresenting (deliberately, IMO) what NIST said. I may be wrong; s/he appears to have given an incorrect link; I have not checked the new source yet; I may not since I don't have any real interest in anything s/he might have to say, considering that I STILL don't see any answers to any of the questions I raised on page 14, or that adoucette raised afterward. However, I also have to point out that if they said so incorrectly, there is no reason to believe they are lying rather than merely mistaken, and I think that I have presented enough information to support that statement that I'll just leave it at that. I have to ask you again: are you going to answer my questions? Because if you're not, then I'll ask you to stipulate that I'm right and there's a good probability that that's the way it happened, without any demolition charges. If you're not going to do either, then I don't see what further point there is to the conversation, other than working frustrations out by being insulting; I take as much pleasure in that as the next guy, but really, it's not what I'm here to do. And I also have to point out that doing neither will be equivalent in any objective observer's eyes to the latter, as well. If you have data to oppose me, where are they? Why would you not simply present them? adoucette 15th November 2005 - 11:40 PM Once again, you avoid the question, and throw out your political agenda as a distraction. Why am I not surprised you have already dismissed the report on WTC 7. Arthur Schneibster 15th November 2005 - 11:47 PM I looked over the two videos of a four-engine jet aircraft flying overhead. I see a four-engine jet aircraft flying overhead, banking at the end. I looked over the video of 7 WTC collapsing. I see 7 WTC collapsing. I see nothing overtly surprising or interesting in any of these. Do you? Foxx 16th November 2005 - 03:00 AM QUOTE Yesitdid says I beg to differ, if one subscribes to off-the-wall eccentricities(to put it nicely) then one's credibility is suspect in any other pronouncements. <br>As a logical extension then, one might conclude that "if someone subscribes to the unbecoming practice of lying regarding forensic investigations, then their credibility is suspect in any other pronouncements". This MOST certainly applies to NIST's outright lies regarding their multiple statements that " no steel was recovered from WTC 7 "; which flies in the face of known and documented facts. This is no 'mistake' or 'incompetent bungling' on the part of NIST, for there is no question that the steel recovered from WTC 7 was called by the New York times... "One of the deepest mysteries" of the WTC collapses, and could provide valuable insights into the actual cause of the collapses. Even FEMA indicated that it was a great importance to study these mysteriously 'melted' pieces of steel. No known causes from gravity driven collapses or building fires can account for these pieces of steel turned to 'swiss cheese'. But carry on with your deluded sophistry - you are only fooling fools and yourself. Oh, I know how you love to dance around the real issues YID with your semantics and rhetorics (I guess somehow, it makes you feel 'important'), but your own unspoken conscience should be screaming inside your head over this. It is now NOT simply a case of 'mysteriously melted steel'... it is NOW a case of an outright cover-up of this evidence, which as I said before will be exposed once they release the final (final) draft - 'final draft final' issue of the wtc 7 report. No one goes about trying to bury evidence which has no value to a forensic investigation. It is only evidence which represents 'problems' which needs to be buried. ************* Thanks, metamars for locating additional evidence of this outrage in the NIST NCSTAR 1-3B (Draft) "Steel Inventory and Identification Report"... http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3BDraft.pdf "The lack of WTC 7 steel precludes tests on actual material from the structure..." (NIST page iii / Adobe page 5). I encourage ALL 9/11 activists to spread word to all their other contacts regarding this serious breech of public trust by the NIST liars. Guest 16th November 2005 - 03:13 AM I think Bush was playing with his new weather magnetron when it got away from him causing massive amounts of magnetron matter to strike the sides of the twin towers causing their collapse. As luck would have it, Bush finally figured it out and initiated the hurricanes, earthquakes and tornadoes without any further damage to other tall structures. Foxx 16th November 2005 - 03:25 AM QUOTE (by frater plecticus) You are absolutely wrong in suggesting that no WTC 7 steel was recovered. <br> QUOTE (-> QUOTE (by frater plecticus) You are absolutely wrong in suggesting that no WTC 7 steel was recovered. <br>Originally posted by Schneibster "I never said any such thing. Please show where I did or admit that this is incorrect." Un-freakin' believeable that this */@#?* will sit there and post such outright lies. Quote by Foxx..."We are well aware what NIST is saying... "no steel was recovered from WTC 7". Reply by Schneibster ... "Well, I'm not, considering as how THAT'S NOT WHAT THEY SAID..." "Again, as I have said repeatedly, you LIE. You do not quote people properly, you have them saying things they DID NOT SAY, and you make grandiose claims based on it..." QUOTE Faux, the words you quoted do not occur in the document you linked. Just for the record. The link: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3ADraft.pdf The quote: "no steel was recovered from WTC 7." The words "no steel" and "No steel" do not occur in the document; the reader is encouraged to download the document and use the search function in Acrobat Reader to verify this. I don't think there is anything else that needs be said, Faux. <br>Of course the words don't appear in that document, Schneibster... as you, and everyone knows that link was corrected before you even responded with your obfuscating nonsense and seeking to avoid admitting the fact that (once again) you have been proven wrong. Now you're even trying to lie your way out of it and pretend that you didn't say what we all heard and is posted as plain as day. It seems you have no shame at all. Schneibster 16th November 2005 - 03:51 AM I'm still waiting for someone to show where I said that no steel was recovered. Speaking of lying. I'm also waiting for your acknowledgement that the link you posted didn't contain the text you quoted. And in fact, it appears you read precisely where I acknowledged that you had a source where you claimed they said it- but that's not the source you posted first, is it, now? Which would make you a liar for about the fifth time. I have no idea why you think that anyone but your... hmm, isn't the term, "butt-buddies?"... would ever believe anything you had to say has anything to do with reality. Schneibster 16th November 2005 - 04:14 AM Considering the extremely large number of unanswered and apparently unanswerable questions, I'd have to say that I consider this topic at an end. If anyone in the 9/11 "truth" movement would care to step up to the plate and provide some answers to the questions that have been asked, there might be further reason to comment- but at this time, it looks like it's nothing but a pack of lies engendered by unscrupulous individuals who hope to sell CDs and web-site subscriptions to the credulous. All "Basic Physics" content has been completely ignored; not one question regarding "Basic Physics" has been answered in any way by adherents of the demolition fantasy. On the other hand, it is clear that the Basic Physics show clearly what happened, and that nothing beyond the obvious is required to explain how it all went down. Why any supposedly mature adult human being would think that anything beyond compromising the hijackers at the source, particularly when Bin Laden has been shown to be a CIA-recruited agent in the first place, is completely beyond me. The first rule of running a conspiracy is KISS, and the second is plausible deniability. A bunch of people running around buildings in the WTC setting explosive charges is ridiculous in the first place, and even more so in the light of these two simple rules, because it violates them both. If Shrub and Co. were in on this, they did it the old-fashioned way: they suborned it, and sabotaged the response. Ruppert is quite good on those two methods, and some evidence to indicate that they are at least possible, and doesn't waste time on demolition fantasies, either. If you're going to spend some money on this stuff, Crossing the Rubicon isn't a bad investment. He gets kind of out there a few times, generally when he's out of his technical depth; but at least he's relatively honest, and he's a da*n good investigator. Me, I'm outta here. This is the most complete waste of time I have ever seen. Guest 16th November 2005 - 06:46 AM You all overlook that GOD made the towers collapse to punish the United States for many reasons (feminism, abortions, homosexuality), including allowing Bill Clinton to remain in Office for 8 years. GOD was also sorta mad at GWB for not using his powers as duly elected president to immediately sign an executive order to have Bill Clinton executed. But thats besides the point. The WTC Towers were phallic symbols, and Bill Clinton was a philanderer, and adulterer who misused his phallus in the White House while representing the USA metamars 16th November 2005 - 07:04 AM QUOTE All "Basic Physics" content has been completely ignored; not one question regarding "Basic Physics" has been answered in any way by adherents of the demolition fantasy. <br>Oh, Schneibster, Schneibster, have you forgotten me already? If by "Basic Physics", you mean specifically trying to calculate the time of fall, you may be right. However, using basic physics, I showed that if you dropped the top of a WTC building onto the bottom, at about Floor #73, from a 5 floor height, you would expend so much energy crashing through each floor that the collapse would stop after approximately 12 floors. I also showed that using BZ's .12 dissipation figure of KE on the first sound floor (assuming collapse right above it), you have a contradiction wherein it would not collapse. This calculation ignored fracturing, also, though it seems to me that BZ also ignores fracturing. (Not entirely sure, here.) Thus, I still hold their widely quoted paper as basically worthless wrt to it's stated intention, though I reserve judgment on that until I understand the paper better. I am still waiting to hear from an engineer or two whether or not 'elastic dynamic analysis' has only been shown to be useful for second order effects, or not, and whether it's of any use at all in a collapse zone (say, within half a meter of a critical fracture.) You know, perhaps it's useful for things like small vibrations, at energies far, far away from those required to cause or worsen fractures to the point of failure. (Or, come to think of it, perhaps it's useful for studying highly energetic vibrations which cause fracturing, but rather useless for studying the WTC collapses, as a low velocity initial collapse of a steel framed building is probably not going to capture a lot of the KE into some kind of deformation wave, but rather fracture in and very near the collapsing impact zone in such a way that the fracturing steel has a shock absorbing effect.) The main problem with my calculation is that is ignores fracturing, which is one of the two major ways that a steel column can fail, but that is a horribly complicated problem, more in the realm of engineering and computer simulation. A full account, of course, must account for bending, breaking, and fire modeling. I also showed what kind of temperature rise you would get if all heat due to jet fuel fires went into steel, and stayed there (ha!), and the temperature distribution was even. You pointed out that combustibles cannot be ignored, though your calculation assumed maximum floor loading, and ignored the heat sink represented by non-combustible 'garbage'. Thus, I don't believe your results, either. Someday, hopefully, I will re-calculate. (I have looked up the weight of a cubicle, divided by it's floor area, and come up with a far more reasonable estimate, I believe - about 18 lbs/sq ft - of floor loading than you did. While I ignored the weight of walls, AFAIK, walls aren't made from mostly combustible materials.) My calculation showed a temperature rise of about 20 degrees K. But that's not hot enough to boil an egg, much less fry one. Taking other factors into account, maybe this would turn into 60 degrees. That's hotter than the steel would get in the Sahara Desert, but still nowhere near enough to make a building collapse. I also showed, in detail, that your objection to Hoffman's paper wherein you accused him of not properly accounting for the heat generated due to grinding of concrete had no merit. It remains to be seen whether incorporating hydrodynamics into dust cloud calculations would invalidate Hoffman's results, but as he is showing a 90% energy deficit, I sincerely doubt it. Well, don't let these inconvenient facts keep you from going on to bigger and better threads than this one! I believe that someday, maybe in your golden years, you will look back and say, "man, that was one heck of a thread!" Till then, farewell, oh friend of Foxx! May life be good to thee, and may all your fortune cookies predict "rots of ruck", for as long as the spatial component of your worldline is above the ground, and not six feet under. (To which end, BTW, I would advise you stay out of tall, landmark type buildings if Bush's popularity continues to plummet.) Buh-bye. QUOTE (-> QUOTE All "Basic Physics" content has been completely ignored; not one question regarding "Basic Physics" has been answered in any way by adherents of the demolition fantasy. <br>Oh, Schneibster, Schneibster, have you forgotten me already? If by "Basic Physics", you mean specifically trying to calculate the time of fall, you may be right. However, using basic physics, I showed that if you dropped the top of a WTC building onto the bottom, at about Floor #73, from a 5 floor height, you would expend so much energy crashing through each floor that the collapse would stop after approximately 12 floors. I also showed that using BZ's .12 dissipation figure of KE on the first sound floor (assuming collapse right above it), you have a contradiction wherein it would not collapse. This calculation ignored fracturing, also, though it seems to me that BZ also ignores fracturing. (Not entirely sure, here.) Thus, I still hold their widely quoted paper as basically worthless wrt to it's stated intention, though I reserve judgment on that until I understand the paper better. I am still waiting to hear from an engineer or two whether or not 'elastic dynamic analysis' has only been shown to be useful for second order effects, or not, and whether it's of any use at all in a collapse zone (say, within half a meter of a critical fracture.) You know, perhaps it's useful for things like small vibrations, at energies far, far away from those required to cause or worsen fractures to the point of failure. (Or, come to think of it, perhaps it's useful for studying highly energetic vibrations which cause fracturing, but rather useless for studying the WTC collapses, as a low velocity initial collapse of a steel framed building is probably not going to capture a lot of the KE into some kind of deformation wave, but rather fracture in and very near the collapsing impact zone in such a way that the fracturing steel has a shock absorbing effect.) The main problem with my calculation is that is ignores fracturing, which is one of the two major ways that a steel column can fail, but that is a horribly complicated problem, more in the realm of engineering and computer simulation. A full account, of course, must account for bending, breaking, and fire modeling. I also showed what kind of temperature rise you would get if all heat due to jet fuel fires went into steel, and stayed there (ha!), and the temperature distribution was even. You pointed out that combustibles cannot be ignored, though your calculation assumed maximum floor loading, and ignored the heat sink represented by non-combustible 'garbage'. Thus, I don't believe your results, either. Someday, hopefully, I will re-calculate. (I have looked up the weight of a cubicle, divided by it's floor area, and come up with a far more reasonable estimate, I believe - about 18 lbs/sq ft - of floor loading than you did. While I ignored the weight of walls, AFAIK, walls aren't made from mostly combustible materials.) My calculation showed a temperature rise of about 20 degrees K. But that's not hot enough to boil an egg, much less fry one. Taking other factors into account, maybe this would turn into 60 degrees. That's hotter than the steel would get in the Sahara Desert, but still nowhere near enough to make a building collapse. I also showed, in detail, that your objection to Hoffman's paper wherein you accused him of not properly accounting for the heat generated due to grinding of concrete had no merit. It remains to be seen whether incorporating hydrodynamics into dust cloud calculations would invalidate Hoffman's results, but as he is showing a 90% energy deficit, I sincerely doubt it. Well, don't let these inconvenient facts keep you from going on to bigger and better threads than this one! I believe that someday, maybe in your golden years, you will look back and say, "man, that was one heck of a thread!" Till then, farewell, oh friend of Foxx! May life be good to thee, and may all your fortune cookies predict "rots of ruck", for as long as the spatial component of your worldline is above the ground, and not six feet under. (To which end, BTW, I would advise you stay out of tall, landmark type buildings if Bush's popularity continues to plummet.) Buh-bye. On the other hand, it is clear that the Basic Physics show clearly what happened, and that nothing beyond the obvious is required to explain how it all went down. The engineers will take your head off for that statement. Talk to JayUtah at apollohoax.com, e.g. Not that I believe the engineers can explain everything, either, even in principle. They certainly don't have a clue about the mysterious collapsing spire, any more than the physicists do (even if they say otherwise - hiding behind the word "failure" doesn't impress me). I would pay good money for an engineering analysis of the telescoping/powderizing collapse of the spire, for it's entertainment value, alone. Speaking of engineers, it'd be nice if the NIST engineers could have have tried to show how a local collapse could collapse even 1 more floor, or tried some other way to show that turning a local collapse into a global collapse has a sounder basis than their intuition. The intuition of the employees of an institution that relieved the taxpayers of $20 million, and then didn't bother procuring (so they say) any steel from WTC 7, is much to be taken with a grain of salt. But hey, that's my take! QUOTE Why any supposedly mature adult human being would think that anything beyond compromising the hijackers at the source, particularly when Bin Laden has been shown to be a CIA-recruited agent in the first place, is completely beyond me. <br>Alas, methinks Schneibster has missed the big news! Wait, Schneibster, wait, take one last look, PLEASE!!!!!!! QUOTE (-> QUOTE Why any supposedly mature adult human being would think that anything beyond compromising the hijackers at the source, particularly when Bin Laden has been shown to be a CIA-recruited agent in the first place, is completely beyond me. <br>Alas, methinks Schneibster has missed the big news! Wait, Schneibster, wait, take one last look, PLEASE!!!!!!! Thursday, November 10, 2005 BYU professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC By Elaine Jarvik Deseret Morning News user posted image (Photo) Stuart Johnson, Deseret Morning News "It is quite plausible that explosives were pre-planted in all three (WTC) buildings," BYU physics professor Steven E. Jones says.       The physics of 9/11 — including how fast and symmetrically one of the World Trade Center buildings fell — prove that official explanations of the collapses are wrong, says a Brigham Young University physics professor.       In fact, it's likely that there were "pre-positioned explosives" in all three buildings at ground zero, says Steven E. Jones.       In a paper posted online Tuesday and accepted for peer-reviewed publication next year, Jones adds his voice to those of previous skeptics, including the authors of the Web site www.wtc7.net, whose research Jones quotes. Jones' article can be found at www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html. "It is quite plausible that explosives were pre-planted in all three (WTC) buildings," BYU physics professor Steven E. Jones says.       Jones, who conducts research in fusion and solar energy at BYU, is calling for an independent, international scientific investigation "guided not by politicized notions and constraints but rather by observations and calculations.       "It is quite plausible that explosives were pre-planted in all three buildings and set off after the two plane crashes — which were actually a diversion tactic," he writes. "Muslims are (probably) not to blame for bringing down the WTC buildings after all," Jones writes.       As for speculation about who might have planted the explosives, Jones said, "I don't usually go there. There's no point in doing that until we do the scientific investigation."       Previous investigations, including those of FEMA, the 9/11 Commission and NIST (the National Institutes of Standards and Technology), ignore the physics and chemistry of what happened on Sept. 11, 2001, to the Twin Towers and the 47-story building known as WTC 7, he says. The official explanation — that fires caused structural damage that caused the buildings to collapse — can't be backed up by either testing or history, he says.       Jones acknowledges that there have been "junk science" conspiracy theories about what happened on 9/11, but "the explosive demolition hypothesis better satisfies tests of repeatability and parsimony and therefore is not 'junk science.' "       In a 9,000-word article that Jones says will be published in the book "The Hidden History of 9/11," by Elsevier, Jones offers these arguments:       • The three buildings collapsed nearly symmetrically, falling down into their footprints, a phenomenon associated with "controlled demolition" — and even then it's very difficult, he says. "Why would terrorists undertake straight-down collapses of WTC-7 and the Towers when 'toppling over' falls would require much less work and would do much more damage in downtown Manhattan?" Jones asks. "And where would they obtain the necessary skills and access to the buildings for a symmetrical implosion anyway? The 'symmetry data' emphasized here, along with other data, provide strong evidence for an 'inside' job."       • No steel-frame building, before or after the WTC buildings, has ever collapsed due to fire. But explosives can effectively sever steel columns, he says.       • WTC 7, which was not hit by hijacked planes, collapsed in 6.6 seconds, just .6 of a second longer than it would take an object dropped from the roof to hit the ground. "Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum, one of the foundational laws of physics?" he asks. "That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors — and intact steel support columns — the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass. . . . How do the upper floors fall so quickly, then, and still conserve momentum in the collapsing buildings?" The paradox, he says, "is easily resolved by the explosive demolition hypothesis, whereby explosives quickly removed lower-floor material, including steel support columns, and allow near free-fall-speed collapses." These observations were not analyzed by FEMA, NIST nor the 9/11 Commission, he says.       • With non-explosive-caused collapse there would typically be a piling up of shattering concrete. But most of the material in the towers was converted to flour-like powder while the buildings were falling, he says. "How can we understand this strange behavior, without explosives? Remarkable, amazing — and demanding scrutiny since the U.S. government-funded reports failed to analyze this phenomenon."       • Horizontal puffs of smoke, known as squibs, were observed proceeding up the side the building, a phenomenon common when pre-positioned explosives are used to demolish buildings, he says.       • Steel supports were "partly evaporated," but it would require temperatures near 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit to evaporate steel — and neither office materials nor diesel fuel can generate temperatures that hot. Fires caused by jet fuel from the hijacked planes lasted at most a few minutes, and office material fires would burn out within about 20 minutes in any given location, he says.       • Molten metal found in the debris of the World Trade Center may have been the result of a high-temperature reaction of a commonly used explosive such as thermite, he says. Buildings not felled by explosives "have insufficient directed energy to result in melting of large quantities of metal," Jones says.       • Multiple loud explosions in rapid sequence were reported by numerous observers in and near the towers, and these explosions occurred far below the region where the planes struck, he says.       Jones says he became interested in the physics of the WTC collapse after attending a talk last spring given by a woman who had had a near-death experience. The woman mentioned in passing that "if you think the World Trade Center buildings came down just due to fire, you have a lot of surprises ahead of you," Jones remembers, at which point "everyone around me started applauding."       Following several months of study, he presented his findings at a talk at BYU in September.       Jones says he would like the government to release 6,899 photographs and 6,977 segments of video footage for "independent scrutiny." He would also like to analyze a small sample of the molten metal found at Ground Zero. © 2005 Deseret News Publishing Company Link to article: http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635160132,00.html frater plecticus 16th November 2005 - 08:29 AM Schneibster QUOTE I'll ask you to stipulate that I'm right and there's a good probability that that's the way it happened, without any demolition charges. <br>The "good probability" is exactly ZERO. Foxx QUOTE (-> QUOTE I'll ask you to stipulate that I'm right and there's a good probability that that's the way it happened, without any demolition charges. <br>The "good probability" is exactly ZERO. Foxx frater plecticus said - "Schneibster, you are wrong about the lack of wtc 7 steel samples. It´s on the official record." schneibster replies -- "Wrong precisely how? How is what you posted in disagreement with anything that I said? Well, this is what you posted... QUOTE by Schneibster You might try this one which says, "No structural elements have been positively identified from WTC 7." Obviously, that is within the purview of the team making this report; they're not responsible for you being stupid enough to think that they are aware of every team out there investigating this dog's breakfast, by some sort of osmosis or omniscience or something. If you're that stupid, you probably shouldn't be posting on the Internet. <br>We are well aware what NIST is saying... "no steel was recovered from WTC 7". This flies in the face of numerous government and official sources who report steel samples were collected from WTC 7 and saved for further study. Here's one example of these documents posted by frater plecticus... 8.2.8 Appendix C: Limited Metallurgical Examination Two structural steel samples from the WTC site were observed to have unusual erosion patterns. One sample is believed to be from WTC 7 and the other from either WTC 1 or WTC 2 http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_ch8.pdf chapter 8 I listed numerous other references in my post "NIST Caught Trying to Bury Evidence". I can't tell you the real reason behind their lying about this (although I have my suspicions)... however, it is fact that they are lying, and therefore must have some purpose in lying about the fact that wtc 7 steel was recovered for study, and are now trying to 'bury' this forensic evidence. <br>The Achilles' heel of the present administration. SteveA 16th November 2005 - 02:07 PM QUOTE (Schneibster+Nov 14 2005, 07:39 PM) It was the judgement of a highly experienced fireman on scene that the building was unstable due to the combination of structural damage and fires, and once he had determined that the building had been evacuated prior to the collapse of 1 WTC, he ordered that no other firefighters enter the building, despite their desire to do so (because that's what firefighters do, is fight fires). Other witnesses describe him doing precisely that, and giving exactly that reason, and in their judgement he was correct to do so. Why is it that debaters on both sides of this issue tend to take the firemen's testimony as gospel if it supports their theory, but totally ignore the firemen's testimony if it contradicts their viewpoint? I guess maybe human nature... SteveA 16th November 2005 - 02:28 PM QUOTE (Schneibster+Nov 15 2005, 02:08 AM) If you don't, and you ask politely, you'll get a polite explanation. If you want to see how it's done, you might try my ongoing thread on polarization with hexa. Hexa observes that what s/he's seeing and what I'm saying seem different- but never calls me a liar. S/he is polite and points out the discrepancies and asks for an explanation. I happily provide one. If you don't understand where I got a particular equation, or how I made a step from one form to another, ask. I'll happily explain. How magnanimous of you! It is good to know someone has ALL of the answers. Tell me please, what is the meaning of life. SteveA 16th November 2005 - 03:25 PM QUOTE (Schneibster+Nov 15 2005, 07:20 PM) I also require evidence for #11, and I'd like to know (given that there were no seismographs at ground zero, and that the propagation of sounds and tremors through the ground is an inexact science) precisely on what grounds you assert that whatever tremor there was happened at the beginning of the collapse and not at the end. You show your ignorance here. If seismic studies are such an inexact science, how do you explain the billions of gallons of oil found by seismic techniques? The propagation of sounds and vibration through the earth's crust and interior is a very well understood phenomenon. The seismograph was located at a nearby university. A seismograph located at ground zero would provide inferior data to one located a distance away. Seismic waves travel through the earth by two different mechanisms: S-waves (or surface waves) travel through the earth's crust and P-waves travel through the earth's mantle. A seismograph located at ground zero would not record any S-waves, which are more salient to a surface phenomenon such as a building collapse. It seems to me that materials science and "engineering" are much more inexact than seismic techniques. It also seems that you don't have any compunction about making statements regarding subjects that you don't understand. This affects your credibility. Using your same logic, why should we believe anything you say? ARE you really an "expert" in anything??? frater plecticus 16th November 2005 - 03:26 PM Meaning of life ? I like this quote.. QUOTE "We grow out of this world in exactly the same way that the apples grow on the apple tree, and if evolution means anything it means that. But curiously, we twist it. We say, "well, first of all in the beginning there was nothing but gas and rock. Then intelligence happened to arise in it like a sort of fungus or slime on top of the whole thing." However, we are thinking in a way that disconnects the intelligence from the rocks. Where there are rocks, watch out because the rocks are going eventually to come alive and they are going to have people crawling over them. It is only a matter of time, just in the same way the acorn is eventually going to turn into the oak because it has the potentiallity of that within it. Watch out, because rocks are not dead." " If you want to know where the flowers come from even the God of Spring doesn"t know." This reveals a very remarkable attitude towards nature. If you translate it into politics it is high philosophical anarchy, and there is alot to be said for anarchy as apolitical point of view. In other words, government is always a mess because the state opposes itself to the people. We live in a constitution where we are supposed to be governed by ourselves, but somebody once said, "down with democracy, when we get it". The state creates itself as a business in competition with all the other businesses, and it wins because it is the biggest one of the bunch" <br>THE TAO OF PHILOSOPHY Alan Watts . Eden Grove . 1996 Guest 16th November 2005 - 03:45 PM QUOTE (Metamars+) However, using basic physics, I showed that if you dropped the top of a WTC building onto the bottom, at about Floor #73, from a 5 floor height, you would expend so much energy crashing through each floor that the collapse would stop after approximately 12 floors. <br>I've followed the 9/11 conspiracy theories since the early days after 9/11 as a matter of curiosity. It's interesting how these things evolve over time. However, the assertion that dropping an approximately 37-story building from 50 feet onto a 73-story building would result in a collapse that stops after 12 floors is patently false and is one of the most absurd things I've ever read. I'd very much like to see where you supposed "proved" that. Was that in this thread? Could you refer me to an approximate page? Thanks... metamars 16th November 2005 - 04:06 PM QUOTE However, the assertion that dropping an approximately 37-story building from 50 feet onto a 73-story building would result in a collapse that stops after 12 floors is patently false and is one of the most absurd things I've ever read. I'd very much like to see where you supposed "proved" that. Was that in this thread? Could you refer me to an approximate page? <br>Yes, it's in this (rather long) thread. It may take you 5 minutes or so to find. stallion4 16th November 2005 - 04:21 PM QUOTE Did MSNBC censor the "collapse" video of Building 7 during Tucker Carlson's interview w/ BYU Prof. Steven Jones? By Stallion4 Tuesday, November 15, 2005 On Monday night, Tucker Carlson, host of MSNBC's The Situation, interviewed BYU Physics Professor, Steven E. Jones.  Jones has recently received media interest for hypothesizing that explosives brought down 3 World Trade Center buildings on September 11, 2001.  During the interview, Prof. Jones was asked by Tucker Carlson,"Do you have any evidence that there were bombs in the buildings ?"  Professor Jones then asked, "Let's start with Building 7 - can you roll the video clip that I sent to you ?"  Carlson replied, "I'm not sure if we can."  A still image of Building 7 appeared on the television screen following Prof. Jones' request that MSNBC show the video clip of WTC 7 that he said he had sent them.  Videos show that the 47-story steel-framed Building 7 fell down almost symmetrically into its own footprint near freefall speeds (approximately 6.5 seconds), which are characteristics of buildings that have been purposely destroyed with explosives. However, MSNBC did not air the video footage that Prof. Jones requested they roll while he explained why Building 7, according to his hypothesis, fell from explosives, rather than from fire and falling debris damage, which is the government's hypothesis for what caused Building 7's collapse. So why didn't MSNBC air the video?  Was there a Copyright violation issue?  Could they only air the video if they owned the rights to it? 911Blogger.com has posted video of MSNBC's interview with Prof. Steven E. Jones: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 BYU Professor Steven Jones on 'The Situation' - Video Download http://911blogger.com/ Direct link to article: http://www.911blogger.com/2005/11/byu-prof...n-jones-on.html Related: Y. professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC By Elaine Jarvik Deseret Morning News  - Thursday, November 10, 2005 http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635160132,00.html Collapse or Implosion: BYU Professor Has Theory About 9/11 Attacks Salt Lake City CBS afilliate, KUTV - Thursday, November 10, 2005 http://kutv.com/topstories/local_story_314234334.html Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse? By Steven E. Jones Department of Physics and Astronomy Brigham Young University http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html WTC 7 "Collapse" videos http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/w..._demolition.mpg http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/WTC7_Collapse.mpg http://terrorize.dk/911/wtc7dem2/911.wtc.7...tion.window.wmv <br>Also from 911Blogger.com: QUOTE (-> QUOTE Did MSNBC censor the "collapse" video of Building 7 during Tucker Carlson's interview w/ BYU Prof. Steven Jones? By Stallion4 Tuesday, November 15, 2005 On Monday night, Tucker Carlson, host of MSNBC's The Situation, interviewed BYU Physics Professor, Steven E. Jones.  Jones has recently received media interest for hypothesizing that explosives brought down 3 World Trade Center buildings on September 11, 2001.  During the interview, Prof. Jones was asked by Tucker Carlson,"Do you have any evidence that there were bombs in the buildings ?"  Professor Jones then asked, "Let's start with Building 7 - can you roll the video clip that I sent to you ?"  Carlson replied, "I'm not sure if we can."  A still image of Building 7 appeared on the television screen following Prof. Jones' request that MSNBC show the video clip of WTC 7 that he said he had sent them.  Videos show that the 47-story steel-framed Building 7 fell down almost symmetrically into its own footprint near freefall speeds (approximately 6.5 seconds), which are characteristics of buildings that have been purposely destroyed with explosives. However, MSNBC did not air the video footage that Prof. Jones requested they roll while he explained why Building 7, according to his hypothesis, fell from explosives, rather than from fire and falling debris damage, which is the government's hypothesis for what caused Building 7's collapse. So why didn't MSNBC air the video?  Was there a Copyright violation issue?  Could they only air the video if they owned the rights to it? 911Blogger.com has posted video of MSNBC's interview with Prof. Steven E. Jones: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 BYU Professor Steven Jones on 'The Situation' - Video Download http://911blogger.com/ Direct link to article: http://www.911blogger.com/2005/11/byu-prof...n-jones-on.html Related: Y. professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC By Elaine Jarvik Deseret Morning News  - Thursday, November 10, 2005 http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635160132,00.html Collapse or Implosion: BYU Professor Has Theory About 9/11 Attacks Salt Lake City CBS afilliate, KUTV - Thursday, November 10, 2005 http://kutv.com/topstories/local_story_314234334.html Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse? By Steven E. Jones Department of Physics and Astronomy Brigham Young University http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html WTC 7 "Collapse" videos http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/w..._demolition.mpg http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/WTC7_Collapse.mpg http://terrorize.dk/911/wtc7dem2/911.wtc.7...tion.window.wmv <br>Also from 911Blogger.com: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 Tucker Carlson Says 9/11 Skeptics Should 'Leave the Country', Commits Slander Link to article and video: http://www.911blogger.com/2005/11/tucker-c...1-skeptics.html Tonight on Tucker Carlson's 'The Situation', Tucker responded to calls he received stating that Steven Jones was not given enough time on last night's show by stating: [referring to the caller]your one of dozens, scores, maybe hundreds of people who called and wrote after our segment last night.. .. [referring to Steven Jones]he claims in his writings.. he believes the U.S. government had a role in blowing up the world trade center, that it was not done by terrorists.. .. if you really believe the U.S. government killed 3000 of its own citizens for no reason and lied about it and invaded Afghanistan as a result of something it did, you ought to leave the country.. because that's so terrible.. so evil, that your tax dollars go in to support it make you complicit in it. if you really believe that, you ought to leave.. but we're gunna keep an open mind.. Tucker exemplifies the reasons why it is necessary to leave it up to scientists and researchers, and not government cronies and talking heads, to investigate the truth behind 9/11, because otherwise one might be blinded by their own assumptions and emotions. Tucker not only acted as though his moral compass is above those that question 9/11 (specifically a 20+ year Professor at BYU), but he also committed slander in his comments about Steven Jones' research. While the report written by Steven Jones mentions the U.S. government several times in reference to their failures of investigation, at no point in his paper does he suggest the government was involved in carrying out the attacks, although I'm sure many others would, and have. [snip] Link to entire article: http://www.911blogger.com/2005/11/tucker-c...1-skeptics.html 9-11 related information from GeorgeWashington.blogspot.com: http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/ C2000 16th November 2005 - 04:56 PM I am curious why no one has asked the question about the support structures that were burried below the ground. How they could have been effected and cracked by the sheer shifting of the building. What I found interesting in what I was reading about the WTC was that all the wieght load was focused on the center of the building. The base of the building was an odd design and is it not possible that perhaps 1 or 2 or more of these support structures which ran from the bottom to the top of the tower could have failed in the massive swaying of the initial hit on the building. Also was not one of the buildings already hit in 1993 in the first bombing. Is it not possible that it could have effected the structural intergrity of the building already? Here is what I found on the design of the support columns... QUOTE The vertical support columns at the core of the building went all the way down below the bottom floor, through the basement structure, to the spread footing structure below ground. In the spread footing design, each support column rests directly on a cast-iron plate, which sits on top of a grillage. The grillage is basically a stack of horizontal steel beams, lined side by side in two or more layers (see diagram below). The grillage rests on a thick concrete pad poured on the solid bedrock deep underground. This pyramid shape distributes the concentrated weight from the columns over a wide, solid surface. With the steel in place, the entire structure was covered with concrete. <br> QUOTE (-> QUOTE The vertical support columns at the core of the building went all the way down below the bottom floor, through the basement structure, to the spread footing structure below ground. In the spread footing design, each support column rests directly on a cast-iron plate, which sits on top of a grillage. The grillage is basically a stack of horizontal steel beams, lined side by side in two or more layers (see diagram below). The grillage rests on a thick concrete pad poured on the solid bedrock deep underground. This pyramid shape distributes the concentrated weight from the columns over a wide, solid surface. With the steel in place, the entire structure was covered with concrete. <br> "In the end, they designed the towers so they could sway about 3 feet in either direction. To minimize the sway sensation, they installed about 10,000 visco-elastic dampers between support columns and floor trusses throughout the building. The special visco-elastic material in these dampers could move somewhat, but it would snap back to its original shape. In other words, it could give a little and then return to its initial position, absorbing much of the shock of the building's swaying motion. <br> Is it not possible that the visco elastic dampers became to stressed with the initial impact of the towers causing the structural intergrity from within to fail? They were only designed to handle about 3 feet. People with in the building said they fell out their chairs or felt like the building has swayed way to far and it felt like it was going to fall. One of my freinds worked on the 33nd floor and said she experienced a massive shift in weight in the building like it was topling over. Also something that many on here I dont think are taking into consideration on the building was that it was designed bassically a box on a box on a box. If one of those boxes failed alot of wieght was shifted to the other box causeing instability no? Also the elevators could have played a large part in the shifting of the building with elevator cars and their weights snapping off. Each elevator was what 10 tons each? Just putting these out there. I am not physicis but these issues should also be addressed. Seems like no one is even considering them at all. Schneibster 16th November 2005 - 06:16 PM QUOTE (SteveA+) Why is it that debaters on both sides of this issue tend to take the firemen's testimony as gospel if it supports their theory, but totally ignore the firemen's testimony if it contradicts their viewpoint? I guess maybe human nature... Interesting point. Got anything to support or impeach it? I've looked a long, long time and not found anything except the NIST report, which I don't really like as a second source. I suspect that once 2 WTC came down, there was no one there but firefighters- and after 1 WTC came down, even the last stragglers were pretty much either dead or fled. Tell you what, I wouldn't have stuck around. And they probably kicked everyone out anyway. There's one picture, with a meter maid scooter in the left foreground and 7 WTC in the right background, that's of either the North or South face of 7 WTC- and it might be the South face; the narrow face to the right of it is lit, so the picture would have to have been taken in the morning if that's the case. I've looked and looked, and haven't seen a high enough resolution copy to really blow it up good. IIRC, it made the newspapers. But the problem is, the face is shadowed- and that either makes it the North face (since the Sun is to the South at all times in the Northern hemisphere north of the Tropics, which New York is) and uninteresting, or else it's the shadow of the smoke from 2 or 1 WTC obscuring it, or the buildings themselves if they haven't fallen yet; you just can't tell; in which case the shadow has suppressed all the detail (the foreground is in bright sunlight, and the latitude of an exposure is only a couple of stops) even if there's anything to see. If you find anything, I'd love to see it, either reliable testimony impeaching or confirming the firemen's accounts, or a photograph of the South face after 1 WTC came down. Schneibster 16th November 2005 - 07:42 PM QUOTE (SteveA+) You show your ignorance here.  If seismic studies are such an inexact science, how do you explain the billions of gallons of oil found by seismic techniques?  The propagation of sounds and vibration through the earth's crust and interior is a very well understood phenomenon. Ummmm, oil reservoirs are quite a lot bigger than buildings- like, generally miles wide, so they're kinda hard to miss. Exact science my a**. They can't predict earthquakes, can they? Gee, well, maybe that's because the places that fracture are a few miles away, JUST LIKE THE SEISMOMETERS IN THE NETWORK COLUMBIA WAS USING WERE FROM THE WTC. You might want to read this, which shows in Fig. 3 that the propagation speeds are quite a spread, from 2.5 to 1.5 km/s, and in fact states in the body of the text that speeds as high as 3.0 km/s were observed; gee, Batman, why aren't they all in a straight line down the page, if seismology is such an exact science? Give me a break. QUOTE (SteveA+) The seismograph was located at a nearby university. Wrong. Seismograms from a total of six different seismometers were examined for that report. There isn't any "the," seismometer, and none of these instruments are seismographs, which are the type of instruments used in oil exploration; specialized seismography is the science of mapping underground geological features with seismic waves, whereas generalized seismology is the overarching science of the study of such waves. QUOTE (SteveA+) A seismograph located at ground zero would provide inferior data to one located a distance away. Wrong again; see the part in the above report where they state that the AMNH station had been shut down before 9/11, but new systems were going to be installed in major cities and how much more information they expected to get from them. That's IN the cities, not AROUND them. QUOTE (SteveA+) Seismic waves travel through the earth by two different mechanisms: S-waves (or surface waves) travel through the earth's crust and P-waves travel through the earth's mantle.  Ummmm, wrong again. There are at least five different kinds of seismic waves, and they are not classified by what part of the Earth they travel through; they are classified by vibration mode. P (for Primary, or Pressure) waves are longitudinal waves; that is, they are alternating regions of compression and decompression, like sound waves. S (for Secondary, or Shear) waves are transverse waves, which oscillate from side to side as they propagate, like water waves (yes, this type of wave can move through the body of the Earth as well as along it's surface). Only longitudinal waves can move through the body of a liquid; but both types can move through the body of a solid. They originally got their names because a seismometer records the P waves first. There is a shadow for directly transmitted S-waves created by the core; thus, they have to bounce around in the mantle before they can get to a seismometer at the antipodes of an earthquake, whereas the P-waves can move directly through the molten outer core. Only the outer core is fully liquid; the mantle is very hot, and under enormous pressure, but it is solid-phase, as shown by the fact that S-waves can travel through it. Then there are Rg waves, which are vertically polarized; these are the modes most likely to be excited in a building collapse, with its complex dynamics and obvious downward forces, allowing the combination of longitudinal and vertical transverse waves that make up the R wave. The R is for Rayleigh, who first mathematically described them, or Resonance; the g is for geological, since Rayleigh waves are not restricted to the ground, but can also occur in the atmosphere. These waves are restricted in the ground to the surface or near it. And in fact, these are precisely the types of waves detected for all three building collapses; whereas the tank farm explosion yielded both P and S waves. Clear, unambiguous evidence that there was no large explosion at the base of either tower, nor at 7 WTC. The fourth type of seismic wave is the L, Lg (this is not much used), Love wave, or Q-wave; Love was its discoverer. This propagation mode is the horizontal polarization of the Rayleigh wave; IOW, the Rayleigh wave is a vertical combination of the P and S waves, and the Love wave is the horizontal combination. Finally, being longitudinal, P-waves cannot be polarized; however, the other three types can, since they are either transverse or include transverse components. And in fact polarization studies were carried out on the seismometers using data from small earthquakes that preceeded and succeeded the collapses to ensure the quality of their data for the collapses. QUOTE (SteveA+) A seismograph located at ground zero would not record any S-waves, which are more salient to a surface phenomenon such as a building collapse. And wrong yet again. It might not record S waves for an earthquake at ground zero; however, it WOULD detect both P and S waves for either an explosion or a building collapse, since these events take place at or near the surface. QUOTE (SteveA+) It seems to me that materials science and "engineering" are much more inexact than seismic techniques.  It also seems that you don't have any compunction about making statements regarding subjects that you don't understand.  This affects your credibility.  Using your same logic, why should we believe anything you say?  ARE you really an "expert" in anything??? I'd say the above discussion puts this out of its misery. It would appear that I am far more expert in seismology than you. It would also appear that I have detailed knowledge of seismology, and made statements that are well within my competence. I don't think that you can say the same. I think you're hand-waving, as opposed to sharing expertise. Moving right along, there's the part in that report above where they state pretty unambiguously that the truck bomb in '93 generated no detectable seismic activity, and that a tank farm explosion generated definite P and S waves, which are absent from the traces for all three buildings' collapses, as you can see here. Then there's also the part where they state that they see multiple arrivals of the seismic waves at some stations, indicating that the waves were reflected and refracted by differing geological formations- gee, Batman, doesn't that sound just like what I said? Ummm, I'd say so. Overall, it looks more to me like you've shown your ignorance; it doesn't appear you've read these reports, or if you have, you had a lot of trouble interpreting what they said. It also doesn't appear that you know very much about either seismology or seismography (or, more properly, geological tomography). This is about what I've come to expect; however, I do have to say that you were considerably more knowledgable than any of your cohorts, so I have elected to remain civil, whether you were or not. That's because while you were indeed wrong, you were interestingly wrong as opposed to stupidly wrong. You might consider the same course. Guest 16th November 2005 - 09:30 PM QUOTE Me: However, the assertion that dropping an approximately 37-story building from 50 feet onto a 73-story building would result in a collapse that stops after 12 floors is patently false and is one of the most absurd things I've ever read. I'd very much like to see where you supposed "proved" that. Was that in this thread? Could you refer me to an approximate page? You: Yes, it's in this (rather long) thread. It may take you 5 minutes or so to find. <br>Found it on page 11. It's clear you don't know what you're talking about and Schneibster has demonstrated that on page after page of this thread. Going back to what you said on page 11: QUOTE (-> QUOTE Me: However, the assertion that dropping an approximately 37-story building from 50 feet onto a 73-story building would result in a collapse that stops after 12 floors is patently false and is one of the most absurd things I've ever read. I'd very much like to see where you supposed "proved" that. Was that in this thread? Could you refer me to an approximate page? You: Yes, it's in this (rather long) thread. It may take you 5 minutes or so to find. <br>Found it on page 11. It's clear you don't know what you're talking about and Schneibster has demonstrated that on page after page of this thread. Going back to what you said on page 11: So, the additional downward force attributable to the kinetic energy of the mass is only an additional 60%. 9.06 x 10^8 / 1.52 x 10 ^ 9 = 60% Well shucks, 60% of 38 floors = 23 floors. In other words, this is the weight that floor #50 was bearing day in, day out for 30 years or so, without collapsing. <br>Let me see if I understand what you're saying here... You're saying that dropping a 37-story building on the a 73-story building from an altitude of approximately one floor (3.79m) only requires that the 73-story building be able to support 60% more weight in order to survive that? Is that really what you're saying? I won't debunk you with numbers. Schneibster has done that many times already and apparently you are none the wiser. So let me provide you with a real-world example. If you believe that what you said above is true, go find yourself a hammer and weigh it--mine weighs a little under 0.5kg. Now go find something 60% heavier, that is, that weighs about 0.7kg. I'm lazy so I just grabbed some dumbells that are lying around which weight 10kg (i.e. over 2000% heavier). Now place that 10kg dumbell on your hand. Does it hurt? Nope. Take a picture of your hand after you remove the dumbell. NOW HERE IS THE TEST TO SEE HOW MUCH YOU BELIEVE YOUR OWN THEORY: If what you say is right, you should be entirely willing to drop your hammer from 3.79m off the ground directly on your hand. After all, it only has 60% more energy than when it's resting on your hand and we already saw that 2000% that amount didn't cause you any problems, now did it? So please have someone drop the hammer on your hand from 3.79m. Then snap a picture of your hand. We'll be waiting for the pictures. Failure to produce both pictures will be deemed as tacit recognition that you don't believe the B.S. you're shoveling. metamars 16th November 2005 - 10:02 PM QUOTE Let me see if I understand what you're saying here... You're saying that dropping a 37-story building on the a 73-story building from an altitude of approximately one floor (3.79m) only requires that the 73-story building be able to support 60% more weight in order to survive that? Is that really what you're saying? <br>No, not at all. Go back and read it again. It will take more than reading 1 post - you also need to see the post re the contradiction that falls out of BZ from taking their .12 KE figure seriously. letxa2000 16th November 2005 - 10:24 PM QUOTE (metamars+) No, not at all. Go back and read it again. It will take more than reading 1 post - you also need to see the post re the contradiction that falls out of BZ from taking their .12 KE figure seriously. <br>I read your posts up to that point and that's certainly the impression I got. If it's not, why not spend 30 seconds writing 2 or 3 sentences to sum up what you think that 60% figure means. You don't need to repeat the math or spend a lot of time on it, but just reading your original posts on this question suggest you don't know what you're talking about. Perhaps if you could state what you're really trying to argue I could re-read your post in that context. Otherwise, it's pretty clear that Schneibster has pulverized every physics argument that you've attempted to bring up. Schneibster 16th November 2005 - 10:35 PM metamars, you're pwned. The rest of that crap doesn't matter- you built it all on that foundation, and it's just been destroyed. Not a leg to stand on. As usual. I expect the accusations of nefarious motives immediately, if not sooner. Schneibster 16th November 2005 - 10:53 PM QUOTE (C2000+) I am curious why no one has asked the question about the support structures that were burried below the ground. How they could have been effected and cracked by the sheer shifting of the building. Excellent point. We'd have to do some calculations of the moment of force that would be applied to the underground spread footings, and then come up with some sort of estimate of the effect of that on the footings. I suspect, however, when all is said and done, that this is unlikely to seriously damage them; I could be wrong, though. It's just a seat-of-the-pants guesstimate. Could you get more details on these footings, i.e. how many and how big, and what kind of steel? That would help a lot. QUOTE (C2000+) Is it not possible that the visco elastic dampers became to stressed with the initial impact of the towers causing the structural intergrity from within to fail? They were only designed to handle about 3 feet. People with in the building said they fell out their chairs or felt like the building has swayed way to far and it felt like it was going to fall. One of my freinds worked on the 33nd floor and said she experienced a massive shift in weight in the building like it was topling over. Well, how much can you find out about the details of their implementation? My understanding from the diagrams I have looked over was that there were substantial structural elements associated with them that would take up the stress if it exceeded their capacity, so I'm not sure this is a viable theory. However, this does lead to another set of questions having to do with the integrity of the core after the impacts. I believe that a study was done that showed that the damage was minimal in this regard and that the core had not been stressed beyond its ability to handle it; does anyone know if this was extended to see whether the concrete the core columns were embedded in could have been fractured by the impact, rendering the columns less able to handle lateral forces than they had been previously? QUOTE (C2000+) Also something that many on here I dont think are taking into consideration on the building was that it was designed bassically a box on a box on a box. If one of those boxes failed alot of wieght was shifted to the other box causeing instability no? Actually, this has been extensively considered, and is in fact the primary theory in the collapse of 2 WTC, and the explanation of why it failed first. The impact on 1 WTC was essentially central; the plane went into nearly the center of one side. But the plane that hit 2 WTC was offset, and could have damaged corner columns on the far side; you'll see why this would pose more of a threat to the outside "box." This led (along with the fact that the strike on 2 WTC was further down the building, and therefore there was quite a bit more weight above the impact site) to early failure of the perimeter, followed by core failure and global collapse. So basically, you're right; it had a lot to do with it. QUOTE (C2000+) Also the elevators could have played a large part in the shifting of the building with elevator cars and their weights snapping off. Each elevator was what 10 tons each? 10 tons was nothing; each 3-story, 3-column perimeter column segment weighed an average of 23 tons. However, the elevators were in the core; so their effect would be upon the primary vertical load-bearing structure. So there may be something to this. But with the elevator cars recalled to the lobby (SOP in a fire), this might not have happened. I can see arguments both ways, and no way to resolve them. See if you can dig up more information. yesitdid 16th November 2005 - 11:54 PM QUOTE (Foxx+Nov 16 2005, 03:00 AM) QUOTE Yesitdid says I beg to differ, if one subscribes to off-the-wall eccentricities(to put it nicely) then one's credibility is suspect in any other pronouncements. <br>As a logical extension then, one might conclude that "if someone subscribes to the unbecoming practice of lying regarding forensic investigations, then their credibility is suspect in any other pronouncements". This MOST certainly applies to NIST's outright lies regarding their multiple statements that " no steel was recovered from WTC 7 "; which flies in the face of known and documented facts. This is no 'mistake' or 'incompetent bungling' on the part of NIST, for there is no question that the steel recovered from WTC 7 was called by the New York times... "One of the deepest mysteries" of the WTC collapses, and could provide valuable insights into the actual cause of the collapses. Even FEMA indicated that it was a great importance to study these mysteriously 'melted' pieces of steel. No known causes from gravity driven collapses or building fires can account for these pieces of steel turned to 'swiss cheese'. But carry on with your deluded sophistry - you are only fooling fools and yourself. Oh, I know how you love to dance around the real issues YID with your semantics and rhetorics (I guess somehow, it makes you feel 'important'), but your own unspoken conscience should be screaming inside your head over this. It is now NOT simply a case of 'mysteriously melted steel'... it is NOW a case of an outright cover-up of this evidence, which as I said before will be exposed once they release the final (final) draft - 'final draft final' issue of the wtc 7 report. No one goes about trying to bury evidence which has no value to a forensic investigation. It is only evidence which represents 'problems' which needs to be buried. ************* Thanks, metamars for locating additional evidence of this outrage in the NIST NCSTAR 1-3B (Draft) "Steel Inventory and Identification Report"... http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3BDraft.pdf "The lack of WTC 7 steel precludes tests on actual material from the structure..." (NIST page iii / Adobe page 5). I encourage ALL 9/11 activists to spread word to all their other contacts regarding this serious breech of public trust by the NIST liars. http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3BDraft.pdf QUOTE (-> QUOTE Yesitdid says I beg to differ, if one subscribes to off-the-wall eccentricities(to put it nicely) then one's credibility is suspect in any other pronouncements. <br>As a logical extension then, one might conclude that "if someone subscribes to the unbecoming practice of lying regarding forensic investigations, then their credibility is suspect in any other pronouncements". This MOST certainly applies to NIST's outright lies regarding their multiple statements that " no steel was recovered from WTC 7 "; which flies in the face of known and documented facts. This is no 'mistake' or 'incompetent bungling' on the part of NIST, for there is no question that the steel recovered from WTC 7 was called by the New York times... "One of the deepest mysteries" of the WTC collapses, and could provide valuable insights into the actual cause of the collapses. Even FEMA indicated that it was a great importance to study these mysteriously 'melted' pieces of steel. No known causes from gravity driven collapses or building fires can account for these pieces of steel turned to 'swiss cheese'. But carry on with your deluded sophistry - you are only fooling fools and yourself. Oh, I know how you love to dance around the real issues YID with your semantics and rhetorics (I guess somehow, it makes you feel 'important'), but your own unspoken conscience should be screaming inside your head over this. It is now NOT simply a case of 'mysteriously melted steel'... it is NOW a case of an outright cover-up of this evidence, which as I said before will be exposed once they release the final (final) draft - 'final draft final' issue of the wtc 7 report. No one goes about trying to bury evidence which has no value to a forensic investigation. It is only evidence which represents 'problems' which needs to be buried. ************* Thanks, metamars for locating additional evidence of this outrage in the NIST NCSTAR 1-3B (Draft) "Steel Inventory and Identification Report"... http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3BDraft.pdf "The lack of WTC 7 steel precludes tests on actual material from the structure..." (NIST page iii / Adobe page 5). I encourage ALL 9/11 activists to spread word to all their other contacts regarding this serious breech of public trust by the NIST liars. http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3BDraft.pdf • Out of the 55 wide flange sections and built-up box sections recovered, 12 core columns were positively identified from WTC 1 and WTC 2, including: − Two columns from the fire floors of WTC 1, − Two columns from the impact zone of WTC 2. • 23 pieces of floor truss material from WTC 1 and WTC 2 were recovered; however, the asbuilt location of the trusses within the buildings could not be identified. • 25 pieces of channel material that connected the floor trusses to the core columns in WTC 1 and WTC 2 were recovered; however, the as-built location of the channels within the buildings could not be identified. • One piece of floor framing from outside the core of the 107th floor of WTC 1. • Seven coupons from WTC 5 were removed in the field and sent to NIST. • No pieces could be unambiguously identified as being from WTC 7. <br>Thus NIST had , as far as they knew , NO steel from WTC 7 to examine when that was written. Had some other agency steel that was from WTC 7? Yes, did NIST metalurgy group have it to examine? NO! You want to find a conspiracy so bad you can taste it Foxx. You don't think that that colours your perception at all? Schneibster 17th November 2005 - 12:32 AM I already tried, yesitdid. But more power to you. frater plecticus 17th November 2005 - 12:46 AM QUOTE Otherwise, it's pretty clear that Schneibster has pulverized every physics argument that you've attempted to bring up. <br>Where is the physics argument to support the official wtc 7 collapse conspiracy story ? There isn´t one, because it doesn´t exist, it doesn´t exist because it can´t. I see nobody is being converted to the official conspiracy theory (OCT). What I do see however, is more and more professionals, scientists and politicians willing to speak publicly surrounding the abnormalities in the 9-11 OCT. 2 illegal wars (one with occupation) leading to the direct death of at least 100 000 humans, on the most laughable and inadmissable evidence, that managed to apparently resolve the entire OCT (that occured in a physical, moral and economic vacuum.) RealityCheck 17th November 2005 - 01:51 AM Hi Schneibster, yesitdid! I’ve been ill with lung complications for a while, as well as busy elsewhere; so I haven’t kept abreast of all the physical aspects considered here so far. Can either of you tell me if the following has been covered here or elsewhere? Possible damage to ‘core’ structure due to:- (1) Electric Power ‘shorts/arcs’ up and down the ‘services’ shaft due to insulation burned off after burning jet fuel flowing down into open/severed vertical/horizontal shaft/ducts. Because if there were powerful ‘surges’ and ‘arcing’ currents, these could have compromised any adjacent metal ‘conductors/columns’ which may be ‘resistance’ heated LOCALLY almost instantaneously to ‘melting/weakening’ temperatures quite apart from burning fuel/plastic etc. falling into these shafts from the initial impact/firestorm zone. Perhaps power surge resistance-heating could account for at least some of the ‘molten metal’ found at the bottom (again, quite apart from any ‘melting’ resulting from the POST-COLLAPSE fierce draft-enhanced ‘furnace-burning’ of deisel from the tanks (as well as plastics debris/fuel from collapsed floors) going on in such situations? Also, regarding supposed ‘explosions’: perhaps some of the ‘activity’ preceding the ‘collapse’ wave might be due to failing electrical-connections’ resulting in ‘arc-induced’ flashes/ignitions etc. of volatile materials in the vicinity of such failed connectors as the collapse progressed. ....and.... (2) The ‘cores’ vertical shaft cavities being thus sheared open to create draft/chimney effect for any ‘in core’ fires thus started up and down the whole height of the ‘core’ cavities. I am wondering if, even in the absence of ‘impact damage’, ANY ‘opening up’ of such an ‘open-work’ shaft set-up, combined with ANY fire that ‘gets away’ into such shafts (with or without any consequent power shorting/arcing damage as in (1) above), would IN ANY CASE so compromise (heat-buckling/rivet-popping etc) such steel ‘core’ structures that total collapse FROM THE CORE out would be an inevitable consequence of such internal glorified steel-trestle-table-stack ‘spine’ designs for such tall buildings. Implying that perhaps they should be made illegal for future skyscrapers. ...and.... (3) About WTC7: Could the debris of hot metal and burning solid plastics launched at terrific velocities (by the 'explosive-air-pressure' releases during adjacent Tower collapse compression) into the WTC7 windows etc be responsible (like multiple 'incendiary-bomblets') for 'multiple' fire-points, and hence an 'irretrievable' widespread-fire situation throughout that building? Meaning that the WTC7 fire might not have been just a fire situation that had normal 'spread' characteristics, but was in fact a case of MULTIPLE 'simultaneous' fires re-inforcing each other as to intensity/speed evolution. Just thinking out loud, guys. RealityCheck. . metamars 17th November 2005 - 01:54 AM QUOTE If it's not, why not spend 30 seconds writing 2 or 3 sentences to sum up what you think that 60% figure means. <br>I doubt it would do any good, and besides, I was put off by your insulting post. You certainly don't impress me as anybody who is sincerely trying to understand my arguments in particular, or both sides of the issue in general. Besides reading and studying those posts, you can also read after them. There were unspoken assumptions that were explicated later. Perhaps that will help you. If not, here's what you can do. Print out all my posts and take them to a physics professor at a college in your area. Ask him to look them over, and see what he thinks. If he cannot grasp what I've done, ask him to post his contact info on this board, and I will contact him and explain to him. Of course, I'm assuming that I can corroborate his contact info by visiting the college physics web site which will likely list his contact info, also. If not, I will call his department's secretary and verify through him/her that the professor in question really was approached by you with my posts. (I have no intention of wasting my time with somebody who is pretending to be physicist, e.g. There's enough "pseudo-physicists" right here on physorg.com, thank-you very much) Afterwards, he can explain to you. guesty mcguest 17th November 2005 - 03:33 AM question..... Why are all the people in this thread who support the official story unwilling to address this issue (which has been repeatedly posted in this discussion). The issue that the WTC 7 fell the same way the towers did even though it didn't get hit by a plane, and why the empire state building didn't collapse even though it got hit by a plane? If the official story supporters continue to ignore this issue, then it is only fair that they are considered shills. letxa2000 17th November 2005 - 03:34 AM QUOTE (Metamars+) I doubt it would do any good, and besides, I was put off by your insulting post. You certainly don't impress me as anybody who is sincerely trying to understand my arguments in particular, or both sides of the issue in general. <br>I've been studying both sides of this argument for about 4 years. I've seen all your arguments presented and debunked by multiple people on multiple occasions. The only thing I hadn't seen is the argument that a 37-story building falling 10 feet directly on top of a 73-story wouldn't cause catastrophic collapse. I've seen some wild theories out there, but that one takes the cake. That's why I was hoping to understand it. QUOTE Besides reading and studying those posts, you can also read after them. <br>I will. I don't know you, but I know your type. When asked to explain something, even if it'll only take you a few seconds to respond, you prefer to send the questioner on "busy work" assignments reading a 40-page thread; probably hoping he won't bother, and will go away and leave you alone. This is not the mark of someone that confidently believes in his theory nor is it the mark of someone that is truly interested in convincing others of it. If you were, you'd take this opportunity to convince me (and others). QUOTE (-> QUOTE Besides reading and studying those posts, you can also read after them. <br>I will. I don't know you, but I know your type. When asked to explain something, even if it'll only take you a few seconds to respond, you prefer to send the questioner on "busy work" assignments reading a 40-page thread; probably hoping he won't bother, and will go away and leave you alone. This is not the mark of someone that confidently believes in his theory nor is it the mark of someone that is truly interested in convincing others of it. If you were, you'd take this opportunity to convince me (and others). If not, here's what you can do. Print out all my posts and take them to a physics professor at a college in your area. Ask him to look them over, and see what he thinks. <br>Yaddah, yaddah, yaddah. Anything to avoid confronting the issues. Like I said, I've seen your type before. I'll review this thread to see if I can make any sense out of your argument. Most of the arguments you profess are the same old conspiracy theories that are based on a desire to believe them, not on the merits of the theories. I've also taken to task a PhD that made a physics-based argument regarding thermite bombs in the towers and confronted him with some emails I exchanged with a PhD in physics at MIT; when so-confronted, even though he was a PhD, he dropped into the same conspiracy mode as you'll find on any kook board. So being a physicist or a PhD is not an automatic guarantee of logic, and your desire to only talk to a college professor is transparent. Anyway, best wishes to you. Guest 17th November 2005 - 03:40 AM To Letxa2000, I have a question for you....... Why did the WTC 7 collapse the same way the towers did even though it didn't get hit by a plane, and why the empire state building in 1945 didn't collapse even though it got hit by a plane (a bomber)? Guest 17th November 2005 - 04:09 AM to Guest and guesty mcguest The bomber was lighter (plus much much fewer passengers), smaller and travelling much much slower (less kinetic energy to impart to building structre) than the plane that hit. And the bomber carried much much less fuel. Because the outer/inner building structure of E.S.Building was comparatively and absolutely much much smaller and denser in relation to the structure, and hence stronger and more rigid (like smaller diameter tube/box made of same thickness material is more strong/rigid than larger diameter one) so the lighter impact on a relatively stronger structure means damage did not penetrate the heavy/massive facade as much, and accordingly didn't compromise the structural support elements as much, and so did not result in a fireball from inside out where the bomber hit. The E.S. Building internal and central support structure was different from all the WTC buildings that collapsed. And also, any building compromised from the inside-out like the fires did to the WTC ones would naturally tend to collapse as observed in all three WTC building collapses. I hope this helps you. Is that so? 17th November 2005 - 04:26 AM [QUOTE=Guest,Nov 17 2005, 04:09 AM][quote=letxa2000]And also, any building compromised from the inside-out like the fires did to the WTC ones would naturally tend to collapse as observed in all three WTC building collapses.I hope this helps you. [/quote] Oh? Then care to explain this....... - The One Meridian Plaza Fire One Meridian Plaza is a 38-floor skyscraper in Philadelphia that suffered a severe fire on February 23, 1991. The fire started on the 22nd floor and raged for 18 hours, gutting eight floors and causing an estimated $100 million in direct property loss. 1 2 3 It was later described by Philadelphia officials as "the most significant fire in this century". The fire caused window breakage, cracking of granite, and failures of spandrel panel connections. 4 Despite the severity and duration of the fire, as evidenced by the damage the building sustained, no part of the building collapsed The First Interstate Bank Fire The First Interstate Bank Building is a 62-story skyscraper in Los Angeles that suffered the worst high-rise fire in the city's history. From the late evening of May 4, 1988 through the early morning of the next day, 64 fire companies battled the blaze, which lasted for 3 1/2 hours. The fire caused extensive window breakage, which complicated firefighting efforts. Large flames jutted out of the building during the blaze. Firefighting efforts resulted in massive water damage to floors below the fire, and the fire gutted offices from the 12th to the 16th floor, and caused extensive smoke damage to floors above. The fire caused an estimated $200 million in direct property loss. 5 A report by Iklim Ltd. describes the structural damage from the fire: In spite of the total burnout of four and a half floors, there was no damage to the main structural members and only minor damage to one secondary beam and a small number of floor pans. 6 The 1 New York Plaza Fire 1 New York Plaza is a 50-story office tower less than a mile from the World Trade Center site. It suffered a severe fire and explosion on August 5, 1970. The fire started around 6 PM, and burned for more than 6 hours. 7 Caracas Tower Fire The tallest skyscraper in Caracas, Venezuela experienced a severe fire on October 17, 2004. The blaze began on the 34th floor and spread to over 26 floors, and burned for more than 17 hours. Heat from the fires prevented firefighters from reaching the upper floors, and smoke injured 40 firefighters. 8 The Windsor Building Fire The most recent case of a severe high-rise fire is the one that destroyed the Windsor Building in Madrid, Spain on February 12, 2005. The Windsor fire was more severe than any of the other fires described on this page, and the incident has been widely publicized, with comparisons to the fires in the three World Trade Center skyscrapers on 9/11/01. However, the Windsor Building, unlike all the buildings mentioned above, was framed in steel-reinforced concrete rather than steel. Hence it is described on a separate page, which notes differences between the response of these different types of structures to fires. References: - http://www.fire-police-ems.com/videos/vo4900.shtml - http://www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-049.pdf - http://www.iklimnet.com/hotelfires/meridienplaza.html - http://www.lafire.com/famous_fires/880504_...erstateFire.htm - http://www.iklimnet.com/hotelfires/interstatebank.html - http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/18/...ain649824.shtml - http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html mickeydoolittle 17th November 2005 - 04:43 AM Fires have never been known to collapse buildings before September 11, 2001. Also, the fires on 9/11 weren't even as intense as the building fires mentioned above. And please care to explain the cold black smoke that was occuring mostly outside of the WTC towers impact zones? You shills make it sound like the WTC towers are so weak that they are made out of wood. Seriously, you shills have major holes in your arguements. You're wasting your time trying to make us believe your crap. Go troll another forum, I assure you, you will get the same responses there as well. Go go, you stewey type shills. stallion4 17th November 2005 - 04:44 AM QUOTE (Schneibster+) QUOTE (SteveA+) Why is it that debaters on both sides of this issue tend to take the firemen's testimony as gospel if it supports their theory, but totally ignore the firemen's testimony if it contradicts their viewpoint? I guess maybe human nature... Interesting point. Got anything to support or impeach it? I've looked a long, long time and not found anything except the NIST report, which I don't really like as a second source. Well, there is rescue worker, Indira Singh, on tape, testifying that she and others were told to move away from Building 7 by people she thought were members of the FDNY, because they were going to bring the building down: 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... ...we were setting up triages as close to the pile as possible… so 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... 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 excerpts 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://tinyurl.com/7dww8 I also find it curious that award winning photographer, Thomas Franklin, who snapped the famous photo of firemen raising the flag at ground zero, didn't photograph the alleged damage to WTC7's south face. I would think that if there were such damage to the building, Franklin would have managed to snap at least one photo of the alleged damage since he had been photographing ground zero. These are Thomas Franklin's own words concerning the collapse of WTC7: QUOTE (Thomas Franklin+) Much of what happened to me on September 11 is a blur, but this moment I clearly remember: It was 4:45 p.m., and all the firemen and rescue workers were evacuating Ground Zero after word came that a third building -- WTC 7 -- was ready to fall. I had only a few frames left, and an entire day's worth of pictures to develop, so I prepared to head back to New Jersey. Before leaving, I took one last look at Ground Zero. Three firefighters were attaching an American flag to a slanted pole while standing on top of a pile of rubble about fifteen feet high. I was about thirty yards away, and I zoomed in and fired off a few frames with my digital camera. The flag-raising itself was spontaneous and unceremonious. It took only a few minutes, and I don't think the firemen had any idea they were being watched. One firefighter hoisted the flag up as the other two looked on. I shot a burst of frames as it went up, then ran to where they were. But before I could shoot any more they disappeared into the crowd leaving the area. Link to article: http://archives.cjr.org/year/02/2/franklin.asp Ready to fall ?!! Hmmm??? From what Thomas Franklin stated above, it doesn't sound like he took any such photo of WTC7's south face damage. If he did, I've never seen it. So we know that photographers were allowed to photograph ground zero, however, there has never been a photo released of this alleged damage to the south facade of Building 7. That we know. If it exists, let's see it. Also, Here are some more statements from witnesses that I don't think have been properly addressed by some of the members on this message board: - Dedicated to those that lost their lives in the attacks on September 11, 2001 - Powerhouse Collection of 9-11 Controlled Demolition Quotes (compiled by Stallion4, 11-9-05) 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.” Link to quote: 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" Link to quote: http://sfgate.com/gate/pictures/2005/09/10...rin_deshore.pdf "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... ...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 Link to quote: http://september11.ceenews.com/ar/electric...trical_supplys/ 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 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' Video: http://911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos...n_firehouse.mpg 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.... Link to article: 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: 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." Video: 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: 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 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... Link to article: 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... Link to Neil deGrasse Tyson's email: http://www.planetary.org/html/society/advi...t11account.html 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. Link to article: 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 9/11 hero, William Rodriguez, who was the last person out of the north tower, states that there was a massive explosion in the North Tower BEFORE the plane hit: "When I heard the sound of the explosion, the floor beneath my feet vibrated, the walls started cracking and it everything started shaking "Seconds after the first massive explosion below in the basement still rattled the floor, I hear another explosion from way above... Although I was unaware at the time, this was the airplane hitting the tower, it occurred moments after the first explosion. "I know there were explosives placed below the trade center. "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. "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." Link to quotes: http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/artic...18131/28031.htm “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: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/w..._demolition.mpg Excerpt from a radio interview with Indira Singh, ground zero rescue worker and 9/11 whistleblower. She says that she and others were told to move away from Building 7, by persons that she thought were members of the FDNY, because they were "going to have to bring it down": 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... ...we were setting up triages as close to the pile as possible… so 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... 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 excerpts 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://tinyurl.com/7dww8 "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 demolition of Building 7 in the PBS documentary "America Rebuilds", which aired in September of 2002 Video: http://www.911blogger.com/files/video/wtc7_pbs.WMV Audio: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/PULLIT.mp3 In the same documentary, America Rebuilds, a clean up worker at ground zero uses the term "pull" when preparing for the controlled demolition of Building 6: "... we're getting ready to pull building six." Audio: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/pull-it2.mp3 "If you've seen many of the managed demolitions where they implode a building and they cause it to essentially to fall vertically because they cause all of the vertical columns to fail simultaneously, that's exactly what it looked like and that's what happened" - Matthys Levy, Structural Engineer and co author of Why buildings Fall Down Video: http://www.freepressinternational.com/discovery.html The fact that WTC-7 fell down symmetrically, onto its own footprint very neatly, even though fires were just observed on one side of the building. A symmetrical collapse, as observed, requires the simultaneous "pulling" of support beams. By my count, there were 24 core columns and 57 perimeter columns in WTC-7. Heat transport considerations for steel beams heated by fire suggest that failure of even a few columns at the same time is very small. Adding in the Second Law of Thermodynamics ("law of increasing entropy") leads to the conclusion that the likelihood of near-symmetrical collapse of the building due to fires (the "government" theory) -- requiring as it does near-simultaneous failure of many support columns -- is infinitesimal. Yet near-symmetrical collapse of WTC-7 was observed. "I have performed other analyses regarding the WTC collapses on 9-11-01 which may be of interest --let me know if you're interested. The matter is highly interesting to me as a physicist -- and as a citizen of the United States. I conclude that the evidence for pre-positioned explosives in WTC 7 (also in towers 1 and 2) is truly compelling." - Steven E. Jones, Professor of Physics/BYU, in an email sent to his colleagues concerning the World Trade Center collapses Why WTC Steel Towers Collapsed at One Blow September 20, 2001 english.people.com.cn Professor Shi Yongjiu, director of civil engineering department of Qinghua University and an expert on steel structure, guesses that the lower part of the WTC twin towers may got seriously damaged. According to steel structure's mechanical nature, the towers shouldn't collapse as late as an hour later after the planes slammed into. What's more, it should be in a way to topple over gradually instead of crashing down as seen in videotapes. It looks more like a directional blast in doing the job of destruction, so he feels that huge damages must have been done at the lower part of the towers. Link to article: http://english.people.com.cn/english/20010...0920_80655.html Explosives Planted in Towers, New Mexico Tech Expert Says Albuquerque Journal, September, 2001 "My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse "It would be difficult for something from the plane to trigger an event like that "It could have been a relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points - Van Romero, Vice President for Research and Economic Development at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology and a major authority on the effects of explosions on buildings (Romero has since retracted his statement, saying "Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail."). Original Link to quote http://www.abqjournal.com/aqvan09-11-01.htm Archived link of Romero's quote: http://www.world-action.co.uk/explosives.html New Mexico Tech Explosives Expert 'Flip-Flops' On WTC Controlled Demo Theory; Refuses To Explain Why http://news.baou.com/main.php?action=recent&rid=20284 Related 9-11 Controlled Demolition Articles: Taking a Closer Look: Hard Science and the Collapse of the World Trade Center by David Heller BS: Physics Bard College MA: S. F. Inst. Architecture Architect and Builder http://www.garlicandgrass.org/issue6/Dave_Heller.cfm 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 Building Demolition Videos: * 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 Secret Evil of 9-11 20 minute (12mb) video combining music, videos of the collapses, interview clips and minimalist on-screen text to create a very effective introduction to the many oddities of the events of 9-11. Video: http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/vid...Evil-of-911.wmv The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions Professor David Ray Griffin's 9-11 talk at the University of Wisconsin (April, 2005) Aired on C-SPAN 2's BookTV Description: David Ray Griffin takes a critical look at the official 9/11 Commission Report. Professor Griffin argues that "omissions and distortions" in the report amount to a cover-up by government officials and says that the available evidence suggests that the Bush administration was complicit in the 9/11 attacks. Professor Griffin covers topics he says have been inadequately answered by the commission. These include questions surrounding the attack on the Pentagon, the way in which the World Trade Center towers collapsed, and the behavior of President Bush and his Secret Service detail following notification that a second plane had hit the WTC. The talk was hosted by the Muslim- Jewish- Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth (www.mujca.com) and took place at the University of Wisconsin in Madison. Includes Q&A. Author Bio: David Ray Griffin is professor emeritus at the Claremont School of Theology, where he taught for over 30 years (retiring in 2004). He has authored or edited over two dozen books, including "God and Religion in the Postmodern World," "Religion and Scientific Naturalism," and "The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11." Video: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8765.htm Play in remote player: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/v...son_full_25.wmv A few 9-11 Related Websites http://www.911blogger.com/ http://www.911busters.com/ http://911research.wtc7.net/ http://www.911citizenswatch.org/ ~ Never Forget ! Thoughts? metamars 17th November 2005 - 04:48 AM QUOTE I don't know you, but I know your type. When asked to explain something, even if it'll only take you a few seconds to respond, you prefer to send the questioner on "busy work" assignments reading a 40-page thread; <br>Funny, but you impress me as the type that wants to waste tons of time of serious posters, and to not only not do even the minimum necessary to understand your opponents' arguments, but also to state your objections so poorly (not to mention in an insulting manner) that it seems self-evident (to me, anyway) that you have no real interest in understanding them. Perhaps I've gotten the wrong impression of you, but I must say it strikes me as very strange that you wouldn't want confirmation from a Ph.D. level physicist (or better yet, 10 or 20) of your position. I did, after all, present calculations that are accessible to physicists, not the "logical", qualitative arguments so often presented by laymen (both pro and con) that often show a total ignorance not only of physics, but also sloppy thinking that wouldn't fly in any intellectual pursuit that required careful thought with a modicum of rigour. Or so it appears to me. QUOTE (-> QUOTE I don't know you, but I know your type. When asked to explain something, even if it'll only take you a few seconds to respond, you prefer to send the questioner on "busy work" assignments reading a 40-page thread; <br>Funny, but you impress me as the type that wants to waste tons of time of serious posters, and to not only not do even the minimum necessary to understand your opponents' arguments, but also to state your objections so poorly (not to mention in an insulting manner) that it seems self-evident (to me, anyway) that you have no real interest in understanding them. Perhaps I've gotten the wrong impression of you, but I must say it strikes me as very strange that you wouldn't want confirmation from a Ph.D. level physicist (or better yet, 10 or 20) of your position. I did, after all, present calculations that are accessible to physicists, not the "logical", qualitative arguments so often presented by laymen (both pro and con) that often show a total ignorance not only of physics, but also sloppy thinking that wouldn't fly in any intellectual pursuit that required careful thought with a modicum of rigour. Or so it appears to me. I don't know you, but I know your type. When asked to explain something, even if it'll only take you a few seconds to respond, you prefer to send the questioner on "busy work" assignments reading a 40-page thread; <br>For a guy who claims to have spent 4 years studying the issue, you seem highly resistant to extending your efforts just a little further. Perhaps it's time for you to retire from 911 UnTruth activities, and you should be spending your time elsewhere..... QUOTE I've also taken to task a PhD that made a physics-based argument regarding thermite bombs in the towers and confronted him with some emails I exchanged with a PhD in physics at MIT; when so-confronted, even though he was a PhD, he dropped into the same conspiracy mode as you'll find on any kook board. <br>Your willingness to generalize onto all serious, technical types this one incident does nothing to impress upon me how serious, and fair-minded, you truly are. QUOTE (-> QUOTE I've also taken to task a PhD that made a physics-based argument regarding thermite bombs in the towers and confronted him with some emails I exchanged with a PhD in physics at MIT; when so-confronted, even though he was a PhD, he dropped into the same conspiracy mode as you'll find on any kook board. <br>Your willingness to generalize onto all serious, technical types this one incident does nothing to impress upon me how serious, and fair-minded, you truly are. So being a physicist or a PhD is not an automatic guarantee of logic, Absolutely correct. At least we agree on something. Jones has called for a multi-disciplinary, serious (read: many people), international investigation into the WTC collapses. Science doesn't depend on appeals to authority, least of all authorities who hold minority opinions. Peer review is essential to good science. How could it be otherwise? So really, if you do trouble yourself and follow my suggestion, please consider taking a few more steps and talking to additional physicists. And since you're in a physics department, talking to the "real deals", why not share Hoffman's paper with them, also? It's really much more relevant to the debate, anyway, IMO. And while you're at it, why not take your hero Schneibster's objections to Hoffman's paper and get their take on that? After all, Schneibster insisted that Hoffman committed a large error by ignoring the heat generated by pulverising concrete. I showed, in detail, that his objections had no merit. Why not ask the "big boys"? It's a little unfair to judge Schniebster on this basis alone, and I do respect some of the calculations and points he has made. But you are in serious need of being disillusioned, as it seems to me you are also being irrational in swallowing the arguments of 'authorities' who just happen to have the same basic beliefs as you do. QUOTE and your desire to only talk to a college professor is transparent. <br>I find this funny. I'll leave it to other readers to judge just who is being 'transparently obfuscating' (what I presume you meant), and who is not. mickeydoolittle 17th November 2005 - 04:57 AM All government shills cannot debunk the points below: http://thewebfairy.com/911/demolition/close.htm - Video evidence of controlled demolition http://thewebfairy.com/911/demolition/controlled.htm - First Demolition close-up http://thewebfairy.com/911/demolition/heath.htm - Demolition squibs http://thewebfairy.com/911/demolition/demolitions.htm - Controlled Demolition videos Foxx 17th November 2005 - 05:21 AM Stallion4 - an excellent detailed report which will not be responded to point by point, but will be cherry-picked for a word or sentence which they think they might have a hope of responding to. After Schneibsters reliance on 'cherry-picked' firefighter testimony, It will be interesting to hear how he justifies total belief in 2 or 3 witnesses which appear to support his position, but then turns around and completely dismisses far more numerous witnesses (fire-fighters and others) simply because they do not support his position. Although I am aware of Indira Singh (related to the PTECH situation), I was unaware that she was right in the thick of the events of that day, and her testimony about the pre-knowledge of the collapse of WTC 7 was news to me. Also very curious about the photographer who didn't take any pictures of great gaping holes with infernos spewing forth from the same on the south side of # 7... even though you'd think he hardly would have missed that picture. Great Post ! ***************** Yesitdid QUOTE Originally posted by Yesitdid Had some other agency steel that was from WTC 7? Yes, did NIST metalurgy group have it to examine? NO! <br>Amazing contortions in sophistry, YesItDid... "some other agency had steel from WTC 7". Let me define what I mean by 'sophistry', so you don't misunderstand my meaning.... QUOTE (-> QUOTE Originally posted by Yesitdid Had some other agency steel that was from WTC 7? Yes, did NIST metalurgy group have it to examine? NO! <br>Amazing contortions in sophistry, YesItDid... "some other agency had steel from WTC 7". Let me define what I mean by 'sophistry', so you don't misunderstand my meaning.... Noun: 1. Plausible but fallacious argumentation. 2. A plausible but misleading or fallacious argument. <br>Now, let me explain how I see your above statement as an example of a ploy you often use. First, let me say it may not be intentional sophistry on your part - maybe it is just the way your brain processes information and you actually believe that what you are saying is truthful and 'logicial'. Nevertheless, it is not; (at least not from my perception of reality) Your above quote sounds 'plausible' in one sense ... that 'somehow' there is more than one 'agency' studying the WTC 'collapses'. This erroneous/fallacious conclusion might be arrived at by not understanding the roles numerous different 'agencies' have played in the investigation. 'Agencies' such as BPAT, FEMA, SEAoNY, etc, etc, etc. Although these are different organizations, they weren't acting as truly independant agencies each doing their own separate and independant investigations. The early group (BPAT, SEAoNY, etc were all acting under the 'umbrella' of FEMA, who at that time had the ultimate jurisdiction. Once FEMA made a laughing stock of themselves with their ludicrous pseudo-scientific analysis, pressure was put on the government to do a better investigation. Victims relatives groups, fire-engineering groups, congress and others finally exerted enough pressure on the Bush administration to appoint another broader investigation (even though the administration did everything in their power to squash any further investigation). NIST was then appointed to the role of the investigative body. As NIST took charge of the investigation they became the legal custodian of all documentation and steel samples previously collected for the forensic examination. Consider NIST as the 'prosecutors' of the case. NIST takes over from a previous 'prosecuting team' and the first thing they do is to gather all documentation on the collection, storage, treatment, and who exactly is in current possession of all forensic evidence in the case. Now IIRC Barnett & Biederman were involved with the FEMA investigations and were 'in charge' of one aspect of the metallurgy studies under FEMA. Also, IIRC when NIST took over the investigation Worcester Polytech Institute already had 'possession' of anomalous 'melted steel' samples from WTC, and Barnett, Biederman, and Sisson had charge over the investigation / metallurgical studies. Now, as I see it you (and others) want to separate WPI from NIST. Fair enough - they are not the same 'agency'. But here is where, (imo) the 'sophistry' comes in: You seem to take the fact that they are separate 'agencies', then in some convoluted fashion you want to draw from that ... that because they are 'separate'; one 'agency' had possession of forensic evidence, while another mysterious "NIST metallurgy group" therefore did not have it to examine, and therefore they could not state that 'they' (NIST) themselves had 'recovered any steel from WTC 7. It all sounds like a 'plausible' explaination, (when you leave out all sorts of important factors: e.g.- the difference between possession and custody). Do you somehow think that WPI / Barnett / Biederman have ever had 'legal possession' over WTC 7 steel, which somehow superceeded the custody which NIST has over all forensic evidence related to the WTC investigation? Your statement... QUOTE Had some other agency steel that was from WTC 7? Yes,    did NIST metalurgy group have it to examine? NO <br>...as an 'explaination' is completely fallacious and therefore sophist. NIST has ultimate legal possession/custody of ALL hard forensic evidence (the steel recovered), along with all documentation regarding the collection, storage, and testing done on all steel samples recovered from WTC...including steel from WTC 7. The mysterious 'NIST metallurgy group' you speak of is not in some NIST lab where all the metallurgy tests are run by NIST-jacketed 'engineers'. There are / have-been, numerous independant labs who have performed much of the testing and metallurgical analysis under the auspices of NIST... such as WPI (Barnett & Biederman). NIST is completely aware of all information related to the WTC 7 samples which FEMA examined in the first place, and then turned over to WPI for further in depth analysis and study. There are apparently only 236? pieces of steel saved out of hundreds of thousands. These are like gold to a forensic investigation. The 'prosecutor' in charge of the forensic investigation does not just 'lose', 'misplace', or 'forget about' any forensic evidence under 'his' custody. He knows at all times, and has all documentation on it's history, current location, and tests performed and suggested. To imply that somehow this 'alleged' NIST metallurgy group, is somehow separate from WPI, and has acted somehow 'independantly' of NIST in it's forensic examinations is pure nonsense. It is 'bs logic' (sophistry) which is dependant on semantics and interpretations of words not intended, yet twisted, so as to plausibly indicate a totally separate meaning from that intended. WPI (Barnett / Biederman) were/are part of your so-called NIST metallurgy group. To say that NIST doesn't know about, or hasn't 'bothered' about the WTC 7 steel that one of their own subcontracted engineering departments has been studying (or at least been attempting to further study), can only be believed by those who are desperate to 'prove' that there is nothing wrong with the investigation. They have the full history of that steel from the whos & hows & whys of collection, through the transferral of possession of such steel from the time of it's collection to the current date, and have all documentation of all studies done on every piece of steel. However, the ONLY steel collected from wtc 7 were pieces representing this unheard of anomaly which "shocked fire-wise engineers". The sample(s) were chosen as representative of actions which were observed on numerous structural members. It certainly would have been a boon to have saved ALL these melted columns and beams, but unfortunately, for some reason, 'someone' decided that a few samples were good enough to be 'representative' of numerous other steel columns & beams. C'est la vie. We have to live with the fact that persons acting in violation of state and federal laws decided to dispose of the hard material evidence (or the vast majority of it). All we have left are a few precious samples, and now NIST has decided that... because the WTC 7 hard factual evidence does not fit (at all) with their 'smoke & mirrors' explaination of the # 7 'collapse'... They are trying to 'bury' the evidence. First, by refusing any further funding and studies into the cause of these extraordinary 'meltings', and now by claiming that "No Steel was Recovered from WTC 7". These are not just some unimportant isolated periphery pieces of steel irrelevant to the investigation... they hold the key to what actually happened. Obviously, if main structural columns and beams are melting apart, at some point the building will collapse. If enough 'melt' at key load bearing locations, I see no problem in getting the building to collapse right to the ground, and if the 'melting' points are arranged properly a building can be brought down just like in a controlled implosion demolition. (the difference being - rather than cutting the columns at the proper structural points with conventional explosives, the cutting action could be performed with powerful military grade incendiaries. Regardless of what 'could have' been done, and what is the actual truth... to attempt to 'bury' such significant evidence, and claim now that... 'it never happened'; 'we never collected any steel from wtc 7'; and therefore we have no 'record-of' such melted wtc 7 steel' ... hence, we do not have to report on this 'melting' of steel columns and turning 1" thick steel into paper thin scrolled 'swiss cheese'. Give your head a shake, and wake-up. Steel structural parts of WTC 7 were recovered, documented, and studied (until NIST cut off funding, thereby terminating the studies). They are lying... get over it. Schneibster 17th November 2005 - 05:32 AM QUOTE (frater plecticus+) Where is the physics argument to support the official wtc 7 collapse conspiracy story ? There isn´t one, because it doesn´t exist, it doesn´t exist because it can´t. Actually, yes it does; you just weren't paying attention. The serious physics arguments were centered around whether the impact damage combined with the fires in the towers were sufficient to bring them down. But the case is much more clear-cut for 7: the fires burned for over five hours, in a building that had already suffered impact damage (apparently extensive, according to the testimony). Only three times has a serious fire burned in a building that had also suffered impact damage, and in all three cases the building fell down. And THAT is what's the same about those three buildings. QUOTE (frater plecticus+) I see nobody is being converted to the official conspiracy theory (OCT). What I see is people who want to believe that there was demolition, and are refusing to accept or address evidence against it. It reminds me strongly of people who will not accept or address evidence against creationism, evidence in favor of global warming, and evidence against alien-piloted UFOs and psychic phenomena. Very strongly. On the other hand, there are also a large number of people who actually have examined the evidence, and present it and discuss it, and look at ALL of the evidence, and most of them seem to have come to the conclusion that there was no demolition. You can tell them, because they place no limits on what they examine; whereas the foil-hat crowd always ignore evidence, and become insulting if you insist that they provide some actual concrete answer to it. This is observable on this very thread, and the evidence is compelling. QUOTE (frater plecticus+) What I do see however, is more and more professionals, scientists and politicians willing to speak publicly surrounding the abnormalities in the 9-11 OCT. I see one, and he's not even qualified to be speaking in the first place. He's an ECONOMIST. Greeeeaaaaat. Let's see what all the proctologists have to say about it too, shall we? If I take a poll of proctologists and they all say that they fell down on their own, will you believe that they fell down on their own??? (Apologies to the proctologists for insulting them by comparing them to economists.) QUOTE (frater plecticus+) 2 illegal wars (one with occupation) leading to the direct death of at least 100 000 humans, on the most laughable and inadmissable evidence, that managed to apparently resolve the entire OCT (that occured in a physical, moral and economic vacuum.) Still harping that tune, are you? Friend, it's all good; but I hate to have to tell you that I advocate impeaching the pResident. Not for 9/11; for lying to Congress to get the vote he wanted so he could have a war. There are some people in Congress who unless I am far mistaken have it in mind, too. Conyers comes to mind. So does Teddy Kennedy and so does Kerry. Mid-term congressional elections are comin' up, too. Think we could get his sorry a** with a Democratic Congress? I d**n betcha. Not to mention an actual investigation, with LEGS, mind you, of what happened in Ohio and with what Clinton Curtis had to say. And Fitzgerald is still investigatin', so there's a pretty good probability that Turd Blossom is gone, and he may even get Prick Cheney. Now, that would be SWEET: Turd Blossom, Prick, and Shrub in one fell swoop, and a bunch of Reprehensibles runnin' around like chickens with their heads cut off tryin' ta figure out who's next on the pot. I don't reckon it can go that good; but I hold out hope nevertheless. But lemme tell you: you're never gettin' a SINGLE ONE of them with this horsepucky. It's a waste of time. IMO, it's liberal bait, and always has been. You ever hear the term, "ratf**king?" If not, I suggest you read All the President's Men by Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. Pay special attention to Haldeman and Erlichmann's adventures in college. I suggest you've been ratf**ked. mickeydoolittle 17th November 2005 - 05:45 AM QUOTE (Shneibster the idiotic shill+) What I see is people who want to believe that there was demolition, and are refusing to accept or address evidence against it. . Aww..... stop crying now you stupid shill. If you can't handle disagreements and people who won't lay down to your make believe twistaround crap, go troll another forum. Looking at this thread, the only ones providing references and links are the ones who don't believe the official story. There is enough video evidence in this thread alone that prove the WTC collapses were controlled demolitions. On the other hand, all the shneibster shills only deny, deny deny. QUOTE (Shneibster the idiotic shill+) What I see is people who want to believe that there was demolition, and are refusing to accept or address evidence against it. . What I see are shneibster shills who don't want to believe that there were controlled demolitions, and are refusing to accept or address evidence that is constantly being slapped unto their lying faces....... http://thewebfairy.com/911/demolition/close.htm - Video evidence of controlled demolition http://thewebfairy.com/911/demolition/controlled.htm - First Demolition close-up http://thewebfairy.com/911/demolition/heath.htm - Demolition squibs http://thewebfairy.com/911/demolition/demolitions.htm - Controlled Demolition videos Guest 17th November 2005 - 06:05 AM Dear Is that so? Sir, Please go back and read where I said>>>> And also, any building compromised from the inside-out like the fires did to the WTC ones would naturally tend to collapse as observed in all three WTC building collapses.<<<< Obviously where a building doesn't have a similar core support structure vulnerable to the same compromising factors as present in the WTC cases, and where that building's wasn't compromised as were the WTC ones from the inside-out under the same massive-impact/fuel-load/structural-vulnerabilities, then obviously that building will fall neither similarly or not at all. The obvious differences in the core-compromise-requirements will then be sufficient explanation for why all your exampled buildings did not fall as I described would happen if the circumstances were similar/identical to the WTC 'compromised internal support structure' collapses. I hope this helps you. mickeydoolittle 17th November 2005 - 06:18 AM QUOTE (shneibster shill as guest+) Obviously where a building doesn't have a similar core support structure vulnerable to the same compromising factors as present in the WTC cases, and where that building's wasn't compromised as were the WTC ones from the inside-out under the same massive-impact/fuel-load/structural-vulnerabilities, then obviously that building will fall neither similarly or not at all. The obvious differences in the core-compromise-requirements will then be sufficient explanation for why all your exampled buildings did not fall as I described would happen if the circumstances were similar/identical to the WTC 'compromised internal support structure' collapses. Basically what this shneibster shill is saying is that the WTC towers had a weak core. If that is his arguement, he is saying the WTC towers were not strong enough to sustain a single airliner hit and that the fires further weakened the broken cores. What he is implying is that the WTC towers were so poorly designed -- so poorly designed that even black smoke type fires were easily able to melt the entire steel building frames within less than 2 hours. What he is failing to point out, is that the WTC 7 collapsed in the same way as the Twin Towers. Was its core hit? Nope. Was the fires inside bad enough? Nope. He's also failing to point out that the South Tower's core was not directly hit, because the plane that hit the South Tower, only hit the corner edge of the building. Yet, the South Tower fell even faster than the North Tower. Schneibster 17th November 2005 - 06:25 AM QUOTE Why are all the people in this thread who support the official story unwilling to address this issue (which has been repeatedly posted in this discussion). The issue that the WTC 7 fell the same way the towers did even though it didn't get hit by a plane, and why the empire state building didn't collapse even though it got hit by a plane? Sigh. OK. Here goes. Pay attention now, this is NOT the first time. First, the Empire State building was not built in the same manner as any of the three buildings that fell down. It was built in a time when buildings were built using much more material than they are today. That's because the engineers who designed it didn't know as much as the ones who designed the WTC buildings. Could it possibly be because it was built before WWII? Gee, I wonder. NOT. It's mostly built out of huge reinforced concrete blocks, with huge steel girders holding them up; there's 330,000 metric tonnes of steel and concrete in it. In comparison, a single WTC tower with nearly five times the floor space was made with only 90,000 tonnes of steel and 140,000 tonnes of concrete. Gee, Batman, do you suppose the Empire State Building might be just a little bit more resistant to impact? Second, the plane that struck the Empire state building was a B-25 Mitchell, not a B-17 Flying Fortress or B-29 Superfortress. The Mitchell is a much smaller plane, in fact small enough that when Jimmy Doolittle flew the raid on Tokyo that is documented in the book and movie, 30 Seconds Over Tokyo, the first raid on Japan by US forces in WWII, they flew the planes off aircraft carriers. You could never fly a large bomber off an aircraft carrier; it's not long enough for the plane to get up to flying speed. But a Michell? Yeah, you can do that- if you have balls. And they did. The B-25 Mitchell is a 10-ton twin-engine aircraft. The standard full fuel load is 670 US gallons of high-octane aviation gasoline. It was travelling at about 225mph when it struck. It was not carrying a bomb load, because it was going to pick up an officer, and the dry weight is just over 21,000 lbs; the fuel would add another 3,750 lbs, for a total weight of 24,750 lbs, just over thirteen tons. This assumes that the fuel tanks were full, and that is a very conservative assumption, because the plane was to land at Newark airport in New Jersey; most likely it was a lot less than half full, but we'll go with it. The Boeing 767 carries a maximum fuel capacity of 24,000 US gallons; the fuel load alone weighs more than eight times the entire B-25 fully loaded with bombs and fully fueled with all auxiliary tanks, at well over 192,000 lbs. Including the plane and the cargo and passengers, the 767s weight is more than TEN TIMES the weight of the Mitchell. In addition, the 767s were moving at MORE THAN TWICE the speed of the Mitchell, which means even if they weighed the same, they would have had FOUR TIMES as much kinetic energy; in the event, it's more like FORTY TIMES as much. And by the way, since kinetic energy is the velocity squared times the mass, if it was moving twice as fast and massed ten times as much, that would be forty times the kinetic energy; but you'd probably better consult with someone who can multiply to make sure I didn't make any mistakes there, big guy. So what if I throw a pebble at you, and then The Big Unit throws a fastball at you, why would you go to the hospital? Hello? Is there anyone in there? If you want to get real, it's probably more like, if a two-year-old girl balls her fist up and hits you, and then I tag you with a baseball bat. Get up; it's just the same, ISN'T IT??? OK, now let's look at the collapse of 7 WTC and the collapses of the Twin Towers. Please tell me in what manner these were "the same." You mean, they were all buildings and they all collapsed? Neat. Did you have a point there somewhere? What precisely was it? Why don't you be a little more specific about what you mean when you say, "the same," so I can show everybody how stupid you are some more. Bye now. Schneibster 17th November 2005 - 06:27 AM Mickey Do-little seems aptly named. I think that will about take care of that. mickeydoolittle 17th November 2005 - 06:29 AM Hey shithead....care to address these? http://thewebfairy.com/911/demolition/close.htm - Video evidence of controlled demolition http://thewebfairy.com/911/demolition/controlled.htm - First Demolition close-up http://thewebfairy.com/911/demolition/heath.htm - Demolition squibs http://thewebfairy.com/911/demolition/demolitions.htm - Controlled Demolition videos Can you also explain why the South tower while being hit only at its corner by the airliner, fell faster than the North tower? Also, provide evidence for your arguements instead of posting repetitive crap that have no links. Schneibster 17th November 2005 - 06:31 AM I see no reason to bother to continue to respond to either Faux or metamars considering both are entirely pwned: Faux as a liar, and metamars as a physics naif. If you'd care to go back and answer adoucette's and my questions from back about 30 pages, I might consider it some more; as it stands, neither of you is worth further attention. mickeydoolittle 17th November 2005 - 06:36 AM QUOTE ( shneibster the sh*thead+) I see no reason to bother to continue to respond to either Faux or metamars considering both are entirely pwned: Faux as a liar, and metamars as a physics naif. If you'd care to go back and answer adoucette's and my questions from back about 30 pages, I might consider it some more; as it stands, neither of you is worth further attention. <br>Are you done crying yet you worthless piece of crap? The only one constantly being owned here is you and your pseudoscience. You sir, are a moron...really. You never provide links, all you do is deny and lie. And on top of that, you cry about getting insulted and getting your feelings hurt. You still haven't addressed these........ http://thewebfairy.com/911/demolition/close.htm - Video evidence of controlled demolition http://thewebfairy.com/911/demolition/controlled.htm - First Demolition close-up http://thewebfairy.com/911/demolition/heath.htm - Demolition squibs http://thewebfairy.com/911/demolition/demolitions.htm - Controlled Demolition videos Again, can you also explain why the South tower while being hit only at its corner by the airliner, fell faster than the North tower? Answer these you dumbass. Schneibster 17th November 2005 - 06:56 AM stallion, congratulations, well done. You have managed to at least produce SOMETHING NEW that actually ADDRESSES THE QUESTIONS, as opposed to others who can't seem to get it through their heads that simply repeating the exact same stupid thing over and over and over and over doesn't make it any truer than when it was first pwned. I do have some problems with your witness, however, and I have serious problems with the assumptions you are making about whether a photographer woulda/coulda/shoulda/oughta have taken pictures of 7 WTC. I find it unfortunate that, although new, the data presented are not conclusive. Since all we have is testimentary evidence, I have to point out that I have provided the testimony of three separate eyewitnesses, and not merely eyewitnesses but firemen, and not even merely firemen but fire commanders who are experienced at evaluating structures for integrity before deciding whether to send men they are responsible for into a burning building. All three indicate that there was extensive structural damage to 7 WTC, and that they either were unwilling or would have been had they had command, to do so. On the other hand, you have a person whose English is not broken (most Indians speak at least passable English and understand it better than they speak it if they do not speak it well; this is the legacy of their former place in the British Empire, and the result of their desire to make their fortunes in the US, like many of our own families did in earlier times) but for whom it nevertheless is a second language, who is neither qualified to make structural judgements nor makes any statement pro or con regarding damage to the structure in any case, and who (quite pointedly, IMO) is in fact never asked whether she saw this very important piece of evidence. Anyone who has studied these matters for any length of time cannot help but be aware that any description of the south face of 7 after the fall of 1 is of the greatest interest; yet, the question is simply never asked. I have to ask, why is that? In regard to her answers regarding what she was told, I was not at all satisfied with the recording of her responses. There is a phenomenon known as "leading the witness," and I believe that there was an abundance of that during that interview; I'm sorry, but I just don't find it to be credible. You are welcome to your own opinion, but I have to repeat that, credible or not, she does not address the central issue, nor if she did would she be qualified, and finally, I got three and you got one. I am, unfortunately, completely uninterested in excuses why no pictures were taken by this photographer. I am interested in a picture of that time and place. If you had one, it would be of the greatest interest; in its absence, hand waving regarding what mighta/shoulda/coulda/woulda/oughta have happened is uninteresting, particularly in the face of the testimony of three experienced, qualified, and reliable witnesses. Trying to turn it 'round on me, and make it my job to prove why there are no such photographs was a neat try, but in the face of those three witnesses, it's a losing effort in the end. The further quotes have been addressed over and over and over again; and I already said I'm not repeating the same answers over and over and over again. So you can go back and look those answers up; I'm relatively certain you know what they are already. Nevertheless, don't be downhearted; you've done far better than many another. While your witness didn't stand up to a thorough examination, you did manage to produce some testimony that was both relevant and new. And for that, I congratulate you. And it was a good try to turn it around; but it just won't do. You're going to have to impeach the testimony of three experienced, qualified, and reliable witnesses, who have nothing to gain by giving false testimony and who in fact probably could not be tortured into doing so. Do please put up anything else- NEW, that is- that you might have or find. mickeydoolittle 17th November 2005 - 07:05 AM QUOTE (shneibster the expert wannabe+) While your witness didn't stand up to a thorough examination, you did manage to produce some testimony that was both relevant and new. And for that, I congratulate you. And it was a good try to turn it around; but it just won't do. You're going to have to impeach the testimony of three experienced, qualified, and reliable witnesses, who have nothing to gain by giving false testimony and who in fact probably could not be tortured into doing so. Do please put up anything else- NEW, that is- that you might have or find. And who are your "qualified" and "reliable" witnesses? Are they real people or your imaginary friends (as you seem to use many)? First of all, Stallion gave us overwhelming evidence. All you are doing is responding by saying "nice try, but it won't do". You are denying and always will. This obvious pattern of denial you are repeating is a clear characteristic of all shills who infiltrate message boards across the internet. When will you get it to your thick moronic skull that you are telegraphing your responses and are appearing as an obvious shill to everyone who reads this thread? Again, why did the South Tower collapse faster than the North tower, even though the plane that hit it, only hit its corner? Also, prove to us that your "reliable" and "qualified" witnesses are credible. Also again, for the 3rd straight time, you have continued to ignore these videos.... http://thewebfairy.com/911/demolition/close.htm - Video evidence of controlled demolition http://thewebfairy.com/911/demolition/controlled.htm - First Demolition close-up http://thewebfairy.com/911/demolition/heath.htm - Demolition squibs http://thewebfairy.com/911/demolition/demolitions.htm - Controlled Demolition videos Schneibster 17th November 2005 - 07:26 AM Do-little, if you can't be bothered to read the thread, I can't be bothered to respond to you. It's all there. Look for the links to testimony by three firemen who described the hole in the south face of WTC 7. frater plecticus 17th November 2005 - 08:06 AM Schneibster QUOTE Friend, it's all good; but I hate to have to tell you that I advocate impeaching the pResident. Not for 9/11; for lying to Congress to get the vote he wanted so he could have a war. <br> Why NOT 9-11, Schneibster? "On Veterans' Day (November 11), Bush addressed troops at an army base: "It is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began." He accused "some Democrats and anti-war critics" of lying in stating that "we manipulated the intelligence". Later, Bush spoke before troops at an air force base, where he stated that the Democrats "now rewriting the past" are "sending mixed signals to our troops and the enemy". The soldiers "deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted to send them into war continue to stand behind them". Unless "our will is strong", disunity will threaten "victory". While the "ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life" besieges us from without, the most insidious undermining comes from within. Thus an American president has updated the "stab in the back" theory of General Erich Ludendorff, who stated in February 1919 that "the political leadership disarmed the unconquered army and delivered over Germany to the destructive will of the enemy". Bush's adoption of the Ludendorff strategy of blaming weak politicians for military failure and exalting "will" sets him at odds with liberal democracy. His understanding of history also clashes with the conservative tradition that acknowledges human fallibility and respects the past. Bush's presidency is an effort to defy history, not only in America, writing on the world as a blank slate. Now he wants to erase memory of his actual record, substituting a counterfactual history. "Fellow citizens, we cannot escape history," said Lincoln. Never mind." Sidney Blumenthal, a former senior adviser to President Clinton, is the author of The Clinton Wars Schneibster 17th November 2005 - 08:24 AM Good question, frater. Because I don't think it can be proven. On the other hand, I DO think lying to congress can be proven; in fact, I think the only reason he's still President is because he has a Reprehensible congress, and they're so ideological that there's no way they'd ever vote for impeachment. But we got mid-terms comin right up, an we can fix that up if we keep people's minds on it (and don't distract them with crap we can't prove, which will cause them to dismiss us as "conspiracy nutters" and walk away). Lincoln said, "you can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time." And it's true. Hopefully they can keep their little minds focused on what's really going on. It's a shame the hurricanes didn't wait until next year. Then again, if the AMO is hotting up, it's a 40-year thing, and next year is gonna be worse than this year was, and THAT'S gonna really make people mad, 'cause Shrub's been going around saying "there's no global warming," and when somebody thinks their house is gonna get blown away (or floated away), they aren't gonna wanna listen to a buncha BS about how it ain't Shrub's fault. All you gotta do is make a practice of saying, "Gee, that was some pretty interesting weather we had last week, wasn't it? And there's no global warming." Pass it along. 'Nuffa that. It's off-topic. Let's move on and discuss some basic physics, shall we? frater plecticus 17th November 2005 - 08:39 AM But the 64 000 dollar question is, can basic physics explain the wtc7 collapse ? Can we separate the Iraq War from 9-11 ? It seems not QUOTE The turn against him in public opinion has been slowly considered and is therefore also firm. A majority believe his administration manipulated prewar intelligence to lead the country into the Iraq war, and two-thirds disapprove of his policy on the war. His political capital already appears spent, and he has retreated from the ruins of his grandiose agenda into a defence of his past. In the immediate aftermath of the Iraq war, Bush was the man of action who never looked back, openly dismissive of history. "History. We don't know. We'll all be dead." But his obsessive interest in the subject is not posthumous. The Senate's decision to launch an investigation into prewar disinformation has provoked a furious reaction Schneibster 17th November 2005 - 09:09 AM Watch closely- see all the Reprehensible parrots line up in a row and go: "rewriting history... rewriting history... rewriting history" just like they all lined up in a row and went, "liberal media... liberal media... liberal media" and "flip flop... flip flop... flip flop" and "I am not a crook... I am not a crook... I am not a crook" and "tax and spend liberal... tax and spend liberal... tax and spend liberal." That's what Karl Rove did. It's called "framing the debate." In any case, I answered you about the physics of the collapse in 7 WTC; if you choose to keep doing the same thing the Reprehensibles are, I guess that's your business, but I'm not gonna listen, you mind? frater plecticus 17th November 2005 - 09:23 AM Can basic physics explain the wtc7 collapse ? Schneibster QUOTE In any case, I answered you about the physics of the collapse in 7 WTC <br> What started the sequence of events that led to the complete pulverization of WTC7 ? I said PHYSICS too, not some conspiracy theory patched together with impossible phone calls, indestructible passports and an almost unlimited supply of Korans. Show me the Science. The Math. wtc7 video http://plectic.com/wtc/wtc%207.m2v download (m2v) 9.3mb mpg2 wtc7 sound http://plectic.com/wtc/wtc%207.aif download (48khz) 2.41mb aiff mickeydoolittle 17th November 2005 - 09:28 AM QUOTE (shneibster+) Friend, it's all good; but I hate to have to tell you that I advocate impeaching the pResident. Not for 9/11; for lying to Congress to get the vote he wanted so he could have a war. <br>And if you did the independent research, you would understand why he lied to congress in the first place. If you did the research, you would see that Bush's motives for waging war with Iraq is connected to his war on "terrorism" and the PNAC (Project for a New American Century). Now think really hard on this.....the war on "terrorism" was caused because? Think, think , think.......... If you thought it over, you would understand that the war on "terrorism" was instigated because of the 9/11 attacks. So if Bush lied to congress so that he can enforce his war on "terrorism", that should give you a good reason to suspect the official story regarding the 9/11 attacks as well. But why can't you do this? I'll tell you why you cannot do this...because you are a shill and you are starting to realize that the readers can see past your repetitive defense for the official 9/11 story. To correct this, you try to make yourself look less of a shill and try to make yourself appear more believable by taking 2 points of view. The first, being that you are in favor of the official story of the 9/11 attacks, and second, that you aren't a Bush supporter (thus hoping to eliminate any chance that we might perceive you as a pro=government disinformation shill). You are a disinformation shill. A_HT is you. He/you admitted early in this thread about losing your job in the NIST. Now "A_HT" hasn't shown up in a while, because he already admitted it. So he/you decide to use a different username (hoping that you can appear credible again). And here you are. You are a disinformation shill. frater plecticus 17th November 2005 - 09:46 AM Where and when did the lies start ? Here´s a clue (to when) “ANGEL IS NEXT” From 10:00 a.m. to approximately 8:00 p.m. (on Sept. 11), U.S. government officials were not thinking that this was the work of Arab terrorists, but rather that it was an expression of a military coup being carried out by U.S.-based extremists who were capable of provoking a nuclear war. Réseau Voltaire, Paris, September 27, 2001 “Sheikh: They [the Americans] were terrified thinking there was a coup.” (“Bin Laden” tape of December 2001, Meyssan 2002 197) “AIR FORCE ONE IS NEXT” QUOTE Once in the airplane, Bush was in continuous contact with Cheney and others. Around this time, officials feared that as many as 11 airliners had been hijacked. (CBS,September 11, 2001) Some reports place Bush out of the loop because of communication difficulty, but out of the loop was his father’s line from Iran-contra. Shortly after takeoff, Cheney apparently informed Bush of “a credible threat” to Air Force One. (AP, September 13, 2001) US Representative Adam Putnam said he “had barely settled into his seat on Air Force One ... when he got the news that terrorists apparently had set their sights on the plane.” (Orlando Sentinel, September 14, 2001) The Secret Service had received an anonymous message saying: “Air Force One is next.” The caller spoke in the code words relating to Air Force One procedures. Colonel Mark Tillman, who was piloting Air Force One, was informed of the threat, and an armed guard was stationed at his cockpit door. The Associated Press reported that the threat came “within the same hour” as the Pentagon crash --before 10:00 AM, and approximately when the plane took off. (AP, September 13, 2001) The threat contained in this message, “Air Force One is next,” would appear to have been distinct from the earlier warning that came upon leaving Booker School, but this cannot be established with total certainty. Bush wanted to go to Washington, but he was overruled by the White House palace guard. Card told Bush, “We’ve got to let the dust settle before we go back.” (St. Petersburg Times, September 8, 2002) The plane apparently stayed over Sarasota until it was decided where Bush should go. Accounts conflict, but through about 10:35 AM (Washington Post, January 27, 2002), Air Force One “appeared to be going nowhere. The journalists on board -- all of whom were barred from communicating with their offices -- sensed that the plane was flying in big, slow circles.” (London Daily Telegraph, December 16, 2001) What was being discussed on the secure phone during this time? Was Cheney communicating the demands of the coup faction to Bush? Was Cheney reporting these demands, or was he joining in urging Bush to accept them? At various points in the narrative, Cheney appears to be acting not just as relayer of information, but as a spokesman for the secret government network which was in action on 9/11. It is thus Cheney, far more than Bush, who must be considered a prime suspect in any serious investigation of 9/11. According to Bob Woodward’s canonical mainstream account: “At about 10:30 AM Cheney reached Bush again on Air Force One, which was still on its way toward Washington. The White House had received a threat saying, ‘Angel is next.’ Since Angel was the codeword for Air Force One, it could mean that terrorists had inside information.” Allegedly because of this report, Cheney argued that Bush should not return to Washington. “There’s still a threat,” said Cheney. (Woodward 18) Within minutes, the plane turned away from Washington and flew to Louisiana instead. (Washington Post, January 27, 2002) Was this now a third threat, after the post-Booker threat and the “Air Force One is next” threat? Did the terrorist controllers now add the code word “Angel” to further document their insider status, and their possible access to nuclear codes? Or are we dealing with two versions of the same threat?  <br>This represents the single most important clue as to the sponsorship of 9/11, since it was at this point that the sponsors showed their hand. They were not located in a cave in Afghanistan, but were rather a network located high within the US government and military. It was a moment of capital importance, the thread which, if properly pulled, will unravel the entire fabric of 9/11 deceit. QUOTE (-> QUOTE Once in the airplane, Bush was in continuous contact with Cheney and others. Around this time, officials feared that as many as 11 airliners had been hijacked. (CBS,September 11, 2001) Some reports place Bush out of the loop because of communication difficulty, but out of the loop was his father’s line from Iran-contra. Shortly after takeoff, Cheney apparently informed Bush of “a credible threat” to Air Force One. (AP, September 13, 2001) US Representative Adam Putnam said he “had barely settled into his seat on Air Force One ... when he got the news that terrorists apparently had set their sights on the plane.” (Orlando Sentinel, September 14, 2001) The Secret Service had received an anonymous message saying: “Air Force One is next.” The caller spoke in the code words relating to Air Force One procedures. Colonel Mark Tillman, who was piloting Air Force One, was informed of the threat, and an armed guard was stationed at his cockpit door. The Associated Press reported that the threat came “within the same hour” as the Pentagon crash --before 10:00 AM, and approximately when the plane took off. (AP, September 13, 2001) The threat contained in this message, “Air Force One is next,” would appear to have been distinct from the earlier warning that came upon leaving Booker School, but this cannot be established with total certainty. Bush wanted to go to Washington, but he was overruled by the White House palace guard. Card told Bush, “We’ve got to let the dust settle before we go back.” (St. Petersburg Times, September 8, 2002) The plane apparently stayed over Sarasota until it was decided where Bush should go. Accounts conflict, but through about 10:35 AM (Washington Post, January 27, 2002), Air Force One “appeared to be going nowhere. The journalists on board -- all of whom were barred from communicating with their offices -- sensed that the plane was flying in big, slow circles.” (London Daily Telegraph, December 16, 2001) What was being discussed on the secure phone during this time? Was Cheney communicating the demands of the coup faction to Bush? Was Cheney reporting these demands, or was he joining in urging Bush to accept them? At various points in the narrative, Cheney appears to be acting not just as relayer of information, but as a spokesman for the secret government network which was in action on 9/11. It is thus Cheney, far more than Bush, who must be considered a prime suspect in any serious investigation of 9/11. According to Bob Woodward’s canonical mainstream account: “At about 10:30 AM Cheney reached Bush again on Air Force One, which was still on its way toward Washington. The White House had received a threat saying, ‘Angel is next.’ Since Angel was the codeword for Air Force One, it could mean that terrorists had inside information.” Allegedly because of this report, Cheney argued that Bush should not return to Washington. “There’s still a threat,” said Cheney. (Woodward 18) Within minutes, the plane turned away from Washington and flew to Louisiana instead. (Washington Post, January 27, 2002) Was this now a third threat, after the post-Booker threat and the “Air Force One is next” threat? Did the terrorist controllers now add the code word “Angel” to further document their insider status, and their possible access to nuclear codes? Or are we dealing with two versions of the same threat?  <br>This represents the single most important clue as to the sponsorship of 9/11, since it was at this point that the sponsors showed their hand. They were not located in a cave in Afghanistan, but were rather a network located high within the US government and military. It was a moment of capital importance, the thread which, if properly pulled, will unravel the entire fabric of 9/11 deceit. Foreign press organs, more critical than the controlled corporate media of the US, reported this story straight. The London Financial Times wrote that after Bush had taken off from Florida, “within an hour, an anonymous call reached the Secret Service. Using code words known only to the agency’s staff, the caller issued a chilling warning: ‘Air Force One is next.’” (Financial Times, September 14, 2001) The principal clue leading us to the existence of the rogue network behind 9/11 is the “Angel is next” threat. Since hasty attempts to deny that this ever existed came soon after 9/11, we pause to document the evidence that this call really did take place. In an interview with Tony Snow on Fox News Sunday, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice confirmed that the September 11 threat against President Bush’s life included a secret code name. SNOW: Sept. 11 there was a report that there was a coded message that said, “We’re going to strike Air Force One” that was using specific coded language and made the threat credible. Is that true? RICE: That is true. SNOW: So we have a mole somewhere? RICE: It’s not clear how this coded name was gotten. We’re a very open society and I don’t think it’s any surprise to anyone that leaks happen. So, I don’t know -- it’s possible the code name leaked a long time ago and was just used. SNOW: How on earth would that happen? RICE: I don’t know. I don’t know. We’re obviously looking very hard at the situation. But I will tell you that it was plenty of evidence from our point of view to have special measures taken at that moment to make sure the president was safe. This exchange was reported by Carl Limbacher of NewsMax.com, who added that “U.S. intelligence officials have not ruled out the possibility that a government mole may have given terrorists the top secret code language they used to deliver the threat ‘Air Force One is next’ as the World Trade Center and Pentagon were under attack.” (NewsMax.com, September 23, 2001) Of course, the real imperative was to consider whether the rogue network behind the attacks extended into the ranks of holders of top secret security clearances. The threat to Air Force One was repeated by others in the administration. In the September 12 White House briefing, Ari Fleischer told reporters, “We have specific and credible information that the White House and Air Force One were also intended targets of these attacks.” The next day Fleischer was asked, “[It was] yesterday reported that some of the people in the Pentagon were a little bit skeptical about your comments yesterday that the White House and Air Force One were attacked – were targets of attack, given that the plane had come from the south. What do you –” Fleischer: “Who are these people?” Reporter: “Well, I don’t know. They weren’t my sources, so…” Fleischer: “No. There’s – I wouldn’t have said it if it wasn’t true.” Reporter: “Can you confirm the substance of that threat that was telephoned in...that Air Force One is next and using code words?” Fleischer: “Yes, I can. That’s correct.”(September 13) On Meet the Press of September 16, Cheney began to back away from the story, telling Russert: “The president was on Air Force One. We received a threat to Air Force One -- came through the Secret Service ...” Russert: “A credible threat to Air Force One. You’re convinced of that.” Cheney: “I’m convinced of that. Now, you know, it may have been phoned in by a crank, but in the midst of what was going on, there was no way to know that. I think it was a credible threat, enough for the Secret Service to bring it to me.” (Meet the Press, September 16) Notice that the top-secret code words, the really sensitivepoint, have now disappeared. Still, the Bushmen were extremely sensitive to any impugning of their man’s courage under fire. A journalist who said Bush was “flying around the country like a scared child, seeking refuge in his mother’s bed after having a nightmare” and another who said Bush “skedaddled” were fired. (Washington Post, September 29, 2001) In the short term, the Bushmen were eager to use the threat incidents to defend their leader from the charge of cowardice, and also to provide a cover for the reasons that had actually caused him to flee across the country. However, the “Angel is next” story contained an explosive potential for the longer term, since by pointing toward the existence of highly-placed moles within the administration who had access to top secret code words and procedures, it threatened to explode the official myth of 9/11 which was then taking shape. As Bush gathered momentum with his “war on terrorism” and Afghan invasion, the need to use the “Angel” story for political cover diminished, and the need to protect the coherence of the official myth became paramount. It was at this time that the threat story began to be denied, not by officials speaking on the record, but by mysterious, anonymous leakers. One of these leaks came two weeks after 9/11: “Finally, there is this postscript to the puzzle of how someone presumed to be a terrorist was able to call in a threat against Air Force One using a scret code name for the president’s plane. Well, as it turns out, that simply never happened. Sources say White House staffers apparently misunderstood comments made by their security detail.” (Jim Stewart, CBS Evening News, September 25, 2001) An AP wire of the same day, also based on an anonymous leak, read: “[Administration officials have] been unsuccessful in trying to track down whether there was such a call, though officials still maintain they were told of a telephone threat Sept. 11 and kept Bush away from Washington for hours because of it.”(AP, September 25, 2001) <br>Summa Scientia Nihil Scire Schneibster 17th November 2005 - 10:00 AM Yo, numb nutz do-little, I read Crossing the Rubicon, and I hope you don't think this is the only place I post. Beg, borrow, or steal a clue, 'cos at this point, you're not worth talking to; you can't read, and you don't think it's a bad idea to try to teach your grandmother how to suck eggs. frater, the lies started when Goldwater lost the election. In 1969. If you think they invented this s**t for 9/11, BOY have I got news for you. This is still a waste of time. Do something interesting before my interest turns elsewhere. frater plecticus 17th November 2005 - 10:58 AM I read Crossing the Rubicon too. I´m actually posting snippets from "synthetic terror" by Wesbster Tarpley http://www.indymedia.org.uk/media/2005/07/317436.pdf QUOTE Goldwater was painted as a dangerous figure by the Johnson campaign, which countered Goldwater's slogan "In your heart, you know he's right" with the line "In your guts, you know he's nuts." Johnson himself did not mention Goldwater in his own acceptance speech at the 1964 Democratic National Convention, nor did he debate against Goldwater. Goldwater's provocative advocacy of aggressive tactics to prevent the spread of Communism in Asia led to effective counter-attacks from Lyndon Johnson and other liberals who feared that Goldwater would start a nuclear war if elected. The Johnson campaign ran a famous television commercial showing a scene in which a young girl is gathering daisies while a man performing a countdown is heard in the background; her frolicking is interrupted by the mushroom cloud of a nuclear explosion. Dubbed Daisy, it was meant to imply that Goldwater would start a nuclear war if elected. The commercial, which featured only a few spoken words of narrative and relied on imagery for its emotional impact, was one of the most provocative moments in American campaign history and is credited by many as being the birth of the modern style of negative television advertising. The ad ran only twice, and only in small local markets, but gained national attention through news coverage. (Goldwater's own rhetoric on nuclear war was viewed by many as quite uncompromising, a view buttressed by off-hand comments such as, "Let's lob one into the men's room at the Kremlin." <br> QUOTE (-> QUOTE Goldwater was painted as a dangerous figure by the Johnson campaign, which countered Goldwater's slogan "In your heart, you know he's right" with the line "In your guts, you know he's nuts." Johnson himself did not mention Goldwater in his own acceptance speech at the 1964 Democratic National Convention, nor did he debate against Goldwater. Goldwater's provocative advocacy of aggressive tactics to prevent the spread of Communism in Asia led to effective counter-attacks from Lyndon Johnson and other liberals who feared that Goldwater would start a nuclear war if elected. The Johnson campaign ran a famous television commercial showing a scene in which a young girl is gathering daisies while a man performing a countdown is heard in the background; her frolicking is interrupted by the mushroom cloud of a nuclear explosion. Dubbed Daisy, it was meant to imply that Goldwater would start a nuclear war if elected. The commercial, which featured only a few spoken words of narrative and relied on imagery for its emotional impact, was one of the most provocative moments in American campaign history and is credited by many as being the birth of the modern style of negative television advertising. The ad ran only twice, and only in small local markets, but gained national attention through news coverage. (Goldwater's own rhetoric on nuclear war was viewed by many as quite uncompromising, a view buttressed by off-hand comments such as, "Let's lob one into the men's room at the Kremlin." <br>Goldwater had a long-term interest in unidentified flying objects. Jenny Randles cites a letter from Goldwater to a curious constituent in 1957 regarding UFO reports, wherein Goldwater wrote, "I, frankly, feel there is a great deal to this." (Randles, 54) In the mid-1960s, Goldwater said he asked his friend General Curtis LeMay if there was any truth to the rumors that wreckage from the Roswell UFO incident had been stored at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. In response, says Goldwater, an angry LeMay refused to answer the question, gave him "holy hell", and advised him to never bring up the subject of UFOs again, at the risk of ending their friendship. (Clark, 58) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater GENERAL QUESTION : Can anyone identify the plane? It is footage shot the 11th of september 2001 somewhere in North America. THOSE ARE THE ONLY TWO FULLY-KNOWN CONSTANTS. The clip appears to show a "plane" diving towards earth. mystery plane 911-(one) video http://plectic.com/wtc/mystery_plane.m2v download (m2v) 7.8mb mpg2 mystery plane 911-(one) sound http://plectic.com/wtc/mystery_plane.aif download (48khz) 2.7mb aiff mystery plane 911-(two) video http://plectic.com/wtc/mystery_plane2.m2v download (m2v) 6.5mb mpg2 mystery plane 911-(two) sound http://plectic.com/wtc/mystery_plane2.aif download (48khz) 2.2mb aiff metamars 17th November 2005 - 02:57 PM QUOTE QUOTE (frater plecticus) Where is the physics argument to support the official wtc 7 collapse conspiracy story ? There isn´t one, because it doesn´t exist, it doesn´t exist because it can´t. QUOTE (Schneibster) Actually, yes it does; you just weren't paying attention. The serious physics arguments were centered around whether the impact damage combined with the fires in the towers were sufficient to bring them down. But the case is much more clear-cut for 7: the fires burned for over five hours, in a building that had already suffered impact damage (apparently extensive, according to the testimony). Only three times has a serious fire burned in a building that had also suffered impact damage, and in all three cases the building fell down. And THAT is what's the same about those three buildings. <br> QUOTE (-> QUOTE QUOTE (frater plecticus) Where is the physics argument to support the official wtc 7 collapse conspiracy story ? There isn´t one, because it doesn´t exist, it doesn´t exist because it can´t. QUOTE (Schneibster) Actually, yes it does; you just weren't paying attention. The serious physics arguments were centered around whether the impact damage combined with the fires in the towers were sufficient to bring them down. But the case is much more clear-cut for 7: the fires burned for over five hours, in a building that had already suffered impact damage (apparently extensive, according to the testimony). Only three times has a serious fire burned in a building that had also suffered impact damage, and in all three cases the building fell down. And THAT is what's the same about those three buildings. <br> QUOTE (frater plecticus) Can basic physics explain the wtc7 collapse ? QUOTE (Schneibster) In any case, I answered you about the physics of the collapse in 7 WTC QUOTE (frater plecticus) What started the sequence of events that led to the complete pulverization of WTC7 ? I said PHYSICS too, not some conspiracy theory patched together with impossible phone calls, indestructible passports and an almost unlimited supply of Korans. <br> frater p., you mean you missed it, too? Apparently, both of us weren't paying attention. I wouldn't hold my breath for some physics and math, even wrong physics and math. Read on. ==================================================== QUOTE QUOTE (frater plecticus) I see nobody is being converted to the official conspiracy theory (OCT). What I see is people who want to believe that there was demolition, and are refusing to accept or address evidence against it. It reminds me strongly of people who will not accept or address evidence against creationism, evidence in favor of global warming, and evidence against alien-piloted UFOs and psychic phenomena. Very strongly. On the other hand, there are also a large number of people who actually have examined the evidence, and present it and discuss it, and look at ALL of the evidence, and most of them seem to have come to the conclusion that there was no demolition. You can tell them, because they place no limits on what they examine; whereas the foil-hat crowd always ignore evidence, and become insulting if you insist that they provide some actual concrete answer to it. This is observable on this very thread, and the evidence is compelling. <br>"A large number of people", eh? And who are these people? A reference would be nice, but again, I wouldn't hold my breath. If a reference ever appears, it would be nice to see that "the large number of people" are engineers and physicists, who are, after all, more qualified to understand such things than laymen. But why quibble over details like this, since we will probably never see such a reference, to begin with. OTOH, Steven Jones has indicated that when he presented his arguments to a technical audience at BYU, my impression is that most all of them seemed to come around to his point of view. This technical audience included representatives from the BYU engineering and physics departments. The exact quote is from Steven Jones is found in the following, and I can, and do, provide a link. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu...2&mesg_id=56388 QUOTE (-> QUOTE QUOTE (frater plecticus) I see nobody is being converted to the official conspiracy theory (OCT). What I see is people who want to believe that there was demolition, and are refusing to accept or address evidence against it. It reminds me strongly of people who will not accept or address evidence against creationism, evidence in favor of global warming, and evidence against alien-piloted UFOs and psychic phenomena. Very strongly. On the other hand, there are also a large number of people who actually have examined the evidence, and present it and discuss it, and look at ALL of the evidence, and most of them seem to have come to the conclusion that there was no demolition. You can tell them, because they place no limits on what they examine; whereas the foil-hat crowd always ignore evidence, and become insulting if you insist that they provide some actual concrete answer to it. This is observable on this very thread, and the evidence is compelling. <br>"A large number of people", eh? And who are these people? A reference would be nice, but again, I wouldn't hold my breath. If a reference ever appears, it would be nice to see that "the large number of people" are engineers and physicists, who are, after all, more qualified to understand such things than laymen. But why quibble over details like this, since we will probably never see such a reference, to begin with. OTOH, Steven Jones has indicated that when he presented his arguments to a technical audience at BYU, my impression is that most all of them seemed to come around to his point of view. This technical audience included representatives from the BYU engineering and physics departments. The exact quote is from Steven Jones is found in the following, and I can, and do, provide a link. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu...2&mesg_id=56388 157. Seminar at BYU on WTC 7 collapse and other 9-11 anomalies Yes, I did present a seminar on the puzzling collapse of WTC-7 and other 9-11 anomalies, on 9-22-05. Sorry I don't have time to post very often, but this from an email I sent out to colleagues on 9-23-5: Approximately 50 were in attendance, with representatives from the following Brigham Young University and UVSC (Utah Valley St. College) departments: Physics, Civil Eng., Mechanical Eng., EE, Geology, Psychology, Mathematics. There were several I did not recognize, so other departments were probably represented also. I’ve had particularly encouraging comments from four Physics Profs. and a Math Prof especially, and one of the psychology profs., himself an active democrat...  As you can imagine, there was considerable hostility especially at first. A lot of questions – which I fielded throughout the presentation. The EE Prof. emailed me before the seminar that this was all “conspiracy theory” and “claptrap.” However, he did – to his credit – look at the website referenced in a previous email, which is Jim Hoffman’s site. <http://911research.wtc7.net/sitemap.html > During the seminar, it was clear he -- and many others -- were coming around. He admitted that the collapse of WTC 7 was VERY strange, very hard to explain as due to fires. And he’s reading up on all this now. We started just after 3 pm and had to quit at 4:55 pm as there was a class coming in at 5 pm. One or two left at about 4 pm, when I had covered most of the WTC7 material, but I was pleased that most of the group stayed and we carried on for NEARLY TWO HOURS. Many favorable comments were received afterwards and this morning. People were impressed by the DATA and my critiques of the FEMA and NIST and 9-11 Commission reports. The most “hostile” was a geology professor. He raised the point that “the Twin Towers were a special case since hit by jets.” Fortunately, I had previously shown a slide discussing “Pathological Science” – and this business of “special case” is one of the red flags for bad science. (I’m well known around here for being among the first, if not the first, to debunk claims of Pons and Fleischmann in 1989.) And he had to admit that WTC7 was NOT hit by a plane. The approach I took was that we need to have data released (not destroyed, as were most of the steel beams) – and an independent investigation conducted. This was the approach also encouraged by Prof. Weyland – thanks, Jack – it worked extremely well. My goal was clear, and all except one (the geology prof.) agreed with my conclusion that data held by NIST, etc. should be released – and an independent investigation conducted. And several in the group are now doing some investigation on their own – climbing the learning curve. The next day <9-23-05>, this geology Prof. told me privately that he hoped I could get the information for further investigation. I’m particularly after a sample of the molten metal found in the basement of WTC7 (also in the basements of the Towers). The tilting of the South Tower was also intriguing to many, squibs from the North Tower less so – but I spent most of the time on WTC 7. Also, the letter of Kevin Ryan carried weight evidently, along with protests about the destruction of the steel beams. My slides on Pathological Science were very useful in countering claims of the "official" theory. That’s it for now. Oh, you’ll notice in my talk an appeal to the Book of Mormon – which speaks over and over about “secret combinations”, “secret plans”, “secret societies” in the “last days.” This provided a means to overcome the barrier of “conspiracy theory nonsense” with this group. Won’t work for everyone, but this really is something we Mormons believe in and watch for…. Best Regards, Steven E. Jones <br> To sum up, it appears Scneibster is trying to bamboozle you. MY SUGGESTION Print out Schneibsters "physics and math" WTC 7 arguments, and show them to a couple of physicists and engineers at your local state university. I believe the engineers will tell you, straight off the bat, that this is much more of an engineering problem than a physics problem*. For some reason, Schneibster has a lot of problems admitting that. Gee, I wonder why? I believe the physicists will tell you, straight off the bat, that Schneibster's WTC 7 "physics and math" arguments aren't on the piece of paper you give them, even if some hand-waving, qualitative arguments are. Physics is, after all, a quantitative science. Since I presume that you lack Schneibster's capacity to continue making assertions even after they've been shown to be false, I suggest that you humbly ask "Are you sure?" Please take notes during your excursion to the university, so that everything is fresh in your mind, and quite accurate. Then, come back here and post your findings. I think everybody will be at least mildly interested, both pro and con. * once again, ignoring things like Hoffman's energy dust cloud calculations, the uber-weird telescoping, powderizing collapse of the spire, etc. N.B. What the heck does "frater plecticus" mean, anyway? (Or is it just a name?) frater plecticus 17th November 2005 - 03:56 PM THIS IS A LINK TO AN ULTRA-HIGH RES GOVERNMENT VERSION OF THE ABOVE PHOTO. http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/wtc/images/wtc-photo.jpg CLICK AND DOWNLOAD plecticus ? QUOTE It is interesting to note, therefore, that the two words are related. The Indo-European root *plek- gives rise to the Latin verb plicare, to fold, which yields simplex, literally once folded, from which our English word "simple" derives. But *plek- likewise gives the Latin past participle plexus, braided or entwined, from which is derived complexus, literally braided together, responsible for the English word "complex." The Greek equivalent to plexus is pletoV (plektos), yielding the mathematical term "symplectic," which also has the literal meaning braided together, but comes to English from Greek rather than Latin. The name that I propose for our subject is "plectics," derived, like mathematics, ethics, politics, economics, and so on, from the Greek. Since plektos with no prefix comes from *plek- , but without any commitment to the notion of "once" as in "simple" or to the notion of "together" as in "complex," the derived word "plectics" can cover both simplicity and complexity. It is appropriate that plectics refers to entanglement or the lack thereof, since entanglement is a key feature of the way complexity arises out of simplicity, making our subject worth studying. For example, all of us human beings and all the objects with which we deal are essentially bundles of simple quarks and electrons. If each of those particles had to be in its own independent state, we could not exist and neither could the other objects. It is the entanglement of the states of the particles that is responsible for matter as we know it. metamars 17th November 2005 - 04:23 PM And frater? Something like "fraternity", I would guess. OpelGt73 17th November 2005 - 07:31 PM QUOTE But the 64 000 dollar question is, can basic physics explain the wtc7 collapse ? <br> "Basic Physics" tell me that when the support structure fails, things tend to fall down. metamars 17th November 2005 - 07:47 PM QUOTE "Basic Physics" tell me that when the support structure fails, things tend to fall down. <br>If you think this is sufficient detail to impress any physicist, much less an engineer, I suggest that you not quit your day job. frater plecticus 17th November 2005 - 08:08 PM That´s the extent of the "physics" argument. mickeydoolittle 17th November 2005 - 08:14 PM QUOTE (shneibster+) frater, the lies started when Goldwater lost the election. In 1969. If you think they invented this s**t for 9/11, BOY have I got news for you. Maybe there is hope for you afterall.............. So you acknowledge the fact that the government has been lying for a long time, well before 9/11. So, why do you still trust the official 9/11 story then? Shouldn't that concern you as well? OpelGt73 17th November 2005 - 08:15 PM I am a Civil/Structural Engineer. I have reviewed the reports and they make sense to me. The integrity of the structure was compromised, fires caused expansion and contraction of that structure eventually leading to steel creep and finally collapse. What is the extent of the "controlled demolition theory" argument? No steel building has ever collapsed due to fire in the past? mickeydoolittle 17th November 2005 - 08:16 PM QUOTE (OpelGT73 aka Shneibster+) I am a Civil/Structural Engineer. I have reviewed the reports and they make sense to me. The integrity of the structure was compromised, fires caused expansion and contraction of that structure eventually leading to steel creep and finally collapse. What is the extent of the "controlled demolition theory" argument? No steel building has ever collapsed due to fire in the past? Your first paragraph is a lie and is repetitive. Your second paragraph is a fact (the fact that No steel building has ever collapsed due to fire in the past). You're also not a structural engineer and you are probably another one of Shneibster's imaginary friends. Anybody can come into a message board and say that he is a structural engineer. If you say that you are, prove it. Show us a picture of your degree with your real name written on it, so we can research for your degree in the university in which it mentions (that includes contacting your certificate witnesses like the University Deanmaster, and all instructors who were witness in the signing of your degree, etc). You have to prove your credentials. Simply saying that you are a structural engineer in a message board will NOT do. metamars 17th November 2005 - 08:56 PM QUOTE I am a Civil/Structural Engineer. I have reviewed the reports and they make sense to me. The integrity of the structure was compromised, fires caused expansion and contraction of that structure eventually leading to steel creep and finally collapse. <br>Plausibility is not the same as verification. On it's face, the collapse of WTC 1&2 via scenarios (such as they are) pushed by NIST & FEMA are plausible. Most everybody accepted the plane + fires + gravity notions, initially. It's as one begins to learn the details that the FEMA, et. al. versions start looking like Fairy Tales. Speaking as a Civil/Structural Engineer, tell us, please: Does it not bother you at all that NIST's computer models made no attempt to show how a local collapse can turn into a global collapse? Also, what is your opinion of Hoffman's criticisms of even the local collapse that NIST did model? Please be specific. ( http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html ) General comments such as "this is crap" do not contribute anything to the debate. I have asked, here and at apollohoax.net, for information re BZ's "elastic dynamic analysis". Can you point me out to a good exposition? (Preferably a free one on the web.) I'm deeply skeptical that applying this sort of model is useful for gaining any useful insight into how a global collapse could develop from a local one, in the sense of first order effects, though apparently it is useful for some aspects of failure simulations. QUOTE (-> QUOTE I am a Civil/Structural Engineer. I have reviewed the reports and they make sense to me. The integrity of the structure was compromised, fires caused expansion and contraction of that structure eventually leading to steel creep and finally collapse. <br>Plausibility is not the same as verification. On it's face, the collapse of WTC 1&2 via scenarios (such as they are) pushed by NIST & FEMA are plausible. Most everybody accepted the plane + fires + gravity notions, initially. It's as one begins to learn the details that the FEMA, et. al. versions start looking like Fairy Tales. Speaking as a Civil/Structural Engineer, tell us, please: Does it not bother you at all that NIST's computer models made no attempt to show how a local collapse can turn into a global collapse? Also, what is your opinion of Hoffman's criticisms of even the local collapse that NIST did model? Please be specific. ( http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html ) General comments such as "this is crap" do not contribute anything to the debate. I have asked, here and at apollohoax.net, for information re BZ's "elastic dynamic analysis". Can you point me out to a good exposition? (Preferably a free one on the web.) I'm deeply skeptical that applying this sort of model is useful for gaining any useful insight into how a global collapse could develop from a local one, in the sense of first order effects, though apparently it is useful for some aspects of failure simulations. What is the extent of the "controlled demolition theory" argument? No steel building has ever collapsed due to fire in the past? laugh.gif <br> You must be new. Very new. In fact, if you read back just a few pages, you will see the news that BYU Physics prof, Steven Jones, who has studied both the FEMA and NIST documents, finds them sadly lacking, and inferior compared to the demolition hypothesis. He is calling for a new, serious, international investigation. See also http://911research.wtc7.net/ From http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html QUOTE Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse? By Steven E. Jones Department of Physics and Astronomy Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84604 ABSTRACT In writing this paper, I call for a serious investigation of the hypothesis that WTC 7 and the Twin Towers were brought down, not just by damage and fires, but through the use of pre-positioned explosives.  I consider the official FEMA, NIST, and 9-11 Commission reports that fires plus damage alone caused complete collapses of all three buildings.  And I present evidence for the explosive-demolition hypothesis, which is suggested by the available data, testable and falsifiable, and yet has not been analyzed in any of the reports funded by the US government. OpelGT73 17th November 2005 - 09:04 PM QUOTE The second statement is a fact. <br>Actually within this very thread there is a link to a report stating that there have been other steel frame building collapses due to fire. Even if there haven't what is your point? Does that mean that it could NEVER happen? That’s what we like to call a logical fallacy. QUOTE (-> QUOTE The second statement is a fact. <br>Actually within this very thread there is a link to a report stating that there have been other steel frame building collapses due to fire. Even if there haven't what is your point? Does that mean that it could NEVER happen? That’s what we like to call a logical fallacy. You're also not a structural engineer and you are probably another one of Shneibster's imaginary friends. <br>Really, I'm not? And how exactly would you know that? QUOTE Anybody can come into a message board and say that he is a structural engineer. If you say that you are, prove it. Show us your degree. what's your name? So we can research your name and your university. You have to prove your credentials. Simply saying that you are a structural engineer in a message board will not do. <br>I'm not going to divulge my personal information on here. If you really NEED proof that I am a Civil Engineer then PM me. But that is beside the point of the argument. I don't need to prove myself to you, the burden of proof is on the accuser. Prove to me that the fires and structural damage COULD NOT have caused the collapse of WTC7. Stating that no steel frame building has collapsed due to fire is not proof, it is at best anecdotal, at worst dishonest. OpelGT73 17th November 2005 - 09:08 PM QUOTE (metamars+Nov 17 2005, 08:56 PM) QUOTE I am a Civil/Structural Engineer. I have reviewed the reports and they make sense to me. The integrity of the structure was compromised, fires caused expansion and contraction of that structure eventually leading to steel creep and finally collapse. <br>Plausibility is not the same as verification. On it's face, the collapse of WTC 1&2 via scenarios (such as they are) pushed by NIST & FEMA are plausible. Most everybody accepted the plane + fires + gravity notions, initially. It's as one begins to learn the details that the FEMA, et. al. versions start looking like Fairy Tales. Speaking as a Civil/Structural Engineer, tell us, please: Does it not bother you at all that NIST's computer models made no attempt to show how a local collapse can turn into a global collapse? Also, what is your opinion of Hoffman's criticisms of even the local collapse that NIST did model? Please be specific. ( http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html ) General comments such as "this is crap" do not contribute anything to the debate. I have asked, here and at apollohoax.net, for information re BZ's "elastic dynamic analysis". Can you point me out to a good exposition? (Preferably a free one on the web.) I'm deeply skeptical that applying this sort of model is useful for gaining any useful insight into how a global collapse could develop from a local one, in the sense of first order effects, though apparently it is useful for some aspects of failure simulations. QUOTE (-> QUOTE I am a Civil/Structural Engineer. I have reviewed the reports and they make sense to me. The integrity of the structure was compromised, fires caused expansion and contraction of that structure eventually leading to steel creep and finally collapse. <br>Plausibility is not the same as verification. On it's face, the collapse of WTC 1&2 via scenarios (such as they are) pushed by NIST & FEMA are plausible. Most everybody accepted the plane + fires + gravity notions, initially. It's as one begins to learn the details that the FEMA, et. al. versions start looking like Fairy Tales. Speaking as a Civil/Structural Engineer, tell us, please: Does it not bother you at all that NIST's computer models made no attempt to show how a local collapse can turn into a global collapse? Also, what is your opinion of Hoffman's criticisms of even the local collapse that NIST did model? Please be specific. ( http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html ) General comments such as "this is crap" do not contribute anything to the debate. I have asked, here and at apollohoax.net, for information re BZ's "elastic dynamic analysis". Can you point me out to a good exposition? (Preferably a free one on the web.) I'm deeply skeptical that applying this sort of model is useful for gaining any useful insight into how a global collapse could develop from a local one, in the sense of first order effects, though apparently it is useful for some aspects of failure simulations. What is the extent of the "controlled demolition theory" argument? No steel building has ever collapsed due to fire in the past? laugh.gif <br> You must be new. Very new. In fact, if you read back just a few pages, you will see the news that BYU Physics prof, Steven Jones, who has studied both the FEMA and NIST documents, finds them sadly lacking, and inferior compared to the demolition hypothesis. He is calling for a new, serious, international investigation. See also http://911research.wtc7.net/ From http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html QUOTE Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse? By Steven E. Jones Department of Physics and Astronomy Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84604 ABSTRACT In writing this paper, I call for a serious investigation of the hypothesis that WTC 7 and the Twin Towers were brought down, not just by damage and fires, but through the use of pre-positioned explosives.  I consider the official FEMA, NIST, and 9-11 Commission reports that fires plus damage alone caused complete collapses of all three buildings.  And I present evidence for the explosive-demolition hypothesis, which is suggested by the available data, testable and falsifiable, and yet has not been analyzed in any of the reports funded by the US government. <br>I'm not new to this. And I find Hoffman's assesments and theories to be baseless. I don't have the time to respond to his letter at the moment, as I am at work. But I'll be back on later tonight. Also: QUOTE (-> QUOTE Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse? By Steven E. Jones Department of Physics and Astronomy Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84604 ABSTRACT In writing this paper, I call for a serious investigation of the hypothesis that WTC 7 and the Twin Towers were brought down, not just by damage and fires, but through the use of pre-positioned explosives.  I consider the official FEMA, NIST, and 9-11 Commission reports that fires plus damage alone caused complete collapses of all three buildings.  And I present evidence for the explosive-demolition hypothesis, which is suggested by the available data, testable and falsifiable, and yet has not been analyzed in any of the reports funded by the US government. <br>I'm not new to this. And I find Hoffman's assesments and theories to be baseless. I don't have the time to respond to his letter at the moment, as I am at work. But I'll be back on later tonight. Also: QUOTE (OpelGT73 aka Shneibster) <br>I don't know why you are saying that I am that guy. Is it because I also don't buy into the controlled demo theory? I just found this board yesterday, someone on IMDB gave me a link to this tread. Guest 17th November 2005 - 09:30 PM Debunk this you blind a**holes! (maybe you are not deaf as well.) Voice of Larry Silverstein, lease holder of the WTC and insurance beneficiary (to the tune of 7 Billion dollars): http://thewebfairy.com/911/pullit/PULLIT.mp3 (also available elsewhere) DO YOU STILL BELIEVE THAT WTC 7 WAS NOT A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION????? If so, why would one of the few people with direct knowledge lie about it?? mickeydoolittle 17th November 2005 - 09:38 PM Actually, you (OpelGT73 aka Shneibster) must prove your credentials here. Otherwise your arguments wouldn't be taken seriously. Simply saying that you are a structural engineer in a message board and then calling the argument of Steven E. Jones (who is REAL a BYU Physics Professor btw.) baseless, will NOT do. So yeah, where are your credentials? One more thing, I sent you a private message (because that's what you prefered). In the pm, I asked for proof of your credentials. I'll be waiting for it there as well. Guest 17th November 2005 - 09:41 PM I think it is you guys who should put your credentials forwards.... so we can all get a good laugh. OpelGT73 17th November 2005 - 09:43 PM I told you to PM me if you want them. What are YOUR credentials? BTW - the NIST report was created by dozens of Professional Engineers with PHDs. There seem to be plenty of credentials floating around that report, but yet you give it no credibility. mickeydoolittle 17th November 2005 - 09:45 PM Actually, I never professed to be an "expert" on anything. I never said I was an engineer this or engineer that. The only one that has to provide credentials are the ones who have posted saying that they are "experts". So yeah, the burden of proof is in your hands, since you did say you were a structural engineer. Or are you hesitating? Also, to OpelGT73, stop posting as guest. You aren't fooling anyone with your guest posts. I also sent you a PM already. 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. ©PhysOrg.com - physics and technology news - Version for PDAs