Sprinkler Systems
Uhaul move
Lawn care
Roses and trees
Ford Parts
Chrysler Parts
Lake Powell
New IPod Touch Apps
New IPhone Apps
IPhone Apps
IPad Information
IPad Apps
Android APPS
Android Games APPS
Android Systems
Android Tablets APPS and Beyond
Smartphone Apps
Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools
Tablet PC
Car Sharing Car Leasing
Tabler Pc
Fly Fishing
Toyota Cars
Vacation Rentals
Stock market
NYSE
SSE Stock
Freight & Shipping News
Gluten
Lactose
Gout
My Coupon Life
Campgrounds Check
Outdoor
Kitchen Design and Redoo
Bath Remodeling
Palm Springs
Las Vegas Vacation Tipps
Lake Powell Boating
Homes for lease
|
Finances / Finanzen » uk.finance » Re: physics Professor explodes WTC collapse
| Re: physics Professor explodes WTC collapse [message #384887] |
Fr, 05 Mai 2006 01:37 |
|
> > that link again. http://911research.wtc7.net
> Do you know what Occam's Razor means?
Do you know what a corporatist, elitist paid propagandist is?
Look in the mirror.
If you don't get paid for the ideological crap you write, then you are
an utter pillock.
> When scientists from numerous
> research institutions have reviewed the data, when eyewitness accounts
> are there, when 99% of the engineers and scientists agree on the basics
> of what happened, then the actions of the remaining 1% of
> unreconstructed malcontents are irrelevant.
Haha.. how are you going to back that up!! You funny man!
Show us these 99% of engineers!! Bring them forward, and let them
debate the physics with PHYSICS PROFESSOR steven jones:
YOU have to refute THIS:
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
It is not us people who have to refute YOU PAID PROPAGANDISTS.
We can safely ignore you, like we have learned to ignore ALL NEWSPAPERS
and ALL TV...
Only intellectuals who want jobs as talking-heads and paid
propagandists have
to read all that shit, THEY NEED to keep informed on the latest sow
that is
chased through the global village. They need to learn new tricks to
deceive.
They need to learn how to FRAME SUBJECTS. like your Ayn Rand weirdo.
And calling people who do not agree with you malcontents is soo dumb.
The person not content IS YOU! You gave it away by calling them
malcontents.. haha... what a lowlife you are.
> And the consensus of the scientific community is: UFOs don't exist;
> species did evolve and weren't created in six days; and the Twin Towers
> collapsed due to the enormous heat and weakening of the structural
> supports caused by the impact of the planes.
Amen.
But you still cannot face the music here:
http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html
(you will resort to smearing the messenger!)
People HEARD and FELT the MASSIVE EXPLOSIONS in the BASEMENT!
If you look closely at the WTC demolition you can see FOUNTAINS of
heavy objects FLYING SIDEWAYS .. PROPELLED by something more
substantial that AIR PRESSURE.
But you cannot see that.
You can work your GREAT BRAIN MUSCLE to bend and felx every way you
wish.
> Those, like yourself, who
> are refusing to accept that VAST amount of scientific research that has
VAST! wow.. years and years of publications that we all can readily
find and iron-proof we can cite at a moments notice.
WHERE IS your "vast" amount of research about 911?
> been done since 9-11 and are instead going to public route to find
> paranoids like yourself who are starting from a deep-seated
> psychological cynicism about America, don't concern me. I deal with
> objective facts.
OK.
You = facts
we = should not be cynical of USA.
Ha ha ha ha... superb.. Have you considered a career as a stand-up
commedian?
You have the topics sorted out already... just make a show around it,
and pepper
it with dick-jokes.
> > All anybody's asking is that people wake up and look at the questions
> > that are being asked.
>
> Competent experts, by now HUNDREDS of them, have looked, including
Hundreds? Name only ONE! And gives us an excerpt of what proof they
present
to support the theory that the towers magically collapsed in the same
hour.
> engineering professors from my own alma mater, M.I.T. I'm guided by
> their opinions. You have chosen to ignore all the experts who have
> reached a conclusion separate from your own, because you're starting
> from a position of paranoia about the Government.
What experts! Again... lets argue their details.
PANCAKE theory, is it? ha ha ha...
Pancake tower 2... (second to be hit, fire going out) then oops,
again!!
Pancake tower 1 (first to be hit).. and then
WTC Seven .. just by itself... in freefall speed, wooooosh .. gone.
WTC7 contained SPOOK headquarters and Stockmarket-Fraud-investigator
Offices
hahaha how incredibly coincidentally convenient...
> Hey honey,
Hey Darling!
> I knew what Wolfowitz and Laurie Mylroie (is THAT a name YOU'RE familiar
> with?) were advocating all the way back during the Clinton
> Administration. Long before 9-11, when Clinton was still President,
> they used to go on all the radio talk shows to pitch their ideas to the
> listeners, such as the David Brudnoy show on WBZ-AM Radio Boston. And
> they used to write articles for right-wing magazines like Weekly
> Standard and for conservative newspapers like the Wall Street Journal.
> Wolfowitz openly and repeatedly pleaded with the American people to
> choose a President who would finally oust Saddam. I guess because YOU
> don't follow right-wing media, YOU missed all of that. Too bad for you.
> But I heard it all--and in fact, I agreed with them.
Regarding accounts of the Wolfowitzes do, I rather re-read things that
have logical conclusions, like
http://www.countercurrents.org/chomsky021003.htm
Your rant is from someone who cannot look critical at the issues,
because he has the typical american TRUTH IN HIS POCKET.
In fact, you seem to be straight out of this movie:
http://www.chomskytorrents.org/TorrentDetails.php?TorrentID= 1128
Watch this movie and face it.. YOUR COUNTRY IS FUCKED.
> As for Pilger, the man is a Marxist who has hated America with a passion
a marxist is someone who HAS TOOLS to CUT THE CRAP. Marxism is
VERY VERY useful to recognise the MOTIVES behind the talk.
So if you are NOT a marxist, you are missing a set of tools in your
mental faculties.
> http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?ind id=1763
Hahaha .. what a SMEAR!
uuhuu I had to look how you right-wing ideologue PAID PROPAGANDISTS
smear
chomsky.. a difficult job, it needs a really trained writer.
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?ind id=1232
Hahahaha they don't manage without praising Chomsky! hehehe..
Your HOROWITZ whore is better.. he brings out the same three SMEARs
every time, realiably as clockwork..
- Pol Pot
- French Holocaust denier
- Chomsky makes money
> Pilger would really, truly, like to see America wiped off the face of
really truely? Have you heard him say that?
Oh! I forgot.. You have FACTS, I see.
you = facts
me = anti-semite for defending Pilger.
> He hates our society, he hates our government, because guess
> what, we're not socialists like he is. Remember this well: All
Socialist LOVE societies. they HATE the rule of the stronger.
They hate UNDEMOCRATIC corporations having more power
than small nations. And whats more, socialists love people,
yes, even people like you.
After you have come round and became a tree-huggin, enemy-loving,
progressive-taxation (rich needle jesus!) you will be a valuable member
of society.. and stop being the pillock you are now.
> Marxists are professional pathological liars, because a central tenet of
> Marxism is the denial of objective truth.
You would LOVE to work for the Ministry of Truth, wouldn't you?
> Marxist tells you, not even if he says the sun rises in the east.
> Never, never, never, never.
> Steven D. Litvintchouk
> Email: sdlitvin [at] earthlinkNOSPAM.net
steve, NEVER NEVER NEVER say never.
and please calm down... take your heart-medication and drink decaf.
Maybe it would not be a good idea for you to listen to FUNNY marxists
like Michael Parenti ... but maybe John Ralston Saul
http://www.google.com/search?q=john+ralston+saul++mp3
could inspire you.
|
|
|
| Re: physics Professor explodes WTC collapse [message #384890 ] |
Fr, 05 Mai 2006 03:46 |
|
Look he knows nothing about structures & their collapse. He's an expert
on cold fusion and the visit of CHrist to America.
u2r2h [at] gmx.net wrote:
>>>that link again. http://911research.wtc7.net
>
>
>>Do you know what Occam's Razor means?
>
>
> Do you know what a corporatist, elitist paid propagandist is?
>
> Look in the mirror.
>
> If you don't get paid for the ideological crap you write, then you are
> an utter pillock.
>
>
>> When scientists from numerous
>>research institutions have reviewed the data, when eyewitness accounts
>>are there, when 99% of the engineers and scientists agree on the basics
>>of what happened, then the actions of the remaining 1% of
>>unreconstructed malcontents are irrelevant.
>
>
> Haha.. how are you going to back that up!! You funny man!
>
> Show us these 99% of engineers!! Bring them forward, and let them
> debate the physics with PHYSICS PROFESSOR steven jones:
>
> YOU have to refute THIS:
>
> http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
>
> It is not us people who have to refute YOU PAID PROPAGANDISTS.
>
> We can safely ignore you, like we have learned to ignore ALL NEWSPAPERS
> and ALL TV...
>
> Only intellectuals who want jobs as talking-heads and paid
> propagandists have
> to read all that shit, THEY NEED to keep informed on the latest sow
> that is
> chased through the global village. They need to learn new tricks to
> deceive.
> They need to learn how to FRAME SUBJECTS. like your Ayn Rand weirdo.
>
> And calling people who do not agree with you malcontents is soo dumb.
>
> The person not content IS YOU! You gave it away by calling them
> malcontents.. haha... what a lowlife you are.
>
>
>>And the consensus of the scientific community is: UFOs don't exist;
>>species did evolve and weren't created in six days; and the Twin Towers
>>collapsed due to the enormous heat and weakening of the structural
>>supports caused by the impact of the planes.
>
>
> Amen.
>
> But you still cannot face the music here:
>
> http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html
> (you will resort to smearing the messenger!)
>
> People HEARD and FELT the MASSIVE EXPLOSIONS in the BASEMENT!
>
> If you look closely at the WTC demolition you can see FOUNTAINS of
> heavy objects FLYING SIDEWAYS .. PROPELLED by something more
> substantial that AIR PRESSURE.
>
> But you cannot see that.
>
> You can work your GREAT BRAIN MUSCLE to bend and felx every way you
> wish.
>
>
>> Those, like yourself, who
>>are refusing to accept that VAST amount of scientific research that has
>
>
> VAST! wow.. years and years of publications that we all can readily
> find and iron-proof we can cite at a moments notice.
>
> WHERE IS your "vast" amount of research about 911?
>
>
>>been done since 9-11 and are instead going to public route to find
>>paranoids like yourself who are starting from a deep-seated
>>psychological cynicism about America, don't concern me. I deal with
>>objective facts.
>
>
> OK.
>
> You = facts
> we = should not be cynical of USA.
>
> Ha ha ha ha... superb.. Have you considered a career as a stand-up
> commedian?
> You have the topics sorted out already... just make a show around it,
> and pepper
> it with dick-jokes.
>
>
>>>All anybody's asking is that people wake up and look at the questions
>>>that are being asked.
>>
>>Competent experts, by now HUNDREDS of them, have looked, including
>
>
> Hundreds? Name only ONE! And gives us an excerpt of what proof they
> present
> to support the theory that the towers magically collapsed in the same
> hour.
>
>
>>engineering professors from my own alma mater, M.I.T. I'm guided by
>>their opinions. You have chosen to ignore all the experts who have
>>reached a conclusion separate from your own, because you're starting
>>from a position of paranoia about the Government.
>
>
> What experts! Again... lets argue their details.
>
> PANCAKE theory, is it? ha ha ha...
>
> Pancake tower 2... (second to be hit, fire going out) then oops,
> again!!
> Pancake tower 1 (first to be hit).. and then
> WTC Seven .. just by itself... in freefall speed, wooooosh .. gone.
>
> WTC7 contained SPOOK headquarters and Stockmarket-Fraud-investigator
> Offices
>
> hahaha how incredibly coincidentally convenient...
>
>
>>Hey honey,
>
>
> Hey Darling!
>
>
>>I knew what Wolfowitz and Laurie Mylroie (is THAT a name YOU'RE familiar
>>with?) were advocating all the way back during the Clinton
>>Administration. Long before 9-11, when Clinton was still President,
>>they used to go on all the radio talk shows to pitch their ideas to the
>>listeners, such as the David Brudnoy show on WBZ-AM Radio Boston. And
>>they used to write articles for right-wing magazines like Weekly
>>Standard and for conservative newspapers like the Wall Street Journal.
>>Wolfowitz openly and repeatedly pleaded with the American people to
>>choose a President who would finally oust Saddam. I guess because YOU
>>don't follow right-wing media, YOU missed all of that. Too bad for you.
>> But I heard it all--and in fact, I agreed with them.
>
>
> Regarding accounts of the Wolfowitzes do, I rather re-read things that
> have logical conclusions, like
>
> http://www.countercurrents.org/chomsky021003.htm
>
> Your rant is from someone who cannot look critical at the issues,
> because he has the typical american TRUTH IN HIS POCKET.
>
> In fact, you seem to be straight out of this movie:
>
> http://www.chomskytorrents.org/TorrentDetails.php?TorrentID= 1128
>
> Watch this movie and face it.. YOUR COUNTRY IS FUCKED.
>
>
>>As for Pilger, the man is a Marxist who has hated America with a passion
>
>
> a marxist is someone who HAS TOOLS to CUT THE CRAP. Marxism is
> VERY VERY useful to recognise the MOTIVES behind the talk.
>
> So if you are NOT a marxist, you are missing a set of tools in your
> mental faculties.
>
>
>> http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?ind id=1763
>
>
> Hahaha .. what a SMEAR!
>
> uuhuu I had to look how you right-wing ideologue PAID PROPAGANDISTS
> smear
> chomsky.. a difficult job, it needs a really trained writer.
>
> http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?ind id=1232
>
> Hahahaha they don't manage without praising Chomsky! hehehe..
>
> Your HOROWITZ whore is better.. he brings out the same three SMEARs
> every time, realiably as clockwork..
>
> - Pol Pot
> - French Holocaust denier
> - Chomsky makes money
>
>
>>Pilger would really, truly, like to see America wiped off the face of
>
>
> really truely? Have you heard him say that?
>
> Oh! I forgot.. You have FACTS, I see.
>
> you = facts
> me = anti-semite for defending Pilger.
>
>
>>He hates our society, he hates our government, because guess
>>what, we're not socialists like he is. Remember this well: All
>
>
> Socialist LOVE societies. they HATE the rule of the stronger.
> They hate UNDEMOCRATIC corporations having more power
> than small nations. And whats more, socialists love people,
> yes, even people like you.
>
> After you have come round and became a tree-huggin, enemy-loving,
> progressive-taxation (rich needle jesus!) you will be a valuable member
> of society.. and stop being the pillock you are now.
>
>
>>Marxists are professional pathological liars, because a central tenet of
>>Marxism is the denial of objective truth.
>
>
> You would LOVE to work for the Ministry of Truth, wouldn't you?
>
>
>>Marxist tells you, not even if he says the sun rises in the east.
>>Never, never, never, never.
>>Steven D. Litvintchouk
>>Email: sdlitvin [at] earthlinkNOSPAM.net
>
>
> steve, NEVER NEVER NEVER say never.
>
> and please calm down... take your heart-medication and drink decaf.
>
> Maybe it would not be a good idea for you to listen to FUNNY marxists
> like Michael Parenti ... but maybe John Ralston Saul
>
> http://www.google.com/search?q=john+ralston+saul++mp3
>
> could inspire you.
>
|
|
|
| Re: physics Professor explodes WTC collapse [message #384891 ] |
Fr, 05 Mai 2006 05:39 |
|
Frank F. Matthews wrote:
> Look he knows nothing about structures & their collapse. He's an expert
> on cold fusion and the visit of CHrist to America.
>
>
>
> u2r2h [at] gmx.net wrote:
>
>>>> that link again. http://911research.wtc7.net
Frank,
If a guy were to come up to you and tell you that humans had
mated with lizards and they were chasing him with radio
controlled crows capable of intelligent thought, would you
argue with him?
The answer is; no, you would not. You would know that he was
insane and incapable of rational thought. The same is true
with these people. They think the twin towers were demolished
by an invisible crew of demolition experts, while the rest of
us SAW what happened.
Don't feed the trolls.
--
Robert Allison
Rimshot, Inc.
Georgetown, TX
|
|
|
| Re: physics Professor explodes WTC collapse [message #384892 ] |
Fr, 05 Mai 2006 05:44 |
|
No Tinfoil Hat Required
If one group accuses another of being delusional, they ought to prepare
convincing evidence.
For many years now, the mainstream media has played a key role in
maintaining the government's official account of 9/11. In all respects,
it has done a brilliant job of filtering out everything that might
undermine the government's claims, while simultaneously demonizing
anyone who dares to challenge those claims.
So let's get right to it: Is it really baseless idiocy that drives
people to question the official account of 9/11? Are the millions of
Americans (including Senators, FBI agents, Doctors, Lawyers,
Professors, Scientists, Engineers, etc.) all paranoid loons for
suggesting we need a truly independent investigation of 9/11? The
government and media would have you think so. They'd also (to help
maintain that perception) need to keep you diverted from the
information you're about to read.
The truth is, for decades our government has been doing very nasty
things that most Americans would never believe to be true. The truth
is, the media has fed you a steady diet of meaningless news stories
instead of sharing information that is vitally important to the future
of this country. The truth is, if it wasn't for the internet (which the
media is now demonizing and the government is trying to get control of)
most of us would have never known how badly our leaders have lied to
us.
Let's start with the main assertion:
"It is crazy to think corrupt elements within our government
intentionally LET the attacks on 9/11 happen so they could be used as a
pretext for war. Furthermore, it is even crazier to suggest corrupt
elements might have actually facilitated the attacks."
Now to be fair, I will admit it is utterly insane to intentionally
provoke and allow an attack against one's own country. I agree it is
even more insane (and criminal) to facilitate such an attack;
sacrificing innocent human beings so the "outrage" could be used as a
pretext for an already-established military agenda. ...Psychotic
tyrants in other countries might resort to this type of "false flag"
operation, but would our own government ever conspire to do the same?
The answer might surprise you.
A hypothetical scenario:
Imagine if the President of the United States came on television and
announced that Iraq had shot down a civilian airliner filled with
American students on vacation. Imagine if there were no survivors, only
grieving parents who had lost their children at the hands of a crazed
and arrogant dictator. Imagine if all that remained of the plane and
its crew was the frantic tape of its pilot's final transmission:
"Mayday, Mayday, we are being tailed by an Iraqi Fighter...we need help
up here and fast...mayday, do you copy..." and then the sound of an
explosion, screaming, then silence.
Now, imagine in the midst of the "outrage" and calls for Saddam's head
on a platter, some "idiot conspiracy theorist" stood up and said:
"It's all a lie! Iraq is innocent of the charges against it!!! Our
government was behind the whole thing! They loaded a civilian airliner
with FAKE passengers, flew the plane to a secret location, unloaded the
fake passengers and replaced the original plane with a
remote-controlled drone that was painted up to look like the original.
They then had a FAKE Iraqi Fighter Jet (it was really an American
Fighter painted to LOOK LIKE an Iraqi Fighter) chase after the remote
controlled drone. Then, they transmitted a FAKE "Mayday" signal from
the drone just before blowing it up! It was all a set up so we could
frame and attack Iraq!"
In the above hypothetical scenario, who would you be more likely to
believe? The president (with the media backing him up) or the "crazy
conspiracy theorist?"
Well, substitute "Iraq and Saddam" for "Cuba and Castro" and you've got
The Northwood's Document. The Northwood's Document is an official
United States government plan to provoke and allow attacks to be used
as a pretext for invading Cuba. The plan goes further to suggest, if
provocation does not work, we could "attack ourselves" and blame Cuba.
It even speaks of completely fabricating an attack to be used as a
pretext. President Kennedy rejected the plan just prior to being
assassinated. Had he not, this plan would have led to war and the death
of many thousands based on total lies. Even worse, it might have led to
a nuclear exchange with Russia: millions dead, based on lies.
Here are some of the highlights from this now declassified document:
"Subject: Justification for US Military Intervention in Cuba"
"As requested by Chief of Operations, Cuba Project, the Joint
Chiefs of Staff are to indicate brief but precise description of
pretexts which they consider would provide justification for US
military intervention in Cuba."
"It is recognized that any action which becomes pretext for US
military intervention in Cuba will lead to a political decision which
then would lead to military action."
"It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate
convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a
chartered civil airliner enroute from the United States to Jamaica,
Guatemala, Panama, or Venezuela. The destination would be chosen only
to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba. The passengers could be a
group of college students off on a holiday or any grouping of persons
with a common interest to support chartering a non-scheduled flight.
a. An aircraft at Eglin Air Force Base would be painted and
numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft
belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a
designated time, the duplicate would be substituted for the actual
civil aircraft and would be loaded with selected passengers, all
boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered
aircraft would be converted to a drone.
b. Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual aircraft
will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of Florida. From the
rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to
minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field at Eglin Air
Force Base where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the
passengers and return the aircraft to its original status. The drone
aircraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When
over Cuba the drone will being transmitting on the international
distress frequency a "May Day" message stating he is under attack by
Cuban MIG aircraft. The transmission will be interrupted by destruction
of the aircraft which will be triggered by radio signal. This will
allow ICAO radio stations in the Western Hemisphere to tell the US what
has happened to the aircraft instead of the US trying to "sell" the
incident."
Other ideas suggested:
"We could blow up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba."
"Casualty lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of
national indignation."
"We could develop (emphasis added) a Communist Cuban Terror
Campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in
Washington. The terror campaign could be pointed at Cuban Refugees
seeking haven in the United States."
"We could sink a boatload of Cubans enroute to Florida (real or
simulated). We could foster attempts on lives of Cuban refugees in the
United States even to the extent of wounding in instances to be widely
publicized. Exploding a few plastic bombs in carefully chosen spots,
the arrest of Cuban agents and the release of prepared documents
substantiating Cuban involvement also would be helpful in projecting
the idea of an irresponsible government."
The Northwoods document (available at the National Security Archive)
proves beyond any shadow of doubt that our government has openly
conspired to completely MANUFACTURE a pretext for war. It also gives us
an idea of how far the ruling elite are willing to go in order to
deceive the American people--how far they are willing to go in order to
get what they want.
Now, does this prove corrupt elements in our own government were in
some way responsible for the attacks of 9/11? No, but it does
irrefutably establish that it's NOT crazy to suggest it's possible. As
a matter of fact, it proves a person must be ignorant, delusional (or
simply lying) to suggest it isn't possible. It's just that simple.
Part 2 - The Reason They Lie
Direct link to part 2-->
http://stopthelie.com/1-hour_guide_to_911.html#Part2
Knowing full well that it isn't crazy to suggest complicity or cover
up, why does the government try so hard to convince us otherwise?
Well, does it make sense that we should expect criminals running covert
operations to "educate us" about the existence and history of such
operations? Of course not. The whole point of a covert / "false flag"
operation is to deceive. The whole point is to get away with something
you would otherwise be unable to get away with. Deception (also known
as lying) is the foundation on which these operations are built. Their
first objective is to create and maintain cover.
Take a minute to look up "disinformation" or "psychological operation"
or "false flag." These aren't just terms, they are real weapons used to
achieve covert objectives. If there is anything you can be sure of,
it's this: These weapons are well known to the ruling elite, they've
been used for thousands of years, and they will continue to be used
whenever it is believed the "targets" of the operation will respond
appropriately. Simply stated, to the extent we blindly follow our
"leaders," we encourage them to deceive and exploit us.
In case after case, if we dig even a little bit, we find that nearly
everything our government denounces PUBLICLY, it engages in privately.
And I do mean everything. From overthrowing democratically elected
governments (and installing ruthless dictatorships in their place), to
training terrorist death squads to kill innocent civilians. From
allowing American citizens to be infected with syphilis (so the effects
and spread of the disease could be studied in a "real world"
laboratory), to KNOWINGLY contaminating civilian and military personnel
with depleted uranium.
Deception, theft, torture, murder, terrorism - These are the tools of
tyrants, not the tools of a legitimate American Government. If we
intend to reclaim our title as the home of freedom and justice in the
world, we can no longer allow ourselves to be manipulated by the lowest
among us. And the truth is, if these crimes are sufficiently exposed,
they won't be tolerated. Our false perception of the "benevolent state"
has provided the cover for the wickedness it does. But when that cover
is lifted and people see the truth with their own eyes, the illusion of
legitimacy melts away. For all but the most cowardly and intellectually
dishonest, continued self deception becomes impossible.
Assume for a moment that all of the allegations of wrong doing made to
this point can be easily verified and are 100% true. (Unfortunately,
they can be verified and they are true.) If you are like most
Americans, you probably know very little (if anything) about these
conspiracies. There are at least two reasons why. We've already covered
the first, which is:
1=2E We can't expect those trying to hide what they're doing to tell us
what they're doing. As important as it is for you to know what they're
up to, it is equally as important to them for you to remain ignorant.
They are willing to do whatever it takes to get what they want, lying
is no exception, and there is little we can do about that.
However, we have complete control over the second cause of our
ignorance:
2=2E We are ignorant of our government's greatest lies because we choose
to be. We choose to believe the comforting words of our elected
officials when they say: "There is nothing to see here, it's all a
conspiracy theory, it is absurd to suggest we'd ever participate in
such a thing, trust us."
Well I ask: Trust them based on what? Have they earned our trust? Or
have they violated it over and over again? Is it really absurd to
suspect them of heinous crimes when we've repeatedly caught them
red-handed? -And how exactly can we expect to expose any of their
crimes (great or small) if simply denying the charge and attacking
their accuser is considered sufficient grounds for acquittal? We know
the elite lie, we know they can be sadistic, we know they'll stop at
nothing to secure and expand their power. If that isn't enough to
warrant healthy skepticism, what is?
The history of unchecked power is clear; its tyrannical course,
unavoidable. Over and over we have seen the maxim "absolute power
corrupts absolutely" played out before us. Personally, I believe those
who seek absolute power are already corrupt, but there's no need to
split hairs; in the end the same holds true: It is never absurd to
question the statements, motives, or actions, of extremely powerful
people. To the contrary, all evidence suggests it is absurd not to.
Common criminals plague our society, but whatever threat they pose, it
pales in comparison to the "threat" of those who rule over us.
Common criminals do not have access to the media, the trust of the
masses, or the air of legitimacy given those who secure a high position
in government. They cannot legally seize our money; destroy the
purchasing power of our currency or command standing armies. They
cannot "legislate away" our rights, or (by their reckless spending)
reduce our children to debt slaves. They cannot obstruct investigations
from inside the system. They cannot seal documents, confiscate video
tapes or appoint their own investigators. They cannot subpoena
witnesses, find out what the witnesses know, and then use the
information they've obtained to more effectively whitewash their crime.
They cannot have BILLIONS of dollars in cash sent into the desert, have
it disappear without a trace, and have nobody bat an eye. They cannot
orchestrate covert operations that drag us into war. They cannot
commission our agencies to carry out atrocities around the world on
"our behalf" - destroying America's reputation, undermining its future
security, and setting the stage for other great powers to unite against
us.
If we do not regain control of this country, we will lose what remains
of it. In order to do that, we must know exactly what we're dealing
with: there can be no illusions.
John Adams Wrote: "Liberty cannot be preserved without a general
knowledge among the people, who have a right ...to that most dreaded
and envied kind of knowledge, I mean the characters and conduct of
their rulers."
When speaking of our freedoms, Samuel Adams warned: Let us not be
"cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men."
Frederic Douglas wrote: "Find out just what the people will submit to
and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which
will be imposed upon them; -the limits of tyrants are prescribed by the
endurance of those whom they oppress."
The United States is like the Titanic - steaming headlong into an
Iceberg. Sure, I know; you've got a lot invested in your ticket, the
drinks are good and the shows are even better. The food is fantastic,
the gambling exciting, and there are tons of fun things to do. Who
wants to talk about that stupid iceberg anyway? Who wants to do what it
takes to turn the ship around or at least plan an evasive maneuver?
"Nobody here, we're having too good a time!" ...OK, but ignore the ice
at your own peril. Know that those who intend to sink this ship will
NOT go down with her. As a matter of fact they stand to profit
handsomely. They will speed off in their lifeboats, unite with the
billions of dollars lost in the desert, and YOU will be left treading
water. But not to worry; an even larger "global government" will come
to your aid. That is the ultimate plan, you know; bring America to its
knees economically, erase the borders, and absorb it into a "New World
Order." Oh, but that is a whole other topic.
For now, suffice to say, we've got some real tough choices ahead.
Hopefully you've seen enough by now to realize (if you didn't already
know) what we're dealing with. Hopefully you've seen enough to agree,
if there is compelling evidence that counters the official account of
9/11, well it just might be something we should take a look at. After
all, those darned government guys might be fibbing just a little
bit...they do that sometimes.
Part 3 - The Cover Up
Direct link to part 3-->
http://stopthelie.com/1-hour_guide_to_911.html#Part3
We can now rest our case on whether or not it's "crazy" to question the
government's official account of 9/11. Corrupt elements within our
government have proven they are capable of carrying out, facilitating
or covering up crimes of equal or greater depravity - this is
indisputable.
However, to support a specific charge (a charge of cover up or
complicity) we'll need to go further with the evidence. That is what
the remainder of this essay will focus on. Specifically, it will focus
on evidence that points to a "cover up" because a cover up, once
proven, will establish complicity.
Consider what follows similar to a grand jury investigation. Our first
job is to decide whether there's reasonable cause to believe a cover up
has taken place. If the evidence reveals reasonable cause, it is then
our job to indict.
Unlike the government's "investigation" into 9/11, ours will be truly
independent. We will not allow the suspects to choose the detectives,
limit the parameters of our inquiry, block access to damning
information, lie by omission, etc.
Let it be known that we are not only demanding answers, we are
demanding answers that can survive reasonable scrutiny. Because the
government's claims regarding 9/11 (up until now) cannot survive
reasonable scrutiny, they must be rejected in favor of answers that
can.
There are perhaps 100 separate pieces of compelling evidence that
clearly undermine the official government account of 9/11. But there is
no reason for us to address them all here. For our purposes we need
only ONE solid argument - one argument that shows, beyond a reasonable
doubt, that what we've been told is a lie. In a nutshell, this is it:
The 3 buildings that collapsed in New York on September 11, 2001 (the
north tower, the south tower, and world trade center building #7) were
brought down by explosives. The evidence to support this claim is
irrefutable. It can be physically observed and re-created. It can be
mathematically proven, and independently verified via eyewitness
accounts. The evidence to support the government's claim that fire
destroyed all three buildings has no basis in reality - the "evidence"
exists only in the form of words. There is no historical data to back
their assertions, only historical data to refute them. No models have
been able to physically reproduce the phenomena they describe because
(as expected) the laws of physics cannot be violated. The government's
refusal to first investigate and disprove the most logical cause for
the collapse of the buildings (explosives) is, in itself, highly
suspect.
Analogy:
Suppose a man is found dead in his home. His house has been ransacked,
two computers are missing, and there are signs he was tortured. His
body is laying face down, his hands and feet are tied, and there are
three gunshot wounds to the back of his head. Does it require a degree
in forensic science to conclude foul play? If you are an outsider
looking in on this investigation, would you be suspicious if this man's
death was officially ruled a suicide? Would you say such a ruling was
able to survive "reasonable scrutiny?" And what if after ruling the
death a suicide, the man's home mysteriously caught fire (electrical
problem) and his body was accidentally sent to the crematorium where it
was promptly incinerated...Would you expect a cover up? Let's hope so.
Now back up a minute. What if the only information you had access to
was the official account? What if the available information regarding
this mans death consisted solely of the following: "Detective Johnson
arrived on the scene where he found John Doe dead from a self inflicted
gun shot wound. Investigators found a suicide note apologizing to his
friends and family. Bouts with depression over the loss of his job and
a recent divorce were cited as the most likely cause for his decision."
What if this is all the information you had access to? Isn't it
reasonable to assume you'd never think twice about it? Of course; and
that is how the perfect cover up is supposed to work. -Sure there might
be quiet rumblings of a conspiracy - secret ties to the CIA and a
covert drug running operation gone bad. But with the crime scene
destroyed, and the body cremated, good luck proving it.
The official account of 9/11 is a cover up - plain and simple. For the
sake of argument, we'll define a cover up as "a false story created to
conceal the real story." For any cover up to succeed, the false story
must be protected from information that undermines it. If the
conspirators are unable to do this, the cover up falls apart.
Although all cover ups begin with a false story, there are other
elements that play a supporting role: the destruction of physical
evidence, creating distractions to control people's attention,
vilifying those who level accusations, etc. These supporting elements
(in conjunction with the false story) serve one goal: they keep you
from seeing or considering anything that might reveal the truth.
1=2E Destroy evidence: If it doesn't exist, it can't be examined
2=2E Create distractions: (Here are a couple common tactics)
a) The "false debate" distraction: False debates are very useful
because they lend credibility to the lie while distracting people away
from questions that would expose it. Take our "suicide" story above. If
people can be manipulated into a heated argument over "why" Bob killed
himself, (because his boss fired him just a week before Christmas,
because his heartless wife left him a week later, because he had a
secret drug problem, etc.) the issue of whether or not Bob actually did
kill himself gets lost.
In effect, the false debate turns the lie into an established
truth - a foundation on which the subsequent debate is built. (Clearly,
two people cannot argue about why Bob killed himself without first
accepting the "fact" that he did kill himself.) As they become
increasingly sure of their position, they become increasingly dependent
on the lie that supports it. Regardless of which side of the debate
they're on, they will unite in protecting the false assumption on which
their whole argument rests. In an odd way, defending the lie becomes an
act of self-defense from that point forward.
-It goes without saying that once one "false debate" has been
established; other "false debates" can grow up around it. In very
little time, the masses can become hopelessly tangled in a web of
falsities - endless arguments without merit. When this happens, only
strong evidence can destroy the illusion - evidence that turns their
attention back to the legitimate starting point; killing all
descendents of the original lie.
b) The "major crisis" distraction: The power of a "major crisis" to
manipulate the masses is well known among the ruling elite. Whether the
crisis is intentionally created or naturally occurring, nothing enables
them to more effectively expand power and direct the consciousness of
their subjects. -To silence dissent, monopolize media talking points,
rationalize the irrational, or completely bury an unwanted topic,
nothing beats a crisis. (Especially when that "crisis" is war.)
3. Attack the messenger: If evidence cannot be destroyed, false
debates aren't sufficient, or the crisis can't shake off growing
dissent, the one remaining option to keep you from contemplating the
evidence is to attack the messenger. When this is done, the
conspirators' assertion is obvious: "What this person claims is absurd
and any evidence he presents isn't credible."
Now ask yourself an obvious question: Why would it be necessary to
vilify a person making "absurd claims" backed with "no credible
evidence?" Isn't that something reasonably intelligent people could
determine by looking at the evidence themselves? Do we really need (or
want) others to decide for us what we should and shouldn't take into
consideration? -In a "free" and "democratic society?" I don't think so.
The preceding three installments of this "1-Hour Guide" have been an
attempt to expose the mechanics of how the government (with the help of
the media) manipulates us into believing things that simply aren't
true. For instance, the Northwoods Document proves our government would
openly conspire to stand by and let our country be attacked, so long as
the carnage helped them further their military agenda. Worse, it proves
they'd go so far as to completely manufacture an attack if they
couldn't bait the target country into attacking us first. This is not a
"conspiracy theory" it is a "conspiracy fact." -And yet the average
American still believes it's crazy to think such things are possible.
Is it an accident that everyone knows about Janet Jackson's "wardrobe
malfunction" but nobody has heard of the Northwods document? -how about
the real story behind the USS Maine, the Lusitania, the Golf of Tonkin,
the USS Liberty or (what we're discussing now) the NeoCons' "New Pearl
Harbor?"
Either we condone the exploitation of our country or we don't. Either
we support the acts of liars, thieves, murderers and aspiring tyrants
or we don't. This is our country, not theirs. LOOK at the evidence,
decide what it means and determine once and for all where you stand.
Since it might take a while for me to write the final installments,
here are a couple clips that cover the evidence of "controlled
demolition." Both are very well done - the evidence speaks for itself.
The first clip (bombs.wmv) is about 5 minutes long and comes from the
"Loose Change" documentary. The second clip is nearly an hour long and
it comes from the Alex Jones documentary "911 - Rise of the Police
State."
>From "Loose Change" Bombs.wmv
>From "Rise of the Police State" (50 minutes - 87 meg file) Click Here
Part 4 - The Evidence
Direct link to Exhibit A-->
http://stopthelie.com/1-hour_guide_to_911.html#ExhibitA
Exhibit A: Pools of Molten Steel
There are limits to what fire can do. Those limits are determined by
the amount of heat generated by a fire, the material the fire is acting
on and the duration of contact.
For instance, the flame from a lighter can easily generate enough heat
to ignite and destroy a piece of paper. Under ideal conditions, the
whole process (from contact, to complete destruction) takes less than
60 seconds.
Conversely, you could hold the flame of a lighter against one of the
core steel columns of the world trade towers for all eternity and it
would NEVER ignite the steel. Nor would the heat generated from the
flame of a lighter be sufficient to reduce the steel to a molten state.
Without knowing the actual math of how steel conducts heat, most people
can accept this as common sense.
If common sense dictates a lighter would never be sufficient to liquefy
a massive steel support column, (measuring 16 inches by 36 inches by 4
inches thick) what would be sufficient? The easy answer is: A much
larger, much hotter fire. That answer is correct, but for the purpose
of our argument we need something more specific. For that "specific
answer" we'll turn to the scientifically established "melting point" of
steel. Our answer is: 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit.
If a fire manages to overcome the heat resistant properties of steel,
raising that steels temperature to 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit, the steel
will melt. If the fire fails to raise the steel's temperature to 2,800
degrees Fahrenheit, the steel will not melt. (Keep in mind, we're not
talking about the temperature at which steel weakens and loses its
structural integrity, we're talking about the temperature at which it
is reduced to a molten state.)
Again, we call on common sense to answer a simple question: Under what
circumstances can a fire burning at less than 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit
reduce steel to a molten state? The answer is: Under no circumstances.
To date, nobody has suggested the fires on 9/11 reached temperatures of
2,800 degrees Fahrenheit. Perhaps that is because, just as steel has a
maximum temperature it can withstand before it melts, fuel sources have
a maximum temperature at which they can burn. NONE of the known fuel
sources burning on 9/11 could have reached the required temperature to
melt steel.
As a matter of fact, the widely touted culprit of 9/11 (jet fuel) has a
maximum burn temperature equal to only 60% of that required to melt
steel. (Jet Fuel's maximum burn temperature is less than 1,700 degrees
Fahrenheit.) The other fuel sources, (Desks, carpet, paper, etc.) could
have reached temperatures of up to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit under ideal
conditions. -But that is still less than 75% of what would have been
required to create the widely reported "pools of molten steel."
Because it is impossible for temperatures less than the melting point
of steel to melt steel, we can only conclude the following:
1) Something else must have been acting on the enormous steel support
columns for them to have been reduced to a molten state, and
2) The official account is provably and irrefutably a physical
impossibility.
Please remember these facts the next time you hear a propaganda victim
say: "Steel melts and that jet fuel melted the steel." The same
ill-informed person might as well proclaim: "Steel melts and that guys
lighter melted the steel." Both statements are equally absurd because
both are equally impossible. (References)
Exhibit B: Fire Initiated Collapse
There are a few things we need to point out regarding the alleged "fire
initiated collapse" of (3) steel framed buildings on 9/11.
First we need to make clear there were in fact THREE buildings that
collapsed. Many people are only aware of the two towers. The likely
reason for this is the third building, WTC 7, has been completely
ignored by the media.
Second we need to establish that nothing short of controlled demolition
has ever brought down a steel framed building in the manner we
witnessed on 9/11. Never, not once, not even close. This of course
includes fire, earthquakes, wind, poor construction, etc.
Last but not least, we need to address the fact the government's theory
regarding what caused the buildings to collapse is just that: a theory.
By no stretch of the imagination has the theory ever been proven and,
given the ever growing body of evidence against it, one could more
accurately argue the government's theory has been thoroughly
demolished. (No pun intended.)
The Third Building; WTC 7 (World Trade Center Building #7)
The collapse of WTC 7 was spectacular. -Some would argue the
catastrophic failure of this 47 story steel framed building was even
MORE spectacular than the collapse of the two towers. The reason for
making this claim is, unlike the two towers, WTC 7 was not struck by
any planes or burned with any jet fuel. -and yet, in a "spectacular"
fashion, it suddenly vaporized into its own footprint for no apparent
reason. Here are a couple excellent videos of the collapse: Video 1
Video 2
When it comes to proving the government's "raging inferno of jet fuel"
theory is critically flawed, WTC 7 represents one of the most
compelling pieces of evidence available. -and yet our "free press"
(which is supposed to help protect our society from the tyranny of
secretive, inept, and dishonest government) has acted like the collapse
of WTC 7 never happened. Rather than provide the 24 / 7 coverage this
smoking gun deserves, we've instead been treated to 24 / 7 silence.
Without getting too far into the issue of "media complicity" in the
cover up surrounding 9/11, suffice to say our multi-billion dollar
corporate media is a "for profit" operation. There is no incentive to
address any topic that could potentially destabilize the system it
relies on; a system that provides (or can take away) favorable
regulatory considerations, vital inside sources of information, and
lucrative government contracts (just to name a few.)
Is there more to the media blackout? -Maybe; but there doesn't need to
be. Good old fashioned profit motive and self-preservation are enough
to stop the most important stories dead in their tracks. Both of these
act as "filters" that sift every piece of information before it reaches
our senses. -The corporate media might skewer a lone government
criminal here and there, thats for sure; but whether it would ever
truly expose the criminal system on which it depends is another issue
all together. The fact is, neither the media nor the government can be
trusted to tell us what we really need to know.
Case in point, the independent commission which was established to
provide "the fullest possible account of the events surrounding 9/11"
dealt with the complicated WTC 7 issue by not dealing with it at all.
Yes, that is correct. You could have read the entire 568 page 9/11
commission report and not learned anything about the inexplicable
collapse of a 47 story office tower. -As if there was no real need to
bring up something so ordinary and uneventful. Those who expected
answers that would provide the "fullest possible account" got nothing
instead.
But here again, with the same filters in place, what do we expect?
Please forgive me for repeating myself: "-skewering a lone government
criminal here and there is one thing, addressing anything that could
potentially expose the criminal system (a system everyone in Washington
profits from and depends on) is another issue all together."
To be fair, consider the underlying politics. Imagine if you worked
decades to secure a high position at the most powerful company in the
world, and the "leader" of that company selected you to get to the
bottom of a problem. Would you, after careful consideration, go to your
superior and say: "Well sir, based on the evidence, it looks like
you're the problem - worse, there is reasonable cause to believe you
and others under your command might be guilty of crimes punishable by
death."
-The term "career suicide" comes to mind (if not literal suicide by way
of some unfortunate accident.)
How many of us would risk our life's work to do something guaranteed to
draw deadly serious attacks from the highest levels of power, but
offered no guarantee of rewards in return? (Consider this question
seriously-how many of us would risk our reputation, our career, our
current income, our future income-or worse?) Granted, some people
would, but the way around that little problem is to make sure that kind
of person isn't selected for the job. -Independent investigations
don't mean much when the prime suspects get to choose the people
setting the parameters of the investigation. On that point, it was said
of Phillip D. Zelikow (the 911 Commission's executive director:)
"Zelikow picks the areas of investigation, the briefing materials,
the topics for hearings, the witnesses, and the lines of questioning
for witnesses. In effect, he sets the agenda and runs the
investigation."
How can we truly expect an investigation to yield the "truth" (let
alone justice) when one hand-picked person can steer attention away
from the most incriminating evidence? How can we uncover criminal
negligence (or worse) when everything that points in that direction is
excluded and deemed irrelevant?
Perhaps The Commission wasn't meant to provide the "fullest possible
account" after all. It seems more likely it was intended to prop up the
official conspiracy theory. It seems information that undermined the
official account was only collected so it could be more effectively
suppressed, countered and whitewashed. This is especially true when it
comes to the issue of "intelligence failures" but that is beyond the
scope of our discussion here. For now, consider the following:
* Mountains of evidence that pointed to the use of explosives in
the attacks (including but not limited to eyewitness accounts of police
and firefighters on the scene) was ignored by the Commission.
* Compelling video evidence, not the least of which includes an "on
camera" admission by Larry Silverstein that building 7 was "pulled" (a
demolition term used to describe the controlled implosion of a
building) was ignored. (Video Here)
* After the government failed to suppress the firefighters radio
transmissions to one another; transmissions that reported bombs going
off in the buildings and fires that were far from raging; the newly
available radio transmissions were, you guessed it, ignored. (Sample
Audio 1) (Sample Audio 2)
Remember, for a cover up to succeed, information that exposes the lie
must be kept hidden. So, if during the course of an "investigation"
those charged with getting to the bottom of things are openly
destroying evidence, distracting attention away from obvious
inconsistencies and suppressing information that paints a more
convincing account of the facts; the LAST thing we should do is accept
what they offer without question. -Since those in charge of explaining
the events of 9/11 are clearly guilty on all counts, scrutiny of their
claims is only logical.
For a detailed list of what was left out of the "independent" 9/11
Commission Report, pick up a copy of David Ray Griffin's book: The 911
commission - omissions and distortions. Rest assured, every aspect of
how 9/11 was handled has something seriously wrong with it - the
Commissions "investigation" is no exception.
Fire Initiated Collapse - Primary arguments against
Presenting an uncluttered account of 9/11 inconsistencies is no easy
task. The official account is so haphazard and full of holes, it's very
hard to stay focused on one problem without being diverted into a
string of related problems. With that in mind, try to forgive the
following "rapid fire" outline:
We've got the "raging jet fuel theory" which (even if true) could have
never generated sufficient heat to produce the molten steel found in
all three buildings. In a logical world, we can't even begin discussing
what caused the collapse of the buildings until we've identified what
liquefied the steel support columns. Why? Because whatever liquefied
the steel support columns is logically the most likely cause of
collapse!
Another problem with the jet fuel theory (as we've already pointed out)
is WTC 7 wasn't struck by a plane or burned with jet fuel. Since it
must be assumed something else destroyed WTC 7, it's reasonable to
assume something else could have destroyed the North and South towers
as well.
To date, FEMA has only been able to come up with a "Diesel Fuel Theory"
for building 7. Check the maximum burn temperature for diesel fuel and
you'll run into the same problem we ran into with the two towers; it is
no where near sufficient to cause the molten steel found at the site.
Furthermore, when addressing how diesel fuel might have contributed to
the collapse of WTC 7, FEMA is on the record as saying: "the best
hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research,
investigation, and analysis are needed to resolve this issue." The
attacks took place in 2001. How many more years will it take?
Now is a good time for a logical question: - How long would it take
FEMA to "resolve the issue" of what caused building 7 to collapse if
they were allowed to consider explosives in the building? I'm betting
they could have a universally accepted, reproducible theory in a day.
>From there it would only be a matter of figuring out how the explosives
got into the building. (...gotta be easier than trying to figure out
how to bend the laws of physics.)
Another "theory" that has recently been put forward is debris from the
North Tower cut into Building 7; knocking out a handful of supports on
its south side. This theory also has multiple problems. First, there is
no evidence to support it. Second, the North Tower literally fell on
top of building 6, crushing a GIANT round hole out of the center of the
building. Despite having a huge chunk ripped from it's core, the
sections that weren't crushed remained standing and had to be brought
down with explosives.
Diagram of WTC complex: Note in this picture 1 WTC (The North Tower) is
almost directly against building 6 (6 WTC) whereas building 7 (7 WTC)
is the farthest building away from both the North and South towers.
Here is a picture of Building 6 after having the North Tower fall
directly on it. (Note the giant hole in the center of building 6. Also
highlighted: Building 5 and the area where building 7 used to be.)
Third, and most importantly, IF the suggested damage to building 7
actually existed (no evidence to support the assertion) and if it were
sufficient to cause the damaged section to collapse, we would have seen
a partial collapse in the area of the damage; not a symmetrical
vaporization straight down into the buildings own footprint. -Isn't it
absurd to suggest that a "few key columns on the south side of building
7 might have been scooped out by falling debris, causing it to
collapse" when in fact we can all see that building 5 suffered exactly
that kind of damage to its south side and yet didn't collapse? Or, how
about this: I wonder if some "key columns" might be missing from
building 6...(Here is a close up of the damage to building 6)
The truth, as evidenced by the pictures above (not to mention all known
history) is steel framed buildings don't up and evaporate; even if you
rip huge chunks out of them. A catastrophic failure does not a "global
collapse" make. As a reference, compare these two buildings below
(snapped off at the base in an earthquake) to what was left of WTC 7.
And now, here is the picture of what was left of WTC 7(Click Here.)
Forgive the cliche', but there is "something wrong with this picture."
While we're pointing out the obvious, how about an obvious yet unasked
question: Why weren't explosives the first thing considered as the
cause for the WTC buildings' collapse? Terrorists regularly use bombs
to attack their targets, countless reputable eyewitnesses reported
bombs going off, buildings have never collapsed in the manner witnessed
on 9/11 without the help of explosives, and in 1993 explosives were
successfully placed (by terrorists) and detonated in one of the same
buildings that fell on 9/11! To have the government bend itself into an
intellectual pretzel to make their "fire initiated collapse" theory
stick (without spending any time looking into the more plausible
theory) makes no sense whatsoever.
There are a few more important things to consider:
Contrary to what the government would have you believe, all evidence
points to relatively insignificant fires at the time of each building's
collapse. Try to forget about the "jet fuel" that was endlessly drummed
into your head; it means nothing. In the towers the jet fuel was
irrelevant after 10 minutes (burned off) and in WTC7, it never existed.
What we're dealing with are three high rise buildings that, according
to the government, vaporized due to fire -
For the sake of argument; pretend there had never been a high-rise
fire before in the history of mankind. If that was the case, the "fire
initiated collapse" of all three buildings would be harder to disprove.
Even so; it's likely that some in the scientific community would
challenge the theory; let's proceed under that assumption.
Armed with a strong grasp of physics and knowledge of how heat affects
steel, our scientific "debunkers" would have firmly rejected all three
buildings disintegrated (at near free-fall speed) as a result of fire.
To back their assertion, they would conduct a series of experiments
where steel framed buildings were subjected to extremely hot
"all-consuming fires" for hours on end. To be clear, the fires in these
experiments would be intentionally stoked to maximum severity under
ideal conditions; they would far surpass anything the WTC buildings had
to endure.
-What if, at the end of their testing, the results read: "no collapse
was observed in any of the six experiments -despite the temperature of
the steel beams reaching 1,500 - 1,700 degrees Fahrenheit in three of
the tests-" Would anyone still accept the official account? Maybe some
would still believe, but what if (for the first time in history)
steel-framed buildings around the world suddenly started bursting into
flames? -Instead of scientific "mumbo jumbo" the masses would get to
see the affects of these fires first hand. They witness:
=B7 A fire in a Philadelphia high rise that rages for 18
hours, burning hot enough to break glass and gut 8 floors. Yet despite
the severe conditions, a damage report concludes the steel support
columns "continued to support their loads without obvious damage."
=B7 They witness a Caracas high-rise fire, it burns for 17
hours and completely guts the upper 20 floors. -the building remains
standing.
=B7 Finally, they witness a high-rise fire like no other in
Madrid Spain. The building literally burns like a torch (a TRUE "Raging
Inferno") destroying it from top to bottom. When all is said and done,
it takes more than 22 hours to extinguish the flames, the building is
irreparably damaged, but it remains standing.
Would this knock the legs out from under the government's theory? -For
all but the most dedicated followers, yes...
With that said, now would be a good time to reveal that each event I've
just mentioned actually took place. From the scientific experiments to
the individual building fires each is a legitimate historical fact.
(-Save the chronology and certain aspects of the context, there is
nothing "hypothetical" about any of the aforementioned.)
Rather than take the time to go through each of the cited examples,
lets contrast the 22 hour, all consuming Madrid Spain fire (Below) with
the 56 minute, barely visible fire of the South Tower on 9/11. If you
haven't seen pictures of the Madrid fire, have a good look:
The government has told us over and over again the South tower
succumbed to the devastating heat of a raging inferno. -but as is the
case with nearly everything we've been told, the evidence strongly
contradicts their claim. -nothing to evince a blaze even remotely
comparable to the true inferno above.
First, we've got multiple eyewitness accounts (from within the building
itself) that describe anything but an inferno. Perhaps the most
compelling account is that of a firefighter who, transmitting from the
impact floor of the South Tower, radioed the following: "we've got two
isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two
lines." If you didn't listen to it before, here it is the audio.
-moments after this transmission (with the fires at their lowest point)
the South Tower collapsed.
Additionally, there is video and photographic evidence that proves the
absence of a raging inferno. For instance, the thick black smoke seen
pouring out of the South Tower prior to collapse is a clear indication
the fire was oxygen starved and on its way out-
Now, let's compare the extremely short lived and rather unimpressive
"inferno" that allegedly vaporized the South Tower, to what the Windsor
Building in Madrid Spain had to endure.
If ever a steel-framed building should have collapsed due to fire, the
Windsor building was the perfect candidate. It had far less steel than
the WTC buildings (limiting its ability to conduct / diffuse heat), it
had FAR MORE intense fires to deal with, and it burned much longer.
Additionally, the "core" of the Windsor building was constructed of
steel reinforced concrete; nowhere near as durable as the enormous
solid steel support columns of the towers and building 7. And yet,
despite all of these disadvantages, it displayed amazing resilience.
For the record, few in the scientific community doubt that it's
theoretically possible for a building to experience failure if it is
subjected to devastating heat for a sufficient period of time. And
additional factors like no fire-proofing, no sprinkler systems,
insufficient steel to "bleed off" heat or inferior construction greatly
increase the possibility. However, what is "doubted" (or more
accurately; considered downright impossible) is that such a failure
would resemble anything like what was witnessed on 9/11. -Gradual,
isolated, asymmetrical failures spread out over time; perhaps
-simultaneous disintegration of all load bearing columns (leaving a
pile of neatly folded rubble a few stories high) -no way.
If the Windsor building had been an experiment to debunk the sudden and
complete free-fall collapse of the WTC buildings, it would have to be
chalked up as a great success for demonstrating the following;
1) The genuine difficulty of causing steel to fail in a building fire
2) What a fire initiated failure actually looks like, and
3) How less affected sections "hold up" under falling debris and how
the CORE reacts to collapsing floor spans
Pretending for a moment the inferno was intentionally created to cause
an observable failure, the logical expectations would have been:
Slowly, individual sections of steel would lose their ability to "bleed
off" the intense heat they were subjected to. As a result, their
temperature would rise and their rated capacity to support weight would
decrease; first by 10%, then 20%, 40% etc. By the time an individual
supporting member had lost 70% of its rated capacity, it would begin to
sag and twist. At around an 80% reduction that particular section would
likely fail.
In the end, the overall expected failure scenario reads: A series of
small partial collapses (isolated and occurring at different intervals
over the course of the blaze) with the bulk of the building remaining
in tact. -NOT expected (or believed possible): an instantaneous failure
of all weight bearing columns resulting in a symmetrical free-fall
collapse. And what were the results? See for yourself:
Of the approximately 10 separate partial failures, none of them had any
affect on the core of the structure-This is amazing when you consider
the severity of the blaze, the duration of the fire, and the inherent
inferiority of its "reinforced concrete" construction. An excellent
summary of the facts can be found here:
The Twin Towers and Building 7 were both 100% steel-framed, with
large wide-flange columns and box columns, some measuring over four
feet wide and fabricated of steel up to five inches thick.
In contrast to the WTC Towers, the Windsor building was framed
primarily in steel-reinforced concrete, with columns of concrete
reinforced by thin sections of rebar... -Note that steel-framed and
steel-reinforced-concrete-framed structures behave very differently in
fires.
* Steel is a good conductor and concrete is a poor conductor of
heat. Thus in a fire, a steel frame will conduct heat away from the
hotspots into the larger structure. As long as the fire does not
consume the larger structure, this heat conductivity will keep the
temperatures of the frame well below the fire temperatures. The same is
not true of steel-reinforced-concrete structures, since concrete is not
a good thermal conductor, and the thermal conductivity of the rebar
inside the concrete is limited by its small mass and the embedding
matrix of concrete.
* Fires can cause spalling of concrete, but not of steel. This
is because concrete has a small percentage of latent moisture, which is
converted to steam by heat. Thus, a large fire can gradually erode a
concrete structure to the point of collapse, whereas a fire can only
threaten a steel-framed structure if it elevates steel temperatures to
such an extent
Regarding the time it took for each partial failure:
Time Collapse Situation
1:29 East face of the 21st floor collapsed
1:37 South middle section of several floors above the 21st
floor gradually collapsed
1:50 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed
2:02 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed
2:11 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed
2:13 Floors above about 25th floor collapsed Large collapse
of middle section at about 20th floor
2:17 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed
2:47 Southwest corner of 1 ~ 2 floors below about 20th floor
collapsed
2:51 Southeast corner of about 18th ~ 20th floors collapsed
3:35 South middle section of about 17th ~ 20th floors
collapsed-
3:48 Fire flame spurted out below the Upper Technical Floor
4:17 Debris on the Upper Technical Floor fell down
These partial collapse events, spread over several hours, contrast
with the implosion of WTC Building #7 in 7 seconds, and the total
explosive collapses of each of the Twin Towers in under 17 seconds.
(Source: 911research.wtc7.net)
If after all this, there's still doubt about whether or not the WTC
fires were sufficient to completely level the far superior buildings,
there are yet a few more things to consider...
Of the columns from the fire floors NIST studied, "only three columns
had evidence the steel reached temperatures above 482 degrees
Fahrenheit," and none of the examined core columns had evidence of
reaching even that temperature.
Granted, 99.9% of the evidence (-evidence that could have easily
settled once and for all what destroyed all three buildings) was
quickly hauled off under armed guard and destroyed. -Nonetheless, we
take what we can get and what we got matches exactly what we'd expect
to find. IE: The video, photographic and first hand accounts all
support a finding by NIST that none of their core column samples had
reached even 480 degrees Fahrenheit.
Now is a good time to remind ourselves of the scientific experiments
conducted on steel-framed buildings mentioned earlier: "no collapse was
observed in any of the six experiments -despite the temperature of the
steel beams reaching 1,500 - 1,700 degrees Fahrenheit in three of the
tests-"
David Ray Griffin wrote an excellent piece on this topic and in it, he
points out something very obvious but often overlooked: There is no
evidence to support the government's "fire destroyed the building's"
theory. -Not one feature of the WTC buildings' sudden and complete
disintegration matches any historical reference of how large steel
framed building's react to fire. By contrast, the WTC buildings
exhibited at least 11 features that are consistent with the intentional
demolition of a building.
Just one question: -Is there any logical reason why the much better
theory, (with all its supporting evidence) has been vilified and
ignored in favor of the lesser one?
A final appeal to Common Sense
If we ignore the impossibility of molten steel; the comparatively
insignificant fires, the historical evidence, and the fact that WTC 7
was not struck by a plane there is still one remaining argument some
try to advance regarding the towers. That argument is: "It was damage
from the planes + the fires that triggered the free-fall collapse."
There are many angles we can attack this argument from. The most
obvious is to point out the towers were designed to withstand the
impact of a 707. Although the 707 is slightly smaller than a 767, it
has a higher top speed. As such, a 707 traveling at top speed would
actually hit with more force and do more damage than the planes that
struck the towers.
The problem with the "obvious" response is it leaves too much wiggle
room. It leaves the door open to silly arguments about fireproofing
being dislodged, (read up on the Windsor buildings' "fireproofing" to
crush that argument) the circumstances under which designers expected a
707 would impact the towers, (some have argued the architects only
planned for a collision if a plane was lost in fog and traveling at
reduced speeds) etc, etc.
To rid ourselves of all these diversions and get right to the heart of
what is wrong with the way in which the two towers collapsed, we're
going to throw the apologists for the official theory a bone.
Better than dislodged fireproofing, super duper jet fuel, or
miscalculations about plane velocity, we're prepared to offer up
absolute and utter devastation. We're not talking about some bending or
melting of steel, or a few knocked out columns in the planes path;
we're talking about the complete vaporization of EVERYTHING in the
impact zone. -Poof, gone!
In this case we'll use the North Tower for our example. We know that
the North Tower was struck between the 93rd and 98th floor. Per our
guidelines, we'll assume those floors were completely vaporized
instantaneously. -If this were the case, what would we be looking at?
Working our way from the ground up we'd see a 93 story tower followed
by 5 missing floors, and ending with an in tact section measuring 12
floors high "suspended" above the 5 story gap. (Of course in the real
world, a 12 story chunk of building can't "hover" above a 5 story
section of nothing; but for the sake of making a point, we're going to
leave it hang there for a minute.)
Right next to our tower we're going to use a crane to raise another 12
story section to the same height as the "hovering" 12 story section. If
you're having a hard time visualizing all this, here is a picture of
what we're looking at:
Simple question: If both sections are dropped at the exact same time,
which section do you think will hit the earth first? Or maybe a better
question would be: Who in their right mind could possibly believe the
chunk of debris on the left (with the in tact 93 stories beneath) would
hit the earth at the same time as the chunk of debris on the right
(with nothing but air to brake its fall?)
Even using our very generous "5 missing floors" scenario (where the
upper debris can literally free-fall for approximately 60 feet) the
debris will only achieve a speed of roughly 40 miles per hour before
colliding with the remaining 1,116 + feet of structural steel below.
-are we really to believe continued free-fall acceleration through
1,116 feet of structural steel is possible?
-Of course our "generous" 5 missing floors scenario isn't real. Those 5
floors WERE in the way and surely would have prevented the mass of
falling debris from attaining anything near a 60 foot free-fall speed.
Knowing this, cut the rate of descent in half (and multiply the
absurdity of the governments' assertion by 5.)
For the scientists out there: What kind of Gs would the falling debris
achieve at roughly 20 miles per hour? Better question: How many g's
would be required to not only overcome the built in "5 times rated
weight" redundancy of the supporting structure below, but permit the
continued free-fall acceleration of debris as if it were traveling
through nothing more than 1,116 feet of air?
Call 'em crazy, but these are some of the reasons why a growing circle
of physicists, engineers, scientists, high ranking government officials
and everyday citizens are rejecting the government's "fire initiated
collapse" theory. Buildings don't disintegrate at free-fall speed
unless all of their structural supports are removed...it isn't rocket
science. -If it was only a matter of lighting a few strategic fires to
bring down high-rise structures (into nice neat little piles) there's
little doubt demolition companies around the world would be saving
themselves millions of dollars (per demolition) by doing just that.
http://stopthelie.com/1-hour_guide_to_911.html
|
|
|
| Re: physics Professor explodes WTC collapse [message #384894 ] |
Fr, 05 Mai 2006 07:58 |
|
u2r2h [at] gmx.net wrote:
> For many years now, the mainstream media has played a key role in
> maintaining the government's official account of 9/11. In all respects,
> it has done a brilliant job of filtering out everything that might
> undermine the government's claims, while simultaneously demonizing
> anyone who dares to challenge those claims.
This is very true and very infortunate.
However, just because the current regime in Washington has something to
hide does mean that you can speculate that the WTC was destroyed by
explosives or aliens or that there was no plane that hit the Pentagone etc.
It is simply more likely that the regime knew that Al Qaeda would strike
the USA in some way, suspected it might involve aircraft, but didn't
have specific dates of locations (denyability is great since they can
state that they had no specific evidence). They allowed this to happen
because this opened the doors to the regime's plans as detailed back in
1998 on the newamericancentury.org web site. (cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz->CRW).
The regime didn't need to organise anything. They just needed to allow
al qaeda to do their deeds. They didn't need to fake the destruction of
the WTC. They just needed to ensure a disconnect at the white house that
prevented the various security/police organisations to put the pieces
of the puzzle together before the event.
When you look at Bush's reaction when he was at that school when he was
told of the first attack, he froze for many many many minutes, doing
nothing. Did he know that the White House would be hit shortly and that
lots of his staffers would be killed and felt terrible about it ?
As for flight 93, it is a great piece to help americans feel proud of
the passengers who foiled the terrorists and the white house regime has
certaintly used this many times and made sure that the story was spun
this way (especially initially when they leaked info that the passengers
had retaken control of the aircraft).
Was there a CIA agent on board whose role was to lead civilian passenger
rebellion and retake the aircraft in a heroic effort ? That would have
been THE piece of good news, but they forgot to factor in the
possibility of the terrorists pointing the nose down before the pax
could enter the cockpit.
But even without the CIA agent idea, flight 93 story still stands on its
own. The only thing wrong was the FBI exagerating the action of the
passengers initially (until that comission got access to what was
supoosedly the real tapes of the CVR).
This is what you can speculate about. If you speculate about no planes
hitting Pentagone, or WTC purposefully blown up, you actually give the
Bush regime credibility becayuse you discredit anyone who has serious
criticism of how the Bush regime has handled this.
Remember that until 9/11, the USA media weren't exactly very warm to the
Bush regime and they had no problems criticising it. On that day, the
USA media had no reason to help the government fake events. It is only
afterwards that the white house used the "Patriotism" card to get the
media to toe the white house line religiously.
Of course, nobody in the USA ever questions the validity of the Bin
Ladin tapes. The CIA always confirms within minutes their authenticity.
But no other agency ever validates Bin ladin's tapes. So that leaves the
door wide open for the CIA to actually produce those tapes. Bin Ladin
may dead, but kept virtually alive only with those faked tapes produced
by the CIA. This keeps the "war on terror" agenda of the current
washington regime alive and well. And you'll notice that those tapes
always appear at politically opportune times, which make americans fear
another attack and keep justification for the Bush regime's "war on terror".
If you want to look at just how brainwashed americans have been, when
the proof that the USA was torturing prisoners came out, there was no
opposition and americans (and their media) simply stopped at blaming
that poor soldier. Nobody questioned who was taking those photos/videos,
which general had those videos/photos in his desk and had decided not to
take any disciplinary actions until they were leaked to the media.
Americans simply cannot believe that the USA would condone torture, so
they are in a state of denial when proof is produced. They are also in a
state of denial when you tell them that the USA does not uphold the "due
legal process" that is no longer followed in the USA.
Gantanamo bay is nothing more than than a Soviet era concentration camp
where people were randomly taken from streets of Kabul and kept in a
glorified dog kennel and tortured without any due legal process, without
any proof that they did anything wrong.
The americans are very proud of the "right to bear arms" which gives
civilians the right to help defend their country. But when Afghan
citizens tried to defend their country from an invasion, those were
immediatly labeled "dangerous terrorists" and sent to a concentration
camp with the media purposefully keeping a blind eye on this very
flawed process. They too had the right to bear arms to defend their
country. They are not unlawfull compattants.
What the americans don't realise, and this is very sad, is that the Bush
regime's reaction to the terrorist attacks is exactly what Bin Ladin had
expected and more. So the Bush regime is actually helping Bin ladin
reach his goals with policies such as patriot act and his invasions in
middle east and losing credibility in the world.
Bush has worked to maintain the fear of terrorism because that is how he
could get re-elected. What is very sad is that policians in wahsintton
can decided that lives of 25,000 iraqis and 2600 americans are
expendanble in order to help one person get re-elected. In the end, this
what really happened.
|
|
|
| Re: physics Professor explodes WTC collapse [message #384902 ] |
Fr, 05 Mai 2006 11:24 |
|
On 4 May 2006 20:44:32 -0700, u2r2h [at] gmx.net wrote:
>No Tinfoil Hat Requireded the mindless babble of morons>
<snipped the mindless babble of morons>
So you are a "natural" barking moonbat...
OK.
Mike Smith
|
|
|
| Re: physics Professor explodes WTC collapse [message #384925 ] |
Fr, 05 Mai 2006 15:40 |
|
u2r2h [at] gmx.net wrote:
>Newsgroups: alt.tv.lost,austin.general,rec.travel.air,uk.finance,alt.mil itary
added spam crossposts - abuse [at] inetbone.net
|
|
|
| Re: physics Professor explodes WTC collapse [message #384927 ] |
Fr, 05 Mai 2006 15:55 |
|
"Mike Smith" <mws [at] wt.net> wrote in message
news:o76m52lqecj7bg61dess4laisg149ok7vp [at] 4ax.com...
> On 4 May 2006 20:44:32 -0700, u2r2h [at] gmx.net wrote:
>
>>No Tinfoil Hat Requireded the mindless babble of morons>
> <snipped the mindless babble of morons>
>
> So you are a "natural" barking moonbat...
>
> OK.
>
> Mike Smith
Tom the lab technician leans back in his chair and begins attentively
munching on his popcorn. "Did you see that?", he asks Bob,"The Mike Smith
specimen has reverted to his old ways and is calling people names again".
"Yeah I saw it", says Bob,"Did you change anything with the cat chow and
jalapeno formula?" "No", says Tom, "He hasn't been eating. Maybe we
shouldn't have pointed out his propensity to deliver "smart shit", I think
it confused him". "Yes, I was considering that myself", replies Bob, "maybe
we should get down on his level and try to stimulate his tiny mind. Here -
'Hey Mikey! Your a poo-poo head!' Let's see what he does now".
|
|
|
| Re: physics Professor explodes WTC collapse [message #384939 ] |
Fr, 05 Mai 2006 17:29 |
|
Alan S wrote:
> "Mike Smith" <mws [at] wt.net> wrote in message
> news:o76m52lqecj7bg61dess4laisg149ok7vp [at] 4ax.com...
> > On 4 May 2006 20:44:32 -0700, u2r2h [at] gmx.net wrote:
> >
> >>No Tinfoil Hat Requireded the mindless babble of morons>
> > <snipped the mindless babble of morons>
> >
> > So you are a "natural" barking moonbat...
> >
> > OK.
> >
> > Mike Smith
>
> Tom the lab technician leans back in his chair and begins attentively
> munching on his popcorn. "Did you see that?", he asks Bob,"The Mike Smith
> specimen has reverted to his old ways and is calling people names again".
> "Yeah I saw it", says Bob,"Did you change anything with the cat chow and
> jalapeno formula?" "No", says Tom, "He hasn't been eating. Maybe we
> shouldn't have pointed out his propensity to deliver "smart shit", I think
> it confused him". "Yes, I was considering that myself", replies Bob, "maybe
> we should get down on his level and try to stimulate his tiny mind. Here -
> 'Hey Mikey! Your a poo-poo head!' Let's see what he does now".
Alan, there was no Tom and no Bob in this thread, in case you hadn't
noticed.
I was wondering where Alan has been, and what brought him back
to this group to the thread on Porfessor Frank Matthews.
Nothing, of course.
Just Alan Street doing his usual troll, having been trolling in half a
dozen newsgroups the past few days.
-- Bob.
|
|
|
| Re: physics Professor explodes WTC collapse [message #384945 ] |
Fr, 05 Mai 2006 18:27 |
|
"Reef Fish" <Large_Nassau_Grouper [at] Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1146842993.289124.69360 [at] i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Alan S wrote:
>> "Mike Smith" <mws [at] wt.net> wrote in message
>> news:o76m52lqecj7bg61dess4laisg149ok7vp [at] 4ax.com...
>> > On 4 May 2006 20:44:32 -0700, u2r2h [at] gmx.net wrote:
>> >
>> >>No Tinfoil Hat Requireded the mindless babble of morons>
>> > <snipped the mindless babble of morons>
>> >
>> > So you are a "natural" barking moonbat...
>> >
>> > OK.
>> >
>> > Mike Smith
>>
>> Tom the lab technician leans back in his chair and begins attentively
>> munching on his popcorn. "Did you see that?", he asks Bob,"The Mike Smith
>> specimen has reverted to his old ways and is calling people names again".
>> "Yeah I saw it", says Bob,"Did you change anything with the cat chow and
>> jalapeno formula?" "No", says Tom, "He hasn't been eating. Maybe we
>> shouldn't have pointed out his propensity to deliver "smart shit", I
>> think
>> it confused him". "Yes, I was considering that myself", replies Bob,
>> "maybe
>> we should get down on his level and try to stimulate his tiny mind.
>> Here -
>> 'Hey Mikey! Your a poo-poo head!' Let's see what he does now".
>
> Alan, there was no Tom and no Bob in this thread, in case you hadn't
> noticed.
>
> I was wondering where Alan has been, and what brought him back
> to this group to the thread on Porfessor Frank Matthews.
>
> Nothing, of course.
>
> Just Alan Street doing his usual troll, having been trolling in half a
> dozen newsgroups the past few days.
>
> -- Bob.
>
Alan Street? Porfessor? Half a dozen newsgroups? Troll? You must be
wondering where a different Alan is, and the specimen Mikey knows who the
lab technicians Tom and Bob are, they've been studying his behavior for
quite some time now. This thread popped up in austin.general as a cross
post.
As far as the subject matter goes, it is unfortunately pointless to try and
educate people about the demolition of the World Trade Center in newsgroups
because the folks that read them either know the truth or they completely
refuse to accept the truth because they are either too fragile
psychologically to handle the reality of the sickness, or they are simply
stupid lemmings that believe anything the boob tube dumps on them because
"they wouldn't say it if it wasn't so". Any argument I have ever heard that
refutes the original posters position (with cites I might add) has been
laden with nebulous stuff like "experts all agree that ..." and "studies
have proven ..." or just the plain old "Oh, you're a liberal dumbass (or in
this case "moonbat") that hates the USA ..." or any other "I know it's right
because they said so" garbage that the sheeple stand on as a soap box.
That being said, I suppose there is some argument that showing the horse the
water is valuable whether it chooses to drink or not.
Enter lab technicians Tom and Bob ...
- A -
|
|
|
| Re: physics Professor explodes WTC collapse [message #384948 ] |
Fr, 05 Mai 2006 18:55 |
|
Alan S wrote:
> "Reef Fish" <Large_Nassau_Grouper [at] Yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1146842993.289124.69360 [at] i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Alan S wrote:
> >> "Mike Smith" <mws [at] wt.net> wrote in message
> >> news:o76m52lqecj7bg61dess4laisg149ok7vp [at] 4ax.com...
> >> > On 4 May 2006 20:44:32 -0700, u2r2h [at] gmx.net wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>No Tinfoil Hat Requireded the mindless babble of morons>
> >> > <snipped the mindless babble of morons>
> >> >
> >> > So you are a "natural" barking moonbat...
> >> >
> >> > OK.
> >> >
> >> > Mike Smith
> >>
> >> Tom the lab technician leans back in his chair and begins attentively
> >> munching on his popcorn. "Did you see that?", he asks Bob,"The Mike Smith
> >> specimen has reverted to his old ways and is calling people names again".
> >> "Yeah I saw it", says Bob,"Did you change anything with the cat chow and
> >> jalapeno formula?" "No", says Tom, "He hasn't been eating. Maybe we
> >> shouldn't have pointed out his propensity to deliver "smart shit", I
> >> think
> >> it confused him". "Yes, I was considering that myself", replies Bob,
> >> "maybe
> >> we should get down on his level and try to stimulate his tiny mind.
> >> Here -
> >> 'Hey Mikey! Your a poo-poo head!' Let's see what he does now".
> >
> > Alan, there was no Tom and no Bob in this thread, in case you hadn't
> > noticed.
> >
> > I was wondering where Alan has been, and what brought him back
> > to this group to the thread on Porfessor Frank Matthews.
> >
> > Nothing, of course.
> >
> > Just Alan Street doing his usual troll, having been trolling in half a
> > dozen newsgroups the past few days.
> >
> > -- Bob.
> >
> Alan Street? Porfessor? Half a dozen newsgroups? Troll? You must be
> wondering where a different Alan is,
Ah, I stand corrected! Mea Culpa.
I hastily assumed you were the Alan Street who trolls and behaves
just like you. :-)
> and the specimen Mikey knows who the
> lab technicians Tom and Bob are, they've been studying his behavior for
> quite some time now. This thread popped up in austin.general as a cross
> post.
That explained it. It was reference to a Tom and Bob NOT in this
thread nor in this newsgroup, but in a group I've never visited.
That was also one of the points that led me to assume Alan S was
Alan Street, because Alan Street follows me around to make remarks
entirely unrelated to anything being discussed.
I was just too much of a coincidence. I fell for it. :-)
> That being said, I suppose there is some argument that showing the horse the
> water is valuable whether it chooses to drink or not.
>
> Enter lab technicians Tom and Bob ...
Also when I saw your post, I had just come from rec.travel.cruises,
when this Bob was talking about the Tom there, no relation to your
Tom of course.
>
> - A -
|
|
|
| Re: physics Professor explodes WTC collapse [message #384956 ] |
Fr, 05 Mai 2006 20:17 |
|
>> u2r2h [at] gmx.net wrote:
>> that link again. http://911research.wtc7.net
And you believe that somehow of the hundreds of individuals required
to orchestrate a 9/11 event; all of them have been able to keep their
mouths shut. It's one thing to be delusional and yet another to be
just plain ignorant.
Look at how successful the soldiers at Abu Ghraib prison were at
keeping their mistreatment of Iraqis out of the hands of the media.
Look at how well the Army was able to divert attention to keep Pat
Tillman's death by friendly fire a secret. And look at how successful
your political diety, Bill Clinton, was at keeping his BJs from public
attention.
|
|
|
| Re: physics Professor explodes WTC collapse [message #384969 ] |
Fr, 05 Mai 2006 21:39 |
|
"Postman's Holiday" <wayupnorthland [at] bigmailbox.net> wrote in message
news:1146853069.113327.140970 [at] v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>>> u2r2h [at] gmx.net wrote:
>>> that link again. http://911research.wtc7.net
>
> And you believe that somehow of the hundreds of individuals required
> to orchestrate a 9/11 event; all of them have been able to keep their
> mouths shut. It's one thing to be delusional and yet another to be
> just plain ignorant.
>
> Look at how successful the soldiers at Abu Ghraib prison were at
> keeping their mistreatment of Iraqis out of the hands of the media.
> Look at how well the Army was able to divert attention to keep Pat
> Tillman's death by friendly fire a secret. And look at how successful
> your political diety, Bill Clinton, was at keeping his BJs from public
> attention.
>
Hundreds of individuals? You have a roster or something? Your argument is
exactly where I was coming from for a long time. I simply could NOT believe
that something of that magnitude could be pulled off without someone
spilling the beans. The sole and only reason I began to re-think my position
was the motherload of data that emerged refuting the media's claims of
foreign terrorism.
The buildings and how they fell.straight down in the same amount of time it
would take them to freefall.
The temperature at which steel melts and the weird way the structure of the
WTC defied all common knowledge of how steel would behave in an event like
that.
The overbuilding of the World Trade Center and it's sudden demise.
The lack of plane debris and skid marks at the crash site at the Pentagon.
The excellent piloting skills exhibited by the flight school flunkies (these
guys were amazing! especially since they had just learned to fly!)
The lack of military address to 4 hijacked airliners.
The passport that showed up in the debris of a terrorist even though
everything was supposedly obliterated in the intense 3000 degree inferno.
Jet fuel wouldn't burn at 3000 degrees unless it was under pressure and
mixed with air as in say - a blast furnace or something.
The reality that not only were the planes only half full of fuel, but most
of that burned off at impact leaving black smoldering fires within one half
an hour.
Building seven of the WTC complex fell down into a nice perfect little pile
too.
The fact that of all the skyscrapers in the world that have burned in
intense fires, (some of which burned for over 24 hours) have never collapsed
until the WTC and they both crumbled perfectly in a very short time.
The slow motion videos of the falling towers where you can visibly see puffs
shooting out of the lower floors in succession as if there were other
explosions occurring.
The reports of many who were there hearing a series of subsequent
explosions.
The perfect hole that was left in the concrete at the pentagon as opposed to
the mess that a jetliner would make.
The missing airplane engines at the Pentagon.
The fact that the "hijacked plane" that hit the Pentagon conveniently went
all the way around the building to hit the side under construction thus not
affecting the important brass on the other side of the building (the side it
came in on)
The lack of an impact crater where the 4th plane went down over
Pennsylvania.
The almost instant recognition of Osama Bin Laden as the bad guy and the
first videos of him not looking anything like the following ones, also in
one he is left handed and in another he is right handed..
The hijackers were the only devout Muslims I have ever heard of that hang
out in strip bars.
The immediate evacuation of certain Saudi's that were stateside even though
there was a ban on all flights.
There were a lot of people that didn't show up for work at the WTC on 9/11.
A whole lot.
I don't like conspiracy theories in general, I tend to think people aren't
that organized. We will probably never know everything about what happened
on that day in 2001 but the previous facts speak for themselves. Something
about the whole mess stinks. Everything I have read that attempts to refute
these facts is full of conjecture, generalizations, and finger pointing.
Unfortunately, I have yet to find anything that is even close to being as
conclusive as the stuff the conspiracy advocates are putting out. If anyone
knows of any information that can refute these fact in a scientific and
logical manner, I would sure like to read it.
Oh, and about trotting out Bill Clinton's dick. You may not have picked up
on this yet, but that is some really old news. If you want something new to
chew on (haha- there's a cigar joke in there I know it) try the lobbyist
Abramhoff, or pill popping Rush, or Mister 1.9 million dollar tax return
Cheney, or the lovely and talented Tom Delay and his legacy of shit, the
shifting white house staff of cartoon characters, or maybe the nuculous of
this bloody, deficit hiking, trade screwing, amnesty giving, glad handing
pack of rats and criminals we call congress, the one and only Texas cowboy
from Connecticut, George Bush if your looking for some new stuff to complain
about. Did I say nuculous? Yes I did.
Would or will the Democrats do or be any better? Nope. They're all career
politicians and they all do the exact same things, they just color their
spin differently. This world is ruled by corporate law.
Signed,
Dangling Chad
|
|
|
| Re: physics Professor explodes WTC collapse [message #384978 ] |
Fr, 05 Mai 2006 22:35 |
|
> Hundreds of individuals? You have a roster or something? Your argument is
> exactly where I was coming from for a long time. I simply could NOT believe
> that something of that magnitude could be pulled off without someone
> spilling the beans. The sole and only reason I began to re-think my position
> was the motherload of data that emerged refuting the media's claims of
> foreign terrorism.
Did you ever pause to think about the 'motherload of data' and how
credible it is? I have yet to see an image of the planes hitting the
towers which did not show a commercial aircraft. Although even that
appearsr to be disputed. Doctored videos maybe?
> Jet fuel wouldn't burn at 3000 degrees unless it was under pressure and
> mixed with air as in say - a blast furnace or something.
The fuel was enough to ignite the contents of the building. The flash
point of Av gas suggests that it would only have a short duration burn.
But it would be a hot one.
> The fact that the "hijacked plane" that hit the Pentagon conveniently went
> all the way around the building to hit the side under construction thus not
> affecting the important brass on the other side of the building (the side it
> came in on)
Urban legend. This one has already been discredited.
> The lack of an impact crater where the 4th plane went down over
> Pennsylvania.
Now we have to wonder where they are hiding the aircraft which didn't
impact the ground in Pennsylvania.
> There were a lot of people that didn't show up for work at the WTC on 9/11.
> A whole lot.
There are a lot of people in New York who have a day which starts later
than 0800 or 0900. Particularly those who work requires contact with
others in different times zones. A nephew in NYC works 1000-1830 M-F.
> I don't like conspiracy theories in general, I tend to think people aren't
> that organized. We will probably never know everything about what happened
> on that day in 2001 but the previous facts speak for themselves.
If you look hard enough, and are very selective in your intrepretation
of events, it is not all that difficult to create new 'facts'.
> Oh, and about trotting out Bill Clinton's dick. You may not have picked up
> on this yet, but that is some really old news. If you want something new to
> chew on (haha- there's a cigar joke in there I know it) try the lobbyist ...
I only mentioned Clinton's schwantz to support a contention that when
more than one individual is involved - in anything having to do with
the government - there will be a leak (no pun intented).
> Would or will the Democrats do or be any better? Nope. They're all career
> politicians and they all do the exact same things, they just color their
> spin differently. This world is ruled by corporate law.
The left would enact more income redistribution in an effort to
address their past failed socialist agenda. But basically, as with the
Reps, they will take their marching orders from the lobbiest that throw
the most money in their direction.
You want congressional reform? Forget it until enough of us seriously
demand term limits. At which time we might actually start taking back
our government. Until such time, we can only hope that we do not get
screwed too badly.
|
|
|
| Re: physics Professor explodes WTC collapse [message #384990 ] |
Sa, 06 Mai 2006 05:26 |
|
On 4 May 2006 20:44:32 -0700, u2r2h [at] gmx.net wrote:
>No Tinfoil Hat Required
>
>If one group accuses another of being delusional, they ought to prepare
>convincing evidence.
>
YOUR delusion IS the evidence.
>
>
>For many years now, the mainstream media has played a key role in
>maintaining the government's official account of 9/11. In all respects,
>it has done a brilliant job of filtering out everything that might
>undermine the government's claims, while simultaneously demonizing
>anyone who dares to challenge those claims.
>
>
>
>So let's get right to it: Is it really baseless idiocy that drives
>people to question the official account of 9/11? Are the millions of
>Americans (including Senators, FBI agents, Doctors, Lawyers,
>Professors, Scientists, Engineers, etc.) all paranoid loons for
>suggesting we need a truly independent investigation of 9/11? The
>government and media would have you think so. They'd also (to help
>maintain that perception) need to keep you diverted from the
>information you're about to read.
>
>
>
>The truth is, for decades our government has been doing very nasty
>things that most Americans would never believe to be true. The truth
>is, the media has fed you a steady diet of meaningless news stories
>instead of sharing information that is vitally important to the future
>of this country. The truth is, if it wasn't for the internet (which the
>media is now demonizing and the government is trying to get control of)
>most of us would have never known how badly our leaders have lied to
>us.
>
>
>
>Let's start with the main assertion:
>
>
>
>"It is crazy to think corrupt elements within our government
>intentionally LET the attacks on 9/11 happen so they could be used as a
>pretext for war. Furthermore, it is even crazier to suggest corrupt
>elements might have actually facilitated the attacks."
>
>
>
>Now to be fair, I will admit it is utterly insane to intentionally
>provoke and allow an attack against one's own country. I agree it is
>even more insane (and criminal) to facilitate such an attack;
>sacrificing innocent human beings so the "outrage" could be used as a
>pretext for an already-established military agenda. ...Psychotic
>tyrants in other countries might resort to this type of "false flag"
>operation, but would our own government ever conspire to do the same?
>The answer might surprise you.
>
>
>
>A hypothetical scenario:
>
>
>
>Imagine if the President of the United States came on television and
>announced that Iraq had shot down a civilian airliner filled with
>American students on vacation. Imagine if there were no survivors, only
>grieving parents who had lost their children at the hands of a crazed
>and arrogant dictator. Imagine if all that remained of the plane and
>its crew was the frantic tape of its pilot's final transmission:
>"Mayday, Mayday, we are being tailed by an Iraqi Fighter...we need help
>up here and fast...mayday, do you copy..." and then the sound of an
>explosion, screaming, then silence.
>
>
>
>Now, imagine in the midst of the "outrage" and calls for Saddam's head
>on a platter, some "idiot conspiracy theorist" stood up and said:
>
>
>
>"It's all a lie! Iraq is innocent of the charges against it!!! Our
>government was behind the whole thing! They loaded a civilian airliner
>with FAKE passengers, flew the plane to a secret location, unloaded the
>fake passengers and replaced the original plane with a
>remote-controlled drone that was painted up to look like the original.
>They then had a FAKE Iraqi Fighter Jet (it was really an American
>Fighter painted to LOOK LIKE an Iraqi Fighter) chase after the remote
>controlled drone. Then, they transmitted a FAKE "Mayday" signal from
>the drone just before blowing it up! It was all a set up so we could
>frame and attack Iraq!"
>
>
>
>In the above hypothetical scenario, who would you be more likely to
>believe? The president (with the media backing him up) or the "crazy
>conspiracy theorist?"
>
>
>
>Well, substitute "Iraq and Saddam" for "Cuba and Castro" and you've got
>The Northwood's Document. The Northwood's Document is an official
>United States government plan to provoke and allow attacks to be used
>as a pretext for invading Cuba. The plan goes further to suggest, if
>provocation does not work, we could "attack ourselves" and blame Cuba.
>It even speaks of completely fabricating an attack to be used as a
>pretext. President Kennedy rejected the plan just prior to being
>assassinated. Had he not, this plan would have led to war and the death
>of many thousands based on total lies. Even worse, it might have led to
>a nuclear exchange with Russia: millions dead, based on lies.
>
>
>
>Here are some of the highlights from this now declassified document:
>
>
>
> "Subject: Justification for US Military Intervention in Cuba"
>
>
>
> "As requested by Chief of Operations, Cuba Project, the Joint
>Chiefs of Staff are to indicate brief but precise description of
>pretexts which they consider would provide justification for US
>military intervention in Cuba."
>
>
>
> "It is recognized that any action which becomes pretext for US
>military intervention in Cuba will lead to a political decision which
>then would lead to military action."
>
>
>
> "It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate
>convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a
>chartered civil airliner enroute from the United States to Jamaica,
>Guatemala, Panama, or Venezuela. The destination would be chosen only
>to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba. The passengers could be a
>group of college students off on a holiday or any grouping of persons
>with a common interest to support chartering a non-scheduled flight.
>
> a. An aircraft at Eglin Air Force Base would be painted and
>numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft
>belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a
>designated time, the duplicate would be substituted for the actual
>civil aircraft and would be loaded with selected passengers, all
>boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered
>aircraft would be converted to a drone.
>
> b. Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual aircraft
>will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of Florida. From the
>rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to
>minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field at Eglin Air
>Force Base where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the
>passengers and return the aircraft to its original status. The drone
>aircraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When
>over Cuba the drone will being transmitting on the international
>distress frequency a "May Day" message stating he is under attack by
>Cuban MIG aircraft. The transmission will be interrupted by destruction
>of the aircraft which will be triggered by radio signal. This will
>allow ICAO radio stations in the Western Hemisphere to tell the US what
>has happened to the aircraft instead of the US trying to "sell" the
>incident."
>
>
>
>Other ideas suggested:
>
>
>
> "We could blow up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba."
>
>
>
> "Casualty lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of
>national indignation."
>
>
>
> "We could develop (emphasis added) a Communist Cuban Terror
>Campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in
>Washington. The terror campaign could be pointed at Cuban Refugees
>seeking haven in the United States."
>
>
>
> "We could sink a boatload of Cubans enroute to Florida (real or
>simulated). We could foster attempts on lives of Cuban refugees in the
>United States even to the extent of wounding in instances to be widely
>publicized. Exploding a few plastic bombs in carefully chosen spots,
>the arrest of Cuban agents and the release of prepared documents
>substantiating Cuban involvement also would be helpful in projecting
>the idea of an irresponsible government."
>
>
>
>The Northwoods document (available at the National Security Archive)
>proves beyond any shadow of doubt that our government has openly
>conspired to completely MANUFACTURE a pretext for war. It also gives us
>an idea of how far the ruling elite are willing to go in order to
>deceive the American people--how far they are willing to go in order to
>get what they want.
>
>
>
>Now, does this prove corrupt elements in our own government were in
>some way responsible for the attacks of 9/11? No, but it does
>irrefutably establish that it's NOT crazy to suggest it's possible. As
>a matter of fact, it proves a person must be ignorant, delusional (or
>simply lying) to suggest it isn't possible. It's just that simple.
>
>
>
>
>
>Part 2 - The Reason They Lie
>Direct link to part 2-->
>http://stopthelie.com/1-hour_guide_to_911.html#Part2
>
>
>
>Knowing full well that it isn't crazy to suggest complicity or cover
>up, why does the government try so hard to convince us otherwise?
>
>
>
>Well, does it make sense that we should expect criminals running covert
>operations to "educate us" about the existence and history of such
>operations? Of course not. The whole point of a covert / "false flag"
>operation is to deceive. The whole point is to get away with something
>you would otherwise be unable to get away with. Deception (also known
>as lying) is the foundation on which these operations are built. Their
>first objective is to create and maintain cover.
>
>
>
>Take a minute to look up "disinformation" or "psychological operation"
>or "false flag." These aren't just terms, they are real weapons used to
>achieve covert objectives. If there is anything you can be sure of,
>it's this: These weapons are well known to the ruling elite, they've
>been used for thousands of years, and they will continue to be used
>whenever it is believed the "targets" of the operation will respond
>appropriately. Simply stated, to the extent we blindly follow our
>"leaders," we encourage them to deceive and exploit us.
>
>
>
>In case after case, if we dig even a little bit, we find that nearly
>everything our government denounces PUBLICLY, it engages in privately.
>And I do mean everything. From overthrowing democratically elected
>governments (and installing ruthless dictatorships in their place), to
>training terrorist death squads to kill innocent civilians. From
>allowing American citizens to be infected with syphilis (so the effects
>and spread of the disease could be studied in a "real world"
>laboratory), to KNOWINGLY contaminating civilian and military personnel
>with depleted uranium.
>
>
>
>Deception, theft, torture, murder, terrorism - These are the tools of
>tyrants, not the tools of a legitimate American Government. If we
>intend to reclaim our title as the home of freedom and justice in the
>world, we can no longer allow ourselves to be manipulated by the lowest
>among us. And the truth is, if these crimes are sufficiently exposed,
>they won't be tolerated. Our false perception of the "benevolent state"
>has provided the cover for the wickedness it does. But when that cover
>is lifted and people see the truth with their own eyes, the illusion of
>legitimacy melts away. For all but the most cowardly and intellectually
>dishonest, continued self deception becomes impossible.
>
>
>
>Assume for a moment that all of the allegations of wrong doing made to
>this point can be easily verified and are 100% true. (Unfortunately,
>they can be verified and they are true.) If you are like most
>Americans, you probably know very little (if anything) about these
>conspiracies. There are at least two reasons why. We've already covered
>the first, which is:
>
>
>
>1. We can't expect those trying to hide what they're doing to tell us
>what they're doing. As important as it is for you to know what they're
>up to, it is equally as important to them for you to remain ignorant.
>They are willing to do whatever it takes to get what they want, lying
>is no exception, and there is little we can do about that.
>
>
>
>However, we have complete control over the second cause of our
>ignorance:
>
>
>
>2. We are ignorant of our government's greatest lies because we choose
>to be. We choose to believe the comforting words of our elected
>officials when they say: "There is nothing to see here, it's all a
>conspiracy theory, it is absurd to suggest we'd ever participate in
>such a thing, trust us."
>
>
>
>Well I ask: Trust them based on what? Have they earned our trust? Or
>have they violated it over and over again? Is it really absurd to
>suspect them of heinous crimes when we've repeatedly caught them
>red-handed? -And how exactly can we expect to expose any of their
>crimes (great or small) if simply denying the charge and attacking
>their accuser is considered sufficient grounds for acquittal? We know
>the elite lie, we know they can be sadistic, we know they'll stop at
>nothing to secure and expand their power. If that isn't enough to
>warrant healthy skepticism, what is?
>
>
>
>The history of unchecked power is clear; its tyrannical course,
>unavoidable. Over and over we have seen the maxim "absolute power
>corrupts absolutely" played out before us. Personally, I believe those
>who seek absolute power are already corrupt, but there's no need to
>split hairs; in the end the same holds true: It is never absurd to
>question the statements, motives, or actions, of extremely powerful
>people. To the contrary, all evidence suggests it is absurd not to.
>
>
>
>Common criminals plague our society, but whatever threat they pose, it
>pales in comparison to the "threat" of those who rule over us.
>
>
>
>Common criminals do not have access to the media, the trust of the
>masses, or the air of legitimacy given those who secure a high position
>in government. They cannot legally seize our money; destroy the
>purchasing power of our currency or command standing armies. They
>cannot "legislate away" our rights, or (by their reckless spending)
>reduce our children to debt slaves. They cannot obstruct investigations
>from inside the system. They cannot seal documents, confiscate video
>tapes or appoint their own investigators. They cannot subpoena
>witnesses, find out what the witnesses know, and then use the
>information they've obtained to more effectively whitewash their crime.
>They cannot have BILLIONS of dollars in cash sent into the desert, have
>it disappear without a trace, and have nobody bat an eye. They cannot
>orchestrate covert operations that drag us into war. They cannot
>commission our agencies to carry out atrocities around the world on
>"our behalf" - destroying America's reputation, undermining its future
>security, and setting the stage for other great powers to unite against
>us.
>
>
>
>If we do not regain control of this country, we will lose what remains
>of it. In order to do that, we must know exactly what we're dealing
>with: there can be no illusions.
>
>
>
>John Adams Wrote: "Liberty cannot be preserved without a general
>knowledge among the people, who have a right ...to that most dreaded
>and envied kind of knowledge, I mean the characters and conduct of
>their rulers."
>
>
>
>When speaking of our freedoms, Samuel Adams warned: Let us not be
>"cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men."
>
>
>
>Frederic Douglas wrote: "Find out just what the people will submit to
>and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which
>will be imposed upon them; -the limits of tyrants are prescribed by the
>endurance of those whom they oppress."
>
>
>
>The United States is like the Titanic - steaming headlong into an
>Iceberg. Sure, I know; you've got a lot invested in your ticket, the
>drinks are good and the shows are even better. The food is fantastic,
>the gambling exciting, and there are tons of fun things to do. Who
>wants to talk about that stupid iceberg anyway? Who wants to do what it
>takes to turn the ship around or at least plan an evasive maneuver?
>"Nobody here, we're having too good a time!" ...OK, but ignore the ice
>at your own peril. Know that those who intend to sink this ship will
>NOT go down with her. As a matter of fact they stand to profit
>handsomely. They will speed off in their lifeboats, unite with the
>billions of dollars lost in the desert, and YOU will be left treading
>water. But not to worry; an even larger "global government" will come
>to your aid. That is the ultimate plan, you know; bring America to its
>knees economically, erase the borders, and absorb it into a "New World
>Order." Oh, but that is a whole other topic.
>
>
>
>For now, suffice to say, we've got some real tough choices ahead.
>Hopefully you've seen enough by now to realize (if you didn't already
>know) what we're dealing with. Hopefully you've seen enough to agree,
>if there is compelling evidence that counters the official account of
>9/11, well it just might be something we should take a look at. After
>all, those darned government guys might be fibbing just a little
>bit...they do that sometimes.
>
>
>
>Part 3 - The Cover Up
>Direct link to part 3-->
>http://stopthelie.com/1-hour_guide_to_911.html#Part3
>
>
>
>We can now rest our case on whether or not it's "crazy" to question the
>government's official account of 9/11. Corrupt elements within our
>government have proven they are capable of carrying out, facilitating
>or covering up crimes of equal or greater depravity - this is
>indisputable.
>
>
>
>However, to support a specific charge (a charge of cover up or
>complicity) we'll need to go further with the evidence. That is what
>the remainder of this essay will focus on. Specifically, it will focus
>on evidence that points to a "cover up" because a cover up, once
>proven, will establish complicity.
>
>
>
>Consider what follows similar to a grand jury investigation. Our first
>job is to decide whether there's reasonable cause to believe a cover up
>has taken place. If the evidence reveals reasonable cause, it is then
>our job to indict.
>
>Unlike the government's "investigation" into 9/11, ours will be truly
>independent. We will not allow the suspects to choose the detectives,
>limit the parameters of our inquiry, block access to damning
>information, lie by omission, etc.
>
>
>
>Let it be known that we are not only demanding answers, we are
>demanding answers that can survive reasonable scrutiny. Because the
>government's claims regarding 9/11 (up until now) cannot survive
>reasonable scrutiny, they must be rejected in favor of answers that
>can.
>
>
>
>There are perhaps 100 separate pieces of compelling evidence that
>clearly undermine the official government account of 9/11. But there is
>no reason for us to address them all here. For our purposes we need
>only ONE solid argument - one argument that shows, beyond a reasonable
>doubt, that what we've been told is a lie. In a nutshell, this is it:
>
>
>
>The 3 buildings that collapsed in New York on September 11, 2001 (the
>north tower, the south tower, and world trade center building #7) were
>brought down by explosives. The evidence to support this claim is
>irrefutable. It can be physically observed and re-created. It can be
>mathematically proven, and independently verified via eyewitness
>accounts. The evidence to support the government's claim that fire
>destroyed all three buildings has no basis in reality - the "evidence"
>exists only in the form of words. There is no historical data to back
>their assertions, only historical data to refute them. No models have
>been able to physically reproduce the phenomena they describe because
>(as expected) the laws of physics cannot be violated. The government's
>refusal to first investigate and disprove the most logical cause for
>the collapse of the buildings (explosives) is, in itself, highly
>suspect.
>
>
>
>Analogy:
>
>
>
>Suppose a man is found dead in his home. His house has been ransacked,
>two computers are missing, and there are signs he was tortured. His
>body is laying face down, his hands and feet are tied, and there are
>three gunshot wounds to the back of his head. Does it require a degree
>in forensic science to conclude foul play? If you are an outsider
>looking in on this investigation, would you be suspicious if this man's
>death was officially ruled a suicide? Would you say such a ruling was
>able to survive "reasonable scrutiny?" And what if after ruling the
>death a suicide, the man's home mysteriously caught fire (electrical
>problem) and his body was accidentally sent to the crematorium where it
>was promptly incinerated...Would you expect a cover up? Let's hope so.
>
>
>
>Now back up a minute. What if the only information you had access to
>was the official account? What if the available information regarding
>this mans death consisted solely of the following: "Detective Johnson
>arrived on the scene where he found John Doe dead from a self inflicted
>gun shot wound. Investigators found a suicide note apologizing to his
>friends and family. Bouts with depression over the loss of his job and
>a recent divorce were cited as the most likely cause for his decision."
>
>
>
>What if this is all the information you had access to? Isn't it
>reasonable to assume you'd never think twice about it? Of course; and
>that is how the perfect cover up is supposed to work. -Sure there might
>be quiet rumblings of a conspiracy - secret ties to the CIA and a
>covert drug running operation gone bad. But with the crime scene
>destroyed, and the body cremated, good luck proving it.
>
>
>
>The official account of 9/11 is a cover up - plain and simple. For the
>sake of argument, we'll define a cover up as "a false story created to
>conceal the real story." For any cover up to succeed, the false story
>must be protected from information that undermines it. If the
>conspirators are unable to do this, the cover up falls apart.
>
>Although all cover ups begin with a false story, there are other
>elements that play a supporting role: the destruction of physical
>evidence, creating distractions to control people's attention,
>vilifying those who level accusations, etc. These supporting elements
>(in conjunction with the false story) serve one goal: they keep you
>from seeing or considering anything that might reveal the truth.
>
>
>
>1. Destroy evidence: If it doesn't exist, it can't be examined
>
>2. Create distractions: (Here are a couple common tactics)
> a) The "false debate" distraction: False debates are very useful
>because they lend credibility to the lie while distracting people away
>from questions that would expose it. Take our "suicide" story above. If
>people can be manipulated into a heated argument over "why" Bob killed
>himself, (because his boss fired him just a week before Christmas,
>because his heartless wife left him a week later, because he had a
>secret drug problem, etc.) the issue of whether or not Bob actually did
>kill himself gets lost.
> In effect, the false debate turns the lie into an established
>truth - a foundation on which the subsequent debate is built. (Clearly,
>two people cannot argue about why Bob killed himself without first
>accepting the "fact" that he did kill himself.) As they become
>increasingly sure of their position, they become increasingly dependent
>on the lie that supports it. Regardless of which side of the debate
>they're on, they will unite in protecting the false assumption on which
>their whole argument rests. In an odd way, defending the lie becomes an
>act of self-defense from that point forward.
> -It goes without saying that once one "false debate" has been
>established; other "false debates" can grow up around it. In very
>little time, the masses can become hopelessly tangled in a web of
>falsities - endless arguments without merit. When this happens, only
>strong evidence can destroy the illusion - evidence that turns their
>attention back to the legitimate starting point; killing all
>descendents of the original lie.
>
>
>
> b) The "major crisis" distraction: The power of a "major crisis" to
>manipulate the masses is well known among the ruling elite. Whether the
>crisis is intentionally created or naturally occurring, nothing enables
>them to more effectively expand power and direct the consciousness of
>their subjects. -To silence dissent, monopolize media talking points,
>rationalize the irrational, or completely bury an unwanted topic,
>nothing beats a crisis. (Especially when that "crisis" is war.)
>
>
>
> 3. Attack the messenger: If evidence cannot be destroyed, false
>debates aren't sufficient, or the crisis can't shake off growing
>dissent, the one remaining option to keep you from contemplating the
>evidence is to attack the messenger. When this is done, the
>conspirators' assertion is obvious: "What this person claims is absurd
>and any evidence he presents isn't credible."
> Now ask yourself an obvious question: Why would it be necessary to
>vilify a person making "absurd claims" backed with "no credible
>evidence?" Isn't that something reasonably intelligent people could
>determine by looking at the evidence themselves? Do we really need (or
>want) others to decide for us what we should and shouldn't take into
>consideration? -In a "free" and "democratic society?" I don't think so.
>
>
>
>
>The preceding three installments of this "1-Hour Guide" have been an
>attempt to expose the mechanics of how the government (with the help of
>the media) manipulates us into believing things that simply aren't
>true. For instance, the Northwoods Document proves our government would
>openly conspire to stand by and let our country be attacked, so long as
>the carnage helped them further their military agenda. Worse, it proves
>they'd go so far as to completely manufacture an attack if they
>couldn't bait the target country into attacking us first. This is not a
>"conspiracy theory" it is a "conspiracy fact." -And yet the average
>American still believes it's crazy to think such things are possible.
>
>
>
>Is it an accident that everyone knows about Janet Jackson's "wardrobe
>malfunction" but nobody has heard of the Northwods document? -how about
>the real story behind the USS Maine, the Lusitania, the Golf of Tonkin,
>the USS Liberty or (what we're discussing now) the NeoCons' "New Pearl
>Harbor?"
>
>
>
>Either we condone the exploitation of our country or we don't. Either
>we support the acts of liars, thieves, murderers and aspiring tyrants
>or we don't. This is our country, not theirs. LOOK at the evidence,
>decide what it means and determine once and for all where you stand.
>
>
>
>Since it might take a while for me to write the final installments,
>here are a couple clips that cover the evidence of "controlled
>demolition." Both are very well done - the evidence speaks for itself.
>The first clip (bombs.wmv) is about 5 minutes long and comes from the
>"Loose Change" documentary. The second clip is nearly an hour long and
>it comes from the Alex Jones documentary "911 - Rise of the Police
>State."
>
>>From "Loose Change" Bombs.wmv
>
>>From "Rise of the Police State" (50 minutes - 87 meg file) Click Here
>
>
>
>Part 4 - The Evidence
>Direct link to Exhibit A-->
>http://stopthelie.com/1-hour_guide_to_911.html#ExhibitA
>
>Exhibit A: Pools of Molten Steel
>
>
>
>There are limits to what fire can do. Those limits are determined by
>the amount of heat generated by a fire, the material the fire is acting
>on and the duration of contact.
>
>
>
>For instance, the flame from a lighter can easily generate enough heat
>to ignite and destroy a piece of paper. Under ideal conditions, the
>whole process (from contact, to complete destruction) takes less than
>60 seconds.
>
>
>
>Conversely, you could hold the flame of a lighter against one of the
>core steel columns of the world trade towers for all eternity and it
>would NEVER ignite the steel. Nor would the heat generated from the
>flame of a lighter be sufficient to reduce the steel to a molten state.
>Without knowing the actual math of how steel conducts heat, most people
>can accept this as common sense.
>
>
>
>If common sense dictates a lighter would never be sufficient to liquefy
>a massive steel support column, (measuring 16 inches by 36 inches by 4
>inches thick) what would be sufficient? The easy answer is: A much
>larger, much hotter fire. That answer is correct, but for the purpose
>of our argument we need something more specific. For that "specific
>answer" we'll turn to the scientifically established "melting point" of
>steel. Our answer is: 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit.
>
>
>
>If a fire manages to overcome the heat resistant properties of steel,
>raising that steels temperature to 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit, the steel
>will melt. If the fire fails to raise the steel's temperature to 2,800
>degrees Fahrenheit, the steel will not melt. (Keep in mind, we're not
>talking about the temperature at which steel weakens and loses its
>structural integrity, we're talking about the temperature at which it
>is reduced to a molten state.)
>
>
>
>Again, we call on common sense to answer a simple question: Under what
>circumstances can a fire burning at less than 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit
>reduce steel to a molten state? The answer is: Under no circumstances.
>
>
>
>To date, nobody has suggested the fires on 9/11 reached temperatures of
>2,800 degrees Fahrenheit. Perhaps that is because, just as steel has a
>maximum temperature it can withstand before it melts, fuel sources have
>a maximum temperature at which they can burn. NONE of the known fuel
>sources burning on 9/11 could have reached the required temperature to
>melt steel.
>
>
>
>As a matter of fact, the widely touted culprit of 9/11 (jet fuel) has a
>maximum burn temperature equal to only 60% of that required to melt
>steel. (Jet Fuel's maximum burn temperature is less than 1,700 degrees
>Fahrenheit.) The other fuel sources, (Desks, carpet, paper, etc.) could
>have reached temperatures of up to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit under ideal
>conditions. -But that is still less than 75% of what would have been
>required to create the widely reported "pools of molten steel."
>
>
>
>Because it is impossible for temperatures less than the melting point
>of steel to melt steel, we can only conclude the following:
>
>
>
>1) Something else must have been acting on the enormous steel support
>columns for them to have been reduced to a molten state, and
>
>2) The official account is provably and irrefutably a physical
>impossibility.
>
>
>
>Please remember these facts the next time you hear a propaganda victim
>say: "Steel melts and that jet fuel melted the steel." The same
>ill-informed person might as well proclaim: "Steel melts and that guys
>lighter melted the steel." Both statements are equally absurd because
>both are equally impossible. (References)
>
>
>
>Exhibit B: Fire Initiated Collapse
>
>
>
>There are a few things we need to point out regarding the alleged "fire
>initiated collapse" of (3) steel framed buildings on 9/11.
>
>
>
>First we need to make clear there were in fact THREE buildings that
>collapsed. Many people are only aware of the two towers. The likely
>reason for this is the third building, WTC 7, has been completely
>ignored by the media.
>
>
>
>Second we need to establish that nothing short of controlled demolition
>has ever brought down a steel framed building in the manner we
>witnessed on 9/11. Never, not once, not even close. This of course
>includes fire, earthquakes, wind, poor construction, etc.
>
>
>
>Last but not least, we need to address the fact the government's theory
>regarding what caused the buildings to collapse is just that: a theory.
>By no stretch of the imagination has the theory ever been proven and,
>given the ever growing body of evidence against it, one could more
>accurately argue the government's theory has been thoroughly
>demolished. (No pun intended.)
>
>
>
>The Third Building; WTC 7 (World Trade Center Building #7)
>
>
>
>The collapse of WTC 7 was spectacular. -Some would argue the
>catastrophic failure of this 47 story steel framed building was even
>MORE spectacular than the collapse of the two towers. The reason for
>making this claim is, unlike the two towers, WTC 7 was not struck by
>any planes or burned with any jet fuel. -and yet, in a "spectacular"
>fashion, it suddenly vaporized into its own footprint for no apparent
>reason. Here are a couple excellent videos of the collapse: Video 1
>Video 2
>
>
>
>When it comes to proving the government's "raging inferno of jet fuel"
>theory is critically flawed, WTC 7 represents one of the most
>compelling pieces of evidence available. -and yet our "free press"
>(which is supposed to help protect our society from the tyranny of
>secretive, inept, and dishonest government) has acted like the collapse
>of WTC 7 never happened. Rather than provide the 24 / 7 coverage this
>smoking gun deserves, we've instead been treated to 24 / 7 silence.
>
>
>
>Without getting too far into the issue of "media complicity" in the
>cover up surrounding 9/11, suffice to say our multi-billion dollar
>corporate media is a "for profit" operation. There is no incentive to
>address any topic that could potentially destabilize the system it
>relies on; a system that provides (or can take away) favorable
>regulatory considerations, vital inside sources of information, and
>lucrative government contracts (just to name a few.)
>
>
>
>Is there more to the media blackout? -Maybe; but there doesn't need to
>be. Good old fashioned profit motive and self-preservation are enough
>to stop the most important stories dead in their tracks. Both of these
>act as "filters" that sift every piece of information before it reaches
>our senses. -The corporate media might skewer a lone government
>criminal here and there, thats for sure; but whether it would ever
>truly expose the criminal system on which it depends is another issue
>all together. The fact is, neither the media nor the government can be
>trusted to tell us what we really need to know.
>
>
>
>Case in point, the independent commission which was established to
>provide "the fullest possible account of the events surrounding 9/11"
>dealt with the complicated WTC 7 issue by not dealing with it at all.
>
>
>
>Yes, that is correct. You could have read the entire 568 page 9/11
>commission report and not learned anything about the inexplicable
>collapse of a 47 story office tower. -As if there was no real need to
>bring up something so ordinary and uneventful. Those who expected
>answers that would provide the "fullest possible account" got nothing
>instead.
>
>
>
>But here again, with the same filters in place, what do we expect?
>Please forgive me for repeating myself: "-skewering a lone government
>criminal here and there is one thing, addressing anything that could
>potentially expose the criminal system (a system everyone in Washington
>profits from and depends on) is another issue all together."
>
>
>
>To be fair, consider the underlying politics. Imagine if you worked
>decades to secure a high position at the most powerful company in the
>world, and the "leader" of that company selected you to get to the
>bottom of a problem. Would you, after careful consideration, go to your
>superior and say: "Well sir, based on the evidence, it looks like
>you're the problem - worse, there is reasonable cause to believe you
>and others under your command might be guilty of crimes punishable by
>death."
>
>
>
>-The term "career suicide" comes to mind (if not literal suicide by way
>of some unfortunate accident.)
>
>
>
>How many of us would risk our life's work to do something guaranteed to
>draw deadly serious attacks from the highest levels of power, but
>offered no guarantee of rewards in return? (Consider this question
>seriously-how many of us would risk our reputation, our career, our
>current income, our future income-or worse?) Granted, some people
>would, but the way around that little problem is to make sure that kind
>of person isn't selected for the job. -Independent investigations
>don't mean much when the prime suspects get to choose the people
>setting the parameters of the investigation. On that point, it was said
>of Phillip D. Zelikow (the 911 Commission's executive director:)
>
>
>
> "Zelikow picks the areas of investigation, the briefing materials,
>the topics for hearings, the witnesses, and the lines of questioning
>for witnesses. In effect, he sets the agenda and runs the
>investigation."
>
>
>
>How can we truly expect an investigation to yield the "truth" (let
>alone justice) when one hand-picked person can steer attention away
>from the most incriminating evidence? How can we uncover criminal
>negligence (or worse) when everything that points in that direction is
>excluded and deemed irrelevant?
>
>
>
>Perhaps The Commission wasn't meant to provide the "fullest possible
>account" after all. It seems more likely it was intended to prop up the
>official conspiracy theory. It seems information that undermined the
>official account was only collected so it could be more effectively
>suppressed, countered and whitewashed. This is especially true when it
>comes to the issue of "intelligence failures" but that is beyond the
>scope of our discussion here. For now, consider the following:
>
>
>
> * Mountains of evidence that pointed to the use of explosives in
>the attacks (including but not limited to eyewitness accounts of police
>and firefighters on the scene) was ignored by the Commission.
> * Compelling video evidence, not the least of which includes an "on
>camera" admission by Larry Silverstein that building 7 was "pulled" (a
>demolition term used to describe the controlled implosion of a
>building) was ignored. (Video Here)
> * After the government failed to suppress the firefighters radio
>transmissions to one another; transmissions that reported bombs going
>off in the buildings and fires that were far from raging; the newly
>available radio transmissions were, you guessed it, ignored. (Sample
>Audio 1) (Sample Audio 2)
>
>
>
>Remember, for a cover up to succeed, information that exposes the lie
>must be kept hidden. So, if during the course of an "investigation"
>those charged with getting to the bottom of things are openly
>destroying evidence, distracting attention away from obvious
>inconsistencies and suppressing information that paints a more
>convincing account of the facts; the LAST thing we should do is accept
>what they offer without question. -Since those in charge of explaining
>the events of 9/11 are clearly guilty on all counts, scrutiny of their
>claims is only logical.
>
>
>
>For a detailed list of what was left out of the "independent" 9/11
>Commission Report, pick up a copy of David Ray Griffin's book: The 911
>commission - omissions and distortions. Rest assured, every aspect of
>how 9/11 was handled has something seriously wrong with it - the
>Commissions "investigation" is no exception.
>
>
>
>Fire Initiated Collapse - Primary arguments against
>
>
>
>Presenting an uncluttered account of 9/11 inconsistencies is no easy
>task. The official account is so haphazard and full of holes, it's very
>hard to stay focused on one problem without being diverted into a
>string of related problems. With that in mind, try to forgive the
>following "rapid fire" outline:
>
>
>
>We've got the "raging jet fuel theory" which (even if true) could have
>never generated sufficient heat to produce the molten steel found in
>all three buildings. In a logical world, we can't even begin discussing
>what caused the collapse of the buildings until we've identified what
>liquefied the steel support columns. Why? Because whatever liquefied
>the steel support columns is logically the most likely cause of
>collapse!
>
>
>
>Another problem with the jet fuel theory (as we've already pointed out)
>is WTC 7 wasn't struck by a plane or burned with jet fuel. Since it
>must be assumed something else destroyed WTC 7, it's reasonable to
>assume something else could have destroyed the North and South towers
>as well.
>
>
>
>To date, FEMA has only been able to come up with a "Diesel Fuel Theory"
>for building 7. Check the maximum burn temperature for diesel fuel and
>you'll run into the same problem we ran into with the two towers; it is
>no where near sufficient to cause the molten steel found at the site.
>Furthermore, when addressing how diesel fuel might have contributed to
>the collapse of WTC 7, FEMA is on the record as saying: "the best
>hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research,
>investigation, and analysis are needed to resolve this issue." The
>attacks took place in 2001. How many more years will it take?
>
>
>
>Now is a good time for a logical question: - How long would it take
>FEMA to "resolve the issue" of what caused building 7 to collapse if
>they were allowed to consider explosives in the building? I'm betting
>they could have a universally accepted, reproducible theory in a day.
>>From there it would only be a matter of figuring out how the explosives
>got into the building. (...gotta be easier than trying to figure out
>how to bend the laws of physics.)
>
>
>
>Another "theory" that has recently been put forward is debris from the
>North Tower cut into Building 7; knocking out a handful of supports on
>its south side. This theory also has multiple problems. First, there is
>no evidence to support it. Second, the North Tower literally fell on
>top of building 6, crushing a GIANT round hole out of the center of the
>building. Despite having a huge chunk ripped from it's core, the
>sections that weren't crushed remained standing and had to be brought
>down with explosives.
>
>
>
>Diagram of WTC complex: Note in this picture 1 WTC (The North Tower) is
>almost directly against building 6 (6 WTC) whereas building 7 (7 WTC)
>is the farthest building away from both the North and South towers.
>
>Here is a picture of Building 6 after having the North Tower fall
>directly on it. (Note the giant hole in the center of building 6. Also
>highlighted: Building 5 and the area where building 7 used to be.)
>
>
>
>
>
>Third, and most importantly, IF the suggested damage to building 7
>actually existed (no evidence to support the assertion) and if it were
>sufficient to cause the damaged section to collapse, we would have seen
>a partial collapse in the area of the damage; not a symmetrical
>vaporization straight down into the buildings own footprint. -Isn't it
>absurd to suggest that a "few key columns on the south side of building
>7 might have been scooped out by falling debris, causing it to
>collapse" when in fact we can all see that building 5 suffered exactly
>that kind of damage to its south side and yet didn't collapse? Or, how
>about this: I wonder if some "key columns" might be missing from
>building 6...(Here is a close up of the damage to building 6)
>
>
>
>The truth, as evidenced by the pictures above (not to mention all known
>history) is steel framed buildings don't up and evaporate; even if you
>rip huge chunks out of them. A catastrophic failure does not a "global
>collapse" make. As a reference, compare these two buildings below
>(snapped off at the base in an earthquake) to what was left of WTC 7.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>And now, here is the picture of what was left of WTC 7(Click Here.)
>Forgive the cliche', but there is "something wrong with this picture."
>
>
>
>While we're pointing out the obvious, how about an obvious yet unasked
>question: Why weren't explosives the first thing considered as the
>cause for the WTC buildings' collapse? Terrorists regularly use bombs
>to attack their targets, countless reputable eyewitnesses reported
>bombs going off, buildings have never collapsed in the manner witnessed
>on 9/11 without the help of explosives, and in 1993 explosives were
>successfully placed (by terrorists) and detonated in one of the same
>buildings that fell on 9/11! To have the government bend itself into an
>intellectual pretzel to make their "fire initiated collapse" theory
>stick (without spending any time looking into the more plausible
>theory) makes no sense whatsoever.
>
>
>
>There are a few more important things to consider:
>
>
>
>Contrary to what the government would have you believe, all evidence
>points to relatively insignificant fires at the time of each building's
>collapse. Try to forget about the "jet fuel" that was endlessly drummed
>into your head; it means nothing. In the towers the jet fuel was
>irrelevant after 10 minutes (burned off) and in WTC7, it never existed.
>What we're dealing with are three high rise buildings that, according
>to the government, vaporized due to fire -
>
>
>
> For the sake of argument; pretend there had never been a high-rise
>fire before in the history of mankind. If that was the case, the "fire
>initiated collapse" of all three buildings would be harder to disprove.
>Even so; it's likely that some in the scientific community would
>challenge the theory; let's proceed under that assumption.
>
>
>
>Armed with a strong grasp of physics and knowledge of how heat affects
>steel, our scientific "debunkers" would have firmly rejected all three
>buildings disintegrated (at near free-fall speed) as a result of fire.
>To back their assertion, they would conduct a series of experiments
>where steel framed buildings were subjected to extremely hot
>"all-consuming fires" for hours on end. To be clear, the fires in these
>experiments would be intentionally stoked to maximum severity under
>ideal conditions; they would far surpass anything the WTC buildings had
>to endure.
>
>
>
>-What if, at the end of their testing, the results read: "no collapse
>was observed in any of the six experiments -despite the temperature of
>the steel beams reaching 1,500 - 1,700 degrees Fahrenheit in three of
>the tests-" Would anyone still accept the official account? Maybe some
>would still believe, but what if (for the first time in history)
>steel-framed buildings around the world suddenly started bursting into
>flames? -Instead of scientific "mumbo jumbo" the masses would get to
>see the affects of these fires first hand. They witness:
>
>
>
> · A fire in a Philadelphia high rise that rages for 18
>hours, burning hot enough to break glass and gut 8 floors. Yet despite
>the severe conditions, a damage report concludes the steel support
>columns "continued to support their loads without obvious damage."
>
>
>
> · They witness a Caracas high-rise fire, it burns for 17
>hours and completely guts the upper 20 floors. -the building remains
>standing.
>
>
>
> · Finally, they witness a high-rise fire like no other in
>Madrid Spain. The building literally burns like a torch (a TRUE "Raging
>Inferno") destroying it from top to bottom. When all is said and done,
>it takes more than 22 hours to extinguish the flames, the building is
>irreparably damaged, but it remains standing.
>
>
>
>Would this knock the legs out from under the government's theory? -For
>all but the most dedicated followers, yes...
>
>
>
>With that said, now would be a good time to reveal that each event I've
>just mentioned actually took place. From the scientific experiments to
>the individual building fires each is a legitimate historical fact.
>(-Save the chronology and certain aspects of the context, there is
>nothing "hypothetical" about any of the aforementioned.)
>
>
>
>Rather than take the time to go through each of the cited examples,
>lets contrast the 22 hour, all consuming Madrid Spain fire (Below) with
>the 56 minute, barely visible fire of the South Tower on 9/11. If you
>haven't seen pictures of the Madrid fire, have a good look:
>
>
>
>
>
>The government has told us over and over again the South tower
>succumbed to the devastating heat of a raging inferno. -but as is the
>case with nearly everything we've been told, the evidence strongly
>contradicts their claim. -nothing to evince a blaze even remotely
>comparable to the true inferno above.
>
>
>
>First, we've got multiple eyewitness accounts (from within the building
>itself) that describe anything but an inferno. Perhaps the most
>compelling account is that of a firefighter who, transmitting from the
>impact floor of the South Tower, radioed the following: "we've got two
>isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two
>lines." If you didn't listen to it before, here it is the audio.
>-moments after this transmission (with the fires at their lowest point)
>the South Tower collapsed.
>
>
>
>Additionally, there is video and photographic evidence that proves the
>absence of a raging inferno. For instance, the thick black smoke seen
>pouring out of the South Tower prior to collapse is a clear indication
>the fire was oxygen starved and on its way out-
>
>
>
>Now, let's compare the extremely short lived and rather unimpressive
>"inferno" that allegedly vaporized the South Tower, to what the Windsor
>Building in Madrid Spain had to endure.
>
>
>
>If ever a steel-framed building should have collapsed due to fire, the
>Windsor building was the perfect candidate. It had far less steel than
>the WTC buildings (limiting its ability to conduct / diffuse heat), it
>had FAR MORE intense fires to deal with, and it burned much longer.
>Additionally, the "core" of the Windsor building was constructed of
>steel reinforced concrete; nowhere near as durable as the enormous
>solid steel support columns of the towers and building 7. And yet,
>despite all of these disadvantages, it displayed amazing resilience.
>
>
>
>For the record, few in the scientific community doubt that it's
>theoretically possible for a building to experience failure if it is
>subjected to devastating heat for a sufficient period of time. And
>additional factors like no fire-proofing, no sprinkler systems,
>insufficient steel to "bleed off" heat or inferior construction greatly
>increase the possibility. However, what is "doubted" (or more
>accurately; considered downright impossible) is that such a failure
>would resemble anything like what was witnessed on 9/11. -Gradual,
>isolated, asymmetrical failures spread out over time; perhaps
>-simultaneous disintegration of all load bearing columns (leaving a
>pile of neatly folded rubble a few stories high) -no way.
>
>
>
>If the Windsor building had been an experiment to debunk the sudden and
>complete free-fall collapse of the WTC buildings, it would have to be
>chalked up as a great success for demonstrating the following;
>
>
>
>1) The genuine difficulty of causing steel to fail in a building fire
>
>2) What a fire initiated failure actually looks like, and
>
>3) How less affected sections "hold up" under falling debris and how
>the CORE reacts to collapsing floor spans
>
>
>
>Pretending for a moment the inferno was intentionally created to cause
>an observable failure, the logical expectations would have been:
>
>
>
>Slowly, individual sections of steel would lose their ability to "bleed
>off" the intense heat they were subjected to. As a result, their
>temperature would rise and their rated capacity to support weight would
>decrease; first by 10%, then 20%, 40% etc. By the time an individual
>supporting member had lost 70% of its rated capacity, it would begin to
>sag and twist. At around an 80% reduction that particular section would
>likely fail.
>
>
>
>In the end, the overall expected failure scenario reads: A series of
>small partial collapses (isolated and occurring at different intervals
>over the course of the blaze) with the bulk of the building remaining
>in tact. -NOT expected (or believed possible): an instantaneous failure
>of all weight bearing columns resulting in a symmetrical free-fall
>collapse. And what were the results? See for yourself:
>
>
>
>Of the approximately 10 separate partial failures, none of them had any
>affect on the core of the structure-This is amazing when you consider
>the severity of the blaze, the duration of the fire, and the inherent
>inferiority of its "reinforced concrete" construction. An excellent
>summary of the facts can be found here:
>
>
>
> The Twin Towers and Building 7 were both 100% steel-framed, with
>large wide-flange columns and box columns, some measuring over four
>feet wide and fabricated of steel up to five inches thick.
>
> In contrast to the WTC Towers, the Windsor building was framed
>primarily in steel-reinforced concrete, with columns of concrete
>reinforced by thin sections of rebar... -Note that steel-framed and
>steel-reinforced-concrete-framed structures behave very differently in
>fires.
>
>
>
> * Steel is a good conductor and concrete is a poor conductor of
>heat. Thus in a fire, a steel frame will conduct heat away from the
>hotspots into the larger structure. As long as the fire does not
>consume the larger structure, this heat conductivity will keep the
>temperatures of the frame well below the fire temperatures. The same is
>not true of steel-reinforced-concrete structures, since concrete is not
>a good thermal conductor, and the thermal conductivity of the rebar
>inside the concrete is limited by its small mass and the embedding
>matrix of concrete.
>
>
>
> * Fires can cause spalling of concrete, but not of steel. This
>is because concrete has a small percentage of latent moisture, which is
>converted to steam by heat. Thus, a large fire can gradually erode a
>concrete structure to the point of collapse, whereas a fire can only
>threaten a steel-framed structure if it elevates steel temperatures to
>such an extent
>
>
>
>Regarding the time it took for each partial failure:
>
>
>
> Time Collapse Situation
>
> 1:29 East face of the 21st floor collapsed
>
> 1:37 South middle section of several floors above the 21st
>floor gradually collapsed
>
> 1:50 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed
>
> 2:02 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed
>
> 2:11 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed
>
> 2:13 Floors above about 25th floor collapsed Large collapse
>of middle section at about 20th floor
>
> 2:17 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed
>
> 2:47 Southwest corner of 1 ~ 2 floors below about 20th floor
>collapsed
>
> 2:51 Southeast corner of about 18th ~ 20th floors collapsed
>
> 3:35 South middle section of about 17th ~ 20th floors
>collapsed-
>
> 3:48 Fire flame spurted out below the Upper Technical Floor
>
> 4:17 Debris on the Upper Technical Floor fell down
>
>
>
> These partial collapse events, spread over several hours, contrast
>with the implosion of WTC Building #7 in 7 seconds, and the total
>explosive collapses of each of the Twin Towers in under 17 seconds.
>(Source: 911research.wtc7.net)
>
>
>
>If after all this, there's still doubt about whether or not the WTC
>fires were sufficient to completely level the far superior buildings,
>there are yet a few more things to consider...
>
>
>
>Of the columns from the fire floors NIST studied, "only three columns
>had evidence the steel reached temperatures above 482 degrees
>Fahrenheit," and none of the examined core columns had evidence of
>reaching even that temperature.
>
>
>
>Granted, 99.9% of the evidence (-evidence that could have easily
>settled once and for all what destroyed all three buildings) was
>quickly hauled off under armed guard and destroyed. -Nonetheless, we
>take what we can get and what we got matches exactly what we'd expect
>to find. IE: The video, photographic and first hand accounts all
>support a finding by NIST that none of their core column samples had
>reached even 480 degrees Fahrenheit.
>
>
>
>Now is a good time to remind ourselves of the scientific experiments
>conducted on steel-framed buildings mentioned earlier: "no collapse was
>observed in any of the six experiments -despite the temperature of the
>steel beams reaching 1,500 - 1,700 degrees Fahrenheit in three of the
>tests-"
>
>
>
>David Ray Griffin wrote an excellent piece on this topic and in it, he
>points out something very obvious but often overlooked: There is no
>evidence to support the government's "fire destroyed the building's"
>theory. -Not one feature of the WTC buildings' sudden and complete
>disintegration matches any historical reference of how large steel
>framed building's react to fire. By contrast, the WTC buildings
>exhibited at least 11 features that are consistent with the intentional
>demolition of a building.
>
>
>
>Just one question: -Is there any logical reason why the much better
>theory, (with all its supporting evidence) has been vilified and
>ignored in favor of the lesser one?
>
>
>
>A final appeal to Common Sense
>
>
>
>If we ignore the impossibility of molten steel; the comparatively
>insignificant fires, the historical evidence, and the fact that WTC 7
>was not struck by a plane there is still one remaining argument some
>try to advance regarding the towers. That argument is: "It was damage
>from the planes + the fires that triggered the free-fall collapse."
>
>
>
>There are many angles we can attack this argument from. The most
>obvious is to point out the towers were designed to withstand the
>impact of a 707. Although the 707 is slightly smaller than a 767, it
>has a higher top speed. As such, a 707 traveling at top speed would
>actually hit with more force and do more damage than the planes that
>struck the towers.
>
>
>
>The problem with the "obvious" response is it leaves too much wiggle
>room. It leaves the door open to silly arguments about fireproofing
>being dislodged, (read up on the Windsor buildings' "fireproofing" to
>crush that argument) the circumstances under which designers expected a
>707 would impact the towers, (some have argued the architects only
>planned for a collision if a plane was lost in fog and traveling at
>reduced speeds) etc, etc.
>
>
>
>To rid ourselves of all these diversions and get right to the heart of
>what is wrong with the way in which the two towers collapsed, we're
>going to throw the apologists for the official theory a bone.
>
>
>
>Better than dislodged fireproofing, super duper jet fuel, or
>miscalculations about plane velocity, we're prepared to offer up
>absolute and utter devastation. We're not talking about some bending or
>melting of steel, or a few knocked out columns in the planes path;
>we're talking about the complete vaporization of EVERYTHING in the
>impact zone. -Poof, gone!
>
>
>
>In this case we'll use the North Tower for our example. We know that
>the North Tower was struck between the 93rd and 98th floor. Per our
>guidelines, we'll assume those floors were completely vaporized
>instantaneously. -If this were the case, what would we be looking at?
>
>
>
>Working our way from the ground up we'd see a 93 story tower followed
>by 5 missing floors, and ending with an in tact section measuring 12
>floors high "suspended" above the 5 story gap. (Of course in the real
>world, a 12 story chunk of building can't "hover" above a 5 story
>section of nothing; but for the sake of making a point, we're going to
>leave it hang there for a minute.)
>
>
>
>Right next to our tower we're going to use a crane to raise another 12
>story section to the same height as the "hovering" 12 story section. If
>you're having a hard time visualizing all this, here is a picture of
>what we're looking at:
>
>
>
>Simple question: If both sections are dropped at the exact same time,
>which section do you think will hit the earth first? Or maybe a better
>question would be: Who in their right mind could possibly believe the
>chunk of debris on the left (with the in tact 93 stories beneath) would
>hit the earth at the same time as the chunk of debris on the right
>(with nothing but air to brake its fall?)
>
>
>
>Even using our very generous "5 missing floors" scenario (where the
>upper debris can literally free-fall for approximately 60 feet) the
>debris will only achieve a speed of roughly 40 miles per hour before
>colliding with the remaining 1,116 + feet of structural steel below.
>-are we really to believe continued free-fall acceleration through
>1,116 feet of structural steel is possible?
>
>
>
>-Of course our "generous" 5 missing floors scenario isn't real. Those 5
>floors WERE in the way and surely would have prevented the mass of
>falling debris from attaining anything near a 60 foot free-fall speed.
>Knowing this, cut the rate of descent in half (and multiply the
>absurdity of the governments' assertion by 5.)
>
>
>
>For the scientists out there: What kind of Gs would the falling debris
>achieve at roughly 20 miles per hour? Better question: How many g's
>would be required to not only overcome the built in "5 times rated
>weight" redundancy of the supporting structure below, but permit the
>continued free-fall acceleration of debris as if it were traveling
>through nothing more than 1,116 feet of air?
>
>
>
>Call 'em crazy, but these are some of the reasons why a growing circle
>of physicists, engineers, scientists, high ranking government officials
>and everyday citizens are rejecting the government's "fire initiated
>collapse" theory. Buildings don't disintegrate at free-fall speed
>unless all of their structural supports are removed...it isn't rocket
>science. -If it was only a matter of lighting a few strategic fires to
>bring down high-rise structures (into nice neat little piles) there's
>little doubt demolition companies around the world would be saving
>themselves millions of dollars (per demolition) by doing just that.
>
>
>
>
>http://stopthelie.com/1-hour_guide_to_911.html
|
|
|
| Re: physics Professor explodes WTC collapse [message #386479 ] |
Mo, 08 Mai 2006 21:16 |
|
On Fri, 05 May 2006 13:55:09 GMT, "Alan S" <nomail [at] home.net> wrote:
>
>"Mike Smith" <mws [at] wt.net> wrote in message
>news:o76m52lqecj7bg61dess4laisg149ok7vp [at] 4ax.com...
>> On 4 May 2006 20:44:32 -0700, u2r2h [at] gmx.net wrote:
>>
>>>No Tinfoil Hat Requireded the mindless babble of morons>
>> <snipped the mindless babble of morons>
>>
>> So you are a "natural" barking moonbat...
>>
>> OK.
>>
>> Mike Smith
>
>Tom the lab technician leans back in his chair and begins attentively
>munching on his popcorn. "Did you see that?", he asks Bob,"The Mike Smith
>specimen has reverted to his old ways and is calling people names again".
>"Yeah I saw it", says Bob,"Did you change anything with the cat chow and
>jalapeno formula?" "No", says Tom, "He hasn't been eating. Maybe we
>shouldn't have pointed out his propensity to deliver "smart shit", I think
>it confused him". "Yes, I was considering that myself", replies Bob, "maybe
>we should get down on his level and try to stimulate his tiny mind. Here -
>'Hey Mikey! Your a poo-poo head!' Let's see what he does now".
>
You liberal buffoons do love your fantasies...
Mike Smith
|
|
|
| Re: physics Professor explodes WTC collapse [message #386712 ] |
Do, 11 Mai 2006 12:41 |
|
"Alan S" <nomail [at] home.net> wrote in message
news:iSN6g.1959$fb2.935 [at] newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
>
>
> The buildings and how they fell.straight down in the same amount of time
it
> would take them to freefall.
Funny how gravity works...
|
|
|
| Re: physics Professor explodes WTC collapse [message #386714 ] |
Do, 11 Mai 2006 12:44 |
|
> There were a lot of people that didn't show up for work at the WTC on
9/11.
> A whole lot.
Like the fact that there were pictures of airplanes flying into it had
nothing do to with them deciding not to come into work that day, huh?
|
|
|
| Re: physics Professor explodes WTC collapse [message #386791 ] |
Fr, 12 Mai 2006 01:42 |
|
Stan de SD wrote:
> "Alan S" <nomail [at] home.net> wrote in message
> news:iSN6g.1959$fb2.935 [at] newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
>>
>> The buildings and how they fell.straight down in the same amount of time
> it
>> would take them to freefall.
>
> Funny how gravity works...
In a *vacuum* terminal velocity on Earth is 9.8 feet per second per second.
Given an average air pressure (at sea level) of some 14 pounds per
square inch, that's a huge amount of resistance for such massive
structures as the World Trade Center buildings were!
WK
|
|
|
| Re: physics Professor explodes WTC collapse [message #386792 ] |
Fr, 12 Mai 2006 01:44 |
|
Stan de SD wrote:
> > There were a lot of people that didn't show up for work at the WTC on
> 9/11.
> > A whole lot.
>
> Like the fact that there were pictures of airplanes flying into it had
> nothing do to with them deciding not to come into work that day, huh?
The planes flew into the towers approximately 8:45 - 9:00 AM EDT. Anyone
with a standard work schedule would very likely have been into the
office by then.
WK
|
|
|
| Re: physics Professor explodes WTC collapse [message #386814 ] |
Fr, 12 Mai 2006 15:52 |
|
Wunderkind wrote:
> Stan de SD wrote:
>
>> > There were a lot of people that didn't show up for work at the WTC on
>> 9/11.
>> > A whole lot.
>>
>> Like the fact that there were pictures of airplanes flying into it had
>> nothing do to with them deciding not to come into work that day, huh?
>
>
> The planes flew into the towers approximately 8:45 - 9:00 AM EDT. Anyone
> with a standard work schedule would very likely have been into the
> office by then.
So you believe a large amount of the workers at the WTC were tipped off
to a US gov't plot which involved crashing 2 planes into the towers and
killing many of their friends and colleagues and then not saying
anything to anyone about it?
|
|
|
| Re: physics Professor explodes WTC collapse [message #386838 ] |
Sa, 13 Mai 2006 01:55 |
|
P No Gree G O wrote:
> Wunderkind wrote:
>> Stan de SD wrote:
>>
>>> > There were a lot of people that didn't show up for work at the WTC on
>>> 9/11.
>>> > A whole lot.
>>>
>>> Like the fact that there were pictures of airplanes flying into it had
>>> nothing do to with them deciding not to come into work that day, huh?
>>
>>
>> The planes flew into the towers approximately 8:45 - 9:00 AM EDT.
>> Anyone with a standard work schedule would very likely have been into
>> the office by then.
>
> So you believe a large amount of the workers at the WTC were tipped off
> to a US gov't plot which involved crashing 2 planes into the towers and
> killing many of their friends and colleagues and then not saying
> anything to anyone about it?
I didn't claim anything of the sort, moonbat!
I simply offered the observation that if WTC workers had a standard 8-5
schedule, they would have been at work when the planes hit.
Not knowing their schedules, however, many of those who worked there
could have later schedules and that would explain the towers being less
than full at the time of attacks!
WK
|
|
|
| Re: physics Professor explodes WTC collapse [message #386840 ] |
Sa, 13 Mai 2006 04:56 |
|
Wunderkind wrote:
> P No Gree G O wrote:
>
>> Wunderkind wrote:
>>
>>> Stan de SD wrote:
>>>
>>>> > There were a lot of people that didn't show up for work at the
>>>> WTC on
>>>> 9/11.
>>>> > A whole lot.
>>>>
>>>> Like the fact that there were pictures of airplanes flying into it had
>>>> nothing do to with them deciding not to come into work that day, huh?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The planes flew into the towers approximately 8:45 - 9:00 AM EDT.
>>> Anyone with a standard work schedule would very likely have been into
>>> the office by then.
>>
>>
>> So you believe a large amount of the workers at the WTC were tipped
>> off to a US gov't plot which involved crashing 2 planes into the
>> towers and killing many of their friends and colleagues and then not
>> saying anything to anyone about it?
>
>
> I didn't claim anything of the sort, moonbat!
>
> I simply offered the observation that if WTC workers had a standard 8-5
> schedule, they would have been at work when the planes hit.
>
> Not knowing their schedules, however, many of those who worked there
> could have later schedules and that would explain the towers being less
> than full at the time of attacks!
>
> WK
Oh, sorry. I thought you were purporting another facet of the conspiracy
drivel. You were just stating specualtion which I read as implication.
Apologies.
|
|
|
| Re: physics Professor explodes WTC collapse [message #386857 ] |
Sa, 13 Mai 2006 18:20 |
|
P No Gree G O wrote:
> Wunderkind wrote:
>
>> P No Gree G O wrote:
>>
>>> Wunderkind wrote:
>>>
>>>> Stan de SD wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> > There were a lot of people that didn't show up for work at the
>>>>> WTC on
>>>>> 9/11.
>>>>> > A whole lot.
>>>>>
>>>>> Like the fact that there were pictures of airplanes flying into it had
>>>>> nothing do to with them deciding not to come into work that day, huh?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The planes flew into the towers approximately 8:45 - 9:00 AM EDT.
>>>> Anyone with a standard work schedule would very likely have been
>>>> into the office by then.
>>>
>>>
>>> So you believe a large amount of the workers at the WTC were tipped
>>> off to a US gov't plot which involved crashing 2 planes into the
>>> towers and killing many of their friends and colleagues and then not
>>> saying anything to anyone about it?
>>
>>
>> I didn't claim anything of the sort, moonbat!
>>
>> I simply offered the observation that if WTC workers had a standard
>> 8-5 schedule, they would have been at work when the planes hit.
>>
>> Not knowing their schedules, however, many of those who worked there
>> could have later schedules and that would explain the towers being
>> less than full at the time of attacks!
>>
>> WK
>
> Oh, sorry. I thought you were purporting another facet of the conspiracy
> drivel. You were just stating specualtion which I read as implication.
> Apologies.
>
Accepted!
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Mo Mai 21 23:29:37 CEST 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,19567 Sekunden |
