US gov. use of nuclear demolition bombs...WTC [Archive] - DC Junkies Political Message Board

stefan segal

09-27-2006, 09:43 PM

Linkster...Here's some copy with imbedded sites.

Stefan

http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/06/09/24/ward.htm

Around 1960, the relatively pure H-bomb was modified for selective effects creating the first 3rd generation H-bomb - the Neutron bomb, Enhanced Radiation Warhead, or a mostly fusion bomb. The neutron bomb's energy was mostly based on fusion using Deuterium/Tritium with only a small fission component to ignite the fusion reaction. The neutron bombs are designed to release at least 80% of its yield as neutrons at the expense of blast and heat as compared to previous fission-fusion warheads. It was not until around 15 years ago that the existence of the neutron bomb was noted. It was during this period that a trial regarding Chinese espionage forced the revelation of the neutron bomb. Shortly thereafter, Reagan deployed the W70 version with a yield range of 0.8 kt to 1.6 kt. At least 2 years after the neutron bomb had been developed and tested, declassified May 1963, "The mere fact that the U. S. is "interested in pursuing" a program to determine the characteristics of an "enhanced radiation" weapon (neutron bomb)." The standard policy seems to be to develop the weapon, inform congress for development of the weapon and then to inform the public after they have been informed there is a need for the weapon.

Very little has been released about the specific selective refinements of 2nd and 3rd generation weapons in the last 40 years since their development. The fact refinement was taking place is proven by the Orion spacecraft and the neutron bomb. EMP effects have been another area of concern and refinement. While these effects were noted in 1950's testing, there was elevated interest in 1962 with the high altitude (HEMP) detonation producing a massive EMP effect. In November 1972, the following sentence was declassified: "The fact of existence of weapons with tailored outputs, e.g., enhanced x-ray, neutron or gamma-ray output, that we are hardening our weapons to enhanced weapon outputs and that high-Z materials are used in hardening nuclear weapons against high-energy x-rays." Note - the date is the declassification date, not the development date.

How small can a nuclear reaction be? Through hydrodynamic experiments for triggering fusion, extremely lows yield nuclear explosions have been generated on the magnitude of "several Pounds of TNT." As noted above, in 1961 .01 kt was unveiled in 1961. In 1956, the Tamalpais with a yield of 0.072 kt was declassified.
Prior to the demolition of the WTC buildings, the largest imploded building, Hudson's Department Store was 2.2 million square feet with 33 levels and required 2,728 lbs of explosive. The WTC buildings were significantly stronger than the Hudson's building, but it is doubtful more than a 0.01 kt bomb would be needed for the 47 center columns designed to hold many times the weight of the buildings.

This program produced (partial list) the following information for a regular 0.01 kt yields, air ignition: Fireball max light radius = 25.4 meters, Max time light pulse width = 0.011 seconds, Max fireball airburst radius = 10.6 meters, Time of max temperature = 0.0032 seconds, Area of rad. exposure = 0.12 sq. miles; Blastwave Effects: Overpressure = 5 lb/sq. inch (160 mph) radius = 0.09 km, 1 lb/sq. inch radius = 0.26 km; Underground ignition: Crater diameter = 56 feet with a Richter magnitude of 3.52. Thermal radiation damage range is significantly reduced by clouds, smoke or other obscuring materials. Surface detonations are known to decrease thermal radiation by half. A neutron bomb produces much less blast and thermal energy than a fission bomb of the same yield by expending its energy by the increase in the production of neutrons. Even the older neutron bombs produce very little long term fallout, but made considerable induced radiation in ground detonations. The half life of induced radiation is very short and is measured in days rather than years.

Summing up known information, an underground explosion of a pure (most likely) or semi-pure, Minimum Residual Residue direction focused 0.01 kt yield hydrogen bomb with selected enhanced radiation dispersal - most likely neutron since that radiation would be absorbed by the ground and building, and would decrease the blast and temperature effects.

click for full size 5
In 1993, Joe Vialls exposes some facts about single explosions that were very similar to the 2001 WTC bombing. The article, "Micro Nukes in London," notes the sudden usage of massive explosions in business districts by the IRA with a brief mention of the 1993 bombing of the WTC. In the supposed first mega-bombing by the 'IRA', an eyewitness stated, "The ground shook under our feet. There was a brilliant white flash and a tall vertical column of smoke." Significant information about the Special Atomic Demolition Munition (SADM - the general class of the W54 warhead). While the government was working on the usage of a conventional bomb to the corporate media, there was accidental filming of investigators of the bombing in full radiation protective gear. Description of the crater created by the second explosion reveals a hole 60 feet wide and 40 feet deep. Quotes of physicists' Galen Winsor, John McPhee and Theodore Taylor are prophetic for the usage of micro nukes. Taylor specifically notes the future usage of an extremely small micro nuke being used in the WTC in the year 1973.

Bill

09-27-2006, 10:01 PM

So now you are saying the government used super secret mini fusion bombs, based on no technology known to the modern scientific community, against it's own people, blowing up the towers, two bombs, one after the other, that release no radiation, have no spherical shock wave, no sound upon detonation, didn't shatter every window in new york, so presumably has a detonation speed of only a few hundred feet per second...

And the same technology was used in london, years ago, to blame the IRA.

I'm sorry, I want to be nice, but that is officially the dumbest fucking conspiracy theory I have ever heard.

At least it get's around the need for some group of black bag construction workers working secretly in a fully occupied building to plant an invisible set of demolition charges, which also have no spherical shock wave, detonate without sound, and magically drops in acceleration from 20kfps to a few hundred fps immediately after cutting the towers structure.

Twice, one after the other.

I've read Newton, Planck, and Einstein. You ever hear of Occam's Razor?

Linkster

09-27-2006, 10:07 PM

The problem with that is it makes the statement that the radiation would be "short half life" which is true - however that doesnt mean that it wouldnt be detectable - thats why this could not have been a neutron bomb - the only type of bomb that would have had these effects and no residual radiation would be a true fusion device
A neutron bomb produces tritium, which is non-detectable on standard radiation monitors that the responders etc use - but would be picked up on air samples if they tested for it - it takes a special sampling rig to detect tritium that very few agencies have

The problem with tritium is that it doesnt have to be inhaled - it is what we in the nuclear biz call an absorbtion hazard - you can get it on your skin and it will be absorbed into the body - it also is a beta emitter so its damage to the internal organs of the body is significant
The other problem you run into is that someone with an intake of tritium will eliminate (biological half life) half of the tritium in ten days - so any testing now would be useless

The final problem that you have detecting if this type of device is used is that tritium travels primarily entrained in a water vapor - and seeing the pictures and videos of all of the powdered concrete (a good sign of an explosion) is that it would absorb most of the tritium similar to how a dessicant does

The only other scientific way you could prove this type of explosion would be a neutron detection system (which are set up in some locations in NYC) but you would need access to those results which I doubt that you could get :)

Linkster

09-27-2006, 10:11 PM

Bill - actually those types of devices have been tested sucessfully by DOE - so its not something scientifically impossible - not making any judgements here but from a pure scientific POV it is a possibility

Bill

09-27-2006, 10:44 PM

The most revolutionary of all imaginable technologies - small scale fusion reaction - and you are telling me it has been tested but not one word about it has ever appeared in any scientific publication?

What did they do, kill the scientists who invented it and the engineers who built it and all the people who witnessed the tests, except for the secret government cabal?

Moby

09-27-2006, 10:47 PM

It would be very easy for even poorly trained people to carry in refrigerator size boxes full of stuff and disappear for hours or even days into less populated parts of these buildings. I've been in them dozens of times and they're huge. Highly trained government workers as well as poorly trained Saudis could easily have filled the building with goodies.

I don't know enough about demolition to know what evidence is credible and what is not. It's just hard to believe that a plane (I know how big they are) could actually take such a huge building out.

The way things were handled afterwards reeks of cover up but that doesn't mean conspiracy. It just means that people fucked up and don't what others to know.

Linkster

09-27-2006, 10:49 PM

Bill - not only has it appeared in scientific journals - its even been tested at colleges using innovative approaches - and remember these are just kids playing with stuff
http://rodan.physics.ucla.edu/pyrofusion/

The government has been quiet about it but most of us in the physics field are pretty damned sure that DOE perfected fusion reactions for explosives over 15 years ago

Linkster

09-27-2006, 10:51 PM

stefan segal

09-27-2006, 10:57 PM

Sir Moby...WTC had a 36 hour shut-down the weekend before 9/11 when there was strange workmen bustling about the building obstensively to upgrade the phone system.

Also there had been hammering on the walls (apparently aside from one floor which the elevator doesn't stop except by use of a key, and set aside for maintenence tools and equipment...and from which was heard from those whose office was on the floor underneath, a lot of hard-wheeled rumblings overhead.

This above is only a sampling of first hand testimony from tenants whose work was there.

Anyway...Martin...mathew marvin???bush, a cousin of sicko boy george, held the securiety contracts for WTC...heck of a job bushies...as always.

Stefan

Bill

09-28-2006, 12:10 AM

Yes, I've read about that micro-fusion experiment, and I was very interested when the sonic bubble fusion experiments and theories were suggested. I'd still like to think sonic fusion has potential.

But, the planet wide attention paid to the mere possibility of sonic fusion is an example of why it is so completely unlikely that this talk of mini fusion bombs is anything but rank superstition. (probably created because conspiracy nuts read about the sonic fusion suggestions and decided they must mean that mini fusion bombs were possible and already existed.)

Pointing me to these widely publicized experiments just makes me all the more skeptical.

The most important invention in human history, kept secret by the US government and only used to create fake catastrophes, unable to be replicated by any other scientist from any other country, and all hints of it kept out of the public record?

Why start a fight over oil, when we have mini fusion? Why hide the knowledge, and use it to knock down towers, when it's mere possession makes it's owners the undisputed and untouchable masters of this planet, far more so than real fusion bombs ever could?

I don't believe it. I'd love to see mini fusion, it would make me happier to hear it was possible that _anything_ else that might happen in my lifetime, even happier than to have aliens in starships appear in our solar system. But I'm totally unconvinced, the more I hear, the more ridiculous it sounds.

Bill

09-28-2006, 12:16 AM

There is only one reason to present such insane conspiracy theories, and that's as part of a disinformation campaign.

Hey, I'm 100% behind the idea of investigating the hell out of the 9/11 attacks. I wish that there was a bigger and more merciless investigation going on over them right now.

But proposing such preposterous theories as legitimate can only have one purpose - to block a serious investigation by painting all suggestions of incompetence and blame as the ravings of a paranoid schizophrenic.

Linkster

09-28-2006, 12:26 AM

Bill - there are a few reasons I can think of to hide something that would provide a cheap alternative to fossil fuels - but I would be taking sides then :)

I also agree that most of the conspiricy theories are put out to discredit anyone that would raise any questions - its been done sucessfully many times before

Having been in the nuke biz for many years, and knowing the way the research arm of the DOE works, I would also not dismiss what is really available out there - but that is something I cannot back up except from my own experiences and wont attempt to :)

stefan segal

09-28-2006, 01:57 AM

Bill...I am fully convinced that the degree of credability one gives this criminal charge against bushco, is directly proportional to the depth of one's research.

The problem with having the obvious accepted in this case, is the outrage and loss of trust demanded in exchange for accepting that king george attacked and murdered 3000 non combatants...mostly American citizens.

Approaching this deed from any aspect...say the stock market, or the training of the arabs, or the sale and application of heavy duty terrorist insurance, the collapse of WTC#7, the fact that the twin towers were condemned for structurally unsound aluminum panels from two different inspection teams and had to be dismantled at a cost of 20 billion in 1996 $, the crippling of NORAD, the war exercizes that mirrored the actual attack, cheny changing the command structure that worked well for 40 years, so no one could respond unless cheney gave the command...the CIA connecton to the training of the hijackers...on and on...all the warnings, all the people that should have been there but weren't..like warren buffet's anual shareholders meeting which takes plach in his office in the towers, but instead, on 9/11, took place at an AFBase...coincidently the same one that air force one landed goat-boy...curiouser and curiouser...

Anyway, there are hundreds of damning and documented threads all pointing to cheney and his butt-boy and associates.

If you look, I am confident you will also be convinced...that is if you are ready to have your trust and belief in government shattered...if you aren't open to the truth, no matter where it leads, then it will just be another Northwoods exercize...but in this case, Northwoods mirrored back to discredit our pres...as boortzland informs.

Stefan

Bill

09-28-2006, 02:40 AM

I have no problem believing that the corporatists and plutocrats behind the current Republican government plotted a Reichstag.

I just haven't seen a single piece of evidence that the towers were brought down by anything but the effect of the planes hitting the tower.

I think there should be further investigations into the attack, as soon as possible, multiple investigations, and investigations into the investigations. I think we should investigate till the butthole of every single person involved is sore from the probing, including President Bush and Vice President Cheney.

I think it's hilarious and oddly wonderful that so many people think the towers were intentionally blown up by our government. It's one of the few signs of spirit left in a people that seems so fearful, pathetic, and unmanly.

But as soon as you mention mini fusion bombs, or even just thermite charges, which, by the way, can't cut across a beam, and it would take huge amounts to cut thru a beam, you have gone way beyond the tin foil hat borderline.

Such talk can serve no purpose but to discredit further investigation.

Lovelynice

09-28-2006, 09:10 AM

I just haven't seen a single piece of evidence that the towers were brought down by anything but the effect of the planes hitting the tower..

You should look harder.

Explosives were found in the buildings.
Video of firemen reporting bombs in WTC 7
"Bomb in the building. Start clearing out"
"What did you say? Secondary device?"
"Bomb in the building, start clearing out"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W53wdu8IGlE&NR

and the whole story of NUKES, is just "poison well" nonsense.

stefan segal

09-28-2006, 09:45 AM

Hi Bill...I enjoy your quirky take on life:) But you are uninformed specifically about 'thermite'. There is a vid-clip going around that shows thermite placed on the hood of a car and burning down through the hood, engine block to the the grass under ther car.

One of the priime uses of thermite was to recast a weld to make railroad tracks a continuous steel ribbon...but if sulfur is added, it becomes 'thermate', which burns hotter and faster, and is the trademark name for the demolition standard beam cutter.

Through analysis of the slag from WTC support beams, Thermate was identified. (don't overlook the engineered cut of 45 degree angles of the cut...keeping in mind that a straight-line melt in a conflaguration is an impossibility)

This is easily verified, unless you are predisposed to blow out all evidence contrary to a quick hitting kerosene fire with a burning paper and keyboard chaser making pools of molten steel still molten after two weeks, as lefty disinformation and evidencing their bad sportsmanship.

Thermate couldn't have made those pools of molten steel, one, because the intense heat is too localized, and two because those locales were spread out over the footprint of the building...too far dispersed to regroup without cooling.

The heat required must be ubiquitous and some thousand degrees hotter to pool the steel and to remain so hot that it was still 2000 degrees F when uncovered two weeks later...fusion delivers such a heat...kerosene doesn't.

I won't struggle longer with the "horse to water" bit, as what you believe today is what you are prepared to accept today...you are intelligent, quantums more than some of the "nay sayers" I've read here, and it's obvious that the strength of your resistance is indicative of the strength of your faith in our system, so it's more touching than a point of critique.

I always believed my thinking unhampered by such sentiments, but there are layers to this oinion, and at some point of having my faith in our government stripped from me, I chuck all reason and stand and fight at incursions that rip at our Constitution...I am at that point now.

Good luck in your fight to save your faith...it's hard to keep a balanced footing in these times.

Stefan

Moby

09-28-2006, 02:24 PM

Sir Moby - its even easier when the presidents brother is assigned ahead of time to be the security company in charge of the WTC security :)
Especially with the "security and network" upgrades they were doing for a few weeks prior to 9/11

Sir Moby...WTC had a 36 hour shut-down the weekend before 9/11 when there was strange workmen bustling about the building obstensively to upgrade the phone system.

This above is only a sampling of first hand testimony from tenants whose work was there.

Show me please. I would like to read the source of these statements. I'm fascinated and not surprised.

Bill

09-28-2006, 03:10 PM

Have you ever made and used thermite? I have.

Thermite only burns _down_. Gravity carries a stream of molten iron and alluminum alloy straight down, like water. It's the molten metal which can cut, like water flowing over ice will eventually cut thru the ice

It will only melt horizontal pieces of metal, and typically only thin pieces of metal. Sure it will cut thru the hood of a car, and liquid metal will fuck up the engine, especially it's aluminum parts, and drip to the ground underneath - straight down

On a piece of metal the size of a beam, it will coat the beam with a pool of molten metal, and possibly melt a very small area of the beam. You would need a thermite charge the size of a very large drum, probably twice as large as a 55 gallon barrel, to melt thru a small construction beam, and that would only work if you used specially made dams and forms of ceramic to direct the flow of molten thermite alloy - and much, much more than that to melt thru the size of beams forund at the base of a big building.

But, it will only, ever, cut _down_. It can't, ever, cut across a large beam.

If you could pile thermite twenty feet thick and ten feet deep around a beam, with a solid heat resistant surface cupping the thermite around the base of the beam, so that the molten metal pools at the base of the beam, while the heat of the reactionis concentrated on the body of the beam, eventually the beam will soften from the heat and fall over from it's own weight - but it would not be cut, because the cutting ONLY occurs when a stream of molten metal flows over the cold metal. The molten thermite metal can't _flow_ over the beam, all it can do is pool - and it would actually make the beam stronger, because that molten thermite alloy starts to cool and solidify seconds after being created by the thermite chemical reaction.

Thermite is only rarely used to cut metal. It is more commonly used to make extremely strong welds between very heavy steel beams. In military applications it is used to detroy equipment, not by melting it (unless the metal is thin, or aluminum), but by welding together moving metal pieces with a dripping mass of rapidly cooling metal alloy.

Don't take my word for it, research it yourself. Basing your theory on watching a video of a thermite charge on a car hood is typical of this craze for flaky theories.

You're just not doing your cause any favors by saying like this, which is just so completely wrong from an engineering and physics point of view.

There's only one reason to propose thermite, that I can think of, and that's to explain away the lack of explosive shock waves and the sound of detonation from this imagined "explosion" of the towers.

But that doesn't explain what happened to the intense heat, light, and noxious fumes of these gigantic thermite charges, which still wouldn't cut thru beams, no matter how long they burned. Or how the government piled tons of thermite around the beams in the first place.

Bill

09-28-2006, 03:41 PM

Thermate, by the way, is a military incendiary, used to start fires, not to cut metal. Why is it used instead of thermite? Because it ignites more easily. Thermite can be notoriously difficult to ignite.

Thermate cuts _less_ well than thermite. Why? Because what cuts is the molten stream of aluminum and iron, and there is _less_ aluminum and iron in thermate, which contains a large percentage of nitrates as an oxidiser.

Mentioning thermate makes your statements more impossible, not less.

stefan segal

09-28-2006, 04:06 PM

Bill...please....why don't you do a simple google thermAte search...notice the 'a' where the 'i' used to be...then you could stop embarassing yourself.

Thermate's burn rate is so fast as to be considered explosive.,,and that it why it's the beam cutter of choice in the demolition community.

Please...just lay your shovel down for a moment while you inform yourself...

Stefan

Bill

09-28-2006, 04:44 PM

I did a thermate google search before posting - the first two entries are wikipedia entries saying what I just said, and correctly identifying thermate as a military incendiary (the legal alternative to white phosphorus, btw) - the next 30 are nutty wtc conspiracy entries - I didn't look beyond that.

http://www.google.com/search?q=thermate&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2006-02,GGLG:en&start=20&sa=N

Let's try "thermate demolition"...

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2006-02,GGLG:en&q=thermate+demolition

All nut job stuff - I looked thru ten pages of google listings- not one single page about actually using thermate for demolition.

I tried a few other variations - thermate steel cutting, thermate to cut beams, thermate industry - not one single entry that is actually about the use of thermate in industry, all conspiracy stuff.

Can you suggest a search that finds one single authoritative page that describes using thermate for construction or demolition? Perhaps find me a trade name for industrial thermate?

Only the wikipedia entry for thermate seems at all accurate - note the ingredients - a standard pyritechic oxidizer mix, similar to what is used to make gunpowder and colored flares.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermate

Thermate, or Thermate-TH3, is an incendiary compound primarily used for military applications. Because of the similarity in names, thermate is sometimes confused with one of its components, thermite.

Thermate is a mixture of thermite and pyrotechnic additives which have been found to be superior to standard thermite for incendiary purposes. Its composition by weight is generally thermite 68.7%, barium nitrate 29.0%, sulphur 2.0% and binder 0.3%. Addition of barium nitrate to thermite increases its thermal effect, creates flame in burning and significantly reduces the ignition temperature.

Thermate is used in incendiary hand grenades.

Show me a page that describes an actual product used by actual demolition companies to do actual steel cutting.

stefan segal

09-28-2006, 06:58 PM

Bill... watch this vid...if this represents a product of "nut jobs", then there's nothing more I can say that you will hear...that is unless I agree with your position...and there's no way a reasonable person can do that without doing a stint at bush's torture palace and emporium.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vd1-Dp_-7WI&mode=related&search

Stefan

stefan segal

09-28-2006, 07:01 PM

Sir moby...I'm still tring to find those links for you but there is so much data to go through....here's some that might interest in the time being.

http://redlineav.com/tsg.deposition.1.html

Just for bedside reading...a wealth of search names leading everywhere:)

http://www.rinf.com/columnists/news/911-whistleblower-richard-andrew-grove-transcript

Stefan

Bill

09-28-2006, 08:01 PM

I just want to make my position clear.

I don't mind if you want to suggest a Reichstag. I certainly don't mind if you want to suggest that someone helped or allowed al qaeda to attack, or made a secret deal with Bin Laden to attack.

I don't mind if you want to suggest charges in the towers. I don't believe it, I certainly haven't seen a single piece of evidence that supports it, and I've been avidly reading the conspiracy material for years now. But at least it's technically possible, no matter how unlikely.

But, the instant you start mentioning fusion bombs and thermite, you leave me only one choice - I have to regard you as a disinformation agent, a plant of the plutocrats.

I have to regard you as an intentional liar.

You should think about that, as you plan what you want to do with this conspiracy theory stuff.

If you are going to promote a theory, the onus is on you to make sure that theory is technically, physically possible.

stefan segal

09-28-2006, 08:32 PM

Bill. I think I misjudged you...you aren't really such a nice fella after all...

I truely believe from a standpoint of physics matching the physical eveidence we have, that 4th generaton 94% pure fusion bombs pulverized the building and produced the polyclastic outpouring of millions of tons of dust and chemicals as per analysis.

You say you don't buy that notion in your quaint delivery...which I allow you your own mind...with the proviso that I won't continue the argument further if you judge evidence I deem as critical, as "nut jobs".

But you went further than "nut job", you immediately go repug on me and demean my motives and character...this is not an adult response...it isn't a laudable response..in fact it is not even an acceptable response...unless you are a repug...and since decent people have learned not to expect decency from the republican sector...regular people have lowered expectations of them and don't bother to react to their phantasms...it would almost be in poor taste...like making fun of the retarded.

You call me "an intentional liar"...repug or not...that sort of remark is beyond the pale.

Stefan

Bill

09-28-2006, 11:14 PM

I'm the farthest thing from a nice fellow you'll ever meet.

You're doing irrepairable harm to your cause by promoting impossible and ridiculous claims. You're probably not an intentional liar, you are simply repeating nonsense from the most perfectly Rove-ian disinformation scheme ever foisted on the american people.

Because of your fixation on false theories and incredibly flimsy evidence, any real conspirators, if they exist, are made even safer. You are actually helping the conspirators cover their tracks.

If you consider yourself a progressive, you are devasting your political authority with this stuff. This is the biggest of red herrings.

What you are saying is so incredibly republican, it's a religious fantasy built by repeating a few incorrect pieces of source material.*

This is dis-information. You are being tricked.

----

*like this business of saying "it was thermate - thermite plus sulphur" (which I saw repeated verbatim dozens, many dozens of times as I was reading about the thermite conspiracy theoryies), as if the addition of two percent sulphur is the thing that makes thermate hotter than thermite, when it's the addition of 28 percent barium nitrate oxidiser, an oxygen source, that makes it burn more easily and hotter, the sulphur is just a combustion stabilizer, serving the same function that sulphur serves in gunpowder.

Thermite plus sulphur = Thermate is wrong, simply and totally wrong.

Bill

09-28-2006, 11:17 PM

You know, you could prove me wrong easily.

Make some thermite, and cut thru a beam with it.

Thermite is cheap, beams are cheap. Videotape it. Make yourself a hero among the conspiracy theorists.

stefan segal

09-29-2006, 12:56 AM

Bill...you seem to be getting pretty frothy about what I am comfortably convinced of and what beliefs you demand I should substitue for them...maybe you should calm down, check your pulse and take slow steady breaths...and while you're doing that, try to get a handle on why you are responding so viciously to the workings of my mind.

I solicited nothing from you, until you blasted me about thermate...if you watched that video I linked for you you would have seen that the demolition industry uses cutter charges, placed at an angle with more than 100+ alternate charges, depending upon the desired burn rate.

The fact that thermate was undeniably evidenced in the slag, added to the point that thermate is said to be fast enough to be considered explosive, and that I have no evidence that thermate was used in conjunction with cutter charges, I find, when faced with a support "H" beam cut on a fourty-five degree angle dripping with slag from the cut, on the one hand, and labratory results showing thermate in that slag on the other, I connect those two events into a single experience.

Explain the polyclastic cloud away without including a fusion weapon.

Just because one knows something, it doesn't mean that the information is used up...other people...in your case many other people, think better than you, so don't get comfortable in the fantasy that your thoughts are the right thought for everyone. Your thoughts are right for you...just as mine are right for me.

Years ago, I was a nuclear weapons mechanic specialist, ( the specialist means I had a crash course on how not to blow the base up).

What I was involved with (intimately, some of my work required me to work inside a mark 6, the one dropped on japan), was primative by today's standards, and aside from monitoring myself for lukemia and other cancers, because in those days we worked hot, with real hot glow in the dark tools...I'm talking about spaulding caps pinging U238 flackes on our pants while we bent over to eyeball the degree of spaulding...anyway, I've had a continuing interest in weapons and aside from once being in the business of selling military surplus, I've kept up with what information was available.

I am as convinced now as I was when I first posted before you jumped me, that 4th generation fusion bombs pulverized the towers allowing thier demolition to one, fall into their own footprint, and two, fall at the speed of gravity, and three, create that polycolastic cloud consisting of the missing 2 million tons of structural materials and turn them into burning hot dust.

Find an alternative candidate that could create the 3 conditions I've just stated...although I'd settle for an explosive that could duplicate that roiling cloud.

Stefan

stefan segal

09-29-2006, 01:09 AM

Lovelynice

09-29-2006, 11:36 AM

fusion bombs and thermite,

Thermite and mundane explosives are reasonable.

Fusion bombs and nukes are not. That's why I called those sort of stories "poison well"

No EMP, that's why.

stefan segal

09-29-2006, 12:29 PM

Lovelynice

09-30-2006, 09:33 AM

Lovelynice...you are welcome to access my ideas any way that pleases you...I have no objection...I only object when being personally characterized and demeaned for my thoughts for the purpose of intimidating me from thinking them.

Stefan

You can think whateveryou like.

I'm not stopping you.

But as far as I'm concerned, the H-bomb idea is still "poison well". I know already what was used in the basements to blow the base of the cores, even though I can neither prove it, nor name the devices. I only ever cite what I can prove.

stefan segal

09-30-2006, 12:07 PM

Lovelynice...I wasn't aiming my response toward you...I was generally stating the principle that guides me...something like my personal Constitution of inaliable rights and solomn responsibilities, that unlike the origional, I refuse to allow mine to be raped...sorry for the misunderstanding.

As far as the identity of the basement bombs (six levels underground), I have no real interest in whether one bomb or another was used, as it's immaterial to the argument of the use of fusion bombs to pulverize the Towers into a polyclastic cloud carrying away 2 millions tons of towers so what rubble still remained could freefall into the holes your device made of the basements.

Thinking about it, a fusion bomb making a crater of the 6 level basement, would release all that energy upward into the freefall...making a spectacular lie of the pre-prepared 9/11 fantasy a visual laughingstock in realtime throughout the world.

If I were orchestrating those devices preparing the hole for what rubble still remained, I would use a shaped bunker busting type that directed the energy downward from the second level down...leaving one level above to contain the backblast...of course preparing vent hole to the sides that would also take out the supports to that upper level basement floor..as demonstrated in numerous videos of the cloud beginning at street level just as the towers began their freefall...a truely amazing demolition job...the high water mark in the industry for the next 50 years.

Stefan

Abnormalia

10-13-2006, 08:31 PM

I truely believe from a standpoint of physics matching the physical eveidence we have, that 4th generaton 94% pure fusion bombs pulverized the building and produced the polyclastic outpouring of millions of tons of dust and chemicals as per analysis.

Honestly. I joined this forum just now because of your comment. I don't even know what this forum is about. I was doing a google search in order to find if any research group has made a thermite alloy yet using electro/gas deposition techniques.

You. Are. A. Looney! Go to a psychiatrist, get some medication. Wait 2 months and reread what you wrote.

For my following credibility, I am a senior chemistry college student preparing for grad-school come next fall. My interests are explosives, nanotech, alternate fuels, and a few other things. I'm (apparently) notorious within the faculty for damaging a table during the 2 semesters ago "demo off" using a little too much thermite, both lab made and the demonstration-grade magnetite thermite (as opposed to the finely mixed iron (III) oxide which..shall we say..reacted too fast).

Now, on to the discussion. A few things to keep in mind, since there is a video of something molten dripping out of the first tower. First off, that molten material could be any number of alloys within the office or whatever part of the building the plane struck. It might have been a section of the office where all the metal filing cabinets were kept.
Another thing to keep in mind: A Large Aluminum Aircraft hit a Non Stainless Steel Building. Steel rusts. There might have been enough rust collected in that area (notice it's exactly where the plane hit) to form some thermite.

Another thing to keep in mind: A ******* fully fueled jetliner crashed into a building!!!

And another: You have no idea how much steel needs to be 'cut' through in order to fell an entire building.

And, and another: "Picture proof" evidence of cut steel beems that I have seen fail to include the testimony of other armchair speculators who actually cut metal for a living: The 'shorn/cut' metal is exactly that- it matches the exact style and cut of a power tool cut that was used to cut beams during the clean up phase

Finally: A FUCKING fully fueled jetliner crashed into a building. It was going fast enough to break beams, it had enough fuel to burn, soften, and cause the building(s) to buckle under their own weight. Nothing like this has ever happened, not to mention to this style of structure.

Your attempt at speaking innocently and elegantly make me sick, and i'm already sick of kooks like you. Please, please, get on some medication.

I do, although, have one question for you, stefan segal: Do you think the USA was the first to land on the moon?

Linkster

10-13-2006, 08:57 PM

Not defending anyone here - but first off - its improper to personally attack someone just because they dont agree with your view of things

Second - you might do some fact checking - the planes were not fully fueled - most usually arent for commuter flights like these planes were running

You might also do some checking into your claims from expertise on metallurgy - as you will find that the temperature required to soften, bend or collapse steel is way hotter than the temperature that lady was standing in - in the hole where the plane went through waving the white flag (check the news vids for this) - I happen to have a little background in science and know that the temperature for cremating humans is less than the temperature for bending steel - draw your own conclusions

As far as thermite or what ever - I sure cant defend one way or the other since I wasnt there and didnt see when the pictures were taken - but looking at the beams they were cut by something - and that only would require a timeline to figure out when

As far as the claim about fusion devices - unless you have been involved with DOE sites and research in the past please dont post what is possible or not - it is normally acceptable to have proof to back up both positive and negative claims in the world of science - I would love to see your work that disproves these devices - and no Im not talking about posts on the interweb - real scientific negative proof
Thanks for playing :thumbsup:

Abnormalia

10-13-2006, 09:27 PM

It's not uncommon for conspiracy nuts to have very much difficulty even thinking about giving up their theory. Proof of concept becomes proof. Articles by other conspiracy nuts become proof. Theories about perfectly clean miniature hydrogen bombs existing, which then are theorized to have blown up the twin towers...become proof.

Let me poke a few holes in you..er..your post.

Steel. Hot steel. You only need to put a peice of steel in a work oven to allow it to glow and turn red. Then you can hammer that metal into many different shapes. But the big point is this. Your fact about steel losing it's strength at moderately high temperatures are flawed. Imagine a steel girder, with millions! of pounds of cement and steel being supported on it. Imagine now that this girder's neighbors have been clipped clear off. Now imagine a moderately hot fire heating this girder. With the extra stress of it holding up the building, and the fire, the girder is much, much more likely to fail. Suddenly it fails (I think it decided to disagree with your 'fact' and fall to its death instead) the other girders around it now have to hold up more weight, but they're hot too! Oh no! a catastrophic collapse of a New York landmark. Killing ~3000 innocent people. The horror! How could this happen? Wait..it couldn't have happened because a (what, 75% fueled?) jet liner crashed and burned into it, it has to be something more secretive, cool...A Conspiracy!

Your "We think these special fusion bombs exist, so, because we already established that government is scary and out to get us, they must be the reason the building collapsed"

I am sick of people like you, just as I am sick of that guy who hangs around the square downtown, cornering people so he can tell them about the truth on why Nabisco and Kellogs companies are in with the military in order to rule the world. That honestly happened. My fiance and I walked very fast that day.

It may be fun, it may make you feel like a part of something bigger, but theories like that only insult the lives of the innocent victims and their families who have to deal with this. As if the moronic nature of fighting an invisible enemy in a foreign country that will somehow make the world safer isn't proof enough of the stupidity of this administration, you have to throw in this plan of genius, in order to warn us poor sheep (who are just going along with what the government tells us through 'Faux News').

Please do this, and i'll do the same: Sit down, and think off all the ways the other person might be right, and you might be wrong. My head will explode trying to comprehend your logic. Your head will explode trying to give up your theory. But, yet, I would die happy knowing there is one less of people like you in this world.

Linkster

10-13-2006, 09:42 PM

I hope you dont take this the wrong way as I didnt post any conspiricy theories - I just posted facts and requested scientific proof for your "facts"
I did not draw any conclusions as I dont have any answers and certainly know all about many different theories out there - I was simply asking the questions that any college student should be asking their professors when given facts - show the proof

Heres just a few for you to work on - what temperature does that work oven have to be to turn steel red?
How many support beams were in the WTC on the floor where the plane hit?
How far apart were the beams and compare that to the size of a plane
How much fuel was instantly used in the burnoff and what was left to fuel interior fires
What would be the temperature of the floor below the impact floor
What was the actual weight of the "concrete and steel" being supported above that floor - you mentioned millions of pounds?

You will notice I try to stay away from the political end of this discussion as I get sick of both sides making snips about the people that died or the news coverage or whatever else the media or blogs lead them to say - so I would really appreciate in this answer that you use only scientific proof and lets keep it there if you dont mind? :thumbsup:

Linkster

10-13-2006, 10:01 PM

Abnormalia

10-13-2006, 10:21 PM

Oh and in reply to what you wee originally searching for - hope this is close to what you needed?
J.D. Ferguson, K.J. Buechler, A.W. Weimer and S.M. George, "SnO2 Atomic Layer Deposition on ZrO2 and Al Nanoparticles: Pathway to Enhanced Thermite Materials", Powder Technology 156, 154-163 (2005).

I stopped searching for the article after I found this site. Yes, that is similar. I guess I'm not the only person to think up the 'perfect thermite' composition.

My interests, however, are to either look for Fe2O3 nanoparticles/nanowires that can be interwoven or coalesced into a solid semi-alloy or alloy. Ideally, if the alloy is strong enough, it could be made into objects that look normal but can be destructed easily. Or, if a blessed medium can be reached, a soldier on the battlefield could simply unroll a length of thermite wire, tie it around something or into a certain crack, and quickly weld or destroy what is needed. Thanks for looking that up for me.

As for the other requested information, my mind is obviously made up. However, if I find some time (around midterms no less) I will look up those building codes/facts/maluable tempture of steel stuff for both your benefit and mine (interesting stuff in my opinion). However, a lot of my so called wrath is because of other forums (that I do belong to) with a lot of people who can distrupt a normal WTC memorial thread, or such, with bullshits on conspiracy, your government is out to get you, etc, to the point where the thread would have been better had it not existed.

stefan segal

10-13-2006, 10:44 PM

Abnormalia...you certainly have perfected the high volume noxious entrance...all heat and no light :)

I find it difficult, after reading your posts, to take you as seriously as you take yourself, but even so, I'm glad for the opportunity to revist this thread because I think government treachery against US people more illuminating of the character and motives of the sociopaths who rape/run our country, than does pedophilia, if not simply more deserving of exposure.

I've considered your objections, your challenged reasoning processes drawn from a truely impressive expanse of ignorance of physics, chemistry and common sense; and keeping in mind that communication is limited to the least level of comprehension between speaker and listener...now with this disparity in mind, I will choose from the hundreds of silver-bullet questions, a simplistic and very elementary question befitting someone of your particular achievements.

WHERE'S THE BEEF???

Close to three thousand people had 80 floors/ceilings fall on them smashing them ( supposedly...according to the pancake theory) like all these gooshy pressed flowers between all these floors (minus the bodies contained to the top 13 or 16 floors, which should have been found in the rubble), but instead of finding all that pressed ham in the basement, all the evidence they found was dime-sized and smaller bits of bone on adjacent roof(s).

If you can answer this question using earth-type science and report it here, then I want you to know that I remain open to hear your abject apologies...regardless of your loutish clodhoppering onto our debating floor...all will be forgiven:)

Stefan

Abnormalia

10-13-2006, 11:08 PM

Well, I'll happily answer one of your questions:

...With a question: Can you even comprehend the amount of energy in that collapsing building? Bodies pancaking, then being ground as floors buckle, then crashing into the earth- all that kinetic energy transforming into intense heat plus grinding. They were turned to dust. The lucky ones..well, the dead ones who got a finger out the window, have the honor of being remembered in some sort.

Concluding,

Circumstantiality - Check
Loss of goal - Check
Paranoia - Check
Pressure of speech (An increase in the amount of spontaneous speech compared to what is considered customary) - Check
Stilted speech (Speech excessively stilted and formal) - Check
Illogicality - Check
Far fetched conspiracy theories - Check

It appears, from all your text so far, that you have somewhat of a mix of Schizophrenia and Asperger Syndrome. But i'm just a humble armchair analyst.

stefan segal

10-13-2006, 11:37 PM

...With a question: Can you even comprehend the amount of energy in that collapsing building? Bodies pancaking, then being ground as floors buckle, then crashing into the earth- all that kinetic energy transforming into intense heat plus grinding. They were turned to dust. The lucky ones..well, the dead ones who got a finger out the window, have the honor of being remembered in some sort.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abnormal...

you should write childrens books.

Do you actually consider your non-answer a response?

Do the work...check it out...bring home the bacon...so to speak.

My question was a deadly serious one, and I expect an answer of some substance...meaning backed up with physical fact....not with gymnastic displays of repug party line stupidity.

If you do the research honestly, your end finding will point inexorably to the bodies being vaporized along with all those millions of tons of concrete you mentioned.

Maybe all the addition of floors and footpounds squared are confusing you...you speak of all the grnding and tearing not making paste, but dust...woo wooh...the dynamics you have going in that mind of yours...I'm impressed, but before we get into the big numbers, how about we consider grinding all those people Linkster mentioned one floor below the conflaguration, where the cutter charges sheared the continuously welded support beams to separate the top 13 floors.

If we begin at the beginning...the structure above those people waving out the windows, had a velocity of ZERO footpounds with a distance of about 15 feet to press our first batch of people into dust(?)...yes...dust...(I have this on authority)...I ask again...

WHERE'S THE BEEF...?

Work up a response...don't attempt again to plam off that canned, prechewed, no thought, repug crap.

Stefan

Moby

10-14-2006, 12:10 AM

Do you think the USA was the first to land on the moon?
The Chinese invented everything first (pasta, gun powder, yo-yos ...) including lunar modules. :)

Abnormalia

10-14-2006, 12:19 AM

stefan segal

I can't tell if you're trolling (probably not) or you're really that gone. I'm going to vote on some sort of mental illness.

SirMoby No playing devil's advocate :(

stefan segal

10-14-2006, 01:08 AM

Abnormal...can't you simply answer the question?

Why do you need to hide behind all these childish ploys to avoid a direct answer...can't you think without a script...do you need to Google everything...can you process the elements of a problem internally and work out your own answer???

Stefan

Abnormalia

10-14-2006, 02:39 AM

The joy of seeing a poster but not seeing their post. I was able to walk away from that Schizo downtown, and now I can ignore the Schizo online.

Bill

10-14-2006, 07:13 PM

The problem with ignore, abnormalia, is that it allows the well poisoning memes to continue to spread.

It's better to address the meme's content.

For instance, the "what happened to the bodies?" meme.

You provided the standard engineering answer, which I believe is the correct answer. The enormous momentum and energy of millions of tons of material falling a thousand feet acting like a grinding mill, tearing the bodies remaining in the building to shreds and scraps.

Each floor pancaking into the one below, crushing everything soft but too heavy to be blown out by the compressed air blast into paste. Each time a new floor was hit, a shock wave went thru the mass of material above, breaking it up into even smaller pieces, crushing to dust everything that could be easily crushed, grinding everything soft into smaller and smaller pieces, leaving only the hardest and heaviest and strongest items which continued to roll, vibrate, and grind as it all fell into a heap.

However, there are points which have to be made in addition to that.

The first is this - we don't have the raw data and the source material.

None of us here, as far as I can tell, can say authoritatively "X amount of body materials were found, and what was found was in the following conditions of A, B, and C.".

And second, as I said in another thread, we don't have much to compare this event to. As far as I can tell, there's never been an equivalent situation of a large burning building, filled with some number of people, that collapsed.

stefan segal

10-14-2006, 09:23 PM

Bill...you make valid points...which I refute, due to my researching the vast first hand testimony from firemen, riggers, rescuers, and removal people....what they heard, saw, and found.

You dismiss all this without more than spokeshole's ideas about how these disparieties could be fit into the party-line fable.

How about supplying some evidence contrary to those who witnessed and worked in the rubble...some with body sniffing dogs...and finding no bodies.

Lets make this question more than one of position and opinion.

You have steadfastly denied all but the commission findings (even though those who compiled that heap of crap, failed to mention anything difinative about #7...and so much more without even mintioning that their model for the collapse is impossible), but have yet to able to make an argument stronger than: nyet...over and over.

Why don't you do some research of your own and put together a rational argument...I would love to argue points of contention rather than just: nyet!

What do you say Bill?

Stefan

Abnormalia

10-15-2006, 07:05 AM

I'm sad that I just looked at stefan's post.

Bill, My duty is not to prove anyone wrong. This is the internet, where anyone can be anonymous jackasses. Or in stefan's case, mentally unstable. Stefan can claim whatever he wants, and no amount of words on a screen are going to convince him otherwise. He is a devote follower of the religion called "9/11 conspiracy theorists". To think any different is an abomination to him. Or, alternately, he needs medication.

This is why I do not waste my time trying to 'prove' something to a bunch of text. There is a point, although not definitive, where a theory becomes very nearly unbelievable. Pink unicorns made Bush president. I have evidence, I talked with those unicorns. You have no evidence that I am wrong.

Stefan strikes me as a very unscientific person. Building up theories in such a way that they cannot be refuted by any means- one of the many definitions of pseudoscience. I block him because there is no reason not to.

I'm just glad that Stefan is dishing out his hard-proven knowledge on the internet, and not harassing some random person in public.

Lovelynice

10-17-2006, 02:04 AM

Each floor pancaking into the one below,

NIST doesn't accept the pancake theory either, you know.

In fact, currently NIST has no official explanation.

Lovelynice

10-17-2006, 02:07 AM

called "9/11 conspiracy theorists". ..

and what are you? A devoted follower of the even more absurd "Arabs Did It" CONSPIRACY THEORY.

which 84% of Americans disbelieve anyway.

Abnormalia

10-17-2006, 03:42 PM

and what are you? A devoted follower of the even more absurd "Arabs Did It" CONSPIRACY THEORY.

which 84% of Americans disbelieve anyway.

Wow, we have another religious fundamentalist...oops! I mean "Member of the 9/11 truth movement".

AKA another crazy.

You have a lil' link to back up that statistic there toots?

stefan segal

10-17-2006, 04:31 PM

Subnormal..this is a discussion group...not a forum to mindlessly sling mud.

Answer a question on topic or pose a new one...on topic, but don't crash this group and childlishly impune people for doing what you are afraid to do or incapable of doing.

The questions is posed to you to refute or explain the absence of bodies and the debunked 'pancake theory'...do you have something to add?

If not, then go play with your junior high friends...this is a political forum.

Stefan

Lovelynice

10-18-2006, 01:54 PM

AKA another crazy.

^^^ AKA another crazy is the maniacs and lunatics who believe that cellphones can make successful calls from passenger planes flying six miles up at over 450mph without an onboard celullar basestation.

Sorry, THEY CAN'T.

If you think otherwise, then back your bullshit and provide a scientific study which says that it's possible. Not some talking PR head's claims, not bullshit anecdotes, not stories about calls from low-flying, slow-moving Cessnas, but REAL SCIENTIFIC STUDIES to back your claims.

Neither have any steel-framed hi-rise buildings collapsed straight-down into their own footprint before or after 9/11 without the cause being controlled demolition. Dare to say claim otherwise? Then BACK YOUR BULLSHIT with a cited event with video and/or photos of such an occassion - and 4-storey toy factories are NOT hi-rise buildings.

I'd just love to see you cite somebody who has succeeded in a mathematical simulation of the WTC collapses showing that there was enough energy for a gravitationally-driven collapse, BECAUSE NOBODY HAS EVER SUCCEEDED IN SUCH A THING. There have been many claimants, and when their claims have been thoroughly checked, they have all FAILED.

NIST has never released their formula either, which is one of the major reasons for the increasing scepticism of their official assumptions produced in their reports, because the fact is - NIST never succeeded in simulating the collapses either. THEY ADMIT THIS

In the case of the WTC 1, 2, & 7 destructions, it's been considered VITAL that they be provable as gravity-driven collapses. If they can't be modelled as such, then the only rational reasonable conclusion is that they were controlled demolitions. The reason is simple; EVERY OTHER OCCASSION both before and since Sept 11 2001, when STEEL-FRAMED tower buildings collapsed straightdown into their footprint, it has been due to a controlled demolition. To make the claim that the destruction of WTC 1, 2 & 7 were not also controlled demolitions then it requires a successful mathematical simulation or computer simulation based on the EMPIRICAL DATA (without distortion, deviation, or bullshit fictions) that can PROVE that there was enough energy for a gravity-driven collapse.

You are claiming that it's reasonable for THREE BUILDINGS to do on one day what no other steel-framed buildings have ever done before or since, worsened in extremity by the simple fact that NOBODY has been able mathematical simulate those collapses as being due the alleged "official cause". We're talking about PHYSICS.

Logic is on my side, simply because of this. All you have is faith-based excuses that ignore physics, science, hundreds of witnesses, videos, seismic data, times on atomic clocks, and contradictions in official reports. Lots of people ignore the contradictions in the Bible too, and that's the way you carry on about the "Official Conspiracy Theory". It doesn't matter apparently to you that something is OUTRIGHT IMPOSSIBLE, according to your faith-based excuses, the Official View is always correct....even when the Officials have been caught out LYING on numerous occassions.

In other words, the only religion being pushed here, is YOURS, because you rely on FAITH not science, facts, or commonsense.

Lovelynice

10-18-2006, 02:11 PM

I don't accept the poison well memes of "Nukes-in-the-WTC", "Hologram Planes", and other silliness either. But neither do I accept anything which goes against PHYSICS, FACTS, basic reality.

It is a FACT that it's impossible to make cellphone calls from passenger planes flying at cruising altitude six miles up and flying at over 450mph without an onboard cellular basestation (technology which wasn't available prior to 2004 and is still in testing stage), and it's a FACT that cellphone calls from a vehicle moving at over 450mph (even if successfully make the handshake when flying at low altitude) will only last a few seconds since there is no time for the hand-off; the call will ALWAYS drop out in just a few seconds - minutes long cellphone calls are IMPOSSIBLE

It's a fact that NOBODY has ever successfully simulated the collapses of WTC 1, 2, & 7 without considering controlled demolition, and that means NOBODY. Not NIST, not, NOVA, Dr Eagar, FEMA, MIT, Bazant & Zhou, nor Dr Frank Green, nor anyone else. NOBODY has succeeded; those who have claimed to have done so, have ALWAYS been proven to be LIARS when their mathematical formula were checked.

It's a FACT that there were hundeds of witnesses to explosions at the WTC buildings, and that their claims are supported by video evidence showing lines of explosions blowing out the floors before the falling debris could reach those floors, and there's seismic data showing impossibly short tremors revealing the use of explosives in those controlled demolitions.

EastTexan

10-18-2006, 04:47 PM

Tommy

10-18-2006, 05:02 PM

vote for Bush again ????

Bush is in his second term. cant run again

who is slick willy ??

exarmyranger

10-18-2006, 08:37 PM

U.S.Government agency's (C>I>A>)among other semi secret, covert operation agency's, failed to prevent WTC 9/11 from occuring.However to believe our government was responcible...I have some ocean front property for sale,in Arizona you may want to invest in,and just to be fair,just because your parinoid dos'nt mean somebody is'nt out to get you.

exarmyranger

10-18-2006, 11:21 PM

vote for Bush again ????

Bush is in his second term. cant run again

who is slick willy ??
Bill Clinton aka Slick Willie

Moby

10-19-2006, 12:15 AM

everybody needs to be sure and vote republican next month. and be sure to vote for bush again. if it wernt for bush then slick willy would still be presedent. slick will used the army to stay in power after he got impeeched, and it took the supreme court to kick him out.
Wow, you can read and write so how do you stay so ignorant of reality? That's right, you're educated in TX and now you think the rest of the USA should dumb down, loose jobs and create more poor.

stefan segal

10-19-2006, 12:23 AM

Exarmyranger...I know it's a leap for you to have accepted that the CIA screwed up, I just hope you don't take it too hard when you learn who set this demolition up (it took months to design the demolition, schedule a test to confuse the Air Force, and the best evidence is that it took about 54 hours to rig the charges), and blows your faith away with the knowlege that insiders, with premeditation, killed close to 3000 American citizens...trading thier lives for oil and weapons sales.

Those boys with the box cutters didn't set the SADM fusion devices that evaporated the towers...in fact, the whole plane thing was just a sideshow...they didn't structurally damage the buildings...and certainly not #7, where the FBI and CIA had command centers, that conveniently evaporated with all their hard drives and wireless equipment in the demolition.

But in a normal demolition, cutter charges are set off to cut through support beams, and all that once was the building, can be found in the rubble...makes sense...a beam doesn't disappear whan its cut...it just falls down.

But where are the beams from the towers? There appear to be about 800 linear feet (times 47 beams) simply not in evidence in the rubble...I know this sounds picky, when compared to 2,000,000 tons of building material, which is also not in evidence in the rubble (calculated from the origional building records of the tonnage utilized in the construction, and from it, subtracted the tonnage hauled out of there. 2 mil. short)

So when you must face the fact of what, how, and who, actually brought those towers down and killed (evaporated) all those murdered citizens...don't go postal...you can tackle one chunk of evidence at a time...like research and figure out why 14 feet thick of reinforced concrete was fractured and pushed out below grade of a retaining wall that needs to keep the river from flooding wall street. Not one person can make a case for the collapse ( meaning the falling of so many tons of rubble being capable of fracturing that wall) of the towers being responsible...or take the siesmograph reading from two diverse sources...and match the readings spike against the time...then after you can't explain how the spikes occur before the event in the sky...explain the ripple-fire spikes faster than aftershocks could produce, and the detonations ran down the floors evaporating them to produce a freefall of the 16 floor chunk that was to make the visual plus plug the whole where they blew out the 6 basement floors to recieve them.

Good luck...or better...save yourself the grief and just go fishing instead.

Stefan

Bill

10-19-2006, 12:34 AM

You folks should quote your sources, and provide links when possible.

No sources, and it's not an argument, it's just an exchange of opinions.

Bill

10-19-2006, 12:38 AM

Welcome, EastTexan. Technically, it would have been best to start a new thread with your post, instead of posting in the middle of a big tower conspiracy argument.

And, sorry, I can't agree with ya. Congress is fucked, they need a kick in the head. President Bush fucked up the war. Whattya gonna do? They gotta go.

Lovelynice

10-19-2006, 12:43 AM

U.S.Government agency's (C>I>A>)among other semi secret, covert operation agency's, failed to prevent WTC 9/11 from occuring.However to believe our government was responcible...

Is perfectly reasonable.

Who ever said that it was an OFFICIAL POLICY of the USA government? NOBODY.

What an increasing number of people (NOW IN THE MAJORITY) are saying is that the folks in the USA government, a small, elitest, powerful faction orchestrated the attacks of September 11, 2001 to increase their power, to provide excuses for wars, to provide excuses for destruction of civil liberties and the turn the USA into a police-state. This bunch of criminals are TRAITORS to their own country.

Why are you trying so hard to prevent any open REAL INVESTIGATION into 9/11 with your silly excuses? Are you on the side of the American people, or are you on the side of the criminals in power in the USA who have profited so well? A real patriot would be DEMANDING real, proper, and OPEN investigation, with charges and convictions of the people truly responsible...or do you think Arabs put those explosives in WTC 7 for that EXTREMELY OBVIOUS CONTROLLED DEMOLITION?

WTC 7 roofline to ground: 6.6 seconds. Symmetrical, straight down.
WTC 7 Collapse (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/wtc7_collapse2.mpg)

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/SMALL_wtc-7_1_.gif

Even the firemen found bombs in the buildings!

"Bomb in the building. Start clearing out"
"What did you say? Secondary device?"
"Bomb in the building, start clearing out"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W53wdu8IGlE&NR

Lovelynice

10-19-2006, 12:46 AM

Those boys with the box cutters didn't set the SADM fusion devices

why do you keep pushing this poison well meme?

Nukes don't cut steel in regular 30ft long pieces - but thermite and demolition charges do!

and the steel wasn't "vapourised", the cover-up was the simple act of taking away all the steel from WTC 1 & 2 for recycling. Which the investigators COMPLAINED ABOUT.

stefan segal

10-19-2006, 12:56 AM

Here you go Bill. I haven't checked al these out, so I can't guarentee that some aren't BS...I'm giving you this list because there is so much out there, I wouldn't know how to sort them for the questions you have...and being such a rich field of data, it's hard to sift through it to pinpoint a story remembered.

If you aren't satisfied with these (I remember you objected to Jones as a unreliable source...I think if you check out his credentials you will be satisfied...anyway he simply addressed the street level thermate beam-cutting before any fusion bombs went off.), get specific and I'll try to supply the verifying links.

Google or Walpedia SADM...see what you find:)

Stefan

Just some of the facts are: widespread cancer in the responders, molten steel, melted cars, steel beams hurled hundreds of feet, aerosolized metals, vaporized steel witnessed and video, aerosolized and pulverized concrete, elevated tritium levels, vanishing (vaporized) victims, only sliver fragments of victims on roof tops, EMP - Electro Magnetic Pulse effects on communications, hundreds of eyewitness testimony of ancillary explosions by heroic rescuers and victims, massive dispersal of debris, demolition expert states hydrogen bomb needed for this type of demolition, audio of a massive explosion prior to collapse, video of ancillary explosions, audio of ancillary explosions, significant reduction in debris pile, ancillary thermate found in wreckage, shockwave of a mini yield nuclear blast knocked people off their feet, vaporization of 200,000 gallons of water, removal of wreckage without investigation, only remnants of fire in one tower minutes after the plane collision, unprecedented history of 3 skyscrapers collapsing secondary to fire, early miscalculation stating WTC building 7 'pulled', towers fall at demolition or free fall speed, foreknowledge of WTC 7 immediate collapse, slow-motion video evidence of plane appendage with smoke and explosion immediately prior to impact of both planes, unprecedented NORAD non response to variant flights, FEMA drill scheduled for same day, military 'exercise' of exactly what was taking place to prevent NORAD response, most of NORAD protection planes sent far away in another 'exercise' to prevent response, prevention of examination of wreckage by those assigned to investigate, seismic evidence of a mini yield nuclear explosion, Cheney takes over NORAD response command, Cheney prevents NORAD response, WTC towers designed for 757 collision and fire, 911 used falsely for previously planned war, government fabrication of 'evidence' correlation for starting war, hundreds of people found themselves trapped by locked doors and missing escape routes above and below the impact zone, and not all inclusively, but finally, Bush brands anyone noting any of these facts a terrorist.

stefan segal

10-19-2006, 01:00 AM

Sorry...there sre over fifty hyperlinks in thst chunk I posted, but they didn't lite up...so here's the link to the site:

http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/06/09/24/ward.htm

Stefan

Moby

10-19-2006, 01:21 AM

(calculated from the origional building records of the tonnage utilized in the construction, and from it, subtracted the tonnage hauled out of there. 2 mil. short)
Your theory could be very correct or very wrong. I don't know enough about demolitions to form an opinion.

I do thing that there's a flaw in your logic though. You keep bringing up the tonnage from the building records. History shows that corrupt contractors always over bill by charging for materials that were never used. Almost all major build projects have either busted contractors and often even convicted contractors.

Basically 10 trucks come into the construction site. Someone counts 12. Of the 10 that come in 8 unload material and the other 2 drive out the back without unloading. Now 12 truck loads of material have been counted but only 8 truck loads of material were dropped off and will be used.

So having the building records show a bunch of material that wasn't actually used is pretty normal.

stefan segal

10-19-2006, 01:56 AM

2,000,000 minus 20% (for fraud and theft) = 400,000 tons = (short tons)= 80,000,000 pounds...a bit heavy for a pickup truck...and noticeable for short loading a flatbed...cement trucks have meters on their pumps so they know what to charge.

But...I'm playing with you...they know what the building weighs before they break ground...the engineers must engineer the foundations and test the bedrock to carry the weight of the building...which must be calculated and specifications must be strictly adherred to...especially when endangerment to the people (shit falling 1000feet into the street=collateral damage)

So I may be 50,000 pounds off this way or that...but let that number...2,000,000 x 2000 pounds...missing from the rubble pile, roll around in your mind a while...think in visual terms...like 8,000,000,000 pounds of sand...that sounds like all the sand in atlantic city...

It's no mystery where the missing tonnage is... dust 3 inches deep covering lower manhatten...the question is:

What sort of device could convert steel columns, concrete, and a lot of dead bodies, into a pyroclastic, 2,000,000 million ton, dust cloud?

A slingshot...a firecracker...the blasting powder hardrock miners shatter holes in mountains...shaped charges they use in demolition, like when they drop a bridge into the river...No still doesn't fit the evidence...well how about a SADM class nuke...Hey...this may be a clue..

Stefan

stefan segal

10-19-2006, 04:10 PM

Bill...here's related links that give an overview and some history... I do have somewhere the chronological development of SADM demolition nukes...

Stefan

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/finn/1/soldier1.htm

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/finn/3/soldier3.htm

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/finn/5/soldier5.htm

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/finn/2/soldier2.htm

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/finn/4/soldier4.htm

The Bombs in the WTC
Note: This drawing is schematic only. The actual towers were much taller and the observed arch of destruction of the energy-directed thermonuclear device was correspondingly more narrow.

-------------------------------------------------
]There was a diagram here, but it wouldn't transfer]
--------------------------------------------------

The Ground Zero here is in the original sense of word, a nuclear blast site. The thermal energy may absorb heat at a rate of 10 E 23 ergs / cm2 sec and near the bomb all surfaces may heat to 4000 °C or 7200 °F igniting or vapourizing violently. Source: US Department of Defense & US Department of Energy, Glasstone – Dolan: 'The Effects of Nuclear Weapons' (1980).

The thermonuclear bomb used was a 'pure' hydrogen bomb, so no uranium or plutonium at all. The basic nuclear reaction is Deuterium + Tritium > Alpha + n. The ignition of this is the fine part, either with a powerful beam array or antimatter (a very certain way to get the necessary effect of directed energy in order not to level the adjacent blocks of high-rise buildings, as well).

Linkster

10-19-2006, 06:27 PM

Well - Im sure your source meant well - but those numbers you are quoting make no sense whatsoever - as a matter of fact they arent even close to real numbers

Second the Deuterium/Tritium reaction would leave Alpha as you noted (the He4) but that would mean that the whole city of New York would be contaminated with alpha right now as the stuff (although it doesnt travel very far in the skin) would have been airborne immediately and would have set off monitors all over the country - and would be very easy to detect even now as its not going to go away real soon. That added to the requirement to have a trigger of some sort that hasnt been demonstrated (antimatter hasnt been invented yet and a beam array would require a football stadium to set up) I have to believe youre going down the wrong path here - now if you could show a small fission trigger(which does exist and would explain the speed of trying to get all material out of NYC quickly) - then you might have a small case although it would be easy to go to NYC right now and be able to again detect the alpha residual contamination

stefan segal

10-19-2006, 07:43 PM

Linkster...see what you think of this:

Stefan

http://www.vialls.com/nuke/bali_micro_nuke.htm

snipped:

It was precisely 11.30 p.m. on Saturday 12 October 2002, when someone somewhere pressed a button that sent a single coded radio-squirt to an underground aerial located in a monsoon drain outside the Sari Club in Bali. An unseen circuit closed and a primer fired, then one-millionth of a single second later, a terrible fireball formed under the street. Less than six inches in diameter and burning at a staggering 300,000 degrees centigrade, the fireball was a perfect shimmering sphere, made possible by 99.78% Plutonium 239 manufactured at the Dimona nuclear facility in the Negev Desert.
Five microseconds passed while this fission monster from hell expanded, then the already-cooling fireball tore its angry way out into the street above, vaporizing all victims standing within thirty feet while simultaneously spreading two tons of deadly microscopic roadbed shrapnel in a lethal arc across Kuta Beach. Every survivor standing in direct line-of-sight of its awesome ultraviolet emission received terrible flash burns, the like of which three eminent Australian burns surgeons would later claim on TV they “had never seen before”.
Less than ten-millionths of a second after the monster achieved critical mass, its searing thermal wave set fire to twenty-seven buildings in the immediate area, and spontaneously ignited automobiles parked two blocks away from ground zero. But as you will read later in this report, no ordinary Geiger counter from any nation could detect radiation from the weapon.

Abnormalia

10-19-2006, 09:34 PM

Aw crap, I must have hit a window or something. Well, my basic message was more about calling you rabid loonies (including using GIS search to find a picture oh two angry nuts..not there though:( ). Also, I'm sad I haven't checked this thread recently.

Anyways, some of the most beautiful links on debunking 9/11 crazies are as follows:

http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html (I'm glad these authors exist, FSM bless them)
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html (classic!)
http://www.911-strike.com/debunking.htm
http://www.debunking911.com/
http://jod911.com/ (professional and thorough)
And finally, good ol wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories

To quote the PopMech article from 2005:

"Healthy skepticism, it seems, has curdled into paranoia. Wild conspiracy tales are peddled daily on the Internet, talk radio and in other media. Blurry photos, quotes taken out of context and sketchy eyewitness accounts have inspired a slew of elaborate theories: The Pentagon was struck by a missile; the World Trade Center was razed by demolition-style bombs; Flight 93 was shot down by a mysterious white jet. As outlandish as these claims may sound, they are increasingly accepted abroad and among extremists here in the United States."

Oh, and all the statistics, all the real evidence, all the expert testimony can be found in those links. Get yourselves on some medication, STAT!

Moby

10-19-2006, 09:48 PM

Aw crap, I must have hit a window or something. Well, my basic message was more about calling you rabid loonies
Why are you using the plural form of loonies? Are you too stupid, prejudice and close minded to understand that we are different people with separate ideas and thoughts?

Abnormalia

10-19-2006, 09:52 PM

Holy crap stefan, you're an oldy!
62 years old, seperated from wife, metal sculptor from Delaware?
Same method of writing, same language.
email address: stonedancer@delaware.net

Alright, here's my new profile:
Stefan is an aging man, who, with no wife, and searching for a mate, has become enthralled with something else to take up his spare time: A 9/11 conspiracy. Stefan is a very unscientific person, more of an artist/naturalist than a logical thinker. Stefan probably meditates almost daily, and likes to buy organic food.

That, or Stefan is reaching early stages of senility.

Abnormalia

10-19-2006, 09:55 PM

Why are you using the plural form of loonies? Are you too stupid, prejudice and close minded to understand that we are different people with separate ideas and thoughts?

Of course, but if two totally unrelated people are crazy, and they are in the same place at the same time (albeit online), it would be correct in saying there "are a couple of loonies here".

Tsk tsk. The Scientologists would love to have you in their corpera...er..religion

SirMoby: What are you afraid of, huh? Huh?
SirMoby: Can you even comprehend the truth? What are you afraid of??

Etc

Moby

10-19-2006, 10:02 PM

SirMoby: What are you afraid of, huh? Huh?
SirMoby: Can you even comprehend the truth? What are you afraid of??

My only fear is that prejudice and ignorance will spread to the masses. Do you have a point to any of your postings or are they just full of prejudice and fear?

WTF is that talking about Scientology? Do you wake in the middle of the night dreaming of Tom Cruise?

Abnormalia

10-19-2006, 10:12 PM

My only fear is that prejudice and ignorance will spread to the masses. Do you have a point to any of your postings or are they just full of prejudice and fear?

WTF is that talking about Scientology? Do you wake in the middle of the night dreaming of Tom Cruise?

SirMoby, or whatever your name is. The president's rating hit, what, 33% last week? We, the people, won't be letting our government get away with some of the bullshit that this administration is doing. Our children are going to read about this in their textbooks, as one of the worst blunders in US history. Our society will not be like this forever.

However, have you ever remembered what is was like being laughed at in class because you insisted your answer was correct, but later found out it was wrong? You're probably reliving that right now.

I'm going to ask this question, and if there was any question I want you to answer, it is this question: Is there anyway I could convince you that the 9/11 attacks were perpetrated but none else then a group of suicide terrorists, that the trade center buildings collapsed from a catastrophic impact that has, until now, never been seen before? Is there a chance you would give up your 9/11 beliefs in light of information that says you're actually wrong? Is there any chance?

Bill

10-19-2006, 10:32 PM

...perpetrated but none else then a group of suicide terrorists, that the trade center buildings collapsed from a catastrophic impact that has, until now, never been seen before...

Well, actually, you should seperate these into two seperate cases.

Wether or not the building collapsed solely from catastrophic impact has no direct connection with wether or not the attack was perpretrated by no-one else than a group of suicide terrorists.

That is, there could have been a larger conspiracy behind the group of men on the planes and (presumably) al qaeda, but, the towers fell solely from the impact of the planes, the fires, and design weaknesses of the building.

---

And please everyone, keep the ad hominem below a certain level. Some piss is fine, but, this is still America, this is the marketplace of ideas, let's maintain an ethic of fair combat.

Not that I'm guiltless, but I try to curb my natural surliness. ;-}

Abnormalia

10-19-2006, 10:44 PM

Lots-o-stuff

Alright, fair is fair: Could you ever be convinced of, either both or one, that

1. The buildings fell soley from the impact of the plane and fires which weakened and caused a failure?
2. The attacks were carried out solely by a terrorist organization called Al Qaeda, with, most likely, an incompetent government allowing it to happen because of miscommunication?

As for arguments sake, the internet is the internet. In a debate with real people you cannot block them from your sight (well, maybe a peice of paper and earplugs would do). Anonymity brings jackassery- including me (I loves it I do).

However, I haven't seen any evidence besides anecdotal 'evidence' and an animated .gif showing building # 7 collapsing that was taken on the other side of the building (which remained undamaged).

I can't help but compare their tactics to those of Scientologists. Scary.

exarmyranger

10-19-2006, 11:01 PM

I tend to agree with Bill,I used to get angry with foolish people.now i'm amused.Someone should get Moby the name of a good therapist/shrink.Seek Help!

stefan segal

10-19-2006, 11:45 PM

I'm even older than that, subnormal...but what that has to do with "popular Mechanics" is beyond my limited logic.

Popular Mechanics agrees with the 9/11 comission, who agrees with everyone else who needs to live and work around government.

If you notice, (which you obviously don't), that there's a strange phenominon going around...it appears that everyone who retires or quits the army or government, suddenly becomes possessed to denounce that government and it's lies. If I didn't know better...as you obviously do...I'd suspect that they knew the truth all the time, but sort of helped the lie along as long as they were feeding from that gov. trough.

This strange thing has gotten so bad, that even the guys who wrote the 9/11 report, can be seen on television ( is that what you young guys still call it?), saying that their report was bogus...although the rest of us knew that for the last 5 years...anyone with half a brain (which you haven't yet had time to ascribe to) , could see...as plain as the fact the emperor has no clothes...that the WTO was a demolition job.

It puzzles me as to your motives...you know what I mean...like what thoughts were going through your mind while you were busily ignoring me, to really rip through the net...all search engines fired up, to find archival information from an account at least five years defunct, from a place I no longer live?

Another thing I find strange...why did you post my information on a political list...is it some irresistable repug response to your inbred slime componet?

You certainly are a difficult guy to figure out...us old guys find it taxing to outright difficult to bend so low just to get a look at you...my thought is that you need to consult with a PR man.

Enough fun and games...and just to show you that I don't kick dogs or mental defectives, I'll let you in on some secret information that old guys know, but never let on:

You listening?

All the old guys you see around you today, all had a life in a world ten times better than you did in your childhood...but better than that...we all have more character than you punkers do...you young guys are so ignorant, yoiu haven't a clue what I'm talking about...you think the world is always the same...well it isn't...

You had to live in the 60's to know what it was about...and even then, your direct bloodline was signing up to get their mirror shades and government issue pistol to fight back the flower power hordes. while I was ass deep in free love, flowers, LSD and no STDs.

Hell...girls just got on the PILL and ludes at the same time...but again...you don't know what I'm talking about...and anyway, your mind is too distracted trying to remember your uncle's number down at the vice squad, to turn in another drug crazed geriatric.

What I mean is that your parents or uncles...whatever that cloned you, hadn't a clue what was going on around them then, just as surely as you are clueless to what is going on around you now.

But getting back to that secret information that every geriatric knows but doesn't let on...is that if you successfully reach my age, ( improbable, cause you're as dumb as a bag of hammers), you'll do it struggling through a world of shit...you and your peers will be in charge...you will spend your days lying to each other with no old guys around to call you out...

On a more compassionate note...it's a mercy that you are as ignorant as you are...don't know one udder from an udder...

We all come here to pay bills for our three score and ten...I couldn't have chosen a better time to do those years, even if I had the option.,..too young for Korea...too old for Viet Nam...whereas you were born into shit and it's going to get much worse...maybe two score's worth of worse...I guess even you see what I mean...forty years is a long sentence to serve.

Stefan

Abnormalia

10-19-2006, 11:56 PM

Hahahahaha

I had to click it. Stefan, that was an awesome and entertaining prose.

I'd like to point out, that any direct proof other than playing 'connect the dots' that is posted, I will take a look at, and continue to debate. One person posts something, another posts his own opinion, then posts something original..back and forth, just like a normal debate. As stated, I have yet to see anything worth arguing, as no credible sources have been posted.

The phone calls from the airplanes might be a little interesting to me. Although..those passenger jets weren't flying very high at all..hmm..i'll look into that.

Finally, I agree with you exarmyranger, I'm past getting angry, and more amused at what people come up with these days.

Lovelynice

10-20-2006, 12:21 AM

.those passenger jets weren't flying very high at all..

Yes they were, according the 9-11 Commission's own reports. Two of the flights were flying at over 30,000ft when the first ALLEGED cellphone calls were made. But altitude is NOT the only problem with the Official Lies; because flying at over 450mph, the cellphone calls can't last more than a few seconds until they are cut-off, due to the simple fact of the sheer speed being too fast for the cellphones to complete the hand-off to the next network cell. Minutes long cellphone calls at those speeds without an onboard cellular basestation (technology which didn't exist before 2004) are still IMPOSSIBLE

What height were these planes flying at when the first calls were ALLEGEDLY made?
Answer = Between 31,000 and 35,000 feet.

Too high up to make successful cellphone calls,and flying too fast to maintain any connection for more than a few seconds...which doesn't matter because five to six miles up, making a successful cellphone is IMPOSSIBLE anyway.

Cellular antenna towers don't aim at the SKY moron, they aim to cover the people on the GROUND!

United Airlines Flight 175
United Airlines Flight 175 departed for Los Angeles at 8:00:

"It pushed back from its gate at 7:58 and departed Logan Airport at 8:14."

The Report confirms that by 8:33, "it had reached its assigned cruising altitude of 31,000 feet." According to the Report, it maintained this cruising altitude until 8.51, when it "deviated from its assigned altitude":

"The first operational evidence that something was abnormal on United 175 came at 8:47, when the aircraft changed beacon codes twice within a minute. At 8:51, the flight deviated from its assigned altitude, and a minute later New York air traffic controllers began repeatedly and unsuccessfully trying to contact it."

And one minute later at 8.52, Lee Hanson receives a call from his son Peter.

[Flight UAL 175] "At 8:52, in Easton, Connecticut, a man named Lee Hanson received a phone call from his son Peter, a passenger on United 175. His son told him: “I think they’ve taken over the cockpit—An attendant has been stabbed— and someone else up front may have been killed. The plane is making strange moves. Call United Airlines—Tell them it’s Flight 175, Boston to LA.

Press reports confirm that Peter Hanson was using his cellphone. Unless the plane had suddenly nose-dived, the plane was still at high altitude at 8.52. (Moreover, Hanson's call could have been initiated at least a minute prior to his father Lee Hanson picking up the phone.)

United Airlines Flight 93
According to the 9-11 Commission's account:

"the first 46 minutes of Flight 93’s cross-country trip proceeded routinely. Radio communications from the plane were normal. Heading, speed, and altitude ran according to plan. At 9:24, Ballinger’s warning to United 93 was received in the cockpit. Within two minutes, at 9:26, the pilot, Jason Dahl, responded with a note of puzzlement: “Ed, confirm latest mssg plz—Jason.”70 The hijackers attacked at 9:28. While traveling 35,000 feet above eastern Ohio, United 93 suddenly dropped 700 feet. Eleven seconds into the descent, the FAA’s air traffic control center in Cleveland received the first of two radio transmissions from the aircraft...."

The Report claims that passengers started placing calls with cell and air phones shortly after 9.32am, four minutes after the Report's confirmation of the plane's attitude of 35,000 feet. In other words, the calls started some 9 minutes before the Cleveland Center lost UAL 93’s transponder signal (9.41) and approximately 30 minutes before the crash in Pennsylvania (10.03)

There was no indication from the Report that the aircraft had swooped down to a lower level of altitude, apart from the 700 feet drop recorded at 9.28. from a cruising altitude of 35,000 feet. Shortly after the alleged hijacking commences, the passengers and flight crew allegedly began a series of calls from GTE airphones and cellular phones.

The alleged call (strangely not mentioned in the Report) by Edward Felt from the toilet of the aircraft of UAL 93 was answered by Glenn Cramer, the emergency supervisor in Pennsylvania who took the call.

"Local emergency officials said they received a cell phone call at 9.58 am from a man who said he was a passenger aboard the flight. The man said he had locked himself in the bathroom and told emergency dispatchers that the plane had been hijacked. "We are being hijacked! We are being hijacked!" he was quoted as saying.

Glenn Cramer, the emergency supervisor who answered it, said on the day: "He was very distraught. He said he believed the plane was going down.

"He did hear some sort of an explosion and saw white smoke coming from the plane, but he didn't know where. And then we lost contact with him." Glenn Cramer has now been gagged by the FBI.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/news/s_90401.html

Lovelynice

10-20-2006, 12:29 AM

animated .gif showing building # 7 collapsing .

Fine, here's a video instead

WTC 7 roofline to ground: 6.6 seconds. Symmetrical, straight down.
WTC 7 Collapse (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/wtc7_collapse2.mpg)

Here are some other controlled demolitions for comparison with WTC 7
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ&search=implosion
http://www.dfw.com/multimedia/dfw/news/archive/0318implosion1/index.html

Here is how those WTC buidlings in question were constructed and how massive the central cores were;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otoh2pJpgY8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-yuQeeYkq8

and this how they came down - watch the disappearing central cores and supports;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKxoC4_T-GA

The buildings were also a lot stronger towards the base by necessity, and many structural engineers were STUNNED (http://www.medserv.dk/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=896) by the catastrophic collapses happening as they did because the resistance and strength of the building becomes greater the lower down you go. Also, with all the random damage being blamed (fire, and impact), that the buildings went straight down into their own footprint - and did three times in a row - that's like seeing an event beyond the miraculous. Asymmetric structural damage seems is extraordinarily unlikely to create a symmetric collapse.

Demolition experts would be out of business is such things happened normally.

Here is video of firemen reporting bombs in WTC 7
"Bomb in the building. Start clearing out"
"What did you say? Secondary device?"
"Bomb in the building, start clearing out"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W53wdu8IGlE&NR

EVERY OTHER OCCASSION both before and since Sept 11 2001, when STEEL-FRAMED tower buildings collapsed down at near free fall speed into their footprint, it has been due to a controlled demolition.

Can any of you cite a single exception to this?

With a photo.

Here's another one for you;
WTC1
AA Flt 11
8:46:40 UTC - FAA last primary radar contact
8:46:30 UTC - seismic event/NIST
Both times are real and accurate

QUESTION- What caused the 8:46:30 seismic event?
(It can not be the aircrash since that happened at 8:46:40)
The times are EXACT, accurate, and verifiable, based on atomic clocks and accepted OFFICIALLY

Logically, because NIST embraced the 2005 revision of the seismic time by Dr. Kim (which infers UTC), the only way the OCTers can win is they MUST discredit the 8:46:40 last primary radar contact that occurred (and no radar "sweep/refresh problem" exists as the contact was recorded (it's the last little triangle in the graph in the flight path study; it's all in the paper)).

Ginny Carr audiotape has a ~9.2 second gap between initial explosion and aircrash.
The 9/11 Commission avoided the time of the initial seismic event.
The 9/11 Commission avoided the many witnesses who testified of explosions in the basements.
NIST avoided the 9/11 Commission

Moby

10-20-2006, 12:36 AM

However, have you ever remembered what is was like being laughed at in class because you insisted your answer was correct, but later found out it was wrong? You're probably reliving that right now.
Do blanket statements like this actually work for you when communicating with other adults when you've elicited nothing about them?:lmao2: You need to read some more.:taunt:

You're proving my point very strongly since you haven't taken the time to educate yourself on my view. I've never stated that I believe that anything else then terrorists took those buildings down.

NO, how could you prove me wrong on an issue when I've stated clearly that I don't have the background in demolitions needed to form an educated opinion? Are you going to prove to me and the world that I do know exactly what happened?

I've answered you're question now answer mine.

Is it your prejudice or your ignorance that makes you believe that I have an opinion on this issue that needs to be changed? Just because I'm watching this thread with interest doesn't mean that I've formed an opinion.

To answer your question a second time. NO, after your showing that you're uneducated on issues that you discuss, I don't think that you could convince me of anything. Maybe in time but obviously not after you made such a silly and incorrect judgement about me.

Of course your trying to use that silly line above on me doesn't help. :lmao2:

Lovelynice

10-20-2006, 12:50 AM

Are you going to prove to me and the world that I do know exactly what happened?

But are you and the rest of the world in agreement?

Apparently the majority don't believe that Arabs Did It either.

RESULTS OF ONLINE POLLS ABOUT 9/11
http://fawkesfiles.com/graphics/polls/polls_large/believe_conspiracy2.jpg
http://fawkesfiles.com/graphics/polls/polls_large/gov_involved2.jpg
http://fawkesfiles.com/graphics/polls/polls_large/wisconson_teach2.jpg

and neither do these people accept the OFFICIAL LIES;

Below are just a small selection amongst the millions of credible persons including engineers, scientists, intelligence analysts, actors, theologians, philosophers, authors, investigative journalists, lawyers, military personel, politicians, family members and eye-witnesses who believe the investigation into the events of September 11 2001 must urgently be reopened.

Seekin' that ol' 911 Truth August 2006

On July 29 and 30, and then again on August 1, something happened that increasing numbers of people believe is of great importance. On these dates C-SPAN rebroadcast a 911 panel discussion, held originally in late June, sponsored by an organization called the American Scholars’ Symposium to discuss what really happened on September 11, 2001. http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/c-span_firestorm_911_truth_gains_momentum.htm http://www.c-span.org/homepage.asp?Cat=Series&Code=APS&ShowVidNum=10&
Rot_Cat_CD=APS&Rot_HT=206&Rot_WD=&ShowVidDays=100&ShowVidDesc=&ArchiveDays=100

Held in Los Angeles, the meeting lasted two days, and the C-SPAN rebroadcast covered one almost two-hour wrap-up session. The meeting was attended by 1,200 people interested in hearing something other than the official story of 9/11. The TV audience was evidently large enough to spur C-SPAN to broadcast the panel discussion five separate times in four days.

Even a month late, this is a lot of airtime for stories that many people call conspiracy theories!

The seekers after 911 truth have been around for almost 5 years now, and they're NOT GOING AWAY - they're growing day by day!

In April Charlie Sheen made national news (CNN Showbiz Tonight 7pm) three nights in a row, with coverage continuing every day the following week. http://www.911blogger.com/2006/03/fourth-night-of-showbiz-tonights-sheen.html http://prisonplanet.com/articles/june2006/280606juggernautoftruth.htm

What newsworthy event prompted such coverage? Mr. Sheen announced that he thinks the government has been covering up the truth about 9/11. Charlie thinks 9/11 was an inside job! http://9eleven.info/ http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060323162638376

Two of Sheen's fellow actors, Ed Asner and Ed Begley, Jr, agree with him. http://www.911blimp.net/videos/EdAsner-UnityIsTheKey.mov http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7140359934129245752&q=Ed+Begley+911

And so does movie director Aaron Russo. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2947267143366647266&hl=en

Maybe you don’t care what they think, they're just actors. Perhaps you want the opinion of scientists. Well, how about an expert like Steven E Jones, professor of physics at BYU? Professor Jones has found forensic evidence of thermate, an explosive, being used to cut through key support pillars in the WTC buildings. http://www.9eleven.info/911JonesPaperhtm7.htm http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/print.asp?ID=4688 http://www.question911.com/linkout.php?filename=Steven%20Jones%20Shows%20WTC% 20Demolition%20Evidence.wmv

Or perhaps MIT Engineer Jeff King who also believes the WTC were brought down by a controlled demolition. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1822764959599063248&pl=true http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=related&search_query=
News+WTC+911+Conspiracy+Flight+77&search_sort=relevance&search_category=0&page=2

What about a mathematician? Professor of mathematics, University of Western Ontario, and founder of the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven (SPINE), A.K Dewdney. http://www.serendipity.li/wot/operation_pearl.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._K._Dewdney

Maybe they’re too theoretical for you. You want someone from the applied sciences. May I suggest Clemson mechanical engineering professor Judy Wood? http://www.911blogger.com/2006/03/mechanical-engineering-professor-from.html http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html

Or how about Kevin Ryan, former department head at UL (Underwriter Laboratories), the company which certified the steel which went into the WTCs upon their construction, and inspected it after the WTC collapses in 2001. He found the official reports to be full of lies and contradictions. http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041112144051451 http://www.snowshoefilms.com/

Maybe you don’t care for ’eggheads’. http://www.st911.org/ http://physics911.net/spine.htm http://911physics.co.nr/

You want to hear from true patriots, military men, like former head of Star Wars and air force colonel, Bob Bowman, who says the 'official story of 911 is a bunch of hogwash and impossible'. http://benfrank.net/blog/2005/10/27/oil_mafia_treason/ http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/030306Evidence.htm http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6900065571556128674 http://bowman2006.com/

Or USAF Col. (Ret) George Nelson, an authority on aircraft crash investigation. http://www.physics911.net/georgenelson.htm

Or former chief Pentagon arms negotiator for the Middle East, USAF Col. (Ret) Don de Grand-Pre http://www.prisonplanet.com/022904degrand.html

Or how about military men from other countries who are also skeptics of the 'official' story of 911? Here's a few:

Canadian National Defense Minister, the Honourable Paul Hellyer http://www.septembereleventh.org/kc/multimedia/movies/Hellyer.mov

National Minister of Defense (Germany). Also, served as Minister of Technology Andreas Von Bulow. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8274552561914055825

Former Chief of Staff of the Russian armed forces, and chief of the department for General affairs in the Soviet Union 's ministry of Defense, General Leonid Ivashov http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=NIM20060123&articleId=1788

Maybe military types scare you. How about a lady of letters like poet Erica Jong? http://www.etruscanpress.org/02_september_11_2001.html

Maybe you’re not into poetry. Prose is more your style. How about Webster Tarpley author of 9/11 Synthetic Terror made in USA? http://www.tarpley.net/welcome.html

Or authors Gore Vidal, Bill Douglas or Christopher Bollyn? http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13969.htm http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/EnemyWithin.html http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/bollynbeaten.htm

Or if you prefer your message in song, what about putting some of the hard questions to music? Les Visible: 9/11 Was An Inside Job (music) http://www.soundclick.com/bands/pagemusic.cfm?bandID=97737

Maybe you don’t trust actors, authors, musicians or poets. You want to hear from a man of God. How about David Ray Griffin theologian, professor emeritus at the Claremont School of Theology? http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html

The respected Presbyterian Press has recently published his book Christian Faith and the Truth behind 9/11 https://www.ppcbooks.com/index1.asp

Not just into Christianity? What about MUJCA-NET, a group of scholars, religious leaders and activists dedicated to uniting members of the Jewish, Christian and Islamic faiths in pursuit of 9/11 truth. http://mujca.com/

How about philosophers? What about distinguished McKnight professor of philosophy, Jim Fetzer. http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/BigLies23Apr2006.html

Or Dr. Jim Hoffman? http://911research.wtc7.net/

What could theologians and philosophers know about national security? You want to hear from insiders to the covert world. How about CIA analyst and former presidential adviser Ray McGovern, an expert on National Security who’s career spanned JFK to GHW Bush. http://www.electricpolitics.com/podcast/2006/01/interview_with_ray_mcgovern.html

Or Bill Christison, a former senior official of the CIA. He was a National Intelligence Officer and the Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis before his retirement in 1979. http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Aug06/Christison14.htm

Or how about David Shayler, the MI5 Whistleblower? http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2005/270605insidejob.htm http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5403286136814574974

Or former cop Michael C. Ruppert? http://www.fromthewilderness.com/store/books.shtml#ruby

Or former 9/11 Commission Member and democrat senator, Max Cleland, who blasts Bush and claims "The White House Has Played Cover-Up". http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/03/23/1546256

Other members of the 9/11 Commission panel also believe that authorities sought to mislead the commission and the public about what happened on Sept. 11.

"I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described," John Farmer, a former New Jersey attorney general who led the staff inquiry into events on Sept. 11, said in a recent interview. "The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years. . . . This is not spin. This is not true." http://unsungwar.com/

Or what about Republican Thomas Kean and Democrat Lee Hamilton, the two chairmen of the official government 9/11 Commission Report? In their book, “Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission.” Kean and Hamilton reveal that the US military committed perjury and lied about its failure to intercept the hijacked airliners.

"It proved difficult, if not impossible, to raise hard questions about 9/11 in New York without it being perceived as criticism of the individual police and firefighters or of Mayor Giuliani," Kean and Hamilton said.

The commission even debated referring the military’s lies to the Justice Department for criminal investigation.

Why should we assume that these admissions are the only coverups and lies in the 9/11 Commission Report? http://letsroll911.org/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?p=117589 http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14531.htm

Or Cynthia McKinney, a five-term U.S. Congresswoman from Georgia's fourth district from 1993 to 2003, or Catherine Austin Fitts, a former Assistant Secretary of Housing under President George Bush Sr. and a former managing director and board member of Dillon, Read & Co. Inc. http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041101130426916

Or Michael Meacher MP former UK Minister for the environment who says "The war on terror is bogus", or Andreas Von Bulow, former German Secretary Of Defense, who says "The official [9/11] story is so inadequate and far fetched that there must be a different one." http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11222.htm http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8274552561914055825

Or Sibel Edmonds, a 32-year-old Turkish-American, who was hired as a translator by the FBI shortly after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 because of her knowledge of Middle Eastern languages. She was fired less than a year later in March 2002 for reporting shoddy work and security breaches to her supervisors that could have prevented those attacks. http://www.justacitizen.com/

Or Daniel Ellsburg, famous Vietnam 'Pentagon Papers' whistleblower and former American military analyst and Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary of Defense (ISA), DOD. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg http://www.911blogger.com/2006/07/daniel-ellsberg-comes-out-for-911.html

Or how about the FBI? Did you know that the reason Usama bin Laden isn't on their most wanted list in connection to 9/11 is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting him to the crimes? http://www.911blogger.com/2006/06/fbi-states-no-hard-evidence-connects.html

What about another country's government, such as the Venezuelan government under Hugo Chavez, supported by billionaire philanthropist Jimmy Walter and WTC survivor William Rodriguez, which is set to launch an international investigation into 9/11? http://www.iraqwar.mirror-world.ru/article/83785

Maybe they're all too far left for you! You want to hear from a Republican. How about Paul Craig Roberts assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury under Ronald Reagan? http://www.tpmcafe.com/node/28070 http://www.electricpolitics.com/podcast/2006/02/post.html http://www.wanttoknow.info/050908insidejob911#roberts http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14531.htm

OK, he’s a Republican, but that was back in the Reagan days. So how about Ron Paul, a Republican congressman from Texas? http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul200.html http://www.house.gov/paul/ http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/index.php/Ron_Paul
#Congressman_Ron_Paul_Admits_Conspiracy_to_Create_ World_Government

Maybe you need to hear from someone in GW’s administration. How about Morgan Reynolds professor emeritus at Texas A&M University and chief economist for the US Department of Labor during Bush’s first term? He believes the events of 9/11 were a staged event, orchestrated by people within the Bush government. http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html

Since the attacks of 911 were obviously a crime, maybe you want to hear from trained legal minds. People whose job it is to carefully investigate the details of a crime and reach a well considered conclusion.

Well, how about attorney Philip Berg? Berg, who has filed a lawsuit against the Bush admin on behalf of WTC survivor William Rodriguez says "They (Bush et al) made it happen or let it happen. And if they let it happen, then they made it happen. And they must be held responsible." http://www.911forthetruth.com/

Or attorney Stanley Hilton? http://www.suetheterrorists.net/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Hilton

Or Bill Veale, with 30 years of legal experience. After much research he has come to the conclusion that the attacks of 9/11 were in essence an inside job perpetrated at the highest levels of the U.S. government. http://www.vealetruth.com/?page_id=6

Maybe none of the above does it for you. You want to hear from "eye-witnesses" - people who were there on the scene on that fateful day. May I suggest you listen to the firefighters who were in the building at the time? http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1822764959599063248&pl=true

What about first responder, NY Fireman Lou Cacchioli who says the 9/11 Commission twisted his words. "I finally walked out. They were trying to twist my words and make the story fit only what they wanted to hear. All I wanted to do was tell the truth and when they wouldn't let me do that, I walked out.

"It was a disgrace to everyone, the victims and the family members who lost loved ones. I don't agree with the 9/11 Commission. The whole experience was terrible", Fireman Lou says. http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2005/200705twistedwords.htm

Or perhaps to news reporters who were on the scene who repeatedly described hearing "explosions"? http://tinyurl.com/bzg64 (you need to fast forward a little...) http://www.letsroll911.org/articles/controlleddemolition.html

Or how about WTC survivor William Rodriguez, a janitor who worked at the WTC for about 19 years, and was decorated as a 911 hero by Bush. He testifies that he heard and felt explosions in the basement of the North Tower BEFORE the planes hit overhead. William asks: "How could a jetliner hit 90 floors above and burn a man's arms and face to a crisp in the basement below within seconds of impact?" It's a good question! http://williamrodriguezwtc.blogspot.com/ http://www.911forthetruth.com/

What about the families who lost loved ones on 911? http://www.911independentcommission.org/questions.html http://www.911truth.org/index.php?topic=endorsements

Lorie Van Auken, Mindy Kleinberg, Patty Casazza and Monica Gabrielle of New Jersey lost their husbands Kenneth, Alan, Richard and John who all worked in the WTC. Sally Regenhard lost her firefighter son Christian, and Bob McIlvaine lost his son Bobby.

None of these people are satisfied with the official story of what happened on 9/11. Will you listen to their questions? http://www.911pressfortruth.com/families

Maybe you don’t want to listen to any of these individuals, but the fact is, a lot of Americans agree with them. Like the 83% of over 50,000 CNN Showbiz Tonight online poll respondents who think the government is covering up the truth of 9/11. http://www.911blogger.com/2006/03/fourth-night-of-showbiz-tonights-sheen.html

Abnormalia

10-20-2006, 12:51 AM

Fine, here's a video instead

WTC 7 Collapse (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/wtc7_collapse2.mpg) this link doesn't work

Here are some other controlled demolitions for comparison with WTC 7
Isn't it funny how a building with extensive damage to it's base falls toward the destruction? Here's another hint (I'm a chemist with interest in explosives) demolitions of buildings aren't meant to explode them, they're meant to blow out their supports and let gravity to the rest. Wheather a jet plane, or falling debrees, a building can and will collapse if it's damaged like WTC 7 was

Here is how those WTC buidlings in question were constructed and how massive the central cores were;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otoh2pJpgY8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-yuQeeYkq8

and this how they came down - watch the disappearing central cores and supports;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKxoC4_T-GA...okay?? I see a drawn out video of someone with time to make a skeleton image of WT7 and then pretend to blow it up. No predetermined conclusions THERE

The buildings were also a lot stronger towards the base by necessity, and many structural engineers were STUNNED (http://www.medserv.dk/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=896) Congratulations, you have sucked onto a fact about engineers being stunned. They were stunned, just as everyone else with initially. It is accepted in the engineering world that this did happen from jet/fire/damage from tower collapsing by the catastrophic collapses happening as they did because the resistance and strength of the building becomes greater the lower down you goWhat in hell? Actually, that's a good point, damaging the building at those levels creates even more stress on the remaining structure, thank you.. Also, with all the random damage being blamed (fire, and impact), that the buildings went straight down into their own footprint - and did three times in a row - that's like seeing an event beyond the miraculous. Asymmetric structural damage seems is extraordinarily unlikely to create a symmetric collapse.I appologize, but that is your dumbest comment so far. First, WT7 leaned and then fell towards the towers. The towers had no support on the respectfully damaged floors, those floors failed, it fell into it's footprint

Demolition experts would be out of business is such things happened normally.What is this suppose to mean? You have no idea what you're talking about. Did you cut and paste again sweety?

Here is video of firemen reporting bombs in WTC 7
"Bomb in the building. Start clearing out"
"What did you say? Secondary device?"
"Bomb in the building, start clearing out"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W53wdu8IGlE&NR Congratulations again for cutting and pasting more bullshit. That comment was false. In the heat of the moment, a single firefighter declared there are bombs in the building. Not too bad a comment for someone inside a deathtrap, not sure what is happening.

EVERY OTHER OCCASSION both before and since Sept 11 2001, when STEEL-FRAMED tower buildings collapsed down at near free fall speed into their footprint, it has been due to a controlled demolition. Oooooh, you also forgot, "Never before has something of this magnitude happened to such a large building built in such a unique way."

Can any of you cite a single exception to this?

With a photo.

Here's another one for you;
WTC1
AA Flt 11
8:46:40 UTC - FAA last primary radar contact
8:46:30 UTC - seismic event/NIST
Both times are real and accurate (Ahhhh. NO)

QUESTION- What caused the 8:46:30 seismic event?
(It can not be the aircrash since that happened at 8:46:40)
The times are EXACT, accurate, and verifiable, based on atomic clocks and accepted OFFICIALLY If I have time I'll cite the Correct seismonomer (spelling?) readings

IlLogically, because NIST embraced the 2005 revision of the seismic time by Dr. Kim (which infers UTC), the only way the OCTers can win is they MUST discredit the 8:46:40 last primary radar contact that occurred (and no radar "sweep/refresh problem" exists as the contact was recorded (it's the last little triangle in the graph in the flight path study; it's all in the paper)).

Ginny Carr audiotape has a ~9.2 second gap between initial explosion and aircrash.
The 9/11 Commission avoided the time of the initial seismic event.
The 9/11 Commission avoided the many witnesses who testified of explosions in the basements.
NIST avoided the 9/11 Commission

The only sheep in here are the people who rabidly follow disgusting renditions of what they believe happened on 9/11. Have more respect for the dead.

Lovelynice

10-20-2006, 12:55 AM

The only sheep in here are the people who rabidly follow disgusting renditions of what they believe happened on 9/11. Have more respect for the dead.

You really should have more respect for the dead.

FORTY OF THEM WERE MY FRIENDS! People I knew PERSONALLY.

So, your silly attempt to play emotional games is just so much garbage.

A real, honest person wouLd be DEMANDING a proper investigation when it is so blatantly obvious that the OFFICIAL LIES are contrary to the FACTS, contrary to reality, contrary to PHYSICS, and contrary to the statements of HUNDREDS OF WITNESSES.

It's interesting that you answer any of the questions that I posted.
Not playing games of BS, poison memes, obfuscation, emotional bullshit, and pretending that IMPOSSIBLE THINGS occurred when they plainly could not.

It's revealing that you avoided answering any of the questions that I posted, and could counter nothing of what I cited.

Abnormalia

10-20-2006, 12:58 AM

Something that distinctly smells like bullshit

I can't read your word soup- really. Are you saying that you do believe that 9/11 happened as commonly believed?

As stated before, I used to get angry at people like you, now I use your posts as a form of enjoyment. I'm a little confused at where you stand, are you too just trolling?

From now on, points that are not backed up with well known facts will be answered with the following:

"Information given without proof can be dismissed without proof"

Abnormalia

10-20-2006, 01:00 AM

You really should have more respect for the dead.

FORTY OF THEM WERE MY FRIENDS! People I knew PERSONALLY.

So, your silly attempt to play emotional games is just so much garbage.

A real, honest person woud be DEMANDING a proper investigation when it is so blatantly obvious that the OFFICIAL LIES are contrary to the FACTS, contrary to reality, contrary to PHYSICS, and contrary to the statements of HUNDREDS OF WITNESSES.

So who sucked you in? Do you have trouble believing that only 12 or so individuals perpetrated New York's 9/11? If this is your way of coping? I probably shouldn't interfere, but I do suggest you try to move on.

Lovelynice

10-20-2006, 01:04 AM

So who sucked you in..

so where's your counter to the facts that I cited?

Where's your counter to the questions that I asked?

Can you or can you not reply with anything other than a futile attempt at personal attack?

Because if that's all you can do, then you're going to get nowhere.

Lovelynice

10-20-2006, 01:06 AM

From now on, points that are not backed up with well known facts will be answered with the following:

Well known facts

It is a FACT that it's impossible to make cellphone calls from passenger planes flying at cruising altitude six miles up and flying at over 450mph without an onboard cellular basestation (technology which wasn't available prior to 2004 and is still in testing stage), and it's a FACT that cellphone calls from a vehicle moving at over 450mph (even if successfully make the handshake when flying at low altitude) will only last a few seconds since there is no time for the hand-off; the call will ALWAYS drop out in just a few seconds - minutes long cellphone calls are IMPOSSIBLE.

It's a FACT before and after Sept 11 2001 that no steel-framed hi-rise or tower-style buildings have ever collapsed straightdown at close to freefall speed into their own footprint - except with controlled demolitions, and that it is IMPOSSIBLE without a controlled demolition according to the laws of PHYSICS.

It's a fact that NOBODY has ever successfully simulated the collapses of WTC 1, 2, & 7 without considering controlled demolition, and that means NOBODY. Not NIST, not, NOVA, Dr Eagar, FEMA, MIT, Bazant & Zhou, nor Dr Frank Green, nor anyone else. NOBODY has succeeded; those who have claimed to have done so, have ALWAYS been proven to be LIARS when their mathematical formula were checked.

It's a FACT, that there was NO INFERNO in either of the WTC twin towers. The temperatures of the fires never went above 360C, and apparently were around 250C, which is well below the 550C at which steel only barely begins to lose it's elasticity. Glass melts at 700C - There are no reports of melting glass at the towers, and the glass in the storeys above the fire didn't seem to break so the temperature was clearly way below 700C. Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250ºC - Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC. Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC. Kevin Ryan of UL had cited a similar figure (250C).

It's a FACT that there were hundeds of witnesses to explosions at the WTC buildings, and that their claims are supported by video evidence showing lines of explosions blowing out the floors before the falling debris could reach those floors, and there's seismic data showing impossibly short tremors revealing the use of explosives in those controlled demolitions.

Until you idiots can cite a link, source, and quote from SOMEBODY, ANYBODY, whose mathematical simulation or computer simulation based on the EMPIRICAL DATA (without distortion, deviation, or bullshit fictions) PROVES that there was enough energy for a gravity-driven collapse, YOU HAVE NOTHING!

Lovelynice

10-20-2006, 01:08 AM

... do believe that 9/11 happened as commonly believed?...

Commonly believed inside your own head? Or do you mean in the REAL WORLD where the MAJORITY commonly believe that 9/11 was an INSIDE JOB planned and executed by a faction within the USA government.

Abnormalia

10-20-2006, 01:08 AM

so where's your counter to the facts that I cited?

Where's your counter to the questions that I asked?

Can you or can you not reply with anything other than a futile attempt at personal attack?

Because if that's all you can do, then you're going to get nowhere.

Hmmm, let me put it this way honey.

I'm coming into midterms here, i've already wasted a lot of time on doing the impossible: seperating a fanatic from their beliefs. If you check the links in one of my previous posts, you'll find all the information you need (just 5-6 simple links, it's much easier that way)

I'm thinking much less about convincing you(a near impossibility) and more to convince you that you need to seek professional help.

You refuse to belief the facts/physics because you do not want to. You want the event to be something more complex than 12 disturbed people killing 3000 people in a massive suicide attack. YOU CANNOT COPE! Please, get some help.

Abnormalia

10-20-2006, 01:09 AM

Commonly believed inside your own head? Or do you mean in the REAL WORLD where the MAJORITY commonly believe that 9/11 was an INSIDE JOB planned and executed by a faction within the USA government.

Well, "Information given without proof can be dismissed without proof"

That's a big one you know.

Lovelynice

10-20-2006, 01:10 AM

You refuse to belief the facts/physics ..

Actually, no, it's YOU who are refusing to accept the facts and physics,

It is a FACT that it's impossible to make cellphone calls from passenger planes flying at cruising altitude six miles up and flying at over 450mph without an onboard cellular basestation (technology which wasn't available prior to 2004 and is still in testing stage), and it's a FACT that cellphone calls from a vehicle moving at over 450mph (even if successfully make the handshake when flying at low altitude) will only last a few seconds since there is no time for the hand-off; the call will ALWAYS drop out in just a few seconds - minutes long cellphone calls are IMPOSSIBLE.

It's a FACT before and after Sept 11 2001 that no steel-framed hi-rise or tower-style buildings have ever collapsed straightdown at close to freefall speed into their own footprint - except with controlled demolitions, and that it is IMPOSSIBLE without a controlled demolition according to the laws of PHYSICS.

It's a fact that NOBODY has ever successfully simulated the collapses of WTC 1, 2, & 7 without considering controlled demolition, and that means NOBODY. Not NIST, not, NOVA, Dr Eagar, FEMA, MIT, Bazant & Zhou, nor Dr Frank Green, nor anyone else. NOBODY has succeeded; those who have claimed to have done so, have ALWAYS been proven to be LIARS when their mathematical formula were checked.

It's a FACT, that there was NO INFERNO in either of the WTC twin towers. The temperatures of the fires never went above 360C, and apparently were around 250C, which is well below the 550C at which steel only barely begins to lose it's elasticity. Glass melts at 700C - There are no reports of melting glass at the towers, and the glass in the storeys above the fire didn't seem to break so the temperature was clearly way below 700C. Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250ºC - Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC. Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC. Kevin Ryan of UL had cited a similar figure (250C).

It's a FACT that there were hundeds of witnesses to explosions at the WTC buildings, and that their claims are supported by video evidence showing lines of explosions blowing out the floors before the falling debris could reach those floors, and there's seismic data showing impossibly short tremors revealing the use of explosives in those controlled demolitions.

Until you idiots can cite a link, source, and quote from SOMEBODY, ANYBODY, whose mathematical simulation or computer simulation based on the EMPIRICAL DATA (without distortion, deviation, or bullshit fictions) PROVES that there was enough energy for a gravity-driven collapse, YOU HAVE NOTHING!

Lovelynice

10-20-2006, 01:12 AM

Well, "Information given without proof can be dismissed without proof

Have you noticed, like I have, that NOT ONCE have you managed to cite any facts or proof to counter what I have ALREADY POSTED?

You really should try harder.

Abnormalia

10-20-2006, 01:13 AM

Have you noticed, like I have, that NOT ONCE have you managed to cite any facts or proof to counter what I have ALREADY POSTED?

You really should try harder.

Have you read my posts? Like, the last one?

Lovelynice

10-20-2006, 01:16 AM

Have you read my posts?

Yes, I noticed you still have not answered these;

EVERY OTHER OCCASSION both before and since Sept 11 2001, when STEEL-FRAMED tower buildings collapsed down at near free fall speed into their footprint, it has been due to a controlled demolition.

Can any of you cite a single exception to this?

With a photo, video, or anything else.

Now please hurry up and respond with some FACTS to back your bullshit!

Here's another one for you;
WTC1
AA Flt 11
8:46:40 UTC - FAA last primary radar contact
8:46:30 UTC - seismic event/NIST
Both times are real and accurate

QUESTION- What caused the 8:46:30 seismic event?
(It can not be the aircrash since that happened at 8:46:40)

Now, please don't start in here with any long-winded arguments; logically, because your beloved NIST embraced the 2005 revision of the seismic time by Dr. Kim (which infers UTC), the only way you win is you MUST discredit the 8:46:40 last primary radar contact that occurred (and no radar "sweep/refresh problem" exists as the contact was recorded (it's the last little triangle in the graph in the flight path study; it's all in the paper)).

Ginny Carr audiotape has a ~9.2 second gap between initial explosion and aircrash.
The 9/11 Commission avoided the time of the initial seismic event.
The 9/11 Commission avoided the many witnesses who testified of explosions in the basements.
NIST avoided the 9/11 Commission’s time.
NIST avoided the many witnesses who testified of explosions in the basements.

ANSWER- The only possibility: EXPLOSION(S)

WTC 7, 1 & 2 went down at CLOSE TO FREEFALL, particularly WTC 7 which went down in 6.6 seconds within 95% of it's own footprint

WTC 1 & 2 had their main parts collapse inside of 13-14 seconds, when freefall is around 9 and a half seconds. The massive cores which equally as much came down around 14 seconds later, but yet, neither of these collapses was responsible for the much SHORTER seismic tremors.

Based on the Seismic Waves recorded at Palisades New York
Collapse 1, South Tower 09:59:04±1 2.1 10 seconds
Collapse 2, North Tower 10:28:31±1 2.3 8 seconds

They're SHORTER than the collapse times - particularly for the North Tower where the duration is less than the free fall time. That's IMPOSSIBLE unless the seismic waves are less caused from the collapsed debris impacting the ground than by something else.

Physics which proves outright that the WTC towers were brought down by CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.

Abnormalia

10-20-2006, 01:38 AM

Yes, I noticed you still have not answered these;

EVERY OTHER OCCASSION both before and since Sept 11 2001, when STEEL-FRAMED tower buildings collapsed down at near free fall speed into their footprint, it has been due to a controlled demolition.
Alright, you seem agitated, i'll bite. For your first point, I do not need proof, I can use logic. This point of yours is already claiming that towers fell from explosives, you're trying to use your own point to back up your own point. Of course nothing of this magnitude has been seen. When was the last time a mostly-fueled jetliner struck a highrise at ~400-500 mph?

Can any of you cite a single exception to this?

With a photo, video, or anything else.

Now please hurry up and respond with some FACTS to back your bullshit!

Here's another one for you;
WTC1
AA Flt 11
8:46:40 UTC - FAA last primary radar contact
8:46:30 UTC - seismic event/NIST
Both times are real and accurate Unfortunately, that's not enough information you have yet given me. How big of a seismic event? Are there links to both claims?

A quote for you:

"There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers. That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."

- Arthur Lerner-Lam, Lamont-Doherty seismic center, Palisades, New York.

QUESTION- What caused the 8:46:30 seismic event?
(It can not be the aircrash since that happened at 8:46:40)

Now, please don't start in here with any long-winded arguments; logically, because your beloved NIST embraced the 2005 revision of the seismic time by Dr. Kim (which infers UTC), the only way you win is you MUST discredit the 8:46:40 last primary radar contact that occurred (and no radar "sweep/refresh problem" exists as the contact was recorded (it's the last little triangle in the graph in the flight path study; it's all in the paper)).

Ginny Carr audiotape has a ~9.2 second gap between initial explosion and aircrash. I'm not sure who this person is. Again, YOU have not provided a valid link to back this up
The 9/11 Commission avoided the time of the initial seismic event.
The 9/11 Commission avoided the many witnesses who testified of explosions in the basements.
NIST avoided the 9/11 Commission’s time.
NIST avoided the many witnesses who testified of explosions in the basements.
links Links LINKS!
ANSWER- The only possibility: EXPLOSION(S)No, hun-
Fire, Not Extra Explosives, Doomed Buildings, Expert Says
By John Fleck, Journal Staff Writer
A New Mexico explosives expert says he now believes there were no explosives in the World Trade Center towers, contrary to comments he made the day of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack.

"Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail," said Van Romero, a vice president at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology.

The day of the attack, Romero told the Journal the towers' collapse, as seen in news videotapes, looked as though it had been triggered by carefully placed explosives.

Subsequent conversations with structural engineers and more detailed looks at the tape have led Romero to a different conclusion. Romero supports other experts, who have said the intense heat of the jet fuel fires weakened the skyscrapers' steel structural beams to the point that they gave way under the weight of the floors above. That set off a chain reaction, as upper floors pancaked onto lower ones.

Romero said he believes still it is possible that the final collapse of each building was triggered by a sudden pressure pulse caused when the fire reached an electrical transformer or other source of combustion within the building.

But he said he now believes explosives would not have been needed to create the collapse seen in video images.

Conspiracy theorists have seized on Romero's comments as evidence for their argument that someone else, possibly the U.S. government, was behind the attack on the Trade Center.

Romero said he has been bombarded with electronic mail from the conspiracy theorists.

"I'm very upset about that," he said. "I'm not trying to say anything did or didn't happen." (C) 2001, Albuquerque Journal

WTC 7, 1 & 2 went down at CLOSE TO FREEFALL, particularly WTC 7 which went down in 6.6 seconds within 95% of it's own footprint (as YOU proved with your own aerial photo of WTC 7.)How close is close to freefall? You need to post these things, links! Like I said, demolition of collapse, it all happens at freefall. I don't even need to post a link for that.

WTC 1 & 2 had their main parts collapse inside of 13-14 seconds, when freefall is around 9 and a half seconds. The massive cores which equally as much came down around 14 seconds later, but yet, neither of these collapses was responsible for the much SHORTER seismic tremors.

Based on the Seismic Waves recorded at Palisades New York
Collapse 1, South Tower 09:59:04±1 2.1 10 seconds
Collapse 2, North Tower 10:28:31±1 2.3 8 seconds
[/I]Read this hun:http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=5[/I]

They're SHORTER than the collapse times - particularly for the North Tower where the duration is less than the free fall time. That's IMPOSSIBLE unless the seismic waves are less caused from the collapsed debris impacting the ground than by something else. I'm not even sure what to post here, how about: see above link

Physics which proves outright that the WTC towers were brought down by CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.No, sorry

I tried to make it as 'non pushy' as possible.

Bill

10-20-2006, 01:56 AM

So, your position then is that all the phone calls that were discussed in the media, and of which we've heard short clips on the media, are fakes?

That the family members who received the calls, and have been interviewed on the media (I think I've seen people talking about their loved one's calls on Oprah, for instance), are all fakes?

How was this fakery organized and maintained?

Why was it organized and maintained?

Lovelynice

10-20-2006, 09:09 AM

So, your position then is that all the phone calls that were discussed in the media

yes.

Can you prove any of the CELLPHONE calls were possible? If you can't, then the logical, rational, and only reasonable conclusion is that since the cellphone calls were IMPOSSIBLE, the alleged calls could only be fakes.

Faking phone calls is easy anyway. You don't even need high technology to do it.

You can go to www.ebaumsworld.com and create one side of a phone call using the soundboards, that the other side would at first believe to be Napolean Dynamite!. There's even videos of people using the various soundboards to prank call people, some get strung along for several minutes before they realize it's a prank.

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/audio/napoleondynamite-prank1.html

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/audio/jackblack-prank2.html

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/audio/alpacino-prank1.html

But the idiot on the other end of the line can have a conversation with a series of pre-recorded phrases and words played by some "controller" who chooses which phrase to use so it appears to fit with what the other person is saying.

(I've been told that the Pacino one is the best. The guy on the other end of the line gets really angry at a series of recordings.)

Think it's impossible to con strangers into thinking that you're a relative - even pretending to be their son?

Check out the "Hi Mom, it's me" scam.
http://mdn.mainichi-msn.co.jp/features/archive/news/2005/06/20050608p2g00m0fe008000c.html

By the way, it was easy to fake someone's voice then.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/dotmil/arkin020199.htm

Now you know how the voices on the "calls" could be faked.

It's not like these were turing tests, these were just normal average people receiving the calls.

stefan segal

10-20-2006, 10:36 AM

Lovelynice...don't be too hard on the boy...it's really not his fault...it's a genetic thing...anyway, he's losing trolling time to prepare for terms...and that can make anyone stressful.

The genetic thing: I can't prove a direct line of decendancy, but as the bible instructs: "you know the tree by the fruit it bears"...and it seems to me that I've uncovered this fruit's mother:

snippit:Quoted...

The first thing you'll notice is that if this is a human, it's a pretty shallow yoof with a zero attention span. Now that's a surprise. It's said that pets eventually resemble their owners. Do AI bots resemble their programmers?

Joan is simply a database of feints and shimmies deployed to change the subject and confuse the questioner. Occasionally Joan will ask the interrogator if they are a robot, or chide them for being stupid. These are all pre-programmed rhetorical tricks. They may bore or bamboozle an interrogator, but this is no indication of intelligence.

That's no surprise, when we learn Joan really is a database of conversational snippets - five million lines of them. This is the same technique deployed by Eliza, Joseph Weizenbaum's elementary software parser written in the 1960s, and bundled with EMACS.

Abnormalia

10-20-2006, 10:37 AM

Stuff

Wow, so instead of addressing everything else of more importance, you've fallen back on a weak point about cell phone use in jetliners. Not only that, you're siting ebaums world for 'proof'? Can someone give me a big WTF mate?

For your information, your data is based on false information.

The “impossible” claim is most often associated with Professor AK Dewdney, in a study of his own called "Project Achilles". He actually tried making calls at various altitudes, and concluded that "cellphone calls from passenger aircraft are physically impossible above 8000 feet and and statistically unlikely below it". There are reasons to question Dewdney’s conclusions, though.

In. A. Cessna. Over London. Flying under 8000 feet. Not in America, not in a jetliner, and not at the correct altitude. Besides Ebaum, you didn't site a credible source, AGAIN. Information given without proof can be dismissed without proof, but here are a few links about cell phone use in Jetliners at altitude anyways:

http://911myths.com/html/mobiles_at_altitude.html
And
http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/chart.html#phone_calls

Can you provide a counter-point? Or maybe counter-points to my other post? That's the way debates work.

Bill

10-20-2006, 01:54 PM

Abnormalia

10-20-2006, 03:35 PM

So, you're saying that as soon as people got on the planes, the government grabbed them, copied their voices, created a computer program to mimic them and call their families, then killed them or knocked them unconscious, and then the government killers got off the planes, and flew the planes by remote control into the buildings?

Who were the government goons who did this horrible thing?

I'm coming out Bill. I did it. That's why i'm here on this forum, to refute the truth and demonize the 9/11 truth movement to save my own ass. We loaded those people onto grayhound buses with the premise that the flights had to be canceled, and we'd bus them to a different airport. These buses were converted into huge Faraday cages so no cell phone calls could be made. On the way to the 'airport' we recorded all their voices using a large array of microphones. When the passengers realized they were going the wrong way, the cabin was gassed with a narcotic based drug similar in properties to the gas used in the infamous Russian seige. Once at the military base, the bodies were removed and random body parts were charred and placed in bags to be scattered throughout the impact sites. The remaining parts were incinerated and the buses scrapped for metal.

Actually..now that you mention it, I was a junior in highschool when this happened. Me and my delusions *smacks forehead*

Tommy

10-20-2006, 03:43 PM

Abnormalia

10-20-2006, 04:03 PM

MAYBE....... the families never got those phone calls

they could be in on "IT" also
did ya ever think of that ...huh... bet ya didnt :p
and the people on the planes could be in some CIA prison somewhere in Slovakia

I love conspircy thories

Tsk tsk, they're being held in an old Russian nuclear missile silo somewhere in Siberia. Don't you know anything?

exarmyranger

10-20-2006, 10:47 PM

Tsk tsk, they're being held in an old Russian nuclear missile silo somewhere in Siberia. Don't you know anything?
There are volume's of top secret document's,outlining clandestine,covert action's.The Bush administration's disregard of the constitution,and our apathetic citizen's are the enabler's...However,engineering the attack on the WTC,and the cost in live's lost...Not even Bush would,in an atempt to justify the attack on Iraq take out the WTC's.Tell those who lost their loved one's our elected leader knew or had sanctioned the 9/11 tragedy.Then run!

Abnormalia

10-20-2006, 10:53 PM

There are volume's of top secret document's,outlining clandestine,covert action's.The Bush administration's disregard of the constitution,and our apathetic citizen's are the enabler's...However,engineering the attack on the WTC,and the cost in live's lost...Not even Bush would,in an atempt to justify the attack on Iraq take out the WTC's.Tell those who lost their loved one's our elected leader knew or had sanctioned the 9/11 tragedy.Then run!

Um...are you targeting that comment at me? It was dripping with fresh ovenbasted sarcasm. Read the thread, and then determine who the "not-all-there" people are.

Linkster

10-20-2006, 10:57 PM

exarmyranger - do a little searching on Google for the firemans association in NY and some of the family organizations in NYC for families that lost people at WTC - youll find a large number of them that already believe that is exactly what happened

Moby

10-20-2006, 11:12 PM

Um...are you targeting that comment at me? It was dripping with fresh ovenbasted sarcasm. Read the thread, and then determine who the "not-all-there" people are.
You've made that very clear Mr. Prejudice. :lmao2:

Well, you may not be the only one but you certainly have issues.

Moby

10-20-2006, 11:19 PM

Not even Bush would,in an atempt to justify the attack on Iraq take out the WTC's.
I totally agree with you. Dubya is not a master mind and he and his family don't have a track record of caring about much outside of their own pockets. When they originally made their fortune they didn't care who was buying their weapons just as long as the war kept going and both sides gave them money.

While I don't think PNAC was actually behind 9/11 I don't believe that a few thousand lives means anything to some of members. When you desire a new world order a few thousand or a few million lives is part of the deal.

Now that the Bush family is profiting from war again, I don't think they care about lives just as long as people keep them in power and they can funnel $ Billions to their own interests.

stefan segal

10-21-2006, 12:07 AM

Moby...why do you refuse to read the evidence supplied here...its abundant?

Listed below are 24 separate physical facts that I challenge you to refute that fusion bombs didn't bring down the towers, through commonly accepted physics, chemistry or any other branch of the sciences.

Nyet...is not acceptable.

Blind faith in the ineptitude of clueless george is equally unacceptable...especially since cheney had control of our military and is the the pointman and orchestrator of the whole operation.

Stefan

Evidence of advanced fusion devices at the WTC:

1. Pulverization of 99% of concrete into ultra fine dust as recorded by official studies. Concrete dust was created instantly throughout the towers when the fusion device million degree heat rapidly expanded water vapour 1000-fold in the concrete floors.

2. Superheated steels ablating (vaporizing continuously as they fall) as seen in video clips of the towers collapsing. This requires uniform temperatures roughly twice that of thermite. Conventional demolition or explosive charges (thermate, rdx, hdx etc.) cannot transfer heath so rapidly that the steel goes above it's boiling temperature.

3. 22 ton outer wall steel sections ejected 200 meters into the winter garden. Cutting charges cannot eject heavy steels and throwing charges cannot provide the energy required without heavy, solid surface mounts.

4. 330 ton section of outer wall columns ripping off side of tower. Cutting charges cannot eject heavy steels linked together and throwing charges cannot provide the energy required without very heavy, solid surfaces to mount those charges.

5. Molten ponds of steel at the bottom of elevator shafts (WTC1, WTC2, WTC
7). Massive heath loads have been present at the lower parts of these high-rise buildings. As one of the witnesses after seeing the flow of metals declared: "no one will be found alive".

6. The spire behaviour (stands for 20-30 seconds, evaporates and goes down, steel dust remains in the air where the spire was). The spire did not stand because it lost its durability when the joints vaporized.

7. Sharp spikes in seismograph readings (Richter 2.1 and 2.3) occurred at the beginning of collapse for both towers. Short duration and high power indicate an explosive event.

8. A press weighting 50 tons disappeared from a basement floor of Twin Towers and was never recovered from debris. Not possible with collapses or controlled demolitions. The press was vaporized or melted totally.

9. Bone dust cloud around the WTC. This was found not until spring 2006 from the Deutsche Bank building. (In excess of 700 human remains found on the roof and from air vents). See http://www.911citizenswatch.org/print.php?sid=906

10. Fires took 100 days to extinguish despite continuous spraying of water. Thermate would burn out totally and then cool down much faster, just in a few days. This long cooling time means the total heath load being absorbed into the steels of the WTC was massive, far in excess anything found in collapses or typical controlled demolitions.

11. Brown shades of color in the air due nuclear radiation forming NO2, NO3 and nitric acid. TV and documentary footage changed the color balance to blue to disguise this fact indicating complicity in the coverup.

12. Elevated Tritium values measured in the WTC area but not elsewhere in New York. Official studies stated that 8 EXIT signs from two commercial Boeing jets were responsible. The tritium in those EXIT signs is insufficient to explain the measurements (very little tritium is available for measuring after evaporation into air as hydrogen and as tritiated water vapour. This can provide conclusive proof of fusion devices and therefore US/Israeli military involvement.

13. Pyroclastic flow observed in the concrete-based clouds. Only found with volcanic eruptions and nuclear detonations. The explosion squibs cool down just a few milliseconds after the explosion or after having reached some 10 meters in the air. Pyroclastic flow will not mix with other clouds meaning very serious heath in those clouds not possible with the conventional demolition or explosive charges. The pyroclastic clouds were cooling down at the WTC but this process took some 30 seconds. See http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1381525012075538113

14. Huge expanding dust clouds 5 times the volume of the building indicating extreme levels of heat generated far in excess of traditional demolition explosives.

15. Rubble height was some 10% of the original instead of 33% expected in a traditional demolition. Fusion device removal of underground central steel framework allowed upper framework to fall into this empty space and reduce the rubble height.

16. No survivors found, except some firefighters in one corner pocket in the rubble who looked up to see blue sky above them instead of being crushed by collapsing debris. Upward fusion flashlight-like beam of destruction missed this pocket but removed debris above those lucky firemen.

17. 14 rescue dogs and some rescue workers died far too soon afterward to be attributed to asbestos or dust toxins (respiratory problems due to alpha and tritium particles created by fusion are far more toxic)

18. Record concentrations of near-atomic size metal particles found in dust studies due to ablated steel. Only possible with vaporized (boiling) steels.

19. Decontamination procedure used at Ground Zero (hi-pressure water spraying) for all steel removed from site. Water spraying contains fusion radioactivity.

20. No bodies, furniture or computers found in the rubble, but intact sheets of paper covered the streets with fine dust. Items with significant mass absorbed fusion energy (neutrons, x-rays) and were vaporized while paper did not. Paper and powder theory.

21. 200 000 gallon sprinkler water tanks on the roofs of WTC1 and WTC2, but no water in the ruins. Heat of fusion devices vaporized large reservoirs of water.

22. Reports of cars exploding around the WTC and many burned out wrecks could be seen that had not been hit by debris. Fusion energy (heath radiation and the neutrons) caused cars to ignite and burn far from WTC site.

23. Wide area electrical outage, repairs took over 3 months. Fusion devices cause EM pulse with Compton scattering. See German engineers help the USA plate 5. http://home.debitel.net/user/andreas.bunkahle/defaulte.htm

24. EM pulse was recorded by broadcast cameras with high quality electronic circuitry. This occurred at the same time as the seismic peaks recorded by Lamont Doherty during the beginning of the collapse. This is due to the Compton Effect and resulted in a large area power outage at the WTC.

Abnormalia

10-21-2006, 12:26 AM

exarmyranger

Unfortunately, exarmy, you can see there are some very, very batshit insane people on this site. Sometimes I can't believe what they're typing...instead I imagine they're just playing a joke on us.

As was said, if you're past the repetitious bullshit that the conspiracymongers spew out, you can learn to enjoy it. stefan's list, for example, I like to treat as one of those "Top ten reasons why something is something", in this case (as above), it's the top 22 reasons why Stefan is legally insane. Hilarious shit, really.

How long did you serve, by the way?

Edit: OOPS! I appologize, it's the top 24 reasons why Stefan is insane.

Betty Blowtorch

10-21-2006, 03:25 AM

Abnormalia

10-21-2006, 02:34 PM

OFFICIAL BULLETIN

World Trade Center 7
was NOT brought down
by controlled demolition.

http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/2535/wtc7smallrm1.gif

You are NOT looking at
a controlled demolition.

http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/2535/wtc7smallrm1.gif

REPEAT!! This is NOT
a controlled demolition!

http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/2535/wtc7smallrm1.gif

Your eyes are lying to you.
Don't believe your lying eyes.

http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/2535/wtc7smallrm1.gif

You must trust your Federal Government
and your Department of Homeland Security.

Thank you for your cooperation.

I am NOT looking at a sane person

I am NOT looking at a sane person

I am NOT looking at a sane person

I am NOT looking at a sane person

Conspiracy theory, apply directly to the forehead

Conspiracy theory, apply directly to the forehead

Conspiracy theory, apply directly to the forehead

Betty Blowtorch

10-21-2006, 03:33 PM

I am NOT looking at a sane person

I am NOT looking at a sane person

I am NOT looking at a sane person

I am NOT looking at a sane person
I assume you were looking in the mirror when you wrote that.http://img348.imageshack.us/img348/5585/bananadancernv1.gif

Abnormalia

10-21-2006, 04:28 PM

I assume you were looking in the mirror when you wrote that.http://img348.imageshack.us/img348/5585/bananadancernv1.gif

Mirrors do not reflect my image, little girl.

Moby

10-21-2006, 04:41 PM

Unfortunately, exarmy, you can see there are some very, very batshit insane people on this site.
I don't have reason to call you insane but there's no doubt that you need help. Maybe get outside a little bit. Many people have the issue of not reading enough but others have the issue of spending too much time reading about the world instead of actually experiencing it.

Bill

10-21-2006, 04:41 PM

The only thing ad hominem (against the man) arguments prove is that the arguer is out of ammunition.

I did think the 'apply directly to the forehead' was funny.

Betty Blowtorch

10-21-2006, 05:00 PM

Mirrors do not reflect my image, little girl.
Does this mean you're a vampire?

Personally I don't believe in vampires, but if you say you're a vampire,
I'll have to take your word for it.

Abnormalia

10-21-2006, 05:02 PM

The only thing ad hominem (against the man) arguments prove is that the arguer hasn't seen a good argument yet, and is more or less having fun until something worthwhile comes up.
I did think the 'apply directly to the forehead' was funny.

Fixed that for you.

Abnormalia

10-21-2006, 05:03 PM

Does this mean you're a vampire?

Personally I don't believe in vampires, but if you say you're a vampire,
I'll have to take your word for it.

You seem to take the word of a lot of people.

Bill

10-21-2006, 05:13 PM

[QUOTE=stefan segal]Listed below are 24 separate physical facts that I challenge you to refute that fusion bombs didn't bring down the towers, through commonly accepted physics, chemistry or any other branch of the sciences.

[QUOTE]

You're snowballing again.

And you don't seem to understand the difference between evidence and data, and an internet page.

1. When big buildings fall, they make dust.
2. No evidence of metal vaporization available.
3. when big buildings fall pieces fall off.
4. see 3.
5. no metallurgical evidence available. No photographic evidence available. No data. Closest thing to evidence the "meteorite". A topic for further investigation.
6. no idea what you mean.
7. big building fell down go boom.
8. any release of energy large enough to vaporize 50 tons of metal at a thousand feet seperated by a whole buildings worth of mass, would have also vaporized all humans within many thousands of feet from the epicenter of the release.
9. Without quantitative analysis (how much of what?) the evidence is not interpretable. However, it may be consistent with the grinder model of the collapse.
10. A mass of compressed organic and inorganic matter will burn in just such a way, difficult to extinguish because the inorganic matter protetcs the fire.
11. see 1.
12. 1st, the data must be confirmed. 2nd, without comparitive data, the confirmed data is inconcluisve. More data gathering required.
13. see 1. Claim that dust cloud was "pyroclastic" is unsupported.
14. see 1.
15. I can't confirm this data. see 6.
16. No data. red herring.
17. no data.
18. no data.
19. high pressure water spray typical of most construction cleaning. no data on water contents afterwards.
20. light materials forced out of the path of the "grinder" by compressed air blast caused by falling ceilings. Everything too heavy to be pushed out of the way by the blast of air crushed and ground to powder and small fragments.
21. no data. Possibly millions of tons of dust absorbed water.
22. no data.
23. no data. I could not find data at the link provided.
24. no data.

Betty Blowtorch

10-21-2006, 05:13 PM

You seem to take the word of a lot of people.
Seems like you're ducking the vampire issue.
Are you a vampire or not?

Does your image appear in mirrors, little girl,
or are you backing off that claim?

Abnormalia

10-21-2006, 05:26 PM

Seems like you're ducking the vampire issue.
Are you a vampire or not?

Does your image appear in mirrors, little girl,
or are you backing off that claim?

The doctors say it's an eye problem, no, I can't see myself in a mirror for some reason. Do you have a problem with that?

stefan segal

10-21-2006, 05:38 PM

Bill...You made the first step in at least reading those 14 items...at leas enough to joke about each subject line.

What surprisies me is that you'd make your effort in ridicule, and get such a lame reward for your time. Don't you feel just a bit dishonest?

You can't say siesmigraphs aren't actual hard evidence...then why display such a low rent act saying they don't count?

The same is true with the molten steel ponds, 2000+ degrees two weeks after the incident...can you fit that into your pancake theory...and still consider yourself an honest person?

Bill...I see you just don't want to hear about all this real world science, so lets explore another path...the structure of this government...What I mean is, like who controls our air force in such an emergency as 9/11?

Lets indentify the responsible party's and get some heads to rolling.

A second question...who was responsible for 9/11 on site security?

Who owned the WTC...for how long...and and did they change their insurance coverage an a notable fashion in 2001...was the change a huge coverage for terrorism?

These are all documented facts...and there's many more, and these won't get you, as in the case imvolving science, demerits from the intelligent design people.

Stefan

Abnormalia

10-21-2006, 05:45 PM

This message is hidden because stefan segal is on your ignore list.

Instead of calling you insane, which you are, can you realize that the burden of proof is on you and not him? You're making an outrageous claim using word of mouth and false pretenses as 'evidence'. You must have inoperable cancer or something, so you're spending your remaining days online trying to screw with people.

Bill

10-21-2006, 05:50 PM

Pick a 'no data' item and show me data.

Lets take the "ponds of steel". Show me the data.

You seem to be confessing that you tried to snowball us by flinging a long list of unsupported claims, and now you're surprized that I call you on the claims?

Moby

10-21-2006, 08:54 PM

Instead of calling you insane, which you are,
There you go again. You say that you're not calling him insane but then immediately calling him insane.

Look Dickhead. You've read about a few debate tactics but you have no clue in how to actually use them in real life. You do NOT know what you are talking about. You have made it clear that you have read a few books and try to learn things from a few people but you don't spend enough time in the real world to actually understand things.

If you feel like answering any of the questions that I've put forth to you, after I was kind enough to answer all of yours then do so. If not at least try to come with some facts instead of BS debate tactics that you have no idea how to use.

If nothing else, at least try to learn from your mistakes. You're not debating with people half your age :p

Abnormalia

10-21-2006, 09:06 PM

Actually, you're right to bring this up, "which you are" should be in parenthesis- mybad.

There you go again. You say that you're not calling him insane but then immediately calling him insane.

Look Dickhead scary internet words. You've read about a few debate tactics but you have no clue in how to actually use them in real life real life, where? here? No, this is the internet. You do NOT know what you are talking about. Funny, I'm not convinced you know how to wipe properly. You have made it clear that you have read a few books and try to learn things from a few people but you don't spend enough time in the real world to actually understand things.

If you feel like answering any of the questions that I've put forth to you, after I was kind enough to answer all of yours then do so. If not at least try to come with some facts instead of BS debate tactics that you have no idea how to use. Woah...you mean all that stuff you posted were facts? Well, maybe when you post sources i'll consider them. Credible sources.

If nothing else, at least try to learn from your mistakes. You're not debating with people half your age :p A third my age then? I knew you couldn't wipe yourself, I just knew it.

I guess we're at a standstill then: You've produced no credible evidence of your claims, and i've not taken time to address your claims, funny how that works?

stefan segal

10-22-2006, 11:59 AM

Bill...does first hand testimony by firemen (which is accepted in courts of law daily as expert witnesses...you must harken to a higher justice), supported by records of sattelite infra red imagery, not only showing those pools but ascribing a temperature rating to them @2000 + degrees...doesn't this count as evidence?

Come on Bill...you're twisting like a hooked fish...come up with something definitive supporting your understandings...your band-aids that cover all descrepencies and physical impossibilities of what you believe happened to the WTC towers.

To bark so loudly while hiding behind the tactic of dumping responsibility on me to prove to you my stance...while you sit back and snipe at whar's offered, instead of equally making the effort to support your own claims...isn't worthy of you and shows more partisianship than thought...or fair play.

Stefan

Abnormalia

10-22-2006, 01:40 PM

Bill...does first hand testimony by firemen (which is accepted in courts of law daily as expert witnesses...you must harken to a higher justice), supported by records of sattelite infra red imagery, not only showing those pools but ascribing a temperature rating to them @2000 + degrees...doesn't this count as evidence?

I cut out the rest of the quote that was nothing more than wasted internet space. I'm trying to help the environment, see?

I see you've again given no links, no evidence to support your claim. NEWSFLASH! You CANNOT use yourself as the primary source. Let's hear it again:

"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof"

Betty Blowtorch

10-22-2006, 05:07 PM

WTC 7, 1 & 2 went down at CLOSE TO FREEFALL, particularly WTC 7
which went down in 6.6 seconds within 95% of it's own footprint

Generally I don't bother trying to convince people that the Twin Towers
were brought down by controlled demolition because it's too easy for the
doubters to claim that the towers collapsed because of the impact of the
airliners and the burning jet fuel.

Instead I focus on the collapse of WTC Building 7, which was never hit by
any plane, was never engulfed in flames, and contained only a few small
isolated fires when it mysteriously collapsed in a perfect textbook example
of controlled demolition at 5:30pm on September 11th.

Here's a photo of Building 7 at 3pm on 9-11,
less than 3 hours before its total collapse.

http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/8759/911wtc7smallfiresbf6.jpg

You can clearly see only a few isolated fires
on the 7th and 12th floors. No raging inferno.
The building looks to be in pretty good shape.
In 3 hours, it will be a neat little pile of rubble.

http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/3084/wtc7smallan9.gif

By way of comparison:

The Windsor Building in Madrid was totally engulfed
in extremely high temperature flames for 18 hours...

http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/4739/911madridfire2if2.jpg

... leaving a burned-out steel skeleton...

http://img61.imageshack.us/img61/7765/911madridfire4resizezk7.jpg

... but the steel core remained intact and did not collapse.

So why did Building 7 collapse, but the Windsor Building didn't?
Is it because the Spanish build stronger skyscrapers than us?
Is Spanish steel stronger than American steel?

One theory is that diesel fuel tanks caught fire and exploded
inside Building 7, but a FEMA investigation reported that the
tanks were intact prior to the collapse.

It's difficult to believe that exploding diesel fuel tanks in the
basement could have caused the picture-perfect implosion
and collapse of Building 7, which can be clearly seen in the
eyewitness videos of the event.

Controlled demolition experts often spend a couple of weeks
precisely placing explosive charges which must be detonated
with split-second precision in order to implode and collapse a
building without causing it to topple over and cause damage
to surrounding structures.

If Building 7 was brought down by exploding diesel fuel tanks,
then the demolition experts no longer need to bother placing
precise explosive charges -- they can just blow up a couple
of fuel tanks and bring down buildings in the precise manner
we see in the videos of Building 7's collapse.

Building 7 was not brought down by planes or fire or exploding
fuel tanks.

The video evidence clearly shows that Building 7's collapse
was a perfectly executed, controlled demolition.

This raises several questions:

(1) Whodunit?

(2) When and how was it done? What type of explosives?

(3) If Building 7 was brought down by controlled demolition,
what about the Twin Towers?

YouTube Video Link:
The Incredibly Strange Collapse of WTC Building 7
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPDNPJAr_Ao

Bill

10-22-2006, 05:28 PM

Stefan, your ad hominem, emotional arguments, straw men, and other such tactics have no effect on me.

Depositions of firemen with provenance would qualify as source material, but usually wouldn't be "data". I'd like to see them.

The provenance is important.

Data would be measurements and recordings, and to a lesser degree raw samples.

With regards to the "pools of steel', what I would really like to see are measurements. Was it steel or some other metal or mix of metals? Where was it located and how much did it weigh? Photos and video would also be good, especially if well dated.

Again, provenance is important. A link to a web page that makes a claim is not data or evidence, unless that page can provide good provenance, or better yet is subject to peer review.

Abnormalia

10-22-2006, 05:32 PM

Stuff

Let's go down the line, shall we Betty baby?

1. What side of WTC 7 was the picture taken from? The side closest to the trade centers was heavily damaged from the collapse, your picture look rather pristine.

2. Why in God's name are you trying to compare a 32 story building in Spain who's supports were not damaged by falling material, who's temperature fire you never described, to the collapse of a 47 story structure that was heavily damaged by the collapse of two other 110 story buildings?

3. What basis for collapse are you using? Has this ever happened to a building before?

You've shown me a bunch of pictures, concluded from your own mindset that they couldn't possibly collapse the way they did, and invented the idea that some secretive conspiracy caused the collapse of the towers and wtc 7 using explosives.

Medication, medication, medication for you please.

Abnormalia

10-22-2006, 05:41 PM

Words n stuff :-p

Heeeey. I just learned what a straw man is in debate terms. Cool beans.

Betty Blowtorch

10-22-2006, 05:59 PM

Abnormalia

10-22-2006, 06:11 PM

Abnormalia,

Did you check out the YouTube video link? It shows Building 7
from the other side and may answer some of your questions.

At the end of the video, we see the collapse of Building 7 from
several camera angles. If you honestly believe that we're not
looking at a controlled demolition, please tell me your theory
of what caused the collapse of Building 7. Supporting video
or photographic evidence would be nice.

Gladly!
Here is my video evidence that shows the Building 7 collapsing from damage and fire from the events of the day:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPDNPJAr_Ao

And some other links:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=4
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=5

FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse

Enjoy.

Betty Blowtorch

10-22-2006, 07:33 PM

Gladly! Here is my video evidence that shows the Building 7 collapsing
from damage and fire from the events of the day:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPDNPJAr_Ao

This is the same video link I provided in my earlier post.
The conclusion presented in this video is that Building 7
was "pulled" -- brought down by controlled demolition,
not by fire or damage from falling debris.

It doesn't support your position.

And some other links:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=4
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=5

Ah yes, the infamous Popular Mechanics article.

Here are some links debunking the claims made in Popular Mechanics:

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/gopm/indexg.html

http://911review.com/pm/markup/index.html

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/reply_to_popular_mechanics.htm

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2005/070305chertoffscousin.htm

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2006/100806popularmechanics.htm

http://www.oilempire.us/popular-mechanics.html

"The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out."
Wow! On a third of the south face, 25 percent of the depth
of the building was scooped out? That's some major damage!
I'd like to see a photo or video showing that damage.

I've seen photos and video taken from different angles, but
I've never seen any photos that show anything other than
minor damage and small isolated fires that couldn't possibly
have brought down a steel skyscraper like Building 7.

Abnormalia

10-22-2006, 08:48 PM

This is the same video link I provided in my earlier post.
The conclusion presented in this video is that Building 7
was "pulled" -- brought down by controlled demolition,
not by fire or damage from falling debris.

It doesn't support your position.

Ah yes, the infamous Popular Mechanics article.

Here are some links debunking the claims made in Popular Mechanics:

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/gopm/indexg.html

http://911review.com/pm/markup/index.html

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/reply_to_popular_mechanics.htm

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2005/070305chertoffscousin.htm

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2006/100806popularmechanics.htm

http://www.oilempire.us/popular-mechanics.html

Wow! On a third of the south face, 25 percent of the depth
of the building was scooped out? That's some major damage!
I'd like to see a photo or video showing that damage.

I've seen photos and video taken from different angles, but
I've never seen any photos that show anything other than
minor damage and small isolated fires that couldn't possibly
have brought down a steel skyscraper like Building 7. Have you ever seen a picture of the side heavily damaged by the falling towers? Can you think of alternate reasons why such a picture would be difficult to obtain?

It is your video, correct. I turned off the sound and it made my point quite nicely. You look at it as a controlled demolition, I see a collapse brought on by extensive trama.

Each of your links is either whining about Pop Mech's 'attack' on them, or the article does a good job of backing up the claims of Pop Mech.

I still see nothing more than speculation or unscientific analysis by conspiracymongers. Remember, your amazing claims are unsupported by the engineering and science community. I have no obligation to prove you wrong, you have an obligation to prove your point correct. And you're not doing it by showing a picture here and there which is followed by even more speculation. Try the truth sometime, I hear it tastes great.

Abnormalia

10-22-2006, 09:28 PM

Alright Betty Boop, I want your response to these pictures. Please, please respond to these pictures:

lol small fire
http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/7059/wtc7smokehb0.jpg

LOL small fire
http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/6511/dbwtc7smokea6lz1.jpg

small...fire??
http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/77/dbwtc7smokeb4kp6.jpg

small..fire!?
http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/7861/dbwtc7smokec4at9.jpg

Abnormalia

10-22-2006, 09:29 PM

SmAlL..FiRe?
http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/8848/dbwtc7smoked7qr8.jpg

Small Fire :(?
http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/6246/dbmagnum1pv5.jpg

Smaaaaall fire?
http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/7554/dbmagnum2ni9.jpg

Abnormalia

10-22-2006, 09:30 PM

Little Damage?
http://www.debunking911.com/fig-1-7.jpg

(Here's a nice shot)
LITTLE DAMAGE?
http://www.debunking911.com/Bankers.jpg

Fall into footprint???
http://www.debunking911.com/b7debris.jpg

Other links?
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf

Betty, go home. I'm going to let out a little smug: You lose.

stefan segal

10-22-2006, 09:49 PM

Explain this without insider trading. To be an insider, one must have foreknowlege...and how could that knowlege exist in the fantasy world of Popular Mechanics?

Stefan

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/illegaltrades.html

- Between September 6 and 7, the Chicago Board Options Exchange saw purchases of 4,744 put options on United Airlines, but only 396 call options. Assuming that 4,000 of the options were bought by people with advance knowledge of the imminent attacks, these "insiders" would have profited by almost $5 million.

- On September 10, 4,516 put options on American Airlines were bought on the Chicago exchange, compared to only 748 calls. Again, there was no news at that point to justify this imbalance; Again, assuming that 4,000 of these options trades represent "insiders", they would represent a gain of about $4 million.

- [The levels of put options purchased above were more than six times higher than normal.]

- No similar trading in other airlines occurred on the Chicago exchange in the days immediately preceding Black Tuesday.

Abnormalia

10-22-2006, 10:07 PM

Hey stefan, buddy, you want to explain how everything that's been posted so far somehow, in some fucked up way, backs your theory of events?

Oh, and that 'insider trading' conspiracy thing:

http://nyctohylophobia.blogspot.com/2006/06/insider-trading-nonsense.html
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/putcall.asp

stefan segal

10-23-2006, 12:31 AM

Not my theory...if anything my position, which is shared by the majority of americans...except those bush apologists like yourself who attempt to turn science, logic and reason inside out just to say nyet...

You and I don't matter...we are only two voices...what is important is to have as many people as possible thinking about the evidence that bush couldn't hide, obstruct, or snatch and ship away...

To think why there exists testimony that ground zero workers pointed out the black boxes to the FBI, and now, after bush has declared them top secret...he can, and is, witholding that evidence from americans...think about it...what could be top secret about a hijacked american passenger plane's flight and subsequent crash?

If bush was innocent of involvement and really wanted to catch the perps...and also wanted to convince the public to go after bin ladin or whomever...wouldn't it be in his best interest to put all the evidence available on the front page of every paper in the country?

I wasn't anwering your challenges subnormal, because you are a waste of time...this hasn't changed, nor have I changed my mind about continuing a dialoge with you..I am writing this for the list...there are some serious people here and some others who hold their conclusions at bay waiting for more conclusive evidence...it for them I feel it is important to maintain discussion about this most important threat to our personal freedom.

A conspiiracy with the sophistication, unlimited funds, total access to buildings with high levels of security, (supplied by marvin bush) and superb planning and execution displayed in which this black flag operation was carried out; to hold off on making any conclusions waiting for a smoking gun, is unrealistic...they would not have been so accomodating.

On the other hand, there is such a body of circumstancial evidence gathering on every aspect of this northwoods-type hit, that it is becoming less and less possible for the apologist crowd to grasp at nonsense such as the popular mechanics lame efforts at covering bush's ass, without the beholder just becoming angry at their attempts at insulting thier intelligence.

There might be a feeling that the people are already dead (2700+, not counting all those who died and are dying from the metal/aspestos laden air that bush leaned on the epa to say the air was safe, so they could run off with what steel still existed as steel, and ship it off to china...and the country has sort of settled down after five years... so is it in the best interest of america to stir the pot again?...and if it is proven that our government attacked us. does anyone have a scenerio of how people will react?

There are minutemen...not the one's on the texmex border, but citizen's militias, armed and paranoid...then there's all the red state true belivers...how will they respond...will it involve a guillotine.

I already know the government response...if they ever lost control enough for an honest inquiry and trial to occur...martial law, a whole lot of killing and detention camps for the survivers.

So with this in mind, you may wonder why I so doggedly pursue this line...maybe it would be better to just leave it alone.

The reason why it is so important to keep up the pressure on this administration is their M.O. is to do a trial number...if that "flies", then double up with a larger lie, a greater theft or in this case, a more horrific treason...altho I can't think of one except a smallpox attack that's on their menue at present.

A case in point was their anthrax attack on the democrat leaders...there was such a stink and the loss of some really valuable real estate...namely one of our largest post offices, that can't be made safe again...and the spores remain dormant, ready to rock n roll for hundreds of years. It didn't help their stance of innocence that it was leaked the weaponized anthrax was from a gov. military supplier.

Had they (repugs) effected a descrete hit on a few good men, without so much collateral damage of postmen and post office, and the citizenry reacted as wished, then there would be a large hit that woud would have shut down the mails and panic'd every into buying their anthrax serum...the 'take' estimated to be in the billions for a one time immunity shot,

But they put that one back into their bag of tricks...presumably to bequeath it to Jeb for our next round of horrors.

So to keep up the pressure on them is our best means of survival...the appologists keep instilling enough doubt so those who can't handle the conclusions of their own logic and reason, have a mental rat-hole to hide in.
and the butch administration remains too much in the spotlight to ramp up another attack on it's citizenry.

Stefan

Betty Blowtorch

10-23-2006, 01:17 AM

Alright Betty Boop, I want your response to these pictures.
Please, please respond to these pictures:

lol small fire
http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/WTC7_Smoke.jpg

LOL small fire
http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/db_images/db_WTC7_smoke_a6.jpg
For some reason, the pictures didn't come up on my end.
They just came up as red X'shttp://img246.imageshack.us/img246/5531/smileyredxrobotdn1.gifhttp://img246.imageshack.us/img246/6521/smileyredxblj0.gif

Abnormalia

10-23-2006, 01:44 AM

The website was down. Rehosted.

Betty Blowtorch

10-23-2006, 01:45 AM

(Here's a nice shot)
LITTLE DAMAGE?

http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/5355/bankersresizesmallerts5.jpg
Yes, there's definitely some major damage to this building.
But this isn't a photo of WTC Building 7, the building that
collapsed on 9-11. It's the Banker's Trust Building, located
on the opposite side of the WTC complex from Building 7.

It looks like this building didn't collapse despite the serious
damage.

Abnormalia

10-23-2006, 01:59 AM

The ramblings of a very, very disturbed person

At first I heard patriotic music playing in my head as I read stefans post. Then the orchestra became confused as I read further. Then, there were shouts of "Why are you reading this??" followed by mass chaos, and finally the sound of my head exploding.

Fortunately, that never happened, but i'm willing to bet stefan has voices in his head.

On a totally and completely unrelated note, here are some interesting statistics on schizophrenia:

* Schizophrenia is the most severe of the mental illnesses and can affect all spheres of life, including perception, thought, judgement, mood, drive and ultimately, personality.
* Approximately 1.5% of the population will have an episode of schizophrenia during their lifetime.
* Schizophrenia occurs in all societies at about the same rate, regardless of class, colour, religion, culture or intelligence.
* Schizophrenia affects both males and females alike, however, onset often occurs earlier in men than in women.
* approx 1 in 123 or 0.81% or 2.2 million people in USA have schizophrenia

Abnormalia

10-23-2006, 02:11 AM

Yes, there's definitely some major damage to this building.
But this isn't a photo of WTC Building 7, the building that
collapsed on 9-11. It's the Banker's Trust Building, located
on the opposite side of the WTC complex from Building 7.

It looks like this building didn't collapse despite the serious
damage.

Ahhhaa, so it is. You are right, oh so very right. You may spank me if you wish. I officially retract my statement due to my busy hands and replace it with actual pictures of WTC 7:

http://img481.imageshack.us/img481/2014/wtc7swdbj8.jpg

and
http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/2438/wtc7holeanalysiscroprz3.jpg

(This is an image apparently produced by a fellow conspiracy theorist of your own, showing the absence of foundation.) It's really interesting to see how much smoke was coming from the area, no wonder there are no better pictures.
These images are from this: http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm page

stefan segal

10-23-2006, 03:33 AM

These pictures were worth the wait...if you check out thew wc 7 photo, the one from top to bottom showing a gouge and corner ripped out from the top of neighboring tower hitting it on the way down.

The building is covered with atomized cement, meaning the adjacent tower had already been demolished...and no fires...no smoke.

If #7 was a tree and the damage to one side of it's base was structurally significant in terms of it toppling, then like a tree, wouldn't #7 have fallen over...instead of falling into it's own footprint?

That photo showing smoke coming from every floor of #7 (I've never seen that one before...I wish I had...it's a useful shot)

First, the smoke is dark and roiling...translated into smoke knowlege, this means a cold, short of air, smoldering type fire...like setting a tire on fire...dark red flames...

Next, the damage was down toward the base 15 or 20 floors...but suprisingly, your photo shows all the floors belching this smoke...it substanciates the arson charge.

Next, the intensity of the fires all seem uniform. In other words none appeared of a longer duration than another...very strange...it's like the top of that building in falling down 7, was like flint and steel, lighting floors as it scratched it's way down to ground level...interisting..but stupid. I didn't hit all those floors, and didn't strike any fires, because you can see no fires and also see the top of the tower on the sidewalk.

I'm sorry to see Betsy mia culpa so easily when faced with such flawed photos.

Subnormal...your photo show the top 13 floors on the sidewalk...no question.

But the fact of those 13 or so floors on the sidewalk means that at the 80th floor (there is a descrepancy of floors, 110 -80 does not equal 13 or 14...some were vaporized), means that 47 beams in the core covered in concrete, forming the central support & elevator shaft, and all the perimeter beams melted, front to back...side to side plus the core beams (47), all at the same time, then lift itself up at a tilt with enough force to crash into the neighbouring building, all from the heat of a kerosene fire?.

Subnormal...is that a possibiloity in your reality...yes or no.

Stefan

Abnormalia

10-24-2006, 01:43 AM

stefan segal

10-24-2006, 10:38 AM

Stefan, I'm not sure who's side you're on.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------Subnormal...I believe in my country...my country doesn't have sides...it has a Constitution.

I understand most people don't want to see the horrific crimes by the leaders of what was our country, but what if all the lies, crime, corruption, murder, treachery and treason were true? Just think about it... without squirming away from the growing body of criminal convictions, and what those convictions signify in terms of integrity our body of representatives deem acceptable character... What kind of people does that make them?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stefan, I'm not sure who's side you're on. There's a new movement with proof that 9/11 conspiracy sites are run by the government, in order to make people think the government is responsible for the attacks. It's all a clever ploy to make you think they're controlling the world when they're all so weak. Stop letting yourself get sucked into this. Join the REAL truth movement.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subnormal...I must choose between: whether you yourself actually believe this, your latest issuance of crap, to dodge confronting the direct question I posed to you...or simpy consider it a possibility, that would serve the same dodge.

Either way, you deem it plausible, if not actual, that your govenment crafted disinformation (which my father would have termed "damned lies"), premeditated to misdirect and mislead americans.

So you accept your leadership deals in tactical lying ( if not recreational lying), but in that house of cards contructed by the 9/11 commision, consisting of foundational lies, you choose to believe every word...to the degree of fighting anyone who questions thier gospel...How subnormal, is subnormal?

Yes..what if it were true that it was an inside job?

What if the applied sciences by experts coupled with eye witness testimony could actually still function in this world with the same accuracy as it did before bush took (as in stole) office...what then?

Do we have the time or energy to grind our gears squabbling over nonsense... crafted by the very government who just murdered 2700 of it citizens, nonsense that would flunk 9th grade physics in any classroom in our country...or would our time be better spent analyzing the mortal threat to our way of life and liberty...not to mention , the preservation of our Constitution?

Just as the "clean air act" now makes it legal for industry and commerce to shit in our streams...figuratively and literally, we have been conditioned to attach words like: hokey, trite, camp, to expressions of patriotism and historic unity...

The fact is, that we were passed the torch...the light of liberty to protect and nurture to pass on to our children along with instilling in them the impact and importance of governance that respects and nurtures those citizens by insuring a level playing field, where anyone who works can live with some level of dignity befitting a free people. This is not chopped liver...millions died just to give it to you.

What are we handing our children?

It isn't the torch of liberty burning brightly...it's more like a dictatorship enforcing their indenturship to the tune of 30,000 dollars of debt each human being alive in our country today, of money we...you and me, spent...through our studied silence and spinelessness...by this present administration to destroy other people such as you and I, insuring...that along with the sputtering torch illuminating their liberty, they will have no shortage of lifetime determined enemies...

The goverment speaks/lies about collateral damage...gives body counts...

These numbers are meaningless...the dead are dead, and only need burying.

If we were responsible citizens, we would demand a 'new enemies' count.

A new enemy count would be all the wives, husbands, children, brothers, uncles, fathers, cousins, of each murdered man...then add all those relatives up to get an idea of how many more bullets we need to send to our troups just to protect their own life and limbs.

It is easy to see, using this 'new enemy' count, how many days, by the calendar, until the whole population wants to see our boys dead.

Just a little arithmetic...add new enemies on this side...subtract that daily total from the sensus count, until there are no "friendlys" remaining...

At that point, you generously scatter land mines around where children play (just so they won't forget you when you're gone), pack up and bail.

This is the world we are bequesting to our children...this is the life they must face because we have been too chicken to accept the responsibilities of citizenship...but very willing to demand what gifts the responsible citizenry of our forbearers bequeathed to us.

We all deserve the government we get...or we could accept the responsibility of citizenship and get better through doing better...demanding better.

Stefan

Abnormalia

10-24-2006, 04:09 PM

Stefan, I'm saying that the government wants you to believe it was responsible for 9/11. All of the 9/11 truth websites are run by the government, the evidence is overwhelming. How long have you allowed yourself to go along with the lies of the government? I fear for our great societie's future.

Grey elk

10-25-2006, 10:27 AM

Don't know about much being a brit , but i sure DO know about explosives & controlled demolition .....BUILDING 7 WAS BOUGHT DOWM WITH C4 PACKETS !
Anyone with good eyesight can see this .

exarmyranger

10-25-2006, 02:32 PM

Don't know about much being a brit , but i sure DO know about explosives & controlled demolition .....BUILDING 7 WAS BOUGHT DOWM WITH C4 PACKETS !
Anyone with good eyesight can see this .
I have worked with C4,C5,& semtex while in the service.Please explain how you disertain a C4 detonaition by visual image...How many (packets?)?What would you estimate (in pounds) of plastique would be required to bring down #7 with-out removal ,or weakening of the support coloum's?

stefan segal

10-25-2006, 06:07 PM

New photos today:

Stefan

http://www.rense.com/general74/try.htm

Abnormalia

10-25-2006, 06:16 PM

The 9/11 conspiracy is a government conspiracy. Really. Not only did they take advantage of the fact that we were attacked in order to invade Iraq, they instructed some very talented people to make up or proliferate conspiracies. Then, they funded (and still fund) many of the conspiracy websites, placing their people there to spread as many lies as possible.

Why?

Not only did they use the the attack to ensure Operation Iraqi Freedom would go on, but they used to conspiracy websites to generate fear among the internet going people of our day. Now, those people believe the government to be so much more powerful then they are. Again, fear of a totaltarian government is even allowing the government to control the theorists. It's perfect.

Check up on it! I know I have! Track down the true owners of websites. Link those owners to government jobs. Money trails, contacts, the spread of more and more theories. The pieces fit. Check it out! We need to get the real truth out there!

stefan segal

10-25-2006, 07:23 PM

subnormal...face it...the government conspired to make a hit on US citizens and our infrastructure to forward their political agenda, at a time when it looked like they would have to go to negative numbers to poll bush's approval rating.

Grow up and stop being a repug twit, face the fact you (and I) are peons to the ruling classes, and as such, our lives and that of our children hold their highest value as talking points...either dead, or alive...but more effective politically when dead.

Check this site out...see what governments (our gov. Eisenhaur ) think about the you and me people.

Stefan

Operation Northwoods

Click images for full sized scans

no images...I haven't yet learned how to transfer a picture to the list...it rejects all images)

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/northwoods.html

Code named Operation Northwoods, the plan, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war.

stefan segal

10-25-2006, 08:06 PM

Here's a bit more of the planning in case you haven't read the link...notice the similarity with 9/11.

Stefan

Among the most elaborate schemes was to "create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner en route 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."

Lemnitzer and the Joint Chiefs worked out a complex deception:

An aircraft at Elgin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CJA 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 the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone [a remotely controlled unmanned aircraft]. 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 Elgin AFB 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 be 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 [International Civil Aviation Organization radio stations in the Western Hemisphere to tell the U.S. what has happened to the aircraft instead of the U.S. trying to "sell" the incident.

Abnormalia

10-26-2006, 02:43 AM

Congratulations on playing right into the government's hands, stefan.

stefan segal

10-26-2006, 09:04 PM

exarmyranger

10-26-2006, 09:23 PM

subnormal...you're a competitive sort...you accuse me of being a conspiracy nut for reporting the facts, then you double up on what you say is my conspiracy, to now proclaim that it is actually a conspiracy to appear to be a conspiracy...perpetrated by that government I accused of orchestrating the operation, to make it look like that actually orchestrated the operation.

All to impress the world of their strength????

It's a sign of our times that you are running around loose...in better days, they would have put the net over you and you'd be packed away...harmless to yourself and others.

Stefan
If everyone was of the same mind,imagine how boring it would be.Lighten up a little Stefan.Why take life so seriouslly...nobody get's out of it alive.

stefan segal

10-26-2006, 09:25 PM

Exarmyranger...point taken :)

Stefan

Linkster

10-26-2006, 10:59 PM

exarmyranger - thank you - I was about to try to say the same thing differently :)
Everyone has their own thoughts on this and while some sound way off base on both sides, Id say that there are a lot of things I always thought were pure fiction - like microwaves, color tvs, a tape player for video etc etc - what changes Ive seen and over the ages from being a child in Florida and actually seeing the bomb shelters in everyones back yards - to taking part in moratoriums in Wash DC - to everything else Ive seen - nothing will ever "surprise me" again

I have extremely vivid memories of seeing a machine gun nest sitting on the steps of the Capitol building in Wash DC in the 1960s - manned by Natl Guard and pointed at the mall - where we were protesting - but then I remember at the very same time thousands of Vets taking off the medals they wore proudly - and tossing them into a bonfire in front of the Wash Monument
Of course bagging the blonde babe on the blanket at midnight that night while Pete Seeger played on the mall brings back some memories as well :)

Betty Blowtorch

10-27-2006, 02:04 AM

Alright Betty Boop, I want your response to these pictures
Please, please respond to these pictures:

LOL small fire
http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/6511/dbwtc7smokea6lz1.jpg

small...fire??
http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/77/dbwtc7smokeb4kp6.jpg

small..fire!!
http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/7861/dbwtc7smokec4at9.jpg
The three photos above aren't very helpful in determining
exactly how much smoke is coming out of WTC Building 7
and how much is coming from the collapsed, smoldering
Twin Towers.

The photo below was taken at 3:25pm, two hours before
Building 7 collapsed. As you can see, huge clouds of smoke
are rising from the entire WTC complex.

Since Building 7 directly faced the smoldering WTC complex,
it's very likely that much of the smoke in your three photos
is coming from the smoking ruins of the Towers.

http://img110.imageshack.us/img110/3460/wtc7smokecloudst6.jpg

Betty Blowtorch

10-27-2006, 02:05 AM

lol small fire
http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/3216/wtc7smoke1resizesmalleruk7.jpg

SmAlL..FiRe?
http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/8848/dbwtc7smoked7qr8.jpg

Small Fire ?
http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/6246/dbmagnum1pv5.jpg

In the three photos above, it looks like thick smoke is pouring
out of most of the floors on the south side of WTC Building 7.

What the photos fail to show, however, is that just out of sight
to the right of the photos, the ruins of the collapsed Twin Towers
and the rest of the WTC complex are producing gigantic clouds
of smoke directly in front of the south face of Building 7.

The photo below shows huge clouds of smoke to the right and
to the left and directly in front of the south face of Building 7.
Obviously most of the smoke we see in the photo below is not
coming from Building 7. It's rising from the smoldering ruins of
the entire WTC complex, billowing upward and outward, pushing
up against the sides of every building which directly faced the
WTC complex -- including Building 7.

Therefore it seems reasonable to conclude that much of the
smoke we see in the photos of Building 7 is part of the huge
cloud of smoke rising from the WTC complex.

http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/2227/wtc7smokeherord4.jpg

Betty Blowtorch

10-27-2006, 02:05 AM

In my two previous posts, I raised the question of whether
the smoke we see in the photos of Building 7 is coming from
Building 7 or from the smoldering WTC complex.

For the sake of argument, however, let's assume that most
of the smoke is actually coming from within Building 7.

A really big, extremely hot fire is required to bring down a
steel skyscraper designed to withstand fires, earthquakes
and airliner impacts. And to bring down a steel skyscraper
in the almost perfectly symmetrical manner we've all seen
in the videos of Building 7, the fire would have to be hot
enough and widespread enough to weaken all of the core
steel supports at the same time.

http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/1376/wtc7smoke1resizesmalleruz1.jpg

In the photo above, the dark smoke indicates a relatively
low-temperature, oxygen-deprived fire. This type of fire
doesn't burn hot enough to weaken steel girders encased
in flame retardant material.

The photo below shows an example of a skyscraper totally
enveloped in a high-temperature fire. This building burned like
a torch at 1500 degrees Fahrenheit -- but didn't collapse.

Compare this real inferno with the "invisible inferno" that
caused Building 7 to collapse. If you look at the photo of
Building 7, with so much smoke, wouldn't you expect to see
some flames through the 150 windows visible in the photo?
But we don't see even a hint of flames, let alone an inferno,
through any of the windows.

http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/123/wtc7madridfirevc2.jpg

If the fires inside Building 7 were hot enough and widespread
enough to cause a global collapse, wouldn't we expect to see
more flames through the windows? How widespread could this
"inferno" have been if all photos of Building 7 show only small,
localized office fires on a few floors, as in the photo below.

http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/7346/wtc7smallfiresmq4.jpg

Abnormalia

10-27-2006, 08:40 PM

subnormal...you're a competitive sort...you accuse me of being a conspiracy nut for reporting the facts, then you double up on what you say is my conspiracy, to now proclaim that it is actually a conspiracy to appear to be a conspiracy...perpetrated by that government I accused of orchestrating the operation, to make it look like that actually orchestrated the operation.

All to impress the world of their strength????

It's a sign of our times that you are running around loose...in better days, they would have put the net over you and you'd be packed away...harmless to yourself and others.

Stefan

It would be truth to say you're far behind the times.

I wan't aware they allowed internet use in the secure areas of nursing homes?

I'm a little worried myself. To this day there are people who say there was more than one shooter at the assassination of Kennedy. Imagine when i'm 40 and there are people still discussing the twin towers as a huge government conspiracy.

Too bad you'll probably be dead by then Stefan :(

Abnormalia

10-27-2006, 08:46 PM

In the three photos above, it looks like thick smoke is pouring
out of most of the floors on the south side of WTC Building 7. You're absolutely insane. Yes Betty, the smoke from the trade tower ruins magically rose up in a complete vertical line following the exact edge of WTC 7, and then drifted off to the right, at the exact height of WTC 7. Yes dear.

Your arguments have fallen faster than a building being demolished with explosives.

Betty Blowtorch

10-28-2006, 12:38 AM

Your arguments have fallen faster than a building
being demolished with explosives.
You mean like...
http://img241.imageshack.us/img241/2183/wtc7smallgj2.gif
Building 7?

Moby

10-28-2006, 02:47 AM

You mean like...
http://img241.imageshack.us/img241/2183/wtc7smallgj2.gif
Building 7?
Betty, you have to excuse Abnormalia. He thinks he understands things that he reads about them for a few seconds but doesn't have any clue how they actually function. This is very clear when he uses statements like this without understanding anything about the person he's saying them to.
However, have you ever remembered what is was like being laughed at in class because you insisted your answer was correct, but later found out it was wrong? You're probably reliving that right now.
I get the impression that he is a professor or an intellectual some place where he gets to argue with people that are much younger and much less educated then him. So far he seems totally unable to debate at a level based on fact or knowledge.

Don't bang your head on the wall for someone that does not have the ability to comprehend even simple technologies as the one quoted above.

stefan segal

10-28-2006, 12:01 PM

Interesting insider view on 9/11...+ aword to the wise about google.

Stefan

Former Intelligence Agent Says Google In Bed With CIA
Steele also sounds off on 9/11 doubts

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/october2006/271006googlecia.htm

Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet.com | October 27 2006

A former clandestine services officer for the CIA who also maintains close relationships with top Google representatives says that the company is "in bed with" the intelligence agency and the U.S. government.

He has also gone public on his deep suspicions about the official explanation behind 9/11.
Robert David Steele appeared on the nationally syndicated Alex Jones radio show and began by voicing his deep doubts about the official 9/11 story.

While Steele stopped short of saying 9/11 was a complete inside job, he agreed that the evidence points to the overwhelming complicity of the Bush administration.

"The U.S. government did not properly investigate this and there are more rocks to be turned over," said Steele adding,

"I'm absolutely certain that WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolition and that as far as I'm concerned means that this case has not been properly investigated."

"There's no way that building could have come down without controlled demolition."

Steele pointed the finger of suspicion directly at the Vice President saying, "There's no question in my own mind that Dick Cheney is the tar baby in this whole thing."

Steele outlined the bizarre circumstances preceding the attack that would have greased the skids for bombs to be planted in the buildings.

"You do have the whole issue of the security cameras being disengaged, the bomb sniffing dogs being removed, the family ties with Bush - I mean if you smell a rotten fish there's probably a rotten fish somewhere around."

Steele's biography is impressive. He was the second-ranking civilian (GS-14) in U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence from 1988-1992. Steele is a former clandestine services case officer for the Central Intelligence Agency.
He is the founder and president of Open Source Solutions, Inc., and is an acknowledged expert on computer and information vulnerabilities. Steele holds graduate degrees in International Relations and Public Administration from Leigh University and the University of Oklahoma. He has also earned certificates in Intelligence Policy from Harvard University and in Defense Studies from the Naval War College.

Before the 2004 election Steele advocated the re-election of George W Bush and he has been cited by numerous Republican luminaries as a credible source. His testimony is added to the chorus of other credible 9/11 whistleblowers both in and out of government and academia.

Steele raised eyebrows when he confirmed from his contacts within the CIA and Google that Google was working in tandem with "the agency," a claim made especially volatile by the fact that Google was recently caught censoring Alex Jones' Terror Storm and has targeted other websites for blackout in the past.

"I think that Google has made a very important strategic mistake in dealing with the secret elements of the U.S. government - that is a huge mistake and I'm hoping they'll work their way out of it and basically cut that relationship off," said the ex-CIA man.

"Google was a little hypocritical when they were refusing to honor a Department of Justice request for information because they were heavily in bed with the Central Intelligence Agency, the office of research and development," said Steele.

Steele called for more scrutiny to be placed on Google if it continues to engage in nefarious practices, saying, "If Google is indeed starting to do harm then I think it's important that be documented and publicized

Betty Blowtorch

10-28-2006, 02:45 PM

The murder of 3000 people on 9-11 was the crime of the century,
but the steel girders from the collapsed buildings were hauled away
to foreign countries like China to be melted down and recycled --
without subjecting the steel to intensive forensic examination
for the presence of explosive residue.

This was a severe breach of crime scene investigation procedures
and is very suspicious.

And the name of the contractor that performed the cover-up...
er... uh... I mean, clean-up:

Controlled Demolition, Inc.

Abnormalia

10-28-2006, 04:09 PM

You mean like...
http://img241.imageshack.us/img241/2183/wtc7smallgj2.gif
Building 7?

God forbid that a collapsing building would use gravity to bring itself down. Gravity is illegal in 47 countries for the collapse of a building. Something obviously illegal was going on on 9/11. We must arrest this gravity!

Abnormalia

10-28-2006, 04:12 PM

Betty Blowtorch

10-28-2006, 04:47 PM

God forbid that a collapsing building would use gravity
to bring itself down.
Gravity is illegal in 47 countries for the collapse of a building.
Something obviously illegal was going on on 9/11.

We must arrest this gravity!
Yes indeed.

Gravity is illegal in Spain. That's why the Windsor Building,
totally consumed by a 1500-degree inferno that reduced
the building to a steel skeleton, failed to collapse.

http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/7058/wtc7911madridfireqn4.jpg

http://img56.imageshack.us/img56/7167/wtc7911madridfire2so5.jpg

http://img111.imageshack.us/img111/7083/wtc7911madridfire4resizsc2.jpg

All of us must write our congressmen and demand that they
outlaw gravity, so our buildings won't collapse. We can't allow
ourselves to be outdone by those frickin' Spaniards, can we?

http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/3246/wtc7smallpb1.gif

Betty Blowtorch

10-28-2006, 05:15 PM

Ahhh, you're already spouting a complete lie. The girders were examined.
Controlled Demolition, Inc is recognized as the best cleanup/salvage
company in the world.
You've sold me. Can I buy stock in the company?

Thanks for playing, go back to watching X-files.
I never got into that show. Never been a big fan of David Duchovny.
Sorry.

exarmyranger

10-28-2006, 06:31 PM

I gotta say,sorry Betty.But, "that dog wo'nt hunt" as a responce to the latest WTC conspiracy therory I have heard...Abnormal is correct in stating(1)the the main support (as well as all load bearing beam's)were tested for residule deposit's that would ID them as plasicque,thermalite,or (as one therory suggest's)a few micro nuke's...Insofar as Mr.Steele and his C.S.R.of G-14 being the 2nd highest rank,that is true...Mr.Steele and over 500 other civillian desk jockey's,employed by "The Company" during the same time period.You can gold plate a pile of crap...but it's still a pile of crap.

stefan segal

10-28-2006, 07:04 PM

exarmyranger...come up with evidence the steel was inspected...All the information I found on the subject...the steel was cordoned off and armed guards kept everyone way from it until it was hauled off to Staten Island...where it was again isolated with armed guards, until shipped to China to be melted down.

Another story floated around about some of the steel to North Carolina or some such, to build into a ship called 'liberty' or 'freedom'...or maybe clean air...insults all. I read it, but , but there isn't much a shipyard can do with fabricated 1 inch high tensile steel...so it is most likely just more disinformation, and all the steel is in China.

So if you could post the report, and the independant lab that tested it so we can tack down who pays them...your post may have merit

Otherwise, you can post a report and simply give up what the gov paid the novelist to create it...so we can all get a laugh...I appreciate expensive lies more than the ones the aids run off.

Stefan

exarmyranger

10-28-2006, 07:56 PM

Stefan,do you play poker?Called my hand...And Raised me with documented lab result's.I'll have to fold,and do some research before the next hand.Stick to your gun's.

Abnormalia

10-29-2006, 01:06 AM

Oh, you mean that 32 story building that wasn't hit by an airliner that didn't have it's supports damaged by such an impact, and wasn't subjected to tons of jet fuel. Ah, THAT building, now I remember.

Pass the pipe Betty

Abnormalia

10-29-2006, 01:08 AM

I'm a very disturbed person

Medication Stefan, medication.

stefan segal

10-29-2006, 08:23 AM

subnormal... if you must lick your flyweight, meaningless spore, on every thread in play, then at least acknowledge the necessary boundaries inherent to this form of discourse.

I didn't call you on the last "quote" of "mine" that you posted in blue, where you edited and made comments in the body of what I was...according to you, supposed to have said. (Actually I was sort of numbed...as I've never run into such an asshole cheat who flaunts their cheating so openly).

This "quote" you listed as supposedly mine ["I'm a very disturbed person"]...is a thing I would have never in two lifetimes have said.

I could very well have have referred to you... as a very disturbed person....but I don't believe I would have said that either, because I don't believe you are disturbed...I think you are a child with a handful of bugs in your pocket in the girls locker room...in other words...an overgrown asshole.

Subnormal...let me attempt to make a window for you to see into areas you have no means to glean pertinent knowledge:

Discourse beween people...people and groups, produce varied levels of appreciation among the listeners. Take Bill Moyers...I cried listening to him on the television the other day...while others, who listened to him may have heard any other level on the spectrum, from moving to garbage, hearing the same words from the same man's mouth.

There are multiple reasons for this dispariety, but the two main reasons are, that one: their mind is already set immovably on the subject...referred to as having one's cup full, and unable to receive new data or ideas, and the other, is the reason I brought this subject up...and that is: that the listener can only take from the speaker to the limit of their own capacities...

To make this figurative, just to be sure you don't miss this pivotal point: It's like a non-musician picking up a Stradivarious, saws on it a few times, and puts it down in disgust, saying all the big deal about the Strads is bullshit...and more than confident in his assessment because he had the Strad in his own hands.

I hope you understand the above, because I wrote it out for you to glimpse yourself as other might see you (I...for sure!).

In this arrangement (life amongst others), we all have varied capacities, varied values and tastes, meaning that we expend our time and interests in varied pursuits...meaning an extensive knowledge base in some areas, an ignorance, or close to it, in others

This self evident inequality of capacities has somehow passed you by unnoticed...and that coupled with the notion that at base, at least, you have intelligence, you, being your own judge and jury, have placed yourself higher, rather than lower the mean, as an arbitar of reality.

The real problem with this, subnormal, is that you can only judge yourself and others by your own levels of comprehension...

this problem, seems to be rather pleasant for you, and only a problem for others, as you place yourself above the mean...not realising that the "mean" you are working with in your judgements, is limited and a factor of, your own awareness...which I have referred to on many occaisions, as 'subnormal'

But you cannot see that for youself, because you know for a fact, you are above the mean...you had the Strad in your own hands and tested it.

Stefan

Betty Blowtorch

10-29-2006, 01:24 PM

This "quote" you listed as supposedly mine ["I'm a very disturbed
person"] is a thing I would have never in two lifetimes have said.
Thanks for clarifying that. When I first read the quote, I wondered
if it was an actual quote or made up. I skimmed through the thread,
looking for where Stefan called himself "a very disturbed person."
When I couldn't find the quote, I began to suspect it was made up.

While it's OK to edit someone else's statements, it's definitely cheating
to make up a phony quote. In Abnormalia's defense, I think he was
going for witty sarcasm rather than making a serious mental health
assessment. He's a chemistry student, not a psych major.

I'm all for light-hearted sarcasm.http://img236.imageshack.us/img236/4413/avatargremlinanimationca5.gif
It's certainly preferable to angry flame jobs.http://img118.imageshack.us/img118/460/avatarpsychocatqz2.gif

Since there are polls showing that half of America is suspicious of
government complicity in 9-11, it's arrogant to dismiss the skeptics
as a "lunatic fringe" or "loonies" or "conspiracy nuts."

The "conspiracy nuts" could just as easily refer to the "true believers"
as "good Germans" or "good little Nazis" who obediently adhere to the
official party line and support Bush's so-called "war on terror."

The 9-11 debate keeps going around and around, an endless series
of dueling links, battling websites, contradictory studies, arguments,
photos, videos, etc...
Doesn't seem worth getting too worked up over.http://img121.imageshack.us/img121/4690/avatarfunkyroosterzx4.gif

stefan segal

10-29-2006, 01:50 PM

I dissagree with the last sentence...it is worth every effort to show without a centillium of doubt that cheney/butch engineered this hit on the US and it's citizens, for political and financial motives.

It is only through a massive grass roots effort, will these psychotic murders ever wind up against the wall, where they justly deserve to be...ten times over.

That one person or another, pertaining to this list doesn't agree, is the best possible outcome. Each contrary response is the opportunity to dig deeper into more telling evidence.

Of course, an idiot blowing rasberries at every third post, is just something one endures...like rain or stepping in dogshit...no measurable value to the furtherance of the discussion.

As exarmyranger said: "how dull it would be if everyone would agree."...it would, and if everyone agreed that bush was guilty, then not even a third of the copy listed in this thread, could have gotten exposure.

As it stands...with all this energetic opposition, there are over a thousand more lurkers than posters...all these readers are weighing the arguments for both sides in their own minds...this is exactly what is needed...a close look at the facts...then the bush lies will be exposed for what they are.

Stefan
Ps...Betty...you said that nun was wearing vinyle...I suspect she must also have magnets hidden somewhere on her person, because my eyes keep drifting back to her like a compass...one of life's mysteries:)

stefan segal

10-29-2006, 02:46 PM

Here's a trick worthy of David Copperfield:

Stefan

http://home.att.net/~south.tower/STengine1.htm

We teamed up with the Karl Schwarz group to identify the NYC street engine as a CFM56, the powerplant of the Boeing 737:
Originally, the government claimed the second jetliner en route to Los Angeles was a 767 Boeing. However, Schwarz said the video will not only show the airline dimensions to be that of a 737, but that he also has evidence that the engine recovered in the WTC wreckage was a model type CFM56, which propels a 737 not a 767.

South Tower Flight UA175 Drops WRONG Engine In NYC Street
By Jon Carlson

In a Nutshell alleged Flight UA175, a Boeing 767-200, with four napalm bombs attached struck World Trade Center work areas as shown in this photo with full force igniting one napalm bomb inside a work area, shooting another napalm bomb and an engine through such a work area and out the back wall. That napalm bomb exploded past the wall and the engine landed in a NYC street.

To get up to speed on the South Tower 'Event', VIEW:
The South Tower Crash Videos:
COMMON ELEMENTS

This photo depicts the route of the engine that dropped on a police car at Church & Murray Streets:

A Witness said engine landed on a car.
I immediately tell everyone to get out of the car and hide somewhere... There was a police car... on the corner there and some debris comes down... and it just crushes it... It looked like part of an engine. It was pretty big. It was probably the size of the hood because it kind of hit it, bounced, and then rolled off.

Abnormalia

10-29-2006, 03:36 PM

You've gone past retarded. Both of you.

Betty Blowtorch

10-29-2006, 04:10 PM

You've gone past retarded. Both of you.
First you said I was insane. Now you say I'm retarded.

Thank you, Dr. Freud.http://img79.imageshack.us/img79/4885/avatareinsteinir7.jpg

exarmyranger

10-29-2006, 06:58 PM

First you said I was insane. Now you say I'm retarded.

Thank you, Dr. Freud.http://img79.imageshack.us/img79/4885/avatareinsteinir7.jpg
Umm,Betty the (img.)pic.is Albert Einstien,E=Mc sq.Freud(siggy to his familly&friend's)wore a van dyke style beard,and as far as I know never stuck his tounge out,with the exception of saying AHHH for his anual check-up...

Abnormalia

10-29-2006, 07:41 PM

I don't think Betty knows the different between ass or eye, army.

Betty Blowtorch

10-29-2006, 08:51 PM

Umm, Betty the (img.) pic is Albert Einstien
I hate to break it to you, but... yeah, I know.
And the name is spelled Einstein, not Einstien,
but I'm nitpicking.

The way the Einstein pic is supposed to work is:
Einstein is sticking his tongue out at Dr. Freud
and sarcastically saying "Thank you, Dr. Freud"
as though he's making fun of him.

The underlying meaning is that it's me (Einstein)
sticking my tongue out at Abnormal (Dr. Freud).
See how that works? Pheww!! Guess it sailed
right over your head.
http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/6465/planeincomingwf5.gif

I like the fact that pictures can be ambiguous
and taken in different ways.

Anyway, I suppose Stefan is getting frustrated
because we're going off-topic and goofing off
while he's trying to pursue a serious debate.

http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/5140/avatarralphpastefb4.gif

Abnormalia

10-29-2006, 11:00 PM

This reminds me of a known definition of 'delusion':

"A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everybody else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture (e.g. it is not an article of religious faith).

Stefan, you seriously need help man. You're a mirror image of that definition.

Actually..you might more fit the definition of having a 'monothematic delusion' (unless there are other delusions you possess).

stefan segal

10-29-2006, 11:33 PM

stefan segal

10-29-2006, 11:47 PM

Subnormal...you are a tedious person...have you ever heard of 9/11...do you have anything to say about it...like something to add.

What is your point with personal attacks?

They have no place in this discussion about 9/11.

If you are suffering from a compulsion that won't allow you to think about anything else but me...then open a thread...you can be the psychoanylist, and paste labels on everyone when you get the urge to.

In that way, you can be an asshole all by yourself.

I've been listening to some of the repug smear adds, and found it curious how they project their own character flaws on others...it's really laughable that they don't recognized themselves in their wild accusations.

The funny thing about all your lame limpdick attacks on my character and mental capacities, is that you are the conspiracy freak...not me.

Bush took the buildings down, and is doing flips to hide his conspiracy.

I, on the other hand, have not conspired to do anyone or any country harm, and so don't qualify for a conspiracist.

Look that up in the same book you copied out of word for word, when adding delusional to your vocabulary...just one word a day...and in about twenty years, you might have a passible vocabulary...not that you would know what to do with them...being an emoter rather than a thinker.

That you have responded to none of my questions thus far...I don't expect you to answer these questions either...saying you are the conspiracist between the two of us, might not appear (?) with proper identification...but if you disagree with my position...then for you, it is in question.

That you aid and abet the butch murders, makes you complicite in their conspiracy, and thus a conspiracist. Of course you won't go up against the wall with those murderers, as anyone could see at a glance, that you're non compos mentis...and they'd just kick you to the curb.

Still, you ought to change your pitch to better fit the existing fact that you are a closet conspiracist fighting for the butch cause.

Stefan

Abnormalia

10-30-2006, 01:44 AM

The thread has 21 pages Stefan. Your, and other conspiracy theorists claims, have been refuted in those 21 pages. Your posts are beginning to show a jumbled and shaky typing style. Get some help man, seriously.

stefan segal

10-30-2006, 09:37 AM

You'd better look up "refute" in that dictionary of yours...tantrums,bitching and whining, does not 'refute' anything...

All your efforts to refute anything, has had the net effect to demonstrate, that you and your ilk, though loud, low rent, and insulting, couldn't begin to process data to arrive at an aggregate conclusion gleaned from the weight of evidence...in fact, your truth of this event and who orchestrated it, rather misses the point...in your calculations...it's the result enabling attack which is the proper answer...and truth be damned (right along side of our Constitution)

I cannot describe a more antithetical relationship, (that means...something like mongoose and cobra) than that complete and utter contempt in which I hold that class of thinker/non...in which neo-cons fit squarely at their center...

Subnormal...don't include yourself in this group...I see you as neophite wannabe, without the juice to be accepted by the pack of black-belt liars and assholes of which I speak...your belt, is something like a sick pink.

Your bleatings, which you offer as commentary, tend to theme-back to the mental health field...it caused me to wonder why.

Don't waste you time and money with those people...research adult ADD, and follow what techniques they offer to cope.

I play with you, mostly for my own entertainment, (but in some instances...I feel I must remedy your outrageous slanders),

but actually thinking about your performance as you have displayed in these multiple threads, you appear to be a person who desperately needs acceptence, and will say anything that might gain you that acceptence, but your ADD looms an ever-present sword over your neck...threatening to expose your condition.

Subnormal, everyone whores for acceptence at one time or another...not to their (my) credit...it's a big and normal need, that in our society, has a dearth of venues where that acceptence can be demonstrated...sex, being the obvious... and the game where most of life's meaningful risks are taken...so don't feel pregnant...all of life shares your dirty little secret

Every person chooses a game-plan they feel is their best chance at encouraging the group/herd acceptence...this is done in one's formative years...the very different siblings...the scold, the comedian, the fuck-up...and so on...we all choose what appears to be the best approach to get us what we need.

lthough this is normal growth development, I'd like to take this opportunity to mention that the particular stance you've chosen, should be taken back to the drawing board...because it's irretating.

If your game pivots upon singling the odd man out in the group, and relentlessly mock him...making that person less in the eyes of the group, while yurself gaining stature to a like amount or more...as a tribute to your bottomless ingenuity...guess again...people have moved on since your school days...your devices, rather than gleaning admiration, are resulting in wuite the opposite...so take a second look.

Now that I see you in a different light, I will not swap insults with you further...as I feel it is unseemly of me to do so.

If you want dialogue with me, it must be impersonal and on point...otherwize, you don't exist morer than the buzzing of flies.

Stefan

Abnormalia

10-30-2006, 03:28 PM

Alright Stefan, I’m going to make at least one attempt at turning your bloated posts into actual language. Here’s my translation:

Your posts haven’t refuted anything. Your posts haven’t refuted anything because you are stupid. I am strongly against people who believe things other than my beliefs. You are stupid. You are stupid. A metaphor that says you’re stupid. Your attempts at argument are stupid. You are young and stupid. Your mocking me is a sign that you are young and stupid. If will no longer be insulting you because I will now be ignoring you.

Alrighty then, now I can attempt to answer you.

You are a seemingly disturbed person who looks for answers when there are no questions. Upon finding no explanation you make one up from obscure or false testimony and from your own view of events, which do not reflect what a myriad of experts on the subject have commonly believed. You are no different than the whining children you claim to hate, instead veiling your tantrums behind multi-paragraphed dialogues of wide vocabulary that could easily have been summed up in a few sentences. You are a delusional person who couldn’t be convinced that President Bush doesn’t rape children for fun. The refutation of your insane claims lie within the ~200 posts in this thread. Roughly two dozen Islamic extremists caused 9/11, and no one else.

Get medical help!

Betty Blowtorch

10-30-2006, 06:26 PM

All right, you guys. Play nice or else...

http://img79.imageshack.us/img79/79/soupnazirb6.jpg
No soup for you!!

exarmyranger

10-30-2006, 06:28 PM

I hate to break it to you, but... yeah, I know.
And the name is spelled Einstein, not Einstien,
but I'm nitpicking.

The way the Einstein pic is supposed to work is:
Einstein is sticking his tongue out at Dr. Freud
and sarcastically saying "Thank you, Dr. Freud"
as though he's making fun of him.

The underlying meaning is that it's me (Einstein)
sticking my tongue out at Abnormal (Dr. Freud).
See how that works? Pheww!! Guess it sailed
right over your head.
http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/6465/planeincomingwf5.gif

I like the fact that pictures can be ambiguous
and taken in different ways.

Anyway, I suppose Stefan is getting frustrated
because we're going off-topic and goofing off
while he's trying to pursue a serious debate.

http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/5140/avatarralphpastefb4.gif
Well thanx for clearing that up...So when are you and Stefan getting hooked up?You guy's really may as well face it...Your crazy about each other.

Betty Blowtorch

10-30-2006, 07:41 PM

Well thanx for clearing that up...So when are you
and Stefan getting hooked up? You guy's really
may as well face it...Your crazy about each other.
http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/8681/avatarbitchxx5.jpg

You must have me confused with
Der Fuhrer:
http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9550/bushjeffec4.png
Georgie and Jeff, sitting in a tree,
F - U - C - K - I - N - G

Betty Blowtorch

10-30-2006, 08:14 PM

Fellas, Fellas!!
Can't we just...

Betty Blowtorch

10-30-2006, 08:15 PM

I say, can't we just

Betty Blowtorch

10-30-2006, 08:15 PM

Can't we all just
get along?

http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/7005/rodneykingbeatupjk3.png

Abnormalia

10-30-2006, 08:31 PM

Of course Betty.

stefan segal

10-30-2006, 08:56 PM

You must have me confused with
Der Fuhrer:

Georgie and Jeff, sitting in a tree,
F - U - C - K - I - N - G
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Betty...I must be slow, but what are you inferring with your comment?

Are you impuning my gender preferences...my politics...or my lack of generasl appeal?

Questioning minds would like to know :)

Stefan

Betty Blowtorch

10-30-2006, 10:20 PM

Betty...I must be slow, but what are you inferring with
your comment? Are you impuning my gender preferences...
my politics...or my lack of general appeal?
It wasn't directed at you. It was a reference to the
Jeff Gannon scandal.

http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=65&contentid=2123

http://oldamericancentury.org/gannon.htm

It seemed like Army wanted to play the "gay card"http://img75.imageshack.us/img75/9646/bananaslapuc2.gif

so I called his bet and raised.http://img75.imageshack.us/img75/5504/avatarroyalflushai5.gif

stefan segal

10-30-2006, 10:53 PM

Betty...are you male???

Man...I really must be slow!

Stefan

Betty Blowtorch

10-30-2006, 11:42 PM

Betty...are you male???
Of course. I assumed everyone was aware of that.

I take it you didn't see my post in the "Show your Wheels"
thread: http://dcjunkies.com/showthread.php?t=18

Betty Blowtorch is the name of a defunct all-girl rock band
whose lead singer was killed by a drunk driver.

http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/65/bettyblowtorchny9.jpg

You can sample their songs on CDuniverse.com:
http://www.cduniverse.com/productinfo.asp?pid=1874524&BAB=Z

stefan segal

10-31-2006, 12:04 AM

No I didn't see it...but it's good I found out before I actually fell in love...I'm a pushover for quick witted females...I love the challenge.

Well no harm done...I managed to preserve my purity.

Do you have a sister?

Stefan

Abnormalia

10-31-2006, 12:05 AM

Betty, you burst my wet dreams about you, i'm a hollow person now.

In other news, this thread is by far the largest and most viewed thread on this website. Congratulations!

stefan segal

10-31-2006, 12:26 AM

subnormal...I know just what happened to you...you got the vinyl nun somehow mixed up with your image of betty...now I guess you want to know how I knew...well...I'm psychic :)

Stefan

stefan segal

11-01-2006, 10:57 AM

It appears that nonsense is killing the beast.

In an attempt to ressusitate this very important thread, I submit this below:

Stefan

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html

Forensic Metallurgy
Metallurgical Examination of WTC Steel Suggests Explosives :

Although virtually all of the structural steel from the Twin Towers and Building 7 was removed and destroyed, preventing forensic analysis, FEMA's volunteer investigators did manage to perform "limited metallurgical examination" of some of the steel before it was recycled.

Their observations, including numerous micrographs, are recorded in Appendix C of the WTC Building Performance Study. Prior to the release of FEMA's report, a fire protection engineer and two science professors published a brief report in JOM disclosing some of this evidence.

1 Â The results of the examination are striking. They reveal a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused "intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese.

" The New York Times described this as "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation."

2 Â WPI provides a graphic summary of the phenomenon.
A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges--which are curled like a paper scroll--have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes--some larger than a silver dollar--let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange.

This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending--but not holes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Read the whole artical to learn the amazing new properties of kerosene fires...strange that such a destructive fuel would be introduced into our very delicate and expensive jet engines...think of all that corrosive power!

Abnormalia

11-01-2006, 06:30 PM

1. I've never heard of this before
2. The source is questionable
3. You're using 'voluntary investigators' and 'science professors' as the source? How vague.
4. Pictures?
5. Proof?
6. Scientific Analysis?
7. What are you implying by this?

stefan segal

11-01-2006, 09:54 PM

stefan segal

11-01-2006, 10:03 PM

Talking too much and fogot to supply the links:)

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm

CLimited Metallurgical Examination
C.1 Introduction
Two structural steel members with unusual erosion patterns were observed in the WTC debris field. The first appeared to be from WTC 7 and the second from either WTC 1 or WTC 2. Samples were taken from these beams and labeled Sample 1 and Sample 2, respectively. A metallurgic examination was conducted.
C.2 Sample 1 (From WTC 7)
Several regions in the section of the beam shown in Figures C-1 and C-2 were examined to determine microstructural changes that occurred in the A36 structural steel as a result of the events of September 11, 2001, and the subsequent fires. Although the exact location of this beam in the building was not known, the severe erosion found in several beams warranted further consideration. In this preliminary study, optical and scanning electron metallography techniques were used to examine the most severely eroded regions as exemplified in the metallurgical mount shown in Figure C-3. Evidence of a severe high temperature
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Root around the hyperlinks...there's a whole world of circles within circles.

Abnormalia

11-02-2006, 02:42 AM

Glad you asked...not only do I have all this listed material, I dug deeper into all the associated links...it's a lot bigger...with a whole lot more players...scarey that it hasn't blown open as yet.

It is the first I heard of it too...and I don't know what to do with the information...it's enough to shake my faith in nuclear and begin to think scaler weapons.

Stefan

Like a star about to go supernova, we are witnessing an in-depth look at a conspiracy theorist about to change theories. Amazing!

Here it goes!

Anyways, the science looks sound, but the conclusion comes out of nowhere. It looks like the steel got very hot, and burned away.

You do know steel can burn right?

stefan segal

11-02-2006, 09:42 AM

I know a lot abouit steel...I first forge-welded steel on my own forge at 16...yes I know about burning steel...burning anything if the temps. are suffucient, but what has sort of coldcocked me, is that the steel didn't reach those temperatures...1800 f. is a base melting point for only certan steels, and the mass of steel 1100 feet of fabrication with 1'' nominal crossection, would draw off too much heat for any localized damage as photos depict...

Another thing, the steel did look like two months in an acid bath...which isn't possible. The mental image I got was was that of ice under a hair dryer...which brought to mind a fluidic action like that of hot air or any other fluidic collision and energy transfer...such as a scaler ray.

What actually puzzles me the most is all the sulfur. The sulfur had to introduced to the chemical/structural change.

Thermate does this, adding sulfur to lower the fusion limit of steel, but there's two facts against thermate.

The first being the amount of sulfur found would, if allotted to the thermite formula, would be huge and uncontrolable and the tower would have collapesd like a tree with it's base cut off.

The second thing is that heat transfer is so hot and so quick, that it would have become molten at the epicenter, and like taffy going away from it, while instantly experiencing the weight of 100 stories of tower...but the metal was not deformed, but diamentionally degraded.

Of course, like reverse engineering a layer cake, one could add a nuke here, and some thermate there...a dash of cutter charges with a jet fuel and napalm topping...but the timing and logistics grow with each added element, beyond fantastic.

There is no doubt that the crew that took these towers down were cutting edge...(so to speak)...the best of the best...but there are limits...even with computerized timing execution of the charges...there remains a limit to an approach to perfection...and this demolition was as close to perfection as anyone knowlegible could imagine.

I'm not letting go of a nuke altogether, because with a nuke blast, radiation...meaning generated energy wave, is so fast, that it vaporiizes, rather than pushes (as happens in a conventional concussion wave) outward...of which we saw scant evidence in the vids....and that vaporization of people, steel and concrete, is a requirement for our findings.

Now, I'm not adverse to the same ultra high speed energy wave, still vaporizing everything, but now produced by some generating device not a bomb, but a focused "exhausting" of minescule fusion reactions.

There is no possibility of feeding the amout of electricity into a device to convert a like amount of energy for a scaler weapon needed for the level destruction displayed...so I must assume a controlled fusion device renamed a scaler weapon.

Tesla speaks of a device harnessing huge energies at the convergence of two beams (energy drawn from the vacuume type thing), but that would have taken out NYC and the towers.

Fission is the only energy source available to equal the job description.

Used as a bomb. or focused as a ray...its immaterial to me...so don't go fast and loose about us conspirecists...we hang in there through thick and thin:)

Stefan

Abnormalia

11-02-2006, 03:52 PM

Perhaps the government introduced some iron eating bacteria into the base of the tower many months or years ahead of the attacks?

http://www.xs4all.nl/~carlkop/ironeat.html
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=15245

Engineering the bacteria to live on land can be done. They could have been easily introduced unnoticed, monitered infrequently, and would create the same effect seen above. Plus, they'd be completely burned away without a trace during and after the attacks. Thoughts?

stefan segal

11-02-2006, 04:26 PM

Subnormal...I thought you were joking until I read the links...I knew about the hydrocarbon eating bacteria, but never guessed about iron...especially attractive is the iron/sulphate cycle...but as for serious inquery as to the WTC destruction...I'm afraid not...very interesting and great for discovering an unknown possible cause, but no.

First, Rove would have to teach them to act like good repugs...in other words, like a herd...then teach them a few simple commands...like start..stop...and vote.

But the main problem other than the deal breaker, which is you can't slowly weaken the base structure without the whole thing falling down of it's own choosing, but secondly they're anerobic...difficult to create behind sheetrock walls etc.

Here's a Fema report snippet:

Destruction of the Towers' Steel Remains
The only constituents of the Twin Towers that survived the "collapses" in the form of recognizable pieces of any size were their metal parts, such as pieces of structural steel and aluminum cladding.

1 Â Virtually all the non-metallic parts of the towers and their contents were converted to microscopic dust particles or small unrecognizable fragments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
There's more to the report, but the snippet is enough for you to know that no metal-chomping-maggots are going to convert 2700 people,millions of tons of masonry and glass into "microscopic particals of dust".

It takes some very high energy to do that...not a malfunctioning Bic, as the Butch crew would force you to believe.

Stefan

Abnormalia

11-02-2006, 06:01 PM

It is thought more as 'insurance' that the towers fell. Thus only found in several key places. Just a thought, though.

stefan segal

11-02-2006, 07:18 PM

Here's another theory...I don't put much stock in it, but it has an interesting feature that bypasses the exquisite timing that has so wowed me, and makes it much simpler...dropping a reflector down the elevator shaft so it preceeds the collapsing floors, dropping at the same rate of gravity as does the building, but preceeding it by one floor to vaporize the people so their remains don't interfer with the rate of fall

Stefan

.http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/theories/thermalbomb.html

Radiant Projectiles
Theory that Radiant Energy Projectiles Falling Through Core Shafts Destroyed the Twin Towers
Careful analysis of the progression of frame shattering in the early parts of both the South and North Tower collapses shows an interesting feature: the wave of destruction, relative to a stationary frame of reference, appears to first move upward past the impact zone, slow, and then follow the top down as it starts to fall.
This feature suggests a fanciful theory of demolition involving projectiles falling through elevator shafts, having either been released from a position near the impact zone, or hurled up from the basement with enough force to reach the impact zone before starting to fall. The projectiles would be timed to begin radiating intense energy just as they started to fall.
Radiant projectiles might have been part of a system involving a directed energy weapon. For example, a buried reactor could have focused much of the energy from some kind of reactor into a focused vertical beam, coaxial with the trajectory of a projectile. The projectile could have been designed to absorb energy from the beam, and re-radiate it. The reactor would be timed to start just as the projectile approached the impact zone. The reactor and projectile might have been designed to survive for only a few seconds before disintegrating.
Each Tower may have have been rigged with two such systems, as a backup against failure. In that case, the two may have been launched either simultaneously, or in a slightly staggered manner.
Problems with the Radiant Projectiles Theory
The most obvious problem with this theory is its lack of detail, without which its technical feasability cannot be evaluated. What form of energy would the projectiles radiate? Could that energy produce the observed pattern of destruction? What would be the power source?
A specific problem with the theory is that it is challenged to explain how the North Tower was not noticably damaged by the collapse of the South Tower, just 120 feet away. If the energy emmanating from the projectiles was strong enough to shatter the South Tower's perimeter walls, wouldn't it have been strong enough to at least visibly damage the closest parts of the North Tower's perimeter walls, which were only slightly more that twice as far from the projectiles?

Abnormalia

11-02-2006, 09:37 PM

Alright, my full idea of 9/11 has just come to light.

For months, iron eating bacteria were weakening the structure of the south tower, while the other tower was chilling. Somewhere in the there, a mininuclearsuperenergyprojectedexplosion device was disguised as a large client server and wheeled to the basement because it was a defunct model anyhow. Then the nano-thermite mini robots invaded the other tower and set themselves into the weakest part of the building. Once 9/11 happened, President Bush read my pet goat to the children, promptly raped them, and had them killed (except for one which the VP also raped and ate at a feast celebrating the attacks). Then, remote control helicopters with wings and fuel tanks were flown into the towers from Bush's mind control beams which were helped along by the nanothermite bots. Then, Bush went to the bathroom after raping the children to clean up, which promptly broke the mind control beam which then caused the thermite bots to forget what they were doing, quickly become depressed, and commit suicide, which brought down the towers. Then President Bush regained his evil mental powers, saw what had happened, and quickly exploded tower 7 with his mind bullets. Then he and Cheney raped more children before making a press conference.

It's all so clear to me now. I must go out and spread the word of these atrocities!!!

stefan segal

11-03-2006, 09:06 AM

If conspiracy is such a big joke...then why the desperate coverup...or is it you only do clown acts?

Stefan

http://911research.wtc7.net/post911/probes.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Various (Non)Investigations

Knowledgeable officials who were paying attention to the news on September 11th would have known by the end of the day that the events of that day included the following:

·The largest failure in airport security, and first quadruple hijacking (with primitive weapons) in history.
·

Multiple and unprecedented failures to follow standard operating procedures in the interception of off-course aircraft.
·

The largest failure of the military to defend civilian life and property in the country's history.

·The failure to defend two of the most recognized terrorist targets despite adequate warning times.

·The three largest structural failures in recorded history: the total collapses of 1, 2, and 7 World Trade Center

·The only collapses of high-rise buildings in United States History 1 Â

Clearly, failures of this magnitude warrant the most honest, painstaking, and well-resourced investigation.

As of August, 2006, when most of the evidence has been destroyed, such an investigation has yet to be conducted. Instead there have been concerted efforts to stop any real investigation.

Abnormalia

11-03-2006, 02:38 PM

Yeah, the government screwed up quite a bit on 9/11. Mostly because they weren't anticipating 4 groups of highly prepared and determined terrorists were going to commit suicidal murder.

How often before 9/11 were there flying threats in the USA? Suicidal attacks using planes as flying bombs? Once every few years?

How would you tell which planes of thousands were highjacked until their transponders was turned off? Military jets were scrambled at the time, but they're not magic flying machines that can intercept a target within minutes, this wasn't a rogue aircraft entering through Canada that would were able to track for sometime.

Our country guards well against flying attacks coming into the country, warning of rogue planes or missiles before they even squeek into our airspace. There was little anticipation of an attack within using our own transportation system as weapons against us.

Imagine how much planning went into the attacks. The terrorists thought of everything, and knew what had the best chances of getting passed security. They each purchased knives and seperate tickets, in the event that one or two were caught, or at least their weapons were confiscated. They rushed the cockpit with such surprise and force that it was over in seconds. They killed or removed the pilots and barricaded the doors. They flew the planes into the buildings without so much as a blink of an eye.

We were caught with our pants down, we, our government, everyone. The towers falling was a bonus for the terrorists, and a surprise to everyone else. A skyscraper had never collapsed before, then again, one had never been hit by a passenger jet before. It was a catastrophe.

And people like you are insulting the lives of the brave and innocent who died that day, by insinuating that our own government would do such a thing, without a single whistleblower present to blow the cover on what is supposedly the most complex conspiracy known in the history of humanity.

You're an impossible and delusional man, and the human race would probably be better off without you.

stefan segal

11-03-2006, 03:19 PM

Subnormal...this is subnormal even for you...you don't have a clue to the world you live in...but ...don't worry about it...we're all gods chilluns...even though you can't think..god probably gave you some compensitory gift ...like tap dancing.

Stefan

Abnormalia

11-03-2006, 03:37 PM

I hope you haven't reproduced yet.

Linkster

11-03-2006, 05:06 PM

Abnormalia - Ill step in with a little list of facts that might have escaped most of the publics attention since its been bottled up pretty well in that report from congress
First - as far as anticipation of that type of event - it not only had been anticipated - and planned for - that very day 9/11 - the country was running its first drill of exactly that scenario - which is one of the leading causes of the CAP not being active at the time (normally we have a set of jets in the air at all times with more ready to fly within 5 minutes - well under the time to intercept these airliners) - all of the fighters were standing down at the VPs order (he was running the drill from an AF base)
As part of the scenario, false images of hijacked flights were input into the radars of flight controllers to simulate the hijackers - this confused the issue when real hijacked airliners were in the picture
There was real attempts that had been thwarted in the past that we knew of against LA - in 2000 - that used the exact same scenario - so saying we didnt anticipate this type of thing is ludicrous.

And you are correct that a skyscraper has never fallen before from an airliner flying into it - however you are Im sure aware of the fact that a similar incident occurred at the Empire state building where a plane almost the same size as these (although it wasnt full of passangers) and with about the same fuel loading, crashed into the side of the building - but you are correct - it didnt bring down the building - the firefighters were able to control the fire just as they were attempting to do at the WTC.

All I can really add is that there are a lot of things that go on behind the scenes that very few in the public are aware of - even congressmen are kept way in the dark about some things - I would never have thought that the president and some of his underlings were capable of financing arming Iran by selling drugs through a south american drug cartel - but it happened

I would have never thought that a man would get close enough to a president after Kennedy to try to take a shot - but it happened with Reagan - kind of weird that the guy that tried to shoot Reagan was invited to dinner at the Bush's house previously - guess that was one dinner date that got cancelled
I would never have thought that gay prostitutes could be brought into the white house after hours in 1989 when young Bush Jr was living there with his father - but it happened
I would never have thought that every gas station video, webcam archive, personal video cameras from tourists, smithsonian outdoor video cameras would have mysteriously disappeared right after 9/11 - but they have

I could go on and on - but to see if you think that something like this couldnt be thought of within our government - google the nothwood project from the 1960s - very similar and with a very ghastly scenario - and yep - it was our governments plan

Abnormalia

11-03-2006, 05:54 PM

Those are interesting facts, although I would have prefered a primary source. The plane into the Empire State building was on a whole different physics magnitude level to the 9/11 attacks, and i'm sure you're aware of that as well.

Here's the part that interests me: It might just be a coincidence that the attacks happened the same day as the exercises. The whole 'The government created 9/11' thing is still utter bullshit to me, but if the fact remains that our Vice President was indeed aware there was a good chance of such a similar attack, or even completely aware, then we have a problem. However, until this is proven, it remains speculation and coincidental.

I of course wouldn't mind seeing this administration become liquified for a variety of other, not-so-speculative reasons.

Linkster

11-03-2006, 07:20 PM

http://physics911.net/jacobs.pdf
although it is obvious that the guy that did this is compiling stuff from the commission transcripts and one mistake that I made was that some of the coordination of Cheney was first employed from the WH before he was moved to his bunker to continue

The B25 hitting the Empire st bldg actually was quite close physics wise - the difference is that WTC was engineered to withstand at least 5 times that load because of that crash - fuel wise they are very similar as the planes that went into the WTC were no where near full - as normal for that type of commuter run - speedwise they were pretty close - around 200 mph for both

PhoneMistress

11-03-2006, 07:59 PM

The official story IS the conspiracy theory.

Lovelynice

11-04-2006, 07:10 AM

The official story IS the conspiracy theory.

of course it is.

It's one of the silliest fairytales that I've heard any government propaganda come up with.

Lovelynice

11-04-2006, 07:26 AM

Can you provide a counter-point? Or maybe counter-points to my other post? That's the way debates work.

Hmm..you didn't handle the cellphones too well. so here's a lot more horrible facts for youi to deal with, since all you could go on about was Dewdney and NOTHING ELSE...
and you didn't do too well even then!

Unfortunately despite all the LIES, all these CELLPHONE CALLS from the planes on 9-11 were fake because they're impossible;[/b]

The implausibility of those phone calls...

First the cellphone calls...
Project Achilles (http://www.physics911.net/projectachilles.htm)

and

I found the listed professional opinions very interesting...

Professional opinions

================================================== ========

Dear Sir

I have yet to read the entire [Ghost Riders] article but I do have a background in telecommunications. Using a cell phone on an air craft is next to impossible. The reasons are very detailed, but basically the air craft would run major interference, as well as the towers that carry the signal would have a difficult time sending and receiving due to the speed of the air craft. As well, calling an operator? Well that is basically impossible.

Having worked for both a major Canadian and American provider I had to instruct my staff that operator assistance is not an option. Have you ever tried to use a cell phone in some public buildings? Impossible. There are too many spots that service is voided. Just a tidbit of information to share.

Megan Conley <megan_conley@hotmail.com>

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi,

I am an RF design engineer, having built out Sprint, Verizon and another network in New Orleans. You are absolutely correct. We have trouble making these things work for cars going 55 mph on the ground. If you need another engineer's testimony for any reason, let me know I will corroborate.

my engineering site: [url]http://www.geocities.com/rf_man_cdma/[/url]

Brad Mayeux <cdmaman@engineer.com>

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anecdotal evidence

================================================== ========

Sir,

Yours is the first article I've read which focuses on those dubious 'cell phone calls'. Last month my Wife and I flew to Melbourne, about 1000 miles south of here.

Cell phones are Verboten in Airliners here, but on the return journey I had a new NOKIA phone, purchased in Melbourne, and so small I almost forgot it was in my pocket. I furtively turned it on. No reception anywhere, not even over Towns or approaching Brisbane. Maybe it's different in the US, but I doubt it.

There has to be an investigation into this crime. Justice for the thousands of dead and their families demands it.

Best

Bernie Busch <bbusch@iprimus.com.au>

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Prof

I have repeatedly tried to get my cell phone to work in an airplane above 2-3000 feet and it doesn't work. My experiments were done discreetely on [more than] 20 Southwest Airlines flights between Ontario, California and Phoenix, Arizona. My experiments match yours. Using sprint phones 3500 and 6000 models, no calls above 2500 ft [succeeded], a "no service" indicator at 5000 ft (guestimate).

There seem to be two reasons. 1. the cell sites don't have enough power to reach much more than a mile, 2. The cell phone system is not able to handoff calls when the plane is going at more than 400 mph.

This is simply experimental data. If any of your contacts can verify it by finding the height of the Pennsylvania plane and it's speed one can prove that the whole phone call story is forged.

Rafe <rafeh@rdlabs.com> (airline pilot)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Greetings,

I write in praise of your report, as I have felt from day one that the cell phone 'evidence' was perhaps the flimsiest part of the story, and am amazed that nobody has touched it until now.

I'd also like to bring up the point of airspeed, which is what made the cell calls a red-flag for me in the first place. I'm not sure what your top speed achieved in the small plane was, but, in a large airliner travelling at (one would think) no less than 450mph, most cell phones wouldn't be able to transit cells fast enough to maintain a connection (at least, from what i understand of the technology) .. and we're talking 2001 cell technology besides, which in that period, was known to drop calls made from cars travelling above 70mph on the freeway (again, due to cell coverage transits)

Anyway, thanks for shining the light, keep up the good work

Ben Adam

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Professor,

Responding to your article, I'm glad somebody with authority has taken the trouble to scientifically prove the nonsense of 9/11.

I was travelling between two major European cities, every weekend, when the events in the US occurred. I was specifically puzzled by the reports that numerous passengers on board the hijacked planes had long conversations with ground phone lines, using their mobile phones (and not on board satelite phones). Since I travelled every weekend, I ignored the on board safety regulations to switch off the mobile phone and out of pure curiosity left it on to see if I could make a call happen.

First of all, at take off, the connection disappears quite quickly (ascending speed, lateral reception of ground stations etc.), I would estimate from 500 meters [1500 feet approx.] and above, the connection breaks.

Secondly, when making the approach for landing, the descent is more gradual and the plane is travelling longer in the reach of cellphone stations, but also only below 500 meters. What I noticed was that, since the plane is travelling with high speed, the connection jumps from one cellphone station to another, never actually giving you a chance to make a phone call. (I have never experienced this behaviour over land, e.g. by car). Then, if a connection is established, it takes at least 10-30 seconds before the provider authorises a phone call in the first place. Within this time, the next cellstation is reached (travel speed still > 300KM/h) and the phone , always searching for the best connection, disconnects the current connection and tries to connect to a new station.

I have done this experiment for over 18 months, ruling out weather conditions, location or coincidence. In all this time the behaviour was the same: making a phone call in a plane is unrealistic and virtually impossible.

Based on this, I can support you in your findings that the official (perhaps fabricated) stories can be categorised as nonsense.

With kind regards.

Peter Kes <kpkes@yahoo.com>

It must be clearly understood that Prof. Dewdney's tests were conducted in
slow-moving (<150kts) light aircraft at relatively low altitudes (<9000ft
AGL). The aircraft from which the alleged calls were made on 9/11 were
flying at over 30,000 ft at speeds of over 500 MPH.

During a recent round-trip flight from Orange County, CA to Miami, FL (via
Phoenix, AZ), I, personally conducted an unofficial "test" using a brand new
Nokia 6101 cellular phone [NB: 2005 technology]. En route, I attempted
(discretely, of course) a total of 37 calls from varying altitudes/speeds. I
flew aboard three types of aircraft: Boeing 757, 737, and Airbus 320. Our
cruising altitudes ranged from 31-33,000ft, and our cruising speeds, from
509-521 MPH (verified post-flight by the captains). My tests began
immediately following take-off. Since there was obviously no point in taking
along the wrist altimeter I use for ultralight flying for reference in a
pressurized cabin, I could only estimate (from experience) the various
altitudes at which I made my attempts.

Of the 37 calls attempted, I managed to make only 4 connections - and every
one of these was made on final approach, less than 2 minutes before flare,
I.e., at less than 2,000ft AGL.

Approach speeds varied from 130-160 kts (Vref, outer marker), with flap and
gear extension at around 2,000ft (again, all speeds verified by flightdeck
crews). Further, I personally spoke briefly with the captains of all four
flights: I discovered that in their entire flying careers, NOT ONE of these
men had EVER been successful in making a cell phone call from cruising
altitude/speed in a variety of aircraft types. [NB: Rest assured the
ubiquitous warnings to "turn off all electronics during flight" are
completely unfounded. All modern aircraft systems are fully shielded from
all forms of RF/EMF interference (save EMP, of course). This requirement was
mandated by the FAA many years ago purely as a precautionary measure while
emerging advanced avionics systems were being flight tested. There is not a
single recorded incident of interference adversely affecting the performance
of airborne avionics systems.]

Obviously, my casual, seat-of-the-pants attempt at verifying a commonly
known fact can hardly be passed off as a "scientific" test. Ergo, I shall
offer Prof. Dewdney¹s conclusion, excerpted from his meticulously detailed
and documented paper re slow-flying light aircraft at low altitudes.

Nila Sagadevan

Prof. Dewdney:

I do not pretend to be any sort of expert of cellular communications, but I am an electronics engineer and hold both amateur and commercial FCC licenses, so I do have some understanding of the relevant principles of radio communication systems.

I read with interest your analysis of terrestrial contact probabilities via cellphones from aircraft. I believe your conclusions are sound, but would like to comment on an element which you pondered regarding the sort of apparent discontinuity in what seems otherwise to be an inverse-square relation beyond a certain altitude.

Cellphones operate by Frequency Modulation, and as such the (apparent) signal strength is not discernible to the listener because the intelligence is contained only in the frequency and phase information of the signal before demodulation. Hence, the system works pretty well until it is so weak that it is abruptly lost. That is, the system can no longer "capture" the signal. It does not get louder and softer with signal strength -until the signal is below the detection level of the receiver, at which point it is essentially disappears. The cellphone also adjusts the transmit power according to the signal level received at the tower end of the link. Once it is at maximum output, if the signal diminishes beyond some minimum threshold depending on the receiver design, it is lost altogether and not simply degraded in quality. Analogous behavior is experienced with FM broadcast stations; as you travel away from the transmitter the station is received with good fidelity until at some distance it rather suddenly cannot even be received any longer at all.

Additionally, cellphone towers are certainly not optimally designed for skyward radiation patterns. Since almost all subscribers are terrestrial that is where the energy is directed, at low angles.

In summary, if your observed discontinuous behavior is real, and I believe there is technical reasoning for such, the probability of making calls beyond some threshold altitude is not simply predictably less, but truly impossible with conventional cellphones under any condition of aircraft etc. because of the theoretical limits of noise floor in the receiving systems. I think the plausibility of completing the calls from 30,000+ ft. is even much lower than might be expected from extrapolations of behavior at lower altitudes which you investigated.

Thank you for your thoughtful work in this area.

Sincerely,

Kevin L. Barton

And here, it was only in 2004 that onboard cellular basestations became possible....
http://www.gmpcs-us.com/satnews/jan-5%20-Boeing.htm. As we all can see, it is only now that Cell Phones are being tested for in-flight calls. Look at the date of that report, it is Monday, July 19, 2004. Why would people be making in-flight cell phone calls on 9/11, 2001, when on 2004, inflight-calls are only beginning to be tested. And this is just the testing stages.

The fact that testing only began a few years after 2001, says a lot about the implausibility that cell phones may have been used in those 9/11 flights. The only twisting of words going on is from the pro-government story advocates' side of the debate, since they fail to recognize this simple simple illogical hole in the official story. The fact that the pro-government story advocates presistently refuse to see this simple illogical hole and continue to deny it, is cause for suspicion.

Statement: Once you get to a certain height, you are no longer in the range of the cellular network" because cell phone towers aren't built to project their signals that high, she said. The technology is "difficult now, but it's not something that can't happen in the future (Washingotn Post, December 9, 2004)

Another link:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/12/15/MNGUMAC6LB1.DTL

Statement:“Today's vote by the FCC is intended to address whether technology has improved to the extent that cell phone calls now are possible above 10,000 feet -- they weren't in the past.”(San Francisco Chronicle, December 15, 2004)

http://www.bewareofthis.info/pagecache/page3009/

LOS ANGELES The safe landing of a JetBlue Airways plane with faulty landing gear last night ended a drama carried live by television that riveted viewers outside and inside the aircraft... At one point, he said, he tried to call his family, but his cellphone call wouldn't go through.

http://www.bewareofthis.info/pagecache/page2923/

Two European airlines will allow passengers late next year to use their own cell phones on commercial flights within western Europe, a Geneva-based technology firm said Tuesday.
TAP Air Portugal and British carrier bmi both have agreed to introduce OnAir's voice and text service for cell phones in separate three-month trial runs, Chief Executive George Cooper said.
The planes _ [b]which will be the first to allow passengers to make and receive calls with their own cell phones while on board[/b] _ will give OnAir the chance to assess its service ahead of its general release slated for 2007, he said.
"With both airlines, initially there will be a couple of airplanes _ two or three airplanes _ equipped with this system," Cooper told The Associated Press from Germany. "During that three months, we'll all be evaluating how it's going, what the usage is, how we handle the crew issues and so on."

http://www.bewareofthis.info/pagecache/page5226/

NEW YORK (Reuters) - One of life's ironic oases of solitude -- the peace people find amid the roar of a New York City subway -- could soon be gone.
As New York plans to make cell phones work in subway stations, experts say Americans eventually could be connected everywhere, underground or in the air.
"It's technically feasible, both for airplanes and subways," said James Katz, director of the Center for Mobile Communication Studies at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey. "It's the social aspect that's really the most intractable."

http://www.bewareofthis.info/pagecache/page7755/

"Once you get to a certain height, you are no longer in the range of the cellular network" because cell phone towers aren't built to project their signals that high, she said. The technology is "difficult now, but it's not something that can't happen in the future."

http://www.bewareofthis.info/pagecache/page7756/

FCC set to consider in-flight cell phones. December 15, 2004. Today's vote by the FCC is intended to address whether technology has improved to the extent that cell phone calls now are possible above 10,000 feet -- they weren't in the past -- and whether they'd mess up ground- based communications.

http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,121399,00.asp
"In-Flight Cell Phone Systems Gain Altitude"

Study done about cell phone usage
http://physics911.ca/org/modules/news/article.php?storyid=7

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/phonecalls.html
Holes in phone calls

Some calls lasted as long as 25 minutes! WOW!!

They must have been using some great phones back in 2001!

Think it's impossible to con strangers into thinking that you're a relative - even pretending to be their son?

Check out the "Hi Mom, it's me" scam.
http://mdn.mainichi-msn.co.jp/features/archive/news/2005/06/20050608p2g00m0fe008000c.html

By the way, it was easy to fake someone's voice then.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/dotmil/arkin020199.htm

Now you know how the voices on the "calls" could be faked.

It's not like these were turing tests, these were just normal average dimwits receiving the calls.

Caller: "Mom? This is Mark Brigham." (Who in hell calls their own mother and introduces himself by his own full name?!)

Caller: "I want you to know that I love you. I'm on a flight from Newark to San Francisco and there are three guys who have taken over the plane and they say they have a bomb."

Alice: "Who are these guys?

Caller: (after a pause) "You believe me, don't you?

Caller: "Yes, Mark. I believe you. But who are these guys?

This "conversation" could fool just about anyone who wasn't intentionally trying to detect whether it was a computer or a person. It's not like he answers her question, he just responds with something vague.

A person claiming to be Todd Beamer, talked to GTE operator Lisa D. Jefferson
“Todd Beamer placed a call on one of the Boeing 757's on-board telephones and spoke for 13 minutes with GTE operator Lisa D. Jefferson, Beamer's wife said.......(The Pittsburg Channel, 1.38pm, September 16, 2001). Why would Beamer prefer to talk to a stranger than to someone in his own family? Again we have a LONG phone, and again the mythical terrorists did nothing about it. Notice that his wife, Mrs Lisa Beamer did not receive a telephone call from her husband PERSONALLY, but was later “told” by an operator that her husband had "allegedly" called. No evidence at all that it really was Todd Beamer making the call.

Lisa Jefferson certainly wouldn't know who was really on the phone would she? She'd never met the man before, had she? She wouldn't have a clue if it was really Todd Beamer or the pizza guy!

The Betty Ong call is a really strange one. It seems whoever the woman was that was trying convince the operator that she was on a hijacked plane wasn't coached too well. She kept flubbing the script;

MALE VOICE: Which flight are you on?

BETTY ONG: Flight 12.

FEMALE VOICE: Okay, but what seat are you sitting in? What’s the number of your seat?

BETTY ONG: Okay, I’m in my jump seat right now.

FEMALE VOICE: Okay.

BETTY ONG: At 3R.

(OOPS, there was NO SEAT '3R' ON THAT PLANE!)

The woman doing the masquerading flubbed it by not keeping their story straight.

The phone call begun "minutes after 8 am", originally it was stated that the call lasted nearly 40 minutes and ended at 8:46; so we can conclude Betty rung up at about 8:08-8:10. But then sceptics said "Hey, that's BEFORE the hijacking began!", so the official story changed later, then they said it was 8:21 when Betty Ong made her call.

And they still expected everyone to gullibly believe that these mythical hijackers were just going to sit around and let somebody chatter away for a whole 25 minutes?!

You can go to www.ebaumsworld.com and create one side of a phone call using the soundboards, that the other side would at first believe to be Napolean Dynamite!. There's even videos of people using the various soundboards to prank call people, some get strung along for several minutes before they realize it's a prank.

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/audio/napoleondynamite-prank1.html

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/audio/jackblack-prank2.html

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/audio/alpacino-prank1.html

But the idiot on the other end of the line can have a conversation with a series of pre-recorded phrases and words played by some "controller" who chooses which phrase to use so it appears to fit with what the other person is saying.

(I've been told that the Pacino one is the best. The guy on the other end of the line gets really angry at a series of recordings.)

By the way, we are talking about CELLPHONES, not Satellite Phones and we know that they are IMPOSSIBLE and that CELLPHONES are very different things from Airphones...

Lovelynice

11-04-2006, 07:27 AM

WHICH MEANS ALL OF THESE CALLS WERE FAKE

CeeCee Lyles: Cell phone. Her husband Lorne Lyles who managed to take her second call reported that he saw her ID therefore we can assume that she used a cell phone. A flight attendant using a cell phone is of course extremely strange given the fact that she should very well know that there are airphones aboard and it is much more likely to come through using this kind of phone. Call 1: Beginning: 9:47, Length: unclear as no indication what she left as a message on her answering machine. But we can assume from the fact that she managed to leave a message that the length was at least: 15’. Call 2: 9:58, Length: 1’ 00’’ (my estimation based on accounts of the call). She got disconnected.
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20011028flt93lylesbiop8.asp
http://election.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/12/national/main310935.shtml

Jeremy Glick, 31, from West Milford, New Jersey, He called his wife, Liz, and in-laws in New York on a cell phone to tell them the plane had been hijacked
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/ua93.victims.html
http://www.msnbc.com/news/627214.asp

Thomas E. Burnett Jr - Cell Phone 3-4 calls
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/11/victims-capsules.htm
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010913somersetnat3p3.asp

Lauren Grandcolas, her husband said his wife made a quick cell phone call before the plane crashed in Pennsylvania.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/11/victims-capsules.htm

Sandra Bradshaw - cellphone
http://webcache.news-record.com/legacy/photo/tradecenter/bradshaw21.htm

Marion Britton - 13 minutes call from a cellphone
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010922gtenat4p4.asp
WOW, A WHOLE THIRTEEN MINUTES!!! Amazing bullshit

Elizabeth Wainio - cellphone
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3067652

NSA-trained Electronic Warfare specialist Steve Moser goes further, expressing that he has "severe doubt that ordinary cell phone calls were ever made from the aircraft (Flight 93)". Moser explains: "When you make a cell phone call, the first thing that happens is your cell phone needs to contact a transponder and complete a digital handshake. If an aircraft is going five hundred miles an hour, your cell phone will not be able to contact a tower, tell the tower who you are and who your provider is, tell the tower what mode it wants to communicate with, and establish that it is in a roaming area, before it passes out of range. It takes 30-45 seconds to do that. Though it is sometimes possible to connect during takeoff and landing, under the situation that was claimed the calls were impossible."

CELLPHONE CALLS ARE IMPOSSIBLE FROM SIX MILES UP IN A PASSENGER JET FLYING AT OVER 450MPH....

and what height were the planes at when the first of the FAKE cellphone calls were made?

Between 31,000 and 35,000 feet.

United Airlines Flight 175
United Airlines Flight 175 departed for Los Angeles at 8:00:

"It pushed back from its gate at 7:58 and departed Logan Airport at 8:14."

The Report confirms that by 8:33, "it had reached its assigned cruising altitude of 31,000 feet." According to the Report, it maintained this cruising altitude until 8.51, when it "deviated from its assigned altitude":

"The first operational evidence that something was abnormal on United 175 came at 8:47, when the aircraft changed beacon codes twice within a minute. At 8:51, the flight deviated from its assigned altitude, and a minute later New York air traffic controllers began repeatedly and unsuccessfully trying to contact it."

And one minute later at 8.52, Lee Hanson receives a call from his son Peter.

[Flight UAL 175] "At 8:52, in Easton, Connecticut, a man named Lee Hanson received a phone call from his son Peter, a passenger on United 175. His son told him: “I think they’ve taken over the cockpit—An attendant has been stabbed— and someone else up front may have been killed. The plane is making strange moves. Call United Airlines—Tell them it’s Flight 175, Boston to LA.

Press reports confirm that Peter Hanson was using his cellphone. Unless the plane had suddenly nose-dived, the plane was still at high altitude at 8.52. (Moreover, Hanson's call could have been initiated at least a minute prior to his father Lee Hanson picking up the phone.)

United Airlines Flight 93
According to the 9-11 Commission's account:

"the first 46 minutes of Flight 93’s cross-country trip proceeded routinely. Radio communications from the plane were normal. Heading, speed, and altitude ran according to plan. At 9:24, Ballinger’s warning to United 93 was received in the cockpit. Within two minutes, at 9:26, the pilot, Jason Dahl, responded with a note of puzzlement: “Ed, confirm latest mssg plz—Jason.”70 The hijackers attacked at 9:28. While traveling 35,000 feet above eastern Ohio, United 93 suddenly dropped 700 feet. Eleven seconds into the descent, the FAA’s air traffic control center in Cleveland received the first of two radio transmissions from the aircraft...."

The Report claims that passengers started placing calls with cell and air phones shortly after 9.32am, four minutes after the Report's confirmation of the plane's attitude of 35,000 feet. In other words, the calls started some 9 minutes before the Cleveland Center lost UAL 93’s transponder signal (9.41) and approximately 30 minutes before the crash in Pennsylvania (10.03)

There was no indication from the Report that the aircraft had swooped down to a lower level of altitude, apart from the 700 feet drop recorded at 9.28. from a cruising altitude of 35,000 feet. Shortly after the alleged hijacking commences, the passengers and flight crew allegedly began a series of calls from GTE airphones and cellular phones.

The alleged call (strangely not mentioned in the Report) by Edward Felt from the toilet of the aircraft of UAL 93 was answered by Glenn Cramer, the emergency supervisor in Pennsylvania who took the call.

"Local emergency officials said they received a cell phone call at 9.58 am from a man who said he was a passenger aboard the flight. The man said he had locked himself in the bathroom and told emergency dispatchers that the plane had been hijacked. "We are being hijacked! We are being hijacked!" he was quoted as saying.

Glenn Cramer, the emergency supervisor who answered it, said on the day: "He was very distraught. He said he believed the plane was going down.

"He did hear some sort of an explosion and saw white smoke coming from the plane, but he didn't know where. And then we lost contact with him." Glenn Cramer has now been gagged by the FBI.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/news/s_90401.html
[/QUOTE]

the CELLPHONE calls were FAKE

The Official Lies are a failure

http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/march2006/240306poll1.jpg