Saturday, July 21, 2007

Do-It-Yourself World Trade Center Controlled Demolition Re-Creation...

Try this simple experiment and see if it doesn't lead you to question the PHYSICS of what happened on Sept. 11.

1. Take an 8 oz or larger disposable plastic or paper cup and place it upside down.

2. Take a BRICK an place it on top of the cup.

3. See what happens? The light weight cup supports the full weight of the heavy brick. This is because it's a "tube structure" just like the World Trade Center!

4. Now raise the brick 6-12 inches and drop it straight down on the cup. What happens? The cup deforms, collapses but slows the brick and still supports the weight of it. This is similar to what SHOULD HAVE happened when the upper stories of the WTC crashing onto the lower floors.

5. Take a second cup and cut vertical slits, about 12 altogether, from top to bottom. Place this cup upside down, note that it still supports itself.

6. Repeat step #4.

7. Note that the brick falls AT THE SPEED OF GRAVITY (just like the Twin Towers) because of the weakened infrastructure of the cup. This is the same principle used for CONTROLLED DEMOLITION!


8. Now go back and look at the footage the buildings collapsing and watch the physics in action. Remember steel needs massive, sustained heat to melt, so don't fall in that trap.

You might come to the conclusion that 9-11 had to be an "inside" job...

208 comments:

1 – 200 of 208   Newer›   Newest»
moneysmith said...

Agreed. Way too many suspicious "coincidences" involving 9/11. A serious, thorough investigation has to happen, just as soon as the terrorists are kicked out of the White House.

Shirley Heezgay said...

Remarkable.

LB@200mph is just a walking contradiction. He won't for a moment allow that there MIGHT be something suspicious about three buildings that collapsed for reasons that no other building in the history of the modern world has ever experienced....and yet is completely won over by the fact that UFO's totally exist!

He lists Madonna, Frankie Goes To Hollywood, Sylvester and Prince among his favourite music, and what could be more GAY than any of them?

He believes in Truth, Justice and the American Way. The irony is not lost, I can assure you all!

Shoes4Industry said...

I think you missed the point there "LB@200", Physics is physics, regardless of the scale.

Please watch the video, give yourself some information before dismissing it.

Thanks

LifeBeginsAt200MPH said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Shoes4Industry said...

The buildings were designed to withstand both jetliner impacts and earthquakes! Jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel. Please do some research...

http://tinyurl.com/create.php

You probably should keep your opinions confined to DJing.

Thanks

Shoes4Industry said...

Again, please do the research, do the math and THEN comment.

And look at WTC7 while you are at it,
no plane, no jet fuel, still it collapsed!

I suspect you're working for the government as well as DJing...

Regina said...

Is it just me, or did the planes fly into the WTC at LESS than 400-500 mph? Wouldn't their images be but a blur on any of the video taken of them crashing into the towers? They seem to almost glide into the towers....not anywhere near 400 or 500 mph..that's full speed once it reaches full cruising altitude...in the THINNER upper atmospheric air. I've seen race cars zoom around the track at max 220 mph. This seems closer to the plane's speed....if not less. Additionally, as I recall, the towers didn't fall until almost half an hour after the last one hit. If Lifebeginsat200mph's baseball bat suggestion were true, the towers should have fallen immediately.
I believe there is more to the 9/11 attacks than the govt wants us to know. Fear is a tactic used for centuries to keep the masses under control. Too bad we haven't caught on....though I'm working on it!

Shoes4Industry said...

LB@200-"Common sense" would dictate that the WTC would not collapse at the speed of gravity, unless there was no support from the "undamaged" lower floors, no plane/no jet fuel.

I do admire your ability to suspend disbelief and credulity.

Anonymous said...

You have got to be kidding. Rosie O'Donnell refers her readers to this site. Like everything else she speaks up for in life. Everyone follows her beliefs just because she says it and this is her back up on facts. A freaking plastic cup and bricks. Please. Just because something has never happened does not mean it never will. People like this whom seem to think they know all the facts are clueless. Until you are sitting in a governmental position that DOES have the FACTS then simply state your opinions and stop these extreme conspiracy theories. Rosie even said on the View - she tends to listen to stories of this type and instantly believes - ask her to do an interview and she will refuse it immediately - why? Because she too is clueless on facts and has not fully educated herself in proper places. Shoes 4 industry? What a Joke!

Anonymous said...

Wow. You wacky conspiracy theorists are unbelievable. Paper cup = WTC. Okay, right. Fucking morons.

Shirley Heezgay said...

Sorry for not clarifying LB@200...I referenced your musical tastes as an example of another contradiction based on your whole profile.

Really, though. Djing, music and film tastes don't really matter, do they? This is a place about possible conspiracies.

Answer this "expert": Where did the buildings go? They turned to DUST! The remaining beams weren't even bent!! Paper found on the streets and more importantly, at Ground Zero didn't burn!! And why can't anyone in the gov't answer how much debris was shipped (weight) and why China!!?

Another question: if you're so confident about the truth, why keep coming back to this page? Why care? You must have a busy day of "Killing small defenseless animals... Pumping as much CO2 into the atmosphere as I can"

"The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing." - Albert Einsteinesting.

Shirley Heezgay said...

And for the anonymous comments...why bother? If someone had something to say, you should take credit for your opinions.

Maybe that's just another side effect from GWB's BRAINWASHING of America.

Hitler did it, too. And Germans all around him were thinking, Hmmmm I'm not sure about this. No one stopped him and history showed that they should have listened to their instincts. Now, the Iraq war is what? 5 years old now? Iran could be next and now Pakistan.

You might not want to concede that there MIGHT be a cover up, after all, that thought is TERRIFYING! But admit that Bush is wrong. Cheney is wrong. Admit that all allied troops should return to their home countries.

Iraq did not attack.

Shoes4Industry said...

Please. Just because something has never happened does not mean it never will. People like this whom seem to think they know all the facts are clueless. Until you are sitting in a governmental position that DOES have the FACTS then simply state your opinions and stop these extreme conspiracy theories. Rosie even said on the View - she tends to listen to stories of this type and instantly believes - ask her to do an interview and she will refuse it immediately - why? Because she too is clueless on facts and has not fully educated herself in proper places.

This "experiment" attempts to demonstrate why the Government's "theory" has to be questioned.

Please look at the videos, do some research yourself, THEN comment

Thanks!

moneysmith said...

No plane hit WTC 7. Why did it collapse? Out of sympathy for the other buildings?

After 9/11, Newsweek reported twice that top Pentagon officials canceled flight plans the night before, and then completely dropped the story. I could go on, but I actually have a REAL life, lifebeginsat200mph, something you seem to be lacking.

Anonymous said...

People.........please. Why can't the collapse be part of the plan? It was the World Trade Center. No one would notice different ethnic groups coming and going. Who is to say like a suicide bomber, that it was not done from the inside out, and the planes were just the "show" part of the whole plan. Trade Center had been attacked before. Could have been master planned for months while the pilots were preparing. Employed in security, or engineering, and working all along to take it down. NO rocket science necessary here. Just common sense.

Anonymous said...

What would happen if you put a brick on a plastic cup and then heated the cup, not to the point of melting but just to the point where it got soft?

Shoes4Industry said...

Anonymous said...
What would happen if you put a brick on a plastic cup and then heated the cup, not to the point of melting but just to the point where it got soft?


GREAT QUESTION!! Why don't you try it and see what happens? Remember all THREE towers fell at the SPEED OF GRAVITY, that would be the same as having NOTHING support them or impede them from below.

Good luck. Let us know the results.

LifeBeginsAt200MPH said...

http://www.debunking911.com/links.htm

only one page of about 100 debunking the Conspiracy Theorists

and tornadoes can't drive straws into trees either...

oooops...that would be a government agent using supersecret death rays to do that...LMAO

That's what makes my life so much fun...pushing leftie simpleton buttons....CLICK!!

Rachel said...

Might I suggest that people who have something to say in a constructive manner simply ignore those who are here merely to incite other posters? When one needs to resort to insults and the like this just proves that they have nothing of value or quality to add to the discussion whether it be pro or con. After all, attempts to get others to see your way of thinking is accomplished through clear, concise and tactful words backed up by facts to support it.Anything more is simply a sorry attempt at masking their BS with smoke and mirrors. Don't feed the animals people!

LifeBeginsAt200MPH said...

Here's a few facts for your serious consideration....'course I'm just an animal...LOL


Below are calculations from a physics blogger...

When I did the calculations, what I got for a thousand feet was about nine seconds- let's see,
d = 1/2at^2
so
t = (2d/a)^1/2
a is 9.8m/s^2 (acceleration of gravity at Earth's surface, according to Wikipedia), [He gives this reference so you can double check him.]
d is 417m (height of the World Trade Center towers, same source)
so
t = (834m/9.8m/s^2)^1/2 = 9.23s
OK, so how fast was it going? Easy enough,
v = at
v = (9.8m/s^2 x 9.23s) = 90.4m/s
So in the following second, it would have fallen about another hundred meters. That's almost a quarter of the height it already fell. And we haven't even made it to eleven seconds yet; it could have fallen more than twice its height in that additional four seconds. If the top fell freely, in 13.23 seconds it would have fallen about two and one-half times as far as it actually did fall in that time. So the collapse was at much less than free-fall rates.


Let's see:
KE = 1/2mv^2
The mass of the towers was about 450 million kg, according to this. Four sources, he has. I think that's pretty definitive. So now we can take the KE of the top floor, and divide by two- that will be the average of the top and bottom floors. Then we'll compare that to the KE of a floor in the middle, and if they're comparable, then we're good to go- take the KE of the top floor and divide by two and multiply by 110 stories. We'll also assume that the mass is evenly divided among the floors, and that they were loaded to perhaps half of their load rating of 100lbs/sqft. That would be
208ft x 208ft = 43,264sqft
50lbs/sqft * 43264sqft = 2,163,200lbs = 981,211kg
additional weight per floor. So the top floor would be
450,000,000 kg / 110 floors = 4,090,909 kg/floor
so the total mass would be
4,090,909 kg + 981,211 kg = 5,072,120 kg/floor
Now, the velocity at impact we figured above was
90.4m/s
so our
KE = (5,072,120kg x (90.4m/s)^2)/2 = 20,725,088,521J
So, divide by 2 and we get
10,362,544,260J
OK, now let's try a floor halfway up:
t = (2d/a)^1/2 = (417/9.8)^1/2 = 6.52s
v = at = 9.8*6.52 = 63.93m/s
KE = (mv^2)/2 = (5,072,120kg x (63.93m/s)^2)/2 = 10,363,863,011J
Hey, look at that! They're almost equal! That means we can just multiply that 10 billion Joules of energy by 110 floors and get the total, to a very good approximation. Let's see now, that's
110 floors * 10,362,544,260J (see, I'm being conservative, took the lower value)
= 1,139,879,868,600J
OK, now how much is 1.1 trillion joules in tons of TNT-equivalent? Let's see, now, a ton of TNT is 4,184,000,000J. So how many tons of TNT is 1,139,879,868,600J?
1,139,879,868,600J / 4,184,000,000J/t = 272t

Shirley Heezgay said...

I am in agreement with Rachel. "Don't feed the animals."

"They" are trying to get us whipped up and stray from the original purpose. This incitement is what us leftie simpletons would call "The Art of Distraction."

Speaking of distraction, convenient that most of the world would not notice the plumes of smoke bursting out of the lower floors as the building fell. We all watched the building fall, but not the explosives.

LOOSE CHANGE DOCUMENTARY will also show you what can only be described as a controlled demolition of a building coming down at free fall speed and into its own footprint.

First, second, third time in history, all on the same day.

http://www.loosechange911.com/

Shirley Heezgay said...

Please send this link to Nancy Pelosi to everyone who supports impeachment.

The world is watching and waiting!

http://www.house.gov/pelosi/contact/contact.html

LifeBeginsAt200MPH said...

Conspiracy Theorists bring up the fact that the towers were the first steel high rises to fall from fire in history. The fact is the towers had other firsts that day they never seem to include.

There were a lot of firsts for the WTC. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been hit with a plane traveling 500 miles an hour and had its fire proofing removed from its trusses. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever had its steel columns which hold lateral load sheared off by a 767. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been a building which had its vertical load bearing columns in its core removed by an airliner. For Building 7, in all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been left for 6-7 hours with its bottom floors on fire with structural damage from another building collapse. Not the Madrid/Windsor tower did not have almost 40 stories of load on its supports after being hit by another building which left a 20 story gash. The Madrid tower lost portions of its steel frame from the fire. Windsor's central core was steel reinforced concrete. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been without some fire fighters fighting the fires.

I could go on with the "Firsts" but you get the drift. The statement that the WTC buildings were the first high-rise buildings to collapse from fire is deceptive because it purposely doesn't take those factors into account.

"It is impressive that the World Trade Center towers held up as long as they did after being attacked at full speed by Boeing 767 jets, because they were only designed to withstand a crash from the largest plane at the time: the smaller, slower Boeing 707.

The towers and building 7 were essentially bolted together like an erector set. No concrete was used to create a ridged block or protect the columns. The steel webbing was pushed to the outer walls.

A challenge to conspiracy theorists:

1) Find a steel frame building at least 40 stories high

2) Which takes up a whole city block

3) And is a "Tube in a tube" design

4) Which came off its core columns at the bottom floors (Earthquake, fire, whatever - WTC 7)

5) Which was struck by another building or airliner and had structural damage as a result.

6) And weakened by fire for over 6 hours

7) And had trusses that were bolted on with two 5/8" bolts.

And which, after all seven tests are met, the building does not fall down. Anyone dissecting this into 7 separate events is lying to you.

Anything less than meeting these seven tests is dishonest because it's not comparing apples with apples. Showing a much lighter 4, 5 or even 15 story building which doesn't even take up a city block, and has an old style steel web design leaves out the massive weight the 47 story WTC 7 had bearing down on its south face columns. Yes, this is "moving the bar", back to where it should have started.

It is an absurdity to expect these buildings to perform the same during a collapse. This is why it's the first time in history these buildings fell as they did. It's the first time in history buildings constructed like this collapsed.

cue X-Files music....The TRUTH is out there....

I have some loose change in my pocket...worth about as much as Loose Change....The Fairy Tale For Children

stayhungry said...

Isn't it odd that everything else this mis-administration has said turned out to be a complete lie, and yet some people still believe the bushwhack version of 9/11?

Shoes4Industry said...

"The towers and building 7 were essentially bolted together like an erector set."

LB@200,if you take the time to watch the video, you learn that the floor joists were bolted AND welded.

You might learn a lot more...

And if your WTC7 "theory" is correct, what is taking NIST so long to release the report. Get back to us on that one please.

Anonymous said...

lifeendsat200mph

since you are so smart can you explain how 1400 vehicles in the area melted as well?

Shoes4Industry said...

I think the one point that we all can agree on is that there are far too many unanswered and lingering questions for any REASONABLE thinking person, to be satisfied with the Government's Theory. Especially given their track record with the Truth since 9/11!

LifeBeginsAt200MPH said...

re the 1400 cars....uhhhhh...maybe because two 1/4 mile tall buildings fell on them. nearest info I can find is there were 2000 or so parking spaces below the WTC complex. Add thousands of gallons of gas, diesel fuel, fuel oil, natural gas lines, and more.

http://www.debunking911.com/links.htm

Take your time, do your research before commenting please....

shoes4industry said...

Here's what NIST has to say about Why The Towers Fell..

How could the WTC towers have collapsed without a controlled demolition since no steel-frame, high-rise buildings have ever before or since been brought down due to fires? Temperatures due to fire don't get hot enough for buildings to collapse.

The collapse of the WTC towers was not caused either by a conventional building fire or even solely by the concurrent multi-floor fires that day. Instead, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large, jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires weakened the now susceptible structural steel. No building in the United States has ever been subjected to the massive structural damage and concurrent multi-floor fires that the towers experienced on Sept. 11, 2001.


If there was no FIRE below the impact area, explain to us how the Towers collapsed so quickly and completely...drop the brick on the cup.

Shirley Heezgay said...

The question regarding the 1400 cars that were melted, burned etc were SEVERAL blocks away from the WTC parking lot.

LifeBeginsAt200MPH said...

Please take the time to study the science and research your conclusions carefully before posting comments please.....


http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html

http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

http://www.911myths.com/

http://911debunker.livejournal.com/

"How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2), speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from a similar height in vacuum (with no air resistance)?" (NIST FAQ #6)

The suspicion behind this question is that the Towers were weakened by surreptitious, controlled demolitions. In this view, the structure below the impact zone (where airplanes collided, exploded, and fires burned) "should have" provided resistance to the descent of the block above the impact zone, slowing or even stopping the collapse.

The NIST response is that the lower structure was only designed to hold up the weight above any given floor statically, not dynamically. The force imparted by the collision of the upper block was beyond the limits of the lower structure to resist. The lower structure was essentially crumbled by a "hammer" of descending material, and the mass of this hammer increased during the course of the collapse.

Let's explore further.

¦ Problem 1, Force Balance

Once the framing in the impact zone has failed, the upper block is accelerated by gravity until it crashes into the lower structure below the impact zone. Labeling the mass of the upper block m, and its speed v, the block would have a momentum m*v and an energy of (1/2)*m*v^2. Its weight would be m*g, where g is the constant of gravitational acceleration (9.81 meters/second^2).

The balance of forces on the upper block as it impacts the lower structure is presented here as the impulse momentum form of Newton's 2nd Law:

The time rate of change of momentum = The sum of the forces,

[m*v(final) - m*v(initial)]/dt = F - m*g.

Here, positive direction, velocity and force are taken to be vertically upward; dt is a label for "delta t", a very brief time interval during which the impact occurs and the momentum changes from m*v(initial) to m*v(final); and F is the force of resistance by the lower structure. If A is the net horizontal cross-sectional area of the load-bearing columns of the lower structure, then F/A is the average compressive stress across that area.

This type of force balance is applied to the impact at each floor, sequentially, by redefining m as the mass above it, v(initial) as the outcome of the alternating floor impacts and free falls during prior compaction, and v(final) as the outcome of the latest impact.

We can regroup the terms of the force balance as follows:

F = m*g + m*[v(final) - v(initial)]/dt,

F = m*g*[1 + {v(final) - v(initial)}/(g*dt)],

F/(m*g) = 1 + {v(final) - v(initial)}/(g*dt).

Before each building was perturbed, the upper block did not have any motion, v(initial) = v(final) = 0, and the magnitude of the upward-directed, resisting force of any part of the structure was equal to the weight of material above it; F/(m*g) = 1.

When an upper block drops through an impact zone that has lost structural strength, and crashes into the rigid lower structure, it imparts a dynamic force in addition to its weight. The dynamic force is the second term in the last expression for F. The total force, F, acts during the time interval dt during which the momentum of the upper block is reduced (in magnitude) from m*v(initial) to m*v(final). Clearly, the lower structure will crumble when F is greater than the maximum force it can support, or when F/A is greater than the maximum stress it can withstand.

¦ Problem 1, Numerical Example of Progressive Collapse

Free fall without air resistance from a height H takes time T, given by

T = square root [(2*H)/g].

At any time 0 < t < T during the free fall, the velocity is given by

v(t) = -g*t, (negative sign for downward direction),

and position is given by

h(t) = H - (1/2)*g*t^2.

So, for H = 440 m (=1443 feet) the free fall time is T = 9.5 s, and the velocity slamming into the ground is -92.9 m/s = -208 mph.

What actually happened in the buildings? We consider a suggestive numerical example.

With the onset of failure, the upper block drops through a space of L = 3 meters, taken to be the distance between floors. Starting from rest at time t = 0, the block reaches a velocity of v = -7.7 m/s at t = 0.78 s. The descending block makes contact with the topmost stationary floor of the lower structure.

We will assume these floor structures to be dL = 1 meter thick (1 meter = 3.28 feet). Each floor structure is a framework of steel below and within a layer of concrete. The floors spanned a distance of between 10 m and 20 m between the outer square perimeter (63.4 m a side) and the core support along the axis of the building, which housed elevator shafts, stairwells and support columns, within a rectangular area of [42 m x 27 m].

Impact is a very brief process whose duration is dt = 1/100 s. During the impact, energy ripples through the floor structure as elastic waves in the steel and concrete; the velocity of these stress waves is V(steel) = 1900 m/s and V(concrete) = 930 m/s; the wave speed is a property of the material (P-waves). The waves traverse the thickness of the floor structure in a time dL/V = 5/10,000 s for steel and 1/1000 s for concrete, so they can bounce between 10 to 20 times across the 1 m thickness; and they can run along the span of the floor within 0.005 to 0.01 s.

The waves alert the volume of the floor structure to the imposition of a new load, and infuse that volume with much higher stress. The floor structure is deflected downward a distance d = -0.077 meters (3 inches) during impact. In becoming stressed, the floor structure absorbs some of the energy of the descending block, slowing it by dv = 0.5 m/s (in this example). Within dt = 1/100 s, the floor structure has transmitted the force of the new load to its joints with the building's core and periphery.

Recalling the last form of the force balance, and inserting the numbers from this example, we find the magnitude of the total reaction force to be

F/(m*g) = 1 + dv/(g*dt) = 1 + 0.5/(9.81*0.01) = 6.1,

a load of six times the weight of the upper block.

I continued this particular calculation, floor by floor, as a sequence starting from rest: free fall for 3 m, impact delays transit for 0.01 s and decreases descent velocity by 0.5 m/s, free fall for 3 m, transit delay and velocity decrement as before, and so on. The block reaches the ground in 10 s with a total of 87 floor impacts. The collapse of 344 m (1128 feet) accelerates from -7.2 m/s (-16 mph) after the initial impact, to -46 m/s (-104 mph) at the ground.

Now, a little bit more about waves.

¦ Problem 1, Wave Trains and Stress Concentration

Elastic waves are launched from the collapse front (the leading edge of descending material, like "weather front") at the moment of first impact. Within 0.01 s, a stress wave has traveled through the metal framework to five levels below the collapse front, a distance of 20 m. These lower levels experience a rapid --dare I say explosive? --increase in the stress within their frames. Bolts and rivets may be sheared, and joints ruptured by the resulting impulsive forces.

For example, assume a carbon steel (HR 0.45C) bolt or rivet of 1 inch diameter is used to support a force of 8,000 kilograms, equivalent to a stress of 22,500 pounds-per-square-inch (psi). This stress is only one quarter of that material's tensile strength of 90,000 psi; an apparently conservative design. However, an unexpected increase in load by a factor of five, to a total of 48,000 kg, or 135,000 psi, would probably rupture the joint.

The stress wave from the initial impact races down the lower structure, arriving at ground level in 0.18 s (we continue with the numerical example). During that time, the collapse front has descended another 1.3 m. The stress wave is like a messenger telling the material it passes to "move down and compress" in response to the advancing collapse front. On reaching the ground, the wave could transmit some of its energy past the building's foundation to radiate as a seismic wave through the earth, and another portion of its energy would reflect back up (the major effect, especially if the foundation is more rigid than the building it supports). The message of the upward running wave is "compress even more, dead-end down below."

Elastic waves launched by an impulsive load on a structure that remains intact --like a bell being struck --will ripple back and forth, spreading out the initially concentrated stress of the strike. If the load is suddenly imposed and then remains constant, as with a book being dropped on a sturdy table, then the elastic waves die out into a fairly uniform distribution of stress throughout the volume. If the load is a short pulse, like striking a bell, then the waves will eventually die out as a fairly uniform heating of the material.

Just as there are ripples on wavelets, and wavelets on big rollers across the surface of the ocean, so will each elastic wave launched by the collapse be a jumble of waves of different size grouped together. The many individual collisions of material that make up the global impact of the upper block into a floor structure will each send off their own ripples, which all build up into a composite for the elastic wave.

A new elastic wave is launched with each impact between the collapse front and a stationary floor structure. As the collapse front accelerates, the time interval between wave launchings decreases. The building below the collapse front experiences an increasing level of stress and becomes filled with intersecting wave trains moving up and down by the time of the second impact at 1.13 s. Elastic waves that pass through each other will produce a heightened stress where they coincide, just like crossing water waves that mound noticeably.

This agitated lacework of stresses ahead of the collapse front will probably cause many fractures and break many joints prior to the arrival of the front. The sudden shifts in the volume of rooms and office spaces being compressed and twisted by the elastic wave trains can easily expel jets of air and dust out of windows, perhaps giving the impression of smoke from a gun barrel. The collapse front will push a blast of air down before it and also produce lateral jets of air from the building below it. These air streams are analogous to the water expelled sideways and into vortexes alongside a paddle pushing a canoe through still water.

All these wave effects occur in the upper block as well, from the moment of first impact. The upper block will quickly fill with elastic waves, which will rupture internal joints; the block shatters, as is vividly seen in the video recordings of the WTC collapses. The shorter length of the upper block, and its lack of firm connection (like a foundation), will contribute to the speed of its disintegration. In a very real sense the upper block was "blown up," but naturally by elastic waves rippling a destructive compression through it rather than artificially by intentional controlled demolition.

shoes4industry said...

OK, so what about 7WTC?

We are still not buying into your WTC 1 & 2 "theory" no matter how much you copy and paste, still too many unexplained questions...

LifeBeginsAt200MPH said...

I've posted the answers to your questions several times. Do your research and study the math and evidence as much as I have....

Wait...that would require an open mind as opposed to delusional thought patterns of simpletons who believe any whacked out crap they read...

'course it could be the Neo-Cons Super Secret Mind Control Death Beam Brain Wave....pffftttt...

this is getting boring, you all can't come up with anything other than the same old lame crap...

Anonymous said...

Hey Gay Shirley,
We comment anonymously because we don't have the time nor concern to open up a complete google/blogger account. Get it? No big conspiracy, just laziness and apathy. Get it? Do you have any proof to debunk that fact? I'm sure it's a bit fishy to you. I mean, we're probably government officials spying on you or something.

shoes4industry said...

"LB@200 - Wait...that would require an open mind as opposed to delusional thought patterns of simpletons who believe any whacked out crap they read..."

Who's not keeping a "open mind" here??? Perhaps you're talking about yourself?

LifeBeginsAt200MPH said...

yawn...more bs...where's your facts? I've posted just a few of mine. These few lameass videos you have up? Is that all ya' got? You think being mentioned on Fatso's blog is your claim to fame? I've forgot more about 9/11 and what happened than you'll ever know. All you got is a Canuck fudgepacker, an LA Libby, a few anons, and me. And I'm getting bored real quick with your limp canned responses. Theories aren't shit...facts speak for themselves. I've provided them, refute them....hell, you can't even show your own Blogger profile...who's got something to hide? Perchance you're one of Fatso's ex lesbo lovers or a current one....I smell a CONSPIRACY!!!!!*CLICK*

shoes4industry said...

LB@200 - Then please take YOUR CONSPIRACY THEORIES and peddle them elsewhere.

Thanks

H Nicole said...

I agree with LB@200 in that the cup with a brick may not be the best example. Maybe we should just drop bricks onto bricks instead (different sizes, different brick materials, different heights, etc.) I am not sure if I am applying this properly, but I think Dr. Judy Wood and others (drjudywood.com) argue that you can get only one of two extremes upon impact when you drop brick1 down onto brick2, but you can not get both extremes at the same time:

1) Brick1 will break apart and do relatively little damage to Brick2.
2) Brick2 will break apart and Brick1 will fall to the ground almost as if Brick2 didn't exist (i.e. at near freefall speeds). In this case, Brick 1 will fall apart, if at all, only upon impact with the ground.

In the case of WTC1 and WTC2, you get both happening at the same time -- the upper mass (Brick 1) begins to fall apart and turn to dust on impact, yet the rest of the building (Brick2) also falls apart and allows remnants of Brick1 to fall to the ground at free fall speeds.

I think this is what Dr. Judy Wood means when, after her long analysis (which is equally as convincing to me, on the surface, as LB@200's analysis, though they both come to opposite conclusions!) she states, "You can't have it both ways."

Therefore, if I were to have a critique of LB@200's analysis (which I appreciate, BTW, if only to be introduced to a very nice discussion about shock waves which I never knew that much about before) I would say it is that LB@200 assumes that the "upper mass" of the WTC remains intact the whole way down. I may be wrong, of course. Maybe there is an "in-between" scenario where there is enough energy for both things to happen at the same time. Just keeping an open mind. Peace Out.

LifeBeginsAt200MPH said...

LMAO...typical libtard progressive response...you can have your conspiracy theories, but I can't have mine. You post your weak theories, I post irrefutable scientific facts and you can't come back with anything but more claptrap. Haven't got the moxie to post your blogger profile, 'course I'm a government agent so I know all about you anyway....ROTFFLMAO

LifeBeginsAt200MPH said...

ahhh...h nicole....good job...an open mind is what it takes. I've read every link on Dr. Judy's page and she makes a few somewhat ponderable points, BUT, STOP AND THINK PEOPLE!!, Can you in your wildest dreams even imagine the physics of over 60,000 TONS suddenly collapsing? And we're not talking solid mass hitting solid mass as in your brick vs brick scenario. We're talking about a structural mass made up of different densities and materials and about 1,000 other factors that are impossible to ever duplicate or understand to an infinite degree of certainty. Can you imagine the sheer cubic volume of air compressed into a tiny fraction of the space that the upper floors suddenly induced? Read and re-read and THINK about what happened. And just because some of you use that old "it never happened before" crap....well, guess what? IT HAPPENED!! That's a FACT!! Things happen every second of every day that "Never" happened before.

shoes4industry said...

LB@200 - We're talking about a structural mass made up of different densities and materials and about 1,000 other factors that are impossible to ever duplicate or understand to an infinite degree of certainty.

This is my point exactly, how can you be SO certain of your "theory?" All he material evidence has been dispersed or destroyed. The Cup and Brink exercise was an attempt to simplify and demonstrate YOUR theory - that a huge falling mass of weight destroyed the WTC, falling at or about the speed of gravity.

For someone so critical of not having a "open mind", you don't seem to be practicing what you are preaching here...

LifeBeginsAt200MPH said...

Your Title says "Controlled Demolision(correct spelling is Demolition)...your words...

Your words in #8 state "You might come to the conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job"

and I call Bullshit on controlled demolition, inside job, or any other lunacy that suggests anything other that a horrible once in a lifetime tragedy that will hopefully never happen again.

There were no squibs, thermite, nuclear weapons, directed particle beam weapons or any of that other crap that you conspiracy nuts grasp onto because you look for any excuse to bash the gub'mint in general and GWB in particular.

You people don't have a clue as to what a massive effort it would take to accomplish that, and in todays age of info is everything, utube, security cameras, squeakers, leakers, and all the other "info" that goes on, do you HONESTLY think that someone wouldn't have come out by now with 100% proof positive that it was an "inside job"?...oh wait...the gub'mint has killed and hidden the bodies of the 1,000's & 1,000's of people that were involved in the coverup...and then killed the thousands of people that did that job and then killed the thousands that killed them...ad infinitum.....get a grip.

Shoes4Industry said...

I agree, what POSSIBLE reason would this Government have to lie to the citizenry???

Shoes4Industry said...

Here you go...

http://tinyurl.com/2vz5x2

Shirley Heezgay said...

"We comment anonymously because we don't have the time nor concern to open up a complete google/blogger account. Get it? No big conspiracy, just laziness and apathy. Get it? Do you have any proof to debunk that fact?"

Nope. It seems that the majority of Americans have shown undeniable, irrefutable, absolute evidence of apathy and laziness. It's that apathy that GWB is counting on. GET IT????

If I was to agree for even just a moment that LB@200's science and math...fully accept it, I talking here...I'd be interested in knowing if your conviction applies to the questions raised by the Pentagon strike as well? Obviously referring to size of impact hole, eyewitness accounts of the flight path that contradict the gov't explanations, lightpoles etc.

BTW, resorting to calling me a fudgepacker might actually be all the evidence WE need of your awesome ability to cut and paste rather than actual intellect so that we can have a civilised discussion about such a tragic day.

H Nicole said...

I visited the web sites LB@200 posted for WTC7 and was wondering what peeps thought about some really great pictures on those sites of WTC7 before it collapsed, particularly

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html

where you can see one entire face of WTC7 fuming from top to bottom. It's just one face of the building, too, with no apparent flames anywhere in the pictures, and with fumes just pouring out of every nook and cranny in a systematic, even fashion, on all floors. Has anybody ever seen a fire burn in a building like that before? Many "firsts" that day for sure!

Peace Out

Shirley Heezgay said...

Another question for us to ponder: why BBC announced the collapse of WTC7 before it happened? We've all seen the footage. Were they given false information, thinking that people in the UK wouldn't know WTC7 from Century 21?

Thoughts?

Shoes4Industry said...

From Dr. Wood -

Thanks for your interest. I've forwarded your email on to a few folks.
Meanwhile, please review this page: http://drjudywood.com/articles/BBE/BilliardBalls.html

It's not meant to be an exact model of the events, but is meant as a mental exercise. Read through the entire page, yourself. I urge you not to rely on the "interpretations" you're instructed to blindly make.

The above article (referred to as the BBE (Billiard Ball Example)) is meant to empower individuals to be able to think it out for themselves, no matter what their background is. I presented this at an international engineering conference over a year ago. Every engineer in the room became convinced that the buildings could not have collapsed as we were told. Many were terribly shocked and troubled, but focusing on the physics helped.

By the way, I've just posted a new article on my website.

http://drjudywood.com/articles/short/evidence.html

We must think for ourselves. Nothing is more important. After all, how did we get to where we are?

True freedom is the ability to think for yourself.

Let me know if you have any other questions.

Keep up the good work!

Judy

Shoes4Industry said...

More -

I've not read what all is posted in that thread, but it appears that the issue is whether or not the WTC could have pulverized every floor at free-fall speed "because it is heavy." Am I correct?

If so, ask folks why the foundation was not cracked or damaged?
http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam1.html#Bathtub

The concrete foundation was not damaged while all of the other concrete was pulverized? How can this be? Wouldn't the foundation have the maximum impact on it?

You might enjoy this video.
http://drjudywood.com/videos/videos.html#building

LifeBeginsAt200MPH said...

shirley you jest....you're the one who brags about your lifestyle on your page and insinuated my preferences just from a list of my fav artists....Lot o' gay Black Oak Arkansas and Kiss fans out there ya' know. Lot of original material on your page. ppfffftttt...I'm obviously not the only one who knows how to cut and paste. I was writing machine language for IBM mainframes before you were born junior. And being a Canadian, what "right" do you have to post a link for the impeachment of our President? That's kinda' like me writing your Prime Minister and wanting them to outlaw gay marriage. Ain't none of my dam business.

As far as the BBC calling it early, it's called a mistake. Happens all the time. The talking head just reads what some putz gives him or types on the teleprompter. Means NOTHING.

Pentagon, WTC7, 1, & 2..."stuff" happens that has never happened before. Hole, no hole, so what? Ever seen a picture of a straw in a tree from a tornado? Think if you spent every day for the rest of your life trying to do it you could? I saw a piece of an old wooden shingle driven into an elm tree when I was a kid on the farm after a tornado back in about 1963. Still freaks me out to think of the forces that it took to do it. "Stuff" happens that is "unexplainable"...always has, always will.

Witnesses report that over 20 stories of the south side of WTC7 were "gone". There was a significant bulge in the SW corner of the building, and evidence of fires, besides the visual confirmation, on the south side were raging. There were backup power generators with fuel tanks, gas pipelines, battery backup systems, sources of all kinds to generate intense chemical and structural reactions leading to sudden catastrophic failure of the structure.

One of the experts who they've talked to said it would take a team of 100's of men, MONTHS to rig the WTC Towers. And not much less time to do WTC7. You ever use dynamite? I have. I could take 100 pounds of dynamite and not blow a hole in a ledge of rock, or drill some holes and move 1200 tons of rocks anywhere I wanted. Controlled demolition with explosives is a very difficult, time consuming task. In order to "rig" any of the WTC buildings, they would have had to strip out interiors to have access to the structural members, and a whole plethora of requirements that would have been IMPOSSIBLE to "cover-up".

I'll say it one more time...controlled demolition, inside job, conspiracy, cover-up, whatever...I call Bullshit.

Anonymous said...

ahhh...now I see we're screening our comments subject to owner approval...that's fair and balanced.

Jack Straw said...

http://drjudywood.com/articles/BBE/BilliardBalls.html
(be sure to get entire URL)

Since each floor could not begin to move till the floor right above it got to its level, if you believe "pancaking", one could calculate the total time of collapse as a sequential series. The number obtained in this article, by an individual with a bachelor's in structural engineering, a masters in engineering mechanics, and a PhD in materials science, from a very reputable engineering school (Virginia Tech), show a total time WAY above the measured times it took for the towers to disappear. Some have objected that maomentum transfer is not accounted for, this is discussed in a separate section of the article. Suffice to say that momentum transfer is impossible with the top turning to dust in mid-air. Evidence is provided here in the form of a video which shows the antenna at the top of WTC1 clearly falling *before* the impact zone begins to move (though maybe someone wants to believe the building decided to be an accordion in its last few seconds).
This brings up an impossible contradiction, if you believe the official story. The towers fell down in such a way as to have steel and concrete in the lower portions provide no more resistance to the falling tops than the adjacent air, which would show the lower portion providing little to no resistance. But the tops turned to dust while falling, pieces of steel are being ejected sideways, showing a lot of resistance being encountered. A material can offer no resistance, high resistance, or in-between, but it cannot offer both high and low resistance simultaneously. Only destruction via some form of demolition (which can be all sorts of things) can account for the simultaneous phenomena.
Another thing not addressed so far: The fires were not only not hot enough to melt steel, but not hot enough to weaken it. The official investigation by NIST found that in 157 out of 160 samples of steel examined, the steel attained temps no higher than 500°F, steel does not weaken significantly till 1170°F
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html
The other 3 samples did not attain the 1170 either, but 157 didn't even come remotely close.

Jack Straw said...

http://drjudywood.com/articles/BBE/BilliardBalls.html
(be sure to get entire URL)

Since each floor could not begin to move till the floor right above it got to its level, if you believe "pancaking", one could calculate the total time of collapse as a sequential series. The number obtained in this article, by an individual with a bachelor's in structural engineering, a masters in engineering mechanics, and a PhD in materials science, from a very reputable engineering school (Virginia Tech), show a total time WAY above the measured times it took for the towers to disappear. Some have objected that maomentum transfer is not accounted for, this is discussed in a separate section of the article. Suffice to say that momentum transfer is impossible with the top turning to dust in mid-air. Evidence is provided here in the form of a video which shows the antenna at the top of WTC1 clearly falling *before* the impact zone begins to move (though maybe someone wants to believe the building decided to be an accordion in its last few seconds). So much for the notion of a "pile driver" top portion hammering down the lower part: this pile driver is made of...dust.
This brings up an impossible contradiction, if you believe the official story. The towers fell down in such a way as to have steel and concrete in the lower portions provide no more resistance to the falling tops than the adjacent air, which would show the lower portion providing little to no resistance. But the tops turned to dust while falling, pieces of steel are being ejected sideways, showing a lot of resistance being encountered. A material can offer no resistance, high resistance, or in-between, but it cannot offer both high and low resistance simultaneously. Only destruction via some form of demolition (which can be all sorts of things) can account for the simultaneous phenomena.
Another thing not addressed so far: The fires were not only not hot enough to melt steel, but not hot enough to weaken it. The official investigation by NIST found that in 157 out of 160 samples of steel examined, the steel attained temps no higher than 500°F, steel does not weaken significantly till 1170°F
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html
The other 3 samples did not attain the 1170 either, but 157 didn't even come remotely close.

Anonymous said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v
=kcrF346sS_I&mode=related&search=

Anonymous said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=
kcrF346sS_I

sorry 'bout that new to this stuff

dancinman said...

I am no expert but appreciate hearing all views about this catastrophic event. However,
I do know that I am sorely disappointed in this administration and everyday am aghast at their disgusting behaviours.
They continue to stoop to new lows: torture, lies, stripping the citizens of due proccess and rights.
It makes me wonder???

Anonymous said...

Radical muslims deserve to be tortured. Sorry but they do. You realize they'd chop your head off if they got the chance, don't you?

Shirley Heezgay said...

Ah, but I never claimed to be a computer literate genius.

My posting a link for impeachment has nothing to do with "rights". It's about "information."

I guess I give myself the "right" to pass on the "information" since GWB's actions are dragging all the nations with him into the cesspool he's creating.

And AGAIN, I wasn't implying what your "preference" was. I can clearly see by your profile what your ORIENTATION is (fyi, the word preference implies choice). My point was with such conservative, ultra right views and opinions, I found it interesting that you liked such "homo-friendly" music. That's all. Just drop it.

Unless of course THAT'S what brought about 9/11

ppffffttttppffffttttppffffttttppffffttttppffffttttppffffttttppfffftttt

LifeBeginsAt200MPH said...

Ultra Right? I don't think so. It's called being an adult with common sense. If I were King...

1.Pot would be legal for anyone over the age of 25.

2.Death penalty for possession of any other illegal shit..i.e. meth, crack, crank, heroin, opium, glass, and all the other shit and providing pot to anyone under 25.

3.I could go up on the street corner and buy a blow job from a government approved grade A whore.

4.Pedophiles would be executed on the first offense.

5.I can carry my legal handgun ANYWHERE I go.

6.Use a gun in a crime...death penalty.

7.If you can't drive ANYTHING with a motor, you can't drive anything.

8.Have more than 2 kids out of wedlock, your whoring ass gets spayed.

9.Father more than 2 kids out of wedlock, you get neutered.

10.Animals and children have the right to do what the hell they're told...or ate.

11.The USA builds a gdam landing strip right in the middle of Africa and we ship wheat and other foodstuff 24 hrs a day because there is no more CRP ground.

12.Pull a machete on our ass while feeding the poor starving babies and you get a .50 cal right between the eyes.

I could go on, but I wouldn't want to overwhelm you too much at once with what's right in this world that you all can't grasp.

The strong are OBLIGATED to defend the weak.

Oh..one more thing...one cannot call oneself a TRUE lover of music unless one appreciates something from all music. Double ppffttt

Shirley Heezgay said...

Well, slap my ass and call me Judy.

Looks like I might have been wrong.

At least I can admit the possibiltiy of it, though.

Peace to all here at Shoes4Industry!

LifeBeginsAt200MPH said...

I thought I made a mistake once...

But I was wrong.....

Jack Straw said...

Interesting that lifebeginsat200mph hasn't seen fit to comment about Dr Judy Wood's analysis, the resistance paradox, or the matter of the actual steel temps being way too low to cause even weakening.
Two other items for thought:
1. The buildings were designed to survive a fully fueled 707 per the chief engineer, John Skilling, per books about the WTC. And a 707 does not weigh only half of a 767, it weighs some 330,000 lbs, vs 390,000 lbs of a 767, but has a higher cruise speed (630mph vs 550), hence packs more kinetic energy than a 767, see
http://911research.wtc7.net
find the guardian website mirrored in there (section on mirrored websites), see "The Collapse: An Engineer's Perspective."
2. http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org
A video simulation made by the NTSB ·National Transportation Safety Board) from the data supposedly recovered from Flight 77 shows the plane could not have hit the lamposts it supposedly hit, or in fact even hit the Pentagon, its height at impact time would have been 400ft with a correct altimeter reading. the Pentagon is 100 ft high.

Shoes4Industry said...

I agree, he's probably in over his head on that one.

Thank's for the thoughtful and informative (not to mention civil)
post, Jack.

Shoes4Industry said...

It's interesting and frustrating that the Government will not release any of the confiscated surveillance tapes from the Pentagon. Only those 5 frames. What are they hiding / afraid of?

Regardless of their size and speed, planes, by design are built of light weight materials, unlike skyscrapers. Logic would dictate that the damage would be much less to steel and concrete that it would be to aluminum and plastic.

LifeBeginsAt200MPH said...

720 (707-020) 707-120B 707-320B
Passengers 140 110 (2 class)
179 (1 class) 147 (2 class)
202 (1 class)
Max. takeoff weight 222,000 lb (100,800 kg) 257,000 lb (116,570 kg) 333,600 lb (151,320 kg)

767 315,000 lb
(142,882 kg) 395,000 lb
(179,169 kg) 350,000 lb
(158,758 kg) 412,000 lb
(186,880 kg) 412,000 lb
(186,880 kg) 450,000 lb
(204,116 kg)

I've forgot more about airplanes than you yahoos will ever know.

And re-read your books. Dr Skilling says they were designed for a 707 on APPROACH speeds. And landing airplanes do not carry a full load of fuel.

Dr Judy makes a few ponderable points, but, overall she's a conspiracy loon like the rest of you. Anybody can twist numbers anyway they want for the desired outcome. FACT: 2 planes hit the towers, they collapsed. End of story. Get a life.

Shoes4Industry said...

No planes hit 7WTC. NIST is has not released it's final report because they "had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7". After SIX YEARS? WHY? What are they having "trouble" with? What are they waiting for?

If 7WTC shows any indication of premeditation, your whole "theory" - Planes hit the towers, they collapsed - goes up in smoke...

LifeBeginsAt200MPH said...

Typical conspiracy loon logic...take one statement and turn it into a whole plethora of BS. Did you not read the facts on WTC7? "20+ story hole on the south face", "raging fires for over 7 hours" "pressurized fuel line for APU on upper floors" and on and on...

Anybody that thinks that there was controlled demolition, particle beam weapons, small nukes or any of that other crap is full of it.

The argument that "There has never been a collapse of any steel frame buildings like this before" is a blatant inept argument in and of itself....why? BECAUSE THERE HAVE NEVER BEEN ANY WTC TYPE BUILDINGS THAT HAD PLANES CRASH INTO THEM!!!!

And WTC7 was a "UNIQUE" design!!!

Go read the research on EVERYTHING you can find on this subject and quit concentrating on the looney bs out there that you take for gospel. Of course, that would call for logic, which is in short supply in lala land.

Chander said...

What a joke. LB@200mph seems to think his mix of lots of numbers, and dumb insult words is going to impress us. He knows how to translate pounds into kilos, so he gives us both. I guess that impresses the rubes in the trailer park, but I doubt that it packs much whoop here.
The weights, of course, mean nothing. Hardness and density are the relevant numbers, not weight. And BTW the planes (if there were planes) would not have been full of fuel as LB claims. A 757 has a range of 7000 miles, so it would have been only about half full in order to fly cross-country.

Jack Straw said...

Also, the planes didn't have full passenger loads, none of them was even close, hence they never had a full fuel load, that'd be a waste.
lifebeginsat200mph still doesn't deal with the actual steel temps, he can't. He doesn't deal with the resistance paradox, ie the lower portions *appearing* to *simultaneously* provide both low resistance (to account for fast destruction times) and high resistance (to account for the shredding of the top portions); he can't! And he doesn't deal with Dr Wood's actual calculations, simply calls her "a conspiracy loon" and hopes this will make her calculations go away.
Even if there was a raging fire on one side of WTC7, that would not account for a *symmetric* collapse, in 6.5 seconds. If buildings collapse symmetrically anyway, one would wonder why *controlled* demolition of structures is even necessary.

Shoes4Industry said...

http://tinyurl.com/yp7wv6

Shirley Heezgay said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Shirley Heezgay said...

Okay, serious question:
Never mind WTC 1&2 for a second.

WTC7....fires allegedly "raging" for 6 hours...20 story hole on south face etc...why did the whole building come down again?

I'm not understanding why a 47 story building, regardless of how long it was burning for, completely collapsed. The whole thing. Why not the kind of damage that we've seen from "regular" building fires?

If the NYFD/NYPD were able to predict, as audio/visual reports have demonstrated, that tower 2 was going to come down, why couldn't they have stopped WTC7. Why wouldn't they have been able to predict the outcome of the Solomon Building.

I agree that newspeople are "talking heads" but WHO told the BBC that it fell? There's no real answer. But someone told the BBC...no other news network demonstrated the same mistake. It kind of curious.

Contrary to what some Anons and LB@200 might think, I just really want definitive answers that eliminate any doubts.

Court of public opinion, right?

LifeBeginsAt200MPH said...

http://www.debunking911.com/

http://www.popularmechanics.com/
technology/military_law/1227842.
html

http://www.jod911.com/

http://ourworld.cs.com/mikegriffit
h1/refute.htm

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/
06-09-11.html

These are just a few of about 50 links that I can provide about 9-11. When you have read every word on every link as I have PLUS all the "Loonie" websites, get back to me. Shouldn't take ya' more than about a year or so.

"The 9/11 movement is a very troublesome development in American politics. A movement of people who have legitimate questions about the attacks that happened on September 11, 2001 has morphed into a conspiracy cult dominated by people who make a living peddling nonsense and exploiting ignorance."

I, like most Americans had legitimate questions about 9/11 and have read everything I can find on it. I have come to the conclusion after all the research I have done, that there was NO thermite, no nukes, no particle beam weapons, or any of that other BS that the looney tunes crowd seems to thrive on.

I DO believe there was a lapse in security and protecting this country by allowing these immigrant criminals into the country in the first place, and if this country had the guts, they're have sent hit squads after these SOB's before they did this to us all. Did you know Mohammed Atta was in Israeli custody and was released at the urging of the State Department run by Fatty Albright and Slick Willie? Now that sounds like a conspiracy to me......LMAO......"We'll let Atta out so he can destroy the WTC and then Her Filthiness Hillary can be pres in 2008." Makes about as much sense as your nutiness does.

Shoes4Industry said...

This is an open forum, not a open sewer.

It is really not worth the effort to argue with LB@200, personal attacks have no place here, so we will refrain.

Let's see what the NIST report on 7WTC has to say (if they release it before the next attack distracts everyone from the original crime) and then see where you stand.

Anonymous said...

I believe Bush and Marvin Bush were behind 9/11 in order to start a war and terrify Americans into believing that Terrorists are around every corner... Kinda funny that when the WTC was bombed in Feb. 1993 that it didn't collapse... Bush is evil... I feel sorry for the people that support that monster!!

Shoes4Industry said...

This whole "terrorist" threat scenario is so overblown it's pathetic. Look at all the lives, money, time and energy that has been spent to fight a relatively SMALL threat to the American public.

If all the money and effort that has been spend on this trumped-up adventure in the Middle East had been spent on HEATH CARE and EDUCATION, the public would be far more SAFE and HEALTHY than they are after 6 years of this nonsense.

LifeBeginsAt200MPH said...

n. pl. loon·ies also loon·eys or lun·ies
A foolish or crazy person.

From the American Heritage Dictionary.

Anyone who believes that controlled demolition, weapons, inside job, nukes, GWB, Cheney, space aliens, etal, is responsible for the way the WTC buildings collapsed after researching the subject THOROUGHLY is loonie. Truth hurts.

Shirley Heezgay said...

"Truth hurts."

I think, regardless of which side one sits regarding 9/11, the world is already hurting, whether we've been given the truth or not.

Jack Straw said...

And still, lifebeginsat200mph is unable to deal with any of the *evidence* presented, all he can do is unleash a stream of profanity ond slander. I agree, you don't need to descend to the sewer level to debunk him, the truth will do fine.
Some more things to consider: no evidence of any Arabs on the airliners, there are no Arab names on any of the passenger manifests, though supposedly the "hijackers" were identified because they used their real names to buy tickets via credit cards, meaning they had to show IDs to get on the planes. And several have shown up *alive* since 9/11. Some "suicide hijackers".
Popular Mechanics debunking? That's a laugh, PopMech has been shown to be a gov't propaganda machine, the chief researcher for the piece is a cousin of Homeland "Security" sec Chertoff. Good debunking of PopMech at a variety of places, including
http://www.serendipity.li
See War on Terror section.
The book is demolished by David Ray Griffin in his new book Debunking 9/11 Debunking.
By the way, where did Judy Wood's site go? I don't see it in the list of sites here, hers is one of the very best, she's more qualified professionally to speak of this matter than just about anyone else in the movement, given her background.

Anonymous said...

**News Flash** Clintons found to be true perpetrators of 9/11.

It has been revealed through release of recently declassified government documents that Bill and Hillary Clinton are behind the attacks on America on 9/11. Beginning with the realization that Al Gore did not stand a chance against George W. Bush since Jeb Bush, the Presidents brother would falsify voting returns in Florida, the Clintons launched a plan at the beginning of Mr. Clintons second term to assure that Hillary woud be elected President in 2008.

After the first WTC bombing in 1993, the bombing of 2 US embassies overseas and the bombing of the USS Cole, the Clintons launched a plan in cooperation with Osama Bin Laden to insure Hillary's election in 2008. In conjuction with Madelaine Albright, The Taliban leadership in Afghanistan and Pakistan, they funded and secured the release of numerous Israeli POW's, including Mohammed Atta. Working with Osama Bin Laden and other known terrorist leaders, they launched several cruise missiles into Afghanistan to start the cover story that The US was after the terrorists responsible for the attacks on American embassies and personnel around the world.

During the same time frame, then President Clinton started a downsizing of the US Military, along with relaxed immigration rules to allow the fledgling terrorist cell to come to the US and begin flight training. Knowing that the gutted US military would not be able to respond quickly to any large scale attack on the US, they came up with a plan to have the attacks happen after Mr. Clinton was out of office and place the blame on the next President George W Bush.

At the same time, Mrs. Clinton was elected to the US Senate to help bolster the road to war in Iraq. Knowing that there were no actual WMD's in Iraq because the Clintons had already helped Iraq send them to Syria and Iran, Mrs Clinton pushed for the war in Iraq with the plan to eventually turn on President Bush and call for the removal of troops from Iraq with one of the main reasons being, there were no WMD's found.

In order to insure the total destruction of the WTC buidlings in New York, where Mrs Clinton was Senator, the Clinton's, along with Move-On.org and DailyKos, expanded their Vince Foster murder team to include numerous illegal immigrant "house cleaning" staff to serrepticiously plant thermite bombs in the WTC Towers and WTC7, knowing that the flaming jet fuel from the crashed robot planes would not bring the towers down in and of themselves.

Having secretly constucted an airstirp and underground prison at the Whitewater land development complex in Arkansas, the actual planes were flown there and the passengers were all executed, and then the robot planes and a cruise missile were launched towards the WTC and The Pentagon.

Having introduced legislation to withdraw all troops from overseas, the Clintons then unleashed the second wave of their plan to insure her election. In conjunction with the North Koreans and Chinese, cruise missiles with dirty nuke warheads were launched against Los Angeles and Washington D.C. Wanting to avoid war with Mexico, due to all the Latinos killed in LA, the newly elected President Hillary agreed for the US to be annexed by Mexico since all the other elected officials had been killed in the strike on Washington.

Jack Straw said...

Thanks for demonstrating again that you can't deal with *the evidence* either, and have to spin a yarn (which i guess you think is funny) in an effort to ridicule the discussion and derail it.

Shoes4Industry said...

If you watch the BBC videos posted here for your benefit, The Power of Nightmares, you will discover where all this neocon "blame it on the Clintons" rhetoric (if you can call it that) comes from.

Please, take the time to watch.

LifeBeginsAt200MPH said...

't weren't me....but it makes about as much sense as your facts do...LMAO

If it's me, you'll know it...as Axel Foley said..."Trust Me"

Jack Straw said...

So now we've found out what the likes of lifebeginsat200mph cannot refute, cannot even begin to deal with.

LifeBeginsAt200MPH said...

"So now we've found out what the likes of lifebeginsat200mph cannot refute, cannot even begin to deal with."

OK, I'll admit I like to stir people up and tweak a few knobs, but WTF does that mean jack?

Jack Straw said...

You know exactly what i presented and what you haven't even tried to refute, i'm not gonna waste my time repeating myself, that's probably what you'd love me to do.

LifeBeginsAt200MPH said...

The only thing you have "presented" is the same BS whacko conspiracy crap. There's nothing to refute. There were no explosives, no nukes, no particle beam weapons or any thing like that.

Jack Straw said...

I posted on 7/24 at 9:39PM with the basic points, reiterated them 7/25 at 9:55PM, 7/26 at 11:17AM. You have dealt with *none of these*, instead just recycle the same old polemic, "whacko (sic) conspiracy crap", claim there's nothing to refute. I don't know if you are a troll, but you act like one, in fact like one who's been caught and trying to BS his way out.
A lot of people on Internet forums unfortunately care not one iota for content, what matters to them is whether one can maintain a confident style and act on top of it, can keep dancing and moving no matter how many times the floor gets pulled out from under them.

Shoes4Industry said...

It's a matter of mass/acceleration and gravity. Thousands of tons falling and gathering thousands of more tons of mass on the way down equals acceleration and more destructive power as it goes down. The towers were designed to take a THEORETICAL impact of a 707 at approach speeds, not a 757/767 at .8 Mach fully loaded with fuel.

This still does not explain how a structure could both "gather thousands more tons of mass" and both pancake down AND turn steel and concrete to dust. You and your energy get the choice of one, not both. You pick. Or the structure was compromised from below.

The jury (NIST) is still out, by the way, on your "no explosives" in 7WTC theory.

LifeBeginsAt200MPH said...

"Steel turning to dust"....lunacy....I rest my case.

Not a one of you has read any of the facts in all my previous postings or gone to the website links I have provided and STUDIED the facts with an open mind. If you had, you would have come to the logical conclusion that there were no weapons, explosives, inside job, or any other such malarkey. Planes hit the towers, they fell down. #7 building has massive damage and fires burning for hours and it collapsed....period.

Shoes4Industry said...

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
June 29, 2007

michael.newman@nist.gov

A team of scientists and engineers at the Commerce Department's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) that is investigating the collapse of New York City's World Trade Center 7 (WTC 7) building expects to release its draft report for public comment by the end of the year. WTC 7 was a 47-story office building adjacent to the WTC towers (WTC 1 and 2) that collapsed following the terrorist (OBVIOUS PROPOGANDA WORDING) attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. WTC 7 collapsed later that afternoon.

NIST's investigation of WTC 7 includes an extremely complex analysis that incorporates detailed information about the building's structure and construction, as well as data about fires, damage sustained from falling WTC 1 debris and other technical factors to determine its probable collapse sequence.

"We are proceeding as quickly as possible while rigorously testing and evaluating a wide range of scenarios to reach the most definitive conclusion possible," said Shyam Sunder, WTC lead investigator for NIST. "The WTC 7 investigation is in some respects just as challenging, if not more so, than the study of the towers. However, the current study does benefit greatly from the significant technological advances achieved and lessons learned from our work on the towers."


The current NIST working collapse hypothesis (as in "HYPOTHETICAL THEORY") for WTC 7 is described in the June 2004 Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster, as follows:

An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;

Vertical progression of the initial local failure occurred up to the east penthouse, as the large floor bays were unable to redistribute the loads, bringing down the interior structure below the east penthouse; and

Horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of floors 5 and 7, that were much thicker than the rest of the floors), triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, resulting in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.

This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements.

Updated information with the specific date for the public release of the NIST team's draft report will be posted on the WTC investigation Web site, http://wtc.nist.gov.

Jury's still out, LB@200. "All your baseless theories are belong to us."

Anonymous said...

Bottom line: Dems. & left-wingers (after 8 years)still cannot believe that neither Gore or Kerry are in the White House.

Clinton did nothing after attacks in '93(or others on Americans on foreign lands). He ignored all of these signs (yet Bush got criticized for not paying attention to ONE memo about Bin Laden attacking USA-less than a month before 9/11). Clinton can't be blamed for anything but Dems. are entitled to blame Bush for EVERYTHING. They sound like BROKEN RECORDS!

Dems. stood behind Bush for about 15min. after 9/11. They are the dividers in this country. They will say and/or do anything to bash this pres. & admin. in order to gain power in the White House again.

This site & all these moron conspiracy theorists have accomplised what they set out to do-raise doubt. No proof is necessary-just doubt.

Reminder: Liberals are all about "freedom of speech" just as long as they are doing the talking.See how fast Rosie ran away when someone stood up to her.

Shoes4Industry said...

Thank God, George Bush captured Osama bin Laden as quickly as he did, or we'd REALLY be in bad shape...

Shoes4Industry said...

This site & all these moron conspiracy theorists have accomplised what they set out to do-raise doubt. No proof is necessary-just doubt.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

Thank you.

Cocked45 said...

The problem with these left wing pussies is they don't have a clue as to who we are fighting. They'd be the first to have their heads sliced off by the terrorist sobs'.

I've been to Iraq and my fellow brothers in arms and I don't appreciate you idiots saying our government did 9/11.

lba200 and the rest of them are right, lunatics and morons describe the enemy, which is the terrorists in this world and left wing Democrat Progressive nut jobs.

Shoes4Industry said...

cocked45 - Nowhere do we say "the government DID 9-11." I would encourage YOU and your brothers-in-arms to view "The Power of Nightmares" to understand the real threat, (hint: It's not "terrorists)

Thank you.

Jack Straw said...

lba200mph still hasn't answered *ANY* of the points i've raised. It is a matter of simple physics, but he can't deal with it, or with anything, all he can do is sling more invective.
And his fellow know-nothings keep trying to make this about Democrats and Republicans. But the Clinton Admin was as involved with 9/11 as the Bushies, that's the best feature of Crossing the Rubicon by Mike Ruppert, the showing of the bi-partisan nature of the inside job.
And Osama/al CIA Duh had a minor role in 9/11, that of creating a false evidence trail, it was created as a CIA front, and still is, see
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/SEPT11309A.html
and check out the writings of Chaim Kupferberg.

LifeBeginsAt200MPH said...

I'll answer any valid points if any are ever made. So far all I see are the same garbage nutball statements.

I'll give ya' one to keep you awake at night along with the rest of your paranoid delusions.

If the buildings fell at "free fall speed"(another BS buzz word/term), then why do numerous videos and pictures show structural debris falling ahead of the structure debris wave? Did they have rockets attached to make them fall faster than the structure itself? Explain that one Mr. Physics.

You conspiracy nuts just can't get a grip on reality. In 6 years not ONE person, ONE video clip, ONE security camera image, or ONE ANYTHING has proved your lunatic theory that explosives or inside job, or what ever, actually happened.

Oh wait, that's right, everybody involved has been shipped to Guantanamo Bay or killed by the CIA.

And don't tell me just because some yahoo with a bunch of letters behind their name makes them "smarter than us"...Bill Clinton was a Rhodes scholar and that dumbass couldn't even get away with a hummer without getting caught.

Shoes4Industry said...

If the buildings fell at "free fall speed"(another BS buzz word/term), then why do numerous videos and pictures show structural debris falling ahead of the structure debris wave? Did they have rockets attached to make them fall faster than the structure itself?
Then how can the buildings fall at NEAR the speed of gravity, obviously (to those who look critically) the buildings had no supporting / resisting structure below the impact zones. Look at the video here, http://tinyurl.com/2v92su , notice any similarity? No resistance=CONTROLLED DESTRUCTION.

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."-William Shakespeare

Jack Straw said...

If anything, structural members flying ahead of "the wave" shows they were propelled by some sort of force, eg explosions. If the lower parts of the structures are not providing any resistance, in fact, why are there structural members flying out of the upper portions? "Mr physics" (NOT) is caught in a contradiction, all he can do is resort to ad-hominems flung at the rate of 200mph or more.
And of course he has not tackled the subject of the steel temps, nor of the Billiard Balls example.

Shoes4Industry said...

..or the plastic cup demonstration.

"It's all the Clinton's fault."

LifeBeginsAt200MPH said...

It's obvious that you haven't spent one minute reading anything at all about what really happened that day. You keep talking in circles with your insipid "theories" and refuse to acknowledge what the facts really are. As someone said on one of the other pages here, Fatso is behind this website and she's admittedly mentally unstable. As are all the other conspiracy loonies. You refuse to deal in reality and/or facts, and you have absolutely no PROOF that your "theories" are true.

Where are the people who planted the explosives?

Where are the video security pics of the explosives being planted?

Where are the bodies of the people "not" on the "missiles" that hit the towers?

Where are the "missing" airplanes that "didn't" hit anything?

"The 9/11 movement is a very troublesome development in American politics. A movement of people who have legitimate questions about the attacks that happened on September 11, 2001 has morphed into a conspiracy cult dominated by people who make a living peddling nonsense and exploiting ignorance."

One more time just to be clear....ANYBODY that thinks there were explosives, thermite, nukes, particle beam weapons or any other such garbage is a freaking MORON!!

LifeBeginsAt200MPH...if ya' can't hang on for the ride then STFU!!!

Shoes4Industry said...

LB@200-It's obvious that you haven't spent one minute reading anything at all about what really happened that day. Perhaps you should...

LifeBeginsAt200MPH said...

blahblah...same insipid answers. When are you going to start responding in haiku like your mentor does?

This site is nothing but the same shit rehashed from every other nutball site.

Getting really boring...not only the same circular answers, but the same small handful of trolls who spout the same crap over and over. Ran out of friends to call to do battle with me? Better find some new ones to spice things up if you even hope to make this thing fly.

Shoes4Industry said...

LB@200 - We do what we can here...Thanks for your support, you can tell whoever is paying you to troll this site, that they're getting their money's worth.

Shoes4Industry said...

Where are the people who planted the explosives? THAT"S WHAT WE WANT TO FIND OUT.

Where are the video security pics of the explosives being planted?
WHERE ARE THE SECURITY VIDEOS OF THE PENTAGON ATTACK?

Where are the bodies of the people "not" on the "missiles" that hit the towers? WHERE INDEED?

Where are the "missing" airplanes that "didn't" hit anything? WHO SAID ANYTHING ABUT MISSING AIRPLANES? YOU MUST ME MIXING US UP WITH ANOTHER SITE YOU'RE TROLLING.

Where are the records for the missing explosives used to bring the towers down? RECORDS? DON'T START ON MISSING RECORDS...

Where are the computer records/video masters of the forged broadcasts?

Where is YOUR PROOF?

Anonymous said...

This is too funny.

LifeBeginsAt200MPH said...

Very briefly stated, conspiracy theories offer their practitioners at least these several advantages:

1. The safety of knowing that your idea can never be disproven. How can anyone prove that "the hidden hand" didn't do such-and-such? When you appeal to unknowable forces, you're safe.
2. A neat, tidy explanation. You can impute any powers you want to "the hidden hand," and no one can prove that you're wrong. You can tailor the conspiracy any way you have to in order to fit your evidence. The bigger and more complex the conspiracy is, the more important it must be.
3. The simple way out. Life's numerous complexities, which even distinguished scholars may never totally plumb, can be brushed aside when returning to a simpler age where "they" can be the cause.
4. The easy way out. Appealing to conspiracy saves you having to struggle with the difficulties, contradictions, and uncertainties of real evidence.
5. The security of knowing that you will never have to fix the situation. You can't contend with any forces you can't get to, right?

Shoes4Industry said...

Ditto.

Jack Straw said...

lba200mph says "life's numerous complexities,....uncertainties of real evidence,...blah, blah, blah"
Like steel with temps of under 500°F supposedly weakening and failing even though steel doesn't significantly weaken till 1170°F? Or falling tops simultaneously encountering near zero resistance AND high resistance from the lower portions? Or the WTC1 antenna which falls 60 ft while the fire zone has yet to move? Or fall times which violate the laws of physics? Reminds me of Noam Chomsky in early '05 trying to appeal to quantum physics, which deals with the behavior of sub-atomic particles, to explain the WTC. I hope they're not paying you, i'd hate to see my tax money wasted on such an incompetent troll.
And you have the gall to demand photos? What do you think we are, perps? Ask *your boss*.
Anyone who wastes his time debating you deserves what they get.

Shirley Heezgay said...

Good questions....Here are my smartass, probably closer to the truth answers.

Where are the people who planted the explosives? DEAD

Where are the video security pics of the explosives being planted? DESTROYED.

Where are the bodies of the people "not" on the "missiles" that hit the towers?
DEAD, PAID, WITNESS PROTECTION

Where are the "missing" airplanes that "didn't" hit anything?
THEY MUST HAVE MELTED.

Where are the records for the missing explosives used to bring the towers down?
BLACK MARKET REQUIRES NO LEDGERS. PAPER BURNS...OH WAIT...ONLY STEEL AND CONCRETE BURN.

Where are the computer records/video masters of the forged broadcasts?
ALL THE HEADS OF THE NETWORKS WERE PROBABLY THE ONLY ONES IN ON ANYTHING...THE REST OF THE TALKING HEADS REPORT WHAT THEY "SAW"
AND DIDN'T CNN AND SOME LOCAL STATION SHOW THE EXACT SAME FOOTAGE WITH THE EXACT SAME INTERFERENCE....

Where is your PROOF?
I GUESS WE JUST DON'T HAVE IT, BUT NEITHER DO THE NON CONSPIRACY FOLK.

Shirley Heezgay said...

"They will say and/or do anything to bash this pres. & admin. in order to gain power in the White House again.

Reminder: Liberals are all about "freedom of speech" just as long as they are doing the talking.See how fast Rosie ran away when someone stood up to her."

Are you for real? American dems and libs don't have to say or do anything. Your brilliant King is bringing the USA pain and humiliation.

Does anyone even remember when the States were United?

...you also seem unclear as to what happened that day. You saw a political argument. It wasn't political. A friend betrayed another friend. She didn't run anywhere, she just walked away.

"I've been to Iraq and my fellow brothers in arms and I don't appreciate you idiots saying our government did 9/11."

Is that because the POSSIBILITY of having gone to fight a war for a criminal mind is devastating?

As a citizen of a country that has military personnel in Afghanistan, I think I have the right to say that we support, appreciate and respect your desire to fight and protect....but is it so terrible to want you all to come home to your families alive and right now?!

moneysmith said...

Question for lb200whatever: Why are you spending so much time at this blog? You're never going to convince the growing number of people who doubt the official "story" of what happened that day with your pseudo-facts. So what's the point? What do you gain by coming here?

LifeBeginsAt200MPH said...

"What do you gain by coming here?"

Putting a bug up your collective ass just to hear you squeal....and the gub'mint can't pay me enough to work for them. I do whatever the hell I want to do.

You all can't deal with the fact that what happened actually happened and there's nothing you can do to convince me or the vast majority of people that your far out "facts" are nothing but a skewered explanaition of reality.

"4. The easy way out. Appealing to conspiracy saves you having to struggle with the difficulties, contradictions, and uncertainties of real evidence."...in other words, conspiracy theories generally appeal to the weaker minded and easily mislead.

Again, ain't a one of ya' have spent any time reading ALL the facts and explanations out there on the events of that day. If you had, you would have not kept repeating the same limp "points" over and over and over again.

http://www.debunking911.com/links
.htm

http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writing
s/911/king911.htm#_Toc144446004

http://www.daylightatheism.org
/2006/05/loose-marbles-i.html

http://screwloosechange.blogspot
.com/

http://ourworld.cs.com/mikegriffit
h1/refute.htm

I've got lots more debunking sites and I have read ALL the conspiracy sites I can find. I have a brain and can reach a logical conclusion, as opposed to you conspiracy freaks. Go read every word of every link I just gave you. Or does it hurt your pointed little heads to actually THINK about what you're reading.

As the Guvuhnater says..."I'll be bach."

Shirley Heezgay said...

...so far I've gone through about 1/3 of debunking911.com

There's a lot there and I will reserve my comments until I'm done reading...but there is one thing that I've noticed that is different from 911truth sites...

Writers like Taibbi, Rice, "maddox" as well as the moderator of debunking911 are very sarcastic and resort to a lot of namecalling (sound familiar?).

How effective is it to belittle and tell someone who is trying to seek out facts, that they're stupid for ever entertaining such "kooky" notions.

ART OF DISTRACTION....

....anyway, back to the read. I've got all day, honey!

Jack Straw said...

Debunking911 doesn't answer ANY of the questions i raise either. For example, they(or he?) assert that Kevin Ryan said the fire temps weren't hot enough to melt steel, when in fact what he pointed out was that the steel temps (NOT fire temps) weren't high enough to *weaken* the steel (never mind "melt"), but this way they can say Ryan is full of BS. Come to think of it, that's so like lba200mph.
So Shirley, why are you wasting time arguing with a troll? And what's this about "non-conspiracy"? Don't be like that, the official story is itself a conspiracy tale, the most unbelievable one of all, check out Gerard Holmgren's piece "Debunking Conspiracy Theory", it's a hoot (he debunks the official story as a conspiracy story).

shoes4industry said...

We have recently read the offical NIST 9-11 report an found it, albeit packed with facts, figures, diagrams and data, severely lacking in real, believable answers to primary questions. They go into great detail on HOW he upper stories collapse/imploded/etc, but then jump to "global collapse" for the rest of the UNDAMAGED stucture! This makes no sense, and anyone who would blindly accept this half-report, is either foolish or invested in covering up something.

Also, in another NIST report on "pancaking structures" (NISTIR 7396) has several 'case studies' and they do NOT include either WTC 1 or 2 or 7 (the 7WTC report is still being fabricated).

All this should lead any reasonably curious and intelligent person to wonder and to ask that a NEW, INDEPENDENT Investigation be opened immediately.

End of debate.

Shoes4Industry said...

As we said earlier, this portion of the debate is over, thanks to those (you know who you are) that have tried to misdirect and mislead on the "facts". It's time to re-open an INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION.

Shirley Heezgay said...

It my humble, uneducated but instinctive opinion that every North American, South American, Asian, African, Australian, European and any poor souls who might be in the Arctic or Antartic, formally request a new, unbiased INDEPENDENT investigation into the events of September 11th, 2001.

I have not been convinced by any "debunking" site. In fact, it reinforces my doubt regarding the validity of the initial 9/11 report, simply because there are questions that just have not been answered.

Further, I don't really think anyone can hold fast to a specific truth or reason until ALL the information is released. That being the DELIBERATE DELAY of the WTC7 report. All the debunkers have given their reasons...why hasn't NIST been able to confirm them?

Sorry folks....the questions remain unanswered or vague.

Shirley Heezgay said...

...oh, and you will all notice that in that last post I did not once use the words:

loony
kooky
crazy
rightwing megalomaniacs
whining
insane
effed up
full of crap/shit/bullshit

or any other type of slight, insult or insinuation of intellect or sanity.

And I just realized that any language like the words I just mentioned can distract you from focusing your energy on getting questions answered.

Ask questions, demand answers and don't get distracted. Not by Lindsay, Britney, Trump, dog fights or the need to defend your own stance or sanity.

Moving on...

Anonymous said...

I'm going to miss this little debate. I love seeing a good battle between right and wrong. Just made my day watching lba200 give it to you guys. Hopefully they're still around.

shoes4industry said...

Well said Shirley!

If we've caused ONE person to question the "official THEORY" of 9-11, then MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! (to borrow a phrase).

Thanks for you input.

Kevin Simms said...

Hey lifebeginsat200mph,

Do the world a favor and remove yourself from the gene pool. It's mouthbreathers like you that are fucking up this once great nation.

Anonymous said...

LB-notice how this site is an "open forum" but only if you agree. If not, then well it it is an "open sewer". Agree with you, can dish it out but can't take it. Notice, too how it is not OK for you to watch FOX & Ann Coulter but CNN,NBC,ABC & CBS are legit. And why is it Coulter's every word is critized (on the later stations mentioned) but when Bill Mahler opens his "sewer" mouth they don't take notice? Oh, that's right he is an ARTIST or commedian (& lib. so he is entitled to freedom of speech). Keep firing away!

To Cocked45: Thanks for your service.

To Shoes: If Clinton had captured Bin Laden (FYI he had at least 3 times presented where he could have) then Bush would not have had to clean up his mess.

Shirley: States were united until Dems. pulled us apart. Bush says "up" they say "down"; he say's "black", they say "white"; he says "right", they say "left" (no pun intended on that one). They have disagreed with EVERYTHING this man has said or done. They don't know the meaning of united (only the meaning of investigation!)

As far as Rosie goes, it was yet another of their political arguments & E had enough. Rosie was in shock because E finally didn't back down. And why should E defend her? Just another example of libs. dishing it out but not being able to take it. And, the belief that freedom of speech only pertains to them. Rosie didn't walk away she RAN away!

Shoes4Industry said...

We here at S4I are interested in spirited debate (although the debate over whether 9-11 needs to be RE-INVESTIGATED INDEPENDENTLY is OVER!) and seeking the TRUTH. Without name calling or personal attacks.

Other than that, all opinions, are welcome.

Thanks.

Stephanie said...

Shoes: Don't be too quick to thank me. Mission was accomplished because you cast doubts. But the reason you want to cast doubts is to make conseratives & Republicans look like the bad guys. You're hoping that if enough people believe your BS &think that the conseratives & Republicans are responsible for one of the worst days in USA history the DemocRATS have a better chance of winning in '08.

Dems. & liberals will stoop to any level to win the next election. But beware: The silent majority will only be silenced for so long.

Shoes4Industry said...

But the reason you want to cast doubts is to make conseratives & Republicans look like the bad guys.
We do not have to do anything to make NEO conservatives and Republicans look like bad guys, they do a good job of that themselves.

H Nicole said...

I was wondering where everybody went, and here they are!

There was a thread about dustification on another post that seemed to be dropped before I could get people's opinions about Steven Warran's observations at the Pentagon (namely, what looks to be a possible side effect of dustification -- oddly toasted cars):

http://stevenwarran.blogspot.com/2007/07/why-is-jeep-burned-to-crisp-in-opening.html

Anyway, I thought it was fantastic but didn't get a response. Did anybody read the article? What do you think? Just wondering what the arguments against Steven
Warran's observations are, if any.

Shoes4Industry said...

Steve seems a bit "over-caffeinated."

H Nicole said...

Yeah, maybe, but he still cracks me up. I've been reading some of his other posts, and he really has a humorous writing style, laughs at the government a lot.

Here is an example:

The following anonymous image, numbered 8324, is from a massive data base housed at HereisNewYork.org and it has everything going for it: a ridiculous, insensible use of yellow crime-scene tape, separating a closed highway from an exit ramp, a particularly amusing stream of hose water that appears to emanate from a sedan parked on the highway, a partially obscured man standing on a road divider who may be holding up a cue-card, and several men wearing FBI jackets carrying empty brown paper grocery bags. If they didn't know how to pantomime carrying an imaginary heavy load, why didn't someone just put lumps of coal in the bottom of each bag for verisimilitude?

LOL. What a crack-up.

Anonymous said...

Republicans use the "small" threat of terrorism to scare us into thinking there are "actual" immediate terrorists threats.

Democrats try to scare us in believing that humans are the main cause of global warming & turn that "small" threat into blown out exaggerate.

www.junkscience.com is sponsoring a contest (Can You Save Al Gore). The first person that can prove humans are causing catastrophic global warming will win $100,000.
Check it out on YouTube.

Seems as though Ozone Al has made big bucks on this rant and the big corporations (which this site despises) are all ready to jump on the bandwagon. It is believed they will lobby to get over 3 TRILLION dollars for this "cause". How about fixing bridges and building NO with that money first.

Maybe all the "profession experts" that this site seems to produce might want to take a shot & winning some big bucks!

shoes4industry said...

We agree, fixing NO should be first on this countries list of priorities!

We believe the global warming issue is beyond debate, besides good stewardship of the environment should be self evident. There's a big difference between scaring people in to changing to low volt light bulbs vs. blowing the crap out of another country in the Middle East.

Anonymous said...

"We believe the global warming issue is beyond debate,"

Well that settles that, if you say so it must be true. Anybody that differs must hate the Earth.

GW "science" is going to turn out to the the biggest scam ever foisted on the World. Al Gore and his fellow millionaires stand to make billions on the "Carbon Credit/Futures" Scam. Can anybody say "Enron"? EXACT same marketing ploy, only a different product to pitch.

shoes4industry said...

Good stewardship is good stewardship, Global Warming or not, certainly spewing tons of carbon into the atmosphere is not health. At the end of the day, if we are to be misled, we would much rather be misguided on a phony War on Warming than a Phony War on Terror.

shoes4industry said...

Many of the critics of the consensus view on global warming have disagreed, in whole or part, with the scientific consensus regarding other issues, particularly those relating to environmental risks. The appearance of overlapping groups of skeptical scientists, commentators and think tanks in seemingly unrelated controversies results from an organised attempt to replace scientific analysis with political ideology. The promotion of doubt regarding issues that are politically, but not scientifically, controversial has become increasingly prevalent under the Bush Administration and constitutes a "Republican war on science".

Anonymous said...

constitutes a "Republican war on science".

Where do you people come up with this crap at? Pretty much validates another posters comment about this being a site "promoting hatred of Republicans".

Shoes4Industry said...

From something called "books," you might have heard about those...

http://tinyurl.com/dg6mh

We here at S4I are promoting the truth and nothing but the truth.

Anonymous said...

Here we go again! OK to doubt & question 9/11 and "war on terra" but(God forbid) don't question or doubt global warming. What was that(too long to go to bottom again) "Republican war on Science"??!! Unbelieveable.

Shoes4Industry: Truth & NOTHING But the Truth. You can't be serious. How about everything BUT the truth?

Shoes4Industry said...

Your opinion, not ours.

Anonymous said...

Shoes: Your entitled to you opinion, too. Even if it's the wrong one.

Shoes4Industry said...

And so are you...

Thanks

Anonymous said...

Shoes: So, tinyurl.com/dg6mh is a "book"? REALLY. Then that's one "library" I want to stay out of.

"Republican War on Science"-HA! Check out the current cover of Newsweek.

Shoes4Industry said...

Read it, you might learn something.

Shoes4Industry said...

RE: CUP AND BRICK EXPERIMENTERS - If anyone would like to send us photos or videos of their results, we will posting them here,if, of course, you follow the prescribed procedure. Why not even try if with at beer can?

Lee said...

Shoes says "there is a big difference in scaring people into changing low-volt light bulbs vs. blowing the crap out of another country in the Middle East".

I say "if we don't protect our homeland from terrorists (even if it means bombing some countries) and they bomb (or worse) us first, changing those light bulbs will be the least of our worries.

Shoes4Industry said...

And how is invading IRAQ helping to do that? You've created a generation of terrorists.

Please watch the BBC Power of Nightmare's documentary, then comment.

Thanks.

Shoes4Industry said...

We believe you are missing the point here Lee.

Our purpose is to draw attention to the obvious (once you take the time to look) inconsistencies and half-truths regarding the events of Sept 11. The "facts" as told by this administration, do not add up to the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. They merely reinforce a "narrative" that is easy for the simple-minded to understand and that supports their misguided and un-American, political agenda.

Lee said...

Invading Iraq did not create a new generation of terrorists. They have been in the making for many, many years. The war in Iraq just brought them out of their caves and into the open where now they have to fight and not hide in those caves and plan the next attack on us.

This BBC documentary is ONE story. Why do you put all your beliefs there?

Shoes4Industry said...

We beg to differ. Check you facts please before makeing MISLEADING comments! If you check the "terrorists" on 9-11 were Saudis.

The BBC documentary makes MUCH more sense than the stories coming out the Administration or the 9-11 Commission. Why do you believe those?
Or are you acting on pure "blind faith?"

Lee said...

Terrorists are just that no matter where they come from.

This site wouldn't beleive ANYTHING that this administration says. You only want to believe the worst about this government. Mabye, you are the one that is blind.

Shoes4Industry said...

We maintain that, based on history and performance, we are completely justified in NOT BELIEVING the things this administration says. Witness...

•WMDs
•KATRINA
•WARRANTLESS WIRETAPS
•IRAQ
•GITMO
•TORTURE
•9/11
•FEDERAL ATTORNEY FIRINGS
•MINING SAFETY
•PLAIME-GATE
•SECRET ENERGY ADVISERS
•THE "SURGE"

Did we mention Katrina?

moneysmith said...

As usual, lee's here to do his Loofah guy impersonation, not to talk about the issues in a meaningful way.

Lee said...

WMD's: So the intelliegence world over was wrong?

KATRINA: Again, if the local government had evacuated BEFORE the storm (which is usually when evacuations take place)it would have made a huge diffenece in what the feds. had to do when they got there. Were is the credit to the Coast Guard?

WIRETAPS: Don't worry the government is not interested in listening in on calls about idle chit chat. Besides, privacy went out the window with the coming of the internet. Notice how everyone plasters all their personal information everywhere here.

TORTURE: OK, I won't deny there wasn't any torture. But it doesn't mean ALL of the prisoners were tortured. And what about the fact that the prisoners are allowed to practice their religion. The curan is provided along with what they can & can't eat because of their religion. That doesn't sound like torture to me. Just another BLOWN OUT of proportion incident..

9/11: The terrorists (radical Muslims) are responsible. Stop pointing fingers at everyone else.

FED. FIRINGS: Clinton (there's that name, again) fired ALL of the attorneys when he took office. And I beleive one of them was ready to investigage White Water. HMMMM!
Just because Bush didn't do it in the same time frame that Clinton did doesn't make it wrong.

PLAME: The man that did leak her name was never brought to trial. I thought that was the basis for the case. HMMMM! And I find it funny that the NY Times has many times leaked vital information regarding our national security and no one seems to notice. Yet, a leaked agents name (who WAS NOT covert) becomes a risk to national security. Interesting.

IRAQ: Bush said we would go after anyone that supports or harbors terrorists anywhere. I think SH and Iraq fits the description.

With your CLOSED mind because of your hated for Bush, you will never believe ANYTHING he says.

Shirley Heezgay said...

This is beyond ridiculous.

"WMD's: So the intelliegence world over was wrong?"

YES!!!! Blix didn't find any. He was correct right from the start! Even Cheney said, "We were wrong." Condoleeza said, "We received incorrect information."

Question to GWB:
"What did Iraq have to do with the WTC attacks?"
Answer from GWB:
"Nothing!"

"KATRINA: Again, if the local government had evacuated BEFORE the storm (which is usually when evacuations take place)..."

Who CARES about the BEFORE! What about now?

What about now? What about now? What about now? What about now? What about now? What about now? What about now? What about now? What about now?

Lee said...

What about BEFORE? Maybe some issues should be delt with BEFORE they become worse. Because AFTERWARDS it too late. It's called precaution or playing on the offensive.

How can you say the before has nothing at all to do with the final result?

moneysmith said...

Good one, Shirley!!!! Let's just hope lee takes his medication, so we don't have to continue to deal with these out-of-touch rantings. Fortunately for us, there are fewer people who "think" like he does every day.

Shoes4Industry said...

WMD's: So the intelliegence world over was wrong? SO WHEN DO WE CARE ABOUT OTHER COUNTRIES INTEL?

KATRINA: Again, if the local government had evacuated BEFORE the storm (which is usually when evacuations take place)it would have made a huge diffenece in what the feds. had to do when they got there. Were is the credit to the Coast Guard? THE PROBLEM IS THE INHUMAN, SHAMEFUL RESPONSE BY THE FED GOV TO REBUILD N.O., A NATIONAL DISGRACE!

WIRETAPS: Don't worry the government is not interested in listening in on calls about idle chit chat. Besides, privacy went out the window with the coming of the internet. Notice how everyone plasters all their personal information everywhere here. THEN MAKE IT A LAW, OTHERWISE IT'S ILLEGAL!

TORTURE: OK, I won't deny there wasn't any torture. But it doesn't mean ALL of the prisoners were tortured. And what about the fact that the prisoners are allowed to practice their religion. The curan is provided along with what they can & can't eat because of their religion. That doesn't sound like torture to me. Just another BLOWN OUT of proportion incident..BLOWN OUT OF PROPORTION JUST LIKE THIS PHONY "WAR ON TERROR!" SHAMEFUL.

9/11: The terrorists (radical Muslims) are responsible. Stop pointing fingers at everyone else.WERE'S YOUR PROOF? ATTA'S SUITCASE? GIVE US A BREAK!

FED. FIRINGS: Clinton (there's that name, again) fired ALL of the attorneys when he took office. And I beleive one of them was ready to investigage White Water. HMMMM!
Just because Bush didn't do it in the same time frame that Clinton did doesn't make it wrong.
WHITEWATER WAS B.S., POLITICIZING THE JUDICIARY IS WRONG/ILLEGAL!

PLAME: The man that did leak her name was never brought to trial. I thought that was the basis for the case. HMMMM! And I find it funny that the NY Times has many times leaked vital information regarding our national security and no one seems to notice. Yet, a leaked agents name (who WAS NOT covert) becomes a risk to national security. Interesting.TALK RADIO TALKING POINTS, ALL DISPROVED AND WRONG.

IRAQ: Bush said we would go after anyone that supports or harbors terrorists anywhere. I think SH and Iraq fits the description. OK, REPEAT AFTER US, "Irag had Nothing to do with 9/11" SH was not a terrorist. get your facts straight.

With your CLOSED mind because of your hated for Bush, you will never believe ANYTHING he says.OR YOU AT THE RATE YOU'RE GOING.

Shirley Heezgay said...

"What about BEFORE? Maybe some issues should be delt with BEFORE they become worse. Because AFTERWARDS it too late. It's called precaution or playing on the offensive.

How can you say the before has nothing at all to do with the final result? "

Are you serious?

Are you actually trying to tell us that before the US Gov't gets into N.O. and rebuilds it, we should figure out where someone went wrong?

That would be like France and the UK discovering the cure for cancer, but refusing to release the details until someone can be credited with finding it first. Meanwhile, suffering, death etc.

Do I think that the "before" isn't important? No. It is. Those learnings might prevent future disasters.

But I think if you asked ONE person from say, 9th Parish, they would tell you that they don't give a crap.

Stop for just a moment, Lee. This disaster didn't happen overseas. It didn't happen in Mexico.

It's right there, on your home soil. The government's blatant ignorance of New Orleans is a home-grown terrorism that should freak you out more than any Iraqi (that didn't attack you).

Obviously, we don't know where you live, Lee, but let me ask you...what if Katrina happened right in your backyard? What if no one came to your rescue for days in the stifling heat, surrounded by dead, bloated bodies. It's two years later and you still only own a piece of foundation.

Do you still care about the "before?"

One trillion dollars could be better spent in your country than fighting a war on terror that is really all about oil.

moneysmith said...

Shirley, you get my vote!!

Shirley Heezgay said...

haha! I'll be counting on your vote when the provinces and territories become the next American states.

I will shirley run for office!

LifeBeginsAt200MPH said...

These are the kind of people we're dealing with Lee...they just can't wake up and admit that they're living in a fantasy world...

"Very briefly stated, conspiracy theories offer their practitioners at least these several advantages:

1. The safety of knowing that your idea can never be disproven. How can anyone prove that "the hidden hand" didn't do such-and-such? When you appeal to unknowable forces, you're safe.
2. A neat, tidy explanation. You can impute any powers you want to "the hidden hand," and no one can prove that you're wrong. You can tailor the conspiracy any way you have to in order to fit your evidence. The bigger and more complex the conspiracy is, the more important it must be.
3. The simple way out. Life's numerous complexities, which even distinguished scholars may never totally plumb, can be brushed aside when returning to a simpler age where "they" can be the cause.
4. The easy way out. Appealing to conspiracy saves you having to struggle with the difficulties, contradictions, and uncertainties of real evidence.
5. The security of knowing that you will never have to fix the situation. You can't contend with any forces you can't get to, right? "

LifeBeginsAt200MPH said...

A little bit of SERIOUS history for Adults.....

Historical Significance for today's world:

Sixty-three years ago, Nazi Germany had overrun almost all of Europe and
hammered England to the verge of bankruptcy and defeat. The Nazis had
sunk more than 400 British ships in their convoys between England and
America taking food and war materials

At that time the US was in an isolationist, pacifist mood, and most
Americans wanted nothing to do with the European or the Asian war

Then along came Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, and in outrage
Congress unanimously declared war on Japan, and the following day on
Germany, who had not yet attacked us. It was a dicey thing. We had few
allies

France was not an ally, as the Vichy government of France quickly aligned
itself with its German occupiers. Germany was certainly not an ally, as
Hitler was intent on setting up a Thousand Year Reich in Europe. Japan
was not an ally, as it was well on its way to owning and controlling all
of Asia.

Together, Japan and Germany had long-range plans of invading Canada and
Mexico, as launching pads to get into the United States over our
northern and southern borders, after they finished gaining control of
Asia and Europe.

America's only allies then were England, Ireland, Scotland, Canada,
Australia, and Russia. That was about it. All of Europe, from Norway to
Italy (except Russia in the East) was already under the Nazi heel.

The US was certainly not prepared for war. The US had drastically
downgraded most of its military forces after WW I because of the
depression, so that at the outbreak of WW II, Army units were training
with broomsticks because they didn't have guns, and cars with "tank"
painted on the doors because they didn't have real tanks. A huge chunk of
our Navy had just been sunk or damaged at Pearl Harbor.

Britain had already gone bankrupt, saved only by the donation of $600
million in gold bullion in the Bank of England (that was actually the
property of Belgium ) given by Belgium to England to carry on the war
when Belgium was overrun by Hitler (a little known fact).

Actually, Belgium surrendered in one day, because it was unable to oppose
the German invasion, and the Germans bombed Brussels into rubble the next
day just to prove they could.

Britain had already been holding out for two years in the face of
staggering losses and the near decimation of its Royal Air Force in the
Battle of Britain, and was saved from being overrun by Germany only
because Hitler made the mistake of thinking the Brits were a relatively
minor threat that could be dealt with later. Hitler, first turned his
attention to Russia, in the late summer of 1940 at a time when England
was on the verge of collapse.

Ironically, Russia saved America 's butt by putting up a desperate fight
for two years, until the US got geared up to begin hammering away at
Germany.

Russia lost something like 24,000,000 people in the sieges of Stalingrad
and Moscow alone . . 90% of them from cold and starvation, mostly
civilians, but also more than a 1,000,000 soldiers.

Had Russia surrendered, Hitler would have been able to focus his entire
war effort against the Brits, then America. If that had happened, the
Nazis could possibly have won the war.

All of this has been brought out to illustrate that turning points in
history are often dicey things. Now, we find ourselves at another one of
those key moments in history.

There is a very dangerous minority in Islam that either has, or wants,
and may soon have, the ability to deliver small nuclear, biological, or
chemical weapons, almost anywhere in the world.

The Jihadis, the militant Muslims, are basically Nazis in Kaffiyahs --
they believe that Islam, a radically conservative form of Wahhabi Islam,
should own and control the Middle East first, then Europe, then the
world. To them, all who do not bow to their will of thinking should be
killed, enslaved, or subjugated. They want to finish the Holocaust,
destroy Israel, and purge the world of Jews . This is their mantra.
(goal)

There is also a civil war raging in the Middle East -- for the most part
not a hot war, but a war of ideas. Islam is having its Inquisition and
its Reformation, but it is not yet known which side will win -- the
Inquisitors, or the Reformationists.

If the Inquisition wins, then the Wahhabis, the Jihadis, will control the
Middle East, the OPEC oil, and the US, European, and Asian economies.

The techno-industrial economies will be at the mercy of OPEC -- not an
OPEC dominated by the educated, rational Saudis of today, but an OPEC
dominated by the Jihadis. Do you want gas in your car? Do you want
heating oil next winter? Do you want the dollar to be worth anything?
You had better hope the Jihad, the Muslim Inquisition, loses, and the
Islamic Reformation wins.

If the Reformation movement wins, that is, the moderate Muslims who
believe that Islam can respect and tolerate other religions, live in
peace with the rest of the world, and move out of the 10th century into
the 21st, then the troubles in the Middle East will eventually fade away.
A moderate and prosperous Middle East will emerge.

We have to help the Reformation win, and to do that we have to fight the
Inquisition, i.e., the Wahhabi movement, the Jihad, Al Qaeda and the
Islamic terrorist movements. We have to do it somewhere. We can't do it
everywhere at once. We have created a focal point for the battle at a
time and place of our choosing . . . . . . . . in Iraq.
Not in New York, not in London, or Paris or Berlin,
but in Iraq, where we are doing two important things.

(1) We deposed Saddam Hussein. Whether Saddam Hussein was directly
involved in the 9/11 terrorist attack or not, it is undisputed that
Saddam has been actively supporting the terrorist movement for decades
Saddam is a terrorist! Saddam is, or was, a weapon of mass destruction,
responsible for the deaths of probably more than a 1,000,000 Iraqis and
2,000,000 Iranians.

(2) We created a battle, a confrontation, a flash point, with Islamic
terrorism in Iraq. We have focused the battle. We are killing bad
people, and the ones we get there we won't have to get here. We also
have a good shot at creating a democratic, peaceful Iraq, which will be
a catalyst for democratic change in the rest of the Middle East, and an
outpost for a stabilizing American military presence in the Middle East
for as long as it is needed.

WW II, the war with the Japanese and German Nazis, really began with a
"whimper" in 1928. It did not begin with Pearl Harbor. It began with
the Japanese invasion of China. It was a war for fourteen years before
the US joined it. It officially ended in 1945 -- a 17 year war -- and
was followed by another decade of US occupation in Germany and Japan to
get those countries reconstructed and running on their own again. a 27
year war.

WW II cost the United States an amount equal to approximately a full
year's GDP -- adjusted for inflation, equal to about $12 trillion
dollars. WW II cost America more than 400,000 soldiers killed in action,
and nearly 100,000 still missing in action.

The Iraq war has, so far, cost the United States about $160,000,000,000,
which is roughly what the 9/11 terrorist attack cost New York. It has
also cost about 3,000 American lives, which is roughly equivilant to
lives that the Jihad killed (within the United States) in the 9/11
terrorist attack.

The cost of not fighting and winning WW II would have been unimaginably
greater -- a world dominated by Japanese Imperialism and German Nazism.

This is not a 60-Minutes TV show, or a 2-hour movie in which everything
comes out okay. The real world is not like that. It is messy,
uncertain, and sometimes bloody and ugly. It always has been, and
probably always will be.

The bottom line is that we will have to deal with Islamic terrorism until
we defeat it, whenever that is. It will not go away if we ignore it.

If the US can create a reasonably democratic and stable Iraq, then we
have an ally, like England, in the Middle East, a platform, from which
we can work to help modernize and moderate the Middle East. The history
of the world is the clash between the forces of relative civility and
civilization, and the barbarians clamoring at the gates to conquer the
world.

The Iraq War is merely another battle in this ancient and never ending
war. Now, for the first time ever, the barbarians are about to get
nuclear weapons. Unless some body prevents them from getting them.

We have four options:

1. We can defeat the Jihad now, before it gets nuclear weapons.

2. We can fight the Jihad later, after it gets nuclear weapons (which
may be as early as next year, if Iran's progress on nuclear weapons is
what Iran claims it is).

3. We can surrender to the Jihad and accept its dominance in the Middle
East now; in Europe in the next few years or decades, and ultimately in
America. (This is one option of the Dimocrat Party. ... GOC)

OR

4. We can stand down now, and pick up the fight later when the Jihad is
more widespread and better armed, perhaps after the Jihad has dominated
France and Germany and possibly most of the rest of Europe. It will, of
course, be more dangerous, more expensive, and much bloodier. (This
is the other option of the Dimocrat Party. ... GOC)

If you oppose this war, I hope you like the idea that your children, or
grandchildren, may live in an Islamic America under the Mullahs and the
Sharia, an America that resembles Iran today.

The history of the world is the history of civilization clashes, cultural
clashes. All wars are about ideas, ideas about what society and
civilization should be like, and the most determined always win.

Those who are willing to be the most ruthless always win. The pacifists
always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them.

Remember, perspective is every thing, and America's schools teach too
little history for perspective to be clear, especially in the young
American mind.

The Cold War lasted from about 1947 at least until the Berlin Wall came
down in 1989; forty-two years!

Europe spent the first half of the 19th century fighting Napoleon, and
from 1870 to 1945 fighting Germany!

World War II began in 1928, lasted 17 years, plus a ten year occupation,
and the US still has troops in Germany and Japan. World War II resulted
in the death of more than 50,000,000 people, maybe more than 100,000,000
people, depending on which estimates you accept.

The US has taken more than 3,000 killed in action in Iraq. The US took
more than 4,000 killed in action on the morning of June 6, 1944, the
first day of the Normandy Invasion to rid Europe of Nazi Imperialism.

In WW II the US averaged 2,000 KIA a week -- for four years. Most of the
individual battles of WW II lost more Americans than the entire Iraq war
has done so far.

The stakes are at least as high . . A world dominated by representative
governments with civil rights, human rights, and personal freedoms, or
a world dominated by a radical Islamic Wahhabi movement, by the Jihad,
under the Mullahs and the Sharia (Islamic law).

It's difficult to understand why the average American does not grasp
this. They favor human rights, civil rights, liberty and freedom, but
evidently not for Iraqis.

"Peace Activists" always seem to demonstrate here in America, where it's
safe.

Why don't we see Peace Activist demonstrating in Iran, Syria, Iraq,
Sudan, North Korea, in the places that really need peace activism the
most? I'll tell you why! They would be killed!

The liberal mentality is supposed to favor human rights, civil rights,
democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc., but if the Jihad wins,
wherever the Jihad wins, it is the end of civil rights, human rights,
democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc.

Americans who oppose the liberation of Iraq are coming down on the side
of their own worst enemy! (Except to Dimocrats,
where Bush and the Republicans are their worst enemy! ... GOC)

LifeBeginsAt200MPH said...

Now there's some "Progressive" attitude for ya'...LMAO

Truth hurt that pointed little head of yours? But, seriously....

GROW UP!!!

Shoes4Industry said...

Looks like someone's channeling Bill Kristol again...

Nice roll-model.

Anonymous said...

It's role model, not roll model. With your treatment of posters with statements like the above, I can see why there's only about 6 different people on this blog.

LifeBeginsAt200MPH said...

LMAO!!

stayhungry said...

nice cut & paste, lb@200 -- where'd you get that crock -- from falafel boy or captain oxycontin -- or some other right winger who doesn't know squat about the muslim religion, history, international politics or terrorism? Oooo, jihad, I'm soooo scared!

LifeBeginsAt200MPH said...

You should be scared. You, and people like you will be the first ones they come after. Of course I might be wrong. If you're such a lover of Islam, I guess that means you support stoning people to death, women and children being treated like cattle, all Jews and infidels should be killed, and other niceties that are unique to Islam.

Bawk, Bawk, Chicken Hawk, move to Iran if they're such a wonderful society.

stayhungry said...

Puhleeeze. The only terrorists I'm worried about are the ones in the White Haus.

LifeBeginsAt200MPH said...

I'm sure they'll welcome you with open arms in downtown Tehran.

Terrorists in the White House....you people are just too funny.

stayhungry said...

And "you people" are just too dense to take seriously. Actually, the word pathetic comes to mind.

LifeBeginsAt200MPH said...

You must have meant these terrorists in the White House...now that's pathetic...

"Jerry Parks, the Clinton security aide in Arkansas, known to have been keeping a dossier on Clinton, is gunned down two months after Foster’s death in his car outside of Little Rock. Parks is shot through the rear window of his car and shot three more times, thru the side window, with a 9mm pistol.

Chapter from The Secret Life of Bill Clinton: The Unreported Stories

I’M A DEAD MAN," whispered Jerry Parks, pale with shock, as he looked up at the television screen. It was a news bulletin on the local station in Little Rock. Vincent Foster, a childhood friend of the President, had been found dead in a park outside Washington. Apparent suicide.

He never explained to his son Gary what he meant by that remark, but for the next two months the beefy 6′ 3" security executive was in a state of permanent fear. He would pack a pistol to fetch the mail. On the way to his offices at American Contract Services in Little Rock he would double back or take strange routes to "dry-clean" the cars that he thought were following him. At night he kept tearing anxiously at his eyebrows, and raiding the valium pills of his wife, Jane, who was battling multiple sclerosis. Once he muttered darkly that Bill Clinton’s people were "cleaning house," and he was "next on the list."

Two months later, in September 1993, Jerry and Jane went on a Caribbean cruise. He seemed calmer. At one of the islands he went to take care of some business at a bank. She believed it was Grand Cayman. They returned to their home in the rural suburbs of Little Rock on September 25. The next day Jane was in one of her "down" periods, so Jerry went off on his own for the regular Sunday afternoon supper at El Chico Mexican Restaurant.

On the way back, at about 6:30 PM, a white Chevrolet Caprice pulled up beside him on the Chenal Parkway. Before Parks had time to reach for his .38 caliber "detective special" that he kept tucked between the seats, an assassin let off a volley of semi-automatic fire into his hulking 320 pound frame.

Parks skidded to a halt in the intersection of Highway 10. The stocky middle-aged killer jumped out and finished him off with a 9 mm handgun–two more shots into the chest at point blank range. Several witnesses watched with astonishment as the nonchalant gunman joined his accomplice in the waiting car and sped away."

http://www.realchange.org/clinton.
htm

Bill Clinton will eventually go down in history as the most criminal president is US History..now that's pathetic...

Shoes4Industry said...

We don't know what you are smokin' there in the Big MO, but it must some off the hook chronic.

What is this Sen. Craig-like obsession with the Clintons? We certainly are not here to promote or defend them. We could frankly care less.

What ever the Clintons may or may not have done, pales in significance to the mass killings,mutilations and misery Bush is directly responsible for...so enough with the Clintons. Move on...

LifeBeginsAt200MPH said...

Ahhh....I see. It's okay to trash the hell out of GWB, but God forbid anybody say a bad word about the white trash Arkansas hillbilly who ran the most scandal plagued administration in history. Ever hear of the 1993 WTC bombing? How about the USS Cole? Where's your sympathy for those brave soldiers and sailors. What about the US Embassy bombings in Africa that he let go unpunished?

What about Bosnia? Serbia? Who put US troops in there?

You can call GWB a "terrorist" all you want and it's ok, but I can't say anything about WJC without being told to "move on"? I'm "smoking" something?

Hypocrites.

Shoes4Industry said...

Again, we don't agree with or are in favor of the Clintons. You can say all you want about WJC, but he's not today's problem.

Bush has done more to harm the country and it's people thank Clinton would ever hope to do.

Get over the Clintons and address the issues at hand.

LifeBeginsAt200MPH said...

Typical simpleton logic. Clinton IS the cause of "todays" problems. Where's your call for an investigation of all his wrongdoings that led up to "today"?

Whose was PTOUS during the 1st WTC bombing? Clinton.

Who pressured Israel to release Mohammed Atta? Clinton/Albright.

Who was responsible for the invasion of Mt Carmel at Waco where almost 100 men,women, and children were burned alive? Clinton/Clark/Reno

Who allowed thousands of civilians to be butchered in Serbia, Kosovo, etc? Clinton/Clark.

Who was POTUS for the OKC bombings of the Murrow Building? Clinton.

Who allowed Saddam to continue to do ethnic cleansing of the Kurds? Clinton.

Who gutted the US military and Nat'l Guard units of equipment and supplies? Clinton.

Who allowed our missile technology to be sold to China? Clinton.

Who gave North Korea nuclear technology? Clinton/China

If you were half serious about the "cause" of todays' problems and who put us in the state we're in today, you'd know it was Clinton and be calling for an investigation on him as well as GWB.

BTW...it's Kronic....and it's been about 10 yrs, I could use one.

Shoes4Industry said...

That's be best you've got? BLAME CLINTON?

Clinton was not in office on 9/11.
He had nothing to do with the investigation (or NON-investigation as it were). He had the good sense NOT to invade Iraq. He left office with a budget SURPLUS...need we go on?

Why not go back blame poor ol' Jimmy Carter while you're grasping at straws.

Nice try.

LifeBeginsAt200MPH said...

As a matter of fact, it was Jimmuh who let the Iranians hold Americans hostage for 444 days. He is more responsible than even Clinton for emboldening the extreme Islamist faction to lead us to where we are today.

You have no sense of history Shoes. All you have is blinders on and can't see anything but GWB. GWB did not create the world we live in today. It is a result of almost 40 years of Islamic terrorism since the first airliners were hijacked in 1972.

Until you can accept all history and it's relevance in all time, you're just spinning your wheels with one bit of time that has no relevance when taken by itself.

Shoes4Industry said...

LB@200, you obviously did not watch the Powers of Nightmare docs.

What you also fail to see is that regardless of what happened before 9/11, since then, Bush has no nothing but exacerbate the problems.

So it IS all about Bush whether you want to admit it or not.

LifeBeginsAt200MPH said...

http://tinyurl.com/2uwces

Just in case you would actually take an interest in learning something...

Shoes4Industry said...

Again, we have no interest in rehashing Clinton's foibles, you won that argument when you stole the election in 2000. Again, please try to focus on the present and the future and stop trying to re-live one's "glory days."

Thanks.

LifeBeginsAt200MPH said...

"Stole the election"...LMAO...

You have no interest in anything other than bashing GWB.

Your own naivety shows through more clearly with every post disregarding the facts of history.

sad Shoes.....sad...

Shoes4Industry said...

As you seem to have no interest in anything other than bashing Clinton and defending the murderous Bush.

Now, that is sad.

Moving on.

Shoes4Industry said...

Oh, one more thing...

"Bush's war threats against Iran have intensified during the course of this year. The American people are being fed a repeat of the lies used to justify naked aggression against Iraq.

Bush is too self-righteous to see the dark humor in his denunciations of Iran for threatening "the security of nations everywhere" and of the Iraqi resistance for "a vision that rejects tolerance, crushes all dissent, and justifies the murder of innocent men, women, and children in the pursuit of political power." Those are precisely the words that most of the world applies to Bush and his Brownshirt administration. The Pew Foundation's world polls show that despite all the American and Israeli propaganda against Iran, the US and Israel are regarded as no less threats to world stability than demonized Iran.

Bush has discarded habeas corpus and the Geneva Conventions, justified torture and secret trials, damned critics as anti-American, and is responsible, according to Information Clearing House, for over one million deaths of Iraqi civilians, which puts Bush high on the list of mass murderers of all time. The vast majority of "kills" by the US military in Iraq and Afghanistan are civilians.

Now Bush wants to murder more. We have to kill Iranians "over there," Bush says, "before they come over here." There is no possibility that Iranians or any Muslims who have no air force, no navy, no modern military technology are going to "come over here," and no indication that they plan to do so. The Muslims are disunited and have been for centuries. That is what makes them vulnerable to colonial rule. If Muslims were united, the US would already have lost its army in Iraq. Indeed, it would not have been able to put an army in Iraq.


http://tinyurl.com/2lkprf

Now, we can move on.

LifeBeginsAt200MPH said...

yeah...no propaganda there...LMAO

It's pretty evident that you support people being stoned to death, women and children being treated like cattle, and even more barbarian tactics used against the poor, downtrodden who are unable to defend themselves.

Where's your compassion?

Don't you believe in women being able to own a business?

Don't you think that women have the right to walk around in public wearing anything they want?

Or do you believe that women should be wrapped head to toe?

Do you believe in "honor killings"? Evidently so, or you would support the US trying to establish a democracy in Iraq.

Your hypocrisy is beyond ludicrous, it's shameful.

Shoes4Industry said...

Well since you mention compassion and shame at the same time...all we can say is...KATRINA...where's yours?

Shame begins at home.

stayhungry said...

So it's okay to kill something like ONE MILLION IRAQIS if your cover story is that it's all about bringing them democracy? Bush is making Saddam look like Santa Claus.

LifeBeginsAt200MPH said...

What the hell does GWB have to do with Katrina? It's the Gulf Coast. I was standing here...http://tinyurl.com/26tqql...the Sunday after Katrina hit. The "white rocket ship" was a water tower that had been tore off it's foundation by an estimated 20+ft surge. I have never seen such destruction in my life. Couldn't help but feel sorry for all the people who lost their homes and posessions. And at the same time, I would turn around and look at the Gulf and think, "what dumbass would spend a million dollars for a home right next to the Gulf...where hurricanes have been hitting for about a billion years. Idiots. And ANYBODY who lived in New Orleans is a nut. When you can stand on Bourbon Street and see the tops of ocean going cargo ships go by over the TOP of the buildings....??? DUH??

The Federal Government had resources ready to go the minute the hurricane was over. But you leftie nutballs think it was their fault that the people were without supplies and trapped because they didn't heed the warnings and leave. What the hell did you think the government ought to do? Put a 100,000 tons of food on the beach BEFORE the hurricane?? How about the 1,000 plus buses that idiot Nagin let sit and get flooded instead of hauling people out of N.O. BEFORE Katrina hit? I stood in a field with over 3,000 BRAND NEW trailers that were there within 24-72 hours and, again, what do you people think they should have done? Put pontoons on them and let them float around N.O. with people in them? The US Government has given Louisiana BILLIONS of dollars over the years to work on the levees and dikes and they squandered it.

And...a MILLION Iraqi civilians killed by the US? What a bunch of shit. There are civilian casualties in any war, and the vast majority of civilian casualties were caused by the terrorist homicide bombers on their own people. The actual number is under 100,000 which is about how many people Saddam and the boys killed a month for over 30 years. In the Iraq/Iran war, Saddam used to send 10 year olds into combat without weapons to draw artillary fire. Your perspective of actual history and facts is disgusting, let alone naive and ludicrous. And your never ending hypocrisy is laughable. If I felt the way you profess to feel about this country, I'd be packing my bags and getting the hell out.....but you ain't got the guts to go live with your fellow insurgents

LifeBeginsAt200MPH said...

Citing administration figures, the lawmaker said that $114 billion has been spent on the effort to rebuild a large stretch of the Gulf Coast after the storm hit New Orleans in August 2005 and claimed more than 1,600 lives.

“At some point, state and local officials and individuals have got to step up to the plate and take some initiative,” said Tancredo. “The mentality that people can wait around indefinitely for the federal taxpayer to solve all their worldly problems has got to come to an end.”

LifeBeginsAt200MPH said...

http://iraqbodycount.org/

This is an anti-war website and they only show a max of 77k civilians.

A million?...BS

Shoes4Industry said...

Tancredo??? ROTFLMAO!!!

Shoes4Industry said...

"What the hell does GWB have to do with Katrina?"

Obviously, nothing.

stayhungry said...

The Lancet, a respected British medical journal, conducted a study showing that more than 600,000 Iraqis died due to the occupation and that was as of July, 2006. An updated estimate is here:
http://tinyurl.com/24zln2

Also, another eight million Iraqis are desperate for emergency aid, in what Oxfam calls a massive humanitarian crisis. Fewer Iraqis have access to clean water than under Saddam Hussein, and 80% have no access to effective sanitation, a figure comparable to sub-Saharan Africa. And to think all this has only cost us a trillion dollars and nearly 4,000 American lives, plus another 30,000 or so wounded! No wonder Bush's approval ratings are in the toilet.

And hey, I'm one of the nuts who lived in NOLA. If the best you can do is to scrape a quote from Tancredo off the bottom of your shoe, don't even bother. Halliburton got most of the money. Read some of the NOLA blogs and get a clue about what's really happening.

moneysmith said...

Hey, stayhungry, I lived in NOLA,too! What a great place -- there's nothing else like it, is there?

The issue isn't the city's location or the hurricane, it was levee failure that caused the flooding. For the next dumb f*ck who says otherwise, I've got two words -- The Netherlands!

LifeBeginsAt200MPH said...

Living in a city where the ocean going cargo ships are ABOVE your house....yeah, that's smart.....that would be like me building a house on the sand bar on the Grand River down here and expecting the gubmint to buy me a new everything when the dam thing floods...gawd...

stayhungry said...

NOLA will rise again, moneysmith. Those of us who love her will not let her die, right?

And here's something else we probably agree on -- No-Balls Bush and his team of old white lard asses are no match for that great city.

Here's to you, me and NOLA! Bottoms up, baby!!

LifeBeginsAt200MPH said...

Actually, NOLA may stand a chance since all the criminal elements have left the city and are now perpetrating their crimes in Houston, etc.,.

Now, if we could just get rid of Nagin, Landreau, and the rest of the criminals responsible for their crimes against humanity....

Shoes4Industry said...

and BUSH.

moneysmith said...

stayhungry, I'm hoping that's an Abita we're tipping up. Wait, make that two! And a plate of boiled crawfish.

Shoes4Industry said...

Too bad there's no spell check for arrogance...

http://tinyurl.com/yavhoh

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 208   Newer› Newest»