Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
"Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th; malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists, themselves, away from the guilty."
- President Bush Speaks to United Nations, November 10, 2001
"We don't know what we don't know." -Donald H. Rumsfeld
"This site & all these moron conspiracy theorists have accomplised (sic) what they set out to do-raise doubt. No proof is necessary-just doubt."
- Anonymous, 7/28/2007
"In light of that sorry record of the propagandistic exploitation of the 9/11 tragedy for partisan political purpose, is it any wonder that large numbers of Americans have doubts about all of it and that a considerable industry of documentaries and investigative reports has sprung up with alternative theories ranging from the plausible to the absurd? http://www.commondreams.org"
-Robert Scheer, 9/11/2006
" Gawd, I love this site."
-H Nicole, 9/14/07
"Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th; malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists, themselves, away from the guilty."
- President Bush Speaks to United Nations, November 10, 2001
"We don't know what we don't know." -Donald H. Rumsfeld
"This site & all these moron conspiracy theorists have accomplised (sic) what they set out to do-raise doubt. No proof is necessary-just doubt."
- Anonymous, 7/28/2007
"In light of that sorry record of the propagandistic exploitation of the 9/11 tragedy for partisan political purpose, is it any wonder that large numbers of Americans have doubts about all of it and that a considerable industry of documentaries and investigative reports has sprung up with alternative theories ranging from the plausible to the absurd? http://www.commondreams.org"
-Robert Scheer, 9/11/2006
" Gawd, I love this site."
-H Nicole, 9/14/07
Links to 911 Truth Info
Blog Archive
-
►
2012
(2)
- ► 05/06 - 05/13 (1)
- ► 01/22 - 01/29 (1)
-
►
2011
(2)
- ► 06/19 - 06/26 (1)
- ► 04/24 - 05/01 (1)
-
►
2010
(4)
- ► 10/03 - 10/10 (1)
- ► 06/13 - 06/20 (1)
- ► 02/14 - 02/21 (2)
-
►
2009
(8)
- ► 12/06 - 12/13 (1)
- ► 11/29 - 12/06 (1)
- ► 11/22 - 11/29 (1)
- ► 10/11 - 10/18 (1)
- ► 09/13 - 09/20 (1)
- ► 08/16 - 08/23 (1)
- ► 02/08 - 02/15 (1)
- ► 01/25 - 02/01 (1)
-
►
2008
(21)
- ► 11/30 - 12/07 (1)
- ► 11/23 - 11/30 (1)
- ► 11/02 - 11/09 (2)
- ► 09/21 - 09/28 (1)
- ► 08/17 - 08/24 (2)
- ► 08/03 - 08/10 (1)
- ► 06/29 - 07/06 (2)
- ► 06/15 - 06/22 (1)
- ► 05/18 - 05/25 (1)
- ► 05/11 - 05/18 (2)
- ► 04/20 - 04/27 (1)
- ► 03/30 - 04/06 (1)
- ► 03/16 - 03/23 (1)
- ► 02/24 - 03/02 (1)
- ► 01/27 - 02/03 (1)
- ► 01/20 - 01/27 (2)
-
▼
2007
(94)
- ► 12/16 - 12/23 (6)
- ► 12/09 - 12/16 (2)
- ► 11/25 - 12/02 (3)
- ► 11/18 - 11/25 (4)
- ► 11/11 - 11/18 (4)
- ► 11/04 - 11/11 (2)
- ► 10/28 - 11/04 (1)
- ► 10/21 - 10/28 (3)
- ► 10/14 - 10/21 (2)
- ► 10/07 - 10/14 (5)
- ▼ 09/30 - 10/07 (6)
- ► 09/23 - 09/30 (4)
- ► 09/16 - 09/23 (5)
- ► 09/09 - 09/16 (5)
- ► 09/02 - 09/09 (3)
- ► 08/26 - 09/02 (3)
- ► 08/19 - 08/26 (4)
- ► 08/12 - 08/19 (8)
- ► 08/05 - 08/12 (6)
- ► 07/29 - 08/05 (6)
- ► 07/22 - 07/29 (9)
- ► 07/15 - 07/22 (3)
Get out your wallet...
Over ONE MILLION Served!
"I encourage you all to go shopping more." - G.W. Bush, 12/20/06
Contact
shoes4indstry@aol.com
47 comments:
Drip, drip, drip... damn that damn dam sure feels damn near breaking, damn straight!
Even this ex-CIA guy, no matter how firmly he questions the official 9/11 story (or at least the part of it that is based on the testimony of a single "witness" being tortured), he still shows visible unease at the mention of "conspiracy theories." It's like he wants to distance himself from the Truth Movement for fear of being labeled a "crazy conspiracy theorist."
Goes to show how effective one well-placed propaganda slur -- "crazy conspiracy theorists" -- can be. Note this was put into play almost immediately after 9/11 by none other that the head propaganda nazi himself (see top right of this blog's home page).
New rule: like calling the war an occupation, the Truth Movement will be called the Truth Movement and people supporting it will be called "Truthers or Fact-finders" and not "conspiracy theorists."
I can't wait until the term "9/11 Truther" becomes so cool that even Life will be running around tauting his acts of heroism while being a 9/11 Truther.
"I can't wait until the term "9/11 Truther" becomes so cool"
...don't hold your breath sugar...
Here is something that should make you happy, Life. I think I am becoming an NRA supporter, of all things.
Remember when I advised anybody in a disaster to get a gun and shoot anybody coming into their neighborhood with an assault rifle who was not the National Guard (i.e, my personal salute to the neo-nazis otherwise known as Blackwater)?
Well, I was shocked to learn that preemptive measures were put into place during Hurricane Katrina to prevent this from happening. Most attempts (though not all, unfortunately) were eventually blocked by the NRA...
From Wikipedia under "Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006."
In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans Chief of Police Eddie Compass ordered police and National Guard units to confiscate firearms from citizens who remained in the area.
The National Rifle Association and Second Amendment Foundation filed a lawsuit against the city of New Orleans to place an emergency injunction forbidding such seizures from continuing. A temporary restraining order was granted September 23, 2005.[1]
The Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006 (H.R.5013, S.2599) was a bill introduced March 28, 2006 by Congressman Bobby Jindal in the House and on April 7, 2006 by Senator David Vitter in the Senate.[2] On August 4, 2006, it was referred to committee.
On July 12, 2006 Senator Vitter proposed Senate Amendment 4615 (the Vitter Amendment) to Department Of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007 (H.R. 5441), to prohibit the confiscation of a firearm during an emergency or major disaster if the possession of such firearm is not prohibited under Federal or State law.[3] The proposed amendment was subsequently modified to contain the provisions of the Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006. However, the temporary surrender of a firearm could be required "as a condition for entry into any mode of transportation used for rescue or evacuation".
I am not at all happy with that last little "however" exception to the Vitter Amendment as even a pinky-toe in the door seems to be enough of an excuse to trample citizens' rights in the current political environment. (BTW, it is also somewhat clear now why Vitter was suddenly re-embroiled in an old, re-hashed "sex scandal" soon after fighting so strongly for citizens' rights on this one critical point).
Politics makes strange bedfellows, like the undeniable connections that keep popping up lately between modern day neo-nazis and radical jewish groups who have come together to participate in a Holy War against their radical islamic counterparts in the Middle East.
Meanwhile, all the "normal" people of the world (i.e., a vast majority of us, yes including most muslims) get fed a load of crap as to what's really going on, are easily led astray because we have better things to do, or get murdered on our own streets at the hands of these friggin whackos.
I personally would never possess a gun because I know my limitations -- I am far too absent-minded and know the chances of me accidentally shooting myself in the foot (I almost did this when my brother took me shooting once) or of my children accidentally finding the gun in the laundry hamper or some such thing -- the chances of this are far greater than any real protection a gun could offer me.
However, I am firmly behind the NRA in its fight to protect my right as a US citizen to own anything that any private security firm of radical religious whackos hired by the government to "restore order" after a disaster can own. I wish Iraqi citizens, or at least whatever is left of the normal ones, had the same protections for the same reasons.
If every legal, responsible gun owner in the US would join the NRA, it would be the largest organization in the world.
Life Member for 10+ years.
The NST Report makes two fundamental claims, the first explicit and the second implicit:
* The impact damage and fires caused the tops of the Towers to lean and then begin to fall (collapse initiation).
* Once initiated, the collapses proceeded to total collapses.
NIST goes to great lengths to support the first claim, but commits numerous omissions and distortions in the process. It remains quiet about the second claim, except for its vague rehash of the pile-driver theory. This is indefensible, given NIST's charge to investigate the collapses. Accepting that claim requires us to believe:
* That the collapses of WTC 1, 2, and 7 are the only examples of total progressive collapse of steel-framed structures in history.
* That those collapses were gravity-driven despite showing all the common physical features of controlled demolitions. In the cases of the Twin Towers, those features included the following:
* Radial symmetry: The Towers came straight down, blowing debris symmetricaly in all directions.
* Rapid descent: The Towers came down just slightly slower than the rate of free-fall in a vacuum.
* Demolition waves: The Towers were consumed by synchronized rows of confluent explosions.
* Demolition squibs: The Towers exhibited high-velocity gas ejections well below the descending rubble.
* Pulverization: The Towers' non-metallic components, such as their concrete floors, were pulverized into fine dust.
* Totality: The Towers were destroyed totally, their steel skeletons shredded into short pieces, most less than 30 feet long.
All of these features are seen in conventional controlled demolitions. None have ever been observed in steel-framed buildings collapsing for any reason other than controlled demolition.
What are the chances that a phenomenon other than controlled demolition would exhibit all six features never observed elsewhere except in controlled demolitions?
NIST avoids asking this and other questions by implying that they don't exist. It uses the false assertion that partial collapse will inevitably lead to total collapse (couched in the ill-defined terms of "column instability," "global instability," "collapse initiation," and "global collapse") to imply that nothing about the actual collapses is worth considering.
To shield the reader from the evidence of controlled demolition, NIST fills hundreds of pages with amazingly realistic plane crash simulations, tedious details about fire tests and simulations, and long lists of recommendations for improving building safety. It calls its event narrative of each Tower, which starts with the jet impact and ends at the point that "collapse ensued," the "probable collapse sequence," but it is neither probable nor a collapse sequence.
NIST's misleadingly named "probable collapse sequence" is a mirage, masking the explosive reality of the collapses with a cinematic account of the crashes and fires. NIST's theory stops at the moment that the "upper building section began to move downwards," thus avoiding the longer timeline of the truss-failure theory and any overlap with the time span in which the demolition-like features appear. Despite NIST's theory being even more incredible than its predecessors (with spreading "column instability" triggering "global collapse" in an instant) it works better as a mirage because its timelines stop short of the collapses.
NIST's Report states that its first objective is to "determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed." The Report does not fulfill that objective, and hides that failure with misleading headings and disproportionate, misapplied technical detail. Its authors should admit that they have failed to explain why and how the Towers collapsed, and should call for an investigation that will address rather than avoid the issue.
* That the collapses of WTC 1, 2, and 7 are the only examples of total progressive collapse of steel-framed structures in history.
In HISTORY. That means that it's never happened before or since. Regardless of reasons, planes didn't hit WTC7 and they still haven't released the final report.
The government's story is bullshit, nothing more, nothing less.
"In HISTORY"...that is correct. No other 1300+ ft height buildings have ever been hit by jet powered airliners traveling at or about 500MPH.
Ya' finally got something right.
BS.
Fire Chief Daniel Nigro describes his reasons for creating the collapse zone:
The biggest decision we had to make on the first day was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story building heavily involved in fire. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt.
Chief Frank Cruthers recalls Chief Nigro convening a meeting of fire chiefs on the subject of establishing a collapse zone.
Of primary importance early on in the operation was the structural condition of 7 World Trade Center. Assistant Chief Frank Fellini had been approached by several chiefs who were concerned about its stability. It had been heavily damaged in the collapse and was well-involved in fire. Chief Fellini had looked at it and described to us some damage to its south side; he felt that structural components of the building had been compromised.
Captain Chris Boyle
Engine 94 - 18 years
Boyle: ... on the north and east side of 7 it didn't look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn't look good.
Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it.
Deputy Chief Peter Hayden
Division 1 - 33 years
Hayden:...also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.
Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, and that's probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn't make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there.
Visconti: but I remember standing there looking over at building 7 and realizing that a big chunk of the lower floors had been taken out on the Vesey Street side. At this point, the fire was going virtually on every floor, heavy fire and smoke
Let's see...experienced firefighters or conspiracy nuts who weren't even there...let me think...who would be a credible witness?
DUH!!
"BS."...oh really? And, pray tell, what other 1300 foot buildings have ever been hit by jet airliners? Hmmmm?
First responder accounts
1. We walked over by number Seven World Trade Center as it was burning and saw this 40-plus story building with fire on nearly all floors. –FDNY Lieutenant Robert LaRocca
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/
packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_
WTC_GRAPHIC/9110081.PDF
2. ...Just when you thought it was over, you're walking by this building and you're hearing this building creak and fully involved in flames. It's like, is it coming down next? Sure enough, about a half an hour later it came down. –FDNY Lieutenant James McGlynn
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/
packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_
WTC_GRAPHIC/9110447.PDF
3. I walked out and I got to Vesey and West, where I reported to Frank [Cruthers]. He said, we’re moving the command post over this way, that building’s coming down. At this point, the fire was going virtually on every floor, heavy fire and smoke that really wasn’t bothering us when we were searching because it was being pushed southeast and we were a little bit west of that. I remember standing just where West and Vesey start to rise toward the entrance we were using in the World Financial Center. There were a couple of guys standing with me and a couple of guys right at the intersection, and we were trying to back them up – and here goes 7. It started to come down and now people were starting to run. –FDNY Deputy Chief Nick Visconti http://www.firehouse.com/terroris
t/911/magazine/gz/visconti.html
4. All morning I was watching 7 World Trade burn, which we couldn't do anything about because it was so much chaos looking for missing members. –Firefighter Marcel Klaes http://graphics8.nytimes.com/
packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_
5. When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories.
–FDNY Assistant Chief Harry Myers (Smith, Dennis, 2002. Report From Ground Zero: The Heroic Story of the Rescuers at the World Trade Center. New York: Penguin Putnam. p. 160)
6. The concern there again, it was later in the afternoon, 2, 2:30, like I said. The fear then was Seven. Seven was free burning. Search had been made of 7 already from what they said so they had us back up to that point where we were waiting for 7 to come down to operate from the north back down. –Captain Robert Sohmer http://graphics8.nytimes.com
/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812
_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110472.PDF
7. Then we had to move because the Duane Reade, they said, wasn't safe because building 7 was really roaring. –FDNY Chief Medical Officer Kerry Kelly. http://graphics8.nytimes.com/
packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812
_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110207.PDF
8. At this point Seven World Trade was going heavy, and they weren't letting anybody get too close. Everybody was expecting that to come down. –Firefighter Vincent Massa
http://graphics8.nytimes.com
packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812
_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110222.PDF
9. Chief Cruthers told me that they had formed another command post up on Chambers Street. At this point there were a couple of floors burning on Seven World Trade Center. Chief McNally wanted to try and put that fire out, and he was trying to coordinate with the command post up on Chambers Street. This is after searching for a while. He had me running back and forth trying to get companies to go into Seven World Trade Center. His radio didn't seem to be working right either because he had me relaying information back and forth and Chief Cruthers had me --
Q. So everything was face-to-face? Nothing was by radio?
A. Yeah, and it was really in disarray. It really was in complete disarray. We never really got an operation going at Seven World Trade Center. –FDNY Captain Michael Donovan
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/
packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812
_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110205.PDF
10. Building #7 was still actively burning and at that time we were advised by a NYFD Chief that building #7 was burning out of control and imminent collapse was probable. –PAPD P.O. Edward McQuade http://www.thememoryhole.org/
911/pa-transcripts/pa-police-
reports02.pdf page 48.
11. At Vesey St. and West St., I could see that 7 WTC was ablaze and damaged, along with other buildings. –M. DeFilippis, PAPD P.O. http://www.thememoryhole.org/
911/pa-transcripts/pa-police-
reports03.pdf page 49
[Note: the fires in 7 were probably not mainly due to damage from the south tower, but from the north.]
12. So yeah then we just stayed on Vesey until building Seven came down. There was nothing we could do. The flames were coming out of every window of that building
Hayden:...also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.
Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, and that's probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn't make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there.
Hold on I have a cast iron skillet on the stove about to MELT.
GMAFB
How would they know it was "going to come down"??? Just in time for the 6 o'clock news, before it got dark? BS...total BS+++
I signed a petition a few days ago requesting high-quality video from broadcasters for all 9/11 events:
http://www.petitiononline.com/Video911/petition.html
and I am only now discovering that it is just one of many 9/11 petitions (in fact, one of many petitions concerning just about anything and everything) at a site that seems to have a lot of good potential called petitiononline.com...
http://www.petitiononline.com/petition.html
They have a search engine (powered by Google) that allowed me to find about a dozen or so other 9/11 related petitions, some of which I signed (described below).
However, I do have one criticism/concern about this site: apparently, some petitions, like the one mentioned above concerning high quality 9/11 videos, might be purposely buried by not being included in the search engine for the site. I could not find that petition no matter what search criteria I used, and the only way I know about this petition is that I (along with several others) got an e-mail from Morgan Reynolds with a link to it.
One of the best petitions going seems to be one with over 32,000 signatures asking the Senate to investigate 9/11.
http://www.petitiononline.com/11601TFS/
I thought of you, Shoes, because number one on their list of things to investigate is the put options.
Anyway, I have decided that this is probably where I will be doing all my signings of petitions from now on because I believe it is the way of our (I hope) democratic future, once the search engine kinks are worked out so that it is not biased against certain petitions.
I like that there is not necessarily a "group joining" or "PAC association" in the petitions -- they can be started by anybody. I also like that the signatures can have varying levels of legitimacy (i.e., giving your residence address for confirmation purposes is required for some petitions, like the one requesting the Senate to invetigate 9/11, and your address, or at the very least your zip code, will be openly displayed, so the names on such a petition seem exceptionally valuable and serious, I'd say, compared with petitions or opinion polls that do not require such verifiable information).
And for those of you afraid to sign such a petition because you fear it may just be a trap for the likes of Blackwater or some such thing -- to collect names of people to execute during the next "disaster" coming soon to a theater near you -- well, that's life. If this is the case, I say come and get me, then, if this is how we are going to have to live -- in complete fear whenever we try to ask a few legitimate questions and seek the truth.
Finally, I really like that you can leave comments to clarify any additions or changes you would like to see in the originally petition before you endorse it.
I hope the petition requesting the UN to set up a 9/11 Truth Commission takes off, though it only has 170 signatures right now...
http://www.petitiononline.com/911UN/petition.html
Another petition of interest entitled "Crimes Against Humanity Charge..."
http://www.petitiononline.com/2005stop/petition.html
This is for those who think my rants and raves against the San Francisco Unified Family Court involves an isolated incident or is localized and is unrelated to other crimes against humanity that have manifested themselves in other areas -- on a global scale!
"Make no mistake about it. The Divorce /DV Industry is a multi-billion dollar, profit sharing industry, based on greed, that has violated the constitutional rights of all parents and their children. This industry spreads the wealth to all at the expense of the family."
All of these features are seen in conventional controlled demolitions. None have ever been observed in steel-framed buildings collapsing for any reason other than controlled demolition.
off topic
Ahh, Ye Olde Petitiononline...I'm one of the proud signers of the "Keep RosieO Off TPIR Show.
"such a petition because you fear it may just be a trap for the likes of Blackwater or some such thing -- to collect names of people to execute during the next "disaster""
BOO!!
LMAO!! U just crack me up!
Given the unimaginable methods of torture, even I would admit to arranging to fly planes into a building.
If a police detective can ASK enough questions and psychologically manipulate his suspect to confession, why can't the US Government?
Besides, the public is supposed to accept the "testimony" of ONE PERSON???
Not likely.
"Let's see...experienced firefighters or conspiracy nuts who weren't even there...let me think...who would be a credible witness?"
Why aren't there any photos or video footage of these "raging fires" or of this "big gap." Here is possibly the biggest event in American history with every camera imaginable in lower Manhatten, and yet we now have to rely 100% on the testimony of two firefighters who are not structural engineers? Give me a break.
I am pretty sure that what little photographic evidence that is available concerning the "raging fires" and "big gap" has already been thoroughly analyzed by structural engineers (my choice for expert testimony on the subject, not firefighters), and most have pooh-poohed the idea that these things could cause such a symmetrical, rapid, and total collapse.
If you were to do some follow-up questions for the firefighters, there is no way they had any reason to predict that the building would collapse so entirely and so neatly in a nice little pile that did not even spill out very much into the adjacent streets. They might have deemed it unsafe to enter, and they might think parts of it could partially collapse or topple in one direction or another (like some poorly done controlled demolitions happen, by mistake) but complete and total symmetrical collapse -- fagedaboudid!
Also, as attorney Jerry Leaphart would say in his legal version of Newton's Second Law of Motion: for every expert witness testimony, there is another expert witness testimony of equal and opposite force.
I am sure, if given the opportunity and if the firefighters were allowed to speak publicly about this without fear of losing their jobs, you can find a set of firefighters, probably even way more than just two, who witnessed the "secret, mystery" side of WTC7 and would come up with just the opposite conclusions:
"There were no big blazes and no reason to believe the entire building would collapse as it did." In fact, two of them may have even been killed recently in another building that had extensive damage from falling debris and fire at ground zero, but did not collapse nor did the fire department ever claim it would -- the Deustche Bank building.
"One of the best petitions going seems to be one with over 32,000 signatures asking the Senate to investigate 9/11"
0.0106% of 300 million people...yeah...there's a BIG consensus for the Senate to take notice of.
As for the part of the NIST report that automatically claims "total collapse" with little scientific support for it, once the initial collapse got started, this is based almost entirely by a paper submitted for publication on 9/13/01, just two days after the collapse. Life and I already covered this when he presented it as his evidence during our mock trial, and I will repost it here:
10/1/07 2:40 PM
H Nicole said...
It will be very interesting to see the peer-reviewed paper from Dr. Seffen that you cite, Life. I had to go to his web site to find the reference for it...
K A Seffen, "Progressive Collapse of the World Trade Centre: a Simple Analysis", ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics, in press.
It hasn't come out yet, to the best of my knowledge, so I can't comment on it.
The only other peer-reviewed paper on the subject was submitted two days after the collapse, on September 13, 2001, by Dr. Zdenek P. Bazant of Northwestern University:
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
For anybody who has ever written a serious scientific paper, the preparation and writing time alone (48 hours?) is highly questionable, as if he were asked to do this kind of analysis ahead of time by the propaganda machine.
NIST relied heavily on this one hasty analysis and has since lived to regret it.
Dr. Bazant's analysis has been critiqued by hundreds of engineers, but perhaps the best synopsis is by Gordon Ross, ME, here:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/9154
None of the most critical assumptions Dr. Bazant makes has panned out in the real evidence, the three biggest incorrect assumptions being:
1) A majority of the steel in the upper floors where the "collapse" initiated had been heated to above 800 Celcius.
Not a single analysis of the steel that was recovered showed that any of it even came close to this temperature.
2) The entire upper sections of both towers moved together in unison as one intact chunk when the "collapses" began in each case.
In fact, it is clear that the entire top chunks of both buildings began to "collapse" on their own and turn to dust, in an uneven and independent fashion, before the lower floors were even touched by any part of the upper floors.
3) Most of the building lay in a heap pile at the bottom when all was said and done (i.e., none of it was dustified).
We all know that this was not what was observed, but to quatify it better, I am sure there is a paper trail for all the steel that was supposedly shipped to China, cataloguing all the steel with approximate weight and amount, etc. Once the government produces that list, we can have a better idea of how much of the steel was turned to dust, and how much actually survived.
Even given all three completely incorrect assumptions were true, Dr. Bazant's modeling is highly shaky at best.
Wow.
That didn't take long.
WTC7 was not brought down by CD. The evidence is obvious and overwhelming to anyone who cares to take a reasonable objective view of said evidence and....OOOPS!!! "resonable?!?!"...guess that leaves the "Truthers" out.
You haven't read one gdam word or looked at one freakin' picture of any of the links I've posted have ya'? You people are so blinded by your delusions, it's beyond pathetic....it's disgusting.
And a firefighter(s) that was standing in the WTC7 building trumps any "structural engineer" who wasn't there to examine it in person any day of the week.
As with all "letters of complaint" be it with a company about a product or the Congress about a shoddy investigation, non-anonymous petitions signed with an address behind every name get noticed. And how many petitions have been written and signed requesting NOT to open an investigation?
There will be a point at which Congress can no longer ignore this, especically considering all the people resisting this are old and ready to die and go away soon anyway. The younger generation is not buying it, and the older generation can decide to go down in history as either being spineless traitors who did nothing or true defenders of the US Constitution and basic human rights. Their choice. Spread of information on the Internet will not go backwards from here and suddenly disappear unless there is a concerted effort to do so, but even then, it's like trying to kill something with nine lives. Good luck!
"In fact, it is clear that the entire top chunks of both buildings began to "collapse" on their own and turn to dust, in an uneven and independent fashion, before the lower floors were even touched by any part of the upper floors."
WHAT? Your "Logic" defies explanation.
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?
You all sure got it down pat...
Speaking of not checking out links, Life...
That the upper chunks of the WTC buildings did not move as rigid masses (a requirement for Dr. Bazant's "pile driver" theory, upon which the NIST report is based) is probably better explained with photos. Check out the first two photos of the above link -- the only link I provided in rebuttal to just about any questions arising concerning the unliklihood of the "progressive collapse theory" by NIST.
http://www.911blogger.com/node/9154
Please stop wasting my time with "your logic defies explanation" comments until you at least glance over the one and only link I provide as a rebuttal.
And once again when Life gets called to the mat scientifically, he falls back on nice, soft, subjective psychology to defend himself.
Please focus, Life, and explain to me what you don't get about the upper chunks of the towers not moving as a rigid mass and this being a major problem with the "progressive collapse" theory?
Because I'm not as blind as a bat and can see with my own eyes what happened.
Hitler is alive.
Elvis is alive.
A 6 month old baby 4 inches tall is walking.
I have the pictures and eyewitnesses from "Major National Publications".
Therefore it MUST be true!
"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."
"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." Your position exactly.
Moving on.
Again, Life. Please focus and elaborate with specific examples.
Every single one of the theories I have presented here can be disproved quite easily with any number of sources of evidence to the contrary. So what's the problem?
Some of the simplest "theories to disprove" involve the unlikely story of regular commercial airliners flown by hijackers for the first time flew at speeds of over 500 mph dead on into their targets.
Here are the points that can easily be disproved:
1) I say the planes may not have been traveling at 500+ speeds when they hit their targets (Black box info ought to take care of this "theory" in a heartbeat)
2) I say a regular, unaltered commercial 757 or 767 can't reach speeds of 500+ at sea level either because of a little ditty called "terminal velocity" or because the plane would just fall apart long before reaching these speeds at sea level. (Disclosure from Boeing on flight tests of the 757 and 767 ought to shoot this one to the ground in a heartbeat, too).
3) I say an ordinary, unaltered commercial 757 or 767 that can reach speeds of 500+ at sea level without falling apart would be too difficult to control for an inexperienced pilot flying a commercial airliner for the first time -- at least not at the odds of three for three bulls-eyes on 9/11. (This one is more subjective than the first two and would require expert witness testimony of test pilots from Boeing who claim this statement is not true).
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/
For Christ's sake nic, Do you even read any of my post's or bother reading ALL of the information on ALL the links I provide? Obviously not, so it's a waste of my time to provide any, because all you do is come back with BS answers that only prove you don't research any of them.
And your terminology of all things airplane related only gives away your lack of any knowledge or logic when it comes to aircraft. As an example....
"I say a regular, unaltered commercial 757 or 767 can't reach speeds of 500+ at sea level either because of a little ditty called "terminal velocity" or because the plane would just fall apart"
That statement proves to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that you don't have a clue about airplanes and never will based on any and all responses you've made...your use of the term "terminal velocity" is 100% wrong in it's usage and context in your statement. Just like your "wind shear" statement. Balderdash and poppycock.
And I don't have to PROVE anything. I know what happened, and why and how it happened.
And ANYBODY with half a brain, some rudimentary training, a little practice on MS Flight Simulator, and DEDICATION could hit a building with a 757/767. I guarantee I dam well could.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/
and....?
been there, done it, and seen it.
...learned nothing.
nothing to learn. I already know it all....
/;}
Rabid Dog Olbermann put his fangs back in his big mouth and ACTUALLY smiled & laughed when he reported that Fox News had a segment on terrorists POSSIBLY being responsible for the wild fires in California.
In July, a post was made to numerous jihadist boards citing a previously issued fatwa authorizing the setting of forest fires as a weapon of jihad. The post began "this is an invitation to the Muslims of Europe and America, Australia & Russia to burn forests." It went on to state the justivication under Islamic Sharia law for this action and to cite its benefits for jihadists.
The post, revealed in GE Bulltins's report*), cites a video that shows Abu Mus'ab al Suri, author of "Call to Global Islamic Resistance" and advocate of the doctrine of individual terrorits, discussing the benefits to the jihad of SETTING FORREST FIRES.
So, Rabid Dog, get those fangs back out but starting snarling at the enemy NOT the ones trying to PROTECT you from them!
*Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, the premium online intelligence newsleter published by the founder of WND)
"And can anyone explain what "global collapse" means besides "cover-up"?"
easy...if you're a left wing nut ball ass wipe who doesn't like it when somebody dares to disagree with you, just wipe their comments off completely like the NAZIS did....
real fair and balanced...just as long as you agree with us and swallow the Party line.
No Balls, No Glory...and this pathetic piece of shit that is supposed to be a blog is just that...a pathetic piece of shit run by assholes who can dish it out but can't take it when anybody proves how fucking stupid they really are.
We don't think you've "proven" anything here...other than you have "opinions."
If they were setting fires on purpose, they did a poor job of it.
Post a Comment