Activism Discussion: EXPERTS FURTHER DEBUNK 9-11 FAIRY TALE

EXPERTS FURTHER DEBUNK 9-11 FAIRY TALE
Posts: 318

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11   Next  (First | Last)

Iarnrod
2007-11-11 15:05:54 EST
On Nov 11, 2:01 pm, Ramabriga <Ramabr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> EXPERTS FURTHER DEBUNK 9-11 FAIRY TALE
>
> EXPERTS SAY FEDERAL LINE IMPOSSIBLE, TOWER COLLAPSES NEED INVESTIGATION...

You do know, when you re-post these already-debunked claims, that NIST
said it was unable to explain the total collapse after it
initiated.... something even the best supercomputer couldn't do
because of all the variables.

That's no big deal.


Ramabriga
2007-11-11 16:01:44 EST
EXPERTS FURTHER DEBUNK 9-11 FAIRY TALE

EXPERTS SAY FEDERAL LINE IMPOSSIBLE, TOWER COLLAPSES NEED INVESTIGATION


By Mark Anderson

San Francisco architect Richard Gage sees the National Institute of Standards and
Technology’s current position on 9-11 as an absurd “smoke and mirrors” show that
further reveals that NIST never inquired about how the World Trade Center’s twin towers
were destroyed on 9/11/01, and that NIST admits to not having any answers on what
actually caused the “global collapse.”

NIST’s latest position on the towers is spelled out in a recent letter sent by NIST to
Gage, former Underwriter’s Laboratories scientist Kevin Ryan, 9-11 surviving family
members Bill Doyle and Bob McIlvaine, former Brigham Young University physicist Steven
Jones, and the group Scholars for 9-11 Truth and Justice. The letter was in response to
a request by Gage and the others for corrections to NIST’s infamous 10,000-page report
on the towers.

NIST denied their requests for changes. The letter states: “We are unable to provide a
full explanation of the total collapse. . . .”

NIST stated that it found “no corroborating evidence to suggest that explosives were
used to bring down the buildings.” But in the next sentence the letter says: “NIST did
not conduct tests for explosive residue and as noted above, such tests would not
necessarily have been conclusive.”

Gage, a leading member of the growing group Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth,
told AFP that NIST, in its response to requests for corrections: “Acknowledges that
they don’t have a plausible explanation as to how the buildings could have collapsed at
virtually free-fall speed, due to only gravitational forces, crushing tons of
structural steel that was designed to resist that load.”

He added: “Those columns had to have been removed a fraction of a second prior to each
floor coming down,” which could only be done with explosives in a coordinated
demolition, as Gage recently explained in a detailed presentation at New York City’s
Cooper Union and at nearby Webster Hall.

He added that it’s amazing that the towers came down “through the path of greatest
resistance without tipping over,” and yet NIST spent 10,000 pages in its major report
(2005) only covering the events leading up to the collapse.

“NIST stopped its entire 10,000-page analysis at the point of initiation of collapse,”
exclaimed Gage, who pointed out that NIST did not calculate the weight of the
buildings’ mass versus the resistance that the dozens of floors below the jet impacts
would have provided against a potential collapse.

“And it’s a simple calculation,” Gage told AFP. Gage pointed out that NIST doesn’t even
attempt to go beyond the point of collapse initiation because they cannot explain the
varied evidence of explosives being used at the WTC, including the lateral ejection of
massive steel beams that were blown up to 500 feet away from the towers.

Tremendous force would be needed to do that. And Prof. Jones announced in March 2007
that he found the chemical signature of the incendiary thermate in WTC building
materials. Ryan, who was fired from his UL job after raising concerns over serious
flaws in NIST’s inquiry, has noted in scientific papers and speeches that fireproofed
structural steel easily withstands relatively brief jet-fuel fires and neither melts
nor collapses in such an environment.

Gage said there are about 100 cases around the world of high-rise steel framed
buildings burning much hotter for at least five hours, and indeed up to 18 hours,
without collapsing.

Yet the WTC south tower, which was hit by something second, fell first in just 52
minutes. The north tower fell later after burning just 102 minutes. And the south tower
was just nicked by the plane.

Gage has been a practicing architect for 20 years and has worked on most types of
building construction including numerous fire-proofed steel framed buildings. He became
interested in the 9-11 WTC high-rise “collapses” after hearing the startling
conclusions of 9-11 researcher David Ray Griffin. (See AFP’s insert this week, page
B-4, for a new 9-11 video from Griffin.) www.americanfreepress.net

Gage told AFP an appeal is being filed regarding the IST response to the Request for
Correction sent to NIST by Gage and other experts.

What became the World Trade Center was initiated in 1960 by a Lower Manhattan
association created and chaired by David Rockefeller. The 110-story north and south
towers were part of the WTC complex consisting of seven buildings on 16 acres. At 1,368
and 1,362 feet, the north and south towers were the world’s tallest buildings for a
short time, snatching the title from the Empire State Building.

The other five WTC complex buildings were constructed throughout the 1970s and ’80s.WTC
7, being the last in 1985, was, of course, the one that fell into its own footprint in
the exact manner of a controlled demolition on 9/11/01, but which was never even hit by
a plane that day and only suffered relatively minor fires.

While the cataclysmic nature of the twin towers’ destruction and the precise collapse
of WTC 7 all point to an organized inside attack on the complex, even more startling is
the fact that an intense six-floor fire on the 11th story of the north tower erupted on
Feb. 13, 1975 and burned for more than three hours, hot enough to prompt Capt. Harold
Kull of NYFD Engine No. 6 to tell The New York Times, “It was like fighting a blowtorch.”

The fire, estimated to exceed 700 degrees Celsius, was hot enough to blow out windows
on the 11th floor’s east side, from which flames were seen shooting out. None of the
steel trusses was even replaced; at no time could the entire building have collapsed.

As Gage, Prof. Jones and many others interviewed by AFP have noted, Americans are
supposed to believe that the heat from burning jet fuel was hot enough to not only
weaken structural steel but bring about a “global collapse” of both towers. As noted,
the north tower on 9-11 burned for less than two hours, and the other tower was
destroyed after burning for less than an hour. There is no solid evidence that the
fires exceeded 500 degrees Fahrenheit for any length of time.

So, hot fires not only have failed to bring down other steel-framed, high-rise
buildings; fire specifically failed to bring down the north tower itself in 1975. And
WTC designers built the towers to withstand the impact of jet airliners comparable in
size to commercial jets used today.

The inclusion of this design characteristic was prompted in part by the events of July
28, 1945, when a B-25 bomber flew into the Empire State Building, igniting a high
octane jet-fuel fire that killed 14 and caused considerable physical damage, but it
didn’t even come close to bringing down the building.

http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/debunk_9-11.html

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


What Me Worry?
2007-11-11 16:25:06 EST
"Iarnrod" <iarnrod@yahoo.com> soiled himself when presented with the facts
of 9/11

> On Nov 11, 2:01 pm, Ramabriga <Ramabr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> EXPERTS FURTHER DEBUNK 9-11 FAIRY TALE
>>
>> EXPERTS SAY FEDERAL LINE IMPOSSIBLE, TOWER COLLAPSES NEED
>> INVESTIGATION...
>
> You do know, when you re-post these already-debunked claims,

Debunked? You mean the laughable, disproven amateur hit pieces by the paid
liars at Popular Gizmos magazine?

> that NIST
> said it was unable to explain the total collapse after it
> initiated.... something even the best supercomputer couldn't do
> because of all the variables.

Being an idiot, you bought that lie without a whimper.

Here's a clue: You don't need a supercomputer to disprove the laughable
"progressive collapse" theory. Simple physics calculations (which any high
school physics student can verify) clearly show that the buildings could
not have fallen as fast as they did if there was any structural or inertial
resistance from the 110 floors of the WTC towers. To fall as they did, the
floors would need to have been shattered sequentially (and symmetrically),
so the falling mass encountered zero inertial resistance as it fell straight
down, through its own gigantic, overbuilt steel structure.

This is precisely what happens in a controlled demolition. Chemical
signatures of incendiary cutting charges, as well as numerous photos, videos
and rescue worker reports of signature by-products of those cutting charges,
have been conclusively discovered in the WTC wreckage.

This is an 'open and shut case' for controlled demolition.



Vandar
2007-11-11 16:44:40 EST
Ramabriga wrote:

> EXPERTS FURTHER DEBUNK 9-11 FAIRY TALE
>
> EXPERTS SAY FEDERAL LINE IMPOSSIBLE, TOWER COLLAPSES NEED INVESTIGATION
>
>
> By Mark Anderson
>
> San Francisco architect Richard Gage sees the National Institute of
> Standards and
> Technology’s current position on 9-11 as an absurd “smoke and mirrors”
> show that
> further reveals that NIST never inquired about how the World Trade
> Center’s twin towers
> were destroyed on 9/11/01, and that NIST admits to not having any
> answers on what
> actually caused the “global collapse.”
>
> NIST’s latest position on the towers is spelled out in a recent letter
> sent by NIST to
> Gage, former Underwriter’s Laboratories scientist Kevin Ryan, 9-11
> surviving family
> members Bill Doyle and Bob McIlvaine, former Brigham Young University
> physicist Steven
> Jones, and the group Scholars for 9-11 Truth and Justice. The letter was
> in response to
> a request by Gage and the others for corrections to NIST’s infamous
> 10,000-page report
> on the towers.
>
> NIST denied their requests for changes. The letter states: “We are
> unable to provide a
> full explanation of the total collapse. . . .”
>
> NIST stated that it found “no corroborating evidence to suggest that
> explosives were
> used to bring down the buildings.” But in the next sentence the letter
> says: “NIST did
> not conduct tests for explosive residue and as noted above, such tests
> would not
> necessarily have been conclusive.”
>
> Gage, a leading member of the growing group Architects and Engineers for
> 9-11 Truth,
> told AFP that NIST, in its response to requests for corrections:
> “Acknowledges that
> they don’t have a plausible explanation as to how the buildings could
> have collapsed at
> virtually free-fall speed, due to only gravitational forces, crushing
> tons of
> structural steel that was designed to resist that load.”

They also explained why, but the "truth" movement won't acknowledge that
little fact.

> He added: “Those columns had to have been removed a fraction of a second
> prior to each
> floor coming down,” which could only be done with explosives in a
> coordinated
> demolition, as Gage recently explained in a detailed presentation at New
> York City’s
> Cooper Union and at nearby Webster Hall.
>
> He added that it’s amazing that the towers came down “through the path
> of greatest
> resistance without tipping over,” and yet NIST spent 10,000 pages in its
> major report
> (2005) only covering the events leading up to the collapse.

That's because it's a comprehensive report.

> “NIST stopped its entire 10,000-page analysis at the point of initiation
> of collapse,”
> exclaimed Gage, who pointed out that NIST did not calculate the weight
> of the
> buildings’ mass versus the resistance that the dozens of floors below
> the jet impacts
> would have provided against a potential collapse.

"The NCST Act, as you note in your letter, requires NIST to "establish
the likely technical cause or causes of the building failure." In the
case of the WTC towers, NIST has established that the failures initiated
in the floors affected by the aircraft impact damage and the ensuing
fires resulted in the collapses of the towers. This conclusion is
supported by large body of visual evidence collected by NIST. Your
letter suggests that NIST should have used computer models to analyze
the collapse of the towers. NIST carried its analysis to the point where
the buildings reached global instability. At this point, because of
magnitude of the deflections and the number of failures occurring, the
computer models are unable to converge on a solution."


In other words, NIST used computer models to the point of collapse and
no further because because the computer models were unable to analyze
the large number of failures occurring after collapse began.

Gage's response: "Why didn't they use computer models?"

> “And it’s a simple calculation,” Gage told AFP. Gage pointed out that
> NIST doesn’t even
> attempt to go beyond the point of collapse initiation because they
> cannot explain the
> varied evidence of explosives being used at the WTC, including the
> lateral ejection of
> massive steel beams that were blown up to 500 feet away from the towers.

That's not evidence of explosives.

> Tremendous force would be needed to do that.

Correct.

> And Prof. Jones announced
> in March 2007
> that he found the chemical signature of the incendiary thermate in WTC
> building
> materials.

Building materials that he can't even verify came from anywhere in the
entire state of NY.

> Ryan, who was fired from his UL job

He didn't work for UL.

> after raising concerns over serious
> flaws in NIST’s inquiry, has noted in scientific papers and speeches
> that fireproofed
> structural steel easily withstands relatively brief jet-fuel fires and
> neither melts
> nor collapses in such an environment.

And what happens when a 767 impact blows the fireproofing off the steel?

> Gage said there are about 100 cases around the world of high-rise steel
> framed
> buildings burning much hotter for at least five hours, and indeed up to
> 18 hours,
> without collapsing.

And how many of those cases involve the buildings having their fires
initiated by a 767?

> Yet the WTC south tower, which was hit by something second,

Something? The author of this piece is a no-planer? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...

> fell first
> in just 52
> minutes. The north tower fell later after burning just 102 minutes. And
> the south tower
> was just nicked by the plane.

Nicked? Are you fucking kidding me!? The ENTIRE fucking plane entered
the building. No part of the plane missed.

> Gage has been a practicing architect for 20 years and has worked on most
> types of
> building construction including numerous fire-proofed steel framed
> buildings.

Then perhaps he should ask himself why fireproofing is needed.

> He became
> interested in the 9-11 WTC high-rise “collapses” after hearing the
> startling
> conclusions of 9-11 researcher

Theologist

> David Ray Griffin. (See AFP’s insert this
> week, page
> B-4, for a new 9-11 video from Griffin.) www.americanfreepress.net
>
> Gage told AFP an appeal is being filed regarding the IST response to the
> Request for
> Correction sent to NIST by Gage and other experts.
>
> What became the World Trade Center was initiated in 1960 by a Lower
> Manhattan
> association created and chaired by David Rockefeller. The 110-story
> north and south
> towers were part of the WTC complex consisting of seven buildings on 16
> acres. At 1,368
> and 1,362 feet, the north and south towers were the world’s tallest
> buildings for a
> short time, snatching the title from the Empire State Building.
>
> The other five WTC complex buildings were constructed throughout the
> 1970s and ’80s.WTC
> 7, being the last in 1985, was, of course, the one that fell into its
> own footprint in
> the exact manner of a controlled demolition on 9/11/01, but which was
> never even hit by
> a plane that day and only suffered relatively minor fires.

A flat out lie from the no-planer author. Every single fireman on-scene
that day disagrees with the claim that WTC 7 experienced "relatively
minor fires".

> While the cataclysmic nature of the twin towers’ destruction and the
> precise collapse
> of WTC 7 all point to an organized inside attack on the complex, even
> more startling is
> the fact that an intense six-floor fire on the 11th story of the north
> tower erupted on
> Feb. 13, 1975 and burned for more than three hours, hot enough to prompt
> Capt. Harold
> Kull of NYFD Engine No. 6 to tell The New York Times, “It was like
> fighting a blowtorch.”
>
> The fire, estimated to exceed 700 degrees Celsius, was hot enough to
> blow out windows
> on the 11th floor’s east side, from which flames were seen shooting out.
> None of the
> steel trusses was even replaced; at no time could the entire building
> have collapsed.

Was the fire started by a 767?

> As Gage, Prof. Jones and many others interviewed by AFP have noted,
> Americans are
> supposed to believe that the heat from burning jet fuel was hot enough
> to not only
> weaken structural steel but bring about a “global collapse” of both
> towers.

Notice how he refuses to even mention the structural damage caused by
the planes he believes didn't exist.

> As noted,
> the north tower on 9-11 burned for less than two hours, and the other
> tower was
> destroyed after burning for less than an hour. There is no solid
> evidence that the
> fires exceeded 500 degrees Fahrenheit for any length of time.

And yet another lie by the no-planer.

> So, hot fires not only have failed to bring down other steel-framed,
> high-rise
> buildings; fire specifically failed to bring down the north tower itself
> in 1975. And
> WTC designers built the towers to withstand the impact of jet airliners
> comparable in
> size to commercial jets used today.

They built the towers to withstand the impact of airliners not yet even
conceived? Riiiiiiight.

Maybe he should stick with his "no planes" theory.

> The inclusion of this design characteristic was prompted in part by the
> events of July
> 28, 1945, when a B-25 bomber flew into the Empire State Building,
> igniting a high
> octane jet-fuel fire that killed 14 and caused considerable physical
> damage, but it
> didn’t even come close to bringing down the building.

A B-25 is not a 767.
A slow moving B-25 is not a fast moving 767.
The Empire State Building is in no way similar to the World Trade Center.

The "truth" movement is full of fucking idiots like this.


Al Dykes
2007-11-11 16:45:12 EST
In article <QtGdnWdVdbY-66ranZ2dnUVZ_jWdnZ2d@insightbb.com>,
What Me Worry? <__@____.___> wrote:
>"Iarnrod" <iarnrod@yahoo.com> soiled himself when presented with the facts
>of 9/11
>
>> On Nov 11, 2:01 pm, Ramabriga <Ramabr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> EXPERTS FURTHER DEBUNK 9-11 FAIRY TALE
>>>
>>> EXPERTS SAY FEDERAL LINE IMPOSSIBLE, TOWER COLLAPSES NEED
>>> INVESTIGATION...
>>
>> You do know, when you re-post these already-debunked claims,
>
>Debunked? You mean the laughable, disproven amateur hit pieces by the paid
>liars at Popular Gizmos magazine?
>
>> that NIST
>> said it was unable to explain the total collapse after it
>> initiated.... something even the best supercomputer couldn't do
>> because of all the variables.
>
>Being an idiot, you bought that lie without a whimper.
>
>Here's a clue: You don't need a supercomputer to disprove the laughable
>"progressive collapse" theory. Simple physics calculations (which any high
>school physics student can verify) clearly show that the buildings could
>not have fallen as fast as they did if there was any structural or inertial
>resistance from the 110 floors of the WTC towers. To fall as they did, the
>floors would need to have been shattered sequentially (and symmetrically),
>so the falling mass encountered zero inertial resistance as it fell straight
>down, through its own gigantic, overbuilt steel structure.
>
>This is precisely what happens in a controlled demolition. Chemical
>signatures of incendiary cutting charges, as well as numerous photos, videos
>and rescue worker reports of signature by-products of those cutting charges,
>have been conclusively discovered in the WTC wreckage.
>
>This is an 'open and shut case' for controlled demolition.
>
>


<http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8460021418711298647>

<http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8137991504304840706>

<http://www.uwgb.edu/birds/wbba/species/audios/LOON__COMMON.MP3>




--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001


Vandar
2007-11-11 16:47:39 EST
What Me Worry? wrote:

> "Iarnrod" <iarnrod@yahoo.com> soiled himself when presented with the facts
> of 9/11
>
>
>>On Nov 11, 2:01 pm, Ramabriga <Ramabr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>EXPERTS FURTHER DEBUNK 9-11 FAIRY TALE
>>>
>>>EXPERTS SAY FEDERAL LINE IMPOSSIBLE, TOWER COLLAPSES NEED
>>>INVESTIGATION...
>>
>>You do know, when you re-post these already-debunked claims,
>
>
> Debunked? You mean the laughable, disproven amateur hit pieces by the paid
> liars at Popular Gizmos magazine?
>
>
>>that NIST
>>said it was unable to explain the total collapse after it
>>initiated.... something even the best supercomputer couldn't do
>>because of all the variables.
>
>
> Being an idiot, you bought that lie without a whimper.
>
> Here's a clue: You don't need a supercomputer to disprove the laughable
> "progressive collapse" theory. Simple physics calculations (which any high
> school physics student can verify) clearly show that the buildings could
> not have fallen as fast as they did if there was any structural or inertial
> resistance from the 110 floors of the WTC towers. To fall as they did, the
> floors would need to have been shattered sequentially (and symmetrically),
> so the falling mass encountered zero inertial resistance as it fell straight
> down, through its own gigantic, overbuilt steel structure.

You are obviously one of the imbeciles who thinks the towers collapsed
in 10 seconds.
They didn't. That time, that the stupid fucking "truth" movement likes
to quote, is how long it took for the FIRST PIECE of debris to hit the
ground. In case you haven't noticed, and you probably haven't because
you're extremely stupid, the first pieces of debris to hit the ground
were falling OUTSIDE of the building. You know, true free fall.

> This is precisely what happens in a controlled demolition. Chemical
> signatures of incendiary cutting charges, as well as numerous photos, videos
> and rescue worker reports of signature by-products of those cutting charges,
> have been conclusively discovered in the WTC wreckage.
>
> This is an 'open and shut case' for controlled demolition.

It's an open and shut case for you being a fucking moron.


Iarnrod
2007-11-11 16:56:08 EST
On Nov 11, 2:25 pm, "What Me Worry?" <__@____.___> wrote:
> "Iarnrod" <iarn...@yahoo.com> beamed with pride when she defeated the k00ker "claims" of 9/11
>
> > On Nov 11, 2:01 pm, Ramabriga <Ramabr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> EXPERTS FURTHER DEBUNK 9-11 FAIRY TALE
>
> >> EXPERTS SAY FEDERAL LINE IMPOSSIBLE, TOWER COLLAPSES NEED
> >> INVESTIGATION...
>
> > You do know, when you re-post these already-debunked claims,
>
> Debunked? You mean the laughable, disproven amateur hit pieces by the paid
> liars at Popular Gizmos magazine?

Never heard of it. But there was a comprehensive factual presentation
in a magazine called Popular Mechanics that you might wanna pick up
and digest before you embarrass yourself further. It should put your
mind at ease about any more Boosh conspiracies and other fairy tales.

> > that NIST
> > said it was unable to explain the total collapse after it
> > initiated.... something even the best supercomputer couldn't do
> > because of all the variables.
>
> Being an idiot, you bought that lie without a whimper.

No, being intelligent I understand the issue and being literate, I
understand what was written. You, being stupid, like to take things
out of context and then on top of that twist your out of context
misinterpretation into a full blown lie. It's really quite obvious to
anyone who actually reads the letters.

This was all de-debunked a few weeks ago in a relate thread. You
should have woken up and read it.

> Here's a clue: You don't need a supercomputer to disprove the laughable
> "progressive collapse" theory.

The progressive collapse story cannot be disproved, since it is what
actually happened.

What the NIST was unable to recreate was the exact sequencing for the
thousands of structural pieces as they collapsed. It's really no more
sinister than that. Read the letter.

What happened, happened. It's all obvious to those without an agenda
or a mental problem. You I suspect may have both.

> Simple physics calculations (which any high
> school physics student can verify) clearly show that the buildings could
> not have fallen as fast as they did if there was any structural or inertial
> resistance from the 110 floors of the WTC towers.

False.

> To fall as they did, the
> floors would need to have been shattered sequentially (and symmetrically),
> so the falling mass encountered zero inertial resistance as it fell straight
> down, through its own gigantic, overbuilt steel structure.

False. Especially since that's not what happened. There was no
symmetry in the collapse. There were no explosions. There was not one
single bit of evidence of any controlled demolition. Not one.

> This is precisely what happens in a controlled demolition.

The first thing that happens in a controlled demolition is the very
very loud sequence of pre-set explosives going off.

None of that happened, sweetums. So none of what you "think" happened
afterward is relevant to that.

> Chemical
> signatures of incendiary cutting charges, as well as numerous photos, videos
> and rescue worker reports of signature by-products of those cutting charges,
> have been conclusively discovered in the WTC wreckage.

Wrong.

> This is an 'open and shut case' for controlled demolition.

On the contrary, there is not one single bit of any evidence that this
was a controlled demolition. It is in fact physically impossible that
any of these structures was collapsed in a "controlled demolition."
You're making this shit up as you go along and I understand you want
to believe it, but it really didn't happen that way. Sorry.


Al Dykes
2007-11-11 16:57:27 EST
In article <QtGdnWdVdbY-66ranZ2dnUVZ_jWdnZ2d@insightbb.com>,
What Me Worry? <__@____.___> wrote:
>"Iarnrod" <iarnrod@yahoo.com> soiled himself when presented with the facts
>of 9/11
>
>> On Nov 11, 2:01 pm, Ramabriga <Ramabr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> EXPERTS FURTHER DEBUNK 9-11 FAIRY TALE
>>>
>>> EXPERTS SAY FEDERAL LINE IMPOSSIBLE, TOWER COLLAPSES NEED
>>> INVESTIGATION...
>>
>> You do know, when you re-post these already-debunked claims,
>
>Debunked? You mean the laughable, disproven amateur hit pieces by the paid
>liars at Popular Gizmos magazine?
>
>> that NIST
>> said it was unable to explain the total collapse after it
>> initiated.... something even the best supercomputer couldn't do
>> because of all the variables.
>
>Being an idiot, you bought that lie without a whimper.
>
>Here's a clue: You don't need a supercomputer to disprove the laughable
>"progressive collapse" theory. Simple physics calculations (which any high
>school physics student can verify) clearly show that the buildings could
>not have fallen as fast as they did if there was any structural or inertial
>resistance from the 110 floors of the WTC towers. To fall as they did, the
>floors would need to have been shattered sequentially (and symmetrically),
>so the falling mass encountered zero inertial resistance as it fell straight
>down, through its own gigantic, overbuilt steel structure.



This is precisely what happens in a controlled demolition. Chemical
signatures of incendiary cutting charges,

Thermite/thermate ain't a "cutting charge", whatever that means toc you.

as well as numerous photos, videos and rescue worker reports of
signature by-products of those cutting charges, have been
conclusively discovered in the WTC wreckage.

Then you can show us the above. please do.

A photo or two

A name of a "rescue worker" and his statement that quotes
"signature by-products"

The picture of a core beam cut at 45 degrees isn't proof of any of that.


--
Anyone that hasn't seen WTC's Ground Zero in NYC and the "Truth
Movement" kooks that hang out there should look at the first three
videos. The others should be required viewing by anyone that has an
opinion about 9/11 and WTC or has never been to NYC.


Ground Zero 911 Conspiracy Wars by Ray Rivera http://rayrivera.net
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4162315283354424113

The Ground Zeros by Mark Roberts
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5004042232637229146&hl=en

WTC Ground Zero 9/11/2007 Sad.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qr2LeCXXIjo

Les Jamieson and others of NY911Truth.org disparages the FDNY
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/ny911truth.orgmembersdisparagethefdnyatg

How famous Truth Movement people repond to unfortunate truths that
show them for what they are
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/semiliterateparanoiacswhofantasizeaboutt

The Naudet Film about 9/11 at WTC
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6371069744838112957&q=Naudet

Marks's collapse video
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2083421624495848233&hl=en

"The 9 - 11 Conspiracies - Fact or Fiction"
http://www.torrentbox.com/torrent_details?id=125450











Cardinal Chunder
2007-11-11 17:39:03 EST
Ramabriga wrote:
> EXPERTS FURTHER DEBUNK 9-11 FAIRY TALE

> NIST denied their requests for changes. The letter states: “We are
> unable to provide a
> full explanation of the total collapse. . . .”

Non news. Kooks use qualifiers in explanations to justify their own
fucked up insane "theories" even though they have zero evidence to
support them.

Al Dykes
2007-11-11 20:38:53 EST
In article <4737a05d$0$26389$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>,
Ramabriga <Ramabriga@gmail.com> wrote:
>Smoking gun testimony, demolition detonations reported by top brass in official statement
>
>The rank of this witness is:
>CAPTAIN KARIN DESHORE OF BATTALION 46
>
>CAPTAIN KARIN DESHORE QUOTE :
>
>\ufffdSOMEWHERE AROUND THE MIDDLE OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER, THERE WAS THIS ORANGE AND RED
>FLASH COMING OUT.
>

Like these?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hu7G348rPIw

http://www.stupidcollege.com/items/Electric-Transformer-Explosion

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8756447341495312394


There were transformers like the above on several upper floors at WTC.


Nobody keady anything like this at WTC at 9/11.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3489344756661360797
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8456932646059685410
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4468401519286253713
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8309970786160123373
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjW7srAvtSY


None of what the firemen said is anything like the 1993 bomb which was
heard throughout the 16 acre complex and for blocks around and yet did
no structural damage to a tower.

None of the firemen say they claim that man-made explosive were
present.

There is no eyewitness or audio/video record of any explosions of
size, placement, timing or brisance [2], that immediately precedes any
tower collapse.

No noise heard by one or a few people would have been loud enough to
identify a man-made explosion large enough to cause a collapse. The
1993 bombing was 1,000 pounds of TNT and heard all over the 16 acre
complex and for blocks around yet to wasn't large enough to do any
structural damage. Lots of video cameras were in use from moments
after the impact of teh first jet. None of them recorded any
explosions anywhere near as loud as the 1993 bombing.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11   Next  (First | Last)


2021 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron