911

On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 10:10:21 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

An how did they pick 757s? The only american air line at time capable
of remote control. 7

Yeah, that remote control guy sure did a ****ty job on the plane
flying into the field in PA, and he missed his target terribly at the
Pentagon. Those remote control guys in the black helicopters are
****ty performers.

Idiot.

Dave

On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 08:32:06 -0800 (PST), rb608
wrote:

One thing that the conspiracy theorists never mention, is the plane
that crashed in PA. How would you explain that?

I'm going with gravity.

AND the fact that the passengers aboard said they had been hi-jacked
and were about to confront the terrorists. **** poor flying while
being attacked by ****ed off passengers, keyed with GRAVITY (as my
structural engineering expert has noted) will indeed make a very big
hole in the ground.

Dave

"redietz" wrote in message
...
On Dec 11, 2:15 am, "asadi" wrote:
....Okay, we are never going to really know what happened to Kennedy...

He was shot.


.....Pal, my wife had to come in from the other room and ask me what I was
laughing about!

most excellant...

john

"asadi" wrote in message
...
....Okay, we are never going to really know what happened to
Kennedy....and I'm ready the latest book by Bugliosi...and I have been
cruising around trying to get information on the World trade center
collapses and building 7.

To say that the collapses and how they occurred were 'drilled' into us as
a part of our training is putting it mildly....I have tried to approach it
objectively and to be honest....I no longer believe what I was told..

Anybody got bourbon and a campfire?

john


Okay fellas..watch the video and refute it, rebut it...help me sleep...

john

"asadi" wrote in message
...
Losing structural integrety all across the floor and the exact same moment
so it would pancake?

John, those were jet engines hitting a relatively small, enclosed structure.
Intense heat, past the point of damage to steel,etc, could be expected to
encompass the entire
floor surface near the impact level floors.

That's a demolition term!..and when they fell...it was 'free fall' they
same speed as a freely falling object..controlled explosions all the way
down....

As someone else suggested, these building were of massive scale. Once such a
collapse occurs, several hundred feet up, mass and gravity will take care of
the rest of what you observed. The sheer mass of the upper floors would
cause an accelerating collapse downward.
The measurements versus a free falling object would have
been telling, then you could have seen the actual slowing due to the
resistance as the breakage continued, but I can see how viewing the event it
seems to be 'uninpeded' like a free-falling object.
.....now, as to why the air defense system allowed
four airliners to get that off-track for any length of time, you might get
some wonderment out of me. Not this part.
Tom

On Dec 11, 4:56*pm, "asadi" wrote:
Losing structural integrety all across the floor and the exact same moment
so it would pancake? *That's a demolition term!..and when they fell...it was
'free fall' *they same speed as a freely falling object..controlled
explosions all the way down....

The "exact same moment" and "pancake" and "freefall" are favorite
terms within the 9/11 CT community; but unfortunately, neither are
true with regards to the WTC7 collapse. Frame by frame observations
of the few videos available show that the collapse started on one side
as evidenced by the displacement of a parapet wall there (don't
remember which side). This collapse began several seconds prior to
when the CT nuts start their watch for the freefall timing. It didn't
freefall, nor did it pancake. It was simply a progressive collapse
where the failure of one or more components quickly cause the failure
of others. It's not weird, strange, or even suspicious. The massive
scale of the collapse unquestionably obscured much of the detail, but
the collapse as observed was entirely consistent with the progressive
failure of the transfer trusses at the lower levels.

FWIW, here's the link to the FEMA report: http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf
Yeah, I know FEMA is an agency that doesn't exactly inspire
confidence, but this is a pretty good discussion of the construction,
events and collapse.

Joe F.

On Dec 14, 5:04*am, rb608 wrote:
On Dec 11, 4:56*pm, "asadi" wrote:

Losing structural integrety all across the floor and the exact same moment
so it would pancake? *That's a demolition term!..and when they fell....it was
'free fall' *they same speed as a freely falling object..controlled
explosions all the way down....

The "exact same moment" and "pancake" and "freefall" are favorite
terms within the 9/11 CT community; but unfortunately, neither are
true with regards to the WTC7 collapse. *Frame by frame observations
of the few videos available show that the collapse started on one side
as evidenced by the displacement of a parapet wall there (don't
remember which side). *This collapse began several seconds prior to
when the CT nuts start their watch for the freefall timing. *It didn't
freefall, nor did it pancake. *It was simply a progressive collapse
where the failure of one or more components quickly cause the failure
of others. *It's not weird, strange, or even suspicious. *The massive
scale of the collapse unquestionably obscured much of the detail, but
the collapse as observed was entirely consistent with the progressive
failure of the transfer trusses at the lower levels.

FWIW, here's the link to the FEMA report:http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf
Yeah, I know FEMA is an agency that doesn't exactly inspire
confidence, but this is a pretty good discussion of the construction,
events and collapse.

Joe F.

Just read that entire report, and you're missing the point. Even FEMA
says they cannot find any mechanism with any degree of certainty to
explain what triggered or fueled the collapse. Yes, everyone agrees
that it was a progressive collapse, but what started it? What
compromised the suspect trusses? They aren't even sure that it was
truss failure on the ground level that did it...that's just one
hypothesis, and as unsubstantiated as any others.

Certainly it fell down, but AFAIK, there is nothing more than very
sketchy hypothesis to explain why. And the presence of the Defense
Dept, CIA and Secret Service in that same building (along with the
photographic evidence that the internal fires started on the 7th, 8th,
11th and 12th floors, while the Secret Service occupied the 9th and
10th floor)s seems quite suspicious. I think its entirely likely that
their offices could have been rigged with fail-safe systems in case of
catastrophe, and that those contributed to the fire and/or collapse
(albeit inadvertantly). Of course, that borders on the wrong side of
'consipiracy theory', but it sure fits the evidence without invoking
martians or photon torpedoes. I think we'd be fools to think that
there were NO fail-safe systems at a Secret Service or CIA office.

In any case, no one knows what caused the collapse, nor can they
account for the fuel supply or any other reason for it to have
happened. That alone should raise eyebrows.

--riverman

riverman wrote:

That alone should raise eyebrows.

`:-)

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

On Dec 13, 9:37*pm, riverman wrote:
Just read that entire report, and you're missing the point. Even FEMA
says they cannot find any mechanism with any degree of certainty to
explain what triggered or fueled the collapse.

Well yes, but that's part of the point. FEMA is at least
intellectually honest in refusing to state with certainty that of
which they are uncertain.


Yes, everyone agrees
that it was a progressive collapse, but what started it? What
compromised the suspect trusses? They aren't even sure that it was
truss failure on the ground level that did it...that's just one
hypothesis, and as unsubstantiated as any others.
Certainly it fell down, but AFAIK, there is nothing more than very
sketchy hypothesis to explain why.

The FEMA report presents a "probable" failure mechanism that is
substantiated by myriad known facts and evidence. It is acknowledged
that not all of the facts are known; but taking the approach that "we
don't know what did it, so it must be CD" is simply illogical. It's
crackpot science. The absence of a known explanation *does not* give
credence to other theories with even less evidence.

Yeah, there are a lot of unknowns about the initiating event, but the
events leading to that trigger are unprecedented. We know with
certainty that the collapse of the towers caused substantial damage to
WTC7. We know there were serious out-of-control fires burning. I
don't need to know exactly which piece of steel failed first to be
comfortable with some combination of those two conditions being
sufficient to buckle a critical compression member somewhere on the
lower levels. If some CIA self-destruct mechanism was the initiating
event, I don't see that as invalidating the FEMA hypothesis.

Joe F.

On Dec 14, 1:26*pm, rb608 wrote:
On Dec 13, 9:37*pm, riverman wrote:

Just read that entire report, and you're missing the point. Even FEMA
says they cannot find any mechanism with any degree of certainty to
explain what triggered or fueled the collapse.

Well yes, but that's part of the point. *FEMA is at least
intellectually honest in refusing to state with certainty that of
which they are uncertain.

Yes, everyone agrees
that it was a progressive collapse, but what started it? What
compromised the suspect trusses? They aren't even sure that it was
truss failure on the ground level that did it...that's just one
hypothesis, and as unsubstantiated as any others.
Certainly it fell down, but AFAIK, there is nothing more than very
sketchy hypothesis to explain why.

The FEMA report presents a "probable" failure mechanism that is
substantiated by myriad known facts and evidence. *It is acknowledged
that not all of the facts are known; but taking the approach that "we
don't know what did it, so it must be CD" is simply illogical. *It's
crackpot science. *The absence of a known explanation *does not* give
credence to other theories with even less evidence.

Yeah, there are a lot of unknowns about the initiating event, but the
events leading to that trigger are unprecedented. *We know with
certainty that the collapse of the towers caused substantial damage to
WTC7. *We know there were serious out-of-control fires burning. *I
don't need to know exactly which piece of steel failed first to be
comfortable with some combination of those two conditions being
sufficient to buckle a critical compression member somewhere on the
lower levels. *If some CIA self-destruct mechanism was the initiating
event, I don't see that as invalidating the FEMA hypothesis.

Joe F.


I hear you, Joe. I'm not sure where the boundary is between 'rational
hypothesis' and 'conspiracy science"..certianly it involves the belief
in some sort of organized attempt at something...either an attempt to
destroy buildings, or an attempt at covering up something. I'm not
going to take a stand on either of those, but if word got out that the
Secret Service had offices rigged with enough explosives to cause a
building in central NYC to collapse, the backlash would be
overwhelming. Acknowledging that they might want to keep that bottled
up doesn't seem like a 'conspiracy theory' as much as a pretty
rational conclusion.

My last point: you state that "The FEMA report presents a "probable"
failure mechanism that is substantiated by myriad known facts and
evidence" and I counter that FEMA itself says it is far from
substantiated. I quote from the Observations and Findings section:

"The loss of the east penthouse on the videotape suggests that the
collapse was initiated by the loss of structural integrity in one of
the transfer systems. Loss of structural integrity was likely a result
of weakening caused by fires on the 5th to 7th floors. The specifics
of the fires in WTC7 and how they caused the building to collapse
remain unknown at this time, Although the total diesel fuel on the
premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has
only a low probability of occurrence."

Think about that last sentence: they don't know. There's no other
conclusion possible, other than that they know and cannot (or will
not) tell.

--riverman