Thursday, November 30, 2006

SETI Radio Interview Up

The SETI Radio interview I participated in is now up on the Internet. I forgot to mention the fireproofing and the diesel fuel. Doh!

Enjoy.

118 Comments:

At 30 November, 2006 10:14, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Najib Abboud from Weidlinger Associates comes off as completely off-base.

Poor guy has to support the official story and sound like a idiot.

 
At 30 November, 2006 10:25, Anonymous Anonymous said...

James,

You come off as a nice guy. You give a polished presentation.

You are aware, of course, that I find the content of your argument almost as off-base as Mr. Abboud.

Your comments explaining the CD of WTC 7 as being largely a result of other towers causing massive damage or the later documented leaning of WTC 7 somehow being related to the later under 10 second collapse is just not convincing to me.

Your Pentagon explanation seems to fall completely short to me as well.

The firefighter argument (that we CT'ers are making terrible accusations against them) falls flat as well, just as it did when Mancow tired to do his big Fox show with that kind of set up.

 
At 30 November, 2006 10:30, Blogger James B. said...

BG, as I mentioned I forgot to mention the diesel fires. Keep in mind this was a 20 minute phone interview on about a dozen subjects, which they edited to about 10 minutes. I apologize if I was not able to explain every single event on 9/11 during that time period.

 
At 30 November, 2006 10:31, Blogger James B. said...

Need I remind you?

Update: World Trade Center 7 Imploded by Silverstein, FDNY and others


Update: People Died in WTC 7: This Makes Silverstein and the FDNY guilty of AT LEAST Manslaughter

 
At 30 November, 2006 10:47, Anonymous Anonymous said...

James,

Update: World Trade Center 7 Imploded by Silverstein, FDNY and others


Update: People Died in WTC 7: This Makes Silverstein and the FDNY guilty of AT LEAST Manslaughter

This rhetoric (that you cite) is high pitched, and overblown. If you read books (DRG's books, or even the Ruppert book, Crossing the Rubicon, you get a reasonable argument and rhetoric about 9/11, even if you think that the general accustation of "an inside job" is bunk.

As far as the "young punks" / college kids, etc. who may be associated with what might be called a faction of the Loose Change contingent, I imagine there is a huge amount of offensive speech that has sprung forth there.

 
At 30 November, 2006 10:57, Blogger CHF said...

BG,

a firefighter transit reading showed WTC7 to be unstable.

How does a demolition cause a building to lean over before knocking it down?

 
At 30 November, 2006 11:06, Blogger ScottSl said...

Garcia has one of the better articles written on WTC7.

http://www.counterpunch.org/darkfire11282006.html

DRG's books are some of the worst laughable stuff.
We've read a lot of his stuff.

Ruppert is LIHOP and was refuted years ago by Bill Herbert. His "You have a lotta explain ta do Lucy" has been a broken template others have followed for years.

 
At 30 November, 2006 11:08, Anonymous Anonymous said...

chf,

I haven't made this clear.

I don't doubt in the least that wtc had massive fires. I don't doubt that it was leaning. I don't doubt that it had structural damage. I don't doubt that the nature of the foundation had unique aspects that may have meant that a collapse would happen if critical elements failed near the bottom of the building.

Absolutely none of the above suggests a whiff of evidence to account for the CD that we see at 5:20.

 
At 30 November, 2006 11:10, Anonymous Anonymous said...

ScottSl said...

I may or may not agree with your characterizations about DRG and Ruppert.

If you simply look at the point I was making and the context of my text, you'd see that I offered the books as examples of 9/11 Material which didn't libel firefighters, which some people seems to think amounts to a hill of beans.

 
At 30 November, 2006 11:13, Blogger ScottSl said...

Fair enough bg.

 
At 30 November, 2006 11:16, Blogger Alex said...

LOL

"I don't disagree with any of the evidence....I just don't think that's how it happened"

Well, gee whiz. And here I was getting used to the CT movement providing loads and loads of irrefutable evidence. It's truly a shock to see that BG has no basis for his statements.

 
At 30 November, 2006 11:21, Blogger James B. said...

This rhetoric (that you cite) is high pitched, and overblown.

But it is what they said! Apparently the worst thing you can do to a conspiracy theorist is quote them.

Another example of your ever moving goalposts. If I quote Loose Change, you say to watch Terror Storm, if I quote Alex Jones, you say to quote David Ray Griffin, if I quote David Ray Griffin to refer me to Webster Tarpley.

Fine I will play this game to amuse you. From David Ray Griffin:

It also did not mention that firefighters were removed from building 7 several hours in advance because someone spread word that it was going to collapse, even though there were, according to all available photographs, fires on only a few of this building's 47 floors. The Commission again could have included some interesting quotations from the 9/11 oral histories. For example, Decosta Wright, a medical technician, said: 'I think the fourth floor was on fire. . . . [W]e were like, are you guys going to put that fire out'' Chief Thomas McCarthy said: '[T]hey were waiting for 7 World Trade to come down. . . . They had . . . fire on three separate floors . . . , just burning merrily. It was pretty amazing, you know, it's the afternoon in lower Manhattan, a major high-rise is burning, and they said 'we know.'' But the Commission says nothing about this decision not to fight the fires, based on advance knowledge that the building was going to collapse.

The Commission also did not mention that Larry Silverstein, the building's owner, said on a PBS show that he and the 'fire department commander' decided it would be best to 'pull' the building, after which 'we watched the building collapse.'

The Commission avoided pointing out any of these things by simply not finding any room in its 571-page book to mention the fact that building 7 collapsed---even though it was supposedly the first large steel-frame building in history to collapse from fire alone.



http://www.911review.com/articles/griffin/testimony_cbc2005.html#building7

Larry Silverstein's statement that he and the fire department decided to "pull" 'WTC-7, combined with the evidence that the fire department had prior knowledge of its collapse, despite the lack of any physical evidence indicating imminent collapse.


http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Sept_11_2001/New_Pearl_Harbor.html

 
At 30 November, 2006 11:40, Anonymous Anonymous said...

And what is it that you say about the quoted portion of DRG that is so off-based as far as attacking firefighters?

 
At 30 November, 2006 11:40, Blogger remdem said...

Absolutely none of the above suggests a whiff of evidence to account for the CD that we see at 5:20.

Ok...

Except...

That there was no CD, so one doesn't really have to make evidence to account for it, now, do they?

My theory that people live on Pluto is perfect, and any evidence to the contrary is invalid, because it does not account for the Pluto people.

My theory that Chicago is larger than New York is perfect, and any evidence to the contrary is invalid, because it does not account for Chicago being larger.

My theory that the Titanic was torpedoed by the Germans is perfect, and any evidence to the contrary is invalid because it does not account for the fact that there is a giant hole in the ship you just can't see it because the Germans pushed mud up around the sides to hide the hole.

 
At 30 November, 2006 11:43, Blogger James B. said...

BG, Can you freaking read?

Larry Silverstein's statement that he and the fire department decided to "pull" 'WTC-7, combined with the evidence that the fire department had prior knowledge of its collapse, despite the lack of any physical evidence indicating imminent collapse.


Now I suppose you are going to start arguing that firefighters and the fire department have nothing to do with each other.

 
At 30 November, 2006 11:52, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

James Nice Job!

Hey one question: what questions do CTs have that you still hold valid?

 
At 30 November, 2006 11:53, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

James I think you should join the National 9/11 Debate for the OS side. What do you think?

 
At 30 November, 2006 11:58, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

You are aware, of course, that I find the content of your argument almost as off-base as Mr. Abboud

OOOOOOOOOOOH NOOOOOOOO!!!

GEEZ JAMES WHAT WILL YOU DO?!?!

 
At 30 November, 2006 11:59, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

Your comments explaining the CD of WTC 7 as being largely a result of other towers causing massive damage or the later documented leaning of WTC 7 somehow being related to the later under 10 second collapse is just not convincing to me

Anything that experts, eyewitnesses, fire personnel, etc etc say WOUYLD NEVER CONVINCE YOU!!

WHY?

I REALLY DONT FUCKIN KNOW WHY BECAUSE I AM NOT A COMPLETE NUTJOB!!

 
At 30 November, 2006 12:02, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

Your Pentagon explanation seems to fall completely short to me as well.

That is SHOCKING!!!

I never would have guessed!!

I bet if a terrorist caee to you and wanted to blow up Disney Land and said that he would help you blame it on the government you would be all for it

 
At 30 November, 2006 12:03, Blogger James B. said...

I still think they should straighten out what exactly the FAA and NORADs responses were, even Kean and Hamilton still have questions on that. Also there are still issues on how the intelligence community missed the signs, and what we can do to change it. I think there are still things we can learn about the collapse, and how we can improve safety as well. None of this points to a massive government conspiracy though.

As fun as it would be to watch Jones and Wood go at it over the Death Star theories, the last I heard the "debate" was scheduled for March 10th, I will literally be out of the country that week.

 
At 30 November, 2006 12:10, Anonymous Anonymous said...

James B. said...

BG, Can you freaking read?

Larry Silverstein's statement that he and the fire department decided to "pull" 'WTC-7, combined with the evidence that the fire department had prior knowledge of its collapse, despite the lack of any physical evidence indicating imminent collapse.


Now I suppose you are going to start arguing that firefighters and the fire department have nothing to do with each other.


Claiming that there were moles or institutional level corruption is not at all an insult to the average firefighter. It is exactly the opposite.

I could claim that Rumsfeld authorized abuses at Abu Graibe, and it would be an analagous charge.

 
At 30 November, 2006 12:14, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

Here is an interesting question I would like BG to answer, or provide info for:

Show me an occasion, where a skyscraper collapsed, not due to Controlled Demolition, and fell in a time much longer than that of free fall.

TAM

 
At 30 November, 2006 12:16, Blogger James B. said...

What, so if the CTs aren't accusing every single firefighter, then they aren't accusing any firefighters? Interesting logic...

Your analogy would be to argue, "Military carried out widespread abuses at Abu Ghraib" and then later to say that you weren't talking about the military, just the Generals and Colonels, and the military police who were involved, but God knows you would never accuse the military of this.

 
At 30 November, 2006 12:23, Blogger Pat said...

Good job, James! Very professional presentation.

 
At 30 November, 2006 12:29, Blogger Stevew said...

Debunking Controlled Demoltion If any one believes the CD theory, just read the PDF written by experts in the CD industry, after reading this and you still believe ther were brought down by CD then there is no hope for you. All you whakos, read this if you dare. All samasshole's questions are answered by someone who has been in the business for 20 years
One of the complaints that the 9-11 Deniers raise about the NIST report on the collapse of the WTC Towers and WTC7 is that the possibility of controlled demolition was not examined. So Brent Blanchard of Implosion World decided to rectify that with
a paper that demolishes the CD theory

http://xbehome.com/screwloosechange/pictures/WTC_COLLAPSE_STUDY_BBlanchard_8-8-06.pdf

This pretty much says it all

 
At 30 November, 2006 12:32, Blogger CHF said...

So BG...

you admit there were massive fires, that WTC7 was leaning, that it had structural damage...

But it was still a CD.

Religious devotion at its finest.

 
At 30 November, 2006 12:33, Anonymous Anonymous said...

James,

Here's a small criticism of the particulars of your seti interview:

I listened again to make sure I heard you right. You said the concrete floors in the WTC were relatively thin like 3".

In the NIST document, page 60, it says 4". The tons of concrete involved is staggering by any measure, and the fact that you miss mark with your approximation by 33% is no potatoes either.

 
At 30 November, 2006 12:41, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

Yes, but thin, relative to what one would normally assume for the depth of a concrete floor, could be either of 3" or 4". The difference in 3" versus 4" is trivial, if the average concrete floor is lets say 12"...3-4 inches is still pretty thin by Concrete floor standards, is it not.

BG, did you see my question I posed to you?

TAM

 
At 30 November, 2006 12:42, Blogger James B. said...

Wow, I was one inch off. I offer my apologies. That definitely proves it was controlled demolition.

 
At 30 November, 2006 12:43, Blogger Stevew said...

There was a 3 to 4 inch layer of concrete on the average floor. The floors were not designed to be self standing but designed for lateral loads. Contrary to what some conspiracy theorists say, the core walls were NOT concrete reinforced. This was an error made by a news organization which grew a life of its own.

 
At 30 November, 2006 12:49, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Brent Blanchard pdf provides a shallow and dismissive discussion that does not do the topic justice.

 
At 30 November, 2006 13:02, Anonymous Anonymous said...

tam
Show me an occasion, where a skyscraper collapsed, not due to Controlled Demolition, and fell in a time much longer than that of free fall.

I don't think I know of any other complete skyscraper collapses that took place at all. There was the partial failure of the Madrid building that sagged due to fire.

 
At 30 November, 2006 13:03, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Stevew said...

In case you didn't hear the dicussion that James was having, the topic at hand was the amount of concrete and the amount of concrete dust or debris after the CD.

 
At 30 November, 2006 13:08, Blogger James B. said...

Hey, if the CTs can repeatedly claim the 120 foot wide hole in the Pentagon is only 16 feet wide, then I can be 1 inch off regarding the thickness of the concrete floors.

 
At 30 November, 2006 13:12, Blogger ScottSl said...

Nice job on that DRG quote James. I haven't had time to listen to the interview, but I will tonight.
Best
Scott

 
At 30 November, 2006 13:13, Blogger Yatesey said...

I usually just read and msuse myself, but I wanted to make a comment I've made before.

BG, and others alike, tend to blast the official story saying "no evidence", but then they point to the same type of evidence to back their claims.

BG, how is that side any better? Going off the idea that they have the "real" evidence, their evidence is presented by people who have the same sort of credibility problem and type of bias that CTists claim the official side has. The evidence itself is no more compelling.

Again, this stuff is mostly for my amusement, but I see the CTists getting their collective back up and honestly, people like Alex Jones bend the truth just as much, if not MORE than the people they are striking back against, so how are they any better?

 
At 30 November, 2006 13:28, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

Claiming that there were moles or institutional level corruption is not at all an insult to the average firefighter. It is exactly the opposite.

Your reasoning and logic is well beyond completely fucked up

 
At 30 November, 2006 13:30, Blogger troy said...

I called Alex Jones again. Why do I do it? I was angry and yelling a tad. I called him a fatboy and such. You can hear it at approximately 5:10PM, 8:10PM, 11:10PM, 2:10AM, 5:10AM, 8:10AM, 11:10AM Eastern time throughout the day into the morning on infowars.com.

 
At 30 November, 2006 13:31, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

Here's a small criticism of the particulars of your seti interview:

I listened again to make sure I heard you right. You said the concrete floors in the WTC were relatively thin like 3".

In the NIST document, page 60, it says 4". The tons of concrete involved is staggering by any measure, and the fact that you miss mark with your approximation by 33% is no potatoes either.


Well GEE OBVIOUSLY James MUST be a governemnt agent!!

 
At 30 November, 2006 14:27, Blogger Stevew said...

BG there was no CD and I was trying to educate you about the floor construction so you might see how silly you look. I have a tech paper about it if you wish it posted. There wer 1.8 million tond of debris, more than what they expected. BTW you never answered my question

 
At 30 November, 2006 15:26, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yatesey said...

I agree that Fetzer, Alex Jones.. the list goes on and on are sloppy at best and discrediting to honest skeptics at worse.

I have explained this over and over: I want the truth. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong (about thinking there is a cover up).

If I'm right, conniving individuals have used this (false flag 9/11... false flag 7/7...) to slaughter and pillage. I'd rather live in an America and a World that has the rule of law and the due process for justice for all.

 
At 30 November, 2006 15:29, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Stevew,

BTW you never answered my question


I reread your comments, I don't see a question. Help me out.

 
At 30 November, 2006 15:40, Blogger CHF said...

Ok, BG..

you want the truth. We get it already.

The part you have STILL failed to explain is WHO would investigate 9/11 and estrablish the truth!

You don't trust engineers, demolition experts or crash investigators....

So who does that leave? Would should investigate?

Gimme some names.

 
At 30 November, 2006 15:41, Blogger Stevew said...

I have asked every denier I have come across to give me their qualifications
to do anaylsis and not one was qualified to look at a vid, pik or anything and give a point by point anaylsis. The only thing that qualified them for anything was to C&P the same BS over and over, ask dumb questions and say nothing in 500 words.

How about a detailed explaination to back up your claims and back it up with real experts and scientific evidence that is equal to what has been put fourth by the real experts?

How giving us some of your qualifications in building design and destruction or just some qualification so that we can believe that you can do more than parrot the same whak BS?

How giving us some of your qualifications in aircraft investigations and what crashes you have investigated?

 
At 30 November, 2006 16:06, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...


I don't think I know of any other complete skyscraper collapses that took place at all. There was the partial failure of the Madrid building that sagged due to fire.


My point exactly. The CT view of the collapse is fundamentally flawed, because they have no other point of reference wrt collapsing buildings EXCEPT CD, there for it is the only logical conclusion they can come to based on the video evidence.

As well, because this is the only way a steel framed skyscraper has collapsed, prior to 9/11, how can they say a building that collapses from any other means SHOULD NOT collapse in NEAR free fall time.
They have no reference to compare to , to say that collapse by other methods should take much longer than free fall time.

Its not like you could say...

"20 years ago a 50 story skyscraper fell do to _______, and it took twice as long as free fall time to collapse, there fore the only way WTC7 came down was through CD".

So if the only point of reference for collapsing skyscrapers is CD, than you can make no fair assessment wrt how long it SHOULD have taken to collapse, if not by CD.

TAM

 
At 30 November, 2006 16:12, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Stevew said...

about my qualifications....

Dude,

Let's say you girl friend, (your boyfriend?), your wife was raped.

Let's say security cam footage was available.

Some people are claiming that your "Significant Other" (SO) is lying.

Now I ask you, are you qualified to look at the video and have an opinion about whether it shows your SO being raped?

 
At 30 November, 2006 16:15, Blogger Yatesey said...

I understand you want the truth, BG, but you're putting your faith into people who are just as biased and discreditble as those you rise up against, see what I mean?

They may be against the official story and for American truth, but they are exercising the same sort of principles they fight against.

 
At 30 November, 2006 16:16, Blogger Yatesey said...

EDIT: I know, I made up a word.

discreditable probably doesn't exist, I improvise sometimes.

 
At 30 November, 2006 16:20, Blogger CHF said...

BG,

did you miss my question?

WHO SHOULD INVESTIGATE 9/11?

Names, buddy. Gimme names.

 
At 30 November, 2006 16:24, Blogger Stevew said...

Understanding building construction and all that it intails is a far cry from looking at a vid. I take it you are a young man that just has opinion's and nothing else. You probably don't have enough experience to really judge what is true and what is false. I have looked at every piece of stuff I can find from both sides and most of the whak stuff is just that, opinion with a little technobabble thrown in. When a 20 year expert in CD does a detailed study of how there cound not be a CD, I will listen. I have been an E/M engineer for 43 years and I can tell you the toofers are full of crap.

 
At 30 November, 2006 16:25, Blogger Stevew said...

BTW I have a wife not a SO, that is the dumbest thing I have ever heard and is an insult to her

 
At 30 November, 2006 16:31, Anonymous Anonymous said...

chf,

I'm not ignoring your question. I have answered it before (here in comments I think).

I don't think my answer before was that good. I don't think I have a good answer now.

I didn't like Michael Berger's answer (another Commission with Family Members of deceased as panel members) that played on this SETI radio interview.....

Short Answer:

Law Enforcement should perform investigation guided by honest DAs or US Justice Dept. (AG).

I'm not sure what we do to keep the FBI honest.

Without Congress being on the right side of this mess, we are pretty much screwed.

So this blog is helping screw Loose Change and screw justice.

 
At 30 November, 2006 16:33, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm 48, steve.

 
At 30 November, 2006 16:43, Anonymous Anonymous said...

stevew,

I see your side of this debate (about knowing structural engineering, studying and being in the CD industry.)


May I suggest to that if you haven't read Tarpley's book: "9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in the USA" you haven't availed yourself to an important source to review what's true and what's not about 9/11.

 
At 30 November, 2006 17:00, Blogger Stevew said...

And tarply's qualifications are?
Tell us about all his mechanical design experience

Tell us about all his mechanical design experience with Structrial Dynamics

Tell us about all his experience with aircraft investigators.
Which crashes did he investigate?

Tell us about all his mechanical design experience with airplanes. Which ones did he worked on?

Tell us about all his experience with building design

Given that we are dealing with the mechanics of building collapse, one would imagine that having an "expert" in civil or structural engineering would be more relevant, but in fact, out of the 139,000 members of the American Society of Civil Engineers, the most prominent civil engineering organization in the country, not a single member has publicly joined the "Scholars" or endorsed their findings.

 
At 30 November, 2006 17:03, Blogger Stevew said...

Tam
There are no benchmarks for these crashes to use as a baseline so every conspiricy expert can come out of the woodwork with silly theories and completly avoid the true facts and never give their qualifications to spew these theories, they just spew what ever theory that suits their agenda

 
At 30 November, 2006 17:07, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

Stevew
It is funny hnow many times that BG has brought up rape and little kids being killed.
He should be kept under constant supervision and not allowed near any schoole, parks, etc.

 
At 30 November, 2006 17:08, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Stevew,

Have you examined evidence such as that shown What kind of energy at the WTC caused this?

 
At 30 November, 2006 17:11, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Also, there's this report on my blog:

From UT Project for the New American Citizen: Lecture by Civil Engineer David Harris

 
At 30 November, 2006 17:13, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

I love visiting this board and reading the varying posts.

I do have a requst though. Is there anyone who could do a daily summary of all of BG's bullshit?

 
At 30 November, 2006 17:29, Blogger pomeroo said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 30 November, 2006 17:30, Blogger pomeroo said...

Let us discard the fiction that bg has any interest in the truth. He dismisses Brent Blanchard's paper--obviously without reading it--because he is incapable of refuting anything in it.
He is an ignoramus, a poseur who affects a rational tone to disguise his utter lack of critical thinking skills. He has yet to show a single error in any of the sources the rationalists cite over and over. He prattles about topics he knows nothing about: if he wants to discuss dust and the pulverization of concrete, let's hear his specific criticisms of Dr. Greening's paper.

5:29 PM

 
At 30 November, 2006 17:36, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jim - I just listened to you on SETI radio - good job.
Your doing God's work - keep it up (grin)

 
At 30 November, 2006 17:36, Blogger Stevew said...

BG I have read many technical papers written by real experts.
You did not answer my questions as usual, why is that?
The 208-foot wide facade is, in effect, a prefabricated steel lattice, with columns on 39-inch centers acting as wind bracing to resist all overturning forces; the central core takes only the gravity loads of the building. The outer colums were in 2 story sections, bolted and welded together as were the central core griders. 12-foot floor-to-floor height. Every joint is a weak point there were 50-100000 tons of building pushing down on the impact zones. The impact force was 4-6X what the buildings were designed for..
The lighter perimeter columns from WTC 1 and WTC 2 appear to have used column-to-column connections with 4 bolts, whereas larger members presumably from lower floors used six-bolt column-to-column connections. Core column sizes vary, with some heavier sections at the lower floors having plates 4 inches thick or greater.
The steel pieces range in size from fasteners inches in length and weighing a couple of ounces to column pieces up to 36 feet long and weighing several tons.

A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. The inferior truss seat connections were the weak link in the towers construction. They were capable of supporting the dead and live loads they were initially rated for, of course, but 30 storys of building crashing down on them, with more weight added with each floor crushed, was not factored into those design loads.
As for the allegedly "indestructible" core, without the lateral support of the floors connected to the perimeter columns, they were easily susceptible to buckling and shear forces applied by the grinding action of the falling mass.

The failure of the floor system led to a free fall of a mass of approximately 30 stories and 14
stories onto the 80 and 96, respectively, floor structure below. The enormous kinetic energy
released by this 2-3-floor downfall was too large to be absorbed by the structure underneath.
The impact effect generated from this upper part onto the lower part was surely much higher than the buckling resistance of the columns below.
Exacerbating this was the fact that the WTC core was constructed without diagonal bracing for lateral strength as other structures are. Collapse times cited as being the same as free fall have no basis in reality and are consistently unsupported by analyses to support said claims, and are refuted by the observation of free debris falling much faster than the collapses progressed . A collapse time of between 12 and 16 seconds for each tower is supportable by observation of video footage, and is consistent with the expected resistance from a structure absent lateral bracing in the event of floor connections being severed.

 
At 30 November, 2006 17:52, Anonymous Anonymous said...

pomeroo said...

Let us discard the fiction that bg has any interest in the truth. He dismisses Brent Blanchard's paper--obviously without reading it


Dog Gone It, I read it. It was fairly short.

 
At 30 November, 2006 18:07, Blogger Alex said...

LOL

Ofcourse BG wants the truth! He ignores scientific studies, and instead reads websites which link to this. That's the best approach to truth seeking I've ever seen!

 
At 30 November, 2006 18:18, Blogger James B. said...

Law Enforcement should perform investigation guided by honest DAs or US Justice Dept. (AG).

I'm not sure what we do to keep the FBI honest.


You are being completely disingeneous in that you claim these are the very people who are covering it up now. Who do you think has been doing all the investigations up until now? Authorities like the FBI, NTSB, NYPD, DOJ, that is who. These are the very people who collected the information for the 9/11 Commission report and the Moussaoui trial which you claim are all fake. Do you think they are suddenly going to produce a different result because they do it over?

Not to mention the authorities like the ASCE and NIST, even Purdue University, who performed the engineering reports, you claim they are part of the cover up too!

 
At 30 November, 2006 18:25, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Alex said...

I'm not sure how much we can engage each other in conversation. I don't have a photographic memory, but I seem to recall you taking some pretty nasty digs at me.

Leaving the past behind, let me ask you an plain-speaking question:

What if you were in my shoes? I really do believe NIST is corrupt. That's where my reading of the evidence leads me. If you consider me crazy, that's your right.

If I were the only person who had major qualms about the official story of 9/11, I'd say wow, maybe I have loss my mind. However, you know and I know: I'm not the only one.

I post here because I honestly think it will make a difference for the good.

I have acknowledged the sad state 9/11 Truth getting strong backing from the Scientific Community.

I have acknowledge that, without Congressional Support, I see very little changing on the National scene that will provide a forum for forensic review of 9/11 evidence.

Of course, it's not up to you what I do, but would you rather people like me would express their beliefs out in the open, or would you have us stay underground?

 
At 30 November, 2006 18:37, Anonymous Anonymous said...

James B. said...

Law Enforcement should perform investigation guided by honest DAs or US Justice Dept. (AG).

I'm not sure what we do to keep the FBI honest.


You are being completely disingeneous in that you claim these are the very people who are covering it up now. Who do you think has been doing all the investigations up until now? Authorities like the FBI, NTSB, NYPD, DOJ, that is who. These are the very people who collected the information for the 9/11 Commission report and the Moussaoui trial which you claim are all fake. Do you think they are suddenly going to produce a different result because they do it over?

Not to mention the authorities like the ASCE and NIST, even Purdue University, who performed the engineering reports, you claim they are part of the cover up too!

6:18 PM


James,

Some, such as Tarpley, have talked about having a "World 9/11 Commission".

My main point in saying what I was saying about using US Law Enforcement is that I don't see the "world investigation" as anything more than a fringe event.

I have no first-hand knowledge of how investigations have been compromised so far, I only see the clear evidence that they have been. I think a lot of the magic is done via compartmentalization, and only requires a few moles. I would allege that one prime mole was Zelikow.

I think the rest of the 9/11 Commissioners knew full well that is was there job was to play along and give the powers that be their long-delayed Commission Report.

I simply don't see any other way to combat the lies other than to make the system function the way it is intended to work.

 
At 30 November, 2006 18:40, Blogger Alex said...

What if you were in my shoes?

But I never WOULD be in your shoes. For instance, I think there's some flaws in the Global Warming scenarios, but I know that I'm not qualified to accurately judge their validity. Given the chance, I'll point out these flaws to people who ARE qualified, and I'll ask them for a response, but you won't see me showing up on various forums trying to convince people that global warming is a CIA plot caused by thermate and starwars beam lasers.

When RATIONAL people think they see a discrepancy in a theory, they seek an authoritative answer, and they accept the answer given. They don't instinctively blame it on a government plot, and they don't pretend to understand physics better than physicists, and engineering better than engineers. Since I am a rational individual, this means that I could never find myself in your position.

If I were the only person who had major qualms about the official story of 9/11, I'd say wow, maybe I have loss my mind. However, you know and I know: I'm not the only one.

Problem is, if you pick any loony conspiracy theory out there, you won't be the only one who "has major qualms with the official story". Having other lunatics agree with you doesn't make your position any more valid.

I post here because I honestly think it will make a difference for the good.

And that's why we've repeatedly told you to get medication. If you were simply looking for attention, or being egotistical, it'd be a different matter entirely, but you actually seem to think you're doing the right thing. That's just...sad.

Of course, it's not up to you what I do, but would you rather people like me would express their beliefs out in the open, or would you have us stay underground?

If the padded rooms are underground, then yeah, I'll go with that one. I really don't need people like you spreading enemy propaganda, and brainwashing people into hating the US even more than they already do.

 
At 30 November, 2006 18:43, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Alex,

Overall, I appreciate your answers.

 
At 30 November, 2006 18:57, Blogger pomeroo said...

Bg, you don't even pretend to engage in debate. Okay, so you read Blanchard's paper. Where did he go wrong? What do you know about demolition that he doesn't. Hey, Mark Loizeaux of Controlled Demolition Inc. thinks that all of you conspiracy liars are full of... well, you know. He says that the detonation speed of explosives is far too fast to melt steel. Explosives don't burn steel; they cut it with force. Why is he wrong? Tell us what you know.

 
At 30 November, 2006 19:02, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

BG is a complete sociopath who loves all the attention that he gets here.

I am sure there are many people in his personal life who are greatful that he posts here all day instead of wreaking havoc on their lives.

 
At 30 November, 2006 19:04, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

Yes but you see the Termite eats away the steel, then poops it out as molten lava...

Sorry, but it was one of those moment where I digress into a little light heartedness...At steven Jones Expense.

TAM

 
At 30 November, 2006 19:09, Blogger pomeroo said...

It's no secret that I regard the conspiracy liars as ignorant, irrational frauds. I posted the following on Smasher's blog, to provoke Pdoherty into saying SOMETHING. Any fantasist should take it as a challenge. I won't be holding my breath.

Here is a passage from the PM book:
"His [Jones's] reasoning is that a thermite reaction with steel can produce molten metal.
Pense believes Jones is again mistaken. 'I don't know anyone else who thinks thermite reactions on steel columns could have done that.'
Richard Fruehan, professor of metallurgical engineering at Carnegie Mellon University, says Jones does not provide adequate evidence to show that thermite reactions did take place. However, even if they did, that would not necessarily indicate the presence of explosives. 'The thermite could have occurred with aluminum metal and any oxide that happens to be near it. Or oxygen could react with aluminum as well. There was a lot of aluminum in the building itself--the windows, etc., plus the airplane's aluminum. That could have cause a thermite reaction and produced a small amount of molten iron.'
In any case, Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition Inc., says Jones misunderstands the properties of explosive charges. Although these charges provide intense heat, he says, the velocity of detonation is too fast--28,000 feet per second--to melt steel. When an explosive is detonated, it cuts through steel with force; it does not burn through it with heat. He makes the analogy of a person putting his hand through a candle: He can swipe it straight through the flame quickly without getting burned. But if he holds it several inches above the flame for an extended period, he will get burned. 'The difference is the duration of the exposure,' he says, 'I can put a shaped charge on a steel column for a test shot and then walk right up and put my hand on the column. There's no heat [because it burns too fast]. Now, how do they make steel in a steel mill? They take fuel and they keep heating the iron ore or scrap steel until it melts. So, could explosives melt steel? Absolutely not. It's too fast an exposure.' "

Okay, you must think that all of these people are going wrong somewhere. What do you know that they don't? Really, at some point, you simply must say something substantive.

 
At 30 November, 2006 19:25, Blogger Alex said...

Really, at some point, you simply must say something substantive.

The CTers have spent the last 5 years proving you wrong on that point.

 
At 30 November, 2006 19:29, Anonymous Anonymous said...

pomeroo said..

I don't know if Steven E. Jones is correct in any of his hypotheses.

I know that nothing NIST, or any of the other Govt. Story Supporters, has published serves to explain the evidence of the events of 9/11.

 
At 30 November, 2006 19:31, Blogger James B. said...

Heh, Wood and Fetzer are on-line giving an interview. Come on over if you hate your brain.

http://911blog.org/?q=node/158

 
At 30 November, 2006 19:36, Blogger pomeroo said...

You don't know if Steven Jones is correct? How about all those experts in controlled demolition? Maybe they don't know what they're talking about?

NIST doesn't explain anything? Gee, they published thousands of pages. Where do you suppose they went wrong? What SPECIFICALLY do you find unconvincing? Are their errors obvious or subtle? How do we make the epistemological determination that they actually are errors? There must be some standard of truth or evidence that the NIST report fails to meet. What is it?

Like the liars, I love to ask questions.

 
At 30 November, 2006 19:45, Blogger CHF said...

So BG, you admit to basically not knowing SHIT and yet you still dismiss reports made by experts who looked into 911 and - alas - didn't reach the same retarted conclusions you did?

Do you twoofers have any shame at all???

Law Enforcement should perform investigation guided by honest DAs or US Justice Dept.

And how do you tell if they're honest, BG? When they reach the conclusion you want to hear?

 
At 30 November, 2006 19:47, Blogger Alex said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 30 November, 2006 19:47, Blogger Alex said...

Heh, Wood and Fetzer are on-line giving an interview. Come on over if you hate your brain.

http://911blog.org/?q=node/158


I don't know who they've got on there right now, but this is hilarious.

Merging Canada and Mexico? The "Amero"? LOL. Where do they get this shit?

 
At 30 November, 2006 20:01, Blogger James B. said...

I am in the chatroom with Killtown, he caught me.

 
At 30 November, 2006 20:01, Blogger Alex said...

LOL

now they're talking about the WTC being brought down by mirrors!

Oh, wait, no! Now it's RADIO ENERGY :p

This guys is a friggin' lunatic.

LOL

And the host just suggested that the same technology was used to fuel katrina :)

in-fucking-sane. seriously, there should be some sort of law to let us institutionalize people like these.

 
At 30 November, 2006 20:05, Blogger Alex said...

I'm not even sure who or what they're talking about now...population reduction? WTF? Don't they have medication for this?

 
At 30 November, 2006 20:34, Blogger Alex said...

Heh, I got banned from the chat room, go figgure.

Loved Fetzers response to your pipeline question though, James. That guy couldn't get a clue during the clue mating season in a field full of
horny clues if he smeared his body with clue musk and did the clue
mating dance.

 
At 30 November, 2006 20:53, Blogger James B. said...

It crashes all the time, just go to the URL and log in again.

 
At 01 December, 2006 05:47, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Stevew Which tower are you reffering to? Wasn't it the NIST that only investigated what happened up until the point of collapse?

If so Steveo, why are they going to investigate for potential CD at WTC 7?

Oh wait Stevew, you aren't a engineer or an expert at anything so who gives a flying f what papers you have. You aren't qualified to read and interpet the data anyway.

 
At 01 December, 2006 05:51, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Alex Do you follow anything in the political process in the United States? Again why do you care? Well this time its ok cause they are talking about Mexico.
Merging Canada and Mexico? The "Amero"? LOL. Where do they get this shit?

From the Council on Foreign Relations:
North America is vulnerable on several fronts: the region faces terrorist and criminal security threats, increased economic competition from abroad, and uneven economic development at home. In response to these challenges, a trinational, Independent Task Force on the Future of North America has developed a roadmap to promote North American security and advance the well-being of citizens of all three countries.

When the leaders of Canada, Mexico, and the United States met in Texas recently they underscored the deep ties and shared principles of the three countries. The Council-sponsored Task Force applauds the announced “Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America,” but proposes a more ambitious vision of a new community by 2010 and specific recommendations on how to achieve it.http://www.cfr.org/publication/8102/

 
At 01 December, 2006 05:56, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

You are being completely disingeneous in that you claim these are the very people who are covering it up now
They are certainly doing a good job on Amanda Keller now aren't they?

 
At 01 December, 2006 06:01, Blogger CHF said...

Swing...

I'm still waiting to hear your explanation of kerosene.

Any theories?

 
At 01 December, 2006 06:01, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

More on the Merger of the Americas:
Wednesday, November 22nd, 2006
Tancredo Rips into Bush, North American Union

{Update: My apologies to Michelle Malkin for “crediting” her as the author of the piece on Hotair.com that inspired me to make this post on Polipundit}

Tom Tancredo, one of the original crusaders against illegal immigration, thinks Bush, Fox and Canada are indeed pushing for a “North American Union":

PALM BEACH, Fla. – President Bush believes America should be more of an idea than an actual place, a Republican congressman told WND in an exclusive interview.

“People have to understand what we’re talking about here. The president of the United States is an internationalist,” said Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo. “He is going to do what he can to create a place where the idea of America is just that – it’s an idea. It’s not an actual place defined by borders. I mean this is where this guy is really going.”

Tancredo lashed out at the White House’s lack of action in securing U.S. borders, and said efforts to merge the U.S. with both Mexico and Canada is not a fantasy.

“I know this is dramatic – or maybe somebody would say overly dramatic – but I’m telling you, that everything I see leads me to believe that this whole idea of the North American Union, it’s not something that just is written about by right-wing fringe kooks. It is something in the head of the president of the United States, the president of Mexico, I think the prime minister of Canada buys into it. …

Congressman Ron Paul also warns of the NAU:

Tancredo isn’t the only congressman warning about plans to integrate the three nations of this continent.

Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, denounced plans for the proposed “NAFTA superhighway” in his state as part of a larger plot for merger of the U.S., Canada and Mexico into a North American Union.

I have had Dr. Jerome Corsi on for a podcast about this very thing, he makes some excellent points about the North American Union. The GREAT Phyllis Schlafly has written about this extensively as well.

http://polipundit.com/index.php?p=16106

 
At 01 December, 2006 06:03, Blogger CHF said...

Swing!

"Basement bomb"....kerosene.

What gives?

 
At 01 December, 2006 07:02, Blogger Stevew said...

Swing if you had a clue you would know exactly what towers I was refering to.

I asked you for your qualifications and you ran away and came back with some of your usual drivel.

Tell us about all your mechanical design experience

Tell us about all your mechanical design experience with Structrial Dynamics

Tell us about all your experience with aircraft investigators.
Which crashes did you investigate?

Tell us about all your mechanical design experience with airplanes. Which ones have you worked on?

There was no CD at WTC7 so why would there be a special investigation?
I will be more than happy to put my qualifications up to yours anytime. The only thing you have over me is that you are an expert in how to say nothing in 500 words.

 
At 01 December, 2006 07:19, Blogger CHF said...

Swing,

please explain why people smelled kerosene in the WTC lobby.

I'm not gonna let this one go, buddy, so you'll have to answer sooner or later or just admit you don't know.

 
At 01 December, 2006 09:06, Blogger Alex said...

More on the Merger of the Americas

You buy into that shit too, swinger? Wow. Hey, how about this, I'll list about 20 conspiracies, and you tell me which ones you believe in, ok? I wanna see just how bat-shit insane you really are....

 
At 01 December, 2006 09:26, Blogger James B. said...

Wasn't it the NIST that only investigated what happened up until the point of collapse?


Once it collapsed there wasn't much to study. That is like criticizing the NTSB because they only study plane crashes up until the point the plane hits the ground.

 
At 01 December, 2006 10:35, Anonymous Anonymous said...

James B. said...

Wasn't it the NIST that only investigated what happened up until the point of collapse?


Once it collapsed there wasn't much to study. That is like criticizing the NTSB because they only study plane crashes up until the point the plane hits the ground.



Based on your reading of the NIST reports and supporting data, including the modeling...

and then, reviewing the video, here are a few questions (off the top of my head):

Does NIST address in any way for the physical events that happened that might be described as

1. WTC 1 "top block of floors" tilt as if they are going to tumble down as a separate block before "disappearing" into a cloud of dust and smoke.

2. Large plumes of debris seemingly being powered upward and outward, which to a novice viewer would seem to be a result from something other than gravity or fire, or even normal fire related explosions.

If you believe that,

a) a consensus of experts would agree that my description is accurate, and,

b) it was beyond the charter, perview, or definition of NIST's assigned tasks to look at such details, would you agree that it would be fair to charge some investigative body with establishing a foundation for futher study of these "after the initiation of collapse" oddities?

 
At 01 December, 2006 10:52, Anonymous Anonymous said...

1. WTC 1 "top block of floors" tilt as if they are going to tumble down as a separate block before "disappearing" into a cloud of dust and smoke.

The "top block", at the moment the collapse began, met resistence. However, as soon as it hit that resistence, the lower floors started to collapse too. Because there was no resistence beneath the "top block", there was no need for it to tip over more.

2. Large plumes of debris seemingly being powered upward and outward, which to a novice viewer would seem to be a result from something other than gravity or fire, or even normal fire related explosions.

You fail to see what the WTC was advertising, space. I don't know the exact number, but I'd like to think that 75% of those buildings were air. When those towers collapsed, that air had to go somewhere. Remember back to physics class. The Law of Thermo Dynamics states matter cannot be created nor destroyed, it can only change forms. I don't think this would be any different for air.

a) a consensus of experts would agree that my description is accurate, and,

Please, give a consensus that would not say the same thing I just said.

b) it was beyond the charter, perview, or definition of NIST's assigned tasks to look at such details, would you agree that it would be fair to charge some investigative body with establishing a foundation for futher study of these "after the initiation of collapse" oddities?

NIST is not the only organization investigating the collapse. There are numerous engineers and such how have investigated the collapse without the auspices of the government. They all say the same thing.

 
At 01 December, 2006 11:09, Anonymous Anonymous said...

RolandofGilead said...

Roland,

If you really believe your explanations are accurate, there is no future in our discussing it.

I'm trying to say in a polite way that my response is (in perfect John McEnroe form) "You Can't be Serious!"

 
At 01 December, 2006 11:16, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I will just answer nr1.

The reason why the top block stopped tilting was because the bolt connections of the part that were still connected, sheered so thats why the angular momentum came to a stop and gravity took over. Just look at a door hinge. As soon as the hinge breaks the door stops rotating.

 
At 01 December, 2006 11:24, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ok, i will have a try at nr2 also :)

Just throw a rock in a pond, and u will see water droplets go upwards, or let a rock drop on a sandy beach, u will see sand particles go upwards. Its just how nature works. Or throw a rock in a bowl of baking powder :)

 
At 01 December, 2006 13:31, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

Roland,

If you really believe your explanations are accurate, there is no future in our discussing it.

I'm trying to say in a polite way that my response is (in perfect John McEnroe form) "You Can't be Serious!"


I used this tactic of BG's as a 10 year old after farting and everyone looked at me.

 
At 01 December, 2006 13:44, Blogger Alex said...

Actually, most of that "upward movement" is optical illusion. There would have been some upward movement of dust, sure, but the steel and chunks of concrete only appear to move upwards because the way the building is collapsing. You gotta remember that the falling floors are already moving at great speed, while the ejected matter first moves sideways, and then starts moving vertically from a starting sped of 0. This gives it the impression of moving upwards. It's one of the reasons you can't depend on video footage; a lot of what you think you see isn't actually what you're seeing.

 
At 01 December, 2006 13:51, Blogger pomeroo said...

Wow, the liars are really clamoring to refute those demolition experts!

I wonder what their silence means. Hmmm.

 
At 01 December, 2006 14:11, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You are absolutely right Alex, but thats why i said particles, and gave the example of the bowl with flower, since the gypsum turned into small particles like flower. The big parts just fall away from the foorprint of the building. The aluminum facade gets catapulted because of the buckling of the exterior columns. (At least i think thats why they get catapulted so far, although the pressure from the block forcing down could do the same, since it was only aluminium cladding.)

 
At 01 December, 2006 14:26, Blogger Stevew said...

Jay
Take a long toothpik or something like that and press down on the top and bottom. You will see that the downward force turns to laterial force. With so much weight pushing down on the outer load bearing girders that were bolted together, you can se how some of the girders broke at the joints and shot out like spears

 
At 01 December, 2006 14:45, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeh i understand the mechanics, but my technical english isn't that good, so i can't write someting explanetory. But i understand what u mean :) I used to do that with icecream picks, like the ones from a Magnum icecream.

 
At 01 December, 2006 14:50, Blogger Stevew said...

Your english is just fine, too bad the toofers don't under stand. You are dutch right? Some of the best mechanical engineers live there. I am sure most of the toofers would install a door knob near the hinge

 
At 01 December, 2006 14:56, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hehehehe, yeh i am dutch :)

I used to work at a shipyard for over 6 years as a constructional engineer at the drawing office. So im used to working with steel.

 
At 01 December, 2006 14:59, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Btw, is it just me, or do i see a couple of double posts on the blog.

 
At 01 December, 2006 15:04, Blogger Stevew said...

Jay
You have much more knowledge and experience than any of the toofers.
I have been constantly amazed at what the Dutch have done but survival is a good motivator LOL

 
At 01 December, 2006 15:14, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeh we know how to fight of the water, else we would be under numerous feet of water, so we are very motivated :)

Funny thing is, dunno if i told this already, but there is a group of troofers out here that were asking for a university to check on the claims of how the buildings fell down. And they were hoping that this university would tell em that the buildings couldnt have come down, the way they did. WEll the troofers were in for a bad surprise when they came out and told the troofers that it actually was possible for the buildings to collapse the way they did, without explosives or thermite. The troofers then put forward Jimmy walker who tried to debunk em. Jimmy was just afraid he lost 1 million dollars, cause i think he put out a reward to anyone that can prove the buildings werent brought down by explosives.

 
At 01 December, 2006 15:44, Blogger Stevew said...

Thats a reward that will never be collected. It is truly amazing how uninformed the toofers are yet want us to think they are engineers or something but when confronted they just say we are asking questions. You have no problem giving a little background, now I know just how to direct my dialogue with you but the toofers never answer any question unless it is with a question. I find that very odd, I have yet to find one that is qualified after the last 4-5 years

 
At 01 December, 2006 21:40, Anonymous Anonymous said...

RolandofGilead said...

Roland,

If you really believe your explanations are accurate, there is no future in our discussing it.

I'm trying to say in a polite way that my response is (in perfect John McEnroe form) "You Can't be Serious!"


My hypothesis is more plausible then yours. Sorry, but I was paying attention in class when they taught Occam's Razor.

 
At 04 December, 2006 06:06, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

CHF I answered your disel thing in an earlier thread bud. And now you have turned it into people and not just one guys report of kerosene 'smell', smell does not equate to flamihng kerosene traveling down the elevator shafts.

 
At 04 December, 2006 09:44, Blogger Alex said...

Give it up asshole. We know for a fact that fuel traveled down the elevator shafts in the Empire State building crash. We know that one or more people on the lower floors smelled fuel in the WTC crash. You claim there were explosions on the lowers levels. Now, what's more likely. The government planted explosives on the lower levels for no apparent reason other than to burn people....or, fuel travelled down the elevator shafts just like it did in the Empire State building? No, swinger, it's not Ocham's Big Blunt Object, it's Ochams Razor. Stop trying to bludgeon the facts into place.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home