Of Santa Claus and 9-11 Conspiracies
Kevin Potvin attempts to tie it all together, badly.
We’ve just witnessed, if not participated in, a massive conspiracy. Tens of millions of people every winter conspire in a flat out lie to fool millions more of society’s most gullible members when they all agree to keep silent about the truth about Santa Clause (sic). Sure, you're laughing, that’s a funny example of a conspiracy, but there it is: those who deny there could possibly be massive conspiracies involving thousands of people or even millions, are wrong.
Yeah, and the kids who say they stayed up late and found out it was really Mommy and Daddy? They're the "Truthers", right?
Like many Deniers, Potvin seems to think WTC7 is the key. Never mind that nobody died in WTC7, Potvin sees it as crucial to understanding the whole plot. And as such, he's not above lying about it:
This building was the same square footage of one of the towers, half their height but twice their footprint. It was huge, one of the biggest buildings in the world, and it was not struck by a plane nor badly hit by debris from the falling towers. It may have had a diesel fire on its lowest floors, a fire that could never burn hot enough to make the steel frame of the building melt. Yet the building fell down as though every one of its steel columns, back to front and side to side in this massive building, melted and collapsed all at once. The official Congressional investigation, as well as Popular Mechanics, simply said of building seven's collapse that no known theory explains it, and moved on.
Not badly hit by debris from the falling towers? Where does he get that one from. There are many reports by firefighters about how badly WTC7 was hit by debris.
Richard Banaciski of Ladder 22:
They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on.
Deputy Chief Peter Hayden:
By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.
Oh, and that claim that WTC 7 had as much office space as one of the towers? Typical Denier crap. WTC 7 had 1,868,000 SF of office space, the towers each had 3.8 million square feet of office space.
posted by Pat @ 9:11 AM
58 comments
58 Comments:
FEMA Concentration Camp for Families in Taylor, Texas
You know, maybe this Troother nutbag has something.
Has anyone pushed the theory that Santa Claus, meandering through NYC on 9/11, accidentally crashed his carriage into the towers, causing the fire and collapse?
After all, we all know that Santa Claus regularly carries tons of thermite/thermate with him - how do you think Rudolph's nose lights up?
Sheesh! Do I have to think of everything? This "Santa is a terrorist" theory is as plausible, if not more so, than some of the rotten stinking shitbombs the Troothers push.
LOL! I love how at the begining of the film it says I can learn more just by giving 15 cents a day. Typical truther bs.
"OMG!!1 the gubmint is setting up concentration camps!!! I'll tell you more but it's going to cost you...."
Thanks for your thoughts, Richard. Others?
What do you care? We're just a bunch of "kyke lovers" to you.
sword,
I think the word you used is pretty offensive.
The really creepy part of this whole PSYOP is that MUJCA Griffin –Barrett probably don’t even know they’ve been used as a weapon of distraction. They think that State Dept. Fulbright Morocco and Bellagio scholars naturally get the proper attention from BBC-VPRO-FOX because of their elite globalist credentials-not like the uncouth fellows Alex Jones and Webster Tarpley.
I think your continued existence is pretty offencive. Darwin would be appalled.
USA Elites Can't Understand Why Islamic People Reject Our Brutal Messages
The Imperial Presidency 2.0
sword,
I think the word you used is pretty offensive.
Don't like what you see in the mirror, BG?
Book Review: Peter Lance Indicts FBI/DoJ, but Leaves CIA as Unindicted Co-conspirator
Sword,
Do you support any President, including someone like a possible Pres. H. Clinton, using signing statements the way Bush is?
BG,
Do you accept that the paleo-stinian leaders, as a part of thier stated mission to exterminate the jews, fabricated reports of a "massacre" at Jenin as well as numerous other fantasies of Isreali atrocities for the pourpose of stirring up anti-jewish hatred around the globe?
fabricated reports of a "massacre" at Jenin
I do allow that some reports of the carnage could have been greatly inflated (perhaps a factor of 10).
The inflation of the number in no way detracts from the fair characterization as an atrocity.
HidariMak said...
My purpose here is to request a search for truth. I agree with many of the weaknesses that have been pointed out about the propaganda piece called Loose Change.
My issue can be reduced to the following:
Sliming Loose Change and Truthers
does not equal
getting to the truth.
Mark Bruzonsky provides history and context for U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East shortly after the 1994 White House signing ceremony ... all » for the Oslo agreement with Yasser Arafat, Yitzhak Rabin, and Bill Clinton.
Have you completely read and comprehended the NIST report
Point 1:
There are a huge number of questions about 9/11, clearly avoided by the 9/11 Commission, which have nothing to do with anything about the science of the crashes and fires, or structual engineering of the WTC.
Point 2:
I have reviewed the FEMA report on WTC 7, NIST reports, the Pentagon Performance study, as well as the 9/11 Commission Reports, as well as selected 9/11 Commission testimony. I have no particular expertise that would qualify me to definitively contradict any of these reports.
I'm not backing away from my distrust of the NIST work. However, I've spent enough time here at SLC Blog discussion NIST related issues to have a reasonable expectation that it is impossible to have a reasonable debate about the NIST reports. For example, when I posted my critique of Mark Roberts supposed iron clad debunking of questions about WTC 7, the end result was that Mark asked me to agree with him that he did a good job of countering some of the more famous "conspiracy claims". I agreed that he has. When I asked him to engage in search for the truth rather than bashing false claims, he has been understandably silent, because he, like all of us, is waiting to see what rabbit NIST is going to pull out of a hat when they try to explain what happened at WTC7.
Heads up:
PREMIERE:
Saturday, January 13 04:00 PM
History Channel
On August 25th, 79 AD, two of the Roman Empire's most promising cities, Pompeii and Herculaneum, were flash-frozen in time as Mount Vesuvius erupted destroying all life in its path. Noted paleontologist, archaeologist, and forensic physicist Charles Pellegrino is the author of Ghosts of Vesuvius, a fascinating look at this ancient volcanic eruption. Pellegrino uses the emerging science of forensic archaeology to decipher clues and gather evidence that helps him reconstruct the final moments of the victims. Using the same forensic techniques, he undertakes an investigation of the ruins of the World Trade Center. By processing evidence and interviewing witnesses, he illustrates dramatic physical parallels between Vesuvius's eruption and the collapse of the Twin Towers. His scientific exploration results in an array of startling connections between the destruction of Pompeii and Herculaneum and the man-made devastation at Ground Zero of our own Vesuvius.
Running Time: 120 minutes
Genre:Science & Technology
---
This promo is a little hokey but I read Pellegrino's book which is fascinating, both on what happened at Pompeii and at the World Trade Center.
A particularly vile, even by fantasist standards, picture depicting Bush being visited by the ghosts of firemen who, presumably, haunt him for murdering them, forms a thread at 911blogger.com ("Ghosts of the Firemen"). I urge you to check out conspiracy liars in full cry. It is not a pretty sight.
I do allow that some reports of the carnage could have been greatly inflated (perhaps a factor of 10).
The inflation of the number in no way detracts from the fair characterization as an atrocity.
Ah yes. I see that you subscribe to the "fake but accurate" approach to Da Twoof.
It's not even fair to call you anti-semitic, because it's obvious that your hatred isn't focused on the Jews specifically. You've simply built up a little fantasy world of your own, where anything "mainstream" is wrong. As such, I would once again suggest that you get yourself on some medication. TAM could perhaps suggest a good specialist for your particular brand of psychosis.
Readers might appreciate a translation of bg's typically disingenuous hot air. He means:
I have not made, and will never make, any effort to read anything published by NIST, not even the few pages of FAQ.
Alex,
I have no hatred.
pomeroo said...
Readers might appreciate a translation of bg's typically disingenuous hot air. He means:
I have not made, and will never make, any effort to read anything published by NIST, not even the few pages of FAQ.
You could not be more wrong. I'm not avoiding the NIST reports. Why are you distorting my words?
"Bg1" - First off, congratulations on starting your "sockpile" with wich you can continue your offensiveness offensive here at SLC should you get the boot from Pat and Jim. Bravo, captain maturity.
Second,...
I do allow that some reports of the carnage could have been greatly inflated (perhaps a factor of 10).
The inflation of the number in no way detracts from the fair characterization as an atrocity.
You're kidding... right? Are you seriously saying that the palestinians flat out lied about the casualties but it was still a massacre?
BG: I am not sure if it is your intention (it probably is), but you seem to be able to take the interesting part out of any blog post with your repeated, unrelated spam.
Please stop, and stick to the blog topic.
TAM
You manifest near-total ignorance of the data and analysis presented by NIST. You give the impression of not having read anything, not the even the FAQ. Nobody expects you to emulate Mark Roberts and peruse every one of the ten thousand pages of material. But if I can download and read NIST NCSTAR 1, a 298-page pdf file, why can't you?
Sliming Loose Change and Truthers
does not equal
getting to the truth.
Part of getting to the truth is rejecting that which is clearly not truth.
BG:
Why don't you just post "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" and save all us readers a lot of unnecessary scrolling?
BG1 wrote: "My purpose here is to request a search for truth."
And how, exactly, do you think your link spam helps that purpose?
Banaski also reports this about one of the WTC towers....
We were there, I don't know, maybe 10, 15
minutes and then I just remember there was just an
explosion. It seemed like on television when they blow
up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the
way around like a belt, all these explosions.
Even Hayden didn't expect a total collapse and he was there for the first explosion in 93. He even goes on to expect a total collapse if another plane hit. Dam jet fuel!
Hayden-Sure. We were under attack. We knew we were in trouble, so we started calling people down. We had a report from OEM that there was possibility of a third plane coming in. That really put the antennas up for us because, number one, if a third plane does come in and hits these buildings, they�re coming down for sure. Before we had the partial collapse, we were aware that timewise we thought we had a couple of hours. And I think everybody envisioned the idea we�re going to get everybody down and back everybody out a few blocks and watch this event, the top 15 or 20 floors fold in. (as in Madrid)
That�s what we though. It didn�t happen that way, though.
Naww, Hayden. There were some type of explosives used to help the collapse.
Nice cherry picking there, SD. Could you explain to us why the "truth" movement isn't insterested in the whole truth?
That's WTC 1&2 Hayden was talking about in your deliberately mined quote. Hayden is an experienced firefighter, I mean him no disrespect. But he's not a structural engineer. We have several real engineers over at JREF who will testify that both they and thier colleagues could tell WTC 1&2 were going to collapse well before they actually did.
On the subject of WTC7, Hayden is on record as saying that they could tell from looking at it and hearing the creaks and groans of buckling girders inside that it was going to collapse.
Care to explain why you treat Haydens word as gospel less than 10% of the time?
Swing Dumpster wants to pretend that fires don't cause explosions. Most adults won't believe him.
A couple of recent posts on JREF:
The NWO has been quite busy this weekend blowing up other buildings around the world.
In the UK:
Quote:
He said: “It was quite a big fire and it was quite noisy because there were a lot of minor explosions going off.
In Pittsburgh:
Quote:
"We started beating on a few doors," she said. "Then I heard two or three explosions and I grabbed my sons and started running down the street. We don't have nothing, but I'm thankful for what I got."
In Vermont:
Quote:
The fire created a glow visible from the highway and triggered several explosions.
In Christchurch, NZ:
Quote:
Freelance photographer Shannon Sword said: "I heard about five or six explosions.
Just a small smattering, our agents and shills have been very busy the last few days!
__________________
"The "bowing" of the exterior columns could simply be refraction of light caused by the heated air around those floors". - top conspiracy theorist scientist jessicarabbit on bowing in the WTC prior to collapse.
Wild Cat
Yesterday, 11:07 AM #15
Woody-
Scholar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 68 My favorite is this one.
Quote:
The blaze was still raging out of control in the early hours of Sunday, having breached a fire wall on the 17th floor and reached almost to street level. Explosions could be heard within the building and authorities cordoned off a zone some 500 metres in diameter in case it should collapse.
http://newsfromrussia.com/accidents/.../13/58231.html
It's a report on the Windsor building in Madrid that the truthers like to reference so often.
If there were explosions before the collapse, could they be transformers who do not like heat at all or a myrad of other things who reside in large buildings that don't like heat as well
After receiving first aid, she was put in another car to go down to an ambulance. As the elevator doors closed, rescue workers heard what sounded like a gunshot but what was, in fact, the snapping of elevator cables weakened by the crash. The car with Oliver inside, now at the 75th floor, plunged to the sub-basement, a fall of over 1,000 feet."
http://tinyurl.com/ma5se
That quote is regarding the 1945 crash of a B25 into the Empire State Building.
So I pose a question to everyone who believes that noises inside the WTC's were explosive devices.
Does this mean that there were explosive charges going off inside the Empire State Building?
Ofcourse. More evil Zionist work. They only did that one so they could say there was a precedent after they blew up the WTC. Those evil Joooos plan centuries in advance
pomeroo wrote: "The "bowing" of the exterior columns could simply be refraction of light caused by the heated air around those floors". - top conspiracy theorist scientist jessicarabbit on bowing in the WTC prior to collapse."
Wow. That's something right out of Men in Black: "Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus."
I really think the following movie and website needs to be debunked. We need to get on this!
The movie "9/11: Press for Truth" should be debunked.
View the trailer for the movie at the following website:
( Running Time: 2 min. 13 sec.)
http://www.911pressfortruth.com/
Watch the entire film at Google Video:
( Running Time: 1 hr. 24 min. 21 sec. )
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5589099104255077250&q=9%2F11%3A+Press+for+Truth
The Complete 9/11 Timeline at the Center for Cooperative Research website needs to be debunked as well:
Complete 9/11 Timeline:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project
Patriots Question 9/11 website needs to be dubunked as well:
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com
LET'S GET ON IT!
SteveW So now in the OS world, gunshot sounds equate to explosions that generate spikes on a seismograph?? Yeah right. Besides, the two buildings are different, the two events are different, etc. etc. Yet another fallacy...complex question. You trying to link to events that aren't related to prove there weren't explosive devices used in the WTC complex. I accept your defeat.
Pomeroo you use the same fallacy by trying to link different events to prove fires do cause explosions and that is what happened at the WTC complex. So if you can use totally unrelated events to prove your point, I can use Madrid to prove my point about a total collapse? Of course not, so I will reject your statement as meaningless, unless you accept the similarities between Madrid and what should have happened at the WTC complex in regards to a global collapse. I accept your white flag as well.
Sword of Truth Did you read your post after you typed it? Two, why didn't you delete it because you contradict yourself. Let me point this out to all of the readers:
You quote: But he's not a structural engineer. We have several real engineers over at JREF who will testify that both they and thier colleagues could tell WTC 1&2 were going to collapse well before they actually did.
On the subject of WTC7, Hayden is on record as saying that they could tell from looking at it and hearing the creaks and groans of buckling girders inside that it was going to collapse.
Care to explain why you treat Haydens word as gospel less than 10% of the time?
You disregard Hayden's statements regarding 1 and 2 because he is not a structural engineer, yet you accept them in regards to WTC 7. You can't have it both ways, big guy. Accept it all or accept none of it based upon his qualifications.
Lets tear apart your next statement:
e have several real engineers over at JREF who will testify that both they and thier colleagues could tell WTC 1&2 were going to collapse well before they actually did.
I can't speak to the 'real' engineers; whether they truly are what they say. What I can ask is based upon what prior global collapse by fire and damage do they base their 'expert' opinion on? How do we know their predictions are exactly that, predictions? Do they have sworn dated statements to prove they truly are predicitons or are you just blowing smoke up our butts? Because frankly, I have yet to see any published official statement of prediction saying SE and/or other experts knew the buildings were going to come down after the impact and minimal fires. In conclusion, I think your statement is either a bold face lie, or is just plain bull shit. Even a firefigther who worked the first attack on the WTC didn't expect them to come down. I don't recall anyone expecting them to come down. Now I will again accept your white flag.
Sword, one other point. Please repost where I disregard as a lie 90% of what Hayden says?
Or are you lying about that also?
Please SD There are so many things in the towers that could have exploded or sounded like explosions. It has been proven over and over that there were no planted explosives or CD. Minimal fires LOL thats a bigger joke than you are. Why don't you read the transcripts that Jay posted and not just one that supports your madness. Your 500 words of repackages BS don't mean squat. Belive it if you wish but don't expect rational people to.
Knob boy and SteveW Do you remember any of the live video footage from the day? Have you read any of the firefighter's testimony? Have you examined any of the evidence that might raise the question about explosives in the building? Why would there be explosions in the first place? Two they were heard nearly a mile away or do you deny that as well?
You two are true denires. You deny anything that might crush your fantasy world. You call firefighters, first reponders, victims, tv personalities liars. You deny or ignore the seismic evidence, video evidence, survivor evidence, and reams of other information pointing to explosives being used in the WTC complex. .
I guess those surviviors standing in the gaping hole of the building had on fire proof clothing to survive those blazing infernos, eh?
Stevew you want to use the sound of a gunshot and equate that to an explosions. And then you expect me to accept your theory??
Nice logic there and you call that rational? Hell that is something Alex would do and I hold you in much higher regard than Alex.
I've seen numerous CD's and WTC 7 looks exactly like one to me. Now WTC 1 and 2 do not look like a traditional controlled demolition nor a traditional collapse of a building. That was an explosion of a building gentlemen no two ways about it. Of course none of us are qualified to explain how that took place, but the last time I saw a building collapse, the interior didn't turn to dust, tons of dust, propel debris up and out instead of just 'fall' to the force of gravity, the last time I saw a building fall due strictly to the force of gravity a mushroom cloud at the top didn't appear (what the fuck is that btw..oh wait it was AIR!) Yeah that is rational isn't it?
Continue to enjoy your state sponsored religion, gentlemen.
Oh btw, no counterpoint to my comments regarding your analysis, Stevew? Didn't think so.
That was an explosion of a building gentlemen no two ways about it.
No. It was Col. Mustard. In the library. With the candle-stick.
Please, if you have ANY friends, get him to look over the nonsense you just wrote and tell you what he thinks. It's so full of fallacies, misconceptions, and baseless leaps of logic, that I don't think anyone but you could read it and not laugh out loud. Even the people who otherwise tolerate you will, after reading that, tell you to seek psychiatric help.
Why comment on your flawed analysis?
WTC 7 did not fall straight down, it fell to the southwest. On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 20 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out. There were thousands of gallons of fuel that burned for 7hrs under the main support for the entire building. I have seen piks of flames going up numerous stories.
Believe it or not large steel will deform in a fuel fire.
http://www.debunking911.com/truck.htm
Please take your lunacy some where else, it simply will not fly
Stevew, do gunshots still sound like explosions?
Why comment on my flawed analysis? To prove me wrong. Which apparently you can't which is why you always seem to avoid. Case in point: explosions and now you swtich the topic to deformed steel.
Jowenko I believe is his name. Your going to argue with that expert over WTC 7? Your going to say you have more of an expert opinion than the NIST, which doesn't know why WTC 7 fell? Pretty ballsy!
Are you willing to accept that even the NIST could not describe the dynamics of collapse for the towers?
Again you and now Alex both resort to the same topic: avoiding the issue that I bring up or trying to disprove the issue, but instead attack, attack, attack the character. So predictable!
Please don't try the tapdance and avoidence with me. You have not disputed anything I have said. Your questions have no relivence but you toofers always try it. It does not work
SteveW please explain how I have avoided or tapdanced around you? In doing so, I will to the best of my ability respond in kind.
Nice avoidance yourself by the way. I guess the old saying is true...takes one to know one, eh? ;)
SteveW So now in the OS world, gunshot sounds equate to explosions that generate spikes on a seismograph?? Yeah right. Besides, the two buildings are different, the two events are different, etc. etc. Yet another fallacy...complex question. You trying to link two events that aren't related to prove there weren't explosive devices used in the WTC complex. I accept your defeat.
I don't think that can be defined as 'tap dancing' or avoidance. But it certinaly proves you wrong. Look up fallacy in the dictionary if you don't believe me.
Right there is the dispute, partner.
Alright, one more go for old time's sake:
do gunshots still sound like explosions?
Yes, they do, because that's exactly what gunshots are - controlled explosions.
Why comment on my flawed analysis? To prove me wrong.
The question is, why bother? Any rational being who listens to what you have to say will know that you're wrong. It's a waste of time to bother discussing your crap most of the time.
Which apparently you can't which is why you always seem to avoid. Case in point: explosions and now you swtich the topic to deformed steel.
The explosions are a non-point. You've been shown multiple examples of explosions occurring during large fires. It's only your unreasoning stubbornness, that prevents you from seeing that there is NOTHING unusual about explosions being heard during a fire.
Jowenko I believe is his name. Your going to argue with that expert over WTC 7?
The opinion of an expert is useless if he doesn't have the relevant facts. This has been discussed in detail before. Jowenko made an off-the-cuff comment based on low quality video footage shot from a deceptive angle. His opinion under those circumstances means absolutely squat. Not to mention that several other demolition companies are on record as disagreeing with him. You don't get to pick and chose your experts based on what they say, swingy.
Your going to say you have more of an expert opinion than the NIST, which doesn't know why WTC 7 fell?
Now you're just lying. Typical.
Are you willing to accept that even the NIST could not describe the dynamics of collapse for the towers?
Do you even understand what you just asked? It sure doesn't seem like it....
Again you and now Alex both resort to the same topic: avoiding the issue that I bring up or trying to disprove the issue, but instead attack, attack, attack the character. So predictable!
You're not bringing up any issue you clown. All you're doing is regurgitating the same lies and deceits over and over again. Every single goddamn thing you've said so far in this thread has been answered before. You just ignore the answer, and keep making the same ludicrous assertions. You are a lunatic, plain and simple. The only reason any of us waste any time on you anymore is sheer boredom.
Swing Dangler
I don't have to explain anything it is all in your posts. I avoid nothing you addressed what I said with some junk about gunshots thad nothing to do with WTC7 or the fact that large girders can deform in a gas fire.
Your constant mindless babble hardly makes your case let alone defeat anyone but please continue to fool yourself. Claiming some kind of win makes you look like the fool your are. I will take the word of Brent Blanchard of Protec and those at CDI before I would take your word for it.
If all you say is true, why have we not seen some kind of charges filed by now?
The opinion of an expert is useless if he doesn't have the relevant facts.
What facts doesn't he have?
What diffence does the name or the date of the collapse the building have? I love how your are so quick to refute this expert.
do gunshots still sound like explosions?
Yes, they do,
Your supposedly in the military and you believe this? ROFLMAO!
It's a waste of time to bother discussing your crap most of the time. You don't discuss shit and you can't, Alex. You go about attacking the character, over and over and over again.
Are you willing to accept that even the NIST could not describe the dynamics of collapse for the towers?
Do you even understand what you just asked? It sure doesn't seem like it....
Of course I do. Your reponse proves you don't.
Lets see Alex. Does NIST know what caused the collapse of WTC 7?
Pray tell, Alex what did the NIST say about WTC 7? I await your reponse to prove me a liar. Better yet, give me the link to what they said about 7. Or copy and paste what they said.
Alex, hold true to yourself and prove what I have lied about, once and for all!
If not accept the label as liar yourself.
What facts doesn't he have?
CHF answered this. Angle of collapse wasn't visible from the video. Sound level is hard to judge and may have been removed entirely, as is the case with most denier clips of WTC7. Also he didn't have access to the blueprints for the building, so would not have been aware of it's design. From looking at it, it's difficult even to determine whether the building is constructed entirely of steel, or whether i has a concrete core. Etc. Etc. These are all details which an expert would need to examine before coming to an accurate conclusion. While it's possible for an expert to generalize by simply observing a video-tape, his conclusion will have a much higher probability of being wrong than if he is able to study the event in detail.
Interestingly enough, the NIST research into "blast scenarios" focuses on one main criteria: the blasts in question have to have been weak enough to not blow out windows, but still capable of cutting the columns. They are also doing a study of how loud such explosions would have been. They're obviously concerned with the same discrepancies that we've pointed out to you in the past - namely that there is no outward sign of explosions, and that the whole thing was rather quiet compared to your standard demolition.
Your supposedly in the military and you believe this? ROFLMAO!
Once again, you think you know better than the experts. Why am I not surprised.
What exactly do you think drives the bullet out of the rifle, genius? Water pressure?
Of course I do. Your reponse proves you don't.
Obviously you DON'T, since while talking about the "dynamics of collapse of the towers" you ask about NIST's explanation for WTC7. You're not even sure which buildings you're talking about!
Does NIST know what caused the collapse of WTC 7?
If you had been following their work, you wouldn't need to ask this.
The current NIST working collapse hypothesis for WTC 7 is described in the June 2004 Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (Volume 1, page 17, as well as Appendix L), as follows:
*
An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris-induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large-span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;
*
Vertical progression of the initial local failure occurred up to the east penthouse, and as the large floor bays became unable to redistribute the loads, it brought down the interior structure below the east penthouse; and
*
Triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of floors 5 and 7 that were much thicker and more heavily reinforced than the rest of the floors) resulted in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.
This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation.
Unlike you idiots, NIST doesn't jump to conclusions, and they don't rush their investigations. The full report will be a few more months still, and until then all that is available is the working hypothesis. I'll make you any size bet you want that their official conclusion will match the working hypothesis.
Alex, hold true to yourself and prove what I have lied about, once and for all!
See my post about standards of proof. I have no delusion about proving anything to you. The way you think makes it impossible for you to ever accept being wrong. As such I will never "prove" anything to you. However, any rational person reading over our discussions will be shaking their head in amazement at the level of your ignorance, just as I am.
Alex
It happens WTC7 was built over two electrical substations owned by the old electrical utility Coned. It's an unusual design. It has a series of cross truss steel girders that are literally holding it up and after it was built, they were the main support of the building. When the steel cross trusses weakened the building was doomed, the center had the greatest load and the heat from the 45000 gallons of fuel was concintrated in the middle of the structure and not around the perimeter. WTC #7 had a lot of damage from the colapse of the towers as well, some 20 stories tall.
There are two other possible contributing factors. First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.
They stored 45,000 gallons of diesel fuel there, that was used for emergency fuel for generators and burned for 7hrs under the main load bearing supports.
Yeah, I know. That's what I mean - unless Jowenko had access to that information, how could he form a professional opinion? The guy can make an educated guess, but a guess is not a professional opinion.
Alex, hold true to yourself and prove what I have lied about, once and for all! If you can't I must label you as a fraud.
Notice Alex, I didn't say prove to me, I said prove. Let me clairfy, please prove to the readers what I have lied about?
I know exactly what drives the bullet out of a gun. I'm an accomplished shooter with many firearms. The explosive sound amplitude of a bullet has absolutely nothing in common to the explosive amplitude heard at at the WTC on 9/11. Or off topic, the explosion of an IED, or a cluster bomb, or a fire cracker, or an M-16, or a Chinese SKS. So please you fail miserably at SteveW defense by trying to use what you think is superior knowledge to try to prove the explosions heard at the WTC equated in sound to those
in a gun. By further arguing that line of logic, you assert that all of those policemen and firefighters who know the difference between gunshots and explosions are idiots.
I'm looking at the NIST website, and I don't see the criteria you are referring to in regards to the blast examination. Could you please post the link to the source?
You proved my point, Alex. They don't know what caused it. Which is why they are examining blast scenarios.
Notice Alex, I didn't say prove to me, I said prove.
Well no problem then. It's already been done.
You proved my point, Alex. They don't know what caused it. Which is why they are examining blast scenarios.
You really are an idiot. If they investigate it, it's because they don't know what happened. If they don't investigate it, it's because they're paid off, or because they've been threatened, or because they're closed minded.
Right.
Go fist yourself. I don't feel like fucking around with your circular logic today.
Post a Comment
<< Home