Now see... this kind of thing becomes difficult for skeptics...

[thessalonian]

Someone threw a molatave cocktail from a grassy noll I've heard.

[Desert Walker]

THE ANSWER!


That is lame Thess...

[Socrates]

The truth is all [url="http://www.davidickebooks.co.uk/"]here![/url]

Beware the lizard-men and their reptilian agenda!

[Anthony]

[quote name='ChrisZewe' post='984592' date='May 18 2006, 01:39 PM']
Not anymore.
[/quote]

I don't believe for a second that you are no longer an atheist.

[GenesiusMMVI]

[quote name='Desert Walker' post='984548' date='May 18 2006, 01:37 PM']
The following quote is taken from a much LONGER article on www.theconservativevoice.com.

[url="http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/7762.html"]The Conservative Voice -- Eyewitness, William Rodriquez, gives his story[/url]
Oh freaking carp...
[/quote]


One guy heard an explosion so it MUST be true. Please. The thing about this particular crack-pot theory is how disrespectful it is to those who died that day. Just plain sick.

Enjoy this. I think I've posted it before but good stuff, no less. 300 experts and Orgs have pretty much debunked all the schtoopid theories.

[url="http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html"]http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html[/url]

Cheers

[CatholicCid]

[quote name='Desert Walker' post='986973' date='May 22 2006, 08:00 AM']
According to this reasoning one could even MORE easily say:

"The fact that the bible is over 1000 years old makes me doubt its reliability."

"The fact that Vatican II is over 60 years old makes me doubt its reliability."

"The fact that the Universe is older than the last 5 minutes makes me doubt its reliability."

"The fact that, currently, ALL eyewitness accounts of the events of 911 are almost 4 years old makes me doubt their reliability."
please.... you have to be capable of doing better than that.
That's actually (and happily I might add)
not true.
[/quote]


Yay, let's put words into people's mouth... Or one could actually ask for clarification, but that requires reasoning.

I'll restate "The concept that it took this person 4 years to come foward (though the article states he's spent it trying to talk to the govt and they have been ignoring him ) in such a way to what I have read makes me wonder to the realibility of the source"

[Desert Walker]

I'm not putting words in your mouth because I didn't say that you said anything you didn't say. All I said was "according to this reasoning one could even more easily say..." so on and so forth.

I still don't see how a time span between the act of witnessing, and the recording of the account of the eyewitness testimony, invalidates the testimony of the eyewitness. If a time span destroys the credibility of an eyewitness (especially one who is not elderly, held a supervisory job in the WTC, at which he worked for 20 years, and is currently an energetic philanthropist) then why does a court of law admit eyewitness testimonies older than four years? Apparently they shouldn't I guess.

So what's the age limit? One year? One month? One week? One day? A couple of minutes?

Inquiring minds would like to know.

[styx chyx]

Really interesing site:

[url="http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk"]http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk[/url]

click on the flags on the bottom, whatever language you'd like to view the page in, and a flash presentation will open.

VERY interesting...

[jezic]

it hasn't been 60 years since Vatican II

and

WHy would you want the government to do an investigation? If something happened they are likely in on it...

[Winchester]

What would be the purpose of creating an explosion prior to a strike from an aircraft?

When were alarms transmitted?

A "smoke explosion" is a misnomer, unlikely to be used by an experienced firefighter. Without combustion, there is no smoke.

The towers were made of lightweight construction with sprayed on fireproofing. Once the fireproofing was removed (by the jet impact) a siginificant fire load would have produced enough fire to distort the beams enough to cause problems. Steel is not combustible, but it is affected greatly by fire.

When something collapses, it displaces air, and thus smoke and fire. Collapses are loud, and each successive collapse would have made sound. Quotes from the fireground do not make a good argument without investigation as to the cause of the perceptions.

Secondary devices simply wouldn't be neccesary to bring down a building constructed like WTC. In fact, the other buildings in the area that collapsed were of similar lightweight construction, and suffered pretty much ordinary fires, unextinguished due to the earlier collapses. A building that was under the same strain as those that collapsed, yet was of pre WWII (heavy) construction, did not collapse. WTC was not the first highrise to collapse or become a collapse hazard due to fire, and it might not be the last, considering new construction techniques, which value money over firefighter's (and occupants') lives.

[Desert Walker]

[quote name='Winchester' post='989528' date='May 24 2006, 11:01 AM']
What would be the purpose of creating an explosion prior to a strike from an aircraft?
[/quote]

Choreography.

Think about it.

You might get it.

[quote]
WTC was not the first highrise to collapse or become a collapse hazard due to fire, and it might not be the last, considering new construction techniques, which value money over firefighter's (and occupants') lives.
[/quote]

I don't think that's historical fact.

[Desert Walker]

[quote name='jezic' post='989525' date='May 24 2006, 10:57 AM']
it hasn't been 60 years since Vatican II
[/quote]
Sorry, I guess it's something like forty...

[quote]
and

WHy would you want the government to do an investigation? If something happened they are likely in on it...
[/quote]

There's no way the entire Congressional body was involved... if that's the case....

AAHHH...!!!

FLEE FOR THY LIVES!!!

Edited May 24, 2006 by Desert Walker

[Winchester]

I did think about it. It's ludicrous. It's unneccesary. While one may say this points in the direction of government action, considering their penchant for such actions, it's not for that reason people say there were secondary devices or primary explosions.


February 1991 at One Meridian Plaza, a serious fire that killed three firfighters, a structural engineer warned there was a pissiiblity of collapse. (11 hour fire) The building did not collapse, but it was torn down due to the damage inflicted. It was a collapse hazard. Other buildings of more heavy weight construction have been exposed to similar stresses and not needed demolition.

In 1970, a medium weight office building the steel members sagged 18 inches, requiring replacement. In a lightweight building, such as WTC 1 and 2 and 7 such sagging can overburden the other members to the point of collapse.

My error, no highrise has collapsed in total pancake. Usually the collapses are localized due to construction techniques. However, WTC 1 and 2 were not of the usual contruction--they were core constructed, leaving vast expanses of floor without load bearing members to localize collapse.

Again, once the fireproofing was removed from the load bearing members, they were exposed to intense flame. These load bearing members were lightweight steel trusses. In truss construction, the removal of one member is enough to cause total collapse. In the case of a heavy floor collapsing onto another, weight alone can cause collapse.

The other two buildings struck by aircraft in New York were of much different construction.

The command staff at the fire discussed the possibility of collapse and came to the conclusion they ahd to get as many people out as possible, and that they weren't going to be able to extinguish the fire. For those who understand building construction, the collapse doesn't need any more explanation than the planes and resulting fires.

(Fire Officer's Handbook of Tactics, 3rd edition by John Norman) I will note John Norman was present at the WTC fires as one of the chief officers.

[Desert Walker]

[quote name='Winchester' post='989567' date='May 24 2006, 11:46 AM']
I did think about it. It's ludicrous. It's unneccesary. While one may say this points in the direction of government action, considering their penchant for such actions, it's not for that reason people say there were secondary devices or primary explosions.[/quote]

Huh?

[quote]
My error, no highrise has collapsed in total pancake. Usually the collapses are localized due to construction techniques. However, WTC 1 and 2 were not of the usual contruction--they were core constructed, leaving vast expanses of floor without load bearing members to localize collapse.

Again, once the fireproofing was removed from the load bearing members, they were exposed to intense flame. These load bearing members were lightweight steel trusses. In truss construction, the removal of one member is enough to cause total collapse. In the case of a heavy floor collapsing onto another, weight alone can cause collapse.

The other two buildings struck by aircraft in New York were of much different construction.

The command staff at the fire discussed the possibility of collapse and came to the conclusion they ahd to get as many people out as possible, and that they weren't going to be able to extinguish the fire. For those who understand building construction, the collapse doesn't need any more explanation than the planes and resulting fires.

(Fire Officer's Handbook of Tactics, 3rd edition by John Norman) I will note John Norman was present at the WTC fires as one of the chief officers.
[/quote]

You do realize that what you have just described is the leading "collaspe theory," and that the evidence proposed to support it is still under dispute by engineers and physicists all over the place, don't you?

[Winchester]

The first part was sort of a joke.

Think about it.

Maybe you'll get it.


I realize that what I've stated conforms to everything we know about structures exposed to fire. Who is debating this? What are their names? In my experience and my professional studies, I have found that advanced computer models merely confirm the theories of seasoned firefighters.

[Desert Walker]

The reason for secondary devices is to pulverize the whole darn building WHILE it is APPEARING to collapse under its own weight. The reason I used the word"choreography" is that, whoever, set the hypothetical demolition charges, positioned them, and detonated them according to a finely tuned, predetermined sequence, which would create the illusion that the Two Towers were collapsing due to structural failure in the impact zone. If the demolition hypothesis" is true, the whole disaster was an expertly choreographed deception.


Google "Scholars for 911 Truth" to see a list of the disagreeing ones.

[Winchester]

it is unneccesary. The construction of WTC 1 2 and 7 was such that no secondary devices would be needed. Maybe some understanding of the integrity or lack thereof of lightweight truss construction would point this simple fact out to you.

The collapse did in fact start high in the building. That's easy to determine. I don't think you grasp the amount of heat at those upper levels or the concept of total involvement of floors uninterupted by any sort of fire wall. Take a look at pictures of the structure prior to putting in suspended ceilings (not known for impact resistance, but considered a form of fire protection nonetheless, as evidenced by sprinklers installed below but not above them)

The charges are not neccesary. They're superfluous. It needn't be choreographed. The jets were enough.

[Desert Walker]

All the experts agree that the fuel burned up completely within five minutes after the initial explosion. Furthermore, everyone agrees that 50% of the jet fuel was EJECTED from the buildings in the fire-ball of each impact. In addition, the smoke, from whatever fires were still burning, was black. Black smoke, as any fire expert will tell you, is a sign that a fire is suffocating.

Right before the collapse of (I forget which tower exactly), one of the firefighters radioed to his chief on the ground that he had located a sum total of TWO small spot fires at the IMPACT ZONE. He then requested water lines. Apparently the fires at the IMPACT ZONE were controllable, NOT the blazing inferno that everyone now believes in with so much faith. The "inferno theory" is false on its face, because there were at least two people photographed INSIDE the impact zone who were unharmed. Those people would not have been able to survive where they were standing if the temperatures at the impact zone were hot enough to damage the steel framing. Their skin would have melted. And the people who jumped, jumped because of the toxic smoke, not intense heat as was believed. They couldn't BREATHE.

The steel frame was VASTLY over-engineered; some sections possessing 2000% extra load-bearing strength. One of the construction reports states that you could have knocked out WHOLE FLOORS worth of trusses and the buildings would have remained standing in over 100 mile an hour winds.

The weld points had 90,000 pounds of load-bearing strength.

And why in the HECK does the top section of the tower (I forget which one) DESINTIGRATE in mid-air after falling off the building?! And if the top fell off, why does the building continue to annihilate itself at the same speed as the falling top section?

Something had to break apart the central support columns. Pancaking should have left the central support structure mostly intact. BUT THE WHOLE FREAKIN BUILDING CAME DOWN...! The only way that could have happened was if the central core system was being broken up by explosives, AT THE RATE OF FREE FALL.

Choreography.

[hierochloe]

If there were detonations powerful enough to achieve such structural failure, wouldn't those be visible on the exterior? Like they are during planned building demolition? I don't see that in the videos that I've watched. Or, could the "explosion" sounds and the "smoke explosions" audible/visible outside the towers be merely a manifestation of structural failure rather than actual detonations? I dunno - some of the testimonies are pretty spot on for demolition detonations, but a lot are not.

I've read about the whole black smoke/white smoke angle and it's bollox. True that black smoke [i]generally[/i] occurs with low oxygen/partial combustion which only [i]sometimes[/i] indicates a dying fire, but it provides very little indication as to temps in and around the blaze. You could have a cold fire burning material containing a lot of water vapor and the smoke would appear white. Smoke color is just not that reliable and is lame to point out to prove a conspiracy IMHO.

A smoke explosion is also called backdraft, when the temps get so hot that the uncombusted material in the smoke itself ignites. Very dangerous, usually white smoke is an indicator of risk for one to occur, but not a prerequisite.

Finally, even if there were "choreographed" detonations of explosives to aid in downing WTC towers, I would still not be entirely convinced our own gov't had anything to do with it. Who's to say it wasn't part of the master plan by al-Qaeda? It's not like they haven't been successful in the past at strikingly similar ventures....

I just don't see what even the most self-serving in our gov't would benefit from such an act - it defies all logic (unless we have Al-Quaeda in our own gov't). The CTB ratio is WAY off no matter how you run it.

Edited May 25, 2006 by hierochloe

[Desert Walker]

[quote name='hierochloe' post='990351' date='May 25 2006, 10:24 AM']
If there were detonations powerful enough to achieve such structural failure, wouldn't those be visible on the exterior? Like they are during planned building demolition? I don't see that in the videos that I've watched. Or, could the "explosion" sounds and the "smoke explosions" audible/visible outside the towers be merely a manifestation of structural failure rather than actual detonations? I dunno - some of the testimonies are pretty spot on for demolition detonations, but a lot are not.
[/quote]

I've seen a couple of videos of building demolitions. All you hear is cracking sounds from the explosives and then the collapse noise takes over. You don't see flashes unless there is sufficient line of sight to the detonation sources. A building as large as the towers has never before been demolished with explosives. If you notice, the largest pieces of metal in that pile at ground zero were the EXTERNAL framework, which would not have been blown up. If explosives were used, they were used to crack the support columns, deep inside and out of sight, and also, presumably somewhat muffled by the rest of the building. However, there is one video taken from a stationary camera tripod set on the roof of a another building. Seconds before the first collapse, the whole camera vibrates as though a tremor had run through the earth and a large piece of debris falls from the hole in the building. Something BIG was obviously detonated before that building began to collapse.

[quote]
Finally, even if there were "choreographed" detonations of explosives to aid in downing WTC towers, I would still not be entirely convinced our own gov't had anything to do with it. Who's to say it wasn't part of the master plan by al-Qaeda? It's not like they haven't been successful in the past at strikingly similar ventures.... [/quote]

I've definitely considered this. But their motives are far less understandable than those which our our current government would have.

[quote]
I just don't see what even the most self-serving in our gov't would benefit from such an act - it defies all logic (unless we have Al-Quaeda in our own gov't). The CTB ratio is WAY off no matter how you run it.
[/quote]

It defies logic only because our school history books do not record the ACTUAL reasons for the events of the 20th century. The only SHORT way I can present YOU with a piece of the 20th century's true history is to point you to the historian and essayist Gore Vidal. Start reading his stuff and you will realize that our government had every reason imaginable to authorize a psy-ops attack on the American people like 911.

In short, the goal is to wipe out Islam. There are so many reasons for doing this that our leaders have, but its sufficient for now to say "follow the money and the transnational corporate connections."

Read Gore Vidal. His knowledge is imperative.