The Problem with WT7 conspiracies.
Psyops agent. | 07.09.2010 22:03
It would be in the interest of the powers that be for conspiracies to abound about a controlled demolition of WTC7. It would seem that, beaten back, and disproven on a lot of the original ideas such as squibs (pancaking), explosions (yes they were explosions, of electricity transformers: 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzbQjd_Oo4Q) and pentagon missiles ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8&feature=related). The last bastion of hope for those who so desperately want to believe resides in the so called controlled demolition of WTC7.
for those who want to read on debunking the myths around WTC7, I recommend: http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm.
But I am going to concerntrate here on the bigger picture, starting from the bottom up.
1. In order to plan a controlled demolition of WTC7 that looks like the buliding has collapsed because of damage from the collapse of the north tower, and the subsequent fires. one would have to be able to accurately predict that that building would be damaged, and would catch fire, and that the fire department would be unable to tame the fires.
2. you would have to know that the north tower at least was going to collapse, meaning that has to also be a controlled demolition.
3. You would have to know that a plane is going to hit the north tower, with the risk of human error of reletively low-skilled terrorist pilots, You would, as some early conspiracies suggest, have had to replace the planes with either drones, or proffesional pilots willing to kill there own for the good of the nation.
4. You would have to contain all leaks, given the amount of embarrasing leaks on the now infamous Wikileaks, the shear volume of people who would have to know, and be involved to pull it off, the fact that they would be killing their fellow countrymen. The fact that people have a moral crisis about Iraq and Afghanistan, and blow the whistle, make this not a logistical, and organisational nightmare, it makes it impossible.
5: everything has to work, and to go exactly as planned.
With the nearing of the aniversary of 911, the truth movement are going to be becoming more active, diverting attention away from the real struggle, and just maybe, helping to cover the fact that in the highest hallways of power, there were some who knew of the imminent threat, but did not do enough to prevent it.
......I await the accusations of being an agent of the state.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzbQjd_Oo4Q) and pentagon missiles ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8&feature=related). The last bastion of hope for those who so desperately want to believe resides in the so called controlled demolition of WTC7. for those who want to read on debunking the myths around WTC7, I recommend:
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm. But I am going to concerntrate here on the bigger picture, starting from the bottom up.
1. In order to plan a controlled demolition of WTC7 that looks like the buliding has collapsed because of damage from the collapse of the north tower, and the subsequent fires. one would have to be able to accurately predict that that building would be damaged, and would catch fire, and that the fire department would be unable to tame the fires.
2. you would have to know that the north tower at least was going to collapse, meaning that has to also be a controlled demolition.
3. You would have to know that a plane is going to hit the north tower, with the risk of human error of reletively low-skilled terrorist pilots, You would, as some early conspiracies suggest, have had to replace the planes with either drones, or proffesional pilots willing to kill there own for the good of the nation.
4. You would have to contain all leaks, given the amount of embarrasing leaks on the now infamous Wikileaks, the shear volume of people who would have to know, and be involved to pull it off, the fact that they would be killing their fellow countrymen. The fact that people have a moral crisis about Iraq and Afghanistan, and blow the whistle, make this not a logistical, and organisational nightmare, it makes it impossible.
5: everything has to work, and to go exactly as planned.
With the nearing of the aniversary of 911, the truth movement are going to be becoming more active, diverting attention away from the real struggle, and just maybe, helping to cover the fact that in the highest hallways of power, there were some who knew of the imminent threat, but did not do enough to prevent it.
......I await the accusations of being an agent of the state.
Psyops agent.
Comments
Hide the following 45 comments
911 was an outside job
08.09.2010 00:03
Colonel
trolls
08.09.2010 00:23
It would be great if Indymedia could somehow prevents posts like this.
The 9/11 victims families are the ones calling loudest for a new investigation.
T
@T
08.09.2010 01:31
How dare you talk about disrespecting the families of the dead!
Fly
families
08.09.2010 01:53
detector
If not, what?
08.09.2010 07:37
Psyops agent.
Some questions you ask should be asked and answered by those - who includes me - put forwarded the inside job conspiracy theory. You shouldn't be ashamed of asking those questions.
Some questions you ask, do question the official theory.
How did bin Laden and Al Qaida work out that crashing planes into buildings would bring down the building and kill thousands?
I should add that the US government has never formally charged Bin Laden with 911 and that the 911 Commission evidence for AL Qaida involvement is contradictory and rests entirely on the "interrogation" of an Al Qaida terrorist. It is contradictory because German intelligence had the 911 cell under 24 hour surveillance and did not notice anything.
But the psy-ops accusation by conspiracy theorist is valid. It is an anniversary. There will be a lot of 911 truth movement activity around this. The government-backed perpetrators would want to undermine the promotion of the conspiracy theory and your post would fall into that.
If you are not a psy-ops agent, could you explain your motivations?
insidejob
9/11 Reality Check
08.09.2010 07:54
Watch '9/11: Press For Truth' about the victims families struggle to get an investigation
Read this report on the inadequacies of the 9/11 Commission’s Report compiled by 9/11 Family Members Lorie Van Auken and Mindy Kleinberg
A list of unanswered questions compiled by the 9/11 Family Steering Committee -
T
None of us really know
08.09.2010 08:56
None of us can possibly really know who was responsible for the crimes committed in NYC and elsewhere on 9/11.
Yet, some of us choose to believe an official account from those that we now know lied to us about the reasons for the attack, invasion & occupation of Iraq.
Why believe these same proven liars when it comes to 9/11?
Sue
Parallax reflection.
08.09.2010 09:29
This is the problem with 'de-bunketeers', they spend far too much time flinging themselves about trying to do anything they can to de-legitimise their opponents.
Take the above paragraph for instance, this is exactly the reasoning that was used to undermine the anti-war movement over the Iraq war. It went something like there are about a million people in the UK that have demonstrated against the war but the population is 60 million. So as all 60 million haven't gone on a march that means that individual million doesn't matter.
I kid you not, that was what they were saying. That's how badly they misread the situation. That's what they were reduced to back in 2002.
I think the reasoning seems to be 'absolutism' I.e democracy is only ever legitimate by weight of numbers, the 'de-bunketeers' will always 'qualify' in terms of 'how many' as being the only definition of what is reasonable.
Its essentially taking a 'business logic' and using it as moral arbiter to undermine not just the anti-war movement but the 'truth movement' and any other movement deemed troublesome to the current 'arrangement'.
As we all know, single individuals can have powerful consequences for the state and its supporters.
Potentially, just one family member of somebody killed on 9/11, with the right advice, support & guidance has the capacity to overthrow the official version and leave it dead in the water.
The 'de-bunketeers' know this, that is why they are here.
Longbow.
Motivations
08.09.2010 10:45
“If you are not a psy-ops agent, could you explain your motivations?”
I can’t talk for “psy-ops agent”, but I’d not had any particular axe to grind with the 9/11 conspiracists until they began popping up on Indymedia, copying and pasting in the same stuff (usually totally debunked, or bad science nonsense) over and over again. I watched Loose Change, thought about it, found it unconvincing and thought the logic of the arguments in favour of an inside job fell down at the slightest poking.
The conspiracists assume everyone who critiques them must be a government agent or an imperialist. Sorry to shatter your world, but I’m not – and I find it hard to believe that alka or outside job or any of the others on here are either.
It’s funny that the truthers can’t get their heads round the fact that there may just be some normal people out there who get annoyed with those who spout paranoid nonsense. I criticise truthers for the same reason I’d criticise homeopaths, fundamentalist Christians and Scientologists (and don’t go “Ooh – ad hominem” – I’m suggesting you’re well-meaning but a bit gullible, not that you’re deliberately part of an evil plot to murder thousands of people, which is what you suggest the debunkers are).
(Actually, there is an interesting parallel between the truthers and the Scientologists. L Ron Hubbard announced the best way to make cash was to set up a religion – then a few years later sets up a religion. That doesn’t bother the Scientologists. The maker of Loose Change thought “What would make a cool fictional conspiracy movie?” then a few weeks later decided it was better to make it as a documentary. This doesn’t bother the Truthers).
“Why believe these same proven liars when it comes to 9/11?”
The WMD lie / cock-up was shown to be a lie /cock-up pretty quickly, much to the embarrassment of the administrations involved. And plentiful people were suggesting that they’d got it wrong (Hans Blix, etcetera) before the invasion.
If anything, how hamfistedly the WMD news came out, and how cackhandedly they tried to link 9/11 to Iraq only makes the idea of grand secret all-powerful conspiracy theory look even dafter. As Steven Dutch puts it, in his excellent piece that all truthers should read:
“If Dubya orchestrated a massive conspiracy to bring down the World Trade Center as a pretext for launching a Mideast War, why didn't he pull off the far simpler trick of faking the discovery of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Think of it - his biggest political liability could have been avoided with a piddling investment in special effects, Bush would be seen as America's savior, his strategy would be completely vindicated, and he'd be politically unassailable. All it would take would be spritzing an empty factory with the ingredients for nerve gas, with just enough cross-contamination to create a whiff of the real thing. Yet for some strange reason he didn't do it.”
Incidentally, that piece also has the best lines to shut up those bleating about “freefall”.
“Whether a building falls by deliberate demolition or catastrophic failure, the collapse will be governed by gravity. Even if you used a teleporter to magically make several stories vanish, the part above would only fall as fast as gravity would accelerate it. Only if there was some kind of thruster pushing the building down could it fall faster. Why install a useless Rube Goldberg device? Once the building begins to collapse, who needs anything to accelerate it?”
Norvello
Cognitive Infiltration
08.09.2010 11:35
A new report released by a think tank called Demos warns of the hazardous effects of conspiracy theories on society and recommends strategies for governments to mitigate these effects, including the infiltration of websites. The report, called The Power of Unreason: Conspiracy Theories, Extremism and Counterterrorism, says “most notoriously and influentially, the ‘9/11 truth movement’ has questioned the official accounts of 9/11 and has become a large and growing political force.”
In a 2008 academic paper, President Barack Obama's appointee to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs advocated "cognitive infiltration" of groups that advocate "conspiracy theories" like the ones surrounding 9/11. Cass Sunstein, a Harvard law professor, co-wrote an academic article entitled "Conspiracy Theories: Causes and Cures," in which he argued that the government should stealthily infiltrate groups that pose alternative theories on historical events via "chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine" those groups.
T
Conspiracy conspiracies.
08.09.2010 12:09
Because having got US troops into Iraq by fraud, he was then completely reliant on them to 'offer' up the evidence themselves. Which they did on several occasions (tank shells containing traces of anthrax) murals celebrating 9/11 and so on.
Unfortunately, none of the 'stories' stuck due to worldwide mistrust over the invasion itself.
But the Whitehouse never stopped trying to fabricate the very evidence you claim was never offered. It did this from 2003 to well into 2005 when it became obvious that the world had not bought into the fraud.
Your question supposes/offers that the Whitehouse never offered up this evidence. It did little else in the post invasion period. It tried and tried. Even after it became obvious that no WMD were forthcoming, the Whitehouse changed tack and started to claim they had been moved by Saddam loyalists, not quite realising they had offered up their own case for why the invasion was pointless and futile.
World opinion over the invasion of Iraq was something the Whitehouse battled aimlessly against but could never overcome.
The paragraph you post, is a highly dubious and highly selective effort to dismiss fact in favour of simple minded piece meal fiction.
Longbow
Cognitive dissonance down to a 'T'
08.09.2010 12:18
alka
OP
08.09.2010 12:23
Some questions you ask should be asked and answered by those - who includes me - put forwarded the inside job conspiracy theory. You shouldn't be ashamed of asking those questions.
Some questions you ask, do question the official theory.
How did bin Laden and Al Qaida work out that crashing planes into buildings would bring down the building and kill thousands?"
- Because they didn't, they got lucky?
"I should add that the US government has never formally charged Bin Laden with 911 and that the 911 Commission evidence for AL Qaida involvement is contradictory and rests entirely on the "interrogation" of an Al Qaida terrorist. It is contradictory because German intelligence had the 911 cell under 24 hour surveillance and did not notice anything."
-Maybe I am wrong here, but to formally charge someone, they would have to be in custody, it would seem to make sense.
But the psy-ops accusation by conspiracy theorist is valid. It is an anniversary. There will be a lot of 911 truth movement activity around this. The government-backed perpetrators would want to undermine the promotion of the conspiracy theory and your post would fall into that.
If you are not a psy-ops agent, could you explain your motivations?
-That's easy, I think the truth movement is damaging to the anti-war and anti-militarist movement, because often we are lumped in together, I think it discredits genuine hard wrk done by activists and campaigners, I think it is cult like, and dangerous to the people drawn in, it being based on paranoid conspiracies, and is a money spinner for some. I think it takes up the lives of people who would otherwise be living wholesome lives, and would be active in genuine campaigns.
I was thinking though, If I was a psy-ops agent, would I pose as an activist on Indymedia, and would that be my best stratergy... I don't think so, I can think of better ways. However if I was an activist, concerned about the damage caused by troofers, would I post on Indymedia, well I am.
OP
@T & @Longbow
08.09.2010 13:04
@T Yeah – fine, who knows, maybe there is someone out there on the internet who’s posting debunking comments because they are paid to do so (though if everything Demos suggested came true the country would look somewhat different). It also seems a bit unlikely in this age of government cut-backs and overstretched public services, but, you know, whatever. There’s also a potentially larger group of people posting truther comments just to peddle DVDs and t-shirts, as ex-members of the movement have complained. On the whole, I think nearly all messages from either side will be posted by people just because of what they believe, rather than because they are paid to do so. I trust that's true in your case - you'll have to accept it is true in mine.
@Longbow “Because having got US troops into Iraq by fraud, he was then completely reliant on them to 'offer' up the evidence themselves.” Oh right – so the US can secretly get a large group of agents to take control of planes, rig buildings in busy, central New York with futuristic explosives exactly where the holograms would hit (etcetera) but couldn’t possibly set up anything nearly as convicing in a desert where noone was looking but US troops? And key firefighters / police / FBI / air traffic control / politicians were in on it but you couldn’t possibly ensure selected US troops did the job right? You say that the US “never stopped trying to fabricate the very evidence you claim was never offered”. When precisely was the moment that George Bush stood up and announced “You know those WMDs? We’ve found them and here are the pictures. Mystery solved.” It’s not as if the US has been shy at providing evidence (dubious or not) for programmes in other countries, such as Iran’s nuclear programme.
Norvello
Cognitive infiltration
08.09.2010 13:26
here it is:
"By advocating infiltration, the official anti-conspiracists are forcing a split in the movement-- making it easy for the loonies to label responsible truthers as government infiltrators So, we need to remember that these Sunstein-esque 'academic' analyses have a specific psychological attack built in: sowing division and distrust among 9/11 truthers. If you can get truthers to accuse each other of being "agents" and "infiltrators", attention shifts from the message over to the messenger, and the perceived worth of 9/11 research will then rest upon how far it diverges from the official account, not upon the accuracy, diligence and verifiability of the research.
In short: these reports lend credence to crazy theories, because they'll seem less likely to be "compromised" by "infiltrators" in the eyes of the naive. Allegedly, these infiltrators are supposed to make their identities and affiliations known, but given the public nature of these papers and the open advocacy of infiltration, these tactics seem entirely unfeasible to execute. I think it's reasonable to suspect that at least one of the main purposes of these "papers" is to encourage snitchjacketing
The norm should remain diligence in research."
It also means that, given how troofers are prone to paranoia (the whole belief is built on it), will be more entrenched in the belief that us activists, who think it's a load of bunk, and harmful are all seen as spooks.
I am seriously considering switching to limiting my challenges to real life encounters or for the troofers I know.
p.s. I do laugh at the "responsible truthers" thinking there are wacky truthers discrediting the movement, coz that's precisely my beef with the controlled demolition crew, I just like the irony.
Psy-OP agent.
The way it really works!
08.09.2010 14:22
Irans nuclear programme is a very good example of the difficulty the US faces when trying to proscribe regimes around the world it would like removed. Accusing Iran of developing nuclear weapons isn't enough to spur the population and allies to war.
In exactly the same way that accusing Iraq of developing WMD would not have been enough.
Passenger jets flying into buildings, well that works on every level. The public have used these aircraft, they work in these buildings, seeing it live on TV is the perfect way to deliver the rallying call to war.
Within minutes of these aircraft being delivered into their targets, idle bystanders were stating the obvious. America had to go to war.
As far as George Bush and the announcement of WMD is concerned, you don't really understand how the US Government works.
There were countless occasions when media were reporting the suggestion that WMD had been found. But nothing stuck. Had a story have been run that the public would have accepted and talked about, the PR team at the Whitehouse would have had Bush suited and booted and out on the Whitehouse lawn making a statement.
Nothing stuck, ergo, no statement. But throughout, the Bush "team" spent huge amounts of energy working hard to find "something" that might just do.
Also, try to understand that the call to war is something that is inherently open to fabrication, once the conflict starts, that fabrication is no longer possible. The soldiers need to be kept pliable, willing and believing in what they are doing.
Above all, they need to believe in the people giving the orders. They must never suspect a thing.
Longbow.
There is one rather gaping hole in your analysis
08.09.2010 15:35
alka
@longbow
08.09.2010 15:53
But it is still baffling, why do an experimental demolition, not done in the standard way a demolition is done, with either squibs, or thermite, where the towers collapse from the top down, each floor having to be blown in sequence, when one could quite simply have the planes fly into the building at a much lower point (and yes, there was clearance from the other buildings to hit a lot lower), say half way down, you know for sure the buildings will collapse then.(it was a cert anyway). Or, even simpler, how about, and this is so much simpler.... plant bombs, blame it on Bin Laden.
This is the inherent problem with the controlled demolition theory, It's way to complicated, so many easier ways of getting the same desired effect. That's why it becomes so easy to see that the conspiracy theories are moulded to fit the event, and frankly ridiculous. First you had squibs, when that was proven to be pancaking ( you can see the ejections start off small, and increase with intensity as the building pancakes, explosions don't work this way, the begin at the highest point of intensity, and decrease), then came thermite, which changed to nano-thermite). Just fly the fucking planes half way up the building already!!! Reminds me of the ridicullously complicated way James Bond's nemisis tried to kill him all the time.
fly
evidence locker
08.09.2010 17:54
If a walks like a duck, quacks like a duck then it probably is a duck. 9/11 was muslim terrorist like every other fucking terrorist. The longer we sit around doing nothing, the more chance we'd wake up with our faces blown off.
Bodie
Cindarella shall go to the ball!
08.09.2010 18:21
Except, of course, if its a pantomime duck!
We are just the people in the audience shouting "its behind you!"
Freud.
Bodie
08.09.2010 19:14
Psy ops
De-bunk this!
08.09.2010 19:55
Bush and his bedfellows were never interested in the imposition of a single conflict against a single nation. That would have been inconvenient. Had the attackers been Iraqi, reaction would have been firmly limited to Iraq as it already occupied the natural and historic emnity of the United States. No other action would have been possible as all actionable bases would have been covered. Military action by the United States would have been confined to one place only.
The attackers were Saudi precisely because the US has a regional diplomatic and economic dependency on that country rendering action against the Saudi kingdom impossible, thereby opening the door for the US to choose a foe of choice.
What has to be considered here is the relationship between Iraq and Saudi Arabia. This is key to understanding the relationship between the US and Saudi Arabia. Antagonistic to this is the proxy regional and historic relationship between the US and Iran. A relationship which has become ever more one sided and is currently in play.
If you fully consider the relationship between the US and Saudi Arabia, and the natural pre existing animosity between Saudi Arabia and Iraq, you will then understand why the US now has Iran surrounded by military flanks in Iraq and Afghanistan.
9/11 was an appalling criminal and murderous event but in geo-strategic language, it represents a fixed point around which a new axis of power rotates.
The US-Saudi cartel.
The economic powerhouse of the West, has joined forces with its counterpart in the East, to invoke and maintain a bi-directional economic flow of commerce between the two belligerents to prop up and nourish a wider regional arrangement.
Osama Bin Laden and George Bush are geo-strategic running mates!
Bin Laden will never be found. His liberty is critical to the cartels survival!
Longbow.
LongBalls
08.09.2010 20:50
One of the advantages of the technique is that it doesn't give the opposition anything to get hold of, since the whole post is so fluid. Like ... almost Zen like.
Okay, using Saudis was a masterstroke. I think. Well, no.
alka
Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah etc.
11.09.2010 20:58
inaccurate? non-news? opinion? rant? anyway........
@ Psyops agent
Let's just try to analyse what you're saying here Psy...
Surely the bigger picture makes the controlled demolition of WTC7 an impossibility?
So is it the size of the picture that makes something an impossibility? Is this logical? Surely its the fact that WTC7 fell for 2,25 seconds at Free-fall that makes a natural collapse an improbability?
It would be in the interest of the powers that be for conspiracies to abound about a controlled demolition of WTC7
It's just one conspiracy by the ruling class to further their interests you know: Guns Oil and Drugs
It would be in the interest of the Ruling class to obfuscate about WTC7 seeing as how it looks very much like a controlled demolition, it fell at free fall for 2.25 seconds, the steel suffered sulphidisation in the inter-granular matrix and a eutectic had formed possibly pre collapse according to FEMA, then there were the sounds of explosions reported by witnesses, Barry Jennings' testimony and so on.
"squibs (pancaking)" WTF are you talking about? pan-caking was the original official explanation for the collapse of the towers.... squibs well you can see squibs on the videos.
"explosions, of electricity transformers:" Ha Lol that's one fuck of a lot of transformers clutching at straws?
"and pentagon missiles" Straw man?
"The last bastion of hope for those who so desperately want to believe resides in the so called controlled demolition of WTC7. "
WTC7 is the most obvious CD, WTC1 & 2 were CDs as well.
"for those who want to read on debunking the myths around WTC7, I recommend:
Hmmn a lot of dis-info on that site a lot of knocking down of straw men, I don't rate it personally, too much pseudo science, hand waving, etc, etc Just because a web site has the name 'debunking911.com' doesn't mean it does what it says it does, the site fails miserably AFAIC.
"1. In order to plan a controlled demolition of WTC7 that looks like the buliding has collapsed because of damage from the collapse of the north tower, and the subsequent fires. one would have to be able to accurately predict that that building would be damaged, and would catch fire, and that the fire department would be unable to tame the fires. "
Well if your going to write an article about WTC7 then you should at least read the NIST report about the collapse because what you're saying contradicts what NIST say
NCSTAR 1A.pdf xxxvii
"Other than initiating fires in WTC7, the damage from the debris from WTC1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC7 ... Even without the structural damage WTC7 would have collapsed ..." So no you just have to design the CD for overkill of the intact structure any damage just makes the job easier doesn't it?
"2. you would have to know that the north tower at least was going to collapse, meaning that has to also be a controlled demolition. "
Of course WTC1 was a CD obviously! WTC1 fell with constant acceleration through the path of most resistance it fell with the same acceleration through damaged as well as un-damaged floors. You can model the collapse of top WTC1 with a power series equation with all the powers > 4 set to zero. That is you can model it with just ten numbers! What are the chances?, Plus the evidence in the dust, the sounds of explosions etc etc etc...
"3. You would have to know that a plane is going to hit the north tower, with the risk of human error of reletively low-skilled terrorist pilots, You would, as some early conspiracies suggest, have had to replace the planes with either drones, or proffesional pilots willing to kill there own for the good of the nation. "
WTF? I think that your probably not an agent of the state, I think you're more probably the victim of a Psy Op. All three building destructions were CD's, obviously!
"4. You would have to contain all leaks, given the amount of embarrasing leaks on the now infamous Wikileaks, the shear volume of people who would have to know, and be involved to pull it off, the fact that they would be killing their fellow countrymen. The fact that people have a moral crisis about Iraq and Afghanistan, and blow the whistle, make this not a logistical, and organisational nightmare, it makes it impossible."
How naive you need to study how the Ruling Class operate, what compartmentalisation is, how people with the Authoritarian personality function within hierarchic power structures, how you could put all the people involved, into the planes and crash them into the buildings. killing those on board, and so on and so forth. So if you can fly a cruise missile into Slobodan Milosevich's lounge don't you think you could do that with a Jet liner? Los Alamos used the same amount of energy as the five biggest US corporations, and employed thousands and yet it was kept secret.
"5: everything has to work, and to go exactly as planned."
Does it? Ever heard of contingency? And even when 1200+ Architects and Engineers suspect something dodgy there's the spin machine and agents of the state to murk up the information spread doubt, divide groups you know the usual COINTELPRO stuff.
I know WTC7 was demolished the Physics tells me that buildings just don't fall through themselves at free-fall
I think the most likely State agents here are alka and Norvello aka Norville B they seem to have a liking for spreading disinformation, by pointing to dodgy websites.
No_body
@No-Body
12.09.2010 17:56
-I feel somehow special now you don't think I am a State Agent! (even though I am ;). But seriously, It doesn'y suprise me that you think these two are, I actually think they had some very good points and argumets to make, Alka in particular, talking about how the 1200 plus architects and engineers you mention are in a massive minority, even A and E's from countries not on great terms with the west, are not coming out in droves to say that WTC7 is a controlled demolition. They also, don't have peer-reviewed publications on WTC7, and if you go the website, one makes a very interesting discovery:
Merchandising! and on a large scale, no where does it say the money raised is used for the campaign, that's because it isn't., good news is, you do get a free DVD!...... with purchases of over $20, or more, so maybe I am being a little unfair here?
So, The last post in the raging debate under the advert for the event "Truth Rising" was from the Treehouse cafe, cited as being supporters of the event, who posted a message distancing themselves from the event, saying that they do not have anything to do with, nor do they support the truth movement, and were not supporting the event. Actually, You will find a lot of people involved in campaigns, and political activism who think the "truth" movement is ridiculous, some of us will show why we think that it is ridiculous. That's why I don't think Alka and Norvello are, I mean really, they are paid by the state to do it? Surely that's more people who know, or at least question why they being told to do this? But, I can see that it goes with the conspiratoral territory to beleive this.
"Los Alamos used the same amount of energy as the five biggest US corporations, and employed thousands and yet it was kept secret."
-I could go onto Wikileaks, and show you loads of stuff they have not been able to keep a lid on, citing a facility that was kept secret during WW2 (that we know about now), at a time when there was a culture of keeping quiet, is quite different to attacking you own civillians in a time when being an anonymous whistle blower has been made very easy. I am not saying it is impossible, just very very very hard, and risky.
"explosions, of electricity transformers:" Ha Lol that's one fuck of a lot of transformers clutching at straws?"
-not really, how many bangs are heard from the towers? I am not talking about the squibs here, just the bangs recorded, there were big fuck off transformers in the twins, in fires they explode and they go with a fuck off almighty bang. There are some awsome videos off fires blowing up transformers on youtube, AND a fireman from the event testifies to seeing electrical flashing prior to one of the explosions.
"squibs well you can see squibs on the videos."
-Really, where? because all I can see is compressed air being forced out of the buildings, as well evidenced here:
"It would be in the interest of the Ruling class to obfuscate about WTC7 seeing as how it looks very much like a controlled demolition"
I read in another debate raging on here someone question why blow up both 1 and 2 in such a mind-blowingly brilliant way, starting from the top down. yet when it came to WTC7, didn't bother? i:e: parts of the building collapsing, like, the roof caves in, then a side falls, then a few floors go, then a penthouse goes, then a few more floors, then a big section, then the rest. or, thinking about it, why demolish it at all, the fires could not be extinguished, so all the stuff that needed to be destroyed would have been anyway. Even if the building is still standing after, you could state it is usafe, and do a controlled demolition afterwards.
But, yeah, you would think they would have put the same thought into 7, as they did 1 and 2.(not of course that I think for a second they were a CD either:) ).
"
Psy-ops agent
State Liars are Psychopaths aren't they?
13.09.2010 01:12
"To suggest architects haven't heard of or are not interested in WTC7 is simply delusional. I would imagine that every major architectural practice building high rise buildings would have studied it very closely for the lessons that could be learnt. I would imagine that many university engineering departments have done case studies on it as it would provide hard data on why buildings fail."
And to back this up he presents us with three internet documents, basically what alka is saying is that the deafening silence of Building professionals means that they are nodding their heads in sage agreement with NIST! (te-he!)
Here are the documents alka presents.....
1) link>"
Now this paper is by two of NIST's own it's not a set of results or conclusions about WTC7,
Here is what the abstract says.
"At the present time, a sensitivity study is being conducted to determine the relative contribution of the identified factors, which includes the presence or absence of shear studs on girders, connection types, asymmetric framing, and bay span lengths. The technical basis for the identified structural factors is presented in this paper."
Now in their final report NIST take the sheer studs out of their model, because as their collapse hypothesis needs large lateral movements due to "thermal expansion occurring at temperatures hundreds of degrees below those typically considered", the sheer studs would limit lateral movement and their model wouldn't collapse. So this document isn't evidence to support the claim that "every major architectural practice " and "many university engineering departments" have done case studies, rather it shows that the only 'official' study is the NIST study of WTC7 i.e. the 10.000 pages of NCSTAR1-9 & NCSTAR1-9A.
The next document alka directs us to as evidence in support of his claim is this one.
2)link>"
It's PR material for heitechservices it's not an academic paper. The pdf article is about the star role of one of heitechservices staff members played in type setting 1000 pages of NCSTAR1-9. If you read the next article you see the company is involved with a large 'Role in Homeland Security Immigration Program' mmm nice people at heitechservices aren't they?
To claim that this document represents some independent 'case study' is misleading and shows a high degree of ignorance about what actually constitutes a technical 'case study', when earlier in the same thread alka told some one to "Go and learn a little bit about elementary architecture and engineering" i.e. trying to give the impression that alka had done this. Well if he doesn't know what that pdf represents then he's not a scientist, but if he knows quite well that that document was just some PR for a corporation making money from 'Homeland Security' then he's attempting to fool people. Either way alka is lying.
The 3rd document is an article about how NIST are progressing with their single column failure theory, at one point the authors have to admit that "this shouldn't have happened". So again not Academic and not an Independent case study, just more NIST.
3)link>
And finally alka points to this website as an explanation of "Free fall and so on" this was in the context of discussion about the 2.25 seconds of free-fall that WTC7 experienced during its demolition. There's one short section about WTC7 on that page there's no reference to Free-fall in that section. There is one section 'Free-Fall' which is a straw man argument that the "truth movement' think that either a) the towers fell 'faster than free fall' or b) the towers fell all the way to the ground at free fall. a is just stupid and obviously debunked and no one in the TM has ever claimed b AFAIA.
There is a lot of other dubious stuff not least of which is this.
"The maximum collapse for free fall is computed by
distance = g t
where g is the acceleration due to gravity ... , and t is time in seconds."
Hmmmn is that Physics as you know it Jim? Isn't distance given by half the acceleration times t squared?
alka tries to mislead people into thinking he knows what he's talking about and he's quite clearly lying.
Norvello does much the same, I think he even points to the same "Physics" page described above. Your favourite site suffers from similar problems a lot of straw men, a lot of hand waving and distraction, no real Physics there as far as I can see.
AE911Truth sell stuff so what? You don't have to buy it do you? Most of their stuff is available for free on line,
It's got some useful links.
they also state that
"AE911Truth is an IRS approved 501(c)3 tax exempt non–profit corporation." So if you think they're trying to pull a fast one you should tell the IRS! What is your evidence that supports your innuendo that they might be crooks?
You might like this footage of 'transformers' (tehe) exploding! squibs= puffs of air. tehe oh yeah!
And see this.
No_body
@ no-bod
13.09.2010 04:38
Although, I think this paper goes along way to show that those towers came down without explosives, The author knows a little bit about demolition, what with working in demolition, and being the cheif editor of a demolition publication and all. The company he works for do seismic testing of construction sites, so that if someone puts in a claim for strutural damage against the construction company, they have a record of what that comany were doing, and the effect. His company were seismic testing at two locations in NYC, and show no evidence for explosions.
Those youtube video's, same shit I have seen in loose change, repackaged and repeated. Cod ideas, never published in peer reviewed journals, and frankly without scientific merit.,
I should have been more specific about the bangs in relation to the transformers, because I think we have our wires crossed (never could resist a good pun). I was refering to the audible explosions heard before the towers came down, not during the collapse.
Did you watch the video of a slowed down "squib" and how it acts nothing like how an exlosion acts?
Oh, by the way, you can register as a not for profit, or charity and still take a wage, lot's of charities and organisations do this, and pay their executives well.... too well.
I notice that Architects and Engineers also charge upto a hefty $50 entry to a talk, none of the campaign groups I know do this, or that amount of merchandising, so yes i think it stinks.
Oh, and did I mention, they don't have anything published in peer reviewed journals?
So what did happen then? according to the video you have posted a link to, the north tower exploded, even though the seismic testing does not show this, meanwhile, It wasn't standard explosives anyway, but thermite, but thermite does not explode, rather super heat metal, and melt it right? like in this video of the myth busters igniting a thousand pounds of thermite.
So that doesn't fit with the video either!
When I watch this video, filmed from the roof of a nearby building of the second tower being hit, I really don't feel suprised the building came down.
Psy-ops agent
@ No_body - join the club....
13.09.2010 09:43
--
There is a lot of other dubious stuff not least of which is this.
"The maximum collapse for free fall is computed by
distance = g t
where g is the acceleration due to gravity ... , and t is time in seconds."
Hmmmn is that Physics as you know it Jim? Isn't distance given by half the acceleration times t squared?
--
It’s “dubious” and daft is it? I totally agree. That’s because it’s a paragraph… quoted from a truther site. (As you’d have noticed if you’d bothered reading the page properly - the massive indent is a clue). Anyhow, you’ve just described truther science as “dubious”. Awesome. Welcome to the debunkers club. We’ll get the Illuminati to wire your payment when you send us your bank details.
"Los Alamos used the same amount of energy as the five biggest US corporations, and employed thousands and yet it was kept secret."
It didn’t remain a secret for long did it? How soon after Hiroshima did “Los Alamos” become a public byword for nuclear testing? Not long at all. It was so much in the public domain, Tom Lehrer was recording comedy songs about his experiences working at Los Alamos (“The Wild West is where I want to be”) eight years after the bombing of Japan. By that rationale, you’d expect we’d have a few albums of comedy songs from The Evil Conspirators by now (perhaps they’re just in the bunker trying to think of things that rhyme with “thermite”).
I love it when truthers use history. It’s like when they cite Pearl Harbour (caused by, erm, the Japanese), or Gulf of Tonkin (a string of attempts to cover-up a cock-up – revealed when the papers were in the public domain – not exactly an incident where someone secretly blew up a US ship, killing the sailors, to trigger the Vietnam war). Both incidents involving mistakes and missed warnings – just like 911 - and are examples of how history comes about through cock-up rather than conspiracy.
Should add at this point that any mistakes in my postings should not reflect on alka or psyops who I don’t know, but who seem to have done much better research in this field. Particular thumbs-up to psyops for shutting down the racist earlier – believing that hardcore Islamicists can commit atrocities does not mean you believe any of that anti-Islam crap. Atrocities have been committed by atheists and Christians too.
Norvello
Psy Ops apologises for the liar alka.....
13.09.2010 10:27
All alkas links are weak and you're now an apologist for a proven liar, oh well all part of Psy Ops I suppose, apologising for liars hey ho.
Honesty's obviously not important to you Psy which makes you look a bit like a psychopathic state operative, who knows why you penned your inaccurate 'Article'.
It turns out I have read ImplosionWorld Document before as the Protec document.
What were all those demolition teams doing in Manhattan? Bizarre! must have been a convention.
This as far as I'm concerned is not an independent report. far from it, neither is it a Scientific document.
This is how I read it
"Look we were there, right, and nothing went on, really, we've got this seismic data (that were not going to show you) that proves nothing like a CD happened, right, and all my demo mates were there and they saw nothing either.
So if any of you crazy conspiracy theorists with your fancy Columbia University seismographs, think otherwise , well we've looked at those seismographs and me and my demo mates definitely see nothing to indicate a CD. OK!? " .
I like the final paragraph that states that it would be unlikely for their less sophisticated seismographs to pick anything up! Te-he
See Danny Jowenko's response to seeing WTC7 go down through itself at free-fall for 2.25s.
Danny Jowenko
The David Chandler video
Asks us to be observers you know follow the scientific method, Empirical Science which your web site debunkin9-11 fails to do, if you look closely that squib you'll see that there is an explosive burst well before the bulk of the material starts coming out and why slow it down? and why not state clearly that what your watching has been slowed down? hardly scientific that. Chandler is a better source he's at least an honest Scientist not like the liars and spin merchants you have a penchant for.
As for thermite Thermate nano thermite etc who better to ask than NIST itself full of folk who know about this stuff.
And it can be formulated to be explosive.
©2007 American Institute of Physics
"Nanothermite composites containing metallic fuel and inorganic oxidizer are gaining importance due to their outstanding combustion characteristics.
In this paper, the combustion behaviors of copper oxide/aluminum nanothermites are discussed. CuO nanorods were synthesized using the surfactant-templating method, then mixed or self-assembled with Al nanoparticles. This nanoscale mixing resulted in a large interfacial contact area between fuel and oxidizer.
As a result, the reaction of the low density nanothermite composite leads to a fast propagating combustion, generating shock waves with Mach numbers up to 3."
You can do an FOI to IRS to find out how much Gage is trousering, so I'd suggest you do that before making slanderous accusations, you know evidence based accusations? rather than your innuendo.
Point to any peer reviewed paper that has been published from the official side. The NIST report is not peer reviewed (it can't be) and all you're left with is Bazant and Seffen, both highly dubious papers, Bazant goes something like this. The Tower collapsed when towers collapse columns buckle, this is how columns buckle and therefore that's what happened. When you test the theory with the observation it fails, because buckling columns cause deceleration and no deceleration occurs just constant acceleration (first 12 floors).
There is no evidence of any structural resistance when WTC1 comes down with no deceleration and a constant acceleration, but you're not interested in Empirical facts are you, you just want to apologise for liars and wave your hands about. As for the seffen paper it makes the same assumption as Bazant and then for no apparent reason ignores the resistance of the columns.
"I really don't feel suprised the building came down. " It's he way they came down Psy not how suprised you are! You know the Empirical data i.e. constant acceleration, free-fall and all that stuff.
Oh right then PO thinks everything's OK so everythings OK? Let's all go home and have some cake.......
You clearly don't rate honesty do yoy Psy? alka is clearly and deliberately trying to mislead people, you know lying about his expertise you've seen the evidence And as you don't rate honesty and apologise for liars, and so I don't think I can trust you to be honest either.
No_body
Psy Norvello alka all fakes and apologists
13.09.2010 12:09
There's no indent or quotes round that text in my browser, when you do a search for
"All three World Trade Towers fell faster over the first half of the collapse than physics allows by free fall."
You get Nutty Physics
and the original site
Here
Scroll down to point 20 it says.
"All three World Trade Towers fell faster over the first half of the collapse than physics allows by free fall. That meant they had to have an assist, e.g. An explosive push from pre-planted demolition charges, not just gravity pulling them down. The maximum collapse for free fall is computed by" and then the graphic says this.
distance = half g times t squared.
So why don't Nutty Physics correct this? I mean it's already a straw man. Why the need to mis-quote? to make troofers look even baderer?
OK let's look at the really dubious stuff at Nutty Physics let's look at the exaggerated way it talks about dynamic loading in the 'free-fall' section. The error is assuming buildings fall at free-fall which they don't.
Here's the quote
"If a story is 4 meters high, it will take an object about 0.9 seconds to fall one story, by which time it will be going 9 m/sec. So once the collapse starts, the overlying structure will be falling at 9 m/sec by the time it has fallen one story. If we crush the collapsing story into rubble half a meter thick and expect the collapse to stop at that point, what kinds of forces are involved? We go from 9 m/sec to zero in half a meter, or 1/18 of a second. However, during that deceleration the velocity is decreasing, and the average velocity turns out to be half of the initial velocity, so the crunch time is 1/9 second. So the acceleration is -9 m/sec divided by 1/9 sec = -81 m/sec2, or about 8 g's."
Exaggerated why? well WTC1 tower floors were 3.7 m not 4 m notice that he says deceleration will occur in half a meter so his number for the velocity is exaggerated because the distance travelled is 3.2 meters. What does this mean? well he gets a figure of 8g's for the dynamic load when if you actually measure the acceleration you get about 6.8 ms^2 not 9.8 ms^2. 6g's would be more accurate, that's a 25% error an exaggeration.
We then get this exaggeration.
"with about ten stories above the impact, the dynamic load was about equivalent not to ten stories but to eighty, nearly the total height of the building."
What he should say is 60 stories and the tower had an FOS of about 4 so should sustain a load of 40 stories. He makes it appear that the ratio of the applied force to the resistive force is 80:1 and not a more accurate (based on measurement) 1.5:1. That is he makes it sound 54 times bigger than the measurements suggest the magnitude would be. He then discounts any resistance for 3-4 floors again inconsistent with the observation and again serves as an exaggeration.
Well what next? Having grossly exaggerated the Load applied he then goes on to minimise the resistance of the building implying it depended only on welds and rivets saying - "the points that actually resist the fall - the welds and the rivets" this is a gross misrepresentation of the building structure no account is taken of the structural components i.e. they were box columns and he ignores the inertia of any mass that gets in the way or any energy used up crushing floors to fine dust, heat generated, friction forces etc etc.
and then this
"If you try to stop the collapse in the millimeter [sic] or so a rivet or weld can deform before failing, you're talking hundreds of g's."
Now he's talking in the singular 'a rivet or weld', what he fails to point out in this pseudo scientific gross exaggeration is that for those 'hundreds of g's' to actually be applied the collapse has to decelerate to velocity=0 m/s. Now at any point in the demolition do we see any deceleration? The measurement, the Empirical Science says no, no deceleration at all only constant acceleration. As this video shows it's easily measured, you know Empiricism and all that....
You can even confirm it yourself by doing your own measurement I did, and can confirm no deceleration takes place therefore no "hundreds of g's". as Nutty Science proclaims.
No_body
demoliton teams
13.09.2010 15:01
Well the easy answer to that was they were not. I thought you had read the paper?
Whilst Protech services carry out vibration monitoring of demolitions for insurance and claim purposes, the majority of their work is monitoring sound and vibration on construction sites.
they were at 2 construction sites in NY doing just this on the day of the attack.
Hardly all those demolition teams is it?
But thanks for the small insight into the mind of the conspiraloon, it must be hard having to work day in and day out with all that suspicion and paranoia.
Back to thermites, and Nano-thermites, or explosives. Yes, thermite can be formulated to be explosive, you mix it with explosives! a thermite reaction does not produce gasses, therefore cannot explode. Now, to make a Thermite explosive mix, powerful enough to blow off the concrete encasement of the steel support collumns, and then rapidly dissolve those collumns would be an event of such magnitude, and would create so much energy that the obseverved phenonema would be a site to behold, you wouldn't have ejecta of molten steel, and reacting thermite and anything else superheated exothermic reaction.
Then, you would have a pyroclastic flow from the energy generated. Now, by pyroclastic flow, I don't mean: a fuck off big fast moving dust cloud that Conspiranuts in the past have dubbed a pyroclastic flow, that cloud burned nothing in its path including paper in the trees from the towers (that somehow managed to avoid being incinerated in the thermite heat), and people. If you want to get an idea of a pyroclastic flow, go stand in the path of one at the next big volcanic event, I'd like to say we could talk about it after, but that would be impossible. The reason you would have a pyroclastic flow, is because the exothermic reaction of the thermite in quantaties needed to create molten steel (myth), and to get through those support collumns would superheat the air, the last people out of one of the towers, as it was collapsing, who survived, talk about gale forced winds, they were not incinerated.
Then we encounter another big problem with the CD theory, and that is: why didn't a jet liner loaded with fuel, slamming into the WTC set off these incendary devices? jet fuel and intense fires would have spread above and below the strike, yet the youtube vid shows what you claim are explosions starting so close to the point of impact. One would have to predict with amazing acuuracy exactly where the plains were going to hit for this to even begin to be true.
Another CD theory problem: Gravity. Getting thermite to melt horizonal beams, no problem, how ever, with vertical structural beams, with a thick concrete casing, as it attempts to get through it, it falls away, then, as the steel melts it runs quicky down, you would in fact be left with partially melted support collumns, and burning thermite allowed to add to the chaos of the massive pyrotechnic desplay, which we should have seen as a result of all of this, but didn't.
Finally, although not conclusive evidence, but, a very good pointer to those towers coming down because fuck off big planes hit them is this:
the North Tower was hit first, then the South tower was hit. The south tower came down first. Reason? The plane that struck the South tower, hit at a lower point in the building, the south tower had more load above the point of impact and subsequent structural damage. I doesn't take a genious to work out, that the lower the planes impact, the more devestating the results. which does beg the question: why bother with an elaborate demoltion plan, when as previously stated by someone else here, one could take those buildings down, by aiming the planes a lot lower?
Psy-ops
Just showing your ignorance Mr apologist for liars Psy Ops
13.09.2010 16:24
I only need to show this with one quote from your last pathetic rant. You said
"the south tower had more load above the point of impact and subsequent structural damage....."
Ha Ha Ha Psy Ops the apologist for liars knows nada. They are designed to carry more load as you go down the building as in
expected load at that point*fos the expected load would include mg, plus dynamic loads etc. lets just consider mg.
So at any point in the structure for example 10 floors down from the top we get 10 floor masses * fos * g and 20 floors down from the top we get 20 floor masses * fos * g and so on
you get it ?
Need I say more this Psy man couldn't give a fuck for honesty and knows shite all about structures. Stop wasting peoples time with your bollox.
No_body
exactly as I thought.
13.09.2010 18:27
O.K, coming back to what I was saying about if the planes had hit lower. The buildings would be standing for a lot less time. the point of impact would suffer the same amount of damage, granted that lower down the building has to support more weight, but a side on impact lower down would pretty much have the same affect on the supprting collumns, the additional weight above means building stands for a very short amount of time, if this had have been the case, and the bulding collapsed seconds or minutes after the plane hit, what we would have seen would have been carnage at ground zero, much larger that occured, because the superheated air and jet fuel would have created a fireball, and pyroclastic event on collapse. In the actual event, the jet fuel had time to burn off in time before the collapse, so no fireball or pyroclastic event.
With that in mind the CD theory collapses, were did that exothermic energy go,? The CD theory claims that temeratures from the CD (Thermite) were higher did the exothermic energy dissapear? was it holgraphic? Did they have Ice bombs that cooled it down straight after the super heating?
Big fuckin hole in the CD theory.
You don't have an answer do you?
Psy-ops agent
So in summary
13.09.2010 18:51
Sure, no problem, but the heavier weight above where the plane flies in, and severs the support collumns, the less time before the top section above the impact zone falls on the remaing building bellow the impact zone. your saying the building would have resisted that too because of how the building is designed, good point. However that only shows that WTC 1 and 2 would have met the same resistance no matter where the collapse, I can accept that, that makes sense but the event of the section above the impact falling onto the section below. ( that sequence of the collapse). would have happened within minutes of the plane strike. now if as I believe, the official version is close to the truth, or at least a lot closer than the CD thoery, then because of the heat, amount of jet fuel still burning in this scenario of collapse, would have cause much more carnage at ground zero.
Psy ops
amount of exothermic energy!!! holy cow!
13.09.2010 19:19
"the CD hypothesis agrees that the floor(s) of impact of the plane could not have been exactly predicted, so every, say, 5 floors, another couple of metric tonnes of thermite would be required. (Jones: ‘… to make it appear that the planes somehow initiated the collapse; cutter-charges could have been pre-placed at numerous spots in the building, since one would not know exactly where the planes would enter.’) Even if only the top half of the building were so prepared, then we would anticipate 2 metric tonnes x 11 locations or 22 tonnes. If the mass of stream of molten metal were estimated at more like 10,000 kg of iron then the figure goes up to 220 tonnes of thermite. We have to believe (a) that the conspirators were ignorant enough to attempt to use thermite, and (b) could insinuate between 22 and 220 tonnes of thermite, plus charges, plus radio firing systems, into each tower."
and yet still no superheating at ground zero. I urge you again to watch videos of thermite going off, and how if ingnighted underwater, it turns water into steam, even under a high preassure of water (deep), and tell me again how the paper in near by trees (hell, the trees themselves!), or people in the vecinity leaving the buildind as it collapsed were not burned to death... impossible...
full paper here:
Psy-ops
Psy's losing the plot. He's becoming irrational. WTF?
13.09.2010 19:52
WTF?
Some light entertainment
So to the point
Well lets say most of it went into blowing up the building?
This 'pyrotechnics show' not adequate?
Maybe it ended up here
Or here?
Matt Komorowski: “The first thing I really felt was the incredible rush of air at my back. And maybe I felt it before everybody else, because I was the last guy.”
Stone Phillips: “Like a gust of wind, behind you.”
Matt Komorowski: “Gust of wind. Wind tunnel. It was the most incredible push at your back, that you can feel.”
and here
BILL BUTLER, NEW YORK FIRE DEPARTMENT: We took two steps down from the fourth floor and the building started to shake.
and here
LIM: Boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, and faster as they get closer. What I remember the most was the wind. It created almost like a hurricane-type force and actually pushed one of the firemen right by me.
and here
MIKE MELDRUM, NEW YORK FIRE DEPARTMENT: I was flown down a flight of stairs, a little groggy for a while. I noticed somebody on a half landing just up from me, a few stairs and I thought it was one of our guys and it was David Lim.
Why waste time speculating?
The error you're making is ignoring the Empirical Science, start with that and you might have a better idea, Bazant says and shows how columns resist and cause deceleration, Nutty Physics shows that for 'Dynamic forces' to act you need deceleration. The Empirical data says there's no deceleration only acceleration, velocity is constantly increasing. So no columns buckling no Dynamic forces acting and yet down it comes with no bumps just smooth and easy like through suspended dust at 70% free-fall. Natural collapse oh aye that's right sir that's a natural collapse, my arse.
But having shown you all that you just repeat your previous argument about planes lower in the building and repeat the same error.
So I'll just repeat my last answer
expected load at that point*fos the expected load would include mg, plus dynamic loads etc. lets just consider mg.
So at any point in the structure for example 10 floors down from the top we get 10 floor masses * fos * g and 20 floors down from the top we get 20 floor masses * fos * g and so on
do you get it yet? or are you still trying to cover your arse? Mr apologist for dishonest folk (and that includes you now for that last piece of bollox).
"The CD theory claims that temeratures from the CD (Thermite) were higher" Just more fuckin straw men is this the best you could come up with?.
"was it holgraphic?" What sort of dumb fuck question is that?
"Did they have Ice bombs that cooled it down straight after the super heating"
Yeah Ice bombs WTF? You've fuckin lost the plot mate you're off into cloud cuckoo land with your 'Holy Graphs' and your 'Ice Bombs'. You want a serious discussion don't you?
Before your mind explodes with the suppressing of the fuckin' obvious (anyone can see) reality that those were demolitions and trying to sustain the lie that it was just gravity doing all that shit, check out Empiricism.
That's the answer mate Free-Fall and constant acceleration and no deceleration. Therefore CD
No_body
Mike King's paper not Peer reviewed
13.09.2010 20:05
University Reader
Department of Art, Media and Design
London Metropolitan University
He doesn't like empirical science either
No_body
Further to Exothermic blah blah
13.09.2010 20:13
No_body
lol nice try
13.09.2010 21:50
The winds people felt that knock then to the ground in either scenario: a thermite demolition, or the buildings falling directly after the planes hit would push down and out through the building superheated air. Oh the energy went into the molten metal did it? This is some real funky shit you talking here, no wonder you call it Nano Thermite, coz apparently it can now discern between air, other combustables and metal. Think about it for a minute, the amount of thermite needed to melt that steel would not also have a percentage which ingnites the combustables, and super heats the air in what is a relatively confined space given the amount of thermite required? So a handfull of people, last out, who all seem to have their hair see some fireballs in the dust flow as the top of the building (that was on fire) comes down (te he), they were incredibly lucky that the jet fuel burnt off before the collapse, or that it wasn't a controlled demolition with tons of thermite.
Simple fact remains: CD Theory dictates More exothermic energy reqiured than contained within all of the jet fuel to melt the amount of steel in the support columns, the Thermite in that quantity would also super heat the air and combust all around it, this then all comes crashing down as the demolition event happens that heat miraculously dissapears? there is no pyroclastic flow, no savage burning,, or heat damage of anything or one nearby.
It's less energy consuming to heat air, than to melt steel, in an enviroment that thermite goes off in, in that quantity the air would be super heated, nothing would survive the incineration, not even paper that floats down and lands in the trees, ground zero at the point of collaspe would certainly be a different story.
Your telling me that the heat energy required to bring the building down, does nothing apart from melt steel, and make a building collapse?
In the official theory, the fuel source has used up a large percentage of it's joules of energy burning, before it collapses.
If the buildings collapsed seconds after the planes hit, ground zero would have been flooded with burning jet fuel which would have engluft the area in a huge fire ball, and those guys from your link may have been on the news if they dared show it, howver they would have been blakened corpses.
The exact same goes for a CD using equal or more, in energy terms of Thermite which burns at a higher temperature than jet fuel, and brings the building down at the point of it's ignition.
Psy-ops agent
Thanks for the laugh!
13.09.2010 23:03
Pyrotechnic from the Greek work for fire (or lack of it in this case... lol).... yup.
I am pretty sure you already knew that I meant that there was a distinct lack of evidence of the detonation of tons of thermite, more required power than the jet fuel of the from the plane (I am aware that the planes hit the tower at immense velocity, creating the fireball at the top, and take this into account).
But, in order for a thermite explosion to have caused what this video claims, it wouldn't be too much to expect too see a little thermite/explosive ejecter and fire now would it? Please go look at some thermite ingnitions on the intertube, and tell me how, quite miraculously, all one sees in that collapse video, is concrete, metal, and dust. (apart from the obvious fire in the area around the impact zone), given that thermite burns at 2000+ degrees, one would expect to see glowing lups of molten steel, fire, burning thermite. But alas, no, just like at base level. when the building finishes out like a dropped bag of flower, we have no sign of this massive creation of exothermic energy.
Psy-ops
You're welcome!
14.09.2010 11:56
I think your ignorance stems from a misunderstanding of 'exothermic' you thik the heat goes to the air when what were daling with is a chemial reation of Iron Oxide and aluminium, it's a story of bonds being broken which uses energ and bonds being made which releases energy. So when you start the thermite reaction the Iron - oxygen bonds are broken which uses energy and the free oxygen bonds with the Aluminium, which releases energy this is going on in the activated complex of the reactant mixture, the iron takes up the energy released on heats becoming molten, white hot, at 2500C+, Some of that heat is radiated away into the air and things warm up but there's no 'superheating' of the air because there very little air in the activated complex as it reacts to form the products elemental Iron (as a molten metal) and Aluminium oxide (as a white smoke)
So this quote from your last piece of nonsense shows how ignorant you are of this basic chemical process.
""Oh the energy went into the molten metal did it? This is some real funky shit you talking here""
Here's thermate in action. Most of the heat ends up in the white hot molten iron and not in the air.
Here side ways through steel
Here's one to rock music
Here 16th inch stainless
Paint?
So looking at those 5 videos of various thermitic reactions I'd conclude that most heat goes into making the elemental Iron produced in the reaction molten at 2500 C, it's the molten iron that does the cutting. That's how it does what it does. Capisca?
It's the Iron that gets the heat and becomes molten OK?
You then descend into to some more ignorant babble, you're becoming incoherent, it's a sign of cognitive dissonance.
"Simple fact remains: CD Theory dictates More exothermic energy reqiured than contained within all of the jet fuel to melt the amount of steel in the support columns"
How does a theory dictate? That last statement is complete and utter nonsense, what has the amount of jet fuel got to do with it?. Look I've tried to explain this to you many times. I know that all 3 buildings were demolished because I know that buildings don't behave the way the Empirical science shows they behaved, some other energy is involved. Now you can begin to hypothesise as to where that energy comes from and look in the data to see if the hypothesis has any support in the data, the hypothesis that various forms of thermite were used is supported in the data, steel from WTC was sulphidised in the intergranular matrix and there's evidence of a eutectic forming, to reports confirm this there is a JEM document and a FEMA appendix (which NIST removed from their final report with no good reason) which reports these findings, There is evidence in the dust of unreacted nano thermite (peer reviewed and published), there are iron rich pellets.
So the CD theory as you call it is AFAIC based on the Empirical observation of Free-fall and constant acceleration, which means another energy source is involved, the hypothesis is that the structure is being destroyed by heat energy supplied by the exothermic reaction of thermite based compounds, and mass is being moved out of the path of descent by kinetic energy being added in 'conventional' explosions.
So to test this hypothesis you look to the data. Were explosions heard? Yes. Were explosions seen? Yes. Is there evidence of large amounts of heat being produced? Yes. Is there evidence in the dust and steel that explosives and incendiaries were used? Yes.
"no savage burning,, or heat damage of anything or one nearby."
Oh isn't there? is savage burning 350 meters away from WTC1 'nearby' enough for you Psy?
@4'.40"
Reporter: "We're at West Broadway and Barclay, it's very difficult to breath here, but look around this must have been ground zero where this thing blew up, car after car after car, busses completely obliterated and burned straight down to the steel"
He thinks it's Ground Zero, yet he's 250 meters away from where WTC1 used to be. The buss in the video is 350 meters away, burnt down to the steel.
Most of the heat energy goes into making the Iron molten it ended up in the basements of all 3 buildings.
Boots melt
NYPD
So plenty of evidence of super heated and savagely burned stuff up to 300 m away.
How does a building fall through it's self for 2.25 seconds at free-fall Psy? that's the question you won't address.
No_body
Try again. lol
14.09.2010 19:35
"to show what I found out, particle A. is a standard thermite particle, particle B is a smaller particle because of the crystalline nature of the oxide coating there is a minimal thickness that must be maintained to prevent reactions.
With nano thermites you basically have two options, particle C. is stable, particle D. is not to make nano thermites explosive you have to reduce the oxide ratio, to the point where they are too reactive to exist in the environment of the twin towers and building 7.
The nano thermites themselves are not explosive but create super sonic shock waves from rapid heating of the air or gasses in the environment around them.
I would like for someone in the truth movement to do actual experiment on explosives and compounds and point out where and if I am wrong! Could some one please do that for me?
I will only base my Ideas on empirical data, so if data can be found to show I am wrong I am fully prepared to accept the Data and the Ideas.
A true honest investigation into the subject of what explosives survive is all I ask. "
Did you spot it? just in case not, here it is:
" super sonic shock waves from rapid heating of the air or gasses in the environment around them."
But hey, how would he know, he is merely testing them eh?
The first video you point out, I would love to see you put your hand ten, even fifteen inches, and hold it there in this "white smoke" (lol) you speak of.
The sideways through steel is a type of thermite cutter note the size of the cutter in relation to to the steel, and the distance past the steel the burst goes, flame jet would burst out widows at the wtc. Problem number two with saying it was a cutter like this, is that your pools of molten steel would not exists, this thermite cutter would spray the steel out in tiny orbs. There is no evidence for this. The blast in the vid takes up the whole screen, in order to cut that small amount of steel, imagine the blast and fire balls as the steel is cut in WTC.
Lastly, the source for this video cannot be traced through, the website doesn't work. with the nature of youtube, (where a lot of your "empirical" evidence comes from) I need to see that it is at least accountable. Shame, coz that is very impressive, but still too big for the job, too much power generated that would "dissapear" and lack of molten steel (unless you agree with me that the whole enviroment was superheated, and kept that steel blown into millions of tiny orbs molten, although that would be pretty fucking amazing, especially if it was to pool again, like some kind of termiator 2.). I am aware that Iron orbs, and alleged thermite samples were found, this is not the same. however for a precision engineered thermite, nano or otherwise, would have to be consistant across the board in kilojoules given off while burnt, you can obviously see why right? a controlled demolition is exactly that, controlled, you cannot have a substance that you have no idea of how potent or weak it is. Steven Jones's own samples of "thermite" were anything but this, and that was from his own findings!
The last video of thermite paint, the one comment for me says it all, it's underneath the video (comment posted five days ago, just in case you think it was by me).
"careful bit of editing shitwad"
In fact, it's not that careful, the video cuts just before he is about to explain his findings on thermite paint on a steel beam. Is this the empirical science you doth speak of so much? edited youtube videos? come on, you can do better than that.
Psy-ops
Your're making a fool of yourself.
14.09.2010 21:16
Here's the Empirical Evidence Psy and the question you fail to answer
WTC7 Fell at free fall for 2.25 seconds through itself. And the question I'm asking is Given this Empirical Fact there is another sourse of energy. What is it?
And as for your last jumbled confused and incoherent rant I repeat my last reply which you clearly haven't read.
My policy is now to repeat this post until you answer the question above OK?
Ok Psy you're still waving your hands about and again your ideas seem based on ignorance of the material thermite and its many forms thermate or super thermate or nano thermate
I think your ignorance stems from a misunderstanding of 'exothermic' you thik the heat goes to the air when what were daling with is a chemial reation of Iron Oxide and aluminium, it's a story of bonds being broken which uses energ and bonds being made which releases energy. So when you start the thermite reaction the Iron - oxygen bonds are broken which uses energy and the free oxygen bonds with the Aluminium, which releases energy this is going on in the activated complex of the reactant mixture, the iron takes up the energy released on heats becoming molten, white hot, at 2500C+, Some of that heat is radiated away into the air and things warm up but there's no 'superheating' of the air because there very little air in the activated complex as it reacts to form the products elemental Iron (as a molten metal) and Aluminium oxide (as a white smoke)
So this quote from your last piece of nonsense shows how ignorant you are of this basic chemical process.
""Oh the energy went into the molten metal did it? This is some real funky shit you talking here""
Here's thermate in action. Most of the heat ends up in the white hot molten iron and not in the air.
Here side ways through steel
Here's one to rock music
Here 16th inch stainless
Paint?
So looking at those 5 videos of various thermitic reactions I'd conclude that most heat goes into making the elemental Iron produced in the reaction molten at 2500 C, it's the molten iron that does the cutting. That's how it does what it does. Capisca?
It's the Iron that gets the heat and becomes molten OK?
You then descend into to some more ignorant babble, you're becoming incoherent, it's a sign of cognitive dissonance.
"Simple fact remains: CD Theory dictates More exothermic energy reqiured than contained within all of the jet fuel to melt the amount of steel in the support columns"
How does a theory dictate? That last statement is complete and utter nonsense, what has the amount of jet fuel got to do with it?. Look I've tried to explain this to you many times. I know that all 3 buildings were demolished because I know that buildings don't behave the way the Empirical science shows they behaved, some other energy is involved. Now you can begin to hypothesise as to where that energy comes from and look in the data to see if the hypothesis has any support in the data, the hypothesis that various forms of thermite were used is supported in the data, steel from WTC was sulphidised in the intergranular matrix and there's evidence of a eutectic forming, to reports confirm this there is a JEM document and a FEMA appendix (which NIST removed from their final report with no good reason) which reports these findings, There is evidence in the dust of unreacted nano thermite (peer reviewed and published), there are iron rich pellets.
So the CD theory as you call it is AFAIC based on the Empirical observation of Free-fall and constant acceleration, which means another energy source is involved, the hypothesis is that the structure is being destroyed by heat energy supplied by the exothermic reaction of thermite based compounds, and mass is being moved out of the path of descent by kinetic energy being added in 'conventional' explosions.
So to test this hypothesis you look to the data. Were explosions heard? Yes. Were explosions seen? Yes. Is there evidence of large amounts of heat being produced? Yes. Is there evidence in the dust and steel that explosives and incendiaries were used? Yes.
"no savage burning,, or heat damage of anything or one nearby."
Oh isn't there? is savage burning 350 meters away from WTC1 'nearby' enough for you Psy?
@4'.40"
Reporter: "We're at West Broadway and Barclay, it's very difficult to breath here, but look around this must have been ground zero where this thing blew up, car after car after car, busses completely obliterated and burned straight down to the steel"
He thinks it's Ground Zero, yet he's 250 meters away from where WTC1 used to be. The buss in the video is 350 meters away, burnt down to the steel.
Most of the heat energy goes into making the Iron molten it ended up in the basements of all 3 buildings.
Boots melt
NYPD
So plenty of evidence of super heated and savagely burned stuff up to 300 m away.
How does a building fall through it's self for 2.25 seconds at free-fall Psy? that's the question you won't address.
No_body
10, I am sure there will be more
14.09.2010 23:26
James randi has carried out some darn good clinical condition testing on supposed mystics, and the methology is pretty good. is he a fascist? I don't know, is every contributer that has signed up to his forum, including those highly skeptical of CD theory.?. no, definately not. You are being disengineous, because over the divide of the skeptics, and belivers of the CD theory, there are many right and far right on both sides, as well as left and far left. That's irellevant, what we are trying to seek is information from scientists that is tested.
Go back up over your posts and mine, and the links provided, the majority of mine are from writings from people with a much better education that me, the majority of yours are youtube vids.
It would appear that you are incredivly defensive, when someone tries to question the controlled demolition theory instead of talking what you want to talk about, the apparemt flaws in the NIST report, you really don't like it. I especially like how in the last post, when we have been talking for ages about WTC1 and 2, you bring it all back to the 2.25 seconds of freefall of WTC7... We were not talking about that, I understand it is the last refuge of the truth movement, but for that to be true ( the CD of WTC7, not the freefall), so does CD of 1 and 2. Oh and btw, they would have to have orchestrated the plane hijackings, but I won't even start on that one.
What does seem to go hand in hand, is as the more rediculous assertations of thruther theory have been ripped apart, they move and take refuge in the ones that seem harder to dispute, we started off with military planes, or drones replacing passenger planes and the passngers "liquidated" and a missile hitting the pentagon, which then was largely forgotten, and concertration fell on WTC1 and 2, then WTC 7, then the freefall. Press any truther, and they fall back to that one event of free fall. That is because of THE BIG FUCKING HOLES IN THE CD THEORY!
It's a shame you are so religious about it, and it's a shame you have got caught up in a cult, it's a good one though, it hooks a lot of people, and I feel sad and angry about that.
This is my last post, I am off on holiday, aftyer that I am having a long break from the interweb, I find too long exposure fries my brain. I have learnt a lot though, I have never read so many scientists papers, nor being the artisan i am, ever thought I would, but I feel like I have had a long drawn out game of chess, and to be honest, I have better things to do, you'll be glad to hear that I will no longer be debating truthers, so I guess in that sense you can claim a victory, and your welcome to it.
I wish you all the best in life, if we ever had have met, we might well have gotton on well.
bye bye.
Psy-ops
Bye Bye Psy
15.09.2010 00:04
You're a liar
You know shit all about structures
You know shit all about chemistry
You're wilfully ignorant
You have no idea of what the Scientific Method is.
You're exposed as a fraud, at best a useful idiot.
You're noy rational.
You're "diverting attention away from the real struggle", with your endless hand waving, and increasingly incoherent ramblings.
And you're full of shit
I've tried to explain this to you many times. I know that all 3 buildings were demolished because I know that buildings don't behave the way the Empirical science shows they behaved in a 'natural' (g only) collapse, some other energy is involved. Now you can begin to hypothesise as to where that energy comes from and look in the data to see if the hypothesis has any support in the data, the hypothesis that various forms of thermite were used is supported in the data, steel from WTC was sulphidised in the intergranular matrix and there's evidence of a eutectic forming, two reports confirm this, there is a JEM document and a FEMA appendix (which NIST removed from their final report with no good reason) which reports these findings, There is evidence in the dust of unreacted nano thermite (peer reviewed and published), there are iron rich pellets.
So the CD theory as you call it is AFAIC based on the Empirical observation of Free-fall and constant acceleration, which means another energy source is involved, the hypothesis is that the structure is being destroyed by heat energy supplied by the exothermic reaction of thermite based compounds, and mass is being moved out of the path of descent by kinetic energy being added in 'conventional' explosions.
So to test this hypothesis you look to the data. Were explosions heard? Yes. Were explosions seen? Yes. Is there evidence of large amounts of heat being produced? Yes. Is there evidence in the dust and steel that explosives and incendiaries were used? Yes. and so on.
That's the Scientific Method OK now if you're not going to abide by that then there is no point debating the Science with you, you don't know what Science is.
Empirical Fact
WTC7 Fell through itself at free-fall for 2.25 seconds.
How does a building fall through it's self for 2.25 seconds at free-fall Psy? That's the question you need to address. That's the question you always fail to address.
No_body