|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
Could Key West be a bike model for America?
"Henry" wrote in message ... Road Glidin' Don wrote: If you disagree with Henry about the twin towers being blown up by Bush to give an excuse for attacking Iraq, then you also "fear the message." Enjoy the taste of each other's medicine, boys. I don't believe that Bush blew up the towers. He's far too incompetent. These Mossad agents might know something about it, though. They were observed filming and celebrating the demolitions. They said they were there to document the event. [...] The idiotic blather continues to go on for several more paragraphs, but anyone who pays the slightest attention to a nut case like Henry is as nutty as he is. Henry is nothing but a Bush hater and conspiracy theorist. He probably believes in flying saucers too - and even sasquatch! Hey Henry, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn that is for sale! Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota |
Ads |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
Could Key West be a bike model for America?
"Bill Sornson" wrote
Vito wrote: "Had" as in yesterday or "had" as in 20 years ago? There is no doubt Saddam once had WMDs - he used them on Iranians and Kurds. But he was required to get rid of them all after the first Gulf War and there is no evidence he failed to comply. None have turned up despite careful searching. http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors...yellowcake.htm Yellowcake is *not* a WMD. Iraq has had the yellowcake mentioned for over 20 years and everybody, including CIA and UN inspectors knew about it - and nobody with a brain cared because one needs a reactor to turn it into weapons grade material. Are you old enough to remember what happened to Iraq's reactor? |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
Could Key West be a bike model for America?
"Bill Sornson" wrote
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors...yellowcake.htm Take your pills, your hands are trembling. |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
Could Key West be a bike model for America?
This thread was started by Comandante Banana, has Ed Dolan, dragged in
Sorni and his WMD idiocy, and attracted a 9/11 "Truth" nutcase. This could well be the most craptastic thing on Usenet, ever. You should read this on Google Groups. All craptasticles have hundreds of people rating you with one star ("poor, I would not recommend this post"). ComandanteBanana/KingOfTheApes/DonQuixote/etc. spreads them amongst his multiple personalities, but he's got hundreds. Dolan is banned from Google Groups so you can't see how many he's got, but you can see them all over every message he posts. Frankly I don't understand how people can slog through all this crap just to rate it badly! |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
OT Lunatic Fight Could Key West be a bike model for America?
On Nov 3, 3:35*pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
"KingOfTheApes" wrote in message ... On Nov 2, 9:05 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote: Maybe you guys could set up your own newsgroup. Then everyone who's interested in what you have to say will automatically be subscribed. |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
OT 9/11 "Truth" Conspiracy Theory Lunatic Could Key West be abike model for America?
On Nov 3, 5:45*pm, Henry wrote:
Hey lunatic, there's ALREADY a newsgroup for your interests. Go post there, where you'll actually be on topic. |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
Could Key West be a bike model for America?
Vito wrote:
"Henry" wrote I don't believe that Bush blew up the towers. He's far too incompetent. These Mossad agents might know something about it, though. That's illogical. No, it makes perfect sense, and it's factual. link restored These Mossad agents were observed filming and celebrating the demolitions. They said they were there to document the event. http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHART...eisraelis.html http://www.erichufschmid.net/TFC/Bol...-Israelis.html Muslim extremists, hostile to Saddam, perp'd the attack for their own reasons that had nothing to do with Iraq. You have not shred of evidence to support your conspiracy theory. The evidence that 9-11 was an inside job is solid and convincing to all but the most deluded conspiracy theorists. Tell us why you "think" Cheney would permit a known hijacked plane to enter the most heavy guarded airspace on the planet almost an hour after the first tower was hit. His stand down order resulted in a horrific loss of life and property. http://www.911truth.org/article_for_...70402105006226 3. Norman Mineta's mind-blowing testimony before the 9/11 Commission concerning the last fifty miles of flight of the plane that hit the Pentagon and Dick Cheney's orders about it, are matters of no apparent concern to Dunbar and Reagan. Thus, were one to rely on their telling, one would be unaware that Mineta was directed to the Presidential Emergency Operations Center in the White House sometime after the second plane hit the South Tower. One would not learn that he found Cheney in charge and being informed by a young man as to the path of the plane that hit the Pentagon. Nor would one know that Cheney was notified periodically that the plane was fifty miles out, thirty miles out, twenty, and ten. Avoiding the entire episode, Dunbar and Reagan obviously make no mention of the young manÂ?s inquiry of Cheney upon the final progress report, "Do the orders still stand"? Cheney's response, turning abruptly to the young man and asking pointedly if he (the young man) had heard anything to the contrary -- a fact of considerable importance for an understanding of the entire event -- therefore is not discussed in the pages of Debunking. As a consequence of this avoidance, one will find no examination of the ramifications of this testimony. One finds no query concerning the nature of the orders referred to, and no speculation concerning Pentagon defenses and their failure to deploy. There is no reference to the failure of the 9/11 Commission to find out who the young man was, or how many other people were in the room, and what their reactions were. There is no discussion of how the incident is simply eliminated from history by the adoption of an alternative chronology that contradicts a string of accounts and offers no explanation of why Norman Mineta, now holder of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, bestowed upon him by President Bush, would make up such an amazing tale or have such an elaborately embroidered faulty memory. None of these are matters for Dunbar and Reagan." http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/g...wayWithIt.html "The young man's reports to Cheney of the airliner's impending approach is followed by his urgent question whether "the orders still stand?" The young man was questioning the order. That question had to be about whether the order NOT to destroy the approaching plane still stood. Given the two prior attacks against the Twin Towers using the commercial airliners as weapons, an order to destroy the plane approaching the Pentagon would be the only order to give and would not be subject to question by the young man as the plane approached. Furthermore, had Cheney's order been to fire on the plane approaching the Pentagon (which first came near the White House), the anti-aircraft capacity of the Pentagon (or White House), would have sufficed to take out that plane, and certainly to have attempted to take out that plane. Since the Langley/Norfolk jets are at least 10 minutes away and out of range, Cheney's order is about the on-site Pentagon or White House defenses. Neither a shoot-down nor an attempted shoot-down occurred, and since Mineta does not speak of a last-second change in orders by Cheney, the only supportable conclusion is that Cheney's order was NOT to defend the Pentagon, an order so contrary to both common sense and military defense that it, and it alone, explains the questioning by the young man." http://www.911truth.org/article_for_...70402105006226 3. Norman Mineta's mind-blowing testimony before the 9/11 Commission concerning the last fifty miles of flight of the plane that hit the Pentagon and Dick Cheney's orders about it, are matters of no apparent concern to Dunbar and Reagan. Thus, were one to rely on their telling, one would be unaware that Mineta was directed to the Presidential Emergency Operations Center in the White House sometime after the second plane hit the South Tower. One would not learn that he found Cheney in charge and being informed by a young man as to the path of the plane that hit the Pentagon. Nor would one know that Cheney was notified periodically that the plane was fifty miles out, thirty miles out, twenty, and ten. Avoiding the entire episode, Dunbar and Reagan obviously make no mention of the young manÂ?s inquiry of Cheney upon the final progress report, "Do the orders still stand"? Cheney's response, turning abruptly to the young man and asking pointedly if he (the young man) had heard anything to the contrary -- a fact of considerable importance for an understanding of the entire event -- therefore is not discussed in the pages of Debunking. As a consequence of this avoidance, one will find no examination of the ramifications of this testimony. One finds no query concerning the nature of the orders referred to, and no speculation concerning Pentagon defenses and their failure to deploy. There is no reference to the failure of the 9/11 Commission to find out who the young man was, or how many other people were in the room, and what their reactions were. There is no discussion of how the incident is simply eliminated from history by the adoption of an alternative chronology that contradicts a string of accounts and offers no explanation of why Norman Mineta, now holder of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, bestowed upon him by President Bush, would make up such an amazing tale or have such an elaborately embroidered faulty memory. None of these are matters for Dunbar and Reagan." http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/g...wayWithIt.html "The young man's reports to Cheney of the airliner's impending approach is followed by his urgent question whether "the orders still stand?" The young man was questioning the order. That question had to be about whether the order NOT to destroy the approaching plane still stood. Given the two prior attacks against the Twin Towers using the commercial airliners as weapons, an order to destroy the plane approaching the Pentagon would be the only order to give and would not be subject to question by the young man as the plane approached. Furthermore, had Cheney's order been to fire on the plane approaching the Pentagon (which first came near the White House), the anti-aircraft capacity of the Pentagon (or White House), would have sufficed to take out that plane, and certainly to have attempted to take out that plane. Since the Langley/Norfolk jets are at least 10 minutes away and out of range, Cheney's order is about the on-site Pentagon or White House defenses. Neither a shoot-down nor an attempted shoot-down occurred, and since Mineta does not speak of a last-second change in orders by Cheney, the only supportable conclusion is that Cheney's order was NOT to defend the Pentagon, an order so contrary to both common sense and military defense that it, and it alone, explains the questioning by the young man." http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...xt=va&aid=8788 With regard to the morning of 9/11, everyone agrees that at some time after 9:03 (when the South Tower of the World Trade Center was struck) and before 10:00, Vice President Dick Cheney went down to the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC), sometimes simply called the “bunker,” under the east wing of the White House. Everyone also agrees that, once there, Cheney was in charge---that he was either making decisions or relaying decisions from President Bush. But there is enormous disagreement as to exactly when Cheney entered the PEOC. According to The 9/11 Commission Report, Cheney arrived “shortly before 10:00, perhaps at 9:58” (The 9/11 Commission Report [henceforth 9/11CR], 40). This official time, however, contradicts almost all previous reports, some of which had him there before 9:20. This difference is important because, if the 9/11 Commission’s time is correct, Cheney was not in charge in the PEOC when the Pentagon was struck, or for most of the period during which United Flight 93 was approaching Washington. But if the reports that have him there by 9:20 are correct, he was in charge in the PEOC all that time. Mineta’s Report of Cheney’s Early Arrival The most well-known statement contradicting the 9/11 Commission was made by Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta during his public testimony to the 9/11 Commission on May 23, 2003. Saying that he “arrived at the PEOC at about 9:20 AM,” Mineta reported that he then overheard part of an ongoing conversation, which had obviously begun before he arrived, between a young man and Vice President Cheney. This conversation was about a plane coming toward Washington and ended with Cheney confirming that “the orders still stand.” When Commissioner Timothy Roemer later asked Mineta how long after his arrival he overheard this conversation about whether the orders still stood, Mineta replied: “Probably about five or six minutes.” This would mean, Roemer pointed out, “about 9:25 or 9:26.” This is a remarkable contradiction. Given the fact that Cheney, according to Mineta, had been engaged in an ongoing exchange, he must have been in the PEOC for several minutes before Mineta’s 9:20 arrival. If Cheney had been there since 9:15, there would be a 43-minute contradiction between Mineta’s testimony and The 9/11 Commission Report. Why would such an enormous contradiction exist? One possible explanation would be that Mineta was wrong. His story, however, is in line with that of many other witnesses. Other Reports Supporting Cheney’s Early Arrival Richard Clarke reported that he, Cheney, and Condoleezza Rice had a brief meeting shortly after 9:03, following which the Secret Service wanted Cheney and Rice to go down to the PEOC. Rice, however, first went with Clarke to the White House’s Video Teleconferencing Center, where Clarke was to set up a video conference, which began at about 9:10. After spending a few minutes there, Rice said, according to Clarke: “You’re going to need some decisions quickly. I’m going to the PEOC to be with the Vice President. Tell us what you need.” At about 9:15, Norman Mineta arrived and Clarke “suggested he join the Vice President” (Against All Enemies, 2-5). Clarke thereby implied that Cheney was in the PEOC several minutes prior to 9:15. In an ABC News program on the first anniversary of 9/11, Cheney’s White House photographer David Bohrer reported that, shortly after 9:00, some Secret Service agents came into Cheney’s office and said, “Sir, you have to come with us.” During this same program, Rice said: “As I was trying to find all of the principals, the Secret Service came in and said, ‘You have to leave now for the bunker. The Vice President's already there. There may be a plane headed for the White House.’” ABC’s Charles Gibson then said: “In the bunker, the Vice President is joined by Rice and Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta” (“9/11: Interviews by Peter Jennings,” ABC News, September 11, 2002). The 9/11 Commission’s Late-Arrival Claim The 9/11 Commission agreed that the vice president was hustled down to the PEOC after word was received that a plane was headed towards the White House. It claimed, however, that this word was not received until 9:33. But even then, according to the Commission, the Secret Service agents immediately received another message, telling them that the aircraft had turned away, so “[n]o move was made to evacuate the Vice President at this time.” It was not until “just before 9:36” that the Secret Service ordered Cheney to go below (9/11CR 39). But even after he entered the underground corridor at 9:37, Cheney did not immediately go to the PEOC. Rather: Once inside, Vice President Cheney and the agents paused in an area of the tunnel that had a secure phone, a bench, and television. The Vice President asked to speak to the President, but it took time for the call to be connected. He learned in the tunnel that the Pentagon had been hit, and he saw television coverage of the smoke coming from the building. (9/11CR 40) Next, after Lynne Cheney “joined her husband in the tunnel,” the Commission claimed, “Mrs. Cheney and the Vice President moved from the tunnel to the shelter conference room” after the call ended, which was not until after 9:55. As for Rice, the Commission added, she “entered the conference room shortly after the Vice President” (9/11CR 40). The contradiction could not be clearer. According to the Commission, Cheney, far from entering the PEOC before 9:20, as Mineta and others said, did not arrive there until about 9:58, 20 minutes after the 9:38 strike on the Pentagon, about which he had learned in the corridor. Cheney’s Account on Meet the Press The 9/11 Commission’s account even contradicted that given by Cheney himself in a well-known interview. Speaking to Tim Russert on NBC’s Meet the Press only five days after 9/11, Cheney said: “[A]fter I talked to the president, . . . I went down into . . . the Presidential Emergency Operations Center. . . . [W]hen I arrived there within a short order, we had word the Pentagon's been hit.” Cheney himself, therefore, indicated that he had entered the PEOC prior to the (9:38) strike on the Pentagon, not 20 minutes after it, as the Commission would later claim. Dealing with the Contradictions How did the 9/11 Commission deal with the fact that its claim about the time of Cheney’s arrival in the PEOC had been contradicted by Bohrer, Clarke, Mineta, Rice, several news reports, and even Cheney himself? It simply omitted any mention of these contradictory reports. Of these omissions, the most important was the Commission’s failure to mention Norman Mineta’s testimony, even though it was given to the Commission in an open hearing---as can be seen by reading the transcript of that session (May 23, 2003). This portion of Mineta’s testimony was also deleted from the official version of the video record of the 9/11 Commission hearings in the 9/11 Commission archives. (It can, however, be viewed on the Internet.) During an interview for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in 2006, Hamilton was asked what “Mineta told the Commission about where Dick Cheney was prior to 10 AM.” Hamilton replied: “I do not recall” (“9/11: Truth, Lies and Conspiracy: Interview: Lee Hamilton,” CBC News, 21 August 2006). It was surprising that Hamilton could not recall, because he had been the one doing the questioning when Mineta told the story of the young man’s conversation with Cheney. Hamilton, moreover, had begun his questioning by saying to Mineta: “You were there [in the PEOC] for a good part of the day. I think you were there with the Vice President.” And Mineta’s exchange with Timothy Roemer, during which it was established that Mineta had arrived at about 9:20, came immediately after Hamilton’s interrogation. And yet Hamilton, not being able to recall any of this, simply said, “we think that Vice President Cheney entered the bunker shortly before 10 o’clock.” Obliterating Mineta’s Problematic Testimony To see possible motives for the 9/11 Commission’s efforts to obliterate Mineta’s story from the public record, we need to look at the conversation he reported to the Commission. He said: During the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President, “The plane is 50 miles out.” “The plane is 30 miles out.” And when it got down to “the plane is 10 miles out,” the young man also said to the Vice President, “Do the orders still stand?” And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said, “Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?” Mineta’s story had dangerous implications with regard to the strike on the Pentagon, which occurred at 9:38. According to the 9/11 Commission, the military did not know that an aircraft was approaching the Pentagon until 9:36, so that it “had at most one or two minutes to react to the unidentified plane approaching Washington” (9/11CR 34). That claim was essential for explaining, among other things, why the Pentagon had not been evacuated before it was struck---a fact that resulted in 125 deaths. A spokesperson for Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, when asked why this evacuation had not occurred, said: “The Pentagon was simply not aware that this aircraft was coming our way” (Newsday, Sept. 23, 2001). Mineta’s testimony implied, by contrast, that Cheney and others knew that an aircraft was approaching Washington about 12 minutes before that strike. Even more problematic was the question of the nature of “the orders.” Mineta assumed, he said, that they were orders to have the plane shot down. But the aircraft was not shot down. Also, the expected orders, especially on a day when two hijacked airliners had already crashed into buildings in New York, would have been to shoot down any nonmilitary aircraft entering the “prohibited” airspace over Washington, in which “civilian flying is prohibited at all times” (“Pilots Notified of Restricted Airspace; Violators Face Military Action,” FAA Press Release, September 28, 2001). If those orders had been given, there would have been no reason to ask if they still stood. The question made sense only if the orders were to do something unusual---not to shoot the aircraft down. It appeared, accordingly, that Mineta had inadvertently reported Cheney’s confirmation of stand-down orders. That Mineta’s report was regarded as dangerous is suggested by the fact that the 9/11 Commission, besides deleting Mineta’s testimony and delaying Cheney’s entrance to the bunker by approximately 45 minutes, also replaced Mineta’s story with a new story about an incoming aircraft. According to The 9/11 Commission Report, here is what really happened: At 10:02, the communicators in the shelter began receiving reports from the Secret Service of an inbound aircraft. . . . At some time between 10:10 and 10:15, a military aide told the Vice President and others that the aircraft was 80 miles out. Vice President Cheney was asked for authority to engage the aircraft. . . . The Vice President authorized fighter aircraft to engage the inbound plane. . . . The military aide returned a few minutes later, probably between 10:12 and 10:18, and said the aircraft was 60 miles out. He again asked for authorization to engage. The Vice President again said yes. (9/11CR 41) The 9/11 Commission thereby presented the incoming aircraft story as one that ended with an order for a shoot down, not a stand down. And by having it occur after 10:10, the Commission not only disassociated it from the Pentagon strike but also ruled out the possibility that Cheney’s shootdown authorization might have led to the downing of United Flight 93 (which crashed, according to the Commission, at 10:03). Given the fact that the 9/11 Commission’s account of Cheney’s descent to the bunker contradicted the testimony of not only Norman Mineta but also many other witnesses, including Cheney himself, Congress and the press need to launch investigations to determine what really happened. -- They must find it difficult - those who have taken authority as the Truth, rather than Truth as the authority. - G. Massey http://911research.wtc7.net http://stj911.org http://stopthelie.com/1-hour_guide_to_911.html http://www.911truth.org Here's what happens to steel framed buildings exposed to raging infernos for hours on end. http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html On 9-11-01, WTC7, a 47 story steel framed building, which had only small, random fires, dropped in perfect symmetry at near free fall speed as in a perfectly executed controlled demolition. http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html http://911research.wtc7.net http://stj911.org http://stopthelie.com/1-hour_guide_to_911.html http://www.911truth.org Ever wonder who benefits from the 700 MILLION U.S. taxpayer dollars spent each DAY in Iraq? http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0223-08.htm http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=21 "They are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to take... men with blind hatred and armed with lethal weapons who are capable of any atrocity... they respect no laws of warfare or morality." -bu$h describing his own illegal invasion of Iraq. http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm http://www.commondreams.org/ http://thirdworldtraveler.com/ "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." -- Martin Luther King Jr. "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918) Don't let bu$h do to the United States what his very close friend and top campaign contributor, Ken Lay, did to Enron... "The new America, born in sin and arrogance, delusional in Manifest Destiny, bred in overabundant gluttony, consumerist and materialist, fathered by George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and the Cabal of Criminality, a country flocked by sheeple, ignorant and conditioned, indifferent to a world growing up around it, living delusions of empire and of omnipotence, building hatred against it and its policies throughout the planet, slowly dumbing down its citizens, losing its edge in the sciences and arts, producing a nation of acquiescent automatons brainwashed to never question authority and always faithfully follow the crimes of governance." - Manuel Valenzuela |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
Could Key West be a bike model for America?
Edward Dolan wrote:
The idiotic blather continues to go on for several more paragraphs Thanks for the heads up, Eddy. We won't bother to read the rest of your kook rant. Why do you suppose a tape recording of conversations with air traffic controllers on duty the morning of 9-11 would be intentionally destroyed? This was the probably worst crime in U.S. history. Don't you think destroying valuable evidence is a bad idea? http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artm...9/4392/printer F.A.A. Official Scrapped Tape of 9/11 Controllers' Statements By Matthew L. Wald The New York Times Thursday 06 May 2004 WASHINGTON - At least six air traffic controllers who dealt with two of the hijacked airliners on Sept. 11, 2001, made a tape recording that day describing the events, but the tape was destroyed by a supervisor without anyone making a transcript or even listening to it, the Transportation Department said today. http://www.journalof911studies.com/v...impossible.pdf 9/11 and the Twin Towers: Sudden Collapse Initiation was Impossible By Frank Legge, PhD (Chemistry) and Tony Szamboti, Mechanical Engineer 23 Dec 2007 Numerous arguments have been presented that the Twin Towers at the World Trade Centre could not have collapsed in the observed manner due to the cause asserted in the NIST report, namely damage from plane impact and fire. 1 The bases of these arguments include the rapidity and symmetry of collapse, 2 the adequacy of the steel supports, 3 and the finding of incendiary residues in the dust. 4 It has also been argued that the initiating event in the official explanation, the sudden collapse of one storey, 1 could not have occurred because the steel was not hot enough. 5 This argument is based on data set out in the NIST report itself. There is another argument, as will be described here, that is based simply on the behaviour of hot steel under load. No calculations are involved and no knowledge of the temperature of the steel is required. In the official explanation the collapse occurs in two stages. In the first stage one storey, damaged by plane impact and fire, suddenly collapses. This allows the section of the tower above to fall freely down and hit the lower section. In the second stage the energy of this impact is said to be sufficient to cause the top of the lower section to disintegrate. This material adds to the falling mass and further impacts cause disintegration to continue in a rapid sequence all the way to the ground.6 Let us consider the situation just prior to the first stage. There are some damaged columns, some fire, and a claimed ack of fireproofing. Given the substantial safety factor in the building design, the number of damaged columns is far too few to put the buildings at risk without the fire. This is elaborated on in the NIST report and elsewhere.1, 7 We will ignore the fact that according to the physical evidence data within the body of the NIST report, and contrary to its conclusion, the steel did not get very hot. We will assume the strongest case for the official theory: the fire was uniform over the whole area and very hot. The fire has to heat the steel, which takes time. Eventually the steel gets hot enough that it cannot carry the load in the initiating storey. It starts to sag. At this point there has been no disruption of the columns, other than that caused by the plane impact, hence most of the columns are still attached to the floors above and below and are continuous, passing up and down into other storeys, giving the columns rigidity. The length of the columns between attachments is too short for buckling to occur. 8 Failure must therefore be by compression. As the steel sags two things will happen: the columns, as they shorten, will become wider, which is obvious; and the inherent strength of the steel will increase, which is not obvious. It is well established however that the yield strength of steel increases as the degree of distortion increases. This tendency increases with rising temperature and is pronounced at the temperatures required for collapse, as can be seen in the graph below. 9 For both of these reasons the initial sag cannot be catastrophic but will be very slow and the rate will depend on the rate of heat input. A rising temperature will be needed to offset both the significant increase in yield strength and the slight increase in cross-section area, if collapse is to progress. It is clear therefore that the upper section should only have moved down slowly and only continued to do so if additional heat was supplied. A slow, protracted, and sagging collapse was not observed however with either tower. As observed in videos of both tower collapses, the upper sections suddenly start to fall and disintegrate.10 In the case of the south tower, initially a lean of the upper section developed but within the first second this turned into a rapid collapse with upper section disintegration, just as was observed with the north tower. It appears therefore that the official concept of a free fall collapse of the upper portion through the initiation storey, due to heat effects from fire, is a fantasy. If the temperature did become high enough for collapse to occur it could not have happened in the observed manner. 9 In particular it could not have been sudden and thus could not have produced the velocity, and hence the momentum and kinetic energy, upon which the official story depends for the second stage of collapse. In contrast, all observations are in accord with the use of explosives in a timed sequence. The case that the NIST report must be corrected is confirmed. If this report is not corrected the suspicion will remain that its purpose was not so much to inform as to deceive. -- They must find it difficult - those who have taken authority as the Truth, rather than Truth as the authority. - G. Massey http://911research.wtc7.net http://stj911.org http://stopthelie.com/1-hour_guide_to_911.html http://www.911truth.org Here's what happens to steel framed buildings exposed to raging infernos for hours on end. http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html On 9-11-01, WTC7, a 47 story steel framed building, which had only small, random fires, dropped in perfect symmetry at near free fall speed as in a perfectly executed controlled demolition. http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html http://911research.wtc7.net http://stj911.org http://stopthelie.com/1-hour_guide_to_911.html http://www.911truth.org Ever wonder who benefits from the 700 MILLION U.S. taxpayer dollars spent each DAY in Iraq? http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0223-08.htm http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=21 "They are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to take... men with blind hatred and armed with lethal weapons who are capable of any atrocity... they respect no laws of warfare or morality." -bu$h describing his own illegal invasion of Iraq. http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm http://www.commondreams.org/ http://thirdworldtraveler.com/ "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." -- Martin Luther King Jr. "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918) Don't let bu$h do to the United States what his very close friend and top campaign contributor, Ken Lay, did to Enron... "The new America, born in sin and arrogance, delusional in Manifest Destiny, bred in overabundant gluttony, consumerist and materialist, fathered by George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and the Cabal of Criminality, a country flocked by sheeple, ignorant and conditioned, indifferent to a world growing up around it, living delusions of empire and of omnipotence, building hatred against it and its policies throughout the planet, slowly dumbing down its citizens, losing its edge in the sciences and arts, producing a nation of acquiescent automatons brainwashed to never question authority and always faithfully follow the crimes of governance." - Manuel Valenzuela |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
Could Key West be a bike model for America?
The Older Clown timidly cowered and lied:
He's another of life's failures: desperate to prove that he really "knows" more than the academic community at Cornell who employed him to keep their floors clean. It takes a "special" sort of imbecile to hide behind its killfile while it spews blatant lies about its betters. The older clown is precisely such a cowardly, self loathing clown. Would that we all could have such comical, self abusing, impotent "critics". chuckle http://www.journalof911studies.com/v...impossible.pdf 9/11 and the Twin Towers: Sudden Collapse Initiation was Impossible By Frank Legge, PhD (Chemistry) and Tony Szamboti, Mechanical Engineer 23 Dec 2007 Numerous arguments have been presented that the Twin Towers at the World Trade Centre could not have collapsed in the observed manner due to the cause asserted in the NIST report, namely damage from plane impact and fire. 1 The bases of these arguments include the rapidity and symmetry of collapse, 2 the adequacy of the steel supports, 3 and the finding of incendiary residues in the dust. 4 It has also been argued that the initiating event in the official explanation, the sudden collapse of one storey, 1 could not have occurred because the steel was not hot enough. 5 This argument is based on data set out in the NIST report itself. There is another argument, as will be described here, that is based simply on the behaviour of hot steel under load. No calculations are involved and no knowledge of the temperature of the steel is required. In the official explanation the collapse occurs in two stages. In the first stage one storey, damaged by plane impact and fire, suddenly collapses. This allows the section of the tower above to fall freely down and hit the lower section. In the second stage the energy of this impact is said to be sufficient to cause the top of the lower section to disintegrate. This material adds to the falling mass and further impacts cause disintegration to continue in a rapid sequence all the way to the ground.6 Let us consider the situation just prior to the first stage. There are some damaged columns, some fire, and a claimed ack of fireproofing. Given the substantial safety factor in the building design, the number of damaged columns is far too few to put the buildings at risk without the fire. This is elaborated on in the NIST report and elsewhere.1, 7 We will ignore the fact that according to the physical evidence data within the body of the NIST report, and contrary to its conclusion, the steel did not get very hot. We will assume the strongest case for the official theory: the fire was uniform over the whole area and very hot. The fire has to heat the steel, which takes time. Eventually the steel gets hot enough that it cannot carry the load in the initiating storey. It starts to sag. At this point there has been no disruption of the columns, other than that caused by the plane impact, hence most of the columns are still attached to the floors above and below and are continuous, passing up and down into other storeys, giving the columns rigidity. The length of the columns between attachments is too short for buckling to occur. 8 Failure must therefore be by compression. As the steel sags two things will happen: the columns, as they shorten, will become wider, which is obvious; and the inherent strength of the steel will increase, which is not obvious. It is well established however that the yield strength of steel increases as the degree of distortion increases. This tendency increases with rising temperature and is pronounced at the temperatures required for collapse, as can be seen in the graph below. 9 For both of these reasons the initial sag cannot be catastrophic but will be very slow and the rate will depend on the rate of heat input. A rising temperature will be needed to offset both the significant increase in yield strength and the slight increase in cross-section area, if collapse is to progress. It is clear therefore that the upper section should only have moved down slowly and only continued to do so if additional heat was supplied. A slow, protracted, and sagging collapse was not observed however with either tower. As observed in videos of both tower collapses, the upper sections suddenly start to fall and disintegrate.10 In the case of the south tower, initially a lean of the upper section developed but within the first second this turned into a rapid collapse with upper section disintegration, just as was observed with the north tower. It appears therefore that the official concept of a free fall collapse of the upper portion through the initiation storey, due to heat effects from fire, is a fantasy. If the temperature did become high enough for collapse to occur it could not have happened in the observed manner. 9 In particular it could not have been sudden and thus could not have produced the velocity, and hence the momentum and kinetic energy, upon which the official story depends for the second stage of collapse. In contrast, all observations are in accord with the use of explosives in a timed sequence. The case that the NIST report must be corrected is confirmed. If this report is not corrected the suspicion will remain that its purpose was not so much to inform as to deceive. -- They must find it difficult - those who have taken authority as the Truth, rather than Truth as the authority. - G. Massey http://911research.wtc7.net http://stj911.org http://stopthelie.com/1-hour_guide_to_911.html http://www.911truth.org Here's what happens to steel framed buildings exposed to raging infernos for hours on end. http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html On 9-11-01, WTC7, a 47 story steel framed building, which had only small, random fires, dropped in perfect symmetry at near free fall speed as in a perfectly executed controlled demolition. http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html http://911research.wtc7.net http://stj911.org http://stopthelie.com/1-hour_guide_to_911.html http://www.911truth.org Ever wonder who benefits from the 700 MILLION U.S. taxpayer dollars spent each DAY in Iraq? http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0223-08.htm http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=21 "They are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to take... men with blind hatred and armed with lethal weapons who are capable of any atrocity... they respect no laws of warfare or morality." -bu$h describing his own illegal invasion of Iraq. http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm http://www.commondreams.org/ http://thirdworldtraveler.com/ "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." -- Martin Luther King Jr. "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918) Don't let bu$h do to the United States what his very close friend and top campaign contributor, Ken Lay, did to Enron... "The new America, born in sin and arrogance, delusional in Manifest Destiny, bred in overabundant gluttony, consumerist and materialist, fathered by George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and the Cabal of Criminality, a country flocked by sheeple, ignorant and conditioned, indifferent to a world growing up around it, living delusions of empire and of omnipotence, building hatred against it and its policies throughout the planet, slowly dumbing down its citizens, losing its edge in the sciences and arts, producing a nation of acquiescent automatons brainwashed to never question authority and always faithfully follow the crimes of governance." - Manuel Valenzuela |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
Could Key West be a bike model for America?
Road Glidin' Don wrote:
If you disagree with Henry about the twin towers being blown up by Bush to give an excuse for attacking Iraq, then you also "fear the message." Enjoy the taste of each other's medicine, boys. I don't believe that Bush blew up the towers. He's far too incompetent. These Mossad agents might know something about it, though. They were observed filming and celebrating the demolitions. They said they were there to document the event. http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHART...eisraelis.html http://www.erichufschmid.net/TFC/Bol...-Israelis.html Also, we have evidence that Cheney gave a stand down order as flight 77 approached the Pentagon. It's quite a stretch to believe that a known hijacked 757 would be permitted to fly into the most heavily guarded air space on the planet an hour *after* the first tower was hit. http://www.journalof911studies.com/l...tagonOn911.pdf The meek, slight man who allegedly forced a burly Vietnam era Fighter pilot to hand over his plane and then proceeded to perform high speed aerobatics over the Pentagon couldn't even fly a Cessna. http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/...badpilots.html But of course, these are facts and evidence that bearded cave man cartoon conspiracy theorists are incapable of discussing, because they show that 9-11 was an inside job. There's something "special" about a conspiracy theorist who isn't able to explain or discuss his own conspiracy.... ;-) -- http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.911truth.org Here's what happens to steel framed buildings exposed to raging infernos for hours on end. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/anal...are/fires.html http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html On 9-11-01, WTC7, a 47 story steel framed building, which had only small, random fires, dropped in perfect symmetry at near free fall speed as in a perfectly executed controlled demolition. http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html http://wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5.htm Ever wonder who benefits from the 700 MILLION U.S. taxpayer dollars spent each DAY in Iraq? http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0223-08.htm http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=21 "They are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to take... men with blind hatred and armed with lethal weapons who are capable of any atrocity... they respect no laws of warfare or morality." -bu$h describing his own illegal invasion of Iraq. http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm http://www.commondreams.org/ http://thirdworldtraveler.com/ "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." -- Martin Luther King Jr. "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918) Don't let bu$h do to the United States what his very close friend and top campaign contributor, Ken Lay, did to Enron... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Could Key West be a bike model for America? | KingOfTheApes | General | 196 | November 27th 08 04:57 AM |
Could Key West be a bike model for America? | KingOfTheApes | Social Issues | 191 | November 27th 08 04:57 AM |
TT: 1. Deutschland Uber Alles 2. America 3. America | Ted van de Weteringe | Racing | 4 | September 25th 08 07:26 PM |
These mp3 interviews -Air America -Know why there is about to be civil war in America. A MUST LISTEN | harbinger | Australia | 17 | June 4th 06 12:16 AM |
Cannondale R500 (2004 model) or R700 (2005 model) | slakemoth | General | 1 | July 22nd 05 07:37 PM |