Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » A Bush president problem (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: A Bush president problem
wakeup
Member
Member # 3081

 - posted      Profile for wakeup   Email wakeup       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[DOH] hello everybody in America
did you know that the 911 was mass murder
do you know how building 7 went down
do you know that fire does not bring down any steel building??
anyone?

Posts: 45 | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hello everybody in Crazyland.

Ever heard of a daydream? They happen when you are awake. [Exploding]

KE

[ October 03, 2006, 06:30 AM: Message edited by: KnightEnder ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh, and I was laughing so hard I forgot:

Welcome to Ornery. You are wrong. (It would be rude and possibly against the rules to say "crazy".)

Do you have any facts to back this crazy theory up? <he can't believe he asks> (Oh, and so you don't think we are inconsistent; It is within the rules to say your statement is crazy.)

PS, I've seen fire melt steel.

KE

[ October 03, 2006, 06:31 AM: Message edited by: KnightEnder ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Just fire? No. a huge physical impact AND an explosion AND an extremely hot fire? another story.
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
wakeup
Member
Member # 3081

 - posted      Profile for wakeup   Email wakeup       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
no fire has ever destroyed a building
plus buildings dont just fall down
you all know that
has anyone ever questioned 911
and looked up the facts first
if confused read line one
bush is the killer
or are you that stupid (e.g AMERICAN)
facts only please
don't waste my time

Posts: 45 | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
msquared
Member
Member # 113

 - posted      Profile for msquared   Email msquared   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
He is right. Fire did not bring down the building.

Gravity did.

Fire just weakened the steel so much that it could not support the weight any more.

I keep hearing these stories about how jet fuel does not burn at a hot enough temp to melt steel. That leaves out two important things.

First, it just had to burn hot enought to light other things on fire which do burn hotter.

Second, no one ever said that the steel melted. It just got hot enough to be able to deform. That is a much lower temp. Any one ever watch a black smith work? The metal he is pounding away at is not melted, but it still deforms under pressure( hammer and anvil).

msquared

Posts: 4002 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
wakeup
Member
Member # 3081

 - posted      Profile for wakeup   Email wakeup       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
AGAIN
no fire has ever destroyed a steel building
does anyone care to speculate how building
7 went down
has anyone looked at the footage?
looks like domolition explosives to me
think look and think again

Posts: 45 | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
wakeup
Member
Member # 3081

 - posted      Profile for wakeup   Email wakeup       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The most effective, cleanest, safest way to destroy a skyscraper is known as controlled demolition. The trick is to distribute explosives at key points throughout the structure. The explosives are detonated simultaneously, destroying the integrity of the steel frame at key points, such that no part of the building is supported against the force of gravity. The entire mass is pulled swiftly to earth, where gravity does the work of pounding the structure into tiny fragments of steel and concrete. The gravitational potential energy of the structure is converted smoothly and uniformly into kinetic energy, and then is available very efficiently to pulverize the fragments of the building as they impact against the unyielding earth. Controlled demolitions have a striking and characteristic appearance of smooth, flowing collapse
Posts: 45 | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
wakeup
Member
Member # 3081

 - posted      Profile for wakeup   Email wakeup       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[DOH]
so that leads me back to your lovely president
who killed 3000 people
any comebacks???

Posts: 45 | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sfallmann
Member
Member # 2148

 - posted      Profile for sfallmann   Email sfallmann   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I live in NY and took the N\R train up to work from downtown - I got on at Rector St. I got off the bus and was heading towards the subway when the s**t hit the fan. I witnessed the whole thing. Planes hit the buildings. Smoke poured out. Then they collapsed.

I supose your conspiracy theory not supported by the facts contrary to what thousands of eye witnesses saw trumps everything.

Posts: 396 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
any comebacks???
Well, you're an ignorant idiot who has yet to submit any facts, apparently unaware that we're all familiar here with the ridiculous conspiracy theories involving 9/11. And you're apparently not an American, although no less stupid for that.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom Curtis
Member
Member # 2730

 - posted      Profile for Tom Curtis   Email Tom Curtis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Just the facts, Ma'am"

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm#_Toc144445987

I note that the various conspiracy theories require that the WTC collapsed due to controlled demolition. Controlled demolition procedes from the bottom. The first part of the building to collapse is the bottom floor, with the structure above remaining largely intact until it too hits the ground.

In contrast, the twin towers very clearly collapse from the top down. More specifically, the floors above the impact sites collapse down to the level of the impact sites, and then the rest of the buildings progressively collapsed downward from those sites. The is clearly visible in videos of the collapse.

This fact alone is sufficient refutation of the conspiracy theories about the WTC collapse.

Posts: 1208 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"wakeup" hasn't told us who did it and why. That should enlighten us further about him.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
This fact alone is sufficient refutation of the conspiracy theories about the WTC collapse.
Only if you are a crazy,stupid American! [Big Grin]

I love it when new friends come to play. [Smile]

Adam

Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The automatic repititions of the [doh!] emoticon do not add credibility to certain questions that are nonetheless intriguing.

I've looked over much of the data. It's one thing to assert that weakened steel produced a sequence of 'pancake' collapse. It's another to note that the time it took for these pancake collapses was scarcely more than that of an object in freefall. What happened to the necessary reduction in velocity caused by the absorption of energy via impact? (I am not up to the math without spending enormous energy trainig myself to learn and perform the operations, but I would think that slo-mo analysis of the many footages of the towers' collapse should at least reveal a quantum incrementalism as the towers fell, which should consist of at least two aspects: a) a momentary halt then resumption of veocity as each floor collapsed, and b) an increase of velocity with each collapse of each additional floor, for the inertia would grow with each collapse via increase of mass while gravity, of course, remained constant.)

I also note that weakened steel collapses by deformation before severance occurs.. Deformation creates lateral distortion. The weakened steel bends around itself. Likewise, rupture by impact creates lateral disruption. In a series of sequential collapses (story upon story upon story, pun unintended but nonetheless apt), energy pulling in a straight line (gravity) encountering massive resistance (steel weakened by heat and, later, steel sundered by enormous inertia), some deviation from plumb should occur. This is why, I presume, demolotion experts takes such extraordinary pains to synchronize and collimate controlled demolitions so that they "have a striking and characteristic appearance of smooth, flowing collapse".

Otherwise, I believe, the structure would succumb to a leaning tower of Pisa unruliness and fall elsewhere than through its ass into the basement commode.

A friend of mine whose intelligence and integrity I admire and trust, told me that all buildings fall like that naturally. I challenged this 'just because'. Let's say I was channeling the spirit of javelin: cite me some references, eh?

He hasn't referred to the matter since. I haven't pursued it with him or search engines yet. I think his basic assertion makes sense. Modern buildings have a skeleton of steel and concrete that tends to absorb lateral collapse stresses and average them into a generaly straightdownward.

When, however, it is the very skeleton itself that is suddenly collapsing in one effectively continuous motion, and when the collapse happens in a structure whose ratio of vertical ascent to horizontal base is easily 10 to 1 and probably closer to double that, it seems far more likely to me that a 'natural' collapse would create significant 'lateral stray'.

In this case, since the building fell from the top down rather than from the bottom, this lateral stray would not be inclined (pun alert) to cause the building itself to list, to lean, but rather, the collapsing mass from the top would tend to slip, to slide, away from a top-dead-center-straight-down line of descent and fall away from itself. In other words, the collapsing upper mass has every reason to do anything BUT fall straight and true toward the bottom but, instead, to 'fall off itself'.

Left to natural causes, I think it likely that the towers would have only partially collapsed along the lines of their columns, and that their upper falling masses would have slid 'off track', tipped sideways, and perhaps toppled onto nearby structures, creating even more building collapses.

The fact that questions about the collapse of these buildings tend to be bifurcated into a) 'official' versions and b) 'conspiracy' versions is a typical victory of gossip/group think over scientific investigation.

The question is 'what *really* happened', not 'which of two hypothetical explanations are true', for either version may well be false.

Putting pure speculatory ignorant layman physics aside, and returning to more human concepts, I note that the forensics investigations involving 911 were pathetic, largely because the evidence was whisked off and buried as fasr as possible. I forget whether this was despite the protests of forensics entities or not. I suspect it was. So much protest was drowned out during those early weeks and months of murning and posturing and fear-mongering and aerial bombings and that eerie sound in the background distance of lock-step SUVs cruising in formation...

The likes of vulture and others are better equipped by far than I am to assess then physics. But that there was a suppression of inquiry ino the roots of 911 is not a controversial statement; it is a fact of the historical record.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paladine
Member
Member # 1932

 - posted      Profile for Paladine   Email Paladine   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Don't feed the troll.
Posts: 3235 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I have troll blood in me. Ancient lineage via Appalachian rednecks with lines going through Patrick Henry, George Washington, and other scruffy no-counts.

Don't shoot the messenger. Nor patronise. Nor feed. (Besides, trolls will only eat flesh they've torn from a carcass -- living or dead.)

But let us consider the subject of the message. We feel free around here to second guess foreign poicy including the use of nukes and the reassigned imposition of boundaries upon sovereign foreign nations.

Why not ponder a bit of physics?

[ October 03, 2006, 10:55 AM: Message edited by: kenmeer livermaile ]

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Colin JM0397
Member
Member # 916

 - posted      Profile for Colin JM0397   Email Colin JM0397   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
G'day, mate. But it's hardly a Pres Bush problem.

This is 2 hours long, but pretty interesting:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=964034652002408586&q=9-11+professor&hl=en

This is a BYU Physics professor looking at things as a physicist, not following the typical “conspiracy theory” line of thought. Plain physics and why things don’t add up.

As our new friend asked - this Prof points to WTC 7 as the biggest enigma. Why and how did it come down? Answer that one, and it gives some insight into WTC 1 and 2. The owner of the property was recorded on camera later that day or on the 12th that WTC 7 was "pulled". Why'd he say that? How could he even say that mistakenly?

"But I can only show you the door. You're the one that has to walk through it."

Addition: if you can't stand to watch the whole "crazy thing", there's a quick clip of WTC 7 collapsing around minute 1... So some debris and fire did that?

[ October 03, 2006, 11:07 AM: Message edited by: jm0397 ]

Posts: 4738 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cperry
Member
Member # 1938

 - posted      Profile for cperry   Email cperry   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
what is building 7?
Posts: 2782 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cperry
Member
Member # 1938

 - posted      Profile for cperry   Email cperry   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And by the way, does that question immediately highlight me as a total ignoramus?
Posts: 2782 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"And by the way, does that question immediately highlight me as a total ignoramus?"

Only if you claim to know any more about the events of 911 than the average bloke knows.

Building 7 is a building separate from but nearby the towers that also collapsed in perfectly symmetrical near-free fall manner on 9-11-01. No planes struck it nor was it full of burning aviation fuel. Official explanations barely pass the plausibility test for a comic book disaster.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Colin JM0397
Member
Member # 916

 - posted      Profile for Colin JM0397   Email Colin JM0397   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
3 buildings fell that day.

WTC 7 had some superficial external damage on the corner nearest WTC 1, IIRC, and some minor fires (from what I can see in the videos).

No modern building has even before or since failed from a fire (the official explanation)... not just failed in a way that looks like a controlled demolition, never failed from a fire period. Never before. Not from raging fires that gutted entire buildings, let alone superficial damage and minor fires.

Don't even worry about WTC 1 & 2... If WTC 7 was a controlled demolition, that opens a huge can of worms.

Some of you will look at this and begin wondering what happened. Most of you won’t even bother to look at the possible evidence. Even if you look at it, you’ll explain it away because the implications of what it means are just too heavy.

Posts: 4738 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cperry
Member
Member # 1938

 - posted      Profile for cperry   Email cperry   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Egads, I'm dumb. Thanks.
Posts: 2782 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Some of you will look at this and begin wondering what happened. Most of you won’t even bother to look at the possible evidence. Even if you look at it, you’ll explain it away because the implications of what it means are just too heavy."

A bit of advice in the form of a comparative observation:

in the phone survey work I do, almost all interviews are begun with a paragraph that stresses how we are NOT selling or soliciting. THis is to distinguish us from telemarketers and show that we are no subject to the national Do Not Call registry.

I never say this (except for one client who INSISTS we do).

Why? Someone who has a legitimate purpose doesn't declare it by assuarances that their purpose isn't or is legitimate. They just get on with it.

I think the same principle applies to asking folks to consider evidence that may be troubling. Telling them it may be troubling, that they may decide to look away, doesn no good and probably some damage.

In asking folks to think for themselves, one should let them think for themselves whether they want to, or are, or believe they are, thinking for themselves.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It is considerably easier for me to believe that we're missing a piece of physical evidence that would explain a tower's collapse than to believe that our government a) conspired to kill thousands of innocent American citizens to start a war and b) managed to keep it a secret.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ssci
Member
Member # 1053

 - posted      Profile for ssci   Email ssci   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Didn't the 2 tall towers collapse from the points of aircraft impact? I have not seen any footage lately but that is how I remember the events. How can that be tied to controlled demolition?
Posts: 442 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Colin JM0397
Member
Member # 916

 - posted      Profile for Colin JM0397   Email Colin JM0397   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Good point, KL, but I'm not telling them anything - merely calling it like I've seen it.

I know I'm not swaying anyone either way, so perhaps I will take your advice in the future...

Tom, of course that's possible and another feasible explanation.
However, the ruble and "evidence" was very quickly destroyed and the official reports seem to be beyond weak...???

Posts: 4738 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If WTC 7 was a controlled demolition, that opens a huge can of worms.
Who says the government had anything to do with this? Has anyone asked the owners of the building?

Or, as the old joke goes:

Two businessmen meet on the street.

"Hey, Earl, how's business?"

"Oh, I'm retired now," says Earl. "We had a terrible fire, and I just took the insurance money."

"Hey, me, too," says Jake. "We had a terrible flood, and I retired on the insurance."

"Really?" says Earl, looking confused. "How do you start a flood?" [Smile]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Colin JM0397
Member
Member # 916

 - posted      Profile for Colin JM0397   Email Colin JM0397   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Very true. That guy pocketed several billion from the insurance with the taxpayer funded cleanup, taxpayer funded rebuild...

But who occupied WTC 7, and what kind of security would you expect them to have?

Posts: 4738 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ben
Member
Member # 1153

 - posted      Profile for Ben   Email Ben   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'll agree that there are unanswered questions regarding the fall of the towers, but I think it is fairly reasonable that the towers fell more or less directly downwards. One reason I think so, is because these towers were designed to resist a lot of lateral motion, as it did every day in resisting high winds, and of course in being engineered for earthquake safety. Compared to the mass of the towers in an earthquake, or the force of the winds blowing against them, even the force of the mass of the planes that crashed into the towers is quite low.

The weak point of the towers in this respect, then, was the load bearing structure where they support the floors in a distributed manner. Basically, the structure was a smaller tube (elevator and services in middle) in a larger tube (exterior walls), braced partially by the floors they supported. The floors were supported between the two tubes proportionally. The planes crashed through into the middle of the building where the center tube was, creating a failure there. Fire and damage, etc. Center tube fails with proportionally larger damage to it, and floor support goes in the center. The exterior tube walls are still intact with proportionally smaller amount of damage, and combined with the floors below still momentarily intact, continue to provide the necessary lateral support that prevents sideways collapse for the moment. The exterior walls also are holding up temporarily the just collapsed floors, so the floors and debris, etc funnel towards the center, putting more load on the center tube, and its joints and floors below, which then proceed to collapse similarly to the floors above. It's only when a floor completely collapses away from the exterior walls that the exterior walls then in turn fail, and the lateral support is lost there. But at this point, the collapse of the tower has already gone down past these lateral bracing walls, and so exterior walls's direction of failure doesn't contribute much to the direction of the main collapse. I do recall observing some parts of the exterior falling outwards, though not with any significant lateral velocity.

At least that's how I see the collapse having happened. I admit I don't have access to the plans and engineering stuff, so if anyone has more info on this stuff, presented without technical jargon, please share. I must confess though, I do wonder a bit at KL's observation that the buildings were in nearly continuous freefall... I can only SPECULATE and guess that the inner tube core had already largely deteriorated due to funneled jet fuel and fire throughout the center as observed by people there. So that the center and part of the floor likely collapsed in a quantized manner prior to our observed continuous collapse of the main and exterior building?

As for building 7, beats me, I haven't seen as much about it. I thought a piece of one of the towers did hit it also, and I've heard stories about how it had a lot of fuel stored in there as well which contributed to its collapse but nothing clear and definitive. I personally think IF there was any kind of conspiracy, it was limited to building 7. But I don't really subscribe to such conspiracies, even if I'm a paranoid fully capable of coming up with such...

Posts: 523 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clark
Member
Member # 2727

 - posted      Profile for Clark   Email Clark   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think people aren't all talking about the same thing here. wakeup is talking about WTC 7. The World Trade Center complex was made up of more than just the two large towers. I believe the two towers were labeled WTC 1 and WTC 2. Building 7 was much smaller, but still massive by most standards (47 stories). No airplanes hit WTC 7. There were some fires and other damage to the building, and a handful of hours after the planes hit, building 7 went down.

The two towers were obviously subject to conditions that few buildings have ever faced in history. That makes it very difficult to say that they did or didn't collapse as a result of the planes. There simply isn't much data to compare them with. Building 7, however, received damage that is comparable with what other buildings have received, yet other buildings don't seem to have suffered such phenomonal collapses.

Dr. Steven E. Jones of the BYU physics department has created some headlines with a "conspiracy theory" report on the collapse of WTC 7. To be fair to him, I don't think he has claimed that the government, or any specific party is behind anything. He ascribes no motive to any thing that might have happened, but simply trys to make scientific statements about the abnormal collapse as a result of normal building fires.

Dr. Jones' paper can be found at:
http://worldtradecentertruth.com/volume/200609/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf

The document is 48 pages long, so have fun. (I haven't read it completely myself, but there are some pictures to look at.) But atleast everyone here can make sure they are talking about the same thing, and can have some details, documents and pictures to look at.

Posts: 420 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I've lost track - were 3000 people killed in the collapse of WTC 7? 'Cause that's what wakeup is talking about, the death of 3000 people (and of course the President's culpability for those deaths)
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"It is considerably easier for me to believe that we're missing a piece of physical evidence that would explain a tower's collapse than to believe that our government a) conspired to kill thousands of innocent American citizens to start a war and b) managed to keep it a secret."

It is not necessary to believe a troll's assertions to study the carcass it has dragged into the room.

Obviously, before we proceed to who and why we need to know what where and when.

"Didn't the 2 tall towers collapse from the points of aircraft impact? I have not seen any footage lately but that is how I remember the events. How can that be tied to controlled demolition?"

Does there need to be a mutually refuting correlation between the two?

"a) If WTC 7 was a controlled demolition, that opens a huge can of worms.

b) Who says the government had anything to do with this? Has anyone asked the owners of the building?"

Point a: if WTC7 was a simple insurance scam, that should have been brought forth during the 911 hearings, yes? We don't want fat cats taking advantage of the single largest national tragedy to take place on the Lower 48 without diligently stringent government investigation, do we? (soft, amused, mildly manic chuckling heard low in the background)

Point b) pursuers of a government angle have noted the interesting nature of some of the files (formerly) stored in WTC7. Lemee see if I can get check-up on that for us:

"Aimed at the world's financial heart, the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks were designed to throw capitalism into chaos. In one respect they succeeded: Millions of crucial documents were vaporized in the tragedy, and the process of sorting the losses out has been difficult and has included charges of opportunism.
A Citigroup lawyer, for instance, recently told a congressional committee looking into the bank's role in the WorldCom mess that she couldn't provide them with all the information they sought because some of it was destroyed in the attack on the World Trade Center.
"Some further email records the committee has requested cannot be retrieved," wrote Citigroup Deputy General Counsel Jane Sherburne in an Aug. 7 letter to House Committee on Financial Services. "The backup tapes for external emails from September 1998 through December 2000, and for a short time period in September 2001, were lost when the building in which they were stored (7 World Trade Center) was destroyed in the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001."
Maybe no financial institution lost more critical documents than the Securities and Exchange Commission, which had its New York regional office at 7 World Trade Center. While the regulatory agency was fortunate in that it lost no employees in the terror attacks, it suffered setbacks in a number of long-running securities investigations.
In August, defense lawyers for several former executives of Rite Aid, who've been charged by the SEC with fraud and obstruction of justice, filed a motion seeking a delay in the trial, claiming some of the documents gathered by the SEC had been lost in the attack. SEC attorneys contend many of the original copies of those documents still exist at other locations but acknowledge it will take time to reconstruct all the evidence in the case.
The SEC says the main problem it encountered was that an index for the documents in the Rite Aid case was destroyed in the attack -- not necessarily the documents themselves.
A similar reconstruction of evidence had to take place in a decade-old insider trading case against several former executives of Motel 6, a chain of low-cost motels. The SEC settled the case against the remaining defendants in June. But before that could occur, it had to obtain a court order directing the lawyers for some of the defendants to assist the SEC in reconstructing files "that were destroyed due to the events of Sept. 11, 2001."
In the Motel 6 case, the four remaining defendants, without admitting or denying the insider-trading charges, entered into a settlement with the SEC in which they agreed to pay fines and penalties totaling $798,000. In all, the 10-year case netted $6.36 million in fines, penalties and disgorged profits for the SEC.
SEC officials won't discuss how many cases may have been impacted by the terror attacks, but they claim the lost information was limited to two weeks' worth of data stored on the agency's computers that hadn't yet been backed up.
But it's clear from talking to securities lawyers who practice before the SEC that things haven't gone as smoothly as the agency would like the public to believe.
"Regardless of what the regulators say, they lost a ton of files," says Bill Singer, a New York securities lawyer, who says one case he had pending before the SEC quickly settled because so many of the original documents were destroyed. "In my opinion it was a wholesale loss of documents." -TheStreet.com (9/09/02

...

"As the day progressed, fires were observed on the east face of the 11th, 12th, and 28th floors. The Securities and Exchange Commission occupied floors 11 through 13." -FEMA: WTC Study, Chp 5 (05/02)"


While Big Guv and Big Biz are notably chummy, that itself means nothing. But when the investigation barely touched WTC7, one can only expect this to, um, fuel speculation. The investigation into 911 is NOT the sort of thing in which we would tolerate business as usual cronyist camouflage, or so the past 5 years' rhetoric has bellowed at every opportunistic, um, opportunity.


One can sort through the rubble here: 911 Research

And here:

Cooperative Research

The latter is a mighty fine place for researching most any currently contentious events, period.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Around 2,700, I think. Dead folks. Who? Why? We've been given one version. Much of this version is, I believe, true. But not all of it.
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LoverOfJoy
Member
Member # 157

 - posted      Profile for LoverOfJoy   Email LoverOfJoy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Does WTC 7 have any special significance over the other buildings? Why 1, 2, and 7? What about 3-6?
Posts: 3639 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Colin JM0397
Member
Member # 916

 - posted      Profile for Colin JM0397   Email Colin JM0397   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The point to looking @ WTC 7 is it's the easier one to pick apart. No planes hit it, no jet fuel burned it, yet it fell in a similar way to WTC 1 & 2.

IMO, if we can poke holes in the explanation (what little there is) of why WTC 7 fell, then it pokes holes all the way through the official account of what happened to all 3 buildings.

As Ken said, this tells us nothing about who or why, merely what. However, it can begin to point us to who and why once we can determine what.

[ October 03, 2006, 01:58 PM: Message edited by: jm0397 ]

Posts: 4738 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Does WTC 7 have any special significance over the other buildings? Why 1, 2, and 7? What about 3-6?"

I've no idea what sinister secrets and heart-lurking evil might reside in the bureacracies of the other buildings. Building 7 is special because a) it fell and b) it fell so throughly and smoothly.

WTC 7 may have been a completely opportunistic scam aking advantage of 911. If so, it at least requires preparation beforehand. It asks why would a building pre-set for such a demolition.

+++

A comparison. Remember the OKlahoma Building? Ripped wide open. Didn't fall.

Here's a recent building collapse. Dig the picture:

Kenya Collapse

The skeleton is intact although the guts are mostly in the toilet.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"One reason I think so, is because these towers were designed to resist a lot of lateral motion, as it did every day in resisting high winds, and of course in being engineered for earthquake safety."

I ask you to factor this against the forces of a collapse. If the very structure designed to sway in high winds is being smashed to bits, what influence is there from its design to prevent lateral sway while intact?

The lateral derabngement I:m considering is that happening from above: the pile of the tower falling down on the still-standing structure. As this pile grows, it becomes inherently unstable. Whatever lateral tolerances HAD been built into the par ofg the structure being smashed down floor by floor, were, according to the 'pancake' theory, being totally destroyed. Meanwhile the willingness of the instact structure ABOVE -- the 'hammer', if you will, of a de facto pile driver -- is MORE rather than less likely to bend one way or another precisely because of this lateral flexibility you mention. The towers were designed to sway.

It may be that this is what hgappened. I haven't watched the footage in a long long time. Ick. Ten million times in one month was enough.

All that aside, your 'funnel' collapse makes much sense... but if I recall correctly, doesn't fit what the official explanations showed?

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You seem to chew basic physical phenomena well, Ben. I;d be curious to hear your comments on:

analysis 1

and

analysis 2



Also, the above-impact portion of the towers apparently weren't intact as it fell:

analysis 3

analysis 4

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"A movie taken from the east gives one of the most complete records of the South Tower collapse. The motion of the top revealed by the movie has some very strange features. At first the motion consists of a tipping of the approximately 30 stories above the impact zone as a unit, about a fulcrum in or around the impact zone. The tipping motion accelerates for about 2.5 seconds. Then, at about the time the first large ejections of dust start at the impact zone, the motion of the top changes: It begins to fall precipitously, and its rotation (imparted by the tipping) rapidly decelerates and virtually ceases after a second."

The tipping is one of the 'leanings' I would expect from such a collapse. It begins, then stops.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1