It is currently Thu Nov 27, 2014 10:34 pm

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 5:12 pm 
Offline
SuperMember!
SuperMember!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 12:50 am
Posts: 1456
Location: Ct.
I would like to reply to some of what you stated Buckshot.

The first was this.

Quote:
-pro-peace--i'm for peace but i also believe peace has a heavy price tag.


I have got to ask. What is the price tag you are talking about? War as being the heavy price tag? When does it stop? War is NOT the answer.

You say that you are a Christian. I have no qualms with that, though I WILL point out in when I think they are wrong. I know that there are those who are atheists, and those who do not believe in my vision of God. It is not my job though to force my beliefs on them, just as I take offense if someone tries to force their beliefs on me. I do take things they say into consideration though, and examine them to try to understand them better.

You being a Christian do not understand why I/we are so against this war?
Well, this is something I wrote. I really do hope that it gives you something to think on. This is normally not for other people to read, but I will make an exception here.


Quote:
We should be celebrating life in all of its glory. We should be celebrating all life. Instead we bicker like little children about how life should be lead. Bow down, and CELEBRATE LIFE. Be happy that you have been given this chance for celebration. Think!!! Think of how beautiful all in nature truly is.
When you come to realize what God truly is, you should weep at the beauty just as you should weep at the shame that it took you so long to realize that the TRUTH has been here all along.

Do you realize that when you commit murder, you have taken away that Beings one chance at celebrating life? Do you see why this is a sin? ANY INNOCENT LIFE TAKEN IS MURDER!!!
With no action taken against you, YOU have decided that all lives lost through your actions are justified. YOU DARE CELEBRATE THEIR DEATHS???? When they kill you, your death will be justified. You have bathed in their blood and celebrated in death rather than in LIFE. You are a vile creature, an abomination to the wonderful cycle which HE has created.

You in your selfishness think only of yourself. You do not look and see what is all around you. You look only to serve your own earthly desires. In this action alone, can you not see that this is NOT A CELEBRATION OF LIFE???? Do you realize that in this action you break the first of the COMMANDMENTS??? Thou shall worship no other God. God is LIFE. God is TRUTH. God is THE WAY.


THIS is why I am antiwar. In this I am right. This is TRUTH.

Lol, its funny, with all that I write, this I am shy about. Go figure.

Next you wrote.

Quote:
-pro-American labor- i'm already this one, this can get to be a real long drawn out battle on either side of the fence. for instance people say republicians are for big business, well in some ways i agree with that and my reason is that i work for big business. i never worked for a poor person, i mean hey if the government wants to give big business huge tax breaks and big business uses that money saved to build more plants and stay in america i'm happy with that , i believe in feeding the pig that is going to feed me.


OK, I think that you are missing the point of big business, and why so many of us have our point of views on it. The way that this system is set up now is in no uncertain terms fucked up. These big businesses are making BILLIONS in profits each year while they are giving the working class less and less. You make it sound as if we don't want these businesses to make a profit, but you are wrong. Of course I want any company I work for to make money. Where the problem arises is that if a company makes say 10 billion profit one year, but only 9.5 billion profit the next, they consider this a loss of . 5 billion. In order to make up that loss, they cut pay, health and welfare, and jobs, all the while demanding increased production from less workers. Let me ask you, how much of a profit do you think is enough? 10 billion? 20 billion? Heck, why don't we just work for free and give them everything. Do you see where I am coming from on this? If not, I am willing to go into it a little deeper with you. This is just a basic oversimplification of the problem which we have but I think that it is to the point in its simplest form.

Next.


Quote:
-pro-health care for all Americans- i'm all for all americans having health care but i just don't don't believe in government controlled health care . i believe in giving companies incintives and tax breaks to and for providing health care.


Here we get into the big business aspect again. With healthcare being privatized, it leads to big business. Big business must make more profit each year or it is not considered successful. Do you see where I am going with this? There are some things that should not be privatized, and I really think that healthcare is NOT one of them.


Last but not least.


Quote:
-pro-civil rights(including gays), -i am for civil rights but i'm against government control of that , last thing i want is for the government or some lawyer telling me that i can't say merry christmas. and what excatly do you mean by the gays? they have the same rights that i do. the only difference is that i myself do not want to marry another man. plus my wife would be pissed.


Here, although believe me, I wish it could be different, I am forced to disagree with you also. Although there are some things that I feel they go overboard on, I do believe that the government HAS to have the enforcement on civil rights. I want to ask you something. Do you think that if the government did not force this country to, that blacks would be free right now, or be able to vote, or be able to be equals in the eyes of the law? Do you think that if the government was not involved, that your wife would be able to vote, or work, or any of the other things that came about because of government involvement? Listen, if people were just and right, you are correct, there would be no need for government involvement, they would just see the wisdom behind the movement and all agree. Unfortunately prejudices do not go away that easy. It takes time and the only way it will go away is through enforcement of it. I wish that people would find it in there heart to stop this insanity, but my wishes will not make it happen. The laws will make this happen though.

You say that you don't understand why we feel the way we do, and you think that we are trying to ruin America. You know something, if you are talking about the way America is now, then I will come out and admit that you are right, I am trying to ruin this America that I see. I want every man, woman and child in this country to not have to worry about anything at all. For that matter, I want the same for every man, woman and child on this planet. No, this does not mean a free ride. Don't misconstrue it as such. I've seen that statement too much and it is wrong to imply that this is what the goal is.

I could go on, but for now I am going to leave it here. I have just shown you a tiny sliver of light. What you do with it will be up to you. I cannot force you to look at it, but I can give you the opportunity.

CrimsonEagle


Last edited by CrimsonEagle on Fri Dec 02, 2005 5:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 5:13 pm 
Offline
SuperMember!
SuperMember!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 12:50 am
Posts: 1456
Location: Ct.
I would like to reply to some of what you stated Buckshot.

The first what this.

Quote:
-pro-peace--i'm for peace but i also believe peace has a heavy price tag.


I have got to ask. What is the price tag you are talking about? War as being the heavy price tag? When does it stop? War is NOT the answer.

You say that you are a Christian. I have no qualms with that, though I WILL point out in when I think they are wrong. I know that there are those who are atheists, and those who do not believe in my vision of God. It is not my job though to force my beliefs on them, just as I take offense if someone tries to force their beliefs on me. I do take things they say into consideration though, and examine them to try to understand them better.

You being a Christian do not understand why I/we are so against this war?
Well, this is something I wrote. I really do hope that it gives you something to think on. This is normally not for other people to read, but I will make an exception here.


Quote:
We should be celebrating life in all of its glory. We should be celebrating all life. Instead we bicker like little children about how life should be lead. Bow down, and CELEBRATE LIFE. Be happy that you have been given this chance for celebration. Think!!! Think of how beautiful all in nature truly is.
When you come to realize what God truly is, you should weep at the beauty just as you should weep at the shame that it took you so long to realize that the TRUTH has been here all along.

Do you realize that when you commit murder, you have taken away that Beings one chance at celebrating life? Do you see why this is a sin? ANY INNOCENT LIFE TAKEN IS MURDER!!!
With no action taken against you, YOU have decided that all lives lost through your actions are justified. YOU DARE CELEBRATE THEIR DEATHS???? When they kill you, your death will be justified. You have bathed in their blood and celebrated in death rather than in LIFE. You are a vile creature, an abomination to the wonderful cycle which HE has created.

You in your selfishness think only of yourself. You do not look and see what is all around you. You look only to serve your own earthly desires. In this action alone, can you not see that this is NOT A CELEBRATION OF LIFE???? Do you realize that in this action you break the first of the COMMANDMENTS??? Thou shall worship no other God. God is LIFE. God is TRUTH. God is THE WAY.


THIS is why I am antiwar. In this I am right. This is TRUTH.

Lol, its funny, with all that I write, this I am shy about. Go figure.

Next you wrote.

Quote:
-pro-American labor- i'm already this one, this can get to be a real long drawn out battle on either side of the fence. for instance people say republicians are for big business, well in some ways i agree with that and my reason is that i work for big business. i never worked for a poor person, i mean hey if the government wants to give big business huge tax breaks and big business uses that money saved to build more plants and stay in america i'm happy with that , i believe in feeding the pig that is going to feed me.


OK, I think that you are missing the point of big business, and why so many of us have our point of views on it. The way that this system is set up now is in no uncertain terms fucked up. These big businesses are making BILLIONS in profits each year while they are giving the working class less and less. You make it sound as if we don't want these businesses to make a profit, but you are wrong. Of course I want any company I work for to make money. Where the problem arises is that if a company makes say 10 billion profit one year, but only 9.5 billion profit the next, they consider this a loss of . 5 billion. In order to make up that loss, they cut pay, health and welfare, and jobs, all the while demanding increased production from less workers. Let me ask you, how much of a profit do you think is enough? 10 billion? 20 billion? Heck, why don't we just work for free and give them everything. Do you see where I am coming from on this? If not, I am willing to go into it a little deeper with you. This is just a basic oversimplification of the problem which we have but I think that it is to the point in its simplest form.

Next.


Quote:
-pro-health care for all Americans- i'm all for all americans having health care but i just don't don't believe in government controlled health care . i believe in giving companies incintives and tax breaks to and for providing health care.


Here we get into the big business aspect again. With healthcare being privatized, it leads to big business. Big business must make more profit each year or it is not considered successful. Do you see where I am going with this? There are some things that should not be privatized, and I really think that healthcare is NOT one of them.


Last but not least.


Quote:
-pro-civil rights(including gays), -i am for civil rights but i'm against government control of that , last thing i want is for the government or some lawyer telling me that i can't say merry christmas. and what excatly do you mean by the gays? they have the same rights that i do. the only difference is that i myself do not want to marry another man. plus my wife would be pissed.


Here, although believe me, I wish it could be different, I am forced to disagree with you also. Although there are some things that I feel they go overboard on, I do believe that the government HAS to have the enforcement on civil rights. I want to ask you something. Do you think that if the government did not force this country to, that blacks would be free right now, or be able to vote, or be able to be equals in the eyes of the law? Do you think that if the government was not involved, that your wife would be able to vote, or work, or any of the other things that came about because of government involvement? Listen, if people were just and right, you are correct, there would be no need for government involvement, they would just see the wisdom behind the movement and all agree. Unfortunately prejudices do not go away that easy. It takes time and the only way it will go away is through enforcement of it. I wish that people would find it in there heart to stop this insanity, but my wishes will not make it happen. The laws will make this happen though.

You say that you don't understand why we feel the way we do, and you think that we are trying to ruin America. You know something, if you are talking about the way America is now, then I will come out and admit that you are right, I am trying to ruin this America that I see. I want every man, woman and child in this country to not have to worry about anything at all. For that matter, I want the same for every man, woman and child on this planet. No, this does not mean a free ride. Don't misconstrue it as such. I've seen that statement too much and it is wrong to imply that this is what the goal is.

I could go on, but for now I am going to leave it here. I have just shown you a tiny sliver of light. What you do with it will be up to you. I cannot force you to look at it, but I can give you the opportunity.

CrimsonEagle


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 03, 2005 1:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 6
People! Let's work the problem!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 06, 2005 5:29 am 
Offline
SuperMember!
SuperMember!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 12:50 am
Posts: 1456
Location: Ct.
Quote:
People! Let's work the problem!


I think that I have seen almost everyone in here doing just that. There is one problem though that we all face. This problem is HUGE! Look at all that is wrong. Look at the lists that are in just this one forum. Many of these posts are either talking about or passing on information on just how big our problem really is. Think about it. Its mind-blowing.

But then again, you also have the real problem which is coming, yet it seems the world is ignoring. Here we are fighting our foolish little battles over foolish little things, that we seem to be ignoring the fact that "MOM" is coming. Man, Nature is coming, and she is pissed. We have brilliant minds that are pointing this out to us but it seems that the world as a whole does not want to listen. We continue down the path.

Everyone in this forum knows all of this. The problem is, is how do you get everyone else to listen. Yes, there are more and more that are starting to wake up, but it is moving to slowly. At this rate we will never make it in time. Even if everyone listened right now, we can see that our time is short to right these wrongs. We have just started feeling the effects of Nature in her full wrath. She just yelled at us if you want to look at it that way. But no. We just keep on fighting.

Kind of like a bunch of kids eh? Remember when you were younger. Riding in the car fighting with your sibling. Your mom would look in the rearview and tell you to knock it off. Of course you wouldn't, you would just keep going. Next she would yell, "Dont make me pull this car over"
But you still wouldn't stop. Eventually, she would pull the car over.

Well, Our mother is starting to pull over the car. This is our last chance.
Right now we are killing each other, and killing her in the process. What can we expect her to do?

Almost everyone in here realizes this. We may believe in certain things a bit different, but our core beliefs are united. All of us realize what the potential is in Man. All of us also want that realization for all of man to have. Not through force. You cannot force someone to realize anything. But you can at the very least make them think, and reason it out. But so many minds are closed. Its almost as if they are blind to truth. They are in a darkness so deep they will not even think of coming out into the light because they are convinced it would kill them.

How do you convince the world that there is a better way? They keep looking to these insane power-hungry people for the truth. Man oh man, I have no other word for that but stupid.

As I said. We are working the problem. I think we all know the problem. But how do we get all mankind to stop fighting, and seek the solution to this? Mom is slowing down the car. We better find a way to make her change her mind.

_________________
CrimsonEagle
The war to end all wars can only be fought on the front-lines of the mind.

The greatest deception they have perpetrated is that we need them. Our greatest mistake is that we believe them.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 06, 2005 2:06 pm 
Offline
SuperMember!
SuperMember!
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 12:18 pm
Posts: 1485
Location: Left Coast
buckshot wrote:
those who peddle fantasies that this country encouraged, permitted or actually carried out the attacks are libeling the truth -- and disgracing the memories of the thousands who died that day.


So bucky... why did WTC 7 fall?

And bucky, it is no more libel to suggest that this administration had foreknowledge of the 9/11 attack and did nothing to stop it then it is to say that this administration took this country to war based on faulty intelligence that later proved to be false.

Or... engaged in the torture of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan and other countries...

Or... outed a covert CIA agent as political payback...

THIS administration has proved itself to be unworthy of support... yet... here you are... defending them... how partisan of you...

Stupid is as STUPID does...

_________________
My Pep Talk For Lefties and Lurkers


I cannot teach anybody anything,
I can only make them think.

~~ Socrates


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 06, 2005 10:47 pm 
Offline
SuperMember!
SuperMember!
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2005 6:43 am
Posts: 1015
Quote:
So bucky... why did WTC 7 fall?


:?: how old was the building? how well structured was the building?
the design , the engineering, materials used and of coarse don't forget about the fuel tanks in the bottom of the building which had about 40,000 gallons of fuel in the building that caught on fire. there are many factors that can play in the demolition of a building, and of course there's Silverstein with a lot to gain by loosing this building. if the building really was pulled , by which means was it pulled?


As engineers and scientists struggle to explain the collapse of 7 World Trade Center, they have begun considering whether a type of fuel that was inside the building all along created intensely hot fires like those in the towers: diesel fuel, thousands of gallons of it, intended to run electricity generators in a power failure.
One tank holding 6,000 gallons of fuel was in the building to provide power to the command bunker on the 23rd floor. Another set of four tanks holding as much as 36,000 gallons were just below ground on the building's southwest side for generators that served some of the other tenants.
Engineers and other experts have already uncovered evidence at the collapse site suggesting that some type of fuel played a significant role in the building's demise, but they expect to spend months piecing together the picture of what remains a disturbing puzzle.

Within the building, the diesel tanks were surrounded by fireproofed enclosures. But some experts said that like the jet fuel in the twin towers, the diesel fuel could have played a role in the collapse of 7 World Trade.
Dr. Barnett and Mr. Baker are part of an assessment team organized by the American Society of Civil Engineers and the Federal Emergency Management Agency to examine the performance of several buildings during the attacks. If further studies of the debris confirm the findings of extremely high temperature, Dr. Barnett said, "the smoking gun would be the fuel."
Others experts agreed that the diesel fuel could have speeded the collapse, but said the building might have met the same fate simply because of how long it burned.
"The fuel absolutely could be a factor," said Silvian Marcus, executive vice president for the Cantor Seinuk Group and a structural engineer involved in the original design of the building, which was completed in 1987. But he added, "The tanks may have accelerated the collapse, but did not cause the collapse."
Because of those doubts, engineers hold open the possibility that the collapse had other explanations, like damage caused by falling debris or another source of heat.
The mayor's command bunker, built in 1998, included electrical generators on the seventh floor, where there was a small fuel tank, said Jerome M. Hauer, director of the mayor's Office of Emergency Management from 1996 to 2000. That tank was fed by a tank containing thousands of gallons of diesel fuel on a lower floor, he said.
The manager of the building when it collapsed, Walter Weems, said the larger tank sat on a steel-and-concrete pedestal on the second floor and held 6,000 gallons of diesel fuel. He said an even larger cache, four tanks containing a total of 36,000 gallons of diesel fuel, sat just below ground level in the loading dock near the southwest corner of the building.
A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said." -New York Times (11/29/01)
http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/wtc7/fire.html#diesel

_________________
I believe that God has planted in every heart the desire to live in freedom.
George W. Bush
DESTROY THE QURAN OR BE DESTROYED BY IT


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 16, 2005 6:54 pm 
Offline
SuperMember!
SuperMember!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 6:19 pm
Posts: 2533
Thanks Bucky. Once again you fucked up and provided us with old info that backs up what we're saying.
Quote:
A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said." -New York Times (11/29/01)


So what you're saying here is something caused the steel girders to "vaporise". Obviously the heat from burning diesel fuel couldn't do it, so you are saying it was an explosion that did it, and probably nuclear.

Quote:
Others experts agreed that the diesel fuel could have speeded the collapse, but said the building might have met the same fate simply because of how long it burned.
"The fuel absolutely could be a factor," said Silvian Marcus, executive vice president for the Cantor Seinuk Group and a structural engineer involved in the original design of the building, which was completed in 1987. But he added, "The tanks may have accelerated the collapse, but did not cause the collapse."
Because of those doubts, engineers hold open the possibility that the collapse had other explanations, like damage caused by falling debris or another source of heat.


Well we know the building was built in 1987, that no falling debris hit WTC7, the fuel COULD be a factor, but wasn't, and no plane hit it. What was the "other source of heat"? Bombs Vaporised Steel? Where's the evidence that was quickly removed? 4 years later all we have is the poor health of those exposed to the dust and the cleanup, thanks to the Bush based coverup. Some respect for those poor Americans and their memories the Bush conspiracy has on its conscience

Thanks Bucky for pointing out that it was bombs that brought down the WTC7 building. Boy you're really as stupid as you pretend to be, aren't you!

Shot yourself in the foot again. Next time, aim for the mouth would ya.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 17, 2005 12:23 am 
Offline
SuperMember!
SuperMember!
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2005 6:43 am
Posts: 1015
dog spew
[/quote]Thanks Bucky. Once again you fucked up and provided us with old info that backs up what we're saying.
Quote:

thanks dogshit, once again i was DISCUSSING building 7 , the only fuckup is the spew from your dumbass.

dogspew
So what you're saying here is something caused the steel girders to "vaporise". Obviously the heat from burning diesel fuel couldn't do it, so you are saying it was an explosion that did it, and probably nuclear.
Quote:

thanks dogshit. once again you show your 3rd grade intelligence, I never said any of that , I was trying to discuss building 7 and providing a link to possibilities to DISCUSS. quit putting your idiotic words in my mouth.if you got something to provide on building 7 say it or shut the fuck up dumbass.

dog spew
Thanks Bucky for pointing out that it was bombs that brought down the WTC7 building. Boy you're really as stupid as you pretend to be, aren't you!
Quote:

again , more dogshit, who bombed the building? why?where's the proof?why hasen't anybody been convicted? hu ? maybe because your theory is bullsht?boy you really are as stupid as your theory's.

dog spew


Shot yourself in the foot again. Next time, aim for the mouth would ya.
Quote:

here ye , here ye. the word according to dog if you disagree with liberal 911 bullshit theory's you should just get a gun and shoot yourself .oh bow to the great nazi dog.

Image

_________________
I believe that God has planted in every heart the desire to live in freedom.
George W. Bush
DESTROY THE QURAN OR BE DESTROYED BY IT


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 17, 2005 2:47 am 
Offline
SuperMember!
SuperMember!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 6:19 pm
Posts: 2533
Just pointing out what you put in your post Shit For Brains. Next time when you have something to say, put it in your own words- if you are capable of stringing two sentences together. All you can do it seems is cut and paste other moronic stuff together and pretend it's what you think. Then when you're shown up as a fool, you cover your sorry ass with more sad excuses.

Oh and try and get your quote button working propely. We can't figure out what you're quoting unless it's your inner peabrains thoughts you're quoting. Idiot.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 17, 2005 2:01 pm 
Offline
SuperMember!
SuperMember!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 10:54 am
Posts: 972
Location: Ohio
buckshot wrote:
those who peddle fantasies that this country encouraged, permitted or actually carried out the attacks are libeling the truth -- and disgracing the memories of the thousands who died that day.


And those who KNOW something just isn't right and does NOT seek the truth is allowing those people to DIE in vain. What if they were murdered at the hands of their own government or their government could have done something to prevent it? Do they NOT deserve justice?

Bucky, why is it ok to dig and dig trying to find dirt when a Dem. in in office but we are liberal lying conspiracy theorists when we search for the truth when a Rep. is in office? It doesn't matter to me which side is in office. If people have died or are dying at the hands of a corrupt person or persons it is our duty to FIND the truth and hold the person (or persons) accountable NO MATTER who they are. Only the blind could answer NO to that. There are NONE so blind as those who will not seek the truth.

_________________
*******************************************
MY VALUES = FREE SPEECH,. EQUALITY,. LIBERTY,. EDUCATION, &. TOLERANCE

CORPORATE MEDIA = MASS MIND CONTROL


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 6
How did nuclear explosives get into the mix? There isn't anything fissile that is small enough not to blow that building to dust and seriously damage everything around it. Then there's the radiation. All nuclear bombs produce fallout. No one would be stupid enough to leave a plume of fallout behind themselves when conventional explosives would be adequate for the job.

A localized diesel fire is not about to bring down a building in the way that number 7 came down. This is sophestry on its face. Bldg 7 is the smoking gun. Deal with it.

A simpler explanation would be high explosives like Centex. They produce extremely hot gas under enormous pressures. I have aguaintances who have used such materials on steel girders and such for the US military. With a little training it's easy and safe to place a charge. In the hands of an expert it can be used in a controlled manner to great effect.

One of the things that undermines the credibility of those who question the official 911 story is the introduction of the gadget of the week. The simplest explanation is usually the best. When you hear hoofbeats do you think of horses or zebras? Keep it simple. Work the problem. If you have anger issues, get a therapist. Sheesh.

Then there's this b.s. about dishonoring the dead. Telling the truth does not dishonor the dead. Killing people to advance some capitalist geopolictical agenda and then lying about it dishonors the dead and the survivors. To the Bush administration the dead on all sides are an externality. They are a cost to be born by someone else. Anyone who thinks for a second that defending Bush does honor to anyone living or dead is not paying attention or is irretrievably stupid.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 5:00 pm 
Offline
SuperMember!
SuperMember!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 6:19 pm
Posts: 2533
Here is the first part of my investigation as to the WTC 7 buildings. Please read the whole 'What really happened' postings as well to see the heat signatures in WTC 1, 2 and7. There were probably explosions in the basements that led to their collapse. This would have to be planted bombs before the collapse of these buildings. Remember that no plane hit WTC 7 so they had to "Pull It" to get it down, probably to destroy the evidence of the planted bombs. There would have been an investigation of WTC 7 if it was still standing and no time to remove the evidence, so cock and bull stories were quickly concocted.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/cutter.html

Larry Silverstein, the controller of the destroyed WTC complex, stated plainly in a PBS documentary that he and the FDNY decided jointly to demolish the Solomon Bros. building, or WTC 7, late in the afternoon of Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2001.
In the documentary "America Rebuilds", aired September 2002, Silverstein makes the following statement;

"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." [wmv download]

In the same program a cleanup worker referred to the demolition of WTC 6: "... we're getting ready to pull the building six." [mp3 download]
There can be little doubt as to how the word "pull" is being used in this context.



Molten steel was found ““three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed [from WTCs 1 & 2],”” Loizeaux said. He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon. [American Free Press]
Molten steel is a by-product of a thermite reaction.
In perfect conditions the maximum temperature that can be reached by hydrocarbons such as jet fuel burning in air is 1520°̊ F (825°̊ C). When the World Trade Center collapsed the deeply buried fires would have been deprived of oxygen and their temperatures would have significantly decreased.
Why was the temperature at the core of "the pile" nearly 500°̊ F hotter than the maximum burning temperature of jet fuel a full five days after the collapses? There were no infernos in either of the twin towers before they collapsed, so what caused the hot spots deep in their wreckage?


http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/thermite.htm

"Anyone who has ever watched a building being demolished on purpose knows that if you're going to do this you have to get at the under-infrastructure of the building to bring it down"
Peter Jennings, ABC News 9/11/2001.

Thermite Reaction- Description: Iron oxide reacts with aluminum to produce molten iron. A: The reaction is initiated by the heat from a sparkler which is placed in the iron oxide/aluminum mixture B: The reaction is initiated by the heat from glycerin plus potassium permanganate.

Dr. Frank Gayle, Metals Expert, on the jet fuel fires which burned in the WTC buildings:
"Your gut reaction would be the jet fuel is what made the fire so very intense, a lot of people figured that's what melted the steel. Indeed it didn't, the steel did not melt." [Firehouse.com]
Molten steel did not exist in the WTC buildings prior to the collapses, but...
Molten steel was found ““three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed [from WTCs 1 & 2],”” Loizeaux said. He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon. [American Free Press]

Consider the facts:
--The fires in WTC 7 were not evenly distributed, so a perfect collapse was impossible.
--Firemen anticipated the building's collapse (even though fire had never brought down a fire-protected steel building prior to 9/11).
--Silverstein said of the building "the smartest thing to do is pull it."
--WTC 7 subsequently collapsed perfectly into its footprint at freefall speed.
--Molten steel and partially evaporated steel members were found in the debris.

When you add to the above the fact that Madrid's Windsor Building remained standing after an 18+ hour 800°C fire there can be only one conclusion as to what happened to WTC 7: it was demolished.
The fires in WTC 7 were supposedly started by the collapse of WTC 1 meaning there would have been no time to rig the building for demolition on 9/11, therefore this had to have been done whilst the building was still occupied prior to 9/11.

Doesn't this strike you as an odd and dangerous thing to do? If there were no terrorist attacks on 9/11 then a disgruntled employee could have brought down WTC 7 simply by thumping a red button - it makes no sense whatsoever

There had to be a very good reason for this building to be rigged for demolition whilst it was still occupied. Did Silverstein, the new WTC owner who wisely invested in insurance against terrorism, have prior knowledge of the attacks?

The SEC has not quantified the number of active cases in which substantial files were destroyed [in the collapse of WTC 7]. Reuters news service and the Los Angeles Times published reports estimating them at 3,000 to 4,000. They include the agency's major inquiry into the manner in which investment banks divvied up hot shares of initial public offerings during the high-tech boom. ..."Ongoing investigations at the New York SEC will be dramatically affected because so much of their work is paper-intensive," said Max Berger of New York's Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann. "This is a disaster for these cases." [New York Lawyer]
Citigroup says some information that the committee is seeking [about WorldCom] was destroyed in the Sept. 11 terror attack on the World Trade Center. Salomon had offices in 7 World Trade Center, one of the buildings that collapsed in the aftermath of the attack. The bank says that back-up tapes of corporate emails from September 1998 through December 2000 were stored at the building and destroyed in the attack. [TheStreet]

Inside [WTC 7 was] the US Secret Service's largest field office with more than 200 employees. ..."All the evidence that we stored at 7 World Trade, in all our cases, went down with the building," according to US Secret Service Special Agent David Curran. [TechTV]

One other thing, insurance payments from WTC 7's collapse profited Silverstein Properties to the tune of ~$500 million.

WTC INFO
Project information- Owner/ Developer- Silverstein Properties
Larry Silverstein- President and CEO
John(Janno) N. Lieber- Senior V.P.- Project Director
David Worsley- Director Of Construction

Landowner
Port Authority of New York and New jersey
Joseph J. Seymour- Executive Director
Anthony R. Coscia- Chairman

Planning for WTC Site and Lower Manhatten Redevelopment
Lower Manhatten Development Corporation
John C. Whitehead- Chairman
Stefan Pryor- President

This is from a German paper, so should be taken with a grain of salt. I will try to stick to the facts and leave out the rhetoric. You can read the whole article your self.I found it a little to searching and biblical implications insulting for my tastes.

http://globalfire.tv/nj/03en/jews/wtc-silverstein.htm

The Harbor Authorities of New York and New Jersey were the owners of the WTC. The two towers, 412 meters high, were completed in 1972 and the costs then amounted to 37 million Dollars. ... Since then the towers have become a desirable address for corporate businesses. From the completion of the buildings the entire office space had always been rented and the rents produced a great return for the owners. ... 430 companies from all over the world rented app. 3.3 million square feet office space in the WTC. More than 40,000 people were employed in the towers." --Die Welt, Berlin, Sep 11, 2001

Three months prior to the destruction of both towers the owners of the WTC leased the buildings, for incomprehensible reasons, to the Jewish real estate tycoon Larry Silverstein. Since then "Silverstein Properties Inc." took in the rent from the 430 tenants and other source income (i.e. tourist admission fees). Silverstein in return paid a leasing fee to the owners: "Only three months before the attack Silverstein signed a rental contract for the WTC. Silverstein agreed to pay over 99 years a total of 3,2 billion Dollars in leasing installments to the Port Authorities: 616 million as an initial payment and then annually 115 million Dollars. The Port Authorities remained the owners of the WTC." --Die Welt, Berlin, Oct 11, 2001.

Then the catastrophe came upon New York. On September 11, only three months after signing the lease between Silverstein and the Port Authorities, two large passenger jets crashed into the towers. Larry was lucky, that he was not responsible for liabilities towards the Port Authorities, since the disaster was an act of God. Quite the contrary happened. Larry Silverstein, despite not being the owner of the buildings, was the sole beneficiary of the insurance indemnity payments of more than 7 billion Dollars. Good for Larry that he had not forgotten to increase the insurance policies, just in time, when he signed the lease three months before the catastrophe happened: "Larry Silverstein, since July landlord of the towers, demands from the insurers 7,2 billion Dollars compensation, his speaker, Steve Solomon, said. ... The Port Authorities of New York and New Jersey, owners of the WTC, agree with Silverstein's demand." --Die Welt, Berlin,

The Port Authorities believe that Silverstein should get the 7,2 billion Dollar compensation instead of them, despite the fact that, as the lawful owners, should be indemified. Larry, born under a lucky star.
The following insurance companies are liable to Silverstein's compensation demand: "Chubb Corp., Swiss Reinsurance Co., Lloyd's of London, German Alliance Corp., ACE Ltd and XL Capital Ltd." --Die Welt, Berlin, Oct 10, 2001.


http://proliberty.com/observer/20050510.htm
From the May 2005 Idaho Observer:
Shareholder challenges "Lucky Larry’s" $7.2 billion Twin Tower insurance claim
by Greg Szymanski

A shareholder has filed a grievance against one of the world’s largest insurers, charging company bigwigs with failing to investigate possible insurance fraud in relation to a $7.2 billion pay out being litigated over the 9/11 attacks.

John Leonard of California claims management of the Allianz Group, a German-based company carrying a significant portion of the insurance coverage on the WTC, relied on faulty government 9/11 reports and then negligently failed to mount any significant fraud investigation to protect stockholder interests against future excessive pay outs.

"The managing and supervisory boards have taken a passive attitude toward the insurance claims and the suspicious aspects of the WTC insurance loss," said Leonard, whose grievance was to be heard at a May 4 stockholders’ meeting. No official word from the company has yet been released.

He added, "The WTC catastrophe was doubtless one of the biggest insurance incidents in history. The investigation of insurance losses and insurance damage claims against the company is naturally one of the chief duties of the management of every insurance firm. The suspicious irregularities of the WTC attacks just have not been addressed."

After the attack, Silverstein Properties and Westfield America, the partnership who leased the WTC just months prior to the attacks, commenced litigation against its insurers, including Allianz—one of the major policy holders.

Leading partner, Larry Silverstein, boldly asserted he was entitled to twice the insurance policy value because, according to a spokesman for Mr. Silverstein:

"The two hijacked airliners that struck the 110-story twin towers Sept. 11 were separate ‘occurrences’ for insurance purposes, entitling him to collect twice on $3.6 billion collective worth of the policies."

The ensuing legal battle between the insurers and leaseholders then began one month after the attacks, ending with a favorable ruling for Silverstein by U.S. District Judge John S. Martin in December 2004. The judge, by agreeing with Silverstein that the two planes that hit the WTC were actually two separate occurrences for insurance purposes, actually doubled Silverstein’s possible future recovery from $3.6 billion to $7.2 billion.

The case is now on appeal and in order to protect any adverse ruling against Allianz, Leonard has attempted to instigate management to initiate fraud investigations with his shareholder grievance. In his proposal, the California native and a publisher of books on 9/11, pointed to reports that building WTC 7 apparently collapsed by demolition unrelated to the 9/11 attacks as well as many other irregularities.

"Numerous observers and researchers find the WTC case very suspicious. For example, in a public opinion survey, 49.3% of respondents in New York City agreed that ‘some of our leaders knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act," wrote Leonard in his grievance.

"When this belief is so widespread among unrelated parties, haven’t the affected insurance companies ever asked whether perhaps the U.S. Government instead of the insurers is responsible for the damages, or whether the possibility of insurance fraud has been investigated?

"From reports in the media about the trial in New York between the insurers and the insured WTC leaseholder, no sign of such motions has been made public. The dispute has been mainly over the question, whether to pay out $7 billion or only $3 billion, whereby the shareholders are supposed to be relieved at the latter sum as a victory of the lesser of two evils."

In his shareholder grievance, Leonard lastly called management to pay strict attention to the strange collapse of WTC Building No. 7.


WTC-7, as is well-known, was never struck by airplanes, and photographs of it show only insignificant fires. Nevertheless, the 47-story building at WTC 7 suddenly collapsed at around 5:28 p.m. on 9/11. This fact, however, was not even mentioned in the report of the official 9/11 commission."

Besides the enormity of the possible insurance pay outs, independent 9/11 investigators have also called attention to the peculiar timing and control of ownership made by Silverstein only months before the WTC attacks.

The WTC came under the control of a private ownership of Silverstein for the first time on April 26, 2001, having been built and managed by the New York and New Jersey Port Authority as a public resource since its creation in 1972.

Silverstein then acquired a handsome insurance policy for the complex, including a clause that would prove extremely valuable in the not too distant future. The clause specifically read that "in the event of a terrorist attack, the partnership could collect the insured value of the property, and be released from their obligations under the 99-year lease."

Don Paul, in his 2002 book that investigated the nature of the Silverstein transaction, provided some interesting background information highlighting the incredible deal and low bidding price the new owner was able to negotiate with friendly New York government officials.

"Silverstein’s winning bid was $3.2 billion for holdings estimated to be worth more than $8 billion. JP Morgan Chase, a prestigious investment-bank that’s the flagship firm of its kind for Rockefeller family interests, advised the Port Authority, another body long influenced by banker and builder David Rockefeller, his age then 85, in the negotiations," Paul wrote.

"The lead partner and spokesperson for the winning bidders, Larry Silverstein, age 70, already controlled more than 8 million square feet of New York City real estate. WTC 7 and the nearby Equitable Building were prime among these prior holdings. Silverstein also owned Runway 69, a nightclub in Queens that was alleged 9 years ago to be laundering money made through sales of Laotian heroin."

The lease deal on the WTC finally was transferred to Silverstein, officially closing on July 24, 2001, just 6 weeks prior to the 9/11 attacks. It is estimated that Silverstein Properties could walk away from the WTC disaster with a $2 billion net.

This kind of crooked thievery is a definite incentive to all those little Neo-Con repiglican wanna bes (Like Bucky, tgen etc) to want to believe that the lord truly is their shepard and as potential sheepherders they can fleece the flocks of "sinners" with their g.OD's permission. Scary cultists.

http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/01/09/WTC_Silverstein.html

Los Angeles, Alta California - September 16, 2001 (ACN) A Jewish Real Estate Magnate won a coveted 99 year lease on the World Trade Center from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey less than two months before they were leveled to the ground by terrorists. Larry Silverstein is a wheeler and dealer of downtown New York skyscrapers and owns a large real estate portfolio including 1 World Trade Center and the infamous "Runway 69" Queens dance club that has been tied to the heroin trade, money laundering and New York Police corruption.
Silverstein, past president of the United Jewish Appeal in New York, received a very sweet deal for the World Trade Center from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. He received the 99 year lease worth $8 billion for a mere $3.2 billion. Silverstein has immense influence over politicians and government bureaucrats and this has helped him and his friends take control of coveted real estate in Manhattan.
It is estimated that about 5,000 workers died when the city's tallest structures collapsed after being hit by two passenger jet airlines commandeered by terrorists. Silverstein wants to start rebuilding the structures according to Steve Solomon, his spokesman, however four employees of Silverstein's company who worked in the firm's management office on the 88th floor of the tower known as 1 World Trade Center have not been accounted for.


Seems that Silverstein has a history of unconstrained uncompassionate acts that go back a long way. He must have friends in high places, as he can get away with anything, it seems. Case in point- Clinton and Powell are defendants at a secret trial.

In July 1993, Harry P. Miller, a Vietnam veteran, filed a complaint in a federal district court of New York against Larry Silverstein, the owner of "Runway 69," a Queens dance club, that included as defendants President Clinton and Colin Powell. The allegations of Miller's complaint were that the named defendants committed or aided others in committing illegal acts, including assassinations, over a twenty-five year period, beginning amidst the Vietnam War, in furtherance of a conspiracy to distribute Laotian heroin. He asserted that the defendants were engaged in heroin trafficking and that "Goldfingers International," a business that supplies nude dancers to nude dance clubs, was laundering the proceeds of the conspiracy through "Runway 69." Miller alleged that the proceeds were used for such purposes as covering up the "political scandals" and buying the "cooperation" of the NYC Police Department.
In April 1993, Miller commenced his action in state court. The action was subsequently removed to the district court and in July 1993, Miller filed an amended complaint, which incorporates his first complaint.
Based on his allegations, Miller asked for $49 million in damages as well as a myriad of court orders, such as one providing that "no President or officer of the United States of America has ever been authorized to order the death of any person without due process of war or law" and that "no executive order of the President can provide due process for assassinations."
In January 1994, all of the defendants moved to dismiss Miller's complaint. In a 28-page order, the court granted each of the defendants' motions and dismissed all of Miller's claims pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b) however Miller appealed to the United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. On September 9, 1997 in case No. 96-6303 Judge Edward R. Korman, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York affirmed the lower court's decision and the entire case was buried. The case was never reported in the mainstream media and a host of questions still remain unanswered.

Seems the WTC is A smoking gun, but not THE smoking gun, and needs to be reopened. It is only one of many and my next post is to shed some light on some slipups by the administration and other incidents that don't fit in. Have to get going. Must work on a vehicle as I can't afford the costs of others doing the work and ripping me off. A '78 Mercedes I'm trying to restore is almost completed and I have to do some welding to get it safetied before the end of the year. Will talk later.

Oh and Durango, how about letting us know what side of the fence you're leaning on. Why this need for information. What's your agenda? Not that I'm paranoid, but it would be nice to know. What is it you know and are holding back. Share your knowledge please, not in snippets please. We've been through most of this info already here at TVNL.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 6:50 pm 
Offline
Senior Member
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 4:09 pm
Posts: 121
Location: Not in the USA
In perfect conditions the maximum temperature that can be reached by hydrocarbons such as jet fuel burning in air is 1520°̊ F (825°̊ C). When the World Trade Center collapsed the deeply buried fires would have been deprived of oxygen and their temperatures would have significantly decreased.
Why was the temperature at the core of "the pile" nearly 500°̊ F hotter than the maximum burning temperature of jet fuel a full five days after the collapses? There were no infernos in either of the twin towers before they collapsed, so what caused the hot spots deep in their wreckage?


Question: What happened to the Subway tunnels (old and new) electrical, sewage, telephone services that were buried beneath the WTC site? A source of air for a fire or heated source. Hot air rises,cool air descends = turbulance

Just a missing piece of the puzzle- there were sources of oxygen to maintain the fires for the lifetime of the fuel source (whatever that "actually" was).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 8:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 6
Okay, cards on the table.

The truth behind the 911 attacks is still probabilistic. By the process of elimination, we can rule out some scenarios, but not others. The physics of the situation seems to rule out the model that the Towers were brought down by the planes only. The timing of the Bldg 7 destruction appears to rule out the notion that 911 wasn’t anticipated. We also know that PNAC admits a need for a Peal Harbor type event. It might be more accurate to characterize it as a “Reichstag Moment.”

The real question is why. If the people on the planes and in the towers were pawns, what was the strategy that made them expendable? What could be so important to the corporate state that it would risk such an exposure?

Here’s the first big clue. Read “The End of the Age of Oil” by Dale Allen Pfeiffer. Here’s a post of mine from Truthout.org.

World oil production will peak soon. Some say it has, some say it will. I split the difference and call 2008 the peak. Thereafter world production will begin to roll off despite the Middle Eastern deposits that can actually increase their production. Natural gas will follow the same global decline within a decade or so.

For this discussion, a fuel is a transportable material that gives up more energy at its point of use than was required to secure it. Our industrial culture runs primarily on fuel. Oil is a fuel. There are other sources of energy, but only fossil carbon and hydrocarbons are the main fuels for industrial culture. Oil is a more energy dense fuel than natural gas or coal. Coal has 1/2 the energy density of oil. Internal combustion engines can't use it. Converting it to fluid fuels is energetically expensive.

Agriculture depends on traction to till, harvest, and transport food. Traction comes from fuel. The fuel is oil. Industrial quantities of ammonia come from natural gas. Ammonia becomes fertilizer. Every calorie of food has ten calories of fluid hydrocarbons subsidizing it.
Traction used to come from the muscles in draft animals and humans. Fertilizers came from biomass. Agricultural surpluses were low. It took between five and ten agricultural workers to feed a non-agricultural worker.

Hydrogen is not a fuel. Wind energy is not a fuel. Fissile isotopes aren't suitable for traction in agriculture. I leave it to the reader to figure out why.

Solar energy in the form of biomass has been the default fuel in pre-industrial cultures. It is diffuse and doesn't lend itself well to centralized control.

The upshot is that in a quasi-free market economy, anticipated or real shortages of a commodity will send its price up. It's not a question of every user getting by on 5% less. Any shortage starts a bidding war. Less profitable uses will turn over their supply to the higher bidder. Social concerns are secondary. Class divides will widen.
The decline of oil is an opportunity for a power grab. The issue is who stands at the cash register and decides who gets what. The party in charge will have a higher place in the pecking order, possibly the highest.

An economic system predicated on exponential growth in a finite environment will eventually face desperation. More extreme control measures will be instituted to preserve elite class privileges. We see examples of this with the USA PATRIOT Act, the attack on Social Security, and economic conscription. Preemptive war, confinement without charge, and torture are now openly espoused as public policy. The republic that was the United States of America ceased to exist in November of 2000. We live in interesting times.


Capitalism is a system of exploitation that concentrates the difference between labor value and market value in the coffers of an elite property owning class. We’ve seen in recent history to what lengths the owners of productive assets are willing to do to protect their interests. In the twenties and thirties, they allied themselves with fascists as a bulwark against socialism. American capitalists have invaded or attacked over 100 countries since the end of WWII in an effort to control commodities, labor, and markets. Millions have died in these adventures. Tens of thousands of American soldiers were among them.

Capitalism has serious internal contradictions. Peak Oil is going to make it impossible to ignore those contradictions. The answer for the capitalists will be to externalize the resultant costs back onto the tax paying , the working and the poor. This has been going on since capitalism originated. We are starting to see it accelerate. When the major source of energy begins to get scarce, well see even more of it. In the past, the propaganda system has managed to keep it out of the public mind for the most part. Keep in mind that the propaganda system in the US serves the same purpose as the bludgeon in countries where lip service to human rights is not a priority. Many of these countries are US client states. There will come a time when the propaganda system will no longer be effective. The groundwork for the alternative is being done in the form of the USA PATRIOT Act, ineptitude after Katrina, privatization of public resources and institutions, to name but a few. The parallels between the Reichstag fire, the legislation that came after, and the smaller conquests that came before Britain and the USSR declared war are just too unnerving to ignore.

This fuel crisis is nothing new. One impetus for the colonization of the New World was a wood shortage in England. Ancient Greece collapsed in part to the stripping of the eastern Mediterranean of its wood to smelt bronze. Around pre-literate Jericho, there was a wood shortage when everyone wanted lime plaster made from roasted clam shells. That caused a collapse, too. Ancient history isn’t all that ancient.

So, from my side of the fence, Bush and the other PNAC conspirators would sacrifice 3,000 people for their goals in a heartbeat. To them it’s a rational response to the coming threats to their class privilege and wealth. Bush doesn’t hate working an poor people as such. They just have no value to him. I hope I bring some engineering skepticism and a bit of historical perspective. They had the means and I believe I understand the motive. Perhaps I’m at the wrong forum.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 20, 2005 2:45 am 
Offline
SuperMember!
SuperMember!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 6:19 pm
Posts: 2533
Hello Durango- You could have told us your story and saved a lot of work for me. We all know about peak oil from Ruppert etc., and this has been discussed here many times. It could be another ruse or red herring that is being thrown at the world to see world oil prices raised quickly. It could be that the easily accessed oil is scarce and now there is only expensive and costly ventures left to man and environment - risks of permanent destruction in the oceans, forests and polar zones. Either way, running out or tapping dry or less accessible, to control it now gives one side of the world more power and productivity.

I and many here agree with you, especially about capitalism- ask my friend Alkemi, as we got into a few disagreements over the Mercantile/free enterprise/ capitalist /casino structure of monetary exchange and usury.

You have found the right site so stick around. Look up the arguments/ discussions Alky and I had a few months back, as well as our many discussions on peak oil. We have kind of strayed from them lately and need to go back over them. Thanks for clearing this up, and welcome to tvnewslies. You have found a home. Sometimes we get pests on here and we need to 'correct' them occasionally, so if we seemed to stray, well certain people need to be reminded that we don't tolerate silly behaviour. This is why I asked you to clarify. I could tell you were working up to something better.


To 'Ontheoutside'- Here's some more info on the subway situation. Hope it helps clarify.


Quote:
Sarah Atlas was part of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue and was one of the first on the scene at Ground Zero with her canine partner Anna. She reported in Penn Arts and Sciences, summer 2002,

‘Nobody's going to be alive.' Fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet. (Penn, 2002; emphasis added.)


The rubble was just settling and there was molten metal already. Only explosions could cause this. That the subways were there to feed oxygen to the flames helped feed it and make it last for 3-4 weeks longer.

These observations are consistent with the use of the high-temperature thermite reaction or some variation thereof, used to cut or demolish steel. Thermite is a mixture of iron oxide and aluminum powder. The end products of the thermite reaction are aluminum oxide and molten iron. So the thermite reaction generates molten iron directly, and is hot enough to melt and even evaporate steel which it contacts while reacting. Use of sulfur in conjunction with the thermite should accelerate the destructive effect on steel, and sulfidation of structural steel was indeed observed in some of the few recovered members from the WTC rubble.

Magma at the earths core remains molten in the absense of oxygen by its thermal condition, just like the thermite concept and is considered a nuclear furnace feeding off its own reaction.

I would very much like to see an analysis of the elemental composition of the metal, and could do this myself if a small sample were made available according to scientific courtesy. The hottest portion of the chunk is the lower portion, which was deepest down in the slag, and the metal is seen to be yellow-hot, certainly above cherry-red hot.

Are there any examples of buildings toppled by fires or any reason other than deliberate demolition that show large pools of molten metal in the rubble? I have posed this question to numerous engineers and scientists, but so far no examples have emerged. Strange then that three buildings in Manhattan, supposedly brought down finally by fires, all show these large pools of molten metal in their basements post-collapse on 9-11-2001. It would be interesting if underground fires could somehow produce molten steel, for example, but then there should be historical examples of this effect since there have been many large fires in numerous buildings. It is not enough to argue hypothetically that fires could possibly cause all three pools of molten metal.

Furthermore, we have published reports that "molten steel [or other metal] flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet" -- how could building fires have caused that effect? Has it ever been seen before?

Highly exothermic chemical reactions other than hydrocarbon fires, such as the thermite reaction which produces molten iron as an end product, are implied by the data. The official reports by NIST, FEMA and the 9-11 Commission strikingly omit mention of large quantities of molten metal observed in the basement areas of WTC 7 and the Towers. Further investigation is strongly motivated.

A symmetrical collapse, as observed, evidently requires the simultaneous “pulling” of many of the support columns. The Second Law of Thermodynamics implies that the likelihood of complete and symmetrical collapse due to random fires as in the “official” theory is small, since asymmetrical failure is so much more likely. On the other hand, a major goal of controlled demolition using explosives is the complete and symmetrical collapse of buildings.
Concluding remarks in the FEMA report on the WTC 7 collapse lend support to my arguments:

The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse [“official theory”] remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis [fire/damage-caused collapse] has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue. (FEMA, 2002, chapter 5)
no such steel-beam building had ever before (or since) completely collapsed due to fires! However, such complete, symmetrical collapses in steel-frame buildings have indeed occurred many times before -- all of them due to pre-positioned explosives in a procedure called “implosion” or controlled demolition. What a surprise, then, for such an occurrence in downtown Manhattan— three skyscrapers completely collapsed on the same day, September 11, 2001.

Thermite, RDX and other commonly-used explosives can readily slice through steel (thus cutting the support columns simultaneously in an explosive demolition) and reach the required temperatures. (It is possible that some other chemical reactions were involved which might proceed at lesser temperatures.) This mystery needs to be explored – but is not mentioned in the “official” 9-11 Commission or NIST reports.

The horizontal ejection of steel beams for hundreds of feet and the pulverization of concrete to flour-like powder, observed clearly in the collapses of the WTC towers, provides further evidence for the use of explosives.

The main challenge in bringing a building down is controlling which way it falls. Ideally, a blasting crew will be able to tumble the building over on one side, into a parking lot or other open area. This sort of blast is the easiest to execute [favored by the Law of Increasing Entropy].

Sometimes, though, a building is surrounded by structures that must be preserved. In this case, the blasters proceed with a true implosion, demolishing the building so that it collapses straight down into its own footprint (the total area at the base of the building). This feat requires such skill that only a handful of demolition companies in the world will attempt it. [Again, consistent with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.]

Blasters approach each project a little differently... [A good] option is to detonate the columns at the center of the building before the other columns so that the building's sides fall inward

Consider: Why would terrorists undertake straight-down collapses of WTC7 and the Towers, when “toppling-over” falls would require much less work and would do much more damage in downtown Manhattan? And where would they obtain the necessary skills and access to the buildings for a symmetrical implosion anyway? These questions suggest the need for further investigation.

At any given location, the duration of [air, not steel] temperatures near 1,000oC was about 15 min to 20 min. The rest of the time, the calculated temperatures were near 500oC or below.” (NIST, 2005, p. 127)

So how does the NIST team justify the WTC collapses, when actual models fail to collapse and there are zero examples of fire-caused high-rise collapses? Easy, NIST concocted computer-generated hypotheticals for very “severe” cases, called cases B and D (NIST, 2005, pp. 124-138). Of course, the details are rather hidden to us. And they omit consideration of the complete, rapid and symmetrical nature of the collapses.

What about the subsequent complete, rapid and symmetrical collapse of the buildings? What about the observed squibs? What about the antenna dropping first in the North Tower? What about the molten metal observed in the basement areas in large pools in both Towers and WTC 7 as well? Never mind all that: NIST did not discuss at all any data after the buildings were “poised for collapse.” Well, some of us want to look at ALL the data, without computer simulations that are “adjusted,” perhaps to make them fit the desired outcome.

Kevin Ryan, the whistleblower from Underwriters Laboratories, did his own statistical analysis in a recent letter regarding the NIST report, arguing that probabilities of collapse-initiation needed to be calculated (Ryan, 2005). NIST nowhere provides such a likelihood analysis for their non-explosive collapse model. Ryan’s analysis is that the probability that fires and damage (the “official theory”) could cause the Towers complete collapse is less than one in a trillion, and the probability is much less still when the complete collapse of WTC7 is included (Ryan, 2005). Nor does NIST (or FEMA or the 9-11 Commission) even mention the molten metals found in the basements of all three buildings (WTC 1, 2 and 7)

And these explosives also readily account for the turning of the falling Towers to fine dust as the collapse ensues. Rather than a piling up with shattering of concrete as we might expect from non-explosive-caused progressive collapse (“official theory”), we find that most of the Towers material (concrete, carpet, steel, etc.) is converted to flour-like powder WHILE the buildings are falling. The Towers’ collapses are not a typical implosions, but quite possibly series of “shock-and-awe” explosions – at least the evidence points strongly in this direction. The hypothesis ought to be explored further.

Those who wish to preserve as inviolate fundamental physical laws may wish to take a closer look. Consider the collapse of the South WTC Tower on 9-11:

We observe that approximately 34 upper floors begin to rotate as a block, to the south and east. They begin to topple over, as favored by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The torque due to gravity on this block is enormous, as is its angular momentum. But then – and this I’m still puzzling over – this block turned mostly to powder in mid-air! How can we understand this strange behavior, without explosives? Remarkable, amazing – and demanding scrutiny since the US government-funded reports failed to analyze this phenomenon. But, of course, the Final NIST 9-11 report “does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached.” (NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 1)

The business smacks of political constraints on what was supposed to be an “open and thorough” investigation.

Remarkably, the explosive demolition hypothesis accounts for all the available data rather easily. The core columns on lower floors are cut using explosives, near-simultaneously, along with explosives detonated up higher so that gravity acting on now-unsupported floors helps bring down the buildings quickly. The collapses are thus symmetrical, rapid and complete, with accompanying squibs -- really very standard stuff for demolition experts. Thermite (whose end product is molten iron) used on some of the steel beams readily accounts for the molten metal which then pooled beneath the rubble piles.

I believe this is a straightforward hypothesis, much more probable than the official hypothesis.

the official theory lacks repeatability in that no actual models or buildings (before or since 9-11-01) have been observed to completely collapse due to the proposed fire-based mechanisms. On the other hand, dozens of buildings have been completely and symmetrically demolished through the use of pre-positioned explosives and chemical-cutters. And high-temperature chemical reactions can account for the observed large pools of molten metal, under both Towers and WTC 7. The “explosive demolition” hypothesis better satisfies tests of repeatability and parsimony and therefore is not “junk science.”

None of the government-funded studies have provided serious analyses of the explosive demolition hypothesis at all. Until the above steps are taken, the case for accusing ill-trained Muslims of causing all the destruction on 9-11-01 is far from compelling. It just does not add up.

And that fact should be of great concern to Americans. (Ryan, 2004). Clearly, we must find out what really caused the WTC skyscrapers to collapse as they did.

To this end, NIST must release the 6,899 photographs and over 300 hours of video recordings – acquired mostly by private parties – which it admits to holding (NIST, 2005, p. 81). In particular, photos and analyses of the molten metal (probably not molten steel) observed in the basements of both Towers and WTC7 need to be brought forth to the international community of scientists and engineers immediately.

William Rodriguez has sent important information (private communications, November 2005) which I append in closing:
"Thank you so much for coming out with a report questioning the "official Story" of 9/11. I read with a lot of dedication your paper and I distributed it widely to all the Victims and survivors of that day (I am the leader of the families and the last person pull from the rubble from the North Tower).

You are just missing my experience. I told the 9/11 Commission about the explosions and the events on the sub-basement on that day. They did not put it in the final report. Please check the internet under "William Rodriguez 9/11". I am trying to raise the same questions. Since I am a respected figure internationally, I noticed how my testimony has been presented unedited all over the world. But in the USA, I am edited and even though I have a lot of respect from the media, I am asked constantly about other subjects and issues but nothing about the explosions of that day. Congratulations from the side of the really affected on that day. Keep up your investigations.

About my experience. My basis was, like I told the Commission, there was an explosion that came from under our feet, we were pushed upwards lightly by the effect, I was on basement level 1 and it sounded that it came from B2 and B3 level. Rapidly after that we heard the impact far away at the top. My assertions are [that] my 20 years experience there and witnessing prior to that many other noises [enable me] to conclude without any doubt where the sounds were coming from. 2ND- Some of the same people that I saved gave testimonies in interviews of the same experience prior to my actually being reunited with them after the event!!! Like I explained, some of these survivors stories were told in countless [interviews] of coverage, but in SPANISH!! I have the actual recordings available of some of the Television Specials that featured our stories.

Mr. Rodriguez worked for years in the building and his perception of sounds cannot be overlooked. He is a reliable witness. Above (and elsewhere) he records that the explosion in the sub-basement was followed “rapidly after that” by the sound of an impact far above. This assertion is remarkable for it strongly suggests that the colliding plane or its fuel could not have caused the (earlier) explosion in the sub-basement. William and other witnesses may shed additional light on the explosions in the Towers on 9/11/2001.

William Rodriguez Hispanic Victims Group, 9/11 United Services Group, Lower Manhattan Family Advisory Counsel

You can read this article by Steven Jones and get the info yourself.
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

The subways are insignifigant. The Molten Metal was there from the beginning and was the result of thermite explosives.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Blue Moon by Trent © 2007
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group