Paul Craig Roberts And Gullible Moronic Americans.

[35Pete]

Gullible Americans

By Paul Craig Roberts

08/14/06 "Information Clearing House" -- --

I was in China when a July Harris Poll reported that 50 percent of Americans still believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when Bush invaded that country, and that 64 percent of Americans still believe that Saddam Hussein had strong links with Al Qaeda.

The Chinese leaders and intellectuals with whom I was meeting were incredulous. How could a majority of the population in an allegedly free country with an allegedly free press be so totally misinformed?

The only answer I could give the Chinese is that Americans would have been the perfect population for Mao and the Gang of Four, because Americans believe anything their government tells them.

Americans never check any facts. Who do you know, for example, who has even read the Report of the 9/11 Commission, much less checked the alleged facts reported in that document. I can answer for you. You don’t know anyone who has read the report or checked the facts.

The two co-chairmen of the 9/11 Commission Report, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, have just released a new book, “Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission.” Kean and Hamilton reveal that the commission suppressed the fact that Muslim ire toward the US is due to US support for Israel’s persecution and dispossession of the Palestinians, not to our “freedom and democracy” as Bush propagandistically claims. Kean and Hamilton also reveal that the US military committed perjury and lied about its failure to intercept the hijacked airliners. The commission even debated referring the military’s lies to the Justice Department for criminal investigation. Why should we assume that these admissions are the only coverups and lies in the 9/11 Commission Report?

How do you know that 9/11 was a Muslim terrorist plot? How do you know that three World Trade Center buildings collapsed because two were hit by airliners? You only “know” because the government gave you the explanation of what you saw on TV. (Did you even know that three WTC buildings collapsed?)

I still remember the enlightenment I experienced as a student in Russian Studies when I learned that the Czarist secret police would set off bombs and then blame those whom they wanted to arrest..

When Hitler seized dictatorial power in 1933, he told the Germans that his new powers were made necessary by a communist terrorist attack on the Reichstag. When Hitler started World War II by invading Poland, he told the Germans that Poland had crossed the frontier and attacked Germany.

Governments lie all the time--especially governments staffed by neoconservatives whose intellectual godfather, Leo Strauss, taught them that it is permissible to deceive the public in order to achieve their agenda.

Some readers will write to me to say that they saw a TV documentary or read a magazine article verifying the government’s explanation of 9/11. But, of course, these Americans did not check the facts either--and neither did the people who made the documentary and wrote the magazine article.
Scientists and engineers, such as Clemson University Professor of Engineering Dr. Judy Woods and BYU Professor of Physics Dr. Steven Jones, have raised compelling questions about the official account of the collapse of the three WTC buildings. The basic problem for the government's account is that the buildings are known to have fallen at free fall speed, a fact that is inconsistent with the government's "pancaking" theory in which debris from above collapsed the floors below. If the buildings actually "pancaked," then each floor below would have offered resistance to the floors above, and the elapsed time would have been much longer. These experts have also calculated that the buildings did not have sufficient gravitational energy to accommodate the government's theory of the collapse. It is certainly a known and non-controversial fact among physicists and engineers that the only way buildings can collapse at free fall speed into their own footprints is by engineered demolition. Explosives are used to remove the support of floors below before the debris from above arrives. Otherwise, resistance is encountered and the time required for fall increases. Engineered demolition also explains the symmetrical collapse of the buildings into their own foot prints. As it is otherwise improbable for every point in floors below to weaken uniformly, "pancaking" would result in asymmetrical collapse as some elements of the floor would give sooner than others.

Scientific evidence is a tough thing for the American public to handle, and the government knows it. The government can rely on people dismissing things that they cannot understand as "conspiracy theory." But if you are inclined to try to make up your own mind, you can find Dr. Jones' and Dr. Woods’ papers, which have been formally presented to their peers at scientific meetings, on line at http://www.st911.org/

Experts have also pointed out that the buildings' massive steel skeletons comprised a massive heat sink that wicked away the heat from the limited, short-lived fires, thus preventing a heat buildup. Experts also point out that the short-lived, scattered, low-intensity fires could barely reach half the melting point of steel even if they burned all day instead of merely an hour.

Don't ask me to tell you what happened on 9/11. All I know is that the official account of the buildings' collapse is improbable.


Now we are being told another improbable tale. Muslim terrorists in London and Pakistan were caught plotting to commit mass murder by smuggling bottles of explosive liquids on board airliners in hand luggage. Baby formula, shampoo and water bottles allegedly contained the tools of suicide bombers.

How do we know about this plot? Well, the police learned it from an “Islamic militant arrested near the Afghan-Pakistan border several weeks ago.” And how did someone so far away know what British-born people in London were plotting?

Do you really believe that Western and Israeli intelligence services, which were too incompetent to prevent the 9/11 attack, can uncover a London plot by capturing a person on the Afghan border in Pakistan? Why would “an Islamic militant” rat on such a plot even if he knew of it?

More probable explanations of the “plot” are readily available. According to the August 11 Wayne Madsen Report, informed sources in the UK report that “the Tony Blair government, under siege by a Labor Party revolt, cleverly cooked up a new ‘terror’ scare to avert the public’s eyes away from Blair’s increasing political woes. British law enforcement, neocon and intelligence operatives in the US, Israel, and Britain, and Rupert Murdoch’s global media empire cooked up the terrorist plot, liberally borrowing from the failed 1995 ‘Oplan Bjinka’ plot by Pakistan- and Philippines-based terrorist Ramzi Ahmad Yousef to crash 11 trans-Pacific airliners bound from Asia to the US.”

There are other plausible explanations. For example, our puppet in Pakistan decided to arrest some people who were a threat to him. With Bush’s commitment to “building democracy in the Middle East,” our puppet can’t arrest his political enemies without cause, so he lays the blame on a plot.

Any testimony against Muslim plotters by “an Islamic militant” is certain to have been bought and paid for.

Or consider this explanation. Under the Nuremberg standard, Bush and Blair are war criminals. Bush is so worried that he will be held accountable that he has sent his attorney general to consult with the Republican Congress to work out legislation to protect Bush retroactively from his violations of the Geneva Conventions.

Tony Blair is in more danger of finding himself in the dock. Britain is signatory to a treaty that, if justice is done, will place Blair before the International Criminal Court in the Hague.

What better justification for the two war criminals’ illegal actions than the need to foil dastardly plots by Muslims recruited in sting operations by Western intelligence services? The more Bush and Blair can convince their publics that terrorist danger abounds, the less likely Bush and Blair are ever to be held accountable for their crimes.

But surely, some readers might object, our great moral leaders wouldn’t do something political like that!

They most certainly would. As Joshua Micah Marshall wrote in the July 7 issue of Time magazine, the suspicion is “quite reasonable” that “the Bush Administration orchestrates its terror alerts and arrests to goose the GOP’s poll numbers.”

Joshua Micah Marshall proves his conclusion by examining the barrage of color-coded terror alerts, none of which were real, and, yes, it all fits with political needs.

And don’t forget the plot unearthed in Miami to blow up the Sears Tower in Chicago. Described by Vice President Cheney as a “very real threat,” the plot turned out to be nothing more than a few harmless whackos recruited by an FBI agent sent out to organize a sting.

There was also the “foiled plot” to blow up the Holland Tunnel and flood downtown New York City with sea water. Thinking New Orleans, the FBI invented this plot without realizing that New York City is above sea level. Of course, most Americans didn’t realize it either.

For six years the Bush regime has been able to count on the ignorant and naive American public to believe whatever tale that is told them. American gullibility has yet to fail the Bush regime.

The government has an endless number of conspiracy theories, but only people who question the government’s conspiracies are derided for “having a conspiracy theory.”

The implication is even worse if we assume that the explosive bottle plot is genuine. It means that America and Britain by their own aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan, and by enabling Israel’s war crimes in Palestine and Lebanon, have created such hatred that Muslims, who identify with Bush’s, Blair’s, and Israel’s victims, are plotting retaliation.

But Bush is prepared. He has taught his untutored public that “they hate us for our freedom and democracy.”

Gentle reader, wise up. The entire world is laughing at you.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14531.htm

[sukie]

Jesus now we need to read volumes of this guys crap. RP's running mate per chance? Where are the videos?

[JLB]

This guy works for Bush it's one of them conspiracy things.:D

[35Pete]

Jesus now we need to read volumes of this guys crap. RP's running mate per chance? Where are the videos?

Interesting. So now you've turned your back on Reagan principles, huh?

Sukie. Paul Craig Roberts was talking about YOU.

[sukie]

Point out where. You know me.

[shiva2999]

Although I posted that piece before, it's always a pleasure to read it again.

I enjoy watching the gullible squeal like stuck pigs.

Oh look, there's two of them already!

[35Pete]

Although I posted that piece before, it's always a pleasure to read it again.

I enjoy watching the gullible squeal like stuck pigs.

Oh look, there's two of them already!

ROFLMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yeah. Two guys that never check the facts.

They'll believe the government without question when it's run by the GOP.

[sukie]

I'm not squealing at all. Political op eds mean nothing to me. I don't follow a political agenda on a daily basis. I don't think about politics in the shower... I don't take a dump and think about Iraq... I never worry about healthcare except when I need to go get a prostate exam (good thoughts really) I could care less really. I'm more concerned about kicking Pete's ass week one in fantasy.

[sukie]

ROFLMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yeah. Two guys that never check the facts.

They'll believe the government without question when it's run by the GOP.

Which party costs me more money. It's really simple

[JLB]

ROFLMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yeah. Two guys that never check the facts.

They'll believe the government without question when it's run by the GOP.

the government lies to you everyday wake up.

[sukie]

ROFLMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yeah. Two guys that never check the facts.

They'll believe the government without question when it's run by the GOP.

And you'll just live by who us relevant voters decide should control your life. Don't worry we'll select your evil for you.:arizona:

[35Pete]

Which party costs me more money. It's really simple

So your values are bought and sold to the highest bidder, huh?

[sukie]

So your values are bought and sold to the highest bidder, huh?
No my day to day life is... lowest bidder BTW.

[shiva2999]

ROFLMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yeah. Two guys that never check the facts.

They'll believe the government without question when it's run by the GOP.

It's not only these two guys.

You notice how supposedly smart guys like Anein, gil and admarc took a powder when we destroyed their ridiculous hammer/dixie cup/battleships analogies.

As you know, cognitive dissonance is extremely powerful.

[35Pete]

No my day to day life is... lowest bidder BTW.

So how you vote, and in turn elect politicians is dependant on maximizing your disposable income.

Hypothetical here, nothing more Sukie....

In other words let's say Rudy Gulliani promises a low tax for you but in return you have to accept laws that allow him to jail a guy like 35Pete for dangerous speech, but let's say Dennis Kucinich, who would raise your taxes but allow 35Pete his say, you'd choose Rudy and not give a rat's ass if I went off to jail? In other words the determining factor would be money?

Am I inferring correctly based on your statements?

Remember, don't argue the hypothetical. It's just that, a hypothetical.

[sukie]

What are the dems offering, Hypothetically?

[shiva2999]

Sukie would walk over his grandmother for a buck.

[35Pete]

It's not only these two guys.

You notice how supposedly smart guys like Anein, gil and admarc took a powder when we destroyed their ridiculous hammer/dixie cup/battleships analogies.

As you know, cognitive dissonance is extremely powerful.

I never took a powder. Unfortunately I fell into the answer that I didn't want to discover.

[sukie]

Sukie would walk over his grandmother for a buck.

A buck isn't worth the walk.

[JLB]

wow there's sincere confusion.

:popcorn:

does the other fella answer questions to?

[35Pete]

What are the dems offering, Hypothetically?

Don't beg the question in order to avoid answering it. It's an uncomfortable scenario indeed. But you know I am smart enough to not let you go for a gazzilion posts demuring from answering.

Pretty simple scenario requiring a simple answer really.

[shiva2999]

I never took a powder. Unfortunately I fell into the answer that I didn't want to discover.

Pile a hundred crackers in a tower.

Remove crackers 78 and 79.

Drop the 20 upper crackers on the lower 77 crackers.

Do they crush the crackers to the ground?

Of course not.

[JLB]

who's thread is this?

oh never mind sorry no answers just questions.

wrong thread where's the life liberty happy thread.

[JLB]

Pile a hundred crackers in a tower.

Remove crackers 78 and 79.

Drop the 20 upper crackers on the lower 77 crackers.

Do they crush the crackers to the ground?

Of course not.

kinda like pick up sticks.

sorry that didn't help you.

[shiva2999]

kinda like pick up sticks.

sorry that didn't help you.

It didn't help anyone.

[JLB]

It didn't help anyone.

you really need better help.

[35Pete]

It didn't help anyone.

Do you know that through the actions of the CIA, and the military-industrial complex, that my government has been involved with at least as many deaths as those sent "up the chimney" under Adolf Hitler?

They are all martyrs for "freedom".

[shiva2999]

you really need better help.

I don't need the help.

You do.

[JLB]

I don't need the help.

You do.

You cut down Gil are you smarter than Gil?

[sukie]

Do you know that through the actions of the CIA, and the military-industrial complex, that my government has been involved with at least as many deaths as those sent "up the chimney" under Adolf Hitler?

They are all martyrs for "freedom".

So the Military Industrial Complex is new?

[shiva2999]

You cut down Gil are you smarter than Gil?

On this issue, yes.

Plus, I have another advantage.

I'm not an American.

[35Pete]

So the Military Industrial Complex is new?

You are out of turn with your question. I'm still up.

I asked a question. Now answer it.

[FamousAmos]

Is this still about 9/11? That was 5, nearly six years ago? Really?

[shiva2999]

Is this still about 9/11? That was 5, nearly six years ago? Really?

Very good.

Your point?

[35Pete]

Is this still about 9/11? That was 5, nearly six years ago? Really?

My God, 911 is so 2001. Let's move past it already.

[35Pete]

Is this still about 9/11? That was 5, nearly six years ago? Really?

So it doesn't bother you that President George Bush and his minions personally orchestrated and executed the mass murder of 3,000 individuals.

Bush performed 911. Let me state that again. Our own government slaughtered 3,000 men, women, and children for a politco-economic agenda.

[JLB]

gang bang! :popcorn:

[sukie]

Pete back to your question... If the other side was offering worse then yes I would support Rudy.

[shiva2999]

So it doesn't bother you that President George Bush and his minions personally orchestrated and executed the mass murder of 3,000 individuals.

Bush performed 911. Let me state that again. Our own government slaughtered 3,000 men, women, and children for a politco-economic agenda.

It was for the good of the country.

I'm sure the 3000 who were crushed, burned or fell to their deaths were happy to make the sacrifice.

[JLB]

Famous get ready for some real challenging debate.:D

:popcorn:

they can't wait to pounce.

one of these guys is smarter than Gil according to himself so be careful.

[35Pete]

Pete back to your question... If the other side was offering worse then yes I would support Rudy.

So I go to jail so that you can keep another buck or two in your pocket, right?

My right of free expression would then be effectively sold by you.

That's pretty damn dishonorable sukie. It really is.

Financial status, while important to me is not paramount in my life.

Being able to wake up in the morning, knowing that I didn't **** my fellow man, and being able to look myself in the mirror everyday is most important.

I'd rather have honor and integrity and eat rice and stale bread everyday then drive a Mercedes and have to deal with the fact that my values boiled down to material and status.

A year of the later and I'd blow my own brains out from not being able to cope with the shame.

[JLB]

who's turn is it to ask a question now?

[35Pete]

who's turn is it to ask a question now?

He still didn't answer the question.

A simple "yes" or "no" and he's on deck.

[JLB]

He still didn't answer the question.

A simple "yes" or "no" and he's on deck.

it looked like a yes.

[FamousAmos]

If there are "sides" to the argument, each "side" is going to have their articles to back them up. Here is popular mechanics version of the story. http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

And here is BBC's story on it, which at times rips on PM's account of 9/11.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/conspiracy_files/6341851.stm

This article from time:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1531304,00.htm

is talking about guys like Pete and Shiva.

What are you supposed to believe? What is known as fact?

[JLB]

Pete back to your question... If the other side was offering worse then yes I would support Rudy.


there is where I thought he said yes.

[JLB]

If there are "sides" to the argument, each "side" is going to have their articles to back them up. Here is popular mechanics version of the story. http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

And here is BBC's story on it, which at times rips on PM's account of 9/11.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/conspiracy_files/6341851.stm

This article from time:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1531304,00.htm

is talking about guys like Pete and Shiva.

What are you supposed to believe? What is known as fact?


:popcorn:

[FamousAmos]

So it doesn't bother you that President George Bush and his minions personally orchestrated and executed the mass murder of 3,000 individuals.

Bush performed 911. Let me state that again. Our own government slaughtered 3,000 men, women, and children for a politco-economic agenda.


Pete, no matter what anybody writes, the truth won't come out.

[35Pete]

If there are "sides" to the argument, each "side" is going to have their articles to back them up. Here is popular mechanics version of the story. http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

And here is BBC's story on it, which at times rips on PM's account of 9/11.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/conspiracy_files/6341851.stm

This article from time:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1531304,00.htm

is talking about guys like Pete and Shiva.

What are you supposed to believe? What is known as fact?
Obfuscation is a POWERFUL TOOL.

Famous. Unless anyone here can convincingly explain to me how Conservation of Energy, for the first time in the history of the universe, could have logically been violated, then they need to :stfu:

Cause game over and they are a complete, stupid, ****ing retard if they cannot and yet persist in their denial.

It's like trying to argue that gravity is an illusion because otherwise gravity would expose to them a truth that they do not want to confront.

[FamousAmos]

So it doesn't bother you that President George Bush and his minions personally orchestrated and executed the mass murder of 3,000 individuals.

Bush performed 911. Let me state that again. Our own government slaughtered 3,000 men, women, and children for a politco-economic agenda.

No Pete, it doesn't bother me that President Bush did what ever you say he did because I don't believe it.

Does it bother you, Pete, that you are disparaging the loss of 3,000+ individuals to perpetuate a political agenda?





Before you go off on me in this thread, doesn't that last question piss you off? Because what you believe to be true (the question you stated to me initially) pisses me off just as mine does to you. I can't change your mind and you can't change mine. That doesn't mean I don't respect you and hopefully you feel the same as me.

[JLB]

No Pete, it doesn't bother me that President Bush did what ever you say he did because I don't believe it.

Does it bother you, Pete, that you are disparaging the loss of 3,000+ individuals to perpetuate a political agenda?

Before you go off on me in this thread, doesn't that last question piss you off? Because what you believe to be true (the question you stated to me initially) pisses me off just as mine does to you. I can't change your mind and you can't change mine. That doesn't mean I don't respect you and hopefully you feel the same as me.

Great Post!!!!!

[FamousAmos]

Obfuscation is a POWERFUL TOOL.

Famous. Unless anyone here can convincingly explain to me how Conservation of Energy, for the first time in the history of the universe, could have logically been violated, then they need to :stfu:

Cause game over and they are a complete, stupid, ****ing retard if they cannot and yet persist in their denial.

It's like trying to argue that gravity is an illusion because otherwise gravity would expose to them a truth that they do not want to confront.

Yeah, you're right! That's how I feel, too. And I'm not trying to make things unclear.

[FamousAmos]

Christ! What I saw with my own eyes in homeroom that morning is as clear as the sky is on a summer eve; 3,000 people died for an unjust cause.

You can believe what you think happened.

[35Pete]

No Pete, it doesn't bother me that President Bush did what ever you say he did because I don't believe it.

Does it bother you, Pete, that you are disparaging the loss of 3,000+ individuals to perpetuate a political agenda?





Before you go off on me in this thread, doesn't that last question piss you off? Because what you believe to be true (the question you stated to me initially) pisses me off just as mine does to you. I can't change your mind and you can't change mine. That doesn't mean I don't respect you and hopefully you feel the same as me.


Go to YouTube and time the fall of the buildings. Or better yet the seismic data the shows how long it took the towers to fall.
An object at "x" meters above the ground will take SquareRoot(2*x) to fall in the absence of a resistive force such as a lower building structure that was designed solely to provide a counterforce to keep it elevated and prevent gravity from crashing it down. The structure above it could fall indeed due to damage, but never, under any circumstances, could it fall at free-fall speed. The remaining structural integrity of the building did not just instantaneously vanish. It HAD to provide some resistance to the fall.

And a battleship gives a powerful and emotional visual of the potent force of a large mass falling. But we seem to conveniently forget that the floors below it, unless they instantaneously crumbled via divine force, were designed to offer a counterforce much greater than the weight of that battleship. Could it stop it. Maybe not. That is physically possible (google "impulse force" and "momentum physics"). Could it slow it down? Not only yes, but unless physical law is an illusion, it would have to. Either that or 911 was an illusion. Now what is more probable? Only two choices Famous. There is no convenient third option.

Do the math and then come back and discuss. Prove to me that Conservation of Energy can be violated. Otherwise really. You got nothin'. Cause I don't want to hear your sophistry and BS unless you can get past this unfortunate and inconvenient objective observation.

Values can be argued.
Moral can be argued.
Ideals can be argued.

Physics can't.

[JLB]

stop before more innocent blood is spilled.

[FamousAmos]

Why doesn't anti 9/11 truth movement people post their articles? Why are guys like you Pete so adamant in trying to persuade us to believe you?

[35Pete]

Why doesn't anti 9/11 truth movement people post their articles? Why are guys like you Pete so adamant in trying to persuade us to believe you?

The only way for me to possibly convince you is to get you to think, rather than react.

[FamousAmos]

stop before more innocent blood is spilled.

If you're referring to me, JLB, I'm not exactly innocent! :rolleyes2

And what do you say to this, JLB?

[FamousAmos]

I'm not a terribly mathematical minded person, I'm more of a romantic if that makes any sense.

[FamousAmos]

I have neither the endurance or the wherewithal to go toe to toe with Pete!

[shiva2999]

If there are "sides" to the argument, each "side" is going to have their articles to back them up. Here is popular mechanics version of the story. http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

And here is BBC's story on it, which at times rips on PM's account of 9/11.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/conspiracy_files/6341851.stm

This article from time:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1531304,00.htm

is talking about guys like Pete and Shiva.

What are you supposed to believe? What is known as fact?

Sorry, but we've exposed those "articles" a number of times.

They are retarded and agenda ridden.

I know you won't accept this but from our probably tens of thousands of posts on the subject has left anyone that's paying attention waaaaaay more knowledgeable about the subject than your run of the mill journalist or bushco stooge, like the Popular Mechanics guys.

I'm telling you the truth.

I've believed this for four years and EVERYTHING I've seen in the meantime has only confirmed my analysis.

Bushco pulled 9/11.

Osama and Zawahiri are Bushco partners.

Al Qaeda works for Bushco.

International terrorism is bullshit.

[JLB]

If you're referring to me, JLB, I'm not exactly innocent! :rolleyes2

And what do you say to this, JLB?

I say be of good cheer this rehash of 911 is old we did it before and these conspiracy theories as far as I'm concerned are all foolish.

What say you? :rockon:


I say are you ready for some football!!

:bills:

[35Pete]

I'm not a terribly mathematical minded person, I'm more of a romantic if that makes any sense.

It's high school math Famous. It's actually a bit more complicated due to the viscosity of air but if I included that then it would work even more against your argument.

[35Pete]

I say be of good cheer this rehash of 911 is old we did it before and these conspiracy theories as far as I'm concerned are all foolish.

What say you? :rockon:


I say are you ready for some football!!

:bills:

Gullible American.

[shiva2999]

Pete, no matter what anybody writes, the truth won't come out.

The truth is obvious to those who wish to see it.

Obvious.

[shiva2999]

Why doesn't anti 9/11 truth movement people post their articles? Why are guys like you Pete so adamant in trying to persuade us to believe you?

Nobody demanded you talk about this.

Do you want to learn or do you know it all?

[JLB]

Gullible American.

love you to Pete.

[shiva2999]

Christ! What I saw with my own eyes in homeroom that morning is as clear as the sky is on a summer eve; 3,000 people died for an unjust cause.

You can believe what you think happened.

So what did you see?

Tell us your story.

I know what I saw.

[shiva2999]

love you to Pete.

He's giving you the benefit of the doubt.

[JLB]

I see one dealer and one buyer.

[35Pete]

The truth is obvious to those who wish to see it.

Obvious.

Shiva. No one wants to address the free fall issue. The seismic data is conclusive.

Yet they dismiss it with a laugh and use the cliche "conspiracy" to dismiss anyone that questions the OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT STORY as a quack nutcase.

You'd think, that they would SALIVATE over the chance to run with this. Yet no one will attempt to "put me down" once and for all over this matter.

It's the dark closet that they don't want to peer into, that's why.

What is usually indicated when someone ignores a specific argument? You know the answer to this. Consider it a softball tossed over home plate.

Their reasoning? The government told us what happened. The king can do no wrong.

[JLB]

He's giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Ok have a good night.

[sukie]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoOp40E6UZg

[shiva2999]

No Pete, it doesn't bother me that President Bush did what ever you say he did because I don't believe it.

Does it bother you, Pete, that you are disparaging the loss of 3,000+ individuals to perpetuate a political agenda?


Have you ever considered that if you are wrong, it is YOU that is disparaging the deaths of 3000 people?

This event has caused the murder of half a million people while the American military/security/industrial complex has become fabulously wealthy.

Think they'd blink at sacrificing 3000 "of their own"?

Hell no.

[JLB]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoOp40E6UZg

case closed we win again you lose again now the blood flow needs to stop.

good night!

[35Pete]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoOp40E6UZg

You post an amatuer vid as "proof".

Here, have some science sukie and argue who's evidence is stronger. This is a scientific measurement.

http://www.911review.com/errors/wtc/seismic.html

[35Pete]

case closed we win again you lose again now the blood flow needs to stop.

good night!

I am now convinced that you are intellectually challenged.

[uppy]

Do you know that through the actions of the CIA, and the military-industrial complex, that my government has been involved with at least as many deaths as those sent "up the chimney" under Adolf Hitler?

They are all martyrs for "freedom".

:rofl:

The military-industrial complex ........

There is no Military-Industrial Complex anymore, Pete

When Ike made that speech the defense industry represented 40% of our entire economic output.

[JLB]

You post an amatuer vid as "proof".

Here, have some science sukie and argue who's evidence is stronger.

http://www.911review.com/errors/wtc/seismic.html

Your right Clinton did it because she wanted the presidency in 08.

Just as viable as the 2 lb. bag of shit for sale here.

[35Pete]

Another one sukie.
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/LDqIZZR_nn8"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/LDqIZZR_nn8" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

[shiva2999]

Shiva. No one wants to address the free fall issue. The seismic data is conclusive.

Yet they dismiss it with a laugh and use the cliche "conspiracy" to dismiss anyone that questions the OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT STORY as a quack nutcase.

You'd think, that they would SALIVATE over the chance to run with this. Yet no one will attempt to "put me down" once and for all over this matter.

It's the dark closet that they don't want to peer into, that's why.

What is usually indicated when someone ignores a specific argument? You know the answer to this. Consider it a softball tossed over home plate.

Their reasoning? The government told us what happened. The king can do no wrong.

Even if the fires were hot enough to cause a ridiculous "catastrophic collapse" (which they weren't), and the top 20 floors fell 2 stories in free fall, it doesn't negate the fact that in the same way as the top structure is accelerating toward the bottom structure, the bottom is accelerating at the same rate towards the top. So as it impacts and crushes, floor 80 and 77 crush each other, then 81 and 76 break up, then 82 and 75 and so on.

By the time the fall had reached the 55th floor or so the collapse would have stopped, if not before then.

[JLB]

I am now convinced that you are intellectually challenged.

Pete honesty is so much more important I appreciate knowing how you really feel.

Have a good night with your topic of interest.:beers:

[35Pete]

Some more....

http://uscrisis.lege.net/911/

[JLB]

pile it up high as possible maybe you'll find a pony so you can ride out.

[uppy]

Pete stop with the "The military-industrial complex" line please.

[shiva2999]

The monkeys are howling.

"How daaaaaaaare you!"

[35Pete]

Pete stop with the "The military-industrial complex" line please.

Why? It doesn't exist?

[sukie]

You post an amatuer vid as "proof".

Here, have some science sukie and argue who's evidence is stronger. This is a scientific measurement.

http://www.911review.com/errors/wtc/seismic.html

Does this answer debris falling faster and seemingly accelerating downward if the building was the constant free fall subject?

[35Pete]

Does this answer debris falling faster and seemingly accelerating downward if the building was the constant free fall subject?

Sukie. Since you are really good at reading data why not look at the seismic data and tell me.

A measurement is the most accurate indication of all, would you not agree? Besides, I can show you a YouTube angle that refutes your video. That's why when I was initially evaluating this I followed up with seismic information.

And guess what? Michael Moore didn't own the lab that was recording data. Honest.

[sukie]

I'm looking at free fall. Seismic is a different arguement.

[35Pete]

I'm looking at free fall. Seismic is a different arguement.

Actually no. It's not.

In fact I love when people make claims as fact such that "Seismic data is a different argument", state it as factually as the moon is round, and then fail to explain why.

Because it naturally suggests the following question when no supporting argument is given for the statement:

"How so?" "Why is it a different argument?". Why would a calibrated impulse measurement pray tell, be less accurate then a subjective observation, especially when at least one angle shows major structure smashing into the earth faster than physics should allow. And the seismic data supports that. The instruments don't lie sukie. And the people taking measurements at that moment did not have reason to fudge the devices. They didn't even know that Bush was in a murderous mood that day.

[sukie]

Significance of Findings for On-Site Conditions

Unfortunately, no seismic recordings of ground motion are currently known to exist at or very close to the WTC.

[35Pete]

Significance of Findings for On-Site Conditions

Unfortunately, no seismic recordings of ground motion are currently known to exist at or very close to the WTC.

Ohh Lord. Ohh my.

Not only did you not answer the question in any way, shape or form, but you make another statement of fact without a shred of supporting argument.

Are you SURE that you want to stick to that last statement? Think hard, because you know that I am about to prove you wrong.

[sukie]

Pete... If you are going to demolish a couple of towers why would you need almost twice the TNT to bring down the North vs the South? I guess they realized that would be necessary and planned ahead to do it (from seismic readings)

[35Pete]

Here's some more science sukie. Enjoy.

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/NQUUpCN4aKw"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/NQUUpCN4aKw" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

[sukie]

Pete... If you are going to demolish a couple of towers why would you need almost twice the TNT to bring down the North vs the South? I guess they realized that would be necessary and planned ahead to do it (from seismic readings)

Bump.

[35Pete]

Pete... If you are going to demolish a couple of towers why would you need almost twice the TNT to bring down the North vs the South? I guess they realized that would be necessary and planned ahead to do it (from seismic readings)

What? Do you understand the data? Where did you reach that conclusion?

That data follows a classic physically dampened oscillation system. Where does it demonstrate that 2x explosives were used?

[micknaboz]

Scary shit indeed. Though I have for a long long time been convinced that Bush, Cheney, et al knew in advance that 9/11 would occur I've never enetertained the thought that they actually carried it out. I'm not saying they didn't, maybe its just too frightening to entertain, I've just never went there.I have talked to many people though, people who are very intelligent professionals, people you would never expect to fall into conspiracy theories , who definitely feel much like Pete and Shiva. Maybe not about Bush actually carrying it out, but that the facts just dont add up.

So I got a question for ya Pete and shiva. In light of the neocon coup in 2000, 9/11, the deceitful invasion of Iraq, the suspension of habeas corpus, the "illegal" spying on American citizens, signing statements by Bush transferring all power from the congress to the executive in the event of a terrorist attack, etc etc etc, in light of all this, do you believe the Bush-Cheney cabal is going to relinquish power in 2008?

[Green Lantern]

I bet, if Bush planned it, he thought a few hundred would die. He probably didn't bank on some idiots telling people to go back to their desks...

[35Pete]

Bump.

Hmm Itching for a response because you think you are on to something, huh?

[uppy]

Why? It doesn't exist?

It no longer has any meaningful influence. It no longer represent nearly half of our economy.

We have one plant making small arms ammunition. There are a whopping 450 people at work building tanks. We used to have a myriad of different aerospace corporations and now we're down to about two. We couldn't even build another Iowa class battleship if we wanted to.

Our defense industry is a joke.

[sukie]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hW6HdCbU_ZY&mode=related&search=

[35Pete]

Scary shit indeed. Though I have for a long long time been convinced that Bush, Cheney, et al knew in advance that 9/11 would occur I've never enetertained the thought that they actually carried it out. I'm not saying they didn't, maybe its just too frightening to entertain, I've just never went there.I have talked to many people though, people who are very intelligent professionals, people you would never expect to fall into conspiracy theories , who definitely feel much like Pete and Shiva. Maybe not about Bush actually carrying it out, but that the facts just dont add up.

So I got a question for ya Pete and shiva. In light of the neocon coup in 2000, 9/11, the deceitful invasion of Iraq, the suspension of habeas corpus, the "illegal" spying on American citizens, signing statements by Bush transferring all power from the congress to the executive in the event of a terrorist attack, etc etc etc, in light of all this, do you believe the Bush-Cheney cabal is going to relinquish power in 2008?

No. Not at all. Their forthcoming plan to detonate a nuclear device here will ensure an emergency suspension of the constitution, justified by the unprecedented horror of such a massive and unspeakable attack by terrorists. The republic must first be saved they'll argue.

[Green Lantern]

It no longer has any meaningful influence. It no longer represent nearly half of our economy.

We have one plant making small arms ammunition. There are a whopping 450 people at work building tanks. We used to have a myriad of different aerospace corporations and now we're down to about two. We couldn't even build another Iowa class battleship if we wanted to.

Our defense industry is a joke.

Tell that to GE and Singer.

[micknaboz]

Originally Posted by Uppy View Post
Pete stop with the "The military-industrial complex" line please.

Why? It doesn't exist?

Its the "Military-Corporate " complex now. We've lost(outsourced) much of our industrial base.

[35Pete]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hW6HdCbU_ZY&mode=related&search=

OMG!!!!!

It's doubters verses the government and you post what????????????


An official government video demonstrating the fallacy of an inside job by....

the government.

Desperate sukie? Made up your mind and you're scrapping for evidence of your "truth"?

[uppy]

Tell that to GE and Singer.

And they are 40% of our economy like if was when Ike made his remarks

lmao

[sukie]

OMG!!!!!

It's doubters verses the government and you post what????????????


An official government video demonstrating the fallacy of an inside job by....

the government.

Desperate sukie? Made up your mind and you're scrapping for evidence of your "truth"?

Is the seismic data wrong that is listed? ! vs @ would have been much similar... Stop attacking the source... That pisses of Pete... Oh.. It is Pete.

[Green Lantern]

And they are 40% of our economy like if was when Ike made his remarks

lmao

The US spends 51% of the total military expenditures on the planet and GE, et al., supply a majority of the "good" guys with US weapons.

I think it is they who LMAO all the way to the bank.

[shiva2999]

Scary shit indeed. Though I have for a long long time been convinced that Bush, Cheney, et al knew in advance that 9/11 would occur I've never enetertained the thought that they actually carried it out. I'm not saying they didn't, maybe its just too frightening to entertain, I've just never went there.I have talked to many people though, people who are very intelligent professionals, people you would never expect to fall into conspiracy theories , who definitely feel much like Pete and Shiva. Maybe not about Bush actually carrying it out, but that the facts just dont add up.

So I got a question for ya Pete and shiva. In light of the neocon coup in 2000, 9/11, the deceitful invasion of Iraq, the suspension of habeas corpus, the "illegal" spying on American citizens, signing statements by Bush transferring all power from the congress to the executive in the event of a terrorist attack, etc etc etc, in light of all this, do you believe the Bush-Cheney cabal is going to relinquish power in 2008?

Rudy Giuliani is Bushco's candidate.

If they can trust him to win or come close enough where they can feasibly steal the election, they will maintain the facade.

But I really think they're capable of anything.

Personally I think the 9/11 plot was hatched before the internet became a factor.

People were blindsided by 9/11. It won't happen again.

[sukie]

Ignore the source but look at graphs with the red and blue boxes... Is that NOT the seismic data?
http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/911-seismograph-2.jpg

[sukie]

Why if similar structures with near identical mass produce such differences?

[uppy]

Is the seismic data wrong that is listed? ! vs @ would have been much similar... Stop attacking the source... That pisses of Pete... Oh.. It is Pete.


CNN and mother jones are the only source to be trusted

[35Pete]

Is the seismic data wrong that is listed? ! vs @ would have been much similar... Stop attacking the source... That pisses of Pete... Oh.. It is Pete.

Sukie. Do you, I mean you, actually understand the seismic data? It's a classic physically dampened response.

Anyone with a whiff of training in physics will recognize that immediately. Methinks you went scrambling for a video to support your case, found FEMA's video, and posted it.

Now, since the gov't is on trial in the court of public opinion, I think it is fair to question the source in this case. That's like asking a murder suspect if he killed the woman, he says no, and you offer it as conclusive evidence.

Surely you can do better, right?

[35Pete]

Ignore the source but look at graphs with the red and blue boxes... Is that NOT the seismic data?
http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/911-seismograph-2.jpg

Sukie. You just hurt your case, you do know that? Shall I keep you in suspense?

[sukie]

Wouldn,t 1 be close to two in seismic activity or is it recording error ?

[Green Lantern]

Why if similar structures with near identical mass produce such differences?

By that line of thinking, the planes couldn't have really hit the Towers at all. They were identical planes and they hit identical buildings, why the disparity in seismic data on the impacts?

[sukie]

Sukie. You just hurt your case, you do know that? Shall I keep you in suspense?

Go for it...

[35Pete]

Go for it...

Not yet sukie. I want to give you more rope.

So, do you think that the dampened oscillations in the box represent alledged explosion data sukie? Or that I have made that claim?

What physical activity recorded at that moment do those responses represent?

[35Pete]

I won't be cruel. They represent tremors sukie. The oscillatory up and down subtle movement of the earth below as the buildings collapse.

Explosives don't produce an oscillatory response sukie. They produce something much closer to an impulse response.

[micknaboz]

Rudy Giuliani is Bushco's candidate.

If they can trust him to win or come close enough where they can feasibly steal the election, they will maintain the facade.

But I really think they're capable of anything.

Personally I think the 9/11 plot was hatched before the internet became a factor.

People were blindsided by 9/11. It won't happen again.

I think Fred Thompson is the neocon candidate myself. Knowing of his undying support for the Bushies, the fact that he was a big player in raising millions for the Scooter Libby defense fund, I got a bad feeling about him.

[35Pete]

Wouldn,t 1 be close to two in seismic activity or is it recording error ?

You'd have to have zero concept of total system variation in order to believe that sukie.

[sukie]

But if two towers of equal mass collapse wouldn't the readings be the same?

[35Pete]

I think Fred Thompson is the neocon candidate myself. Knowing of his undying support for the Bushies, the fact that he was a big player in raising millions for the Scooter Libby defense fund, I got a bad feeling about him.

So do I. So do I.

[sukie]

You'd have to have zero concept of total system variation in order to believe that sukie.

What variations? Tower one and Tower two... Close to same mass falling nuder gravity as you claim

[sukie]

I won't be cruel. They represent tremors sukie. The oscillatory up and down subtle movement of the earth below as the buildings collapse.

Explosives don't produce an oscillatory response sukie. They produce something much closer to an impulse response.

Explain then since the graph I gave you proves no detonation of explosions.

[35Pete]

But if two towers of equal mass collapse wouldn't the readings be the same?

That's like saying that if the towers fell a hundred times over that the seismic fingerprint would be the same. That's an absurd notion, even before considering variation in charges, differences in weakened structure above the floors STILL INTACT, variation in charge placement, materials within the buildings, yada yada yada.

Are you trying to make the claim that Palisades data in this specific special case happens to be conveniently invalid?

Is that what you are trying to do sukie?

Sukie, are you familar with the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle and variation in measurement of natural phenomena?

[sukie]

Free fall of mass... Where is the variable?

[sukie]

The planes were a diversion in the controlled demolition... Weakened floors above and below are insignificant.

[35Pete]

Wouldn,t 1 be close to two in seismic activity or is it recording error ?

Then perhaps you should look at this instead.

http://www.911review.com/errors/wtc/seismic.html

[35Pete]

The planes were a diversion in the controlled demolition... Weakened floors above and below are insignificant.

How's that sukie? Those fingerprints represent a total system. And variations in the system, such as aircraft damage would contribute to a different fingerprint. In fact, many things would.

Tell me. Is the data invalid? If so then why?

[sukie]

There's alot of crap assumption in that piece. Saying the explosions seismically were similar to a gasoline plant explosion are ludicrous. You would need to show the TNT equivalent and then show how no visible signs of such an explosion could occur.

[sukie]

How's that sukie? Those fingerprints represent a total system. And variations in the system, such as aircraft damage would contribute to a different fingerprint. In fact, many things would.

Tell me. Is the data invalid? If so then why?

You said the buildings came down at free fall. Free fall of mass X yields a result. Did the south tower have less mass?

[35Pete]

Free fall of mass... Where is the variable?

Sukie I thought that you were up to snuff on all this stuff. Surely you know that Heisenburg and Shrodinger demonstrated that no two measurements of the same system will probablistically ever be the same.

Here, some light reading.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle


Your claim that the two should have the same seismic fingerprint is absurd and demonstrates your ignorance. You don't even understand the data that you are presenting as evidence.
BTW. Before you get cute, HUP applies equally to macroscopic systems.

I haven't even touched the actual system variation that you claim is not there. That's an even more powerful refutation.

[sukie]

Pete but they would be similar, no?

[sukie]

Fine Lines: Revisionists say sharp spikes (graph 1, above) mean bombs toppled the WTC. Scientists disprove the claim with the more detailed graph 2 (below). (Seismograph readings by Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University: Won-Young Kim, senior research scientist; Arthur Lerner-Lam, associate director; Mary Tobin, senior science writer)

FACT: "There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."

The report issued by Lamont-Doherty includes various graphs showing the seismic readings produced by the planes crashing into the two towers as well as the later collapse of both buildings. WhatReallyHappened.com chooses to display only one graph (Graph 1), which shows the readings over a 30-minute time span.

On that graph, the 8- and 10-second collapses appear — misleadingly — as a pair of sudden spikes. Lamont-Doherty's 40-second plot of the same data (Graph 2) gives a much more detailed picture: The seismic waves — blue for the South Tower, red for the North Tower — start small and then escalate as the buildings rumble to the ground. Translation: no bombs.


From under my previous seismic graph.

[shiva2999]

I think Fred Thompson is the neocon candidate myself. Knowing of his undying support for the Bushies, the fact that he was a big player in raising millions for the Scooter Libby defense fund, I got a bad feeling about him.

The original plan was for Jeb but that won't fly now.

That's why it's Rudy, who was also in on 9/11.

Fred Thompson is just on a hot young wife fuelled ego trip.

I saw more video of him last night.

He looks like crap. He won't run.

Not seriously. Maybe just enough to be a power broker at the convention.

Old and sick.

[35Pete]

Fine Lines: Revisionists say sharp spikes (graph 1, above) mean bombs toppled the WTC. Scientists disprove the claim with the more detailed graph 2 (below). (Seismograph readings by Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University: Won-Young Kim, senior research scientist; Arthur Lerner-Lam, associate director; Mary Tobin, senior science writer)

FACT: "There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."

The report issued by Lamont-Doherty includes various graphs showing the seismic readings produced by the planes crashing into the two towers as well as the later collapse of both buildings. WhatReallyHappened.com chooses to display only one graph (Graph 1), which shows the readings over a 30-minute time span.

On that graph, the 8- and 10-second collapses appear — misleadingly — as a pair of sudden spikes. Lamont-Doherty's 40-second plot of the same data (Graph 2) gives a much more detailed picture: The seismic waves — blue for the South Tower, red for the North Tower — start small and then escalate as the buildings rumble to the ground. Translation: no bombs.


From under my previous seismic graph.

Your graph is a convenient subset of the actual data. Some would call it "cherry picked". That's what happens when you only present information that supports your cause and "accidentally" omit damaging data.

See my graph, it includes your graph's time frame plus a considerable amount of time prior to your data, which of course your source seems to have conveniently left out.

BTW. Where did you get that graph? Source please?

[shiva2999]

Pete

When you get tired of leading sukie around by his nose, read this guy.

You'll enjoy it...

http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr68e.html

[sukie]

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/WTC_20010911.html

What is wrong with this data?

[35Pete]

Fine Lines: Revisionists say sharp spikes (graph 1, above) mean bombs toppled the WTC. Scientists disprove the claim with the more detailed graph 2 (below). (Seismograph readings by Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University: Won-Young Kim, senior research scientist; Arthur Lerner-Lam, associate director; Mary Tobin, senior science writer)

FACT: "There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."

The report issued by Lamont-Doherty includes various graphs showing the seismic readings produced by the planes crashing into the two towers as well as the later collapse of both buildings. WhatReallyHappened.com chooses to display only one graph (Graph 1), which shows the readings over a 30-minute time span.

On that graph, the 8- and 10-second collapses appear — misleadingly — as a pair of sudden spikes. Lamont-Doherty's 40-second plot of the same data (Graph 2) gives a much more detailed picture: The seismic waves — blue for the South Tower, red for the North Tower — start small and then escalate as the buildings rumble to the ground. Translation: no bombs.


From under my previous seismic graph.


Man, you are all over the place sukie. First you question why the data is different. Now you cite your cherry picked "partial seismic record" as evidence.

Now, please refer to the WHOLE event as presented in my data.

[35Pete]

Pete

When you get tired of leading sukie around by his nose, read this guy.

You'll enjoy it...

http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr68e.html

Thanks but I'll have to read it in the morning. Typing with one hand and talking with sis on the other. She gets pissed when I ignore her while on the phone. LOL

[sukie]

Why is N tower so vastly different from S tower... Your data?

[sukie]

Whty does debris fall faster after being projected outward?

[sukie]

http://www.debunking911.com/Collapse3.jpg

Wouldn't 1 and two be closer together and closer to free fall?

[sukie]

If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.

[micknaboz]

So do I. So do I.

Plus Thompsons ultra conservative stances on cultural issues, like him promising to ban abortion and get a No Gay Marriage amendment into the constitution, will certainly rile up the base , which could be key, especially if Hillary wins the nom and the dem base is less than enthusiastic. Which is exactly the fight the neocons are hoping for I believe.

[shiva2999]

watch this...

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/EZ9BofDUXv0"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/EZ9BofDUXv0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

[JLB]

Why is N tower so vastly different from S tower... Your data?

bump

[JLB]

Whty does debris fall faster after being projected outward?

bump

[shiva2999]

Why does the debris get projected outward in the first place?

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/site1085.jpg

[sukie]

Why does the debris get projected outward in the first place?

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/site1085.jpg

Good question since that doesn't happen in controlled demos.

[Shakespeare]

I'll admit I haven't read all the links to articles in this thread yet, so I'm going to ask this question....

Do any of them deal with the construction differences between WTC and other conventional skyscrapers?

[Shakespeare]

BTW...No offense, shiva, but the 'Tower of Crackers' analogy isn't very appropriate.

[uppy]

Why does the debris get projected outward in the first place?

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/site1085.jpg


Its called the atmospheric pressure is less then the pressure of the building
as it compresses.But don't let the real world get in the way from a good
moonbat theory......carry on.

[uppy]

watch this...

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/EZ9BofDUXv0"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/EZ9BofDUXv0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>


You're not embarrassed by this?

LMAO

use your own words......

[shiva2999]

BTW...No offense, shiva, but the 'Tower of Crackers' analogy isn't very appropriate.

Tower of soup cans, tower of footstools, tower of cargo containers.

Pick whatever you want, it works the same.

People pimping total collapse rely on the "the hella heavy top floors fell on the bottom floors and the whole thing collapsed because the top floors were so hella heavy!"

This totally ignores a whole bunch of stuff.

Take a look at this heavy thing falling.

Stopped by empty cardboard boxes...

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9TO3Uq6dWto"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9TO3Uq6dWto" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

[shiva2999]

Its called the atmospheric pressure is less then the pressure of the building
as it compresses.

Huh?

[shiva2999]

You're not embarrassed by this?

LMAO

use your own words......

Are you drunk again?

[uppy]

Are you drunk again?

nope.....let me ask you this, why are posting these youtubes to prove
the points you make.


I laugh

[35Pete]

http://www.debunking911.com/Collapse3.jpg

Wouldn't 1 and two be closer together and closer to free fall?

Wow. Where do I start. Ya gotta love when people post stuff that they don't understand. What's even better is when they THINK that they do.

You're looking at a visual, see the graphs separated, and hence "viola", it WAS possible?

Or was it?

First off sukie, do you know why the graphs are parabolic arcs? I'll tell you why, because they are functions of a power function. That makes sense, I'll give you that.

Do you know why, when you take the average acceleration (and not even the iinstantaneous one), that the first graph does not equate to 9.8 m/s^2 sukie?
Viscosity of air, that's why.

Do you know why the last two graphs are smooth monotonically decreasing functions? (nice and neat arcing functions of increasing velocity). I sure as hell don't. Perhaps you could tell me why. The slope at any point on those arcs represents the velocity of the material falling. My what a graceful accelleration of floors that are CRASHING INTO EACH OTHER. LOL

But OK, OK, I'll even give you that. So, is 11.5 seconds near free fall?

Well, like you have agreed with me many a time you don't have a vote on physics. You run the math and see if it makes sense, right? 9.2 vs. 11.5.

Surely this is physically possible the sheep are saying. Rejoice rejoice, it's been debunked!

Well. Not so fast.

Remember the famous "battleship analogy" that everyone lost their breath on, chorused "Ooooo, that's REALLY smart", and declared "case closed"?

Well people conveniently forgot, myself included, that the structure below it was designed to support SEVERAL BATTLESHIPS. Yeah, those top floors were really heavy. I mean super heavy. I mean wow! That's a lot weight falling. But what was holding it up was really strong. I mean super strong.

To the layman 11.5-9.2 = 2.3 seconds. Damn Pete, it took 2.3/9.2 = 25% longer for the building to fall. So your full of shit. "We've thought this one out Pete".

Uhh, OK. Sure.

But, seeing that you are really good at this stuff, you'd know that by knowing the final acceleration of the object that you can compare the relative kinetic energy of the mass under both circumstances, correct?

Stay with me. Put the beer down. This is the fun part.

x = building height.
a= acceleration
t = time.
Vf = final velocity.

Classic Newtonian Gravitational Physics

Case 1. The first graph (I gave you the formulas, confirm the math)

a = 9.55 meters per second squared.
Vf = 329 km/hr (91 meters per second)

Case 2.
a = 8.57 meters per second squared.
Vf = 264 km/hr (74 meters per second).

Kinematics.

KE = 1/2 x mv^2.

First case.

.5*m*(91^2) = 4140.5m

Second case. .5*m*(74^2) = 2738m

Now, conservation of energy says that no energy had to be added to the system, correct? So, case 1 shows ALL the energy in free fall and case 2 shows some transferred to the floors belows to wreck the building. But how much?

1- KE2/KE1

1 - (2738m)/(4140.5m) = 1-2738/4140.5 = 1-.661 = .339 = 34%

Holy shit. It only took 34% of the structures energy to bust up the building. The rest was converted to energy of motion. That's amazing isn't it.

Except the building was designed to withstand not one battleship above it, but several. To the trained physicist this number is patently absurd. To you, all it needs to be is just somewhat different, then you'll use your "hunch", "guess", or "seems about right" methodology to convince yourself.

Please don't go into the bridge building business sukie. Unless you plan on practicing in Minnesota.

I think Miknaboz said it perfectly. There is a reason why a lot of educated and intelligent people have a huge beef with the official story. It doesn't add it.

[Shakespeare]

Tower of soup cans, tower of footstools, tower of cargo containers.

Pick whatever you want, it works the same.


Actually, it doesn't. Load distribution and location of main bearing points are different depending on the construction methods and materials used, and are pretty much the determining factors in how a building is going to react when introduced to unexpected variables that exceed the capacity for which they were designed.

The cardboard box example may be 'impressive' to some at first glance, but replace the multiple boxes with a single box of the same size and see what happens when the dude lands in the center.

[sukie]

Pete if 7 was detonated as well... Or "pulled"? why did it take nearly 16 seconds to fall?

[35Pete]

Pete if 7 was detonated as well... Or "pulled"? why did it take nearly 16 seconds to fall?

This guys says that you are pretty dumb at physics. Don't get mad at me. He said it.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/W7Kuttler.pdf

BTW. He's a Professor of Mathematics at Brigham Young University. A full mathematic proof of the impossible fall-time of WTC 7 given the gubmint's explanation is given in this link.

Sukie, you're drowning on this issue. Tread harder.

[sukie]

Pete you throw up alot of physics equations that assume a controlled closed setting. Because you say I am drowning doesn't make it so unless you keep saying it and get the chorus to join in.

You are blinded by your science sometimes.

[35Pete]

Pete you throw up alot of physics equations that assume a controlled closed setting. Because you say I am drowning doesn't make it so unless you keep saying it and get the chorus to join in.

You are blinded by your science sometimes.

I'm goading you my friend. :)

Blinded by science? LOL

You're right sukie. Clever verbal arguments are what it's gonna take to settle this issue. That and pre-disposed faith.

That's how facts are determined. Everyone knows that. ;)

[shiva2999]

Actually, it doesn't. Load distribution and location of main bearing points are different depending on the construction methods and materials used, and are pretty much the determining factors in how a building is going to react when introduced to unexpected variables that exceed the capacity for which they were designed.


Duh.

Do you know how the WTC towers were constructed? We've posted the details numerous times.

Core, outer skin and floors tieing them together.


The cardboard box example may be 'impressive' to some at first glance, but replace the multiple boxes with a single box of the same size and see what happens when the dude lands in the center.

Or replace them with a big plastic air bag.

So what?

The point being that a heavy object will not necessarily crush lighter and flimsier objects to the ground just because it is heavier and falling.

Look, if you are seriously interested in discussing the subject rather than just looking for something to argue about, I will be happy to discuss it.

But you have to realize that there has been an enormous amount of information that's been posted about it so, I for one, am reluctant to go back to 9/11 101 for the benefit of someone who's just looking for an argument.

[Shakespeare]

Duh.

Do you know how the WTC towers were constructed? We've posted the details numerous times.

Core, outer skin and floors tieing them together.

I know a little bit about it. Maybe I'll take the time and search back and see some of the previous posts.



Or replace them with a big plastic air bag.

So what?

The point being that a heavy object will not necessarily crush lighter and flimsier objects to the ground just because it is heavier and falling.

The air bag is another story and only remotely relevant. The last point is true and I agree. How the load is dispersed, how the bearing points are distributed, etc are important factors that need to be taken into consideration when drawing a conclusion.


Look, if you are seriously interested in discussing the subject rather than just looking for something to argue about, I will be happy to discuss it.

But you have to realize that there has been an enormous amount of information that's been posted about it so, I for one, am reluctant to go back to 9/11 101 for the benefit of someone who's just looking for an argument.

I'm not arguing about anything, or looking for an argument. Just adding some information that hadn't been mentioned in this particular thread, yet. I haven't even hinted any comment as to whether I agree or disagree with you and others, or think you might be right or wrong. The only things I've disagreed with are the 'Cracker Tower' analogy and the cardboard box demonstration, and that's because neither are representative of the actual construction of the twin towers. Rather, they represent the opposite end of the spectrum.

As for 9/11 101, if you overlook the basics then you increase your chances of arriving at a faulty conclusion.

For the record, I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility that the towers were rigged. I also don't think it's improbable or impossible that the aftermath is directly related to how the towers were designed and constructed.

[shiva2999]

http://www.kolumbus.fi/totuus/img/wtc-core.jpg

http://911.yweb.sk/images/wtc/wtccore/WTC_Core_03s.jpg

http://physics911.net/images/9-11%20Picture5.jpg

The main problem with the official explanation is the core.

47 immense steel beams in compression encased in concrete.

No way that crushes.

[shiva2999]

There is a very simple experiment that could be done.

Next skyscraper scheduled for demolition you blow out two floors 1/5th of the way down from the top of the building.

Let the top 20% fall on the bottom 80% and see if it crushes the bottom down to the ground.

[uppy]

There is a very simple experiment that could be done.

Next skyscraper scheduled for demolition you blow out two floors 1/5th of the way down from the top of the building.

Let the top 20% fall on the bottom 80% and see if it crushes the bottom down to the ground.

LMAO

Never give up

[Shakespeare]

There is a very simple experiment that could be done.

Next skyscraper scheduled for demolition you blow out two floors 1/5th of the way down from the top of the building.

Let the top 20% fall on the bottom 80% and see if it crushes the bottom down to the ground.

I wouldn't trust the outcome of such an experiment, regardless of the results, unless the control environment were identical or close to identical to the original.

[35Pete]

http://www.kolumbus.fi/totuus/img/wtc-core.jpg

http://911.yweb.sk/images/wtc/wtccore/WTC_Core_03s.jpg

http://physics911.net/images/9-11%20Picture5.jpg

The main problem with the official explanation is the core.

47 immense steel beams in compression encased in concrete.

No way that crushes.

Yes indeed. In fact, a beam provided the strongest counterforce when it is in compression.