3,000 Died... Bush LIED!

http://www.debunking911.com/

Interesting that some believe that the WTC could be brought down by demolition explosives, but not by a large explosive.

Perhaps you'd like to enlighten us with you thoughts on the moon landing, Jim Morrison, UFOs, the Murrah building, Kennedy's assasination, Jimmy Hoffa.

Seems like someone has not recovered from early childhood deception and is suffering from the Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy Syndrome.

In search of the truth wrote:

The terrorists really love what the liberals are doing for them. They appreciate it a lot.
But when the times comes they are going to kill the liberals just like the rest of us.

"They"?

"Liberals"?

What do you mean by these?

Where do you stand? Have you read all the posts in this thread?

Have you seen any of the listed films?

Perhaps we should go one at a time....and you go first

I'd question a few things before anything speculative like CD.

Norman Mineta's omitted testimony
Sibel Edmonds' omitted testimony + gag order
$100,000 wire transfer to Mohammad Atta, with Gen. Ahmad of ISI meeting in US during 9/11 attack. It has been reported Ahmad authorized the wire transfer. He was meeting with Bob Graham and Porter Goss.

The July 10th meeting between Tenet, Rice, and others.
(Sign the victims' families' petition regarding this)

I'd start with those.

Just Joe wrote:

http://www.debunking911.com/
Interesting that some believe that the WTC could be brought down by demolition explosives, but not by a large explosive.
Perhaps you'd like to enlighten us with you thoughts on the moon landing, Jim Morrison, UFOs, the Murrah building, Kennedy's assasination, Jimmy Hoffa.
Seems like someone has not recovered from early childhood deception and is suffering from the Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy Syndrome.

WOW... they have a whole "How-to" site for all you guys.... perhaps you could be more specific as to what you are refering to with the one big explosion?

tk,
Actually, it doesn't work that way. If JJJ makes a single argument proving one aspect of the Official Conspiracy Story incorrect, the veracity of the entire story is in the tank. After 5 1/2 years of propagandizing (and stonewalling efforts to get further evidentiary proof), the OCS is forever etched in stone. They can't at this late date choose to say "Oh yeah, we made that part up, or encouraged perjury on that, or decided not to mention that the terrorists had moles in NORAD, or that other state intelligence agencies were involved. But it's ultimately of little consequence -- nothing to see here."

Any one of those things would be enough to have a verdict overturned in court. And speaking of legal matters, you do know that bin Laden has never been charged with the crimes of 9/11, don't you? That he is not wanted by law enforcement for them? That the FBI said on record that there is no evidence of his involvement?

Hmmmmm...I'm no conspiracy theorist, but I smell a rat.

leh wrote:

tk,
Actually, it doesn't work that way. If JJJ makes a single argument proving one aspect of the Official Conspiracy Story incorrect, the veracity of the entire story is in the tank. After 5 1/2 years of propagandizing (and stonewalling efforts to get further evidentiary proof), the OCS is forever etched in stone. They can't at this late date choose to say "Oh yeah, we made that part up, or encouraged perjury on that, or decided not to mention that the terrorists had moles in NORAD, or that other state intelligence agencies were involved. But it's ultimately of little consequence -- nothing to see here."
Any one of those things would be enough to have a verdict overturned in court. And speaking of legal matters, you do know that bin Laden has never been charged with the crimes of 9/11, don't you? That he is not wanted by law enforcement for them? That the FBI said on record that there is no evidence of his involvement?
Hmmmmm...I'm no conspiracy theorist, but I smell a rat.

Well said!

Waiting on you tk.... I'm going to lunch!

JJJames wrote:

<quoted text>
Unfortunately we will still have these criminals running around trying to stick another attack on the Democrats so that they will get elected the next time.
This is not about political wrangling.... This is not an effort to make the Democrats look good and the Republicans look bad.... they are all on the same team.... they are all doing their part to F the people.
Shillary said that she would have bombed Iraq back to the stone age if it were up to her. The Clintons are just as bad if not worse than the Bushes.
Where are we going to be with Hillary in the White House and Bill in charge of the UN???

Clearly, you should run the country because everyone else is a liar.

Can you say delusional paranoia?

JJJ and other readers,

I'll answer JJJ's opening assertions. JJJ, if these are the topics you choose, we'll go into them later in much greater detail.

*****

From the questions above...

JJJ said:
I know that it is impossible for buildings to collapse through the path of most resistance and still hit the ground measuring times near freefall speed.

tk Replies:
Simply false. You saw it happen. Ergo, it is not impossible. Mass (the enormous mass of the upper segment above the damage), Inertia, the direction of gravity forces and the relative weakness of the structure (against such huge dynamic loads) REQUIRED that the building collapse straight down.

And this statement holds REGARDLESS of whether or not the demolition was initiated by explosives or structural failure from fires & damage.

*****

JJJ said:
I know that the 911 Commission Report lied about the structure of the Twin Towers saying that the core of the building was a hollow steel shaft when in fact it consisted of 47 large rectangular structural steel box columns which tapered from 4" thickness at the base to 1" thick at the top.

tk Replies:
No, JJJ. This is not a lie. It merely represents YOUR misunderstanding of engineering terminology. The buildings themselves are referred to as a "tube within a tube" structure. The NIST report's "box" is referring to the inner "tube", the main support structure around the core. The box was the assembled structures made up of hundreds of individual extruded rectangular steel members, welded & bolted together. There is nothing that says that the box is "continuous solid" metal. It is an OPEN box structure constructed of the individual beams.

*****

JJJ said:
I know that hydrocarbon fires do not reach temperatures anywhere near the melting point of steel especially after only one hours time. Jet fuel is a hydrocarbon.

tk Replies:
Irrelevent. For the 1000th time, nobody said anything about "melting".

*****

JJJ said:
I know that the elevator shafts were not continuous from the top of the building to the lobby so there is absolutely no way that the jet fuel traveled down the elevator shafts to create the explosions which desimated the lobbys in both buildings.

tk Replies:
In fluid mechanics & hydrodynamics, air (& a blast wavefront) are reffered to as "fluids". You think that fluids might be able to follow a circuitous path? Do you believe that the elevator tubes, that were, in fact, "stepped", were hermetically sealed FROM EACH OTHER? Do you know how important it is to the functioning of the elevator that the tubes allow pressure equilibration (and therefore free flowing air) above & below the elevator cars?

tk

[End Part 1]

[Part 2]

JJJ said:
I know that we can string together the witness testimony from that morning along with the news reports of explosions and create a film well over two hours long.

tk Replies:
And this proves exactly what...?

*****

JJJ said:
I know that WTC was not hit by any plane and it had a few small fires yet somehow it collapsed into it's own footprint at freefall speed.

tk Replies:
I assume you mean WTC7.
Small fires? Care to quantify that?(NOT qualify. Quantify!)
"Collapsed into its own footprint". Damage to the Verizon building proves this false.
"...at freefall speeds." Simply not true.
*****

JJJ said:
I know that the BBC reported it collapsed 20 minutes before it actually collapsed.

tk Replies:

*****

JJJ said:
I know that they found steel from that building that was vaporized which requires temperatures near 5,000 degrees!$ times hotter than diesel fuel can produce in optimum conditions.

tk Replies:
If the steel was "vaporized", where did they find it? Vapor deposition on some other part?

Do you know that if you take a hammer & strike a piece of steel hard enough to create a "spark", that you have just successfully VAPORIZED steel?

*****

JJJ said:
Would you like to continue?

tk Replies:
Love to.

Awaiting your reply. Choose your THREE items carefully, JJJ.

Yeah Yeah Yeah. America sucks. Republicans want to eat your children. Bush is the Anti- Christ. 9-11 was a conspiracy of hundreds of sociopath conspirators who were promised stock in Halliburton but later killed by Dick Cheney. Capitalism is the root of all evil. Radical Islamic fascist terrorism began with the evil Bush Administration. Conservatives are stupid and liberals are all-knowing, all-caring. We need a hero like Fidel to take over and provide for us. Belafonte and Glover are right; they just can’t get a break in this Godforsaken country (that is if there really was a God). Vote democrat, or better yet, socialists, I mean communist, I mean progressive. Yeah, that’s the ticket. Then life will be a dream. Maybe, with a little luck we won’t have to bother to vote again.(When Fidel took over, one of his group said,“now we have to set up elections” and Fidel replied,“What elections?”

JJJames wrote:

Where do you stand? Have you read all the posts in this thread?
Have you seen any of the listed films?
Perhaps we should go one at a time....and you go first

JJJ,

I would like to think that you are perceptive enough to intuit my position from my comment that I would be "happy to CHALLENGE you on this topic."

Nonetheless, I stand on ONLY one side. The side of truth. No agenda other than that.

I also stand on the side of knowledge & expertise. The answer to ENGINEERING questions is not determined by vox populi. It is determined by the voice of EXPERTS. Experienced structural engineers, mechanical engineers, demolitions experts, etc.

Fortunately, I fall into one of those categories. I'll try to keep up with your analyses, I promise.

I have watched hundreds of hours of both pro & anti CT videos. I'm fairly well versed at this point.

I have not read all the posts in this thread. Nor do I need to. I am perfectly capable of processing the information, finding strengths & weaknesses of both casual and rigorous engineering analyses on my own. Thank you for your concern on that issue.

I am anxious to see if you can do the same, rather than simply parroting words that others provide you.

Regards,

tk

Just Joe wrote:

http://www.debunking911.com/
Interesting that some believe that the WTC could be brought down by demolition explosives, but not by a large explosive.
Perhaps you'd like to enlighten us with you thoughts on the moon landing, Jim Morrison, UFOs, the Murrah building, Kennedy's assasination, Jimmy Hoffa.
Seems like someone has not recovered from early childhood deception and is suffering from the Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy Syndrome.

By george you got it. Jim Morrison, Elvis, Marilyn Monroe and Hoffa wired the buidlings. Since they are supposed to be dead, no one worried about them ever talking.

Outstanding work. Now JJJJJJJ JJJJ JJJJ ames can sleep at night.

leh wrote:

tk,
Actually, it doesn't work that way. If JJJ makes a single argument proving one aspect of the Official Conspiracy Story incorrect, the veracity of the entire story is in the tank. After 5 1/2 years of propagandizing (and stonewalling efforts to get further evidentiary proof), the OCS is forever etched in stone. They can't at this late date choose to say "Oh yeah, we made that part up, or encouraged perjury on that, or decided not to mention that the terrorists had moles in NORAD, or that other state intelligence agencies were involved. But it's ultimately of little consequence -- nothing to see here."
Any one of those things would be enough to have a verdict overturned in court. And speaking of legal matters, you do know that bin Laden has never been charged with the crimes of 9/11, don't you? That he is not wanted by law enforcement for them? That the FBI said on record that there is no evidence of his involvement?
Hmmmmm...I'm no conspiracy theorist, but I smell a rat.

JJJ,

Let the sock puppetry begin??

Leh,

Sorry, YOUR version of failure analysis is NOT the way it works. I know. I've been thru the drill. For EXPERTS.(In my case, Boeing & NASA, regarding some parts on the Space Shuttle.)

Failure analysis NEVER have every datum pointing to one single root cause. It is an exercise in ENGINEERING, not SCIENCE. If you don't know the difference between the two, then you are unqualified to offer your opinion on the issue.

There are guaranteed to be dozens, perhaps hundreds, of small insignificant errors in the NIST report that impune the conclusions not in the slightest. This is where judgment is required.

For example, the NIST report said that the steel that they tested "met the basic standards of the steel specified by the design." If someone should find a piece of steel from, say, the 2nd floor of the towers that was substandard, then this would qualify as a revelation that, as you so unbiasedly phrase it "...(proves) one aspect of the Official Conspiracy Story incorrect". And yet a weak support on the 2nd floor has no bearing on a failure that CLEARLY started on the 80th floor.

An engineering failure analysis allows for unknowns, oddities, anomalies. It is based on experience and judgment. Do NOT confuse the ability to parrot a few shallow factoids for a true depth of knowledge in ANY subject. But especially one as rich in both science, history & art as engineering.

I trust that your next Perry Mason "gotcha" moment will be more thoughtful than this one.

tk

In search of the truth wrote:

The terrorists really love what the liberals are doing for them. They appreciate it a lot.
But when the times comes they are going to kill the liberals just like the rest of us.

What's a liberal? Are they as gullible and as
paranoid as you?
Your and my government are the terrorists. Jimmy Carter invented jihad and Al Qaeda to beat the then demonised enemy without those "goddam pinko communist ruskis"

Any one got an explaation for an acceleration of 9.6 ms-2 giving an energy out put of 1.8MJ to destroy 2 floors representing a mass of 9.2 million kilos? 1.8MJ is enough energy to lift 9.2 million kilos less than 1 inch off the ground.

tomk52 wrote:

<quoted text>
JJJ,
I would like to think that you are perceptive enough to intuit my position from my comment that I would be "happy to CHALLENGE you on this topic."
Nonetheless, I stand on ONLY one side. The side of truth. No agenda other than that.
I also stand on the side of knowledge & expertise. The answer to ENGINEERING questions is not determined by vox populi. It is determined by the voice of EXPERTS. Experienced structural engineers, mechanical engineers, demolitions experts, etc.
Fortunately, I fall into one of those categories. I'll try to keep up with your analyses, I promise.
I have watched hundreds of hours of both pro & anti CT videos. I'm fairly well versed at this point.
I have not read all the posts in this thread. Nor do I need to. I am perfectly capable of processing the information, finding strengths & weaknesses of both casual and rigorous engineering analyses on my own. Thank you for your concern on that issue.
I am anxious to see if you can do the same, rather than simply parroting words that others provide you.
Regards,
tk

I wasnt worried about your capabilities I just did not want to argue the same points that have already been stated.

as far as parroting goes. I do not believe that I have been doing that to this point. But thats an excellent observation considering as you stated that you had not read all the posts in this thread.

Unfortunately I have an appointment this afternoon which I have to attend and I can not debate you untill tomorrow. I will leave you with something for you to browse untill then.

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.p...

It refers to the steel which somehow managed to vaporize.

tomk52 wrote:

<quoted text>
JJJ,
Let the sock puppetry begin??
Leh,
Sorry, YOUR version of failure analysis is NOT the way it works. I know. I've been thru the drill. For EXPERTS.(In my case, Boeing & NASA, regarding some parts on the Space Shuttle.)
Failure analysis NEVER have every datum pointing to one single root cause. It is an exercise in ENGINEERING, not SCIENCE. If you don't know the difference between the two, then you are unqualified to offer your opinion on the issue.
There are guaranteed to be dozens, perhaps hundreds, of small insignificant errors in the NIST report that impune the conclusions not in the slightest. This is where judgment is required.
For example, the NIST report said that the steel that they tested "met the basic standards of the steel specified by the design." If someone should find a piece of steel from, say, the 2nd floor of the towers that was substandard, then this would qualify as a revelation that, as you so unbiasedly phrase it "...(proves) one aspect of the Official Conspiracy Story incorrect". And yet a weak support on the 2nd floor has no bearing on a failure that CLEARLY started on the 80th floor.
An engineering failure analysis allows for unknowns, oddities, anomalies. It is based on experience and judgment. Do NOT confuse the ability to parrot a few shallow factoids for a true depth of knowledge in ANY subject. But especially one as rich in both science, history & art as engineering.
I trust that your next Perry Mason "gotcha" moment will be more thoughtful than this one.
tk

tk-
I was referring to the entire Conspiracy Story in all of its ungainliness, not specifically to engineering and structural issues with respect to the WTC.

However, two observed and documented aspects of the demise of the Towers and WTC7 absolutely demand the use of high-temperature explosives: molten metal and free-fall speed collapses. Gravity collapses, with or without fire, cannot create either of these phenomena. Ever.

I don't need an expert to tell me what I can see. Example: I can see a pregnant women with out the expert OB/GYN.
So seeing the buildings falling at free-fall speed is evident. Controlled Demolition. Just as I know that when something is falling it falls faster and faster as it falls. This means that the lower floors must have started to fall way before the upperfloors would have it them. But it appears to just pulverize. That would mean that there was no weight pressure to crush the floor below. Does make you think, don't it.

JJJames wrote:

<quoted text>
I wasnt worried about your capabilities I just did not want to argue the same points that have already been stated.
as far as parroting goes. I do not believe that I have been doing that to this point. But thats an excellent observation considering as you stated that you had not read all the posts in this thread.
Unfortunately I have an appointment this afternoon which I have to attend and I can not debate you untill tomorrow. I will leave you with something for you to browse untill then.
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.p...
It refers to the steel which somehow managed to vaporize.

JJJ,

Go to the dictionary. Look up "vaporize".

Go to the report. Search for the term "vaporize". You won't find it.

Neither corrosion nor erosion is a "vaporization" process. This report says nothing about steel vaporizing, doesn't suggest that steel vaporized, and indicates NOTHING about these pieces of steel being involved in the collapse in any way, shape or form.

Is this one of your "STRONGEST" arguments? If so, this is going to be a VERY short discussion.

tk

PS. According to your definition, one can make steel (stainless in this case) "Vaporize" at room temperature with a rubber band. You can cut a beam of steel the size of one of these girders in half with a rubber band.

I'm sure you knew that...

no_body wrote:

<quoted text>
Any one got an explaation for an acceleration of 9.6 ms-2 giving an energy out put of 1.8MJ to destroy 2 floors representing a mass of 9.2 million kilos? 1.8MJ is enough energy to lift 9.2 million kilos less than 1 inch off the ground.

Where did 9.6 m/s^2 come from? Was there an empirical measurement that determined this?