World Trade Center 1-2&7 -- steel softened by kerosine furnace

astronomy-chat.net
Promoting astronomy discussion.

Main

Date: 10 Oct 2006 22:23:29
From:
Subject: World Trade Center 1-2&7 -- steel softened by kerosine furnace

"As the fires blazed and the temperatures rose within the buildings,
NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) believes, the
remaining core columns (those not severed by the planes during impact)
softened and buckled, transferring most of the load to the building's
outer structural columns. The floors . . . began to sag from the heat,
pulling those columns inward and adding to the burden on the outer
columns."

Debunking: For anyone who as actually watched the WTC video's
carefully, you will note that the south tower was struck near the
corner, almost insuring it sustained NO damage to the central core
columns. It also had by far the largest fireball produced, indicating a
substantially larger portion of the fuel was burned in the initial
impact and for the most part outside the building. Oddly, it was the
south tower which fell first after burning for only 55 minutes, and at
a point when the fires had greatly diminished.

In addition, as given by Kevin Ryan who was responsible for the thermal
testing of the WTC Steel when it was certified, the samples tested for
the WTC were certified to withstand a temperature of 2,000 deg for 6
hours without failing their rated load characteristics. And that is
without insulation. The WTC beams were insulated. Jet fuel burns at
only 1200-1300 degrees with an ideal oxygen mixture, something not
indicated by the black smoke that issued from the fires. There was
nothing contained within the buildings that could have raised this
figure, and those that use the example of ancient furnaces that
tempered steel as a argument, again, do not understand the principles
involved. I suggest that if you want the truth, and wish to actually
act like a journalist for a change, you broach this subject with a real
expert, Mr. Ryan. I can put you in touch with him upon request.

But more important than the issue of the likelihood of the steel
failure, is the FACT (not conjecture) that ALL THREE buildings
collapsed into their own footprint at FREEFALL SPEED (i.e. the
unimpeded acceleration of gravity). That means, drop a rock off the
roof, at the moment of collapse, and the roof would hit the ground at
the same time as the rock. This implies, (regardless of what happened
at the fire zone) that the when the top section of the building began
to fall it managed to plow through 70-80 odd floors of pristine and
undamaged steel -- literally thousands of huge beams and concrete
pads-- with absolutely NO RESISTANCE (i.e.. slowing of the rate of
fall) WHATSOEVER. And this sir, is physically impossible and verging
on the absurd, and I (a physicist), and anyone with a shred of
knowledge of engineering, physics, or just plain common sense can
understand that.

And there is a $1,000,000.00 cash challenge (to date unanswered) to
anyone that can suggest a legitimate solution to this nagging little
problem. And lastly, if the official pancake theory is correct, it
lends no explanation whatsoever for why the central core of 47 HUGE
beams, all connected together at numerous levels, would not be left
standing like a spire as the floor connectors failed and the floors
pancaked symmetrically around them. The less resistance to this
collapse scenario exhibited by the building's design, the more likely
the central core would remain virtually untouched. It is a paradox.

Watch the videos. Study the evidence. Talk to the experts and the
scientists who simply can no longer tolerate an explanation so at odds
with the physical evidence and the physical principles of the universe.
And these experts I refer to are ready and willing to debate these
issues with ANYONE you and your ilk choose, ANYTIME and ANYWHERE, as
long as it can be videotaped for posterity.

I will not even get into the dozens of other patently absurd
explanations that Popular Mechanics and other government shills and
publicity hacks have posed to make the painfully obvious physical
evidence at both the WTC and Pentagon fit the official fairy tale,
while suppressing the numerous eyewitness accounts that disagree, but
suffice to say that when "journalists" (and I use that term EXTREMELY
loosely with you), continue to disparage those who simply demand the
truth, and not propaganda; who examine the evidence with open minds and
simply request that the investigation of this murder of 3,000 innocents
be pursued with the same objectivity and forensic vigor that a common
mugging would be given; they only contribute to the ignorance pervasive
and growing in this country, reduce the once noble journalistic trade
to nothing more than corporate propaganda machines, and deface the
sacrifice of the 3000 who were murdered.

Physicist's Letter On 911 PHYSICS To Rocky Mountain News
10-3-6

More info: http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/

Date: 11 Oct 2006 18:10:43
From: Russ Rose
Subject: Re: World Trade Center 1-2&7 -- steel softened by kerosine furnace

<u2r2h@gmx.net > wrote in message
news:1160544208.960958.280690@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> "As the fires blazed and the temperatures rose within the buildings,
> NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) believes, the
> remaining core columns (those not severed by the planes during impact)
> softened and buckled, transferring most of the load to the building's
> outer structural columns. The floors . . . began to sag from the heat,
> pulling those columns inward and adding to the burden on the outer
> columns."

Not that I have the blueprints or anything...

I thought the innovation of the building design was there were no internal
columns.

Date: 12 Oct 2006 02:27:06
From: OG
Subject: Re: World Trade Center 1-2&7 -- steel softened by kerosine furnace

"Russ Rose" <russrose@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:-cadnVO1iIxs5LDYnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> <u2r2h@gmx.net> wrote in message
> news:1160544208.960958.280690@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> "As the fires blazed and the temperatures rose within the buildings,
>> NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) believes, the
>> remaining core columns (those not severed by the planes during impact)
>> softened and buckled, transferring most of the load to the building's
>> outer structural columns. The floors . . . began to sag from the heat,
>> pulling those columns inward and adding to the burden on the outer
>> columns."
>
> Not that I have the blueprints or anything...
>
> I thought the innovation of the building design was there were no internal
> columns.

Not sure about that, but there is a much claimed ' no other steel framed
building has collaped after a fire', and the Madrid Windsor Tower fire of
2005 is cited as evidence.

What is not pointed out is that the Madrid tower had full reinforced
concrete construction up to floor 17 (of 32 floors) and a reinforced
concrete core above that height (with supporting perimeter columns for the
upper 15 floors).
In the Madrid fire, the reinforced concrete core withstood the 26 hours of
fire, but the higher level perimeter columned floors started collapsing
within a couple of hours of the fire taking hold.
The outer zones of the top 15 floors collapsed and were completely lost -
there's a picture here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:TorreWindsor1.JPG

Apologies for the 911 rebuttal, but there may be some people tempted to
believe the unsupported claims of the 911 conspiracists.

Date: 13 Oct 2006 18:16:04
From: Protagonist
Subject: Re: World Trade Center 1-2&7 -- steel softened by kerosine furnace

OG wrote:
> "Russ Rose" <russrose@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:-cadnVO1iIxs5LDYnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> <u2r2h@gmx.net> wrote in message
>> news:1160544208.960958.280690@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>> "As the fires blazed and the temperatures rose within the buildings,
>>> NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) believes, the
>>> remaining core columns (those not severed by the planes during impact)
>>> softened and buckled, transferring most of the load to the building's
>>> outer structural columns. The floors . . . began to sag from the heat,
>>> pulling those columns inward and adding to the burden on the outer
>>> columns."
>> Not that I have the blueprints or anything...
>>
>> I thought the innovation of the building design was there were no internal
>> columns.
>
> Not sure about that, but there is a much claimed ' no other steel framed
> building has collaped after a fire', and the Madrid Windsor Tower fire of
> 2005 is cited as evidence.
>
> What is not pointed out is that the Madrid tower had full reinforced
> concrete construction up to floor 17 (of 32 floors) and a reinforced
> concrete core above that height (with supporting perimeter columns for the
> upper 15 floors).
> In the Madrid fire, the reinforced concrete core withstood the 26 hours of
> fire, but the higher level perimeter columned floors started collapsing
> within a couple of hours of the fire taking hold.
> The outer zones of the top 15 floors collapsed and were completely lost -
> there's a picture here
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:TorreWindsor1.JPG
>
> Apologies for the 911 rebuttal, but there may be some people tempted to
> believe the unsupported claims of the 911 conspiracists.
>
>

It still don't look like collapsed down to the basement, like the
twin-towers.
WTC collapse was done by implosion as building 7 was admitted to be,
were blown up.
These buildings were all ready set-up with explosives in case of
terrorist attack, so it can collapse into it's self and not falling on
the hole city.
JS

Date: 11 Oct 2006 16:08:13
From:
Subject: cowardly scientists refuse reality check (because they are complicit?)

cowardly scientists refuse reality check (because they are complicit?)

Not my text... but shoulg get the brain muscle started ...

> "As the fires blazed and the temperatures rose within the buildings,
> NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) believes, the
> remaining core columns (those not severed by the planes during impact)
> softened and buckled, transferring most of the load to the building's
> outer structural columns. The floors . . . began to sag from the heat,
> pulling those columns inward and adding to the burden on the outer
> columns."
>
> Debunking: For anyone who as actually watched the WTC video's
> carefully, you will note that the south tower was struck near the
> corner, almost insuring it sustained NO damage to the central core
> columns. It also had by far the largest fireball produced, indicating a
> substantially larger portion of the fuel was burned in the initial
> impact and for the most part outside the building. Oddly, it was the
> south tower which fell first after burning for only 55 minutes, and at
> a point when the fires had greatly diminished.
>
> In addition, as given by Kevin Ryan who was responsible for the thermal
> testing of the WTC Steel when it was certified, the samples tested for
> the WTC were certified to withstand a temperature of 2,000 deg for 6
> hours without failing their rated load characteristics. And that is
> without insulation. The WTC beams were insulated. Jet fuel burns at
> only 1200-1300 degrees with an ideal oxygen mixture, something not
> indicated by the black smoke that issued from the fires. There was
> nothing contained within the buildings that could have raised this
> figure, and those that use the example of ancient furnaces that
> tempered steel as a argument, again, do not understand the principles
> involved. I suggest that if you want the truth, and wish to actually
> act like a journalist for a change, you broach this subject with a real
> expert, Mr. Ryan. I can put you in touch with him upon request.
>
> But more important than the issue of the likelihood of the steel
> failure, is the FACT (not conjecture) that ALL THREE buildings
> collapsed into their own footprint at FREEFALL SPEED (i.e. the
> unimpeded acceleration of gravity). That means, drop a rock off the
> roof, at the moment of collapse, and the roof would hit the ground at
> the same time as the rock. This implies, (regardless of what happened
> at the fire zone) that the when the top section of the building began
> to fall it managed to plow through 70-80 odd floors of pristine and
> undamaged steel -- literally thousands of huge beams and concrete
> pads-- with absolutely NO RESISTANCE (i.e.. slowing of the rate of
> fall) WHATSOEVER. And this sir, is physically impossible and verging
> on the absurd, and I (a physicist), and anyone with a shred of
> knowledge of engineering, physics, or just plain common sense can
> understand that.
>
> And there is a $1,000,000.00 cash challenge (to date unanswered) to
> anyone that can suggest a legitimate solution to this nagging little
> problem. And lastly, if the official pancake theory is correct, it
> lends no explanation whatsoever for why the central core of 47 HUGE
> beams, all connected together at numerous levels, would not be left
> standing like a spire as the floor connectors failed and the floors
> pancaked symmetrically around them. The less resistance to this
> collapse scenario exhibited by the building's design, the more likely
> the central core would remain virtually untouched. It is a paradox.
>
> Watch the videos. Study the evidence. Talk to the experts and the
> scientists who simply can no longer tolerate an explanation so at odds
> with the physical evidence and the physical principles of the universe.
> And these experts I refer to are ready and willing to debate these
> issues with ANYONE you and your ilk choose, ANYTIME and ANYWHERE, as
> long as it can be videotaped for posterity.
>
> I will not even get into the dozens of other patently absurd
> explanations that Popular Mechanics and other government shills and
> publicity hacks have posed to make the painfully obvious physical
> evidence at both the WTC and Pentagon fit the official fairy tale,
> while suppressing the numerous eyewitness accounts that disagree, but
> suffice to say that when "journalists" (and I use that term EXTREMELY
> loosely with you), continue to disparage those who simply demand the
> truth, and not propaganda; who examine the evidence with open minds and
> simply request that the investigation of this murder of 3,000 innocents
> be pursued with the same objectivity and forensic vigor that a common
> mugging would be given; they only contribute to the ignorance pervasive
> and growing in this country, reduce the once noble journalistic trade
> to nothing more than corporate propaganda machines, and deface the
> sacrifice of the 3000 who were murdered.
>
> Physicist's Letter On 911 PHYSICS To Rocky Mountain News
> 10-3-6
>
> More info: http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/

Date: 13 Oct 2006 18:29:27
From:
Subject: Re: World Trade Center 1-2&7 -- steel softened by kerosine furnace

Protagonist wrote:
> OG wrote:
> > "Russ Rose" <russrose@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:-cadnVO1iIxs5LDYnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> >> <u2r2h@gmx.net> wrote in message
> >> news:1160544208.960958.280690@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >>> "As the fires blazed and the temperatures rose within the buildings,
> >>> NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) believes, the
> >>> remaining core columns (those not severed by the planes during impact)
> >>> softened and buckled, transferring most of the load to the building's
> >>> outer structural columns. The floors . . . began to sag from the heat,
> >>> pulling those columns inward and adding to the burden on the outer
> >>> columns."
> >> Not that I have the blueprints or anything...
> >>
> >> I thought the innovation of the building design was there were no internal
> >> columns.
> >
> > Not sure about that, but there is a much claimed ' no other steel framed
> > building has collaped after a fire', and the Madrid Windsor Tower fire of
> > 2005 is cited as evidence.
> >
> > What is not pointed out is that the Madrid tower had full reinforced
> > concrete construction up to floor 17 (of 32 floors) and a reinforced
> > concrete core above that height (with supporting perimeter columns for the
> > upper 15 floors).
> > In the Madrid fire, the reinforced concrete core withstood the 26 hours of
> > fire, but the higher level perimeter columned floors started collapsing
> > within a couple of hours of the fire taking hold.
> > The outer zones of the top 15 floors collapsed and were completely lost -
> > there's a picture here
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:TorreWindsor1.JPG
> >
> > Apologies for the 911 rebuttal, but there may be some people tempted to
> > believe the unsupported claims of the 911 conspiracists.
> >
> >
>
> It still don't look like collapsed down to the basement, like the
> twin-towers.
> WTC collapse was done by implosion as building 7 was admitted to be,
> were blown up.
> These buildings were all ready set-up with explosives in case of
> terrorist attack, so it can collapse into it's self and not falling on
> the hole city.
> JS

WTC conspiracists are part of a govt conspiracy too. The conspiracy is
to make the govt seem all powerful. I get all my politics from South
Park just like most conspiracy typesget theirs from the funny paper.

Date: 11 Nov 2006 01:04:29
From: renaborney@aol.com
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

Tankfixer wrote:
> In article <kjgek2pg3gk5b7j08sm14ht8o3gt9scmms@4ax.com>,
> mithril@iafrica.com mumbled
> > On Tue, 31 2006 10:44:47 GMT, eugene@dynagen..co..za (Eugene
> > Griessel) wrote:
> >
> > >u2r2h@gmx.net wrote:
> > >
> > >>And for those who say these groups are wacko fringe groups, think
> > >>again:....
> > >
> > >I would never be that insulting to whacko fringe groups as to lump
> > >them togther with a bunch of raving loonies.
> > >
> > >Eugene L Griessel
> > >
> > > He who does not bellow the truth, when he knows the truth
> > > Makes himself the accomplice of liars and forgers.
> >
> > 9/11 was an inside job. Do a little research, and there is no doubt
> > about it.
>
> Sorry, it was a rouge Klingon Battlecruise

SNIP

Actually, I think it was mauve

Date: 11 Nov 2006 22:20:15
From: Tankfixer
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

In article <1163235869.027386.25250@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com >,
renaborney@aol.com mumbled
>
> Tankfixer wrote:
> > In article <kjgek2pg3gk5b7j08sm14ht8o3gt9scmms@4ax.com>,
> > mithril@iafrica.com mumbled
> > > On Tue, 31 2006 10:44:47 GMT, eugene@dynagen..co..za (Eugene
> > > Griessel) wrote:
> > >
> > > >u2r2h@gmx.net wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>And for those who say these groups are wacko fringe groups, think
> > > >>again:....
> > > >
> > > >I would never be that insulting to whacko fringe groups as to lump
> > > >them togther with a bunch of raving loonies.
> > > >
> > > >Eugene L Griessel
> > > >
> > > > He who does not bellow the truth, when he knows the truth
> > > > Makes himself the accomplice of liars and forgers.
> > >
> > > 9/11 was an inside job. Do a little research, and there is no doubt
> > > about it.
> >
> > Sorry, it was a rouge Klingon Battlecruise
>
> SNIP
>
> Actually, I think it was mauve
>

At the very least somewhere close on the color wheel....

Date: 14 Oct 2006 01:01:25
From: AlanS
Subject: Re: World Trade Center 1-2&7 -- steel softened by kerosine furnace

On 10 2006 22:23:29 -0700, u2r2h@gmx.net wrote:

>"As the fires blazed and the temperatures rose within the buildings,

The moon landing studios were in the tower. When Elvis discovered them
by mistake, the government had no choice but to cover the whole thing
up.

Date: 13 Oct 2006 15:47:17
From:
Subject: Re: World Trade Center 1-2&7 -- steel softened by kerosine furnace

> Somewhere in the impact area, the beams broke. The upper section (top third)
> of the building started falling at free-fall speed. When this section hit
> the intact floor below, it delivered an enormous force to this floor,
> breaking it's supports almost immediately and sending it moving down at a
> speed much greater than free-fall. The upper section of the building
> continued falling with negligible loss in speed.

But that is not what the footage shows. The upper part disintegrated
and the rate of descent did not decrease. Even the angular momentum of
the upper section was not maintained.

Furthermore, the central core should have withstood all that, it was
overengineered.
Even if it gave way, the fact that the outer-columns and the inner core
gave way
symmetrically .. ah uhm...strains credulity.

In other words: Anyone who actually looked at the footage ... goes
quiet.
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=911+mysteries

Date: 13 Oct 2006 18:30:30
From: Michael J. Strickland
Subject: Re: World Trade Center 1-2&7 -- steel softened by kerosine furnace

<u2r2h@gmx.net > wrote in message
news:1160544208.960958.280690@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
...

> But more important than the issue of the likelihood of the steel
> failure, is the FACT (not conjecture) that ALL THREE buildings
> collapsed into their own footprint at FREEFALL SPEED (i.e. the
> unimpeded acceleration of gravity). That means, drop a rock off the
> roof, at the moment of collapse, and the roof would hit the ground at
> the same time as the rock. This implies, (regardless of what happened
> at the fire zone) that the when the top section of the building began
> to fall it managed to plow through 70-80 odd floors of pristine and
> undamaged steel -- literally thousands of huge beams and concrete
> pads-- with absolutely NO RESISTANCE (i.e.. slowing of the rate of
> fall) WHATSOEVER.

Somewhere in the impact area, the beams broke. The upper section (top third)
of the building started falling at free-fall speed. When this section hit
the intact floor below, it delivered an enormous force to this floor,
breaking it's supports almost immediately and sending it moving down at a
speed much greater than free-fall. The upper section of the building
continued falling with negligible loss in speed.

I believe the energy required to break the support beams in the floor
immediately below is negligible compared to the kinetic energy acquired by
the upper 1/3 of the building after it has fallen through the height of one
floor.

The collapse continued with the process repeating itself on succeeding
floors all the way to the ground, again, with negligible loss in speed.

--
-----
Michael J. Strickland
Quality Services qualityser@att.net
703-560-7380
-----

Date: 18 Oct 2006 01:16:49
From:
Subject: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

I know I know...

you had enough of 911 conspiracies.

You no longer care how the towers were brought down (form above)
and how building 7 (WTC7) collapes at 5pm.. (from below)

But ever wondered about the strangely burned cars?
or why the WTC basement (including underground trains)
were not destroyed?

http://u2r2h.blogspot.com/2006/10/judy-wood-is-my-new-heroine.html
has all you need to know.

But maybe better if you accuse me of forgetting my tinfoil hat
and do not let worrying fact get in the way of your ARABS-DID-IT
fantasies.

Because anyone who says (farts out his mouth these stupidities)
that ARABS-DID-NOT-DO-9/11 ... must be crazy. And that's that, because
it is unthinkable... so much so that it is a sign of lunacy.

Physical facts show that the planes that penetrated the towers did so
because they were soooo fast, that thin aluminium sliced through thick
steel,
like a hot knife goes through butter. Every CHILD knows that.

So, do not even THINK about clicking here:
http://u2r2h.blogspot.com/2006/10/judy-wood-is-my-new-heroine.html

You would grant satisfaction to a lunatic woman... and thats exactly
what
must be avoided....

Like 1939.. when germans denied reality.
Q.E.D.

Date: 18 Oct 2006 19:34:40
From: LiRM
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

On 18 2006 01:16:49 -0700, u2r2h@gmx.net wrote:

>I know I know...
>
>you had enough of 911 conspiracies.
>
>You no longer care how the towers were brought down (form above)
>and how building 7 (WTC7) collapes at 5pm.. (from below)
>
>But ever wondered about the strangely burned cars?
>or why the WTC basement (including underground trains)
>were not destroyed?
>
>http://u2r2h.blogspot.com/2006/10/judy-wood-is-my-new-heroine.html
>has all you need to know.
>
>But maybe better if you accuse me of forgetting my tinfoil hat
>and do not let worrying fact get in the way of your ARABS-DID-IT
>fantasies.
>
>Because anyone who says (farts out his mouth these stupidities)
>that ARABS-DID-NOT-DO-9/11 ... must be crazy. And that's that, because
>it is unthinkable... so much so that it is a sign of lunacy.

I won't bother adding to what you so eloquently express about yourself
and those you count as your peers...

Date: 21 Oct 2006 01:10:13
From: Day Brown
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

LiRM wrote:
> On 18 2006 01:16:49 -0700, u2r2h@gmx.net wrote:
>
>
>>I know I know...
>>
>>you had enough of 911 conspiracies.
>>
>>You no longer care how the towers were brought down (form above)
>>and how building 7 (WTC7) collapes at 5pm.. (from below)
>>
>>But ever wondered about the strangely burned cars?
>>or why the WTC basement (including underground trains)
>>were not destroyed?
>>
>>http://u2r2h.blogspot.com/2006/10/judy-wood-is-my-new-heroine.html
>>has all you need to know.
>>
>>But maybe better if you accuse me of forgetting my tinfoil hat
>>and do not let worrying fact get in the way of your ARABS-DID-IT
>>fantasies.
>>
>>Because anyone who says (farts out his mouth these stupidities)
>>that ARABS-DID-NOT-DO-9/11 ... must be crazy. And that's that, because
>>it is unthinkable... so much so that it is a sign of lunacy.
>
>
> I won't bother adding to what you so eloquently express about yourself
> and those you count as your peers...
>
>
Oh, you dont have any facts to rebut with either?

Date: 18 Oct 2006 00:52:53
From:
Subject: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

Date: 18 Oct 2006 14:10:38
From: JAH
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

The best was a recent South Park episode that spoofed all those 9/11
conspiracies.

It was hilarious.

Here's a clip from it:

http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=76565

JAH

Net Crimes & Misdemeanors
netcrimes.net
2nd edition NOW OUT!!
haltabuse.org

Date: 21 Oct 2006 01:18:38
From: Day Brown
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

JAH wrote:
> The best was a recent South Park episode that spoofed all those 9/11
> conspiracies.
>
> It was hilarious.
>
> Here's a clip from it:
>
> http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=76565
Sorry, I run Linux, not windoze.
But now, yours is the sixth that fails to provide any *facts* that can
be reasonably used to refute the 911 links.

Date: 21 Oct 2006 07:07:26
From: Dan
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

Day Brown wrote:
> JAH wrote:
>> The best was a recent South Park episode that spoofed all those 9/11
>> conspiracies.
>>
>> It was hilarious.
>>
>> Here's a clip from it:
>>
>> http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=76565
>>
> Sorry, I run Linux, not windoze.
> But now, yours is the sixth that fails to provide any *facts* that can
> be reasonably used to refute the 911 links.

Only because you refuse to admit that Keith and I have pointed out
errors on the cite. We provided facts. I shall reiterate for you: the
cite said wing spars are "hard and brittle," I proved they aren't, the
cite said the basements and subway weren't damaged, Keith proved the
subways were. I will now prove the basements were destroyed: they were
within the "bathtub" which you can go to NY any day you choose and see
is empty. You can also verify that for yourself by doing some research
on the photographs taken during the search for bodies.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Date: 21 Oct 2006 16:54:08
From: Day Brown
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

Dan wrote:
> Only because you refuse to admit that Keith and I have pointed out
> errors on the cite. We provided facts. I shall reiterate for you: the
> cite said wing spars are "hard and brittle," I proved they aren't, the
> cite said the basements and subway weren't damaged, Keith proved the
> subways were. I will now prove the basements were destroyed: they were
> within the "bathtub" which you can go to NY any day you choose and see
> is empty. You can also verify that for yourself by doing some research
> on the photographs taken during the search for bodies.
Dan, at 500 miles per hour, you could throw jellow at the building and
it would have devastating consequences. In the conditions stipulated,
"hard and brittle" is a reasonable characterization.

Maybe I was not as clear as I hope to be the first time I tried.

Date: 22 Oct 2006 00:57:00
From: Orval Fairbairn
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

In article <8Gw_g.128$kX6.103526@news.sisna.com >,
Day Brown <daybrown@wildblue.net > wrote:

> Dan wrote:
> > Only because you refuse to admit that Keith and I have pointed out
> > errors on the cite. We provided facts. I shall reiterate for you: the
> > cite said wing spars are "hard and brittle," I proved they aren't, the
> > cite said the basements and subway weren't damaged, Keith proved the
> > subways were. I will now prove the basements were destroyed: they were
> > within the "bathtub" which you can go to NY any day you choose and see
> > is empty. You can also verify that for yourself by doing some research
> > on the photographs taken during the search for bodies.
> Dan, at 500 miles per hour, you could throw jellow at the building and
> it would have devastating consequences. In the conditions stipulated,
> "hard and brittle" is a reasonable characterization.
>
> Maybe I was not as clear as I hope to be the first time I tried.

Day,

Now you are starting to make sense! Can't you just make the transition
from Jello at 500 kt to something a little harder -- say, a B757 at 500
kt, and loaded with fuel to start some massive primary and secondary
fires? Or is that a stretch of your abilities?

Date: 22 Oct 2006 18:53:26
From: Day Brown
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> Day,
>
> Now you are starting to make sense! Can't you just make the transition
> from Jello at 500 kt to something a little harder -- say, a B757 at 500
> kt, and loaded with fuel to start some massive primary and secondary
> fires? Or is that a stretch of your abilities?
I didnt start the thread Orval. I just quibbled with a particular point.

I am content to wait for the new congress to convene, and see what the
NIST report is on the collapse of WTC 7, before going into the
credibility of the 911 commission report, or the criticisms of it on the
various 911 websites.

WTC 7, if you recall, was *NOT* hit by a plane, but collapsed anyway. On
the face of it, that looks fishy. If the NIST report can explain that,
then the 911 commission report gains credibility. If not, then not.

Date: 21 Oct 2006 19:42:59
From: David G. Nagel
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

Day Brown wrote:
> Dan wrote:
>
>> Only because you refuse to admit that Keith and I have pointed out
>> errors on the cite. We provided facts. I shall reiterate for you: the
>> cite said wing spars are "hard and brittle," I proved they aren't, the
>> cite said the basements and subway weren't damaged, Keith proved the
>> subways were. I will now prove the basements were destroyed: they were
>> within the "bathtub" which you can go to NY any day you choose and see
>> is empty. You can also verify that for yourself by doing some research
>> on the photographs taken during the search for bodies.
>
> Dan, at 500 miles per hour, you could throw jellow at the building and
> it would have devastating consequences. In the conditions stipulated,
> "hard and brittle" is a reasonable characterization.
>
> Maybe I was not as clear as I hope to be the first time I tried.

The Military Channel has a show called GI Factory. A recent program
showed a bomb disposal technique where a slug of water is shot out of a
gun barrel using a 20 gage shot gun shell. The slug put a 4 inch entry
hole and a 10 exit hole in a cooler basket. The demonstrator pointed out
that at 20 feet all you got was wet but at 2 feet you got the
aforementioned holes. It's called "INERTIA". At and above a certain
velocity matter stops flowing and starts acting like a solid block.

Dave N

Date: 21 Oct 2006 18:32:29
From: Starlord
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

Just as the water saw that GE has, they use it to cut steel pattens and it's
a WATER saw, shoots a stream of water over a 2inch gap and it'll cut just
about anything they want.

--
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond

Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Sidewalk Astronomy
www.sidewalkastronomy.info
The Church of Eternity
http://home.inreach.com/starlord/church/Eternity.html

"David G. Nagel" <nagel@core.com > wrote in message
news:12jlfkj3l7d0qa5@corp.supernews.com...
> Day Brown wrote:
>> Dan wrote:
>>
>>> Only because you refuse to admit that Keith and I have pointed out
>>> errors on the cite. We provided facts. I shall reiterate for you: the
>>> cite said wing spars are "hard and brittle," I proved they aren't, the
>>> cite said the basements and subway weren't damaged, Keith proved the
>>> subways were. I will now prove the basements were destroyed: they were
>>> within the "bathtub" which you can go to NY any day you choose and see
>>> is empty. You can also verify that for yourself by doing some research
>>> on the photographs taken during the search for bodies.
>>
>> Dan, at 500 miles per hour, you could throw jellow at the building and it
>> would have devastating consequences. In the conditions stipulated, "hard
>> and brittle" is a reasonable characterization.
>>
>> Maybe I was not as clear as I hope to be the first time I tried.
>
> The Military Channel has a show called GI Factory. A recent program showed
> a bomb disposal technique where a slug of water is shot out of a gun
> barrel using a 20 gage shot gun shell. The slug put a 4 inch entry hole
> and a 10 exit hole in a cooler basket. The demonstrator pointed out that
> at 20 feet all you got was wet but at 2 feet you got the aforementioned
> holes. It's called "INERTIA". At and above a certain velocity matter stops
> flowing and starts acting like a solid block.
>
> Dave N

Date: 22 Oct 2006 03:41:11
From: Gunner
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

On Sat, 21 2006 18:32:29 -0700, "Starlord"
<starlord@sidewalkastronomy.info > wrote:

>Just as the water saw that GE has, they use it to cut steel pattens and it's
>a WATER saw, shoots a stream of water over a 2inch gap and it'll cut just
>about anything they want.

Indeed. Waterjet cutting (correct name) is one of the most common high
tech cutting techniques in common use today. Depending on material..fine
garnett powder may be added to the jet stream to increase the cutting
action.

Its used where heat cutting would have deletorious effects on the
materials. Plastics, some woods, titaniums, etc etc. Its capable of
very fine definition, though not as tight as lazer cutting.

Omax is one of the better manufactures.

http://www.omax.com/

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

Date: 21 Oct 2006 19:40:49
From: Dan
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

Day Brown wrote:
> Dan wrote:
>> Only because you refuse to admit that Keith and I have pointed out
>> errors on the cite. We provided facts. I shall reiterate for you: the
>> cite said wing spars are "hard and brittle," I proved they aren't, the
>> cite said the basements and subway weren't damaged, Keith proved the
>> subways were. I will now prove the basements were destroyed: they were
>> within the "bathtub" which you can go to NY any day you choose and see
>> is empty. You can also verify that for yourself by doing some research
>> on the photographs taken during the search for bodies.
> Dan, at 500 miles per hour, you could throw jellow at the building and
> it would have devastating consequences. In the conditions stipulated,
> "hard and brittle" is a reasonable characterization.
>
> Maybe I was not as clear as I hope to be the first time I tried.

The cite said "hard and brittle" it didn't specify under what
conditions. At 500 mph the spars would still bend before failing, that's
hardly brittle. I have seen the aftermath of aircraft collisions, have you?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Date: 22 Oct 2006 00:05:51
From: Keith Willshaw
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

"Day Brown" <daybrown@wildblue.net > wrote in message
news:8Gw_g.128$kX6.103526@news.sisna.com...
> Dan wrote:
>> Only because you refuse to admit that Keith and I have pointed out
>> errors on the cite. We provided facts. I shall reiterate for you: the
>> cite said wing spars are "hard and brittle," I proved they aren't, the
>> cite said the basements and subway weren't damaged, Keith proved the
>> subways were. I will now prove the basements were destroyed: they were
>> within the "bathtub" which you can go to NY any day you choose and see is
>> empty. You can also verify that for yourself by doing some research on
>> the photographs taken during the search for bodies.
> Dan, at 500 miles per hour, you could throw jellow at the building and it
> would have devastating consequences. In the conditions stipulated, "hard
> and brittle" is a reasonable characterization.
>

So you are now claiming that jello would be devatasting but a 767
should bounce off.

Hardly a credible position now is it ?

Keith

Date: 18 Oct 2006 06:32:09
From: Dan
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

u2r2h@gmx.net wrote:
> I know I know...
>
> you had enough of 911 conspiracies.
>
> You no longer care how the towers were brought down (form above)
> and how building 7 (WTC7) collapes at 5pm.. (from below)
>
> But ever wondered about the strangely burned cars?
> or why the WTC basement (including underground trains)
> were not destroyed?
>
> http://u2r2h.blogspot.com/2006/10/judy-wood-is-my-new-heroine.html
> has all you need to know.
>
> But maybe better if you accuse me of forgetting my tinfoil hat
> and do not let worrying fact get in the way of your ARABS-DID-IT
> fantasies.
>
> Because anyone who says (farts out his mouth these stupidities)
> that ARABS-DID-NOT-DO-9/11 ... must be crazy. And that's that, because
> it is unthinkable... so much so that it is a sign of lunacy.
>
> Physical facts show that the planes that penetrated the towers did so
> because they were soooo fast, that thin aluminium sliced through thick
> steel,
> like a hot knife goes through butter. Every CHILD knows that.
>
> So, do not even THINK about clicking here:
> http://u2r2h.blogspot.com/2006/10/judy-wood-is-my-new-heroine.html
>
> You would grant satisfaction to a lunatic woman... and thats exactly
> what
> must be avoided....
>
> Like 1939.. when germans denied reality.
> Q.E.D.
>

I cracked up looking at that site. "Wing spars are strong but
brittle?" Anyone who has flown a modern airliner has seen how flexible
wings are. Brittle wing spars aren't flexible.

The remainder was equally laughable especially the part about the
buildings being designed to be pulverized to protect the foundations.

I needed the laugh this morning.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Date: 21 Oct 2006 01:14:35
From: Day Brown
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

Dan wrote:
> I cracked up looking at that site. "Wing spars are strong but
> brittle?" Anyone who has flown a modern airliner has seen how flexible
> wings are. Brittle wing spars aren't flexible.
Well that's better, at least one fact. Which however, is not relevant.
the flexing you refer to is so slow that you can see the bending with
the naked eye. Trying to bend a wing at the speed at which it flew into
the building... If you are so smart, its kinda funny you did not think
of that effect.
>
> The remainder was equally laughable especially the part about the
> buildings being designed to be pulverized to protect the foundations.

> I needed the laugh this morning.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
So far its been 3 ad hominums, your irrelevant point, then another ad
hominum. Shall we go for four?

Date: 21 Oct 2006 06:59:55
From: Dan
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

Day Brown wrote:
> Dan wrote:
>> I cracked up looking at that site. "Wing spars are strong but
>> brittle?" Anyone who has flown a modern airliner has seen how flexible
>> wings are. Brittle wing spars aren't flexible.
> Well that's better, at least one fact. Which however, is not relevant.
> the flexing you refer to is so slow that you can see the bending with
> the naked eye. Trying to bend a wing at the speed at which it flew into
> the building... If you are so smart, its kinda funny you did not think
> of that effect.

The cite said the wing spar were "hard and brittle" which I proved
they weren't. Instead of trying to insult me please accept that fact.

>>
>> The remainder was equally laughable especially the part about the
>> buildings being designed to be pulverized to protect the foundations.
>
>> I needed the laugh this morning.
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
> So far its been 3 ad hominums, your irrelevant point, then another ad
> hominum. Shall we go for four?

My first point was perfectly relevant to the cite given. The comment
about the WTC being built to be pulverized to protect the foundations
was just that; a comment about a point made in the cite that was laughable.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Date: 18 Oct 2006 06:26:08
From: AM
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

u2r2h@gmx.net wrote:
> I know I know...
>
> you had enough of 911 conspiracies.
>

No, I just had enough of you.

You are a cross posting loon, and idiot, and generally
a useless human being. Unfortunately, your parents are
probably proud of you.

BTW, your entertainment value has gone to zero, and you
know what that means............

--
AM

http://sctuser.home.comcast.net

CentOS 4.3 KDE 3.3

Date: 18 Oct 2006 10:18:44
From: Keith Willshaw
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

<u2r2h@gmx.net > wrote in message
news:1161157973.274172.19980@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>I know I know...
>
> you had enough of 911 conspiracies.
>
> You no longer care how the towers were brought down (form above)
> and how building 7 (WTC7) collapes at 5pm.. (from below)
>

I know how that happened

> But ever wondered about the strangely burned cars?
> or why the WTC basement (including underground trains)
> were not destroyed?
>

The Cortland St station and 1800 ft of tunnel were destroyed.
Temporary repairs to reopen the lines took over a year and
cost in excess of $200 million

What planet do you live on ?

Keith

Date: 21 Oct 2006 01:11:10
From: Day Brown
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

Keith Willshaw wrote:
> <u2r2h@gmx.net> wrote in message
> news:1161157973.274172.19980@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
>>I know I know...
>>
>>you had enough of 911 conspiracies.
>>
>>You no longer care how the towers were brought down (form above)
>>and how building 7 (WTC7) collapes at 5pm.. (from below)
>>
>
>
> I know how that happened
>
>
>>But ever wondered about the strangely burned cars?
>>or why the WTC basement (including underground trains)
>>were not destroyed?
>>
>
>
> The Cortland St station and 1800 ft of tunnel were destroyed.
> Temporary repairs to reopen the lines took over a year and
> cost in excess of $200 million
>
>
> What planet do you live on ?
>
>
> Keith
You are three so far that have no facts to rebut with, only ad hominum.

Date: 21 Oct 2006 06:52:55
From: Dan
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

Day Brown wrote:
> Keith Willshaw wrote:
>> <u2r2h@gmx.net> wrote in message
>> news:1161157973.274172.19980@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> I know I know...
>>>
>>> you had enough of 911 conspiracies.
>>>
>>> You no longer care how the towers were brought down (form above)
>>> and how building 7 (WTC7) collapes at 5pm.. (from below)
>>>
>>
>>
>> I know how that happened
>>
>>
>>> But ever wondered about the strangely burned cars?
>>> or why the WTC basement (including underground trains)
>>> were not destroyed?
>>>
>>
>>
>> The Cortland St station and 1800 ft of tunnel were destroyed.
>> Temporary repairs to reopen the lines took over a year and
>> cost in excess of $200 million
>>
>>
>> What planet do you live on ?
>>
>>
>> Keith
> You are three so far that have no facts to rebut with, only ad hominum.

He did rebut with a fact.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Date: 18 Oct 2006 08:06:17
From: Eugene Griessel
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

u2r2h@gmx.net wrote:

>I know I know...
>
>you had enough of 911 conspiracies.

No, no - conspiracies I can handle. Ignoramuses like yourself is what
pisses me off big time.

Eugene L Griessel

Admit nothing, deny everything and make counter-accusations.

Date: 21 Oct 2006 01:09:12
From: Day Brown
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

Eugene Griessel wrote:
> u2r2h@gmx.net wrote:
>
>
>>I know I know...
>>
>>you had enough of 911 conspiracies.
>
>
> No, no - conspiracies I can handle. Ignoramuses like yourself is what
> pisses me off big time.
>
>
>
> Eugene L Griessel
>
> Admit nothing, deny everything and make counter-accusations.
Its becoming kinda obvious that there is no rebuttal, only ad hominum.

Date: 30 Oct 2006 00:05:59
From: Tankfixer
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

In article <gQi_g.86$zd7.169119@news.sisna.com >, daybrown@wildblue.net
mumbled
> Eugene Griessel wrote:
> > u2r2h@gmx.net wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I know I know...
> >>
> >>you had enough of 911 conspiracies.
> >
> >
> > No, no - conspiracies I can handle. Ignoramuses like yourself is what
> > pisses me off big time.
> >
> >
> >
> > Eugene L Griessel
> >
> > Admit nothing, deny everything and make counter-accusations.

> Its becoming kinda obvious that there is no rebuttal, only ad hominum.

There was nothing to rebutt...

Date: 18 Oct 2006 20:29:08
From: T. Bloompaster Weatherford
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

On 18 2006 00:52:53 -0700, u2r2h@gmx.net wrote:

>I know I know...
>
>you had enough of 911 conspiracies.
>
---
You just may be the dumbest man/woman/thing on Earth.

T. Bloompaster Weatherford

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 18 Oct 2006 17:42:41
From: Orval Fairbairn
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

In article <1161157973.274172.19980@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com >,
u2r2h@gmx.net wrote:

> I know I know...
>
> you had enough of 911 conspiracies.
>
> You no longer care how the towers were brought down (form above)
> and how building 7 (WTC7) collapes at 5pm.. (from below)

It was a joint Klingon/Romulan temporal anomaly clandestine operation.
The klingons and Romulans traveled back in time and attacked the WTC
with disrupters to prevent the future creation of the Federation.

Why has nobody checked the wreckage for the signature of disrupter fire?

> But ever wondered about the strangely burned cars?
> or why the WTC basement (including underground trains)
> were not destroyed?

See above.

> http://u2r2h.blogspot.com/2006/10/judy-wood-is-my-new-heroine.html
> has all you need to know.
>
> But maybe better if you accuse me of forgetting my tinfoil hat
> and do not let worrying fact get in the way of your ARABS-DID-IT
> fantasies.

See above.

> Because anyone who says (farts out his mouth these stupidities)
> that ARABS-DID-NOT-DO-9/11 ... must be crazy. And that's that, because
> it is unthinkable... so much so that it is a sign of lunacy.

Of course -- it was the Klingons and Romulans!

> Physical facts show that the planes that penetrated the towers did so
> because they were soooo fast, that thin aluminium sliced through thick
> steel,
> like a hot knife goes through butter. Every CHILD knows that.

I suppose you don't think that water can be used to cut steel, either?

> So, do not even THINK about clicking here:
> http://u2r2h.blogspot.com/2006/10/judy-wood-is-my-new-heroine.html
>
> You would grant satisfaction to a lunatic woman... and thats exactly
> what
> must be avoided....
>
> Like 1939.. when germans denied reality.
> Q.E.D.

It is all a massive alien conspiracy!

Date: 18 Oct 2006 13:13:54
From: Dan
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> In article <1161157973.274172.19980@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> u2r2h@gmx.net wrote:
>
>> I know I know...
>>
>> you had enough of 911 conspiracies.
>>
>> You no longer care how the towers were brought down (form above)
>> and how building 7 (WTC7) collapes at 5pm.. (from below)
>
> It was a joint Klingon/Romulan temporal anomaly clandestine operation.
> The klingons and Romulans traveled back in time and attacked the WTC
> with disrupters to prevent the future creation of the Federation.
>
> Why has nobody checked the wreckage for the signature of disrupter fire?
>
>
>
>> But ever wondered about the strangely burned cars?
>> or why the WTC basement (including underground trains)
>> were not destroyed?
>
> See above.
>
>
>> http://u2r2h.blogspot.com/2006/10/judy-wood-is-my-new-heroine.html
>> has all you need to know.
>>
>> But maybe better if you accuse me of forgetting my tinfoil hat
>> and do not let worrying fact get in the way of your ARABS-DID-IT
>> fantasies.
>
> See above.
>
>
>> Because anyone who says (farts out his mouth these stupidities)
>> that ARABS-DID-NOT-DO-9/11 ... must be crazy. And that's that, because
>> it is unthinkable... so much so that it is a sign of lunacy.
>
> Of course -- it was the Klingons and Romulans!
>
>
>> Physical facts show that the planes that penetrated the towers did so
>> because they were soooo fast, that thin aluminium sliced through thick
>> steel,
>> like a hot knife goes through butter. Every CHILD knows that.
>
> I suppose you don't think that water can be used to cut steel, either?
>
>
>
>
>> So, do not even THINK about clicking here:
>> http://u2r2h.blogspot.com/2006/10/judy-wood-is-my-new-heroine.html
>>
>> You would grant satisfaction to a lunatic woman... and thats exactly
>> what
>> must be avoided....
>>
>> Like 1939.. when germans denied reality.
>> Q.E.D.
>
> It is all a massive alien conspiracy!

See? I knew you were out of your Vulcan mind.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Date: 21 Oct 2006 21:50:39
From: JOHN PAZMINO
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

D > Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue
D > From: Dan <B2431@aol.com>
D > Date: Wed, 18 2006 13:13:54 -0500
D > >>
D > >> You no longer care how the towers were brought down (form above)
D > >> and how building 7 (WTC7) collapes at 5pm.. (from below)
D > >
D > > It was a joint Klingon/Romulan temporal anomaly clandestine operation.
D > > The klingons and Romulans traveled back in time and attacked the WTC
D > > with disrupters to prevent the future creation of the Federation.
D > >
D > > Why has nobody checked the wreckage for the signature of disrupter fire?
D > >
D > >> But ever wondered about the strangely burned cars?
D > >> or why the WTC basement (including underground trains)
D > >> were not destroyed?
D > > . . .
D > > It is all a massive alien conspiracy!
D >
D > See? I knew you were out of your Vulcan mind.
D >
D > Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

For the curious folk out there, you can walk around INSIDE Ground
Zero in certain public areas and take your own pictures and notes. The
temporary Tube station has a open-walled arena one floor down from the
street. You can look out, within the Ground Zero perimeter, thru
fences. Story boards are spotted around the fence to explain what's
going on.
If you go farther down to the Tube platforms, six floors down, you
can look around and UP into Ground Zero. It'll cost you $1.50, the
one-way fare on the train to get to the platform. Once there, you can
ride the first train that leaves and look out thru its large picture
windows.
Be quick! The train scoots around the lopy track and plunges into
the tunnel under Hudson River in a few seconds.
Now, get of at the very next stop,Ehange Place and board a
trainfor the return ride to WTC. Again, be ready as the train pops out
of the river tunnel and snakes around thru Ground Zero to the station.
When you are on the platforms at Ground Zero, you are standing
below the river bed of the Udson and can see the tunnel, like gigantic
vent holes, in the perimeter wall of the latee WTC.
If you are favored to know someone who now works at the ETC, visit
him and look out his window on the south side of the office tower.
This overlooks Ground Zero.
I did say that people now work in the WTC; I mean regular office
workers, not constrcution or utility crews. Yes, the WTC is back in
operation, partially, with new corporate tenants moving in.
The part open for business is 7WTC, on the north side, just
outside the main campus. It replaces, with several changes, the late
7WTC that burned to the ground and collapsed on the afternooon of 11
September 2001. It was then,and the replacement is now, called 'the
Pup' for being only a short skyscraper of 50ish floors height.

---
� RoseReader 2.52� P005004

Date: 21 Oct 2006 01:20:27
From: Day Brown
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> In article <1161157973.274172.19980@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> u2r2h@gmx.net wrote:
>
>
>>I know I know...
>>
>>you had enough of 911 conspiracies.
>>
>>You no longer care how the towers were brought down (form above)
>>and how building 7 (WTC7) collapes at 5pm.. (from below)
>
>
> It was a joint Klingon/Romulan temporal anomaly clandestine operation.
> The klingons and Romulans traveled back in time and attacked the WTC
> with disrupters to prevent the future creation of the Federation.
>
> Why has nobody checked the wreckage for the signature of disrupter fire?
And this is the 7th in a string of ad hominum and lame attempts at humor
rather than dealing substantively with the facts we have to go on.

Date: 21 Oct 2006 07:17:20
From: Dan
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

Day Brown wrote:
> Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>> In article <1161157973.274172.19980@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
>> u2r2h@gmx.net wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I know I know...
>>>
>>> you had enough of 911 conspiracies.
>>>
>>> You no longer care how the towers were brought down (form above)
>>> and how building 7 (WTC7) collapes at 5pm.. (from below)
>>
>>
>> It was a joint Klingon/Romulan temporal anomaly clandestine operation.
>> The klingons and Romulans traveled back in time and attacked the WTC
>> with disrupters to prevent the future creation of the Federation.
>>
>> Why has nobody checked the wreckage for the signature of disrupter fire?
> And this is the 7th in a string of ad hominum and lame attempts at humor
> rather than dealing substantively with the facts we have to go on.

The "facts" given by the OP were NOT facts, just opinions base on a
blog that was utter manure on the face of it.

Instead of insulting us why don't YOU show us where the cite is
actually correct. The cite tells us the buildings were designed to be
pulverized in the event of an aircraft collision so as to protect the
foundations. In fact the buildings were designed to stand up to the
biggest airliner if the day: Boeing 707. The cite tells us wing spars
are "hard an brittle," I demonstrated that was wrong. Prove otherwise
instead of insulting me. The cite says the subway and basements were
undamaged, Keith proved that was wrong. Please prove otherwise instead
of insulting him.

It seems a tad rude of you to accuse us of "ad hominum attacks" when
that is exactly what you have been doing.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Date: 21 Oct 2006 21:50:39
From: JOHN PAZMINO
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy F 2/ 2

Continued from previous message.

boards and fences. The iste is open 24/7 and, believe or not, is
tamely lighted with star-friendly lamps.
The 'Crossed beanms' artifact was removed on ober 6th to a
temorary site on Church St near Barclay St, next to St Peter's church.
It's much closer to the sidewalk for better inspection. You can see
the softness of the torn ends of the beams from the heat.
Sroop, too, in St Paul's chapel, across the street from Ground
Zero, for a emotional exhibit. It, 'Out of the dust' tells of the
chapel's part in the rescue/recovery work. In spite of the immense
chaos of the collapse and the hundreds of thousands of tones of
material heaved into the air just acorss the street, the chapel
suffered ABSOLUTELY NO dmaage at all. Oh, ther was dust and small
rubble piled on top of it, to a meter depth, and the trees in the
churchyard had bits and pieces stuck in them for monhts afterwards.
Stop, also, at the fiegouse on Duane St about six blocks north,
the first to respond to the alarm. It has artifacts and relics in an
exhibit. There's an other firehouse with a memorial exhibit but it's
on the Brooklyn side of Brooklyn Bridge. However, you can get the feel
for what its crew felt as they speeded over the Bridge to the WTC.
Ealk to and onto the Bridge from City Hall Park. the rise from the
street to the main deck is quite gentle because the Bridge was built
for horse and mule traffic in the 1880s. Walk about a full kilometer
to the first, Manhattan, tower. The walk turns from concrete slab to
wood, in keeping with the historical soul of this structure.
The walk wraps around the tower and has metal relief maps of Lower
Manhattan which you can match with the scene around you. They still
have the WTRC embedded in them, so you can visualize where they were
in the present skyline.
Below you traffic zooms by at highway speed in lanes only 3
meters wide, not comoforting to those of you sriving on modern roads.
Imagine now fietrucks 00 you may actually see one or two during your
walk -- racing toward Manhattan. Its crew sees the faming towers thru
the cablework of the Bridge.
There's a newspaper photo, curely one of the most meotional ones
of the 20th century, of the WTC on fire with Brooklyn Bridge in the
foreground. The caption spoke only of the WTC but IN THIS PICTURE was
one of the fir enginers from the Brooklyn depot on its way to the
site.
It was not seen again until it was hauled from four floors under
rubble, all flatened to no higher than a tabletop.

---
� RoseReader 2.52� P005004

Date: 21 Oct 2006 21:50:39
From: JOHN PAZMINO
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy F 1/ 2

D > Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue
D > From: Dan <B2431@aol.com>
D > Date: Sat, 21 2006 07:17:20 -0500
D >
D > The "facts" given by the OP were NOT facts, just opinions base on a
D > blog that was utter manure on the face of it.
D >
D > Instead of insulting us why don't YOU show us where the cite is
D > actually correct. The cite tells us the buildings were designed to be
D > pulverized in the event of an aircraft collision so as to protect the
D > foundations. In fact the buildings were designed to stand up to the
D > biggest airliner if the day: Boeing 707. The cite tells us wing spars
D > are "hard an brittle," I demonstrated that was wrong. Prove otherwise
D > instead of insulting me. The cite says the subway and basements were
D > undamaged, Keith proved that was wrong. Please prove otherwise instead
D > of insulting him.
D >
D > It seems a tad rude of you to accuse us of "ad hominum attacks" when
D > that is exactly what you have been doing.
D >
D > Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Indeed the basement, garage, subway, H&M station (OK, it's PATH
today) were smashed into pieces. The IRT South Ferry line that was
engolfed by the late WTC, because it ran in Greenixh St that was
incorporated into the campus, was totaled. The tunnel was since
replaced -- AS AN EL! -- but the very station is still missing. It
will be built in coordiantion with the new WTC. If you were to leave
the train at the spot where the old station was, you would step into
air six or so floors ABOVE the bottom of the pit of Ground Zero.
The BMT Montague line was not dmaged, for a really strange,
stranger than fixtion, reason. It was swamped by muck and gook from
the collapsed. It was not reopened, altho trains passed thru it,
because the streets upstairs were still closed to traffic suring the
rescue and recovery. During this closure, the station was renovated so
it looked brand new --IN THE ORIGINAL BMT MOTIF! -- when it was put
back in operation. One new ornamentation is a pair of memorial sculted
murals depicting hostorical sites near the station.
Alas, this station is again closedm with trains bypassing, it for
a new round of rebuilding to connect it to the new transit center a
block away. It may reopen this winter.
The H&M station ws not only squahed, the tunnel were severed from
the Hudson River and its site filled in with debris and rubble from
the collapse. No trains were trapped because as the fires in north
tower grew, service was stopped with trains held back in new jersey.
One last ttrain, already shooting the tube to WTC was told to scud
thru the WTC and come right back to NJ.
It was replaced with a temporary station keeping the same
trackwork. It opened about Thanksgiving of 2003 an now fields some
40,000 riders a day. This is down from 60,000 in the late WTC
mainly because the destination for the extra 20,000 is not yet back in
place. It, too, is an el, so you can say that the els came back to
Lower Manhattan.
Now come the stanger than fiction parts. Water, as aliquid (to get
some science back into this post) maintains its volume under pressure.
it's incompressible. So it can only be displaced from one place to an
other. Well, all the water in the towers, elsewhere on the campus,
like in toilets, standpipes, coffee makers, fish bowls, sode bottles,
and all that, fell with the rest of the towers and contents.
The solid parts crushed, the gases vents. The water was pushed and
pressed down into the H&M station and other areas of the basement.
Where can it go?
It burst out of Ground Zero thru the sheared off train tunnels,
jetted TWO KILOMETEERS to New Jersey, and gushed up into the station
there. At first, it was thought ther was a separate attack in New
Jersey, before realizing that the meters deep flood was coming from
the WTC, then under fall across the river.
The big fear wa that the tunnels wre smashed and the water was
river water.No, it was fresh, not saline (Hudson River is not a
river, but a fjord), and it had other components not found in river
water (soda, soup, tea, crap, &c)
The other item is that there WAS a structure that survived the
collapse within the campus. It was the remains of the original H&M
train station built in, IIRC, 1905 as part of US's 2nd rapid transit
subway. Because back then the riverfront was much closer to
inland than now, there was the danger of flooding from storms or, yes,
anarchist actions.
So the structure was made of solid concrete several meters thick.
In fact, when the late WTC was built, the towers were supposed to next
to Church St, the east side of Ground Zero. But the builders could not
demolish this old station. SO they had to redesing the towers to sit
farther back from Church St off of the station site. The station was
never used for any serious purpose during the life of the WTC except
for an 'iron mountain'record sagekeeping facility.
It sure worked as hoped; it was completely unscathed by the
collpase. You can see its upper surface along the Church St side of
the campus and part of is side from within Ground Zero.
This barrier saved the BMT subway from the fate of the neighboring
IRT.
It rally pays to send time at Ground Zero during your next trip to
Bew York. The perimeter is nicely improved for visitors with story

Continued in next message.

---
� RoseReader 2.52� P005004

Date: 21 Oct 2006 17:01:31
From: Day Brown
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

Dan wrote:
> Instead of insulting us why don't YOU show us where the cite is
> actually correct. The cite tells us the buildings were designed to be
> pulverized in the event of an aircraft collision so as to protect the
> foundations. In fact the buildings were designed to stand up to the
> biggest airliner if the day: Boeing 707. The cite tells us wing spars
> are "hard an brittle," I demonstrated that was wrong. Prove otherwise
> instead of insulting me. The cite says the subway and basements were
> undamaged, Keith proved that was wrong. Please prove otherwise instead
> of insulting him.
>
> It seems a tad rude of you to accuse us of "ad hominum attacks" when
> that is exactly what you have been doing.
I have not called anyone names, but simply pointed out how many times I
have seen others do so. I do not defend everything in every harebrained
website, but it is abundantly clear to me that the 911 commission report
is simply not credible.

I did not say what I think was credible. I only commented on the point
about "hard and brittle", pointing out that at the speed of aircraft,
the term is appropriate. How flexible wings appear out the window of an
aircraft is not relevant. You could throw Jellow at the buildings at 500
mph and have devastating effects.

Perhaps you've not seen photos of wheat straw embedded in wood studs
after a tornado?

I have not said anyone was stupid or crazy. I have seen several others
in this thread do that, and realized that I was looking at a trend I had
seen in many other threads, most specifically having to do with anyone
who poses *questions*, not theories, about 911.

Date: 21 Oct 2006 18:37:45
From: Starlord
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

There is ZERO questions about what happened on 911, not only did many many
people SEE it happen, many of them also died afterwards when the building
crumbled after the fire from the jet fuel did it's job.

Saying the 911 report is not true or beliveable is the same as saying you
could walk across a stream of flowing hot lava.

END OF LINE

--
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond

Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Sidewalk Astronomy
www.sidewalkastronomy.info
The Church of Eternity
http://home.inreach.com/starlord/church/Eternity.html

"Day Brown" <daybrown@wildblue.net > wrote in message
news:7Nw_g.129$LX6.131201@news.sisna.com...
> Dan wrote:
>> Instead of insulting us why don't YOU show us where the cite is
>> actually correct. The cite tells us the buildings were designed to be
>> pulverized in the event of an aircraft collision so as to protect the
>> foundations. In fact the buildings were designed to stand up to the
>> biggest airliner if the day: Boeing 707. The cite tells us wing spars are
>> "hard an brittle," I demonstrated that was wrong. Prove otherwise instead
>> of insulting me. The cite says the subway and basements were undamaged,
>> Keith proved that was wrong. Please prove otherwise instead of insulting
>> him.
>>
>> It seems a tad rude of you to accuse us of "ad hominum attacks" when
>> that is exactly what you have been doing.
> I have not called anyone names, but simply pointed out how many times I
> have seen others do so. I do not defend everything in every harebrained
> website, but it is abundantly clear to me that the 911 commission report
> is simply not credible.
>
> I did not say what I think was credible. I only commented on the point
> about "hard and brittle", pointing out that at the speed of aircraft, the
> term is appropriate. How flexible wings appear out the window of an
> aircraft is not relevant. You could throw Jellow at the buildings at 500
> mph and have devastating effects.
>
> Perhaps you've not seen photos of wheat straw embedded in wood studs after
> a tornado?
>
> I have not said anyone was stupid or crazy. I have seen several others in
> this thread do that, and realized that I was looking at a trend I had seen
> in many other threads, most specifically having to do with anyone who
> poses *questions*, not theories, about 911.

Date: 22 Oct 2006 18:59:45
From: Day Brown
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

Starlord wrote:
> There is ZERO questions about what happened on 911, not only did many many
> people SEE it happen, many of them also died afterwards when the building
> crumbled after the fire from the jet fuel did it's job.
I've seen video of people who were *there*, on the street, making
comments about what they saw or heard *that very day*, that turned out
to conflict with the 911 commission report. They obviously have
questions. Naturally, the families of those who died on 911 delved into
all this more carefully than you or I have, and they have questions. I
dont see that your opinion on this issue is relevant.

> Saying the 911 report is not true or beliveable is the same as saying you
> could walk across a stream of flowing hot lava.
You are welcome to your opinion, but that's all it is. opinion. I'm
willing to wait for the new congress to convene, and show us the NIST
report on why WTC 7 collapsed, which if you recall, was *NOT* hit by a
plane. There are, naturally questions about that which challenge your
assertion that there are none.

Date: 21 Oct 2006 19:24:00
From: Johnny Bravo
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

On Sat, 21 2006 01:20:27 -0500, Day Brown <daybrown@wildblue.net > wrote:

>Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>> In article <1161157973.274172.19980@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
>> u2r2h@gmx.net wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I know I know...
>>>
>>>you had enough of 911 conspiracies.
>>>
>>>You no longer care how the towers were brought down (form above)
>>>and how building 7 (WTC7) collapes at 5pm.. (from below)
>>
>>
>> It was a joint Klingon/Romulan temporal anomaly clandestine operation.
>> The klingons and Romulans traveled back in time and attacked the WTC
>> with disrupters to prevent the future creation of the Federation.
>>
>> Why has nobody checked the wreckage for the signature of disrupter fire?
>And this is the 7th in a string of ad hominum and lame attempts at humor
>rather than dealing substantively with the facts we have to go on.

Given that no facts were presented, other than claims about sooper sekrit Nazi
bombers with invisible hovering technology; what exactly should we "dealing
substantively" with?

Date: 21 Oct 2006 17:20:08
From: Day Brown
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

Johnny Bravo wrote:
>>And this is the 7th in a string of ad hominum and lame attempts at humor
>>rather than dealing substantively with the facts we have to go on.

> Given that no facts were presented, other than claims about sooper sekrit Nazi
> bombers with invisible hovering technology; what exactly should we "dealing
> substantively" with?
Well, the video that was played by Big Media we can all agree are
*facts*. We've all seen them often enough.

Then there's the *fact* that the NIST has still not released a report on
why WTC 7 fell down. Their website says "spring 2007". Why so long?

I expect the new congress will want a sneak preview, and we'll see it
soon after they convene.

There are several websites that show the video of WTC 7 falling, then
shown in slow motion and freeze frame by voice overs from men who are
knowledgeable in controlled demolition. Do you regard their comments as
"facts"? Some websites show several other controlled demolitions, and
the *fact* is, that I cannot see any point in the WTC 7 video which
conflicts with what a controlled demolition would look like.

If you have any alternative explanation, I'd be grateful.

But we could also be patient, and wait to see what the new congress
makes of it. Their opinion counts lots more than ours does.

No, more to the point here is to consider not we think of the facts, but
what *they* will think. Given the demagoguery already seen in the CSPAN
speeches, I'd expect charges of arson against Silverstein, and a
concerted effort to locate all the men Jeb Bush employed who were in
charge of the 'security' at the WTC complex to see what they know.

Date: 21 Oct 2006 18:44:00
From: Starlord
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

now you've gone to the STUPID side that says they BUIKT the tower with demo
charges in it and then blew them. For those people I issure an invite to
take a swim in the living , flowing stream of lava coming from the volcano
in Hawaii.

--
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond

Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Sidewalk Astronomy
www.sidewalkastronomy.info
The Church of Eternity
http://home.inreach.com/starlord/church/Eternity.html

"Day Brown" <daybrown@wildblue.net > wrote in message
news:x2x_g.132$ZV6.53301@news.sisna.com...
> Johnny Bravo wrote:
>>>And this is the 7th in a string of ad hominum and lame attempts at humor
>>>rather than dealing substantively with the facts we have to go on.
>
>> Given that no facts were presented, other than claims about sooper
>> sekrit Nazi
>> bombers with invisible hovering technology; what exactly should we
>> "dealing
>> substantively" with?
> Well, the video that was played by Big Media we can all agree are *facts*.
> We've all seen them often enough.
>
> Then there's the *fact* that the NIST has still not released a report on
> why WTC 7 fell down. Their website says "spring 2007". Why so long?
>
> I expect the new congress will want a sneak preview, and we'll see it soon
> after they convene.
>
> There are several websites that show the video of WTC 7 falling, then
> shown in slow motion and freeze frame by voice overs from men who are
> knowledgeable in controlled demolition. Do you regard their comments as
> "facts"? Some websites show several other controlled demolitions, and the
> *fact* is, that I cannot see any point in the WTC 7 video which conflicts
> with what a controlled demolition would look like.
>
> If you have any alternative explanation, I'd be grateful.
>
> But we could also be patient, and wait to see what the new congress makes
> of it. Their opinion counts lots more than ours does.
>
> No, more to the point here is to consider not we think of the facts, but
> what *they* will think. Given the demagoguery already seen in the CSPAN
> speeches, I'd expect charges of arson against Silverstein, and a concerted
> effort to locate all the men Jeb Bush employed who were in charge of the
> 'security' at the WTC complex to see what they know.

Date: 21 Oct 2006 19:55:45
From: Dan
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

Day Brown wrote:
> Johnny Bravo wrote:
>>> And this is the 7th in a string of ad hominum and lame attempts at
>>> humor rather than dealing substantively with the facts we have to go on.
>
>> Given that no facts were presented, other than claims about sooper
>> sekrit Nazi
>> bombers with invisible hovering technology; what exactly should we
>> "dealing
>> substantively" with?
> Well, the video that was played by Big Media we can all agree are
> *facts*. We've all seen them often enough.
>
> Then there's the *fact* that the NIST has still not released a report on
> why WTC 7 fell down. Their website says "spring 2007". Why so long?
>
> I expect the new congress will want a sneak preview, and we'll see it
> soon after they convene.
>
> There are several websites that show the video of WTC 7 falling, then
> shown in slow motion and freeze frame by voice overs from men who are
> knowledgeable in controlled demolition. Do you regard their comments as
> "facts"? Some websites show several other controlled demolitions, and
> the *fact* is, that I cannot see any point in the WTC 7 video which
> conflicts with what a controlled demolition would look like.

OK, try this on for size. When buildings are brought down by
controlled demolition walls are removed, structural members are weakened
or removed, windows and furniture are removed etc. When all is ready
explosives are carefully installed in specific order and all are
connected with great lengths of det cord. When you see buildings brought
down in seconds just remember it took weeks to prepare the building to
include hauling off tons of debris before the building site is safe for
demolition. In order for YOU to tell us WTC 7 was brought down with
controlled demolition you have to be able to show us one of two things:

1: either WTC 7 was constructed with built in demolition charges

or

2: how the weeks of preparations were hidden in such a way as no
one noticed trucks hauling debris, employees, passers by and visitors
didn't missing walls, windows etc and employees and visitors didn't
notice a mile or two of bright red det cord on the morning of 9/11.

Since neither happened I suggest your "voice over" experts are not
experts at all.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Date: 21 Oct 2006 18:50:45
From: Starlord
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

You've been flying to high without air. They don't use dept cord, they ise
elescal fliring wire, almost as pure copper as can be made and there is one
man at a firing panel setting off the charges in a preset mapped order. None
of this was seen to be going on on 911

--
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond

Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Sidewalk Astronomy
www.sidewalkastronomy.info
The Church of Eternity
http://home.inreach.com/starlord/church/Eternity.html

"Dan" <B2431@aol.com > wrote in message
news:Gkz_g.31726$eZ4.2059@dukeread06...
> Day Brown wrote:
>> Johnny Bravo wrote:
>>>> And this is the 7th in a string of ad hominum and lame attempts at
>>>> humor rather than dealing substantively with the facts we have to go
>>>> on.
>>
>>> Given that no facts were presented, other than claims about sooper
>>> sekrit Nazi
>>> bombers with invisible hovering technology; what exactly should we
>>> "dealing
>>> substantively" with?
>> Well, the video that was played by Big Media we can all agree are
>> *facts*. We've all seen them often enough.
>>
>> Then there's the *fact* that the NIST has still not released a report on
>> why WTC 7 fell down. Their website says "spring 2007". Why so long?
>>
>> I expect the new congress will want a sneak preview, and we'll see it
>> soon after they convene.
>>
>> There are several websites that show the video of WTC 7 falling, then
>> shown in slow motion and freeze frame by voice overs from men who are
>> knowledgeable in controlled demolition. Do you regard their comments as
>> "facts"? Some websites show several other controlled demolitions, and the
>> *fact* is, that I cannot see any point in the WTC 7 video which conflicts
>> with what a controlled demolition would look like.
>
> OK, try this on for size. When buildings are brought down by controlled
> demolition walls are removed, structural members are weakened or removed,
> windows and furniture are removed etc. When all is ready explosives are
> carefully installed in specific order and all are connected with great
> lengths of det cord. When you see buildings brought down in seconds just
> remember it took weeks to prepare the building to include hauling off tons
> of debris before the building site is safe for demolition. In order for
> YOU to tell us WTC 7 was brought down with controlled demolition you have
> to be able to show us one of two things:
>
> 1: either WTC 7 was constructed with built in demolition charges
>
> or
>
> 2: how the weeks of preparations were hidden in such a way as no one
> noticed trucks hauling debris, employees, passers by and visitors didn't
> missing walls, windows etc and employees and visitors didn't notice a mile
> or two of bright red det cord on the morning of 9/11.
>
> Since neither happened I suggest your "voice over" experts are not
> experts at all.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Date: 21 Oct 2006 21:23:12
From: David J. Hughes
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

Starlord wrote:

> You've been flying to high without air. They don't use dept cord, they ise
> elescal fliring wire, almost as pure copper as can be made and there is one
> man at a firing panel setting off the charges in a preset mapped order. None
> of this was seen to be going on on 911
>
>

Depending on the application, either or both Det Cord and Electrical
firing cable will be used.
In cases where very short delays are desired, special resistance
circuits will be used from single firing signal.
IIRC, the original version of this type of circuit was invented by a
safecracker in the 1930's, who used a bit of foil from a gum wrapper to
delay the detonation of the second charge by a few milliseconds, and, as
a patriotic American, gave the secret to the US military during WWII.

Date: 21 Oct 2006 20:19:35
From: Starlord
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

I lived in Honolulu,Hi. they imploed a building there, and as I was down
near the site that day, I got to stand behind the firing panel, the demo man
stood there and there was 6 charges to go off and he had 6 switchs, there
was a 7th swite wich armed the other 6 and as his clock hit 10am and he was
given the all clear sign, he flipped each switch one after the other, in
less than 5seconds and with the throw of each switch there was a blast
inside the building. They had cameras set up and everyone got to see the
blasts from inside. By the time the 6th blast went off one end of the
building ( a long 15floor building downtown) was already starting to fall
inward. I saw all the extra stuff he had, all pure copper wire and they had
used 6 --- 1/2lb charges of C4, the same stuff I used in vietnam. There was
no real super strong support beams, so they just took out the main walls and
it all came down.

--
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond

Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Sidewalk Astronomy
www.sidewalkastronomy.info
The Church of Eternity
http://home.inreach.com/starlord/church/Eternity.html

"David J. Hughes" <davidjhughes.tx@netzero.net > wrote in message
news:1161483839_5023@sp6iad.superfeed.net...
> Starlord wrote:
>
>> You've been flying to high without air. They don't use dept cord, they
>> ise elescal fliring wire, almost as pure copper as can be made and there
>> is one man at a firing panel setting off the charges in a preset mapped
>> order. None of this was seen to be going on on 911
>>
>>
>
> Depending on the application, either or both Det Cord and Electrical
> firing cable will be used.
> In cases where very short delays are desired, special resistance circuits
> will be used from single firing signal.
> IIRC, the original version of this type of circuit was invented by a
> safecracker in the 1930's, who used a bit of foil from a gum wrapper to
> delay the detonation of the second charge by a few milliseconds, and, as a
> patriotic American, gave the secret to the US military during WWII.

Date: 22 Oct 2006 03:37:11
From: Gunner
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

On Sat, 21 2006 21:23:12 -0500, "David J. Hughes"
<davidjhughes.tx@netzero.net > wrote:

>Starlord wrote:
>
>> You've been flying to high without air. They don't use dept cord, they ise
>> elescal fliring wire, almost as pure copper as can be made and there is one
>> man at a firing panel setting off the charges in a preset mapped order. None
>> of this was seen to be going on on 911
>>
>>
>
>Depending on the application, either or both Det Cord and Electrical
>firing cable will be used.

True indeed.

>In cases where very short delays are desired, special resistance
>circuits will be used from single firing signal.
>IIRC, the original version of this type of circuit was invented by a
>safecracker in the 1930's, who used a bit of foil from a gum wrapper to
>delay the detonation of the second charge by a few milliseconds, and, as
>a patriotic American, gave the secret to the US military during WWII.

Most delay charges are done with delay blasting caps. They are available
from a millisecond or two delay to several seconds.

Ever see a face shot in a quarry..where they blast out the side of the
hill? First row of shots are instantanious detonation. This loosens the
rock between the edge and the shot. A very short time later..second row
goes off..now loosening the rock between it and where the original row
was..no resistance because the first row is now falling away..then the
third row, longer delay, 4th row..again a longer delay..etc.

All charges were fired at the same time..firing circuit was engergized
at the same instant..but the delay in the proceeding rows of charges
allows the cliff to start moving before the next row goes..else they
would simply make foxholes in the ground.

Often times..each charge in a single row is linked with det cord..but
each row has one or more delay caps to get things started.

Gunner, once Class B blaster.

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

Date: 22 Oct 2006 00:14:30
From: Dan
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

Starlord wrote:
> You've been flying to high without air. They don't use dept cord, they ise
> elescal fliring wire, almost as pure copper as can be made and there is one
> man at a firing panel setting off the charges in a preset mapped order. None
> of this was seen to be going on on 911
>
>

No need to be rude. If you disagree just say so.

Next time Discovery does a show on controlled demolitions watch it.
The wire to which you refer leads to det cord. The firing panel just
initiates the process. There are delays clipped in between det cord
segments to ensure each charge goes in sequence. Det cord is available
in various burn rates. Boosters may be required between det cord and
some types of explosives.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Date: 21 Oct 2006 23:02:00
From: Starlord
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

Oh and just HOW am I going to watch that channel? On my broken down normal
broadcast T.V. Ant that sits on a pole next to this trailer I live in?
Cable, which is very costly doesn't come this far down the road and I live
on a fixed income so I do without a dish, so next time ASK someone if they
have cable or dish before sticking your foot in your mouth.

--
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond

Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Sidewalk Astronomy
www.sidewalkastronomy.info
The Church of Eternity
http://home.inreach.com/starlord/church/Eternity.html

"Dan" <B2431@aol.com > wrote in message
news:g7D_g.31732$eZ4.22615@dukeread06...
.
>
> Next time Discovery does a show on controlled demolitions watch it. The
> wire to which you refer leads to det cord. >

Date: 22 Oct 2006 01:47:45
From: Dan
Subject: Re: 911 -- Conspiracy Fatigue

Starlord wrote:
> Oh and just HOW am I going to watch that channel? On my broken down normal
> broadcast T.V. Ant that sits on a pole next to this trailer I live in?
> Cable, which is very costly doesn't come this far down the road and I live
> on a fixed income so I do without a dish, so next time ASK someone if they
> have cable or dish before sticking your foot in your mouth.
>
>
Did I say you had Discovery at home? There are other ways.

"Woe is me" whine is noted, you just came to the wr