Fascist America, in 10 Easy Steps

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]Sloth wrote:
And there you have it folks, the FDNY is part of the Jewish conspiracy. Those fire fighters stating the building was visibly in danger of collapsing are part of it!

Cartoon physics? [/quote]

I never said the fire fighters were in on it.

Yes, cartoon physics – extensive ASYMMETRICAL damage will never lead to a SYMMETRICAL collapse at near free fall speed. EVERY vertical steel column in the building would have to fail SIMULTANEOUSLY.

Its a variation of the “character may attempt to cut off the limb another character is standing on, only to have the cut off limb remain in place while the entire tree falls”

[quote]Anyways, here’s NIST’s working hypothesis for WTC 7’s collapse.

[i]"An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;

Vertical progression of the initial local failure occurred up to the east penthouse, as the large floor bays were unable to redistribute the loads, bringing down the interior structure below the east penthouse; and

Horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of floors 5 and 7, that were much thicker than the rest of the floors), triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, resulting in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure."[/i]

Oh, an what’s this?! An article published in an independent, peer-reviewed journal about WTC 7? No mention of demolition?!

So again, what independent, peer-review journal has your super-minority of scholars published in? That’s right, none. They can’t get their papers past publication on conspiracy sites. Cartoon physics indeed, JTF. On your side of the debate, that is.[/quote]

Lucky for the government, people are so gullible. The WTC buildings were controlled demolitions plain and simple – steel frame buildings don’t just SYMMETRICALLY collapse at FREE FALL SPEED no matter how bad they’re initially damaged. Giant steel girders don’t just break apart and shatter like glass.

The bottom line, for anyone with a smidgen of independent thought and common sense…

[i]"the latest NIST FAQ claims a fall time for the North Tower of 9 SECONDS (though it was actually at least a few seconds longer than that). If however, we take them at their word, 9 seconds is EQUIVALENT to the rate of ABSOLUTE free fall in a complete VACUUM! They state it, right there, in plain sight! And The 9/11 Commission Report as we know pegs the south tower collapse time at exactly 10 SECONDS!

This entails falling through the path of maximal resistence–core columns begin tapered ever thicker toward the bottom to attain over-engineering-- in about the same timeframe (within second or two) it would take for any freely dropped object, dropped from the height of the tower, to hit the ground, plowing through nothing but mere AIR alone!"[/i]
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/NISTandThe%20FootOfGod.html

It can’t be explained any simpler than that… no amount of wordy “peer reviewed journals” can explain how a giant, interlocking steel structure DESIGNED to NOT FALL DOWN, offered the same resistance as AIR (without considering controlled demolition as a cause). What your saying is that you believe a peer reviewed study that conveniently ignores one of the basic laws of physics.

The advantage of the government’s official story is that people actually saw the buildings fall and they have people thoroughly convinced it most definitely WASN’T controlled demolition. In that way, any wordy “hypothesis” sounds fairly reasonable, and as you so graciously pointed out, “No mention of demolition?!” Of course not, that probable cause was already dismissed from the very beginning.

Also, since the main NIST WTC study is not peer reviewed, I assume you have already dismissed it as not credible.
http://znewz1.blogspot.com/2006/10/no-peer-review-for-nists-911-report.html

And this is worth a few thousand words about “we’re not covering anything up” NIST. This says it ALL–straight from NIST’s lead engineer’s mouth…

Another absolutely fitting quote from ‘1984’…

“In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works?”

102

[quote]orion wrote:

Fascism was initially a workers movement and is very close to socialism.

Therefore I do not think it is irrelevant if a government coerces businesses to implement governments policies, or if businesses buy governments to make more money.

Fascism is a form of socialism combined with caesarism, i.e. the strong man at the top unites with the unwashed masses to break he power of the “rich”, “cosmopolites” which is surprisingly often code for “jews”.

Corporatism is just a form of oligarchic corruption ,there is no real collectivist idea behind it, it just emulates fascism for practical reasons.

I.e. Hitler took control of the heavy industries to produce weapons to go to war, the MIC makes the government go to war to sell weapons.

Maybe your idea of corporatism is more that of a “Ständestaat”, where everything is organized in unions and guilds and associations and the individual has no power whatsoever?

Fascism is a hard topic, because most people on the left call people like Pinochet “fascists” though they clearly weren`t, just because they do not want to look into fascisms intellectual roots that are the same as their own philosophies.
[/quote]

I don’t think we have too many major disagreements. It’s not irrelevant that a fascist government will force the hand of business, but that government may be under total control of one or more of the other types of corporations that I described (e.g. some ultra-nationalist group). This is an example of the government being the shadow that is cast by the substance that is the controlling “corporations.”

The Oklahoma city bombers failed to make this connection. They were angered by many government policies which they perceived as being totalitarian (though their methods of fighting back were, of course, completely insane) but channeled their rage onto the shadow rather than the substance.

I do however have to reemphasize the broader definition of a “corporation” as the term is almost never used to describe anything but a particular business model anymore. This is critical to understanding the broad umbrella of corporatism.

Taking the broader definition into consideration, an interesting point of debate may be, that if, as you say, corporatism is oligarchic corruption by corporations and there is no element of collectivism, then what is it called when that oligarchy is corrupted by a corporation with a collectivist ideology?

I agree that fascism is a difficult topic for most people to discuss intelligently because of the parallels that can be drawn to other prominent ideologies. This is entirely due to the people that are associated with it. As you have already pointed out the inability of many on the left to rationally discuss fascism, to be fair I must mention that the right has the same problem with the nationalistic and hawkish aspects of fascism.

103

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
JustTheFacts wrote:
Also see:
Vast Majority Of Iraqis Still Alive
“As anyone who’s taken a minute and actually looked at the figures can tell you, the vast majority of Iraqis are still alive–as many as 99 percent.”

Dude, do you realize you put a link in to “The Onion?”[/quote]

Ahhh yeah. I was being sarcastic in response to Sloth’s post. The blog he quoted tries, not so cleverly, to imply that all the members of these professional organizations by default believe the official 9/11 story because they “do not question the NIST report”

[quote][i]"Only a handful of architects and engineers question the NIST Report, but they have never come up with an alternative. Although at first blush it may seem impressive that these people don’t believe the NIST Report, remember that there are 123,000 members of ASCE(American Society of Civil Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 80,000 members of AIA(American Institute of Architects) who do not question the NIST Report.

Although their field of expertise is not related to the construction of buildings - they don’t seem to have a problem with that over at AE911truth - there are also 120,000 members of ASME(American Society of Mechanical Engineers) who do not question the NIST report. There are also 370,000 members of IEEE(Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) who do not question the NIST report. There are also 40,000 members of AIChE(American Institute of Chemical Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 35,000 members of AIAA (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics) who do not question the NIST report. So who would you rather believe?"[/i][/quote]

104

Actually this is what NIST say about collapse speeds.

[i]6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)�??speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).

As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:

�??�?� the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.�??

In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

[b][u]From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely."[/b][/u]

Why do you continue to purposefully edit very relevant information? You call yourself “JustTheFacts,” but you sit here and outright lie about this stuff. Or wait…You just pull this stuff directly off conspiracy site, don’t you? You never use your own critical thinking skills, and decide that maybe, just maybe, you should see if the ‘truthers’ are actually telling you the truth.

105

Read this, published in an independent peer-reviewed journal. I’ll gladly review any demolition theory papers published within those same parameters. Nevermind, you won’t find one.

106

[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
Yes, cartoon physics – extensive ASYMMETRICAL damage will never lead to a SYMMETRICAL collapse at near free fall speed. EVERY vertical steel column in the building would have to fail SIMULTANEOUSLY.

Its a variation of the “character may attempt to cut off the limb another character is standing on, only to have the cut off limb remain in place while the entire tree falls”[/quote]

From JoM. A technical journal of materials and engineering science. There are others I can share with you if need be. Anyways, read the whole thing yourself. You might actually have to question what Alex Jones and the gang have been telling you.

[i]It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure.

Third, given the near free-fall collapse [me: feel free to read up on this], there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.[/i]

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html

P.S. Still waiting on one published demolition paper.

107

[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
Sloth wrote:
And there you have it folks, the FDNY is part of the Jewish conspiracy. Those fire fighters stating the building was visibly in danger of collapsing are part of it!

Cartoon physics?

I never said the fire fighters were in on it.
[/quote]

Um, I just shared quotes, and a video bit showing that the fire fighters formed a collapse zone around WTC 7. They did so because, as they describe it, there was extensive damage and fire, and so they feared the building was going to collapse. One more time, they felt pretty certain the building was going to go, to collapse, to fall, etc.

You discount structural damage and fire as the reason. You’re the demo guy, remember. So, the implication is that these fire fighters are lying.

108

[quote]johnnybravo30 wrote:
orion wrote:

Fascism was initially a workers movement and is very close to socialism.

Therefore I do not think it is irrelevant if a government coerces businesses to implement governments policies, or if businesses buy governments to make more money.

Fascism is a form of socialism combined with caesarism, i.e. the strong man at the top unites with the unwashed masses to break he power of the “rich”, “cosmopolites” which is surprisingly often code for “jews”.

Corporatism is just a form of oligarchic corruption ,there is no real collectivist idea behind it, it just emulates fascism for practical reasons.

I.e. Hitler took control of the heavy industries to produce weapons to go to war, the MIC makes the government go to war to sell weapons.

Maybe your idea of corporatism is more that of a “Ständestaat”, where everything is organized in unions and guilds and associations and the individual has no power whatsoever?

Fascism is a hard topic, because most people on the left call people like Pinochet “fascists” though they clearly weren`t, just because they do not want to look into fascisms intellectual roots that are the same as their own philosophies.

I don’t think we have too many major disagreements. It’s not irrelevant that a fascist government will force the hand of business, but that government may be under total control of one or more of the other types of corporations that I described (e.g. some ultra-nationalist group). This is an example of the government being the shadow that is cast by the substance that is the controlling “corporations.”

The Oklahoma city bombers failed to make this connection. They were angered by many government policies which they perceived as being totalitarian (though their methods of fighting back were, of course, completely insane) but channeled their rage onto the shadow rather than the substance.

I do however have to reemphasize the broader definition of a “corporation” as the term is almost never used to describe anything but a particular business model anymore. This is critical to understanding the broad umbrella of corporatism.

Taking the broader definition into consideration, an interesting point of debate may be, that if, as you say, corporatism is oligarchic corruption by corporations and there is no element of collectivism, then what is it called when that oligarchy is corrupted by a corporation with a collectivist ideology?

I agree that fascism is a difficult topic for most people to discuss intelligently because of the parallels that can be drawn to other prominent ideologies. This is entirely due to the people that are associated with it. As you have already pointed out the inability of many on the left to rationally discuss fascism, to be fair I must mention that the right has the same problem with the nationalistic and hawkish aspects of fascism.

[/quote]

In essence you are simply saying that political parties are corporations.

You´d even have a point that a party system could be seen as institutionalized corporatism but that is not how this term is usually used.

By using “corporatism” you mean Big Business.

Think tanks, the NRA or even the Oprah book club can be seen as corporations but they are also the sign of a healthy civil society and they usually are not trying to influence government policies to profit financially.

109

Purposefully edit very relevant information? Outright lie!? No, what I’m doing is cutting through the technical bullshit smokescreen and simplifying my position into the most elementary form so that ANYONE might be able to understand it.

Its hilarious that you think I don’t “use my own critical thinking skills” when your convinced of an IMPOSSIBILITY that defies some of the most BASIC principals of PHYSICS.

We’ll see who’s the “critical thinker”. To get my point across, I created a VERY SIMPLE graphic that only requires very little COMMON SENSE to figure out.

The graphic represents the WTC. “A” & “B” represent the section above the point of impact of the plane. If “A” & “B” are dropped at the same time, which one will hit the ground first?

110

[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
Why do you continue to purposefully edit very relevant information? You call yourself “JustTheFacts,” but you sit here and outright lie about this stuff. Or wait…You just pull this stuff directly off conspiracy site, don’t you? You never use your own critical thinking skills, and decide that maybe, just maybe, you should see if the ‘truthers’ are actually telling you the truth.

Purposefully edit very relevant information? Outright lie!? No, what I’m doing is cutting through the technical bullshit smokescreen and simplifying my position into the most elementary form so that ANYONE might be able to understand it.

Its hilarious that you think I don’t “use my own critical thinking skills” when your convinced of an IMPOSSIBILITY that defies some of the most BASIC principals of PHYSICS.

We’ll see who’s the “critical thinker”. To get my point across, I created a VERY SIMPLE graphic that only requires very little COMMON SENSE to figure out.

The graphic represents the WTC. “A” & “B” represent the section above the point of impact of the plane. If “A” & “B” are dropped at the same time, which one will hit the ground first?[/quote]

What is the STATIC load capacity of each floor in graphic A? In graphic A, how much dynamic force is striking one floor at a time? How much mass is then added to strike the next floor down?

Sorry, your graph does not simplify, it misleads. It is designed to give the viewer the impression that the dynamic and compounding mass of graphic A had to defeat the entire structure below the initial collapse. That’s not the case. The mass, which is in movement, had to overcome the static load capacity of one floor. Naturally each floor defeated becomes part of this dynamic mass, before striking the next floor. There was virtually no resistance. Reread the links I gave.

Cartoon physics? Yeah, look at your graph.

By the way, look for the upcoming Journal of Engineering Mechanics, an idependent peer-reviewed journal. Inside will be featured a paper by Dr. Keith Seffen, a Cambridge U. Engineer. I don’t know that it’ll feature cartoons, such as yours, but it will feature plenty of math and engineering. His paper covers this very topic. Perhaps you could submit your graph to the board as a rebuttal?

Edit: By the way, NIST’s 9 seconds is from observing the first external panel striking the ground. Video clearly shows external panels outpacing the bulk of the collapse. You can see these external panels because they fell outside of the main mass, and not through the floors.

Oh, and your question. B and an external panel from A in a neck and neck finish. With the remainder below A following very close. Except for the core of A (40-60 stories if I remember correctly), which will fall 6-16 seconds after.

Another Edit: Oh, and thank you for providing air under graphic B. It reminded me of something. Did you realize the towers were roughly 95% air? When B. falls what happens to the air in it’s path? Is it not displaced? Next time Alex Jones tells you you’re seeing demolition squibs, remember the hint I just gave you.

111

[quote]Sloth wrote:
What is the STATIC load capacity of each floor in graphic A? In graphic A, how much dynamic force is striking one floor at a time? How much mass is then added to strike the next floor down?

Sorry, your graph does not simplify, it misleads. It is designed to give the viewer the impression that the dynamic and compounding mass of graphic A had to defeat the entire structure below the initial collapse. That’s not the case. The mass, which is in movement, had to overcome the static load capacity of one floor. Naturally each floor defeated becomes part of this dynamic mass, before striking the next floor. There was virtually no resistance. Reread the links I gave.

Cartoon physics? Yeah, look at your graph.

By the way, look for the upcoming Journal of Engineering Mechanics, an idependent peer-reviewed journal. Inside will be featured a paper by Dr. Keith Seffen, a Cambridge U. Engineer. I don’t know that it’ll feature cartoons, such as yours, but it will feature plenty of math and engineering. His paper covers this very topic. Perhaps you could submit your graph to the board as a rebuttal?

Edit: By the way, NIST’s 9 seconds is from observing the first external panel striking the ground. Video clearly shows external panels outpacing the bulk of the collapse. You can see these external panels because they fell outside of the main mass, and not through the floors.

Oh, and your question. B and an external panel from A in a neck and neck finish. With the remainder below A following very close. Except for the core of A (40-60 stories if I remember correctly), which will fall 6-16 seconds after.

Another Edit: Oh, and thank you for providing air under graphic B. It reminded me of something. Did you realize the towers were roughly 95% air? When B. falls what happens to the air in it’s path? Is it not displaced? Next time Alex Jones tells you you’re seeing demolition squibs, remember the hint I just gave you.[/quote]

95% air… OMG! Your welcome.

700×394 59 KB

As in WTC 7, how does air get displaced BEFORE the building starts to move?
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2004/281104unmistakablecharges.htm

112

[quote]Sloth wrote:
By the way, look for the upcoming Journal of Engineering Mechanics, an idependent peer-reviewed journal. Inside will be featured a paper by Dr. Keith Seffen, a Cambridge U. Engineer. I don’t know that it’ll feature cartoons, such as yours, but it will feature plenty of math and engineering. His paper covers this very topic. Perhaps you could submit your graph to the board as a rebuttal?
[/quote]

Btw, I know all about Seffen’s journal. Coincidentally I’ve been following the story over the past few weeks on the progressive search for this paper since it was mentioned by the BBC…

Where’s The Paper? Did The BBC And A Cambridge Don Commit Fraud To Cover Up Mass Murder?

WTC ‘Collapse’ Research Cited In September Is Scheduled To Be Published In February

And here it is:
Introducing Keith Seffen’s “Progressive Collapse Of The WTC: A Simple Analysis”

Keep Your Hats On: Keith Seffen’s “Mathematical Model Of The WTC Collapse” Is Incoherent, Inappropriate, And Almost Meaningless
Strikingly, the BBC described Dr. Seffen’s paper as “published”, even though it had not been published at that time. A search of the publisher’s archives found no mention of the paper, or its author, and after I pointed this out, the folks at the BBC changed their report, which now says Dr. Seffen’s paper is “to be published”…

Dr. Seffen assumes that a constant force, supplied by the suddenly unsupported top of the tower, was pressing down, crushing each story, one after another, all the way down to the ground. An elementary understanding of physics would tell you that this is not possible, unless the top section of the building – the part doing the crushing – were made of much denser material than the bottom section – the material being crushed…

Keith Seffen has not bolstered the official explanation of 9/11 in any way; in fact – and as can be seen by all who read his paper with an open mind – he has discredited the official story even further.

The paper also shows quite a bit about Dr. Seffen, and it brings great discredit upon him personally, upon his career, and upon the University of Cambridge, which he represents, and under whose auspices this very shady venture was publicized and continues to be protected…

113

[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:

95% air… OMG! Your welcome.

700×394 59 KB

[/quote]

Not sure what this link is for…

Those aren’t squibs…It’s a damaged corner, see attached photo.

114

[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
Sloth wrote:
By the way, look for the upcoming Journal of Engineering Mechanics, an idependent peer-reviewed journal. Inside will be featured a paper by Dr. Keith Seffen, a Cambridge U. Engineer. I don’t know that it’ll feature cartoons, such as yours, but it will feature plenty of math and engineering. His paper covers this very topic. Perhaps you could submit your graph to the board as a rebuttal?

Btw, I know all about Seffen’s journal. Coincidentally I’ve been following the story over the past few weeks on the progressive search for this paper since it was mentioned by the BBC…

Where’s The Paper? Did The BBC And A Cambridge Don Commit Fraud To Cover Up Mass Murder?

WTC ‘Collapse’ Research Cited In September Is Scheduled To Be Published In February

And here it is:
Introducing Keith Seffen’s “Progressive Collapse Of The WTC: A Simple Analysis”

Keep Your Hats On: Keith Seffen’s “Mathematical Model Of The WTC Collapse” Is Incoherent, Inappropriate, And Almost Meaningless
Strikingly, the BBC described Dr. Seffen’s paper as “published”, even though it had not been published at that time. A search of the publisher’s archives found no mention of the paper, or its author, and after I pointed this out, the folks at the BBC changed their report, which now says Dr. Seffen’s paper is “to be published”…

Dr. Seffen assumes that a constant force, supplied by the suddenly unsupported top of the tower, was pressing down, crushing each story, one after another, all the way down to the ground. An elementary understanding of physics would tell you that this is not possible, unless the top section of the building – the part doing the crushing – were made of much denser material than the bottom section – the material being crushed…

Keith Seffen has not bolstered the official explanation of 9/11 in any way; in fact – and as can be seen by all who read his paper with an open mind – he has discredited the official story even further.

The paper also shows quite a bit about Dr. Seffen, and it brings great discredit upon him personally, upon his career, and upon the University of Cambridge, which he represents, and under whose auspices this very shady venture was publicized and continues to be protected…
Winter Patriot: Keep Your Hats On: Keith Seffen's "Mathematical Model Of The WTC Collapse" Is Incoherent, Inappropriate, And Almost Meaningless [/quote]

  1. The BBC not realizing the paper won’t show up until the next publication has nothing to do with me. I specifically told you to watch for an UPCOMING paper. Read my post again.

  2. Cute, attempting to discredit his work with a blog. Will the master of blogdom put forth a paper to the Journal in question as a response? Or, any Engineering journal? It’s interesting which sources you give more weight to.

Go ahead and say it, JTF. “All those proffessional and independent Journals are part of the Jew conspiracy.”

115

[quote]Sloth wrote:
JustTheFacts wrote:

95% air… OMG! Your welcome.

700×394 59 KB

Not sure what this link is for…

As in WTC 7, how does air get displaced BEFORE the building starts to move?
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2004/281104unmistakablecharges.htm

Those aren’t squibs…It’s a damaged corner, see attached photo.[/quote]

Even with photographic proof he will continue to pretend otherwise.

Thanks for taking the time to post the pic.

116

Sloth, will you give up, JTF wins.

He had drawings of rectangles, therefore he is right.

And just look at all those credible websites he links to.

My god, you act as if people have to have proof or something.

117

[quote]Sloth wrote:
JustTheFacts wrote:

95% air… OMG! Your welcome.

Not sure what this link is for…[/quote]

You yourself just said the building was 95% air… I’m just showing what “95% air” looks like.

1269×1747 290 KB

(my bad, for some reason the other link I posted jumps to a different page… sometimes?)

Talk about MISLEADING… you appear to be implying that a near free-fall collapse was entirely possible because you think the UNDAMAGED portion of the WTC building(s) (being 95% air) provided only 5% more resistance than NOTHING AT ALL?

Better graphic…
“Can an object fall through mass 5 times greater than itself nearly as fast as it would fall through air? (When only force available is gravity?)”
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2007/110407fall.htm

It REALLY IS ‘1984’…
[i]"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command… The obvious, the silly, and the true had got to be defended. Truisms are true, hold on to that! The solid world exists, its laws do not change. Stones are hard, water is wet, objects unsupported fall towards the earth’s centre…

In a way, the world-view of the Party imposed itself most successfully on people incapable of understanding it. They could be made to accept the most flagrant violations of reality, because they never fully grasped the enormity of what was demanded of them… By lack of understanding they remained sane. They simply swallowed everything, and what they swallowed did them no harm, because it left no residue behind, just as a grain of corn will pass undigested through the body of a bird."[/i]

[quote]As in WTC 7, how does air get displaced BEFORE the building starts to move?

Those aren’t squibs…It’s a damaged corner, see attached photo.[/quote]

The SQUIBS clearly progress right up the corner of the building. The building certainly doesn’t even move until AFTER this happens, which means it can’t be “air” being forced out a “damaged corner”.

Practically every person in America before 9/11 knew what “pull a building” meant from watching umpteen Discovery Channel documentaries on controlled demolition. After 9/11, it suddenly had to have multiple meanings after Larry Silverstein mentions it in relation to WTC 7.

9/11 First Responders Heard WTC 7 Demolition Countdown
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2007/130907_demolition_countdown.htm

118

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Read this, published in an independent peer-reviewed journal. I’ll gladly review any demolition theory papers published within those same parameters. Nevermind, you won’t find one.[/quote]

BTW, a paper written only TWO DAYS after 9/11? Is this supposed to lend credibility to “peer-review”?

Here’s a guy FOX News just happened to find on the street on 9/11. I wonder if he ever wrote a peer-reviewed paper?

MIT research heavily dependent on defense department funding
February 28, 1989
MIT’s Pentagon connections go beyond its DOD contracts and its alumni’s occupations; MIT has played and continues to play an important role in strengthening academic ties with the military. A number of key administrators at MIT are closely linked to the Pentagon, including Deutch, who is a member of the DOD’s Defense Science Board and chair of the DSB Task Forces on Chemical and Biological Warfare and Midgetman Missile Program. David S. Saxon ‘41, chairman of the MIT Corporation, is a consultant to the Ford Motor Company (a major military contractor) and former member of the DOD’s Science Advisors’ Panel on Basic Research, which recommended substantial increases in the DOD’s basic research.
http://www-tech.mit.edu/V109/N7/glenn.07o.html

The Trouble With Government Grants
Over the last 60 years a new power structure, the state, has taken control of information. It uses federal tax money to fund and control research through the peer-review grant system. It forms mutually advantageous partnerships with industry and the academic community, which do its bidding. The state holds sway over education. And to round out its control of information an increasingly powerful centralized government bureaucracy has persuaded the mainstream media to accept and espouse state-approved ideas…

When inconvenient facts challenge paradigms the state promotes, it justifies them by consensus. If polar bear experts (Amstrup et al., 1995) find that the bear population in Alaska is increasing, placing doubt on the government’s stance on climate change, this finding is dismissed as being outside the consensus and ignored.

119

Out of curiosity, JTF, do you have those references pre-formatted with the bolding, italics and underlining?

You seem to have an unlimited supply of references about just about every conspiracy…uh, I mean “true fact” in existence. Do you have a database or some such for them?

120

[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
Sloth wrote:
JustTheFacts wrote:

95% air… OMG! Your welcome.

Not sure what this link is for…

I would expect nothing less. You yourself just said the building was 95% air… I’m just showing what “95% air” looks like.

700×394 59 KB

[/quote]

Ok, I have absolutely no idea why you’re linking this page. What does it have to do with the “95%” air? It’s a ‘Welcome to the site’ page. So yeah, not sure what the link is for…

Oh man…I raised that point in regards to squibs. I said "Did you realize the towers were roughly 95% air? When B. falls what happens to the air in it’s path? Is it not displaced? Next time Alex Jones tells you you’re seeing [u]demolition squibs, remember the hint I just gave you."[/u]

I didn’t realize 1 floor was 5 times greater than the falling mass. Btw, the falling mass was roughly 30 times the static load of a floor. As it tore through one floor with virtually no resistance, it picked up even more mass before ripping through the next floor. You’re acting as if each floor provided the resistance of all remaining floors together.

Are you joking? The penthouses have already completely disappeared (collapsed through the top)! The building has already started to kink and deform. I’ll make a series of posts to demonstrate this.

Here is the quote the CT’ers give you.

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

I’ve bolded some key points, and underlined important words. I can’t believe this is even needed, but here we go.

  1. He is talking to the Fire Department commander
  2. The FD commander is obviously talking about the fire/rescue operation in progress at WTC 7.
  3. Silverstein is relating that the commander had lost hope about saving WTC 7.
  4. Silverstein hearing this, expresses concern at losing anymore lives over what appears to be a lost cause.
  5. The Fire Department decides to “pull.” Not Silverstein, but the Fire Department makes the ultimate decision to “Pull.”

So what does the Fire Department decide to pull? This should have already been obvious with the number of FF quotes I’ve used concerning WTC 7. They PULLED the fire/rescue operation! They pulled it and set up a collapse zone, because, in their own words, they were concerned the building was going to collapse. But here are some very telling quotes from fire fighters. Look for the special “pull” in each.

“They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they [u]pulled us out[/u]. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They [u]pulled[/u] us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn’t really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down.” - Richard Banaciski
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Banaciski_Richard.txt

[i]Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?

Hayden: No, not right away, and that�??s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn�??t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to [u]pull[/u] guys back because we were concerned for their safety.

Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7�?? did you have to get all of those people out?

Hayden: Yeah, we had to [u]pull[/u] everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn�??t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn�??t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn�??t know how stable any of this area was. We [u]pulled[/u] everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o�??clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then. At that point in time, it seemed like a somewhat smaller event, but under any normal circumstances, that�??s a major event, a 47-story building collapsing. It seemed like a firecracker after the other ones came down, but I mean that�??s a big building, and when it came down, it was quite an event. But having gone through the other two, it didn�??t seem so bad. But that�??s what we were concerned about. We had said to the guys, we lost as many as 300 guys. We didn�??t want to lose any more people that day. And when those numbers start to set in among everybody�?� My feeling early on was we weren�??t going to find any survivors. You either made it out or you didn�??t make it out. It was a cataclysmic event.[/i]
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html

Those were samples of interviews in which FFers said they believed/knew the building was going to collapse. Visibly, it looked like it would collapse…

This one is just common sense anyways. What the CTers are saying is that Silverstein admitted in an interview(not just used a suspicious word) that he and the FD conspired to demolish WTC with explosives…What?!

And one last thing. When a demolition guy does talk about pulling a building, it means to literally pull the building…with cables. That’s what they did to building 6. They actually pulled it, with cables. I can share that video too. Anyways, I thought this was an explosives theory?

9/11 First Responders Heard WTC 7 Demolition Countdown
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2007/130907_demolition_countdown.htm[/quote]

Oh man, I’ll deal with this one in a seperate post. Nothing about the accusation makes any sense. They announce to all the first responders (on a bullhorn!) they’re going to demolish a building which they plan to pass off as having collapsed…