9/11 - The Third Tower

[rols]

what's funny about that?


UTB

PS - I've just spent 5 minutes on prison planet, BTW.

Christmas gift?

Who would stick this on their bumper?

I see Alex is running quite an empire of his own. There be money in this conspiracy business.

He's got more DVDs for sale than Tescos.

 

[the blades]

Christmas gift?

Who would stick this on their bumper?

I see Alex is running quite an empire of his own. There be money in this conspiracy business.

He's got more DVDs for sale than Tescos.

never......he's making money with this stuff?

Blow me down with a nuclear explosion.

UTB

 

[Atilla]

Exactly how many of my sources rebutting the fact-free turgid drival that you guys keep on coming out with have you read? (serious question)

I would hope, for a self-professed "truth-seeker", that your answer is "all".

I suspect it's "none"

Furthermore, I would have expected that, instead of simply providing links to looney-tune 1.5 hour one-sided, partsisan "documentarys" (guffaw), you could have come up with links to (for example) pdf's, scientific journals (as I have done) contradicting my contradictions.
I'm unsurprised that you havn't and even more unsurprised that you can't.
Do I think there was a conspiracy?

Would it surprise you to whan I say yes, i genuinely believe there was a conspiracy by elements of the Bush govenment surrounding 9/11?

Scientic journals as you have done... Where? :?:

Paper editors get hounded out of circulation for printing the truth. Piers Morgan is just one example. What was his crime? to expose torture in Iraq?

What do you do?

Print some garbage of newspaper comments who seriously lack the meaning of "Investigative Journalism" and report the news as fed out by the White House press commission - which take to be fact...

What do you think would happen to their circulation of any news paper to go against the anti-war movement when all others are for it?

Thatchers government was down hill before the Falklands war and look how she subsequently got in. Same all over the world irrespective of any country.


What scientific journals are you referring to for God sake? :-0


Did you watch 9/11 Mysterious before you label it looney tunes:?:

 

[JTrader]

Morgan Reynolds - No More Games • Net

A very informative link Trendie, containing a HUGE MASS of material in the article, and on the website (more new issues, questions, queries, discrepencies etc.). The plot thickens.
Thanks.

 

[Atilla]

Ok, lets cut to the chase . . . I belive I've asked it before but, hey, it's been a hard day and I can't be bothered to wade through 34-odd pages . .

TO ALL YOU "TRUTH-SEEKERS" OUT THERE

Present us your theory about what hapennd on 9/11.
This is what we are trying to find out but if you are asking for motive as to why:
1. Old building costly to maintain - littered with Asbestos not approriate for modern office requirements. Falling occupancy with $bn dollar maintenance fees.
2. Justify war on Iraq to take over oil fields
3. Justify war on Afghanistan and take over mineral reserves in Caucases
4. Axis of evil thread - knock out Syria and Iran in the same process but plan didn't quite materialise.
5. Justify $bn dollar contracts for the pentagon and defence budget
6. Reshape US foreign policy to knock the stuffing out of any country that dare raise a frown at US.
7. By attacking Iran stall China's oil supply.

Is this enough motive for a white flag incident. Call it collateral damage.

This to include at least:

- What flew into the towers.
Two aeroplanes flew into the towers. But the skill and ability required to carry out the maneouvers leave a lot to be demanded from couple of hot heads who couldn't even navigate or take off or land.

Terrorist profile does not fit those of suicidal terrorists. They drank, partied and gambled...

- Why did they fall
This is the biggest question which we are all trying to get to the bottom of. Don't you think after all the evidence it needs investigation. Please don't call it looney tunes in respect of the thousands who died under all that rubble.


- In case of controlled demolition: please show how the buildings where prepped, how it was possible to do that within the time limits, why nobody saw the prepped walls, how the explosives and the wires survived the planes' impacts and why no traces of explosives were found afterwards.
Watch this film and you'll get a better idea.
9/11 Mysteries


- Please explain why such a destruction would work without the slightest problems even though there has never been any building brought down that was even nearly as large as the towers, everything was done in a rush and therefore had to been done very sloppy, and even though everything went perfect.
You guys keep banging this drum but totally ignoring three buildings collapsing into it's own footprint being totally vaporised, falling at the free fall speed of gravity. Balance of scales. Nobody is exactly going to come clean and own up now are they. Certainly not impossible. Please watch the film if you are serious about wanting possible explanations.

- What flew into Pentagon
Not an aeroplane that's for sure?
I like to know what flew into the Pentagon too.

Why doesn't the Government show us on footage and why were all films from sorrounding facilities confiscated?

Why does a book stand on a chair with open pages when heat and destruction vapourises and aeroplane???

- Does that match with the eyewitnesses observations? (always a tough one that!)
Yes - please watch the film.

- What was the purpose of the attack?
See motives above.


- Who is involved into the conspiracy?
This is what we would like to find out. Pentagon officials would be on top of my list.

- How have the engineering communities across the globe been silenced?
They haven't. Watch the film and hear them speak and then judge for your self. Who controls most of the media?

Why was Piers Morgan sacked from the Daily Mirror over exposing a simple truth?

- What do you think happened to WTC7?
It burnt down at the speed of gravity into it's own footrprint in 7 hours but luckilly the building was vacated 1 hour after some debri hit it and after smouldering for 6 hours it collapsed. The first ever in the history of planet Earth.

This just to start with.

Please explain in detail and with your own words. No links to CT sites accepted. Unsupported speculation will be ignored.
You really are taking the mickey arn't you.

FFS who am I to determine these fundamental issues. The whole point is they need to be investigated.

Are you up to the challenge?

Yes I am and here they are.

Will you kindly watch the looney tunes film as you refer to and then in your own words without any links or references to other BS sites explain what you think of the questions raised in the film???

 

[Atilla]

In a recent poll over half the American public believed George Bush would make a good president but that didn't mean they were right did it ?


dd

What's that got to do with the price of cheese? :whistling

Polls arn't always right? Therefore, people who believe in 9/11 being an inside job are wrong too.

Hmmm. I see where you are coming from dd...

 

[Atilla]

My deepest sympathies!

Did you find the sub-forum "Eugenics/Depleted Uranium/Pharmaceutical Fascism/War on Family/Future WMDs" containing such gem threads as "Evidence of the elite secretly sterilizing women through vaccines "

Or the quality one in the main 911 forum ""The US Air Force Shot Down Flight 93" where the OP opens with the immortal line "The following comment was posted to my blog today (I do not know who the author is -- he posted semi-anonymously; so decide for yourself whether or not you believe him):"

But hey, it's on prison planet so it must be the truth!

9/11 Enlarge your perspective...

Very sad...

 

[A Dashing Blade]

. . .
Scientic journals as you have done... Where? :?:
. . .
What scientific journals are you referring to for God sake? :-0
. . .

Apols Atilla but as I pointed out many pages ago . . .

OK JT, get googling and come up with your estimation of the amount of explosives, cabling etc required to support your "theory"
. . .

these are the cited peer-reviewed paper used in the links I use . . .

Engineers Explain WTC Collapse
architectureweek[/B].com/2002/0529/news_3-1.html]ArchitectureWeek - News - Engineers Explain WTC Collapse - 2002.0529

Report Ties WTC Collapses to Column Failures
construction[/B].com/news/buildings/archives/040119.asp]McGraw-Hill Construction | ENR - Research May Never Pinpoint Sequence of Events on 9/11

IT WAS THE FIRE, CAUSED THE TWIN TOWER COLLAPSE - icivilengineer.com
Vincent Dunn,

Simulation for the collapse of WTC after aeroplane impact - Lu XZ., Yang N., Jiang JJ. Structure Engineer, 66(sup.). 2003, 18-22

Bazant, Z.P., & Zhou, Y.
"Addendum to 'Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? - Simple Analysis" (pdf)
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 3, (2002): 369-370.

Brannigan, F.L.
"WTC: Lightweight Steel and High-Rise Buildings"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 4, (2002): 145-150.

Clifton, Charles G.
Elaboration on Aspects of the Postulated Collapse of the World Trade Centre Twin Towers
HERA: Innovation in Metals. 2001. 13 December 2001.

"Construction and Collapse Factors"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002): 106-108.

Corbett, G.P.
"Learning and Applying the Lessons of the WTC Disaster"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002.): 133-135.

"Dissecting the Collapses"
Civil Engineering ASCE v. 72, no. 5, (2002): 36-46.

Eagar, T.W., & Musso, C.
"Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation"
JOM v. 53, no. 12, (2001): 8-12.

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Therese McAllister, report editor.
World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations
(also available on-line)

Gabrielson, T.B., Poese, M.E., & Atchley, A.A.
"Acoustic and Vibration Background Noise in the Collapsed Structure of the World Trade Center"
The Journal of Acoustical Society of America v. 113, no. 1, (2003): 45-48.

Glover, N.J.
"Collapse Lessons"
Fire Engineering v. 155, no. 10, (2002): 97-103

Marechaux, T.G.
"TMS Hot Topic Symposium Examines WTC Collapse and Building Engineering"
JOM, v. 54, no. 4, (2002): 13-17.

Monahan, B.
"World Trade Center Collapse-Civil Engineering Considerations"
Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction v. 7, no. 3, (2002): 134-135.

Newland, D.E., & Cebon, D.
"Could the World Trade Center Have Been Modified to Prevent Its Collapse?"
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 7, (2002):795-800.

National Instititue of Stamdards and Technology: Congressional and Legislative Affairs
“Learning from 9/11: Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center”
Statement of Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., before Committee of Science House of Representatives, United States Congress on March 6, 2002.

Pinsker, Lisa, M.
"Applying Geology at the World Trade Center Site"
Geotimes v. 46, no. 11, (2001).
The print copy has 3-D images.

Public Broadcasting Station (PBS)
Why the Towers Fell: A Companion Website to the Television Documentary.
NOVA (Science Programming On Air and Online)

Post, N.M.
"No Code Changes Recommended in World Trade Center Report"
ENR v. 248, no. 14, (2002): 14.

Post, N.M.
"Study Absolves Twin Tower Trusses, Fireproofing"
ENR v. 249, no. 19, (2002): 12-14.

The University of Sydney, Department of Civil Engineering
World Trade Center - Some Engineering Aspects
A resource site.

"WTC Engineers Credit Design in Saving Thousands of Lives"
ENR v. 247, no. 16, (2001): 12.

The Towers Lost and Beyond
The Towers Lost and Beyond
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Eduardo Kausel, John E. Fernandez, Tomasz Wierzbicki, Liang Xue, Meg Hendry-Brogan, Ahmed F. Ghoniem, Oral Buyukozturk, Franz-Josef Ulm, Yossi Sheffi

PWNED :innocent:

 

[Crap Buddist]

IT WAS THE FIRE, CAUSED THE TWIN TOWER COLLAPSE - icivilengineer.com

He doesn't exactly sound too convinced himself. Nice essay though.

 

[JTrader]

Alex Jones Predicts 9/11, July / 25, 2001

YouTube - Alex Jones Predicts 9/11

 

[dick_dastardly]

What's that got to do with the price of cheese? :whistling

Polls arn't always right? Therefore, people who believe in 9/11 being an inside job are wrong too.

Hmmm. I see where you are coming from dd...

Yes, with the benefit of hindsight I think that probably many Americans now accept they voted for the wrong guy.


dd

 

[Crap Buddist]

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Inc.

Found this site that Architects & Engineers are backing to bring about a full investigation. First clip below is a 20 min interview which will give an outline, then second clip below is a full 2 hour presentation going through the/some evidence .



Omni TV Interview - April 22, 2008


This below is a 2 hour presentation which ,to me anyways, firms up demolition evidence in a few places.



TRR-May14-07







site home
AE911Truth

 

[Atilla]

Apols Atilla but as I pointed out many pages ago . . .



PWNED :innocent:

Hi DB,

I have already started reading two of these reports.

Could not open the first few links. Did a search google search and came up with this

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis1
Zdeneˇk P. Bazˇant, F.ASCE,2 and Yong Zhou3 PDF

However, it is grossly flawed and over simplified. All the formula and sigmas make it look as if these people know what they are talking about but's it's a lot of blinding formulas which doesn't stand to physical scrutiny.



Their document is summarised as [IAbstract: This paper presents a simplified approximate analysis of the overall collapse of the towers ofWorld Trade Center in New York
on September 11, 2001. The analysis shows that if prolonged heating (what is prolonged heating? Time is not specified. Spanish building burnt for 24 hours and stood up. WTC towers burnt for approx 1 hour) caused the majority of columns of a single floor (just one single floor? No way. Pretty big assumption) to lose their load
carrying capacity, the whole tower was doomed.
DOI: 10.1061/~[/I]

I've heard this before. Supporting horizontal beams bend and the corrugated light steel floors give way. collapsing onto the ones below. However, steel below is much cooler if not normal temperature and so unless the outer and core columns are taken out in total synchronised blow outs their theory as well as other copy analysis is fundamentally flawed.

If you open the PDF and look at figures FIG3. & FIG4 their analysis fails to a fundamental factor.

FIG3. b - gains inertia and momentum to one side as it buckles on one side and then corrects it self nad falls flat.

Appendix II. Why Didn’t the Upper Part Pivot About
Its Base?
Since the top part of the South Tower tilted @Fig. 3~a!#, many
people wonder: Why didn’t the upper part of the tower fall to the
side like a tree, pivoting about the center of the critical floor?
@Fig. 3~b!#. To demonstrate why, and thus to justify our previous
neglect of tilting, is an elementary exercise in dynamics.

Far from elementary. The authors dismiss this with the solution -

The moment
equilibrium condition for the column as a free body shows that
each column can at most sustain the shear force F152Mp /h1
where h1'2.5m5effective height of column, and Mp'0.3MN
m5estimated yield bending moment of one column, if cold. Assuming
that the resisting columns are only those at the sides of
the framed tube normal to the axis of rotation, which number
about 130, we get Fp'130F1'31 MN. So, the maximum horizontal
reaction to pivoting would cause the overload ratio
Fmax /Fp'10.3 (6)if the resisting columns were cold. Since they are hot, the horizontal
reaction to pivoting would exceed the shear capacity of the
heated floor still much more ~and even more if fracture were
considered!. (See FIG 5.)

Essentially what they are saying is that cold metal acts with greater resistance than hot metal to correct this fall.

THIS IS UTTER NONSENSE. Think about their diagram FIG 3 again. Not all the columns on the outside and the core will be at equal temperatures as aircraft hit from one side. (There is a comment on the Fire Chiefs report saying there were no fire walls, hence smoke spread quickly. But this doesn't explain fire spreading as heat and flames rises and oxygen likely to be less at ground level than ceiling). Anyway of all the columns the side which is hotter (assuming their theory) would buckle whlist side which is cold would stand erect. HENCE, how can the column correct itself.

ESPECIALLY SO AS THOSE FLOORS WILL HAVE GAINED SIDEWAYS MOMENTUM FALLING TO THE OUTSIDE.

Ok lets say as in FIG 4 a, then FIG 4 b, then FIG4 c, we accept their theory - what they are saying is that cold metal on lower floors held the wait of the pivot point of the building forcing the peripheral columns to buckle and bend. We are now talking cold metal bending as in FIG D.

Cold metal will not bend in free fall. Hence to suggest building fell with accellerating velocity is simply does not hold up to Newtons laws of physics.

This papers analysis is fundamentaly flawed even within their own assumptions.

1. THEY CAN'T SUGGEST HOT METAL BENDS AND BUCKLE TO EXPLAIN BENDING / TILTING OF BUILDING ON ONE SIDE and then
2. WEIGHT OF BUILDING IS HELD UP ON PIVOT POINT BY COLD METAL COLUMNS ON THE COLLAPSING SIDE BY COLDER FLOORS
3. AND THEN STATE COLD METAL COLUMNS COLLAPSES AT FREE FALL ON OPPOSITE SIDE CORRECTING THE BUILDINGS TILT.

Here it is in their words again. So, the maximum horizontal
reaction to pivoting would cause the overload ratio
Fmax /Fp'10.3 (6)
if the resisting columns were cold. Since they are hot, the horizontal
reaction to pivoting would exceed the shear capacity of the
heated floor still much more ~and even more if fracture were
considered!.

LET ME POSE THIS QUESTION.
1. YOU HAVE FOUR METAL COLUMNS.
2. ONE SIDE BENDS WITH HEAT
3. OK ASSUME TWO CORNERS BENDS WITH HEAT

4. TOP HALF GAINS SIDEWARD MOMENTUM AND INERTIA AND WE ARE TALKING TONS

5. WHAT KIND OF RESISTANCE FROM COLD METAL COLUMNS WILL YOU NEED TO STOP THE PIVOT POINT FROM FALLING IN?

6. WHAT KIND OF PULL OR HOLDING FORCE WOULD YOU NEED TO STOP BUILDING FROM BRAKING AWAY FROM IT'S OPPISSITE SIDE.

7. ALTERNATIVELY SOMETHING MUST HAVE EITHER CAUSED COLD CORE AND PERIPHERAL COLUMN METALS TO GIVE WAY OR BEND.

HOT AND COLD METAL STRENGTH DOES NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION. (Also debatable as to what max heat can be reached by aircraft fuel but we won't complicate the physics here).

Questions 6 & 7 are fundamental imho.


Ok, if you also look at the basic fundamentals of their descripting diagram FIG4 D.

They have arrow at the top to the Left.
Arrow at the collapsing floors to the Right.
Big arrow centre of gravity which has already shifted from the centre as heading down.

STUPID OR WHAT -

FIG4 E

They have collapsing columns with big Arrow down as summary of two arrows. THIS IS SCIENTIFIC BS.

It is laughable. imho.

HAVE YOU SERIOUSLY SAT DOWN AND READ THERE ANALYSIS??? I BEG YOU, I IMPLORE YOU PLEASE LOOK AT THEIR DIAGRAMS AND READ THEIR TOSH.

Here are some lines from their report.

1. Columns exposed to temperatures apparently exceeding 800C? Do they know this or not??? Apparently doesn't suit the gravity of event. Metal needs to be around 2500C before it starts melting.

2. Corrugated floors may bend but their collapse is debatable? Assuming they have collapsed does not explain the dissapearance of peripheral or core columns. To suggest whole building vapourised is DAFT BEYOND BELIEF.

3. Floors collapse gathering speed. NO WAY. Look imagine two parachuters free falling to the ground. Their parachutes have failed. One hits the ground unimpeded.

The other hits the ground falling through trees.

WHICH PARACHUTIST IS GOING TO HIT THE GROUND FIRST and

WHAT SPEED WILL EACH PARACHUTIST WILL HIT THE GROUND AT?

How can these idiots use hot and cold metal and different strengths to justify the whole building wait being supported FIG3. a - due to support of cold metal structure and then say building falls at free fall speed gathering speed on the other.

4. These IDIOTS talk about equilibrium weight of the building but THIS IS SIMPLY NOT THE CASE THE MOMENT TOWER LEANS 23 DEGREES. CENTRE OF GRAVITY HAS NOW SHIFTED AND EQUILIBRIUM IS NO MORE.

So how can they talk about

For our purpose, we may assume that all the impact forces go
into the columns and are distributed among them equally(STUPID ASSUMPTION AS YOU CAN'T GET AS THIS IS OBVIOUSLY NOT THE CASE AS BUILDING HAS TWISTED OUT 23 DEGREES. Unlikely
though such a distribution may be, (TOO DAMN RIGHT!) it is nevertheless the
most optimistic hypothesis to make because the resistance of the
building to the impact is, for such a distribution, the highest. (UTTER IDIOTS. YES COLUMN RESISTANCE STRONGEST AND SHOULD EXPLAIN SOME CORRUGATED FLOORS GIVING WAY OR BENDING TO HEAT BUT NOT COLUMNS COLLAPSING If the
building is found to fail under a uniform distribution of the impact
forces, it would fail under any other distribution (WHAT A LOAD OF DRIBBLE. YOU CAN'T SAY THIS FULL STOP. According to
this hypothesis, one may estimate (IS THIS THE EXTENT OF THEIR SCIENTIFIC ESTIMATION that C'71 GN/m ~due to unavailability
of precise data, an approximate design of column
cross sections had to be carried out for this purpose!.WHY DOES THE WHITE HOUSE FEEL WE DO NOT NEED TO HAVE THIS INFORMATION???

I have really studied this article and gone over several readings and you can tear it apart.

My economics dissertation was more thorough than this... And I got torn to pieces by my Professor Dunning asking me to explain and justify my assumptions and figures and where I had obtained them and what due dilligence I applied in determining if the figures I was reading were not error prone and whether there were related stats from other countries I could refer to to collobrate my findings.


OK FINALLY - THERE ADDENDUM

Didn’t Plastic Deformations ‘‘Cushion’’ the Vertical
Impact?
It has been suggested that the inelastic deformations of columns,
analyzed in Appendix II of Bazˇant and Zhou ~2002!, might have
significantly ‘‘cushioned’’ the initial descent of the upper part,
making it almost static. However, this is impossible because, for
gravity loading, a softening of the load-deflection diagram @Fig. 5
in Bazˇant and Zhou ~2002!# always causes instability that precludes
static response ~Bazˇant and Cedolin 1991, Chapters 10 and
13!. The downward acceleration of the upper part is u¨5N@P1 0
2P1(u)#/m where N5number of buckling columns in the floor
and, necessarily, P1 0 5mg/N. This represents a differential equation
for u as a function of time t. Its integration shows that the
time that the upper part takes to fall through the height of one
story is, for cold columns, only about 6% longer than the duration
of a free fall from that height, which is 0.87 s. For hot columns,
the difference is of course much less than 6%. So there is hardly
any ‘‘cushioning.’’ It is essentially a free fall.[/I]

They are in their own addendum pointing out my primary objection to their analysis between hot and cold metal resistance as well as strength of those columns and dismiss it off hand by a mere factor of 6%. ABSOLUTELY STUPID COMMENT TO MAKE! NO WAY.


Calming down now but essentially having been heavily absorbed in some of these documents the crux of their argument is the heat caused the corrugated floors to bend and collapse. Other than this I am absolutely flabberghasted as to how any decent individual with any scientific logic can take their article as having any merit at all.

Even economists make more plausible assumptions than these nit twits.

I reckon at best these people wrote this article to gain some free advertising for their experteese in explaining the collapse and failing to do so miserably.

I've read their article three times - pondering over it. I do hope you provide me the courtesy to open up the PDF and study diagrams and what exactly they are putting to you with same serious approach.

I've had a really good time too. Nice to tax the grey cells. :cheesy:

Can you please watch the 9/11 Mysteries with due respect and provide me your thoughts in turn.

 

[Atilla]

Found this site that Architects & Engineers are backing to bring about a full investigation. First clip below is a 20 min interview which will give an outline, then second clip below is a full 2 hour presentation going through the/some evidence .



Omni TV Interview - April 22, 2008


This below is a 2 hour presentation which ,to me anyways, firms up demolition evidence in a few places.



TRR-May14-07







site home
AE911Truth

THIS IS A FANTASTIC SITE AS WELL AS SUPERBLY WELL PRESENTED FILM EXPLAINING ALL THE FACTS AND FIGURES OF THE HOW AND WHY OF BUILDINGS FALLING DOWN.

Everybody should really watch these films if they have any interest on the 9/11 Inside Job factor subject matter discussions.

They do a much better job of explaining the illogical physics of the falls that simply don't add up.

The more I research the issues the more I'm absolutely convinced these three tower falls and the Pentagon missile strike were all inside jobs.

 

[Lee Shepherd]

THIS IS A FANTASTIC SITE AS WELL AS SUPERBLY WELL PRESENTED FILM EXPLAINING ALL THE FACTS AND FIGURES OF THE HOW AND WHY OF BUILDINGS FALLING DOWN.

Everybody should really watch these films if they have any interest on the 9/11 Inside Job factor subject matter discussions.

They do a much better job of explaining the illogical physics of the falls that simply don't add up.

The more I research the issues the more I'm absolutely convinced these three tower falls and the Pentagon missile strike were all inside jobs.

I too second every word Atilla has written. The guy on the site is very good in respect that, although he mentions motives, does not go into theories or/and conspiracy theories ect about father christmas or aliens. He simply ask's questions, the very questions which exist to allow many different theories come about. One thing is for sure, these were not normal happenings, to such has never happened before due to law of physics and structural design ect, and yet 3 happened in one day.

This IS the other side of the story to the 'official' answers and why WE, as the people who elected the governments need to ask for more research.

 

[nine]

Agreed. Its good material. I'm an ex-engineer and did some time in Civil. When we saw the original "special" explanation for how the two big towers fell it had the "the market is different this time feel" (bs). When you look at the third building all the suspect stuff about the perfect storm style explanations is simply underlined with a big red highlighter.

And that brings a lot of things into question.

 

[Crap Buddist]

Very good i thought, got a few points I'll mention with it (when I have a bit more time).

Also just a wee note, wife landed at Dulles airport Washington, yesterday. she felt it quite scary going through security. she had her fingerprints put onto computer And a retina eye scan put onto computer.

Do Americans have their finger prints and retina scans coming into UK or any other nationals? or is it just US setting the standards ?

Anyway, next sentence she said , 100 degree's , swimming pool, huge T-Bone steaks at her mates house. bahhh.....

Retina scan seems , trippy? or is that just the new way forward ?

 

[JTrader]

Very good i thought, got a few points I'll mention with it (when I have a bit more time).

Also just a wee note, wife landed at Dulles airport Washington, yesterday. she felt it quite scary going through security. she had her fingerprints put onto computer And a retina eye scan put onto computer.

Do Americans have their finger prints and retina scans coming into UK or any other nationals? or is it just US setting the standards ?

Anyway, next sentence she said , 100 degree's , swimming pool, huge T-Bone steaks at her mates house. bahhh.....

Retina scan seems , trippy? or is that just the new way forward ?

US wants all 10 fingerprints on entry | The Register

The US will increase the amount of information it holds on foreign visitors when it takes all 10 fingerprints from air travellers rather than the usual two.

Currently foreign travellers must have their index fingers scanned into a database when they enter the US by agents of the Department of Homeland Security. Those prints can then be checked against a database of fingerprints held by police forces or the FBI.

That number will increase to all 10 fingerprints on a trial at 10 US airports. It is planned that the programme will be in place in all airports in around a year, according to a report in The Daily Telegraph.

US authorities claim the current scan of two fingers takes around 15 seconds and that the new process will not take significantly longer than that. Tourism bodies in the US have expressed concern that such measures are harming the tourist trade, however.

"We applaud the US Senate for striving to fix a flawed travel system," Stevan Porter, chairman of the Discover America Partnership, told the Telegraph. The Discover America Partnership is a representative body for tourism bodies.

"The policies implemented over the past five years appear to have strengthened our security. Lost, however, were efficiencies and a semblance of customer service," Porter said.

There are already concerns in Europe about the amount and importance of data held by US authorities on European air passengers. The US has a less stringent privacy regime than Europe.

Airlines are currently forced to hand over 34 pieces of information about every passenger that travels to the US. Called Passenger Name Records, the information is transferred in line with a deal signed by the European Commission and US authorities.

The European Parliament has opposed the deal, though, and a new agreement is due to be signed later this year. An earlier agreement was deemed illegal by the European Court of Justice on a technicality, but a near-identical scheme was set up in its place.

The Department of Homeland Security is said to have arrested 1,800 suspects since biometric identification was introduced, but in order to do that they collected the fingerprints of 80 million passengers.

Visitor numbers from the UK to the US have dropped since 2001's terrorist attacks in the US and the security measures put in place in their aftermath. Around 4.7 million UK citizens visited the US in 2001, a figure that fell to 4.3 million in 2005.

Copyright © 2007, OUT-LAW.com

 

[JTrader]

Quote:
Originally Posted by JTrader View Post
9/11 Summary

thats more like it.
a set of individuals who are most likely to know what they are talking about, and making assessments from their professional standpoint, rather than some shock-jocks.

I am more inclined to read articles penned by senior military and intelligence types, who were once "on the inside" as it were.

EDIT: I still cant get my head round the need to demolish the buildings.
The fact of flying those planes is sufficient to manipulate people to accept a war, and the link refers to people believing "allowing it to happen as pretext to war", which is much less technically demanding than actually wiring up buildings to collapse. (which is my standpoint all the way back in this thread)

I had already posted a MUCH more comprehensive list of Notable people who question 9/11, from all types of professions, earlier in this thread. See my post no. 33.

http://www.trade2win.com/boards/453355-post33.html


In the alphabetical drop-down menu, select the persons name, and it automatically takes you to what they have said -
Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report

 

[JTrader]

Doublethink - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Doublethink is the act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs. It is an integral concept of George Orwell's dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four.
According to the novel, doublethink is:
“ The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them . . . . To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies — all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.[1] ”

Another quotation from the novel, when Winston starts thinking about doublethink while exercising:
“ His mind slid away into the labyrinthine world of doublethink. To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully-constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them; to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy; to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again: and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself. That was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved using doublethink.[1] ”

Orwell explains that the Party could not protect its iron power without degrading its people with constant propaganda. Yet, knowledge of this brutal deception, even within the Inner Party itself, could lead to disgusted collapse of the State from within. For this reason, the government uses a complex system of reality control. Though Nineteen Eighty-Four is most famous for the Party's pervasive surveillance of everyday life, reality control means that the population of Oceania — all of it, including the ruling élite — could be controlled and manipulated merely through the alteration of everyday thought and language. Newspeak is the method for controlling thought through language; doublethink is the method of directly controlling thought.

Newspeak incorporated doublethink, as it contains many words that create assumed associations, between contradictory meanings, especially true of fundamentally important words, such as good and evil; right and wrong; truth and falsehood; justice and injustice.

Doublethink is a form of trained, willful intellectual blindness to contradictions in a belief system. Doublethink differs from ordinary hypocrisy in that the "doublethinking" person deliberately had to forget the contradiction between his two opposing beliefs — and then deliberately forget that he had forgotten the contradiction. He then had to forget the forgetting of the forgetting, and so on; this intentional forgetting, once begun, continues indefinitely. In the novel's notes, Orwell describes it as "controlled insanity".

In the case of workers at the Records Department in the Ministry of Truth, doublethink means being able to falsify public records, and then believe in the new history that they, themselves, had just written. As revealed in Goldstein's Book, the Ministry's name is itself an example of doublethink: the Ministry of Truth is really concerned with lies.

Moreover, doublethink's self-deception allows the Party to maintain huge goals and realistic expectations: If one is to rule, and to continue ruling, one must be able to dislocate the sense of reality. For the secret of rulership is to combine a belief in one's own infallibility with the power to learn from past mistakes. Thus, each Party member could be a credulous pawn, but would never lack relevant information. The Party is both fanatical and well-informed, thus unlikely either to "ossify" or "grow soft" and collapse. Doublethink would avoid a "killing the messenger" attitude that could disturb the Command structure. Thus, doublethink is the key tool of self-discipline for the Party, complementing the state-imposed discipline of propaganda, and the police state. Together, these tools hid the government's evil not just from the people, but from the government itself, but without the confusion and misinformation associated with primitive totalitarian regimes.

Doublethink is critical in allowing the Party to know what its true goals are without recoiling from them, avoiding the conflation of a regime's egalitarian propaganda with its true purpose.

Since Nineteen Eighty-Four was published in 1949, the word doublethink became synonymous with relieving cognitive dissonance by ignoring the contradiction between two world views - or even of deliberately seeking cognitive dissonance. Some schools of psychotherapy, such as cognitive therapy, encourage people to alter their own thoughts as a way of treating different psychological maladies, (see cognitive distortions).