Who Disrespects NYPD & NYFD

[qarnos]

m1 and m2 are sufficiently close to neglect their effect on the squared term.

What were m1 and m2 in numbers?

Also, please note that the towers did withstand the impact. It was primarily fire which bought them down.

 

[Moving On]

Russel, the towers could have been destroyed by the great spaghetti monster... "could" means nothing, all the evidence seems to point one way and the possibility of a conspiracy on the required scale keeping quiet for 5 days rather than 5 years seems somewhat remote.

More irrelevant crap. Give me evidence.

Operation Northwoods as a plan was kept secret for nearly 40 years.

Go to the National Security Archives and read the releases.

Read some of the nuclear incidents kept secret.

 

[R.Mackey]

No I can't since NIST did not test for them even though it was possible for terrorists to use a secondary device and it was well known they had used explosives prior in 1993.

Bad investigating.

Let me get this straight:

You don't have evidence for explosives.

You are blaming NIST for your lack of evidence.

Therefore, the explosives hypothesis is valid.

Sorry, Russell, but this takes the cake. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And you don't even have that, all you have is excuses.

For the record, NIST didn't consider explosives because we know and even you admit that they were hit by planes. No further explanation turned out to be necessary. Had nothing to do with 1993, and NIST's conclusions are the same whether the planes were piloted by terrorists or not.

Please provide evidence for explosives. If you don't have any, then I strongly suggest you get some before making wild and unsubstantiated accusations.

 

[Moving On]

Just as a matter of interest some (smoky) footage of WTC7 south

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3uUQt8bu6k

Did you notice the absense of open flame let alone an inferno?

 

[David Wong]

More irrelevant crap. Give me evidence.

Operation Northwoods as a plan was kept secret for nearly 40 years.

Yes, and this operation would only have been about 100,000 times larger, in terms of suppressing witnesses and experts and conspirators. Take the largest conspiracy every successfully kept secret, multiply the number involved by 1,000 and you still aren't anywhere close to this one.

 

[Gravy]

Now we know it was looked into and intentionally left out.
'We consulted with expert architects," says Hamilton. "You simply cannot answer every question about why Building 7 collapsed.'"
So they even consulted with architects and then decided to make no mention of its collapse?

The 9/11 Commission was tasked with finding out why the attacks occurred, what could have been done to prevent them, and to recommend ways to prevent future attacks. Theirs was not an engineering report that discussed damage to ancillary buildings. NIST was tasked with that job. This is very simple stuff, Russell.

 

[uk_dave]

Did you notice the absense of open flame let alone an inferno?

Yep you're right. I was forgetting that in a massive building the fires always appear on the external face.

Please. You're clutching at straws.

 

[Moving On]

Russell,

I don't know if you've managed to see the Naudet documentary yet, but I have found a truncated segment which includes the collapse of the second tower to be hit, filmed from within the first.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-RlKF1B9Hk

When they said something right there had happened in the lobby - what are they referring to?

 

[beachnut]

squib, does it have blood on it too

you mean replaced explosives?

the wind coming out the windows is accelerating, not indicative of a explosive device, but is of a collapsing building

in fact it is wind from collapsing building, 100 percent, and proved already

so each time a squib is mentioned for the WTC towers the person speaking is telling lies or misleading, or just a CT person repeating already debunked stuff

 

[jessicarabbit]

The 9/11 Commission was tasked with finding out why the attacks occurred, what could have been done to prevent them, and to recommend ways to prevent future attacks. Theirs was not an engineering report that discussed damage to ancillary buildings. NIST was tasked with that job. This is very simple stuff, Russell.

So why were they wasting time talking to architects?

 

[WildCat]

More irrelevant crap. Give me evidence.

Operation Northwoods as a plan was kept secret for nearly 40 years.

Go to the National Security Archives and read the releases.

Read some of the nuclear incidents kept secret.

How many people died in Operation Northwoods?

 

[Moving On]

Stuff and nonsense.

We know gravity was a factor. We have no evidence for anything else. Nobody has yet produced a valid calculation that gravity could not have led to the effects seen. Russell's theory, unlike NIST's, is indeed pure conjecture. NIST's is not, until you come up with evidence or a challenge to the official theory.

NIST doesn't know because they did not test the stell for explosives residue.

 

[uk_dave]

When they said something right there had happened in the lobby - what are they referring to?

Well you have to watch it... but the windows were blown out and bodies were on fire near the entrance.

The 'official' version is that fuel travelled down the elevator shaft.

Of course...if you have a better explaination..........

 

[HeyLeroy]

In my scenario where the planes hit specifically doesn't matter as long as it was higher up. The explosives are not connected by wiring. The detonation sequence could have been programmed after the plane damage occurred.

Do you even realize how completely unlikely this is? Do you realize how much engineering and planning has to go into a building demolition using explosives? It's absolutely absurd to think that this 'detonation sequence' you mention could be programmed on-the-fly with only a few hours' assessment of the trauma inflicted on the buildings.

Ab.

Surd.

There is no problem with the squibs. The problem with the squibs is how does air that is compressed evenly in all directions single out a floor or a single window preceding the collapse by many floors? The other floors and windows were constructed of the same material and exposed to the same pressures.

Explosives are internal in a traditional CD but squibs go external.

So, how again were these charges placed on the outsides of the towers without the R.E.T.C.H. (Republican Elite Tactical Commando Hitsquad) Agents being seen? Did no one who worked there look out their window and say "hmm, that strange package with the antenna wasn't stuck to the girder outside my window yesterday, maybe I should call security"?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4707898082309624249&q=southwark+towers&hl=en

Do these squibs and the spacing look familiar in the core destruction phase of the demo above?

...And your point is? Here's an insect that looks loke a flower:

Here's an insect that looks like a flower on a flower:

Just because these insects look like flowers doesn't mean they're actually walking, flying flowers, does it?

Why bother with explosives?

1) Terrorism strategy recognizes the use of secondary devices. If you want to believe terrorists did it then maybe the USG is hiding the fact terrorists were able to conduct an operation inside the buildings even though they had before.

Just driving a truck packed with explosives into the underground parking facility is a lot simpler than the plan you hallucin describe, if you're referring to the '93 attempt.

2) Because it made the event 10x more dramatic and removed the expense and hazard of manually destroying the towers from the impact point down later.

K.I.S.S. (Keep it simple, stupid.) The plot to fly the planes into the buildings was probably the most complex terror plot ever carried out, and and you still want to factor it up exponentially? Why?

(ETA) EXPENSE AND HAZARD!?! If what you surmise is true, they just ATTEMPTED TO MURDER 20,000 AND DID MURDER 3,000 PEOPLE!!! (/ETA)

The other smaller buildings in the complex could be cleaned up from the ground. But the three tallest ones were the ones brought down in CD in my opinion.

I got a belly-button an opinion, too.

 

[jessicarabbit]

Well you have to watch it... but the windows were blown out and bodies were on fire near the entrance.

The 'official' version is that fuel travelled down the elevator shaft.

Of course...if you have a better explaination..........

A bomb near the lobby. There you go, a better explanation.

 

[uk_dave]

NIST doesn't know because they did not test the stell for explosives residue.

See, there's the problem.

People who know buildings and know the effects of fire and structural damage on a building are going to see a bloody great plane hit the tower, followed by a catastrophic structural failure and say "Well, a bloody great plane hit the tower".... and they are not really going to say "But lets forensically check every section of steel for explosive residue, just to be sure".

Whereas someone who doesn't know buildings.......

 

[WildCat]

When they said something right there had happened in the lobby - what are they referring to?

Burning fuel traveling down the elevator shafts would have disrupted the elevator systems and caused extensive damage to the lobbies. NIST heard first-person testimony that "some elevators slammed right down" to the ground floor. "The doors cracked open on the lobby floor and flames came out and people died," says James Quintiere, an engineering professor at the University of Maryland and a NIST adviser. A similar observation was made in the French documentary "9/11," by Jules and Gedeon Naudet. As Jules Naudet entered the North Tower lobby, minutes after the first aircraft struck, he saw victims on fire, a scene he found too horrific to film.

from your favorite source.

 

[Moving On]

Let me get this straight:

You don't have evidence for explosives.

You are blaming NIST for your lack of evidence.

Therefore, the explosives hypothesis is valid.

Sorry, Russell, but this takes the cake. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And you don't even have that, all you have is excuses.

For the record, NIST didn't consider explosives because we know and even you admit that they were hit by planes. No further explanation turned out to be necessary. Had nothing to do with 1993, and NIST's conclusions are the same whether the planes were piloted by terrorists or not.

Please provide evidence for explosives. If you don't have any, then I strongly suggest you get some before making wild and unsubstantiated accusations.

I took the time to detail this once, but go read this here. About 40 firefighters experiencing explosions. This was supressed by the USG until August 2005.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/oralhistories/explosions.html

 

[uk_dave]

A bomb near the lobby. There you go, a better explanation.

Yeah, except there are still people IN the lobby.

You kinda woulda thought they'd have got out at that point, wouldn't ya?

 

[Skibum]

NIST doesn't know because they did not test the stell for explosives residue.

Exactly what kind of results would you expect after the steel sat in a smouldering heap exposed to just about every chemical known to man and further subjected to numerous rain storms?

The reliability of any residue test would be approaching nil.