So why not molten aluminium causes violent explosive reactions, high temperatures, melts steel, bits of WTC fall off and clonk number 7, number 7 is weakend and burns and falls down - and there you go ?
Okay THIS is how I would imagine some of the buildings would have fallen…
https://vimeo.com/120205340
While we're at it, why didn't the buildings blow up above the level of the planes ? You've got solid intact blocks coming down in both cases - the top floors of the towers. Could you really rig it so the planes crashed at exactly the spot where your charges weren't planted ? Or did they only put the charges so far up the building to cleverly make it look like a pancake action ? If that's the case, why use something so obvious as explosives in the first place, making those puffs of smoke everybody points to as proof of charges ? Or did the planes cut the detonation cables ? And why did the planes hit at different heights, which would mean rigging the buildings to different heights too - if you want to make it look like a proper structural collapse ?
Anyway I think we can all agree that reading a book about goats was the most intelligent thing Bush did in his presidency. I think we all touch base on that one.
Heartfelt letter received by our own Phillis yesterday, regarding my portrait of Bush Jnr. above. Brilliant.Poor Susan....Dear Mr. Brown
The disrespect you show for the highest office of the land in the United States of America is reprehensible and the lowest, cheapest form of denigration imaginable. How disgusting that you would choose to interpret the former President of the United States in such a way.
Absolutely appalling!
I was very impressed by the caricatures of other famous people, too bad you are so immature. No matter what my politics are, I would never treat the present President in such a way, regardless of whether I agree with his beliefs or not.
Signed,
Susan Abernethy
You said,
bits of WTC fall off and clonk number 7, number 7 is weakend and burns and falls down - and there you go ?Your discourse here is getting so, well, frankly idiotic, that I am ready to join a few of my brothers and sisters here and say you are purposely obfuscating and acting in the role of a troll. Notice please that I did not call you idiotic.. but the idea that a bit of burning aluminum or otherwise bits of the towers were enough to take down a separate class A skyscraper, symmetrically in it's own footprint, at free fall velocity for most of the trip.. is idiotic.
I believe there will come a time when Chris and Adam's policy is going to need to change regarding trolls. I don't know what the answer might be… because I know that we need to be able to challenge ourselves and not get too immersed in our own group-think. Maybe the best way is to ignore… but how when you have the possibility (probability) of trolls engaging trolls?
Ideas?
Yeah I'm not too bothered about folk's group think either way.
Could you really rig it so the planes crashed at exactly the spot where your charges weren't planted ? Or did they only put the charges so far up the building to cleverly make it look like a pancake actionThat's actually a good point.
Well, I read Crossing the Rubicon years ago, and I remember stuff about Kroll industries and a maintenance contract during which he claimed it could have been rigged up.
So, I suppose if you have it all wired up you can let the planes cut your wires ate the right height. Kind of leaving it to chance that the planes hit the right wires.
Or you can remote detonate them on the floors of your choice.
Or you can rig it to precisely the floors you want to take out, and remote control the planes to crash at different floors making it look like they were steered by hand/eye, and giving a nice pancake effect to provide your cover story.
Or it was just a starightforward, unanticipated structural failure.
Seems like the trolls are getting pretty obvious, but that is a subjective assessment on my part. As far as how to do it fairly…meh, I'm glad I don't have to think about that one. Frankly it gives me a headache. My default is going to be the "ignore" function from here on out.
Definitely feels like it's screwing with the site dynamic though. The restaurant is getting rowdy. Food fight could break out at any moment…
Would you believe I've actually been kicked off a forum for being a "troofer" ? Sometimes people see their enemies in anyone who doesn't toe a particular line with enough reverence, for whatever world view.
Can't please all the people all the time, as the man said, and I don't intend to die trying.
I just don't understand how they collapsed the way they did without charges. They fell perfectly and I can't understand how an office fire (the building really did not receive much structural damage from pictures I have seen) would cause such a building to collapse. Nonsense.
Also, the social impact was exponentially greater with the sheer horror of seeing such massive buildings crash down, and the impact on every American created such an immense demand for war. It was perfect.
Here, let me highlight all of the hand-waving and suppositions and conjecture which, it should be noted, could rather easily be experimentally tested, were one so inclined (which the authors were apparently not).
"Could." "May have" "Would have." "Our studies."
These are all either 100% unsupported assertions or complete bullshit because they performed no studies nor presented any data.
Finally, just using common sense…if aluminum tended to react violently with ordinary materials during fires, then it would not be used structurally ever. We might as well coat buildings with TNT. Right? I mean we do get to use common sense here. don't we? So, just using my own powers of observation, I will tell you that I see aluminum in every single building, train station, and walkway in every major city I've ever been to.
Carbon blob…please explain why you suddenly think that Aluminum is such a violently explosive substance that it took down three buildings on 9/11 but literally zero before or afterwards.
Next…
Aluminum is only combustible when it's in powder form…
Aluminum powders have the highest KST rate (a measurement of inherent explosive power) of all the combustible metal dusts.As a rule, larger products of alkali earth and transitional metals such as bars, ingots, heavy castings, and thick plates or sheets are virtually impossible to ignite; in most cases, they will self-extinguish when the heat source is removed.
Do We Really Want a New World War With Russia?
I have long respected William Engdahl's analysis of the geopolitical "chess" game.He points out four new Russian military technologies that make it very unwise to go to war with them:
1. Sukoi SU-34 fighter-bomber
“The Su-34 is meant to deliver a sufficiently large [8 ton] ordnance load to a predetermined area, hit the target accurately and take evasive action against pursuing enemy planes.” The plane is also designed to deal with enemy fighters in aerial combat such as the US F-162. The Bumblebee -- a thermobaric weapon which launches a warhead that uses a combination of an explosive charge and highly combustible fuel. When the rocket reaches the target, the fuel is dispersed in a cloud that is then detonated by the explosive charge. The cloud of fuel vapor can penetrate into bunkers, vehicles and buildings and detonate causing a blast inside it.
3. Electronic Counter Measures or ECM, like the Krasukha-4, which can successfully jam hostile radar and aircraft. I had heard this story before, but give it a bit more credence coming from William Engdahl, The USS Donald Cook incident in the Black Sea:
...in April, 2014, one month after the accession of Crimea into the Russian Federation, President Obama ordered the USS Donald Cook into the Black Sea waters just off Crimea, the home port of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet, to “reassure” EU states of US resolve. Donald Cook was no ordinary guided missile destroyer. It had been refitted to be one of four ships as part of Washington’s Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System aimed at Russia’s nuclear arsenal. USS Donald Cook boldly entered the Black Sea on April 8 heading to Russian territorial waters.4. The Status-6, an ultra-long range self guided torpedo that travels beneath the sea somewhat like a cruise missile does over land. It is designed to detonate off the coast of an enemy city at sea.On April 12, just four days later, the US ship inexplicably left the area of the Crimean waters of the Black Sea for a port in NATO-member Romania. From there it left the Black Sea entirely. A report on April 30, 2014 in Russian newspaper Rossiyskaya Gazeta Online titled, “What Frightened the American Destroyer,” stated that while the USS Donald Cook was near Crimean (Russian by that time) waters, a Russian Su-24 Frontal Aviation bomber conducted a flyby of the destroyer.
The Rossiyskaya Gazeta went on to write that the Russian SU-24 “did not have bombs or missiles onboard. One canister with the Khibin electronic warfare complex was suspended under the fuselage.” As it got close to the US destroyer, the Khibins turned off the USS Donald Cook’s “radar, combat control circuits, and data transmission system – in short, they turned off the entire Aegis just like we turn off a television by pressing the button on the control panel. After this, the Su-24 simulated a missile launch at the blind and deaf ship. Later, it happened once again, and again – a total of 12 times.”
While the US Army denied the incident as Russian propaganda, the fact is that USS Donald Cook never approached Russian Black Sea waters again. Nor did NATO ships that replaced it in the Black Sea. A report in 2015 by the US Army’s Foreign Military Studies Office assessed that Russia, “does indeed possess a growing EW capability, and the political and military leadership understand the importance…Their growing ability to blind or disrupt digital communications....
Reportedly the Status-6 is a massive torpedo, designated as a “self-propelled underwater vehicle.” It has a range of up to 10 thousand kilometers and can operate at a depth of up to 1,000 meters. At a November 10 meeting with the Russian military chiefs, Vladimir Putin stated that Russia would counter NATO’s US-led missile shield program through “new strike systems capable of penetrating any missile defenses.” ... The goal is to cause what the Russian military terms, “assured unacceptable damage” to an adversary force. They state that its detonation “in the area of the enemy coast” (say, New York or Boston or Washington?) would result in “extensive zones of radioactive contamination” that would ensure that the region would not be used for “military, economic, business or other activity for a long time.
Sure they've got some fancy weapons, but not to worry we've got some technology up our sleeve as well
The Carbon Blobber Lobber
Hurtles a hastily assembled projectile of Bull shit encased in aircraft aluminum which melts upon impact and destroys 3 targets for each two it hits.
The Dual CitiSkin
Depleted Passport hardening technology which allows our tanks and ships to be impervious to missile strikes, and fire created by isolating the appropriate fibers in terrorist passports and integrating them into a a hardened web of deceit
the RM-BS
Fired from 'out of left field the BS -34 Designed to deliver a sufficiently large load of crap onto the enemies dialog and then immediately take evasive action from return logic by proposing an alternative absurdity.
The T2H Electronic Counter Measures
Just don't piss it off it will mute you with it's Ignore Function
And perhaps the scariest of them all
The HughK PM
(intended with the gentle spirit of jest)
Mememonkey
Tracker,
You raised a good point with respect to WTC7, but even in that case, the collapse was uneven, messy and was not a free fall, despite superficial appearances.
For those that do not know me, I am a retired physics prof. I have spent some time in the last few months examining the WTC7 collapse. I think that the NIST analysis is flawed. Their model of the collapse simply does not comport with several videos of the collapse from different places. But it is a long, long way from there to the conclusion that the building was brought down by explosives. I simply do not believe that it was deliberately destroyed. As for the building falling into its own footprint; for it to do otherwise would require transverse forces sufficient to push part of the upper part of the building horizontally.
If one steps back and looks at this from the standpoint of maintaining a conspiracy sufficient to have produced the outcomes of 9/11, the whole idea just seems to me - (in James H. Kunstler's phraseology) - batshit crazy. It might have been possible to recruit, train and sequester the kamikaze jihadis, but backing them up with explosives seems like overkill to me.
In the meantime, T2h is right. This whole discussion feels like the start of a food fight and it is definitely detrimental to the main goals of this web site.
Stan
Good to hear from you! Hope you are doing well.
Just to add something different…
My final thoughts on this thread topic are a concatenation of insights from various posters throughout it.
- It is clear to me now that it is impossible to discuss this particular subject without tripping on some very deep-seated cultural wounds and emotional land mines.
- The obvious truth is that most people everywhere simply want to live in peace.
- Genocide is not something I support.
- The Israeli experiment ends very badly if that country allows itself to be led by those who seek to "win" by domination, death and destruction.
- The American experiment ends very badly if that country allows itself to be led by those who seek to "win" by domination, death and destruction.
I know us Zimbabweans are a fearsome bunch, but 2 mentions on the same list? Really?