user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
Look at the buildings either side of where WTC 7's illegally forensically cleaned up footprint, just like WTC 7 they sustained hardly a scratch.
WAKE UP AMERICA!!!
Six months before the 9/11 attacks the World Trade Center was "privatized" by being leased to a private sector developer. The lease was purchased by the Silverstein Group for $3.2 billion. "This is a dream come true," Larry Silverstein said. "We will be in control of a prized asset, and we will seek to develop its potential, raising it to new heights."
But the World Trade Towers were not the real estate plum we are led to believe.
From an economic standpoint, the trade center - subsidized since its inception - has never functioned, nor was it intended to function, unprotected in the rough-and-tumble real estate marketplace.
How could Silverstein Group have been ignorant of this?
Also, the towers required some $200 million in renovations and improvements, most of which related to removal and replacement of building materials declared to be health hazards in the years since the towers were built.
It was well-known by the city of New York that the WTC was an asbestos bombshell. For years, the Port Authority treated the building like an aging dinosaur, attempting on several occasions to get permits to demolish the building for liability reasons, but being turned down due the known asbestos problem. Further, it was well-known the only reason the building was still standing until 9/11 was because it was too costly to disassemble the twin towers floor by floor since the Port Authority was prohibited legally from demolishing the buildings.
Other New York developers had been driven into bankruptcy by the costly mandated renovations, and $200 million represented an entire year's worth of revenues from the World Trade Towers.
The perfect collapse of the twin towers changed the picture.
Under a pending agreement, a developer and his investors will get back most of the down payment that they made to lease the World Trade Center just six weeks before a terrorist attack destroyed the twin towers. Developer Larry Silverstein and investors Lloyd Goldman and Joseph Cayre are nearing a deal that would give them about $98 million of their original investment of $124 million, The New York Times reported Saturday.
Instead of renovation, Silverstein is rebuilding, funded by the insurance coverage on the property which 'fortuitously' covered acts of terrorism. Even better, Silverstein filed TWO insurance claims for the maximum amount of the policy, based on the two, in Silverstein's view, separate attacks. The total potential payout is $7.1 billion, more than enough to build a fabulous new complex and leave a hefty profit for the Silverstein Group, including Larry Silverstein himself.
As reported in The Washington Post, the insurance company, Swiss Re, has gone to court to argue that the 9/11 disaster was only one attack, not two and that therefore the insurance payout should be limited to $3.55 billion, still enough to rebuild the complex.
Update: WTC Leaseholder May Collect Up To $4.6B
A federal jury on Monday ruled that the assault on the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center was in fact two occurrences for insurance purposes. The finding in U.S. District Court in Manhattan means leaseholder Larry Silverstein may collect up to $4.6 billion, according to reports.
The result of court ruling: Silverstein makes a huge profit off of the 9/11 attacks.
Voted : They werent insured by Larry Silverstein
Disturbing facts!
Watch the videos at
truth911 . net
below ground surface . org
st911 . org
Don't forget that WTC 5 and 6
sustained much bigger fires and
much much worse damage than WTC 7
because they were right next to the
Twin Towers. WTC 7 was further
away from the Twin Towers, so how
did it not collapse?
The photo says it all!
You have to be stupid to still believe the official stories about how WTC 7 collapsed, while ignoring the fact that WTC 5 and 6 are still standing and did not collapse.
What I find hilarious is the fact that all the other buildings SURROUNDING WTC 7 are all still standing up, stable and strong.
They were nine storeys high. Simply physics.
"WTC 7, which was hardly damaged as a result"
The NYPD would contest that.
"who made a 500 million dollar profit on WTC 7's collapse."
He will make a huge loss in rebuilding.
"They werent insured by Larry Silverstein"
He had a lease on the whole complex.
"Larry Silverstein didn't give the order to pull them down"
They were later "pulled" in the PBS documentary - 'America Rebuilds', using four huge cables.
And of course, neither Silverstein, or the FDNY had the authority, or the capability to demolish any of these buildings, especially not a 47 storey skyscraper.
But of course the FDNY demolish buildings all the time, says Ken, they were in on it as well.
LOL.
You have to be stupid to still believe the official stories about how WTC 7 collapsed, while ignoring the fact that WTC 5 and 6 are still standing and did not collapse.
by blackcat06
- and just to demonstrate justHOW stupid you have to be to believe in the PNAC war profiteers version of events enter stage left with more nonsense and disinformation it's the Nipplie surprise surprise, just look at some of the garbage he tries to sell.....
"The NYPD would contest that." -nipplie
- 75% of the of the NYFD and NYPD now believe 9/11 was an inside job - suck on that nipple 
or lies/garbage....
"But of course the FDNY demolish buildings all the time, says Ken, they were in on it as well."
...reduced to blatant lying now such is his desperation....
and garbage/garbage....
"They were later "pulled" in the PBS documentary - 'America Rebuilds', using four huge cables."
...he's trying to imply now that wtc7 was 'PULLED DOWN BY CABLES!!!' 
So Larry Silverstein actually meant "...and we took the decision to pull the 48 storey building down with four huge cables that they wrapped them around the building and then they pulled really hard and we watched it collapse, great upper body strength those NYFD" guys."
Just a scaled down version here folks - I should have scaled it down before posting the ballot-
h1.ripway.com/ken_from_dublin/wtc7cleaned1agSMALLER.JPG
Just a scaled down version here folks - I should have scaled it down before posting the ballot-
h1.ripway.com/ken_from_dublin/wtc7cleaned1agSMALLER.JPG
Just a scaled down version here folks - I should have scaled it down before posting the ballot-
Six months before the 9/11 attacks the World Trade Center was "privatized" by being leased to a private sector developer. The lease was purchased by the Silverstein Group for $3.2 billion. "This is a dream come true," Larry Silverstein said. "We will be in control of a prized asset, and we will seek to develop its potential, raising it to new heights."
But the World Trade Towers were not the real estate plum we are led to believe.
From an economic standpoint, the trade center - subsidized since its inception - has never functioned, nor was it intended to function, unprotected in the rough-and-tumble real estate marketplace.
How could Silverstein Group have been ignorant of this?
Also, the towers required some $200 million in renovations and improvements, most of which related to removal and replacement of building materials declared to be health hazards in the years since the towers were built.
It was well-known by the city of New York that the WTC was an asbestos bombshell. For years, the Port Authority treated the building like an aging dinosaur, attempting on several occasions to get permits to demolish the building for liability reasons, but being turned down due the known asbestos problem. Further, it was well-known the only reason the building was still standing until 9/11 was because it was too costly to disassemble the twin towers floor by floor since the Port Authority was prohibited legally from demolishing the buildings.
Other New York developers had been driven into bankruptcy by the costly mandated renovations, and $200 million represented an entire year's worth of revenues from the World Trade Towers.
The perfect collapse of the twin towers changed the picture.
Under a pending agreement, a developer and his investors will get back most of the down payment that they made to lease the World Trade Center just six weeks before a terrorist attack destroyed the twin towers. Developer Larry Silverstein and investors Lloyd Goldman and Joseph Cayre are nearing a deal that would give them about $98 million of their original investment of $124 million, The New York Times reported Saturday.
Instead of renovation, Silverstein is rebuilding, funded by the insurance coverage on the property which 'fortuitously' covered acts of terrorism. Even better, Silverstein filed TWO insurance claims for the maximum amount of the policy, based on the two, in Silverstein's view, separate attacks. The total potential payout is $7.1 billion, more than enough to build a fabulous new complex and leave a hefty profit for the Silverstein Group, including Larry Silverstein himself.
As reported in The Washington Post, the insurance company, Swiss Re, has gone to court to argue that the 9/11 disaster was only one attack, not two and that therefore the insurance payout should be limited to $3.55 billion, still enough to rebuild the complex.
Update: WTC Leaseholder May Collect Up To $4.6B
A federal jury on Monday ruled that the assault on the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center was in fact two occurrences for insurance purposes. The finding in U.S. District Court in Manhattan means leaseholder Larry Silverstein may collect up to $4.6 billion, according to reports.
The result of court ruling: Silverstein makes a huge profit off of the 9/11 attacks.
"Woman, don't you ever let go ?!"
"75% of the of the NYFD and NYPD now believe 9/11 was an inside job - suck on that nipple"
No source?
There are 100 firefighters quotes on my userpage describing the damage, the fire and the chaos. I'll take their word over yours/Alex Jones'.
"he's trying to imply now that wtc7 was 'PULLED DOWN BY CABLES!!!'"
No I wasn't, I'm just stating that "pulling" buildings has nothing to do with explosives - and you have no evidence to counter that.
When you do watch loosechange(LOL), you'll notice the small print/disclaimer, that states - the FDNY do not believe there was a conspiracy surrounding 9/11.
And of course, neither Silverstein, or the FDNY had the authority, or the capability to demolish any of these buildings, especially not a 47 storey skyscraper.
Come on Ken, do the NYPD demolish buildings? That's what your implying with the continued use of that Silverstein quote, and your interpretation of it.
You ignored my answer to the ballot...
The buildings were a 5th of the height of WTC7.
See 'Basic Physics - Ages 4 to 5'
Look up - 'Centre of Gravity'
Ken, you might as well give up on the "Official Story" believers. They are not interested in facts and hard evidence... because they love the glitzy pizazz and brainwashing they have received from FOX News and the lying war mongers and mass-murderers in power today. They are totally nuts in believing the official stories, so don't waste your time on them anymore. They keep ignoring all the questions I have been asking them, as if avoiding them will somehow make such questions unimportant or irrelevant.
So how come the buildings shown in the colour "pink" in the photo (beside the area where WTC 7 was)... DO NOT LOOK SEVERELY DAMAGED? WHY DID THEY NOT COLLAPSE JUST LIKE WTC 7 DID?
Don't forget, WTC 7 was about 300 feet away from WTC 1.
Common sense tells you that the buildings that are closer to WTC 1 would suffer the most damage and would be the most likely to collapse, because they would be almost UNDERNEATH much of the falling debris of WTC 1. So if WTC 7 showed very little OR NO MAJOR STRUCTURAL DAMAGE... WHAT MADE IT COLLAPSE RIGHT DOWN TO THE GROUND 7 HOURS LATER, AFTER WTC 1? HOW?
THESE ARE NOT CONSPIRACY THEORY QUESTIONS, BUT COMMON SENSE QUESTIONS THAT ANYONE WITH A TINY AMOUNT OF INTELLIGENCE NEEDS ANSWERS TO! HOW CAN A BUILDING SO FAR AWAY, SUFFER SO MUCH COMPLETE DAMAGE AFTER A DELAY PERIOD OF ABOUT 7 HOURS, WHEN BUILDINGS MUCH CLOSER DID NOT COLLAPSE?
Very strange! It would be like you chopping a tree, it collapses vertically into itself (without even leaning over on an angle) after a delay period of about an hour - all converting into fine sawdust and powder as it falls at free-fall accelerating speeds into itself... then instead of nearby trees showing complete collapse and destruction, another large tree much much further away, which was hardly touched or damaged, decides to disintegrate at free-fall speeds, collapsing into itself, about 7 hours later... even though it did not suffer any severe structural damage from the 1st tree that collapsed, which you chopped down.
Doesn't that sound a little strange to you "Official" story believers?
(Don't forget that cellulose or wood materials are usually more than 10 times weaker than steel in tension, or concrete in compression)
The yield strengths of the WTC steel column materials was HUGE! On the order of 600-700 MPa!!! Concrete also has a tensile strength typically over 4000 psi, usually between 27 to 42 MPa (Mega Pascals), and can safely handle much much more than this without cracking failure in compression.
So how did weak black-smoke fires (typically under 300 C) create all that concrete powder that covered much of New York City, and all the 700C to 1100C orange hot molten iron found under the debris of the 3 WTC buildings that collapsed, which stayed this hot for over 6 weeks despite huge amounts of water being pumped into the basements to cool down the metal? (To get molten iron, you need temperatures over 1532 C, the melting point of steel, something that air fires cannot achieve)
HOW? Just give some sensible answers!!!!
... You watch Ken, watch them dodge and avoid answering these questions like they always do, because they are the kind of people who believe in silly fairy tales like Santa Claus and the unquestionable truth that the world is still flat...
They cling to lies and wrong assumptions religiously, and refuse to use their brains, because the truth is too harsh a reality for such people as neothe1, wolfnipplechips and Jin the Kafir(?)... they are sheep-minded people who need to be "told" what to believe in by authority figures because they cannot think for themselves and use their own brains. It's pointless trying to argue with people with such LOW IQ's... very pointless!
The best you can hope for is to encourage them to view the videos at:
truth911 . net
or
below ground surface . org
physics911 . net
They know, just like we know, that solid super-strong engineering materials do not disintegrate into zero strength pulverised dust or molten liquid for no good reason. They also FAIL to recognize that the solid and very strong materials well below the impact zones were not affected by any jet fuel fires and stood up strong and stable for about an hour, before they all collapsed suddenly and instantly, and perfectly symmetrically on all north, south, east and west faces of the buildings (not just the outer perimeter columns, but also the 47 column super-strong inner central core of each tower)...
They don't want to know about the multiple explosions that were seen, heard and captured on video footage, just before the collapses started, because this is all considered irrelevant, and "products" of the collapsing sequence. They cannot explain what triggered or starting the starting of the collapse sequence, because they KNOW that fire is not hot enough to reach 1100 C necessary to get zero strength steel, necessary for a 10 second collapse.
THEY HAVE MADE UP THEIR LITTLE MINDS WITHOUT LOOKING AT ANY OF THE EVIDENCE WE HAVE PRESENTED... THEY JUST DON'T CARE & THEY THINK THEY HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS FROM THEIR TV SETS. THAT'S HOW GULLIBLE THEY ARE!
Oh, and one more thing...
These people are the kind who believe that iron metal should not be used to manufacture internal combustions engines, the kind used to power our cars and motorcycles...
Because inside each piston engine are metal cylinders (made of iron), with a reciprocating piston (also made of iron), including valves (also made of iron)... where all these iron components are constantly exposed to fires and explosions.
Hmmm, maybe the steam engine boiler designs over 200 years old are all wrong and seriously unsafe for usage! Maybe we should all stop using steel cooking pots and frying pans because they could end up turning into puddles of 1532C molten metal on top of our gas stoves! Now that would be dangerous and a serious risk to all of us! We should all be worried about our barbeque grills and hotplates all liquifying and disintegrating when exposed to air fire!
That's it! I'm never using an air cooled (cast iron) motorcycle engine ever again! The engine might stop and turn all rubbery while I am stuck in the middle of an intersection... I also don't want to get stuck in the middle of nowhere, with my motorcylce engine appearing as a rubbery, soft heap of red-orange hot blob of iron... unable to function.... BECAUSE I SHOULD HAVE LISTENED TO THOSE 'OFFICIAL 9/11 STORY' PROMOTERS! I don't want to have to admit:
"Damn, I wish I listened to Wolf and Neothe1 and wideheadofknowledge.... who all believe that air fires can soften steel!" How ignorant of me!!!!
It's all clear to me now! All our metal engine components are unsuitable for powering motorcycles and cars, because petrol fuel and air explosions will MAKE THEM ALL GO ALL RUBBERY ALL OF A SUDDEN AFTER A 1 HOUR DELAY PERIOD!
DON'T GO DRIVING FOR MORE THAN 1 HOUR OR YOUR ENGINE WILL FAIL PEOPLE! WARNING! BE AFRAID OF FIRE AND AIR EXPLOSIONS DAMAGING YOUR MOTORCYCLE ENGINES AND CAR ENGINES!
I am so impressed by their new findings that air fires can also make concrete EXPLODE into fine powder... that's a world first discovery, worthy of a Nobel Prize!
Like this you mean Cat? 
A 9/11 toxic dust whistleblower, ground zero hero Major Mike McCormack says he was deliberately targeted for helping release documents on EPA government cover-up, and says 75% of police, firemen believe 9/11 is a cover - up, McCormack,
a ground zero hero and one of the individuals influential in the release of documents proving a government cover-up that deliberately put police, firemen and rescue personnel at risk, has been raided by a New York SWAT team - who ransacked his home for three hours after he was arrested.
Major Mike McCormack is a hospital technician and civil air patrol pilot who worked the ground zero site for eight days after the collapse of the twin towers.
He is one of the real heroes of 9/11 and was the man who found the American flag that was later displayed as a token of unity atop the rubble.
“I’ll tell you what gave this whole thing away was building 7. Not only was it amazing, it bore reality to the truth of the situation that something was not right here.… we all witnessed the most perfect example of controlled demolitions to ever be caught on camera. It could not be proved that building 7 fell due to fire. My friend and I were standing there in the SCIF watching in uninterruptible awe with all those other military members; watching building 7 fall perfectly onto its footprint; my friend stating that it was beautifully done.
We all knew then we all realized that this was not some group of unorganised cave dwellers from Afghanistan orchestrating a perfect hit on American soil. It was impossible.”
-NYPD Sergeant Lauro Chavez, speaking to the editor of the Cincinnati Post
FDNY Captain Dennis Tardio:
"I hear an explosion and I look up. It is as if the building is being imploded, from the top floor down, one after another, boom, boom, boom."
Here are some other NYFD eyewitness accounts;
Chief Frank Cruthers:
“There was what appeared to be at first an explosion. It appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides, materials shot out horizontally. And then there seemed to be a momentary delay before you could see the beginning of the collapse."
Wall Street Journal reporter John Bussey:
“I . . . looked up out of the office window to see what seemed like perfectly synchronized explosions coming from each floor. . . . One after the other, from top to bottom, with a fraction of a second between, the floors blew to pieces.”
Another Wall Street Journal reporter:
‘My God, they’re going to bring the building down.’ And they, whoever they are, HAD SET CHARGES. . . . I saw the explosions.”
Beth Fertig of WNYC Radio:
“It just descended like a timed explosion-like when they are deliberately bringing a building down. . . . It was coming down so perfectly that in one part of my brain I was thinking...They got everyone out, and they're bringing the building down because they have to.'”
Teresa Veliz:
“There were explosions going off everywhere. I was convinced that there were bombs planted all over the place and someone was sitting at a control panel pushing detonator buttons. . . . There was another explosion. And another. I didn't know where to run."
Steve Evans:
“I was at the base of the second tower . . . that was hit. . . . There was an explosion. . . . The base of the building shook. . . . there was a series of explosions.”
Thomas Turilli:
“...it almost sounded like bombs going off, like boom, boom, boom, like seven or eight."
Craig Carlsen:
“...heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions. . . . We then realized the building started to come down.”
Edward Cachia:
“As my officer and I were looking at the south tower, it just gave. It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit. . . . we originally had thought there was like an internal detonation, explosives, because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down.”
Assistant Commissioner Stephen Gregory:
“I thought . . . before . . . came down, that I saw low-level flashes. . . .
Lieutenant Evangelista . . . asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I . . . saw a flash flash flash . . . the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw.”
Captain Karin Deshore:
“Somewhere around the middle of the World Trade Center, there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash.”...“Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building."
NYFD Firefighter Richard Banaciski:
“...there was just an explosion. It seemed like on television they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.”
Deputy Commissioner Thomas Fitzpatrick:
"We looked up at the . . . . All we saw was a puff of smoke coming from about 2 thirds of the way up . . . . It looked like sparkling around one specific layer of the building. . . . My initial reaction was that this was exactly the way it looks when they show you those implosions on TV."
NYFD Captain Jay Swithers:
“I took a quick glance at the building and while I didn't see it falling, I saw a large section of it blasting out, which led me to believe it was just an explosion.”
NYFD Battalion Chief Brian Dixon:
“I was . . . hearing a noise and looking up. . . . the lowest floor of fire in the south tower actually looked like someone had planted explosives around it because . . . everything blew out on the one floor. I thought, geez, this looks like an explosion up there, it blew out."
NYFD Firefighter Stephen Viola: “You heard like loud booms . . . "
Battalion Chief Dominick DeRubbio: “It was weird how it started to come down. It looked like it was a timed explosion."
Firefighter Kenneth Rogers:
"here was an explosion in the south tower. . . . I kept watching. Floor after floor after floor. One floor under another after another and when it hit about the fifth floor, I figured it was a bomb, because it looked like a synchronized deliberate kind of thing. I was there in '93."
Auxiliary NYFD Lieutenant Fireman Paul Isaac:
“...there were definitely bombs in those buildings...” Isaac added: “...many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings, but they’re afraid for their jobs to admit it because the ‘higher-ups’ forbid discussion of this fact.”
The 9-11 Commission of pure farce:
William Rodriguez: "I met with the 9/11 Commission behind closed doors and they essentially discounted everything I said regarding the use of explosives to bring down the north tower.”...“I contacted NIST . . . four times without a response. Finally, I asked them before they came up with their conclusion . . . if they ever considered my statements or the statements of any of the other survivors who heard the explosions. They just stared at me with blank faces.”
NYFD Firefighter Louie Cacchioli:
“I felt like I was being put on trial in a court room” .... “They were trying to twist my words and make the story fit only what they wanted to hear. All I wanted to do was tell the truth and when they wouldn’t let me do that, I walked out.”
No I wasn't, I'm just stating that "pulling" buildings has nothing to do with explosives - and you have no evidence to counter that.....
- Nipple
Suck on this then Nipple ->
"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." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."
-Larry Silverstein
- You can interpret it whatever way you like, but most of us aren't quite that stupid, try selling your misinformation low-brow garbage around your own intellectual neighbourhood. 
MELTING POINT OF IRON (STEEL): 1532 C
MELTING POINT OF CONCRETE: 1800-2500 C
TEMPERATURE OF METALS EXPOSED TO HYDROCARBON FUELS IN A STILL AIR FIRE (INCLUDING JET FUEL): 233-300 C
300 C < 1532 C < 1800 C
FIRE TEMP < STEEL MELTING POINT < CONCRETE MELTING POINT
THE < MEANS "LESS THAN"
300 C is LESS THAN 1532 C
Why is this so hard to understand?
Solid materials cannot go from full strength to zero strength for no good reason. Even when exposed to air fire, iron displays FULL STRENGTH even up to 300 C, but beyond this, it drops off to about half strength at around 650 C, and zero strength at around 1200 C.
The following strength vs. temperature curve is correct for most grades of construction steel.
911research .wtc7. net /wtc/ analysis/ fires/ steel. html
Don't believe me! Do your own research and check that I am not making up all the above figures! Compare the temperatures above with what is observed in experiments, or what is found in foundry practice manuals and textbooks. Compare the engineering data I have mentioned with what has been known about steel and concrete for over a hundred years!
Ken, how do you include photos in your postings?
Here are some more good photos:
plaguepuppy . net/ public_ html/ collapse %20update
"75% of the of the NYFD and NYPD now believe 9/11 was an inside job - suck on that nipple"
Still no source?
Ken, none of those quotes refer to WTC7. Try again.
As I said on another ballot discussing WTC7
I'll go with the firefighters testimonies, the video and the pictures from the south face, and the official explanation for now until...
A) I'm shown pictures or video of the south face showing no damage, smoke or flames.
B) I'm shown recordings of the hundreds of bright flashes the deafening cracking explosions preceding the collapse.
C) I'm shown irrefutable hard physical evidence that the NYPD are liars.
D) I'm shown physical evidence of the NYPD having the know how, the capability and the authority to demolish sky scrapers ravished by fire - even when they can't enter the building, because of fire.
F) I'm shown hard physical evidence that the term "pull" has anything to do with explosives.
G) I'm shown physical evidence that perishable explosives, blasting caps and detonation chord can survive a massive blaze.
Tsk Tsk!!
I've just noticed a few of the usual misquotes...
NYFD Captain Jay Swithers:
"I took a quick glance at the building and while I didn't see it falling, I saw a large section of it blasting out, which led me to believe it was just an explosion."
he goes on to say...
"an ambulance pulled up which was very clean, S0 I assumed that the vehicle had not been in the - what I thought was an explosion at the time, but was the first collapse."
nytimes.com
NYFD Battalion Chief Brian Dixon:
"I was . . . hearing a noise and looking up. . . . the lowest floor of fire in the south tower actually looked like someone had planted explosives around it because . . . everything blew out on the one floor. I thought, geez, this looks like an explosion up there, it blew out."
ACtually said...
"I looked up and you could actually see everything blew out on the one floor. I thought, geez, this looks like an explosion up there, it blew out. Then I guess in some sense of time we looked at it and realized, no, actually it just collapsed. That ís what blew out the windows, not that there was an explosion there but that windows blew out."
nytimes.com
Assistant Commissioner Stephen Gregory:
"I thought . . . before . . . came down, that I saw low-level flashes. . . . "
Actually went on to say..
"he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down".
"I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the building cowing down and pushing things down, it could have been electrical explosions, it could have been whatever."
nytimes.com
Battalion Chief Dominick DeRubbio:
"It was weird how it started to come down. It looked like it was a timed explosion."
Actually went on to say...
"It was weird how it started to come down. It looked like it was a timed explosion,
but I guess it was just the floors starting to pancake one on top of the other."
flcv.com
NYFD Firefighter Louie Cacchioli:
“I felt like I was being put on trial in a court room” .... “They were trying to twist my words and make the story fit only what they wanted to hear. All I wanted to do was tell the truth and when they wouldn’t let me do that, I walked out.”
Has actually made this statement since...
Originally, on September 12, 2001, People Magazine ran a few short paragraphs about the 20-year veteran New York fireman hearing what sounded like bombs exploding in the north tower.
Short and sweet, that was it. A few short words about bombs exploding, but words that were repeated over and over again in story after story by writers and broadcasters who never even bothered to talk to him in the first place.
Furthermore, Cacchioli was upset that People Magazine misquoted him, saying "there were bombs" in the building when all he said was he heard "what sounded like bombs" without having definitive proof bombs were actually detonated.
arcticbeacon.com
Edward Cachia:
“As my officer and I were looking at the south tower, it just gave. It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit. . . . we originally had thought there was like an internal detonation, explosives, because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down.”
Key words - "ORIGINALLY". Which means he no longer thinks that.
Also, I'd just like to point out - similes are worthless my friend. 'It looked like", "it sounded like", "it was as if".
Tsk tsk!
And another one...
Captain Karin Deshore:
"Somewhere around the middle of the World Trade Center, there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash.”...“Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building."
Went on to say...
"I WAS UNAWARE WHAT WAS HAPPENING, I THOUGHT IT WAS JUST MAJOR EXPLOSION, I DIDNT KNOW THE BUILDING WAS COLLAPSING"
sfgate.com
Tsk tsk!
And another one...
Steve Evans:
"I was at the base of the second tower . . . that was hit. . . . There was an explosion. . . . The base of the building shook. . . . there was a series of explosions."
Full quote reads...
"I was at the base of the 2nd tower, the second tower that was hit. There was an explosion -- I didn't think it was an explosion, but the base of the building shook"
davesweb.cnchost.com
What a surprise, and another...
NYFD Firefighter Stephen Viola: "You heard like loud booms . . . "
ACtually went on to say...
"You heard like loud booms, but I guess it was all just stuff coming down, and then we got covered with rubble and dust"
hosted . ap . org
And another...
Deputy Commissioner Thomas Fitzpatrick:
"We looked up at the . . . . All we saw was a puff of smoke coming from about 2 thirds of the way up . . . . It looked like sparkling around one specific layer of the building. . . . My initial reaction was that this was exactly the way it looks when they show you those implosions on TV."
Actually reads...
"We looked up at the building straight up, we were that close. All we saw was a puff of smoke coming from about 2 thirds of the way up. Some people thought
it was an explosion. I don't think I remember that"
and...
"it looked like sparkling around one specific layer of the building. I assume now that that was either windows starting to collapse like tinsel or something."
hosted.ap.org
So, care to comment on the actual, correct firefighters quotes on my userpage?
The ones that havn't been taken out context, misquoted or made up?
The ones that describe the devestating damage to WTC7, the huge fires and the predicted collapse because of this damage.
The same way you just cherry picked and took out of context a few of the many quotes I posted? hypocrite
"So, care to comment on the actual, correct firefighters quotes on my userpage?
The ones that havn't been taken out context, misquoted or made up?"
-wolf_nipple_chips
So you are arguing now that that some of your firefighters comments are taken out of context, misquoted or made up - well I rest my case then!
You've been taking my quotes out of context and have just admitted that some of your own have "...been taken out context, misquoted or made up"
"The ones that describe the devestating damage to WTC7..."
-Like you just admitted - '...the quotes were taken out of context, misquoted or made up...!'
Clearly the latter is the case here as no photo or video that show raging infernos or devastating damage such as twenty storey high holes - have ever been produced to back up these quotes.
The only photo's or video show quite the opposite, lots of dust and no fires, and the only photo of any damage was on one corner, and that was only superficial and didn't compromise the main structural weight bearing super strong solid cross-sectioned steel frame of this building.
Nor was this building hit by a plane, so that BS argument doesn't hold water here.
All your 'quotes' have been clearly edited as you admitted to back up the official account, the same way they photoshop the photos of the day to try and back up their nonsense. You won't learn much from dept. of defence sponsored websites sonny.
So I commend you for at least admitting that much.
Where is the fire in WTC7 Nipple? WELL->
Now this is what you call a raging inferno and even these devastating fires that burned intensely for hours couldn't bring down this steel framed building ->
"The same way you just cherry picked and took out of context a few of the many quotes I posted? hypocrite"
Practically all of them were wrong, or similes. You had omitted crucial sentences which told a completely different story.
The quotes on my userpage include all references to context - with no key sentences ommitted. Try again Ken. Why don't you prove me wrong? Research some of the quotes on my userpage, see if I've missed out anything crucial.
I'm not sure what the hell you were going on about with the following comment...
WNC said..."So, care to comment on the actual, correct firefighters quotes on my userpage?
The ones that havn't been taken out context, misquoted or made up?"
Ken said "So you are arguing now that that some of your firefighters comments are taken out of context, misquoted or made up - well I rest my case then!"
LOL! errrrr, no.
Where did I say that?
Try reading it again Kenneth.
See dictionary - "haven't", "Have not"
Keep up the spin. Keep those diversions coming.
"Now this is what you call a raging inferno and even these devastating fires that burned intensely for hours couldn't bring down this steel framed building"
Dear me! Research Ken, research!
The building was primarily made out of concrete - the core and the bottom half of the buildings outer supporting structure. The collapsed area we see in that picture is the only part relying on steel for its integrity - and it failed. Of course, you knew the right? Don't take my word for it, do some research...
"The building totalled 32 storeys, with 29 floors above ground and three below. A concrete core and concrete frame supported the first 16 floors. Above that was a central support system of concrete columns, supporting concrete floors with steel perimeter columns. An additional feature was the presence of two 'technical floors' - concrete floors designed to give the building more strength. One was just above the ground level and the other at the 17th floor."
"The steel columns above the 17th floor suffered complete collapse, partially coming to rest on the upper concrete technical floor.
concretecentre . com
LOL! Every steel part of that building failed because of fire. Try again Ken.
At least put forward something that doesn't contradict your argument.
LOL! Every steel part of that building failed because of fire. Try again Ken.
by wolf_nipple_chips on Sun Oct 29, 06 5:44am
Bare faced shameless lie - whom anyone reading this will see for what it is - None of that steel failed and you know it.
Where do you see fire in WTC 7 as it collapses?
Where is the 20 storey high hole you spoke of in another ballot?
Did the building in Madrid collapse into it's own footprint?
This should be good folks.
The official theory is rendered implausible by two major problems.
The first is the simple fact that fire has never---prior to or after 9/11---caused steel-frame high-rise buildings to collapse.
Defenders of the official story seldom if ever mention this simple fact.
Indeed, the supposedly definitive report put out by NIST---the National Institute for Standards and Technology (2005)---even implies that fire-induced collapses of large steel-frame buildings are normal events (Hoffman, 2005).
Far from being normal, however, such collapses have never occurred, except for the alleged cases of 9/11.
Defenders of the official theory, of course, say that the collapses were caused not simply by the fire but the fire combined with the damage caused by the airliners.
The towers, however, were designed to withstand the impact of airliners about the same size as Boeing 767s.
Nor does this theory apply to WTC 7 because it was not hit by any plane.
Hyman Brown, the construction manager of the Twin Towers, said: “They were over-designed to withstand almost anything, including hurricanes, . . . bombings and an airplane hitting them” (Bollyn, 2001).
Likewise, the NIST Report, in discussing how the impact of the planes contributed to the collapse, focuses primarily on the claim that the planes dislodged a lot of the fire-proofing from the steel.
The official theory of the collapse, therefore, is essentially a fire theory, so it cannot be emphasized too much that fire has never caused large steel-frame buildings to collapse---never, whether before 9/11, or after 9/11, or anywhere in the world on 9/11 except allegedly New York City---never.
Dr David Ray Griffin, January 2006
Hmmm...very interesting, what you think of that Nipple?
Any steel framed buildings you'd care to mention that have completely collapsed into their own footprints from fire before or since 9/11? 
"The whole art or science of controlled demolition is oriented primarily around this goal. As Mark Loizeaux, the president of Controlled Demolition, Inc., has explained, “to bring down as we want, so . . . no other structure is harmed,” the demolition must be “completely planned,” using “the right explosive the right pattern of laying the charges” (Else, 2004). If the 110-story Twin Towers had fallen over, they would have caused an enormous amount of damage to buildings covering many city blocks. But the towers came straight down. Accordingly, the official theory, by implying that fire produced collapses that perfectly mimicked the collapses that have otherwise been produced only by precisely placed explosives, requires a miracle."
hmmm...absolutely fascinating...you should read this report nipple, you might learn something from it, instead those US dept. of defense misquoting photoshopping conspiracy sites that have you brainwashed of all rhyme and reason.
Have a good long suck on this Nipple->
Have a good long suck on this Nipple->
Perhaps you didn't read this...
"The building totalled 32 storeys, with 29 floors above ground and three below. A concrete core and concrete frame supported the first 16 floors. Above that was a central support system of concrete columns, supporting concrete floors with steel perimeter columns. An additional feature was the presence of two 'technical floors' - concrete floors designed to give the building more strength. One was just above the ground level and the other at the 17th floor."
"The steel columns above the 17th floor suffered complete collapse, partially coming to rest on the upper concrete technical floor.
concretecentre . com
"Bare faced shameless lie"
"None of that steel failed and you know it."
LOL! My god!! You can see in the picture you provided that the first set of floors had collapsed - the only set of floors relying on a streel structure - leaving the central concrete columns exposed.
"Did the building in Madrid collapse into it's own footprint? "
No, the bottom half was made completely of concrete, unlike the WtC towers. Try again.
The quotes on my userpage include all references to context - with no key sentences ommitted. Try again Ken. Why don't you prove me wrong? Research some of the quotes on my userpage, see if I've missed out anything crucial.
Come on! I proven your quotes wrong, do me the honour of pointing out where the quotes on my userpage are wrong.
"Bare faced shameless lie"
Perhaps you might want to write to Concrete Center, and the BBC and other news organisations and tell them. Perhaps even prove them wrong! LOL!
BBC...
"The top floors of the landmark building have already fallen into lower storeys, reducing the skyscraper to a smoking, blackened skeleton. !
you filthy propaganda-monger. you want people to think that picture is immediately after the collapse.
give it up, murderer. you can't protect them.
"Battalion Chief Dominick DeRubbio:
"It was weird how it started to come down. It looked like it was a timed explosion."
Actually went on to say...
"It was weird how it started to come down. It looked like it was a timed explosion,
but I guess it was just the floors starting to pancake one on top of the other."
flcv.com"
a deliberate alteration of the facts. that means he does not believe what he's arguing. he's a bush supporter trying to ruin our credibility. you must see this, wolf.
Perhaps you didn't read this...
"The building totalled 32 storeys, with 29 floors above ground and three below. A concrete core and concrete frame supported the first 16 floors. Above that was a central support system of concrete columns, supporting concrete floors with steel perimeter columns. An additional feature was the presence of two 'technical floors' - concrete floors designed to give the building more strength. One was just above the ground level and the other at the 17th floor."
"The steel columns above the 17th floor suffered complete collapse, partially coming to rest on the upper concrete technical floor.
concretecentre . com
by wolf_nipple_chips
Answer the question Nipple- -Did the building in Madrid collapse into it's own footprint like WTC 7?
YES or NO?
Well - Yes or No?
^^^ and tell everyone where there is a raging inferno in that building as it collapses into it's own footprint while you're at it.
Bare faced shameless lie.
None of that steel failed and you know it.
And you forgot to include that any one reading this will see you for the shameless liar that you are.
We aren't all as stupid as you nipple, we can see with our own eyes that the steel frame in that building held together and didn't collapse catastrophically despite far far hotter temperatures for a far far longer time than WTC 7's comparatively brief mysterious fire, a fire that can't be even seen in the demolition!
A steel framed building that wasn't even as strong as WTC 7 yet was still standing after 24 hours of an intense inferno!
"Battalion Chief Dominick DeRubbio:
"It was weird how it started to come down. It looked like it was a timed explosion."
...and never ever forget this folks -
"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. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."
-Larry Silverstein.
- and despite what Nipple would have us all beLIEve the building was most certainly NOT pulled down by giant cables!
"Answer the question Nipple- -Did the building in Madrid collapse into it's own footprint like WTC 7?"
I did Ken.
Try reading. LOL!!
I said on Sun Oct 29, 06 1:25pm ...
"No, the bottom half was made completely of concrete, unlike the WtC towers. Try again."
Ken said..."Bare faced shameless lie", "None of that steel failed and you know it. "
Perhaps you might want to write to Concrete Center, and the BBC and other news organisations and tell them. Perhaps even prove them wrong! LOL!
BBC...
"The top floors of the landmark building have already fallen into lower storeys, reducing the skyscraper to a smoking, blackened skeleton. !
"Battalion Chief Dominick DeRubbio:
"It was weird how it started to come down. It looked like it was a timed explosion."
Actually went on to say...
"It was weird how it started to come down. It looked like it was a timed explosion,
but I guess it was just the floors starting to pancake one on top of the other."
flcv.com"
When will the man learn?
Ken, remember, I've told you already, don't use quotes that contradict your argument.
Come on Ken!! Prove them wrong!!
Prove every western news outfit that reported the Madrid blaze wrong.
I'm waiting.
REmember...
"The building totalled 32 storeys, with 29 floors above ground and three below. A concrete core and concrete frame supported the first 16 floors. Above that was a central support system of concrete columns, supporting concrete floors with steel perimeter columns. An additional feature was the presence of two 'technical floors' - concrete floors designed to give the building more strength. One was just above the ground level and the other at the 17th floor."
"The steel columns above the 17th floor suffered complete collapse, partially coming to rest on the upper concrete technical floor."
"A steel framed building"
Good god man!!! Do some research, and stop wasting my time!
DO SOME FUCKING RESEARCH!!!
Your making yourself look stupid.
"A concrete core and concrete frame supported the first 16 floors. Above that was a central support system of concrete columns, supporting concrete floors with steel perimeter columns."
The building was nothing like any of the WTC towers!!!
The parts that WERE made of steel(from floor 16, up)failed!!
PROVE ME WRONG!!!
DON'T JUST SIT THERE REPEATING THE SAME OLD DRIVEL!!
PROVE ME WRONG!!!
Showing me hard evidence of the madrid building being a steel reliant building!!
Show mw pictures or video of the south face showing no damage, smoke or flames.
Show me recordings of the hundreds of bright flashes the deafening cracking explosions preceding the collapse.
Show me irrefutable hard physical evidence that the NYPD are liars.
Show me physical evidence of the NYPD having the know how, the capability and the authority to demolish sky scrapers ravished by fire - even when they can't enter the building, because of fire.
Show me hard physical evidence that the term "pull" has anything to do with explosives.
Show me physical evidence that perishable explosives, blasting caps and detonation chord can survive a massive blaze.
COME ON!!
LOL!! ROFLMAO....
I told you Ken... you are talking with people who believe that iron should not be used for making motorcycle and car engine parts!
TOTALLY BRAINWASHED and they like it!
Actually, in real life, I am a University lecturer and academic who specializes in Mechanical engineering and materails (I actually teach this to hundreds of students every year and all my subjects are all accredited with the Institute of Engineers Australia, who send examination panels to our University every 5 years for quality control checks of our courses)...
The MAJORITY of engineers, scientists and academics who have seen most of the evidence of the 9/11 Truth movement have looked into the facts about steel and concrete, and have come to the conclusion that THERE IS NO WAY THAT ALL THESE SOLID MATERIALS CAN LOSE ALL THEIR STRENGTH INSTANTLY IN A FREE-FALL VERTICAL COLLAPSE, BECAUSE A FREE-FALL VERTICAL COLLAPSE REQUIRES ALL MATERIALS BELOW THE IMPACT ZONES (WHERE THE JET PLANES HIT) TO SHOW ZERO STRENGTH so that it doesn't slow down or arrest the fall material above.
As far as I know, none of the lower materials were damaged by jet fuel fires or raging infernos, so there is no reason for them to all "give way" and display zero strength all of a sudden, as if they did not even exist and were not even there to support the materials above.
Like I said, the towers collapsed just like solid trees disintegrating from the top down, into a pile of sawdust, but at free-fall speeds. All the video evidence proves it and the truth is plain and simple and clear... you can even HEAR the sequence of explosions on the collapse videos:
"bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang"... explosions in rapid succession can be heard, along with small jets of concrete powder shooting out of the North Tower, just before it starts falling...
NOW THAT'S A HINT AND A HALF! DUH!
Watch the official "9/11" movie again, and you will see amateur video of the North Tower, standing strong, then
"bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang"... explosions in rapid succession can be heard, along with small jets of concrete powder shooting out of the North Tower, just before it starts falling...
These facts are UNDENIABLE and cannot be explained by damage caused by air fires.
Air fires cannot cause explosions for fireproof materials like concrete and steel.
Air fires cannot make concrete explode into fine powder.
Air fires are not hot enough to create molten metal, which were found under the debris of all 3 WTC buildings that collapsed (requiring temperatures well above 1532 C), which remained very hot at temperatures above 700 C, for over SIX WEEKS!
Air fires cannot create seismic shocks and 2.0 and 2.1 magnitude earthquakes as measured at Columbia University and at other earthquake monitoring labs.
Air fires above 70 floors up cannot create explosions in the basements of both WTC Twin Towers, killing and injuring people working in the basements, and shattering marble tiles and glass in the lobbies of both Twin Towers.
AND DON'T FORGET THAT ALL OF THE STEEL & CONCRETE MATERIALS BELOW WHERE THE JETS HIT WERE NOT DAMAGED BY RAGING INFERNOS (like the Madrid tower)...
ALSO, THERE IS NO PROOF THAT WTC 7 SUFFERED EXTENSIVE STRUCTURAL DAMAGE FROM THE COLLAPSE OF WTC 1... ENOUGH TO CAUSE THE ENTIRE 47-STOREY SKYSCRAPER TO COLLAPSE TO THE GROUND LEVELS AT FREE-FALL SPEEDS.
Actually, no highrise buildings have EVER collapsed like the 3 WTC buildings on 9/11, without the aid of controlled demolitions and steel cutter charges. Even in the event of a severe earthquakes, buildings still behave as solid intact structures that stick together, or even lean over like felled trees. They don't magically convert into giant clouds of fine powder and pools of molten metal.
ANY IDIOT WITH HALF A BRAIN CELL CAN FIGURE THAT OUT!
Look Wolfe... your own arguments have proven you wrong. Nothing we say will make you open your eyes, because only you can do this yourself.
Get a University degree like me, in Civil or Mechanical or Materials engineering (only takes 4 years), and you will learn topics like solid mechanics, failure theory and testing, engineering material properties, thermodynamics, heat transfer, combustion mechanics and if you are lucky, your University might teach your foundry practice (metal melting, metallurgy, the iron-carbide equilibrium charts, manufacturing, welding, heat treatment and machine shop practice)... then do another 4 years of hands-on research like me, to complete you PhD in engineering (Doctorate), and then you will be able to understand what I am talking about. I have about 8 years of formal University education, and an additional 2 years of manufacturing and foundry practice schooling and experience, under my belt.
EVERYTHING I have learned about engineering and materials is NOT COMPATIBLE with the "Official 9/11 stories" about how buildings collapse. I am a mechanical engineer and a University lecturer in Australia. Get an education in engineering first, study materials and how they fail, and you will understand that what I have been saying all along is 100% accurate and can be proven in lab experiments and test... unlike the official stories...
Don't forget that air-cooled motorcycle engines do not go rubbery and soft after 1 hour of exposure to INTERNAL COMBUSIONS AND FIRE, and it is safe to drive your car for more than 1 hour, without your metal engine parts failing.
I guess that's why car manufacturers offer 3 year or 100,000 km new car warranties???
Why would they do this if the engineers knew that fire and combustion explosions would make their engines go all soft and rubbery?
give it up, murderer.
no amount of lies and fabricated evidence and sockpuppet accounts can protect your masters from getting what's coming to them.
Don't worry about neothe1's dumb comments.
neothe1 acts like a retard, who cannot argue or debate because he knows very little.
It's true, there are very stupid and ignorant people today, who believe in BS like the world is still flat and Santa Claus.
i already defeated you months ago, murderer. give it up, you can't protect them.
I pledge no allegiance, nigga fuck the president's speeches
I'm baptized by America and covered in leeches
The dirty water that bleaches your soul and your facial features
Drownin' you in propaganda that they spit through the speakers
And if you speak about the evil that the government does
The Patriot Act'll track you to the type of your blood
They try to frame you, and say you was tryna sell drugs
And throw a federal indictment on niggaz to show you love
This shit is run by fake Christians, fake politicians
Look at they mansions, then look at the conditions you live in
All they talk about is terrorism on television
They tell you to listen, but they don't really tell you they mission
They funded Al-Qaeda, and now they blame the Muslim religion
Even though Bin Laden, was a CIA tactician
They gave him billions of dollars, and they funded his purpose
Fahrenheit 9/11, that's just scratchin' the surface
Barbarisms by Barbaras
With pointed Heels
Victorious victories kneel
For brand new spanking deals
Marching forward hypocritic
And hypnotic computers
You depend on our protection
Yet you feed us lies from the tablecloth
Everybody is going to the party
Have a real good time
Dancing in the desert
Blowing up the sunshine
Kneeling roses
Disappearing into Moses' dry mouth
Breaking into Fort Knox
Stealing our intentions
Hangars sitting, dripped in oil Crying freedom!
Handed to obsoletion
Still you feed us lies from the tablecloth
I was born with the voice of a riot
A storm, lightening the function, the form
Far from the norm, I won't follow like cattle
I'm more like the catalyst,
calm in the mix of battle
Who let the cowboy on the saddle?
He don't know a missile from a gavel
Para terror troopin'
flippin' loops of death upon innocent flesh
But i'm back in the cipher my foes and friends
with a verse and a pen
against a line I won't tow or defend
instead I curse at murderous men
in suits of professionals who act like animals
This man child, ruthless and wild
Who's gonna chain this beast back on the leash?
This Texas fuhrer
For sure a
Compassionless con who serve a
Lethal needle to the poor, the cure for crime is murder?
Here it comes the sound of terror from above
He flex his Texas twisted tongue
The poor lined up to kill in desert slums
For oil that boil beneath the desert sun
Now we spit flame to flip this game
All the targets are taking aim
All targets are taking aim
We're the targets are taking aim
They load the clip in omnicolor
They pack the 9, they fire it at prime time
Sleeping gas, every home was like Alcatraz
And mutha fuckas lost their minds
No escape from the mass mind rape
Play it again jack and then rewind the tape
Play it again and again and again
Until ya mind is locked in
Believin' all the lies that they are tellin' ya
Buying all the products that they are selling ya
They say jump
Ya say how high
Ya brain dead
Ya gotta fuckin' bullet in your head
Just victims of the in-house drive-by
They say jump, you say how high
Ya standin' in line
Believin' the lies
Ya bowin' down to the flag
Ya got a bullet in ya head
Imagine it pouring, it's raining down on us
Mosh pits outside the oval office
Someone's tryina tell us something,
Maybe this is God just
Sayin' we're responsible
For this monster, this coward,
That we have empowered
This is Bin Laden,
Look at his head noddin'
How could we allow something like this
Without pumping our fists
Now this is our final hour
Let me be the voice
In your strength and your choice
Let me simplify the rhyme just to amplify the noise
Try to amplify the times it, and multiply by six...
Teen million people, Are equal at this high pitch
Maybe we can reach al-quaeda through my speech
Let the president answer a higher anarchy
Strap him with an Ak-47, let him go, fight his own war
Let him impress daddy that way
No more blood for oil,
We got our own battles to fight on our own soil
No more psychological warfare, to trick us to thinking that we ain't loyal
If we don't serve our own country, we're patronizing a hero
Look in his eyes its all lies
The stars and stripes, they've been swiped,
Washed out and wiped
And replaced with his own face,
Mosh now or die
If I get sniped tonight you know why,
Cause I told you to fight.
Blackcat, Ken, anyone come on!!
PROVE ME WRONG!!!
DON'T JUST SIT THERE REPEATING THE SAME OLD DRIVEL!!
PROVE ME WRONG!!!
Show me hard evidence of the madrid building being a steel reliant building!!
Show me pictures or video of the south face showing no damage, smoke or flames.
Show me recordings of the hundreds of bright flashes and deafening cracking explosions preceding the collapse.
Show me irrefutable hard physical evidence that the NYPD are liars.
Show me physical evidence of the NYPD having the know how, the capability and the authority to demolish sky scrapers ravished by fire - even when they can't enter the building, because of fire.
Show me hard physical evidence that the term "pull" has anything to do with explosives.
Show me physical evidence that perishable explosives, blasting caps and detonation chord can survive a massive blaze.
COME ON!!
"I am a University lecturer and academic who specializes in Mechanical engineering and materails"
Coming from the guy who thought it was the 4 inch concrete floor slabs that maintained the integrity of the WTC towers. LOL! Indeed.
And I quote...
Blackcat said..."Still you miss the point... It is NOT steel that holds up highrise buildings entirely... it is the CONCRETE."
There we have it!!
University lecturer my arse!!!
You still think I am lying about being a University lecturer? LOL I guess it doesn't matter if you believe me or not anyway, I can confidently rest my right hand on the Holy Bible and swear to God that I am not lying - and I TRULY WANT GOD TO STRIKE ME DEAD IF I AM TELLING YOU LIES ABOUT MY PROFESSION AND WHAT I DO FOR A LIVING... because I certainly am a full time academic who teaches 2D & 3D CAD/CAM, Mechanical Design (Stress analysis, failure analysis, FEA, solid mechanics, material properties, etc), and many other advanced topics. For your information, I was a straight A student (dux twice), graduated with honours from the best Mechanical Engineering University in Australia and won a scholarship to complete my PhD in Engineering. I have over 12 commercial inventions and several patents to my credit, and I am currently commercialising several engineered products for local and international businesses and corporations. If you knew my real identity, you would honestly SH!T yourself and be awestruck with amazement at all my amazing accomplishments and new inventions. I recently received a Governor's award for excellence in research and an IEEE Award at an international engineering conference, and I was also recently promoted. I am regarded by my peers as being one of the best research engineers in Australia, in my field of expertise, and several Universities have adopted my lecture notes and teaching methods... students have consistently given me "above average" grades for the subjects (units) that I teach and I am the lead supervisor currently supervising about a dozen engineering projects, involving new emerging technologies. I have over a dozen peer-reviewed journals, book chapters and books to my credit in the area of engineering and product development and I am actually internationally recognized by fellow researchers in my field of expertise, in Europe, Asia, Australia and the USA.
How the hell do you think I was able to tell you all of the previous engineering facts, with numbers? You still cannot disprove the engineering material properties I have mentioned.
WTC STEEL:
Yield strength 600-700 MPa
Melting point: 1532-1650 C
CONCRETE:
Tensile yield strength 27-42 MPa
(Compressive strength depends on rebar steel embedded in the columns)
Melting point: 1800-2500 C
The WTC 1 and 2 Twin Towers was held up mostly by steel columns, correct... by steel is fireproof, even without the asbestos fireproofing... 233-300 C metal temperatures caused by jet fuel air fires are not enough to reduce soften it down to 10% or less of its maximum room temperature strength... Believing that fuel fires can turn steel into something like soft rubbery bendable guey chewing gum, requires you to also believe that internal explosions and fire can make the internal combustion engines of your motorcycle or car engine go all guey and soft after an hour... because these things are also made of iron! (Fe) Ferrous material! The same thing should also be observed with steam boilers, steam engines, iron hotplates and frying pans exposed to fires. Steel is just like most grey cast iron but with less than 0.4% carbon content, and is more ductile and bendable, but it can still remain solid and strong up to 1100 C. The ductility of steel is determined by its alloying, heat treatment and final crystal microstructures... eg. martensitic steel with fine grained structures are more brittle and easier to crack, and this is created by rapid quenching... a more ductile "stretchable" grade of mild steel can be created by slow cooling ... metallurgy is a very complex science, and the materials engineers who designed the steel for the WTC towers knew what they were doing. Those WTC steel beams were rated to 600-700 MPa tensile strength and should have only failed by twisting and buckling out of shape, but still remaining INTACT AND TOGETHER... I would actually believe the "Official 9/11" stories, if the Twin Towers simply bent over or leaned over on an angle, like a felled tree, because that's how overstressed steel behaves... it fails by buckling or bending! Steel can stretch a HUGE amount before snapping. Also, I would believe that jet planes can demolish giant concrete buildings, if those twin towers did not collapse all the way to the ground floors at free-fall speeds. It should have taken more than a MINUTE for those twin towers to collapse via a floor-by-floor pancaking collapse sequence, giving at least 1 second for each floor below to build up speed and hit the next one below... sadly, that is NOT what is observed in all the collapse videos. No pancaking collisions... JUST FREE-FALL ACCELERATION AS IF NO MATERIALS BELOW WERE THERE TO SLOW DOWN AND ARREST THE COLLAPSE! How could the lower materials behave as if they had ZERO STRENGTH? Especially if they were not even damaged or weakened by any fires? How could so much concrete powder be created just from air fire?
WTC 7 was not held up only by steel columns. It also employed a lot of concrete pillars or support columns.
How did all that concrete and steel just give way and display zero strength all of a sudden 7 HOURS AFTER THE TWIN TOWERS COLLAPSED?
There is NO other logical explanation for these events, except for controlled demolition operations. All the highrise buildings in the past that have collapsed at FREE-FALL speeds to the ground floors, have all been control-demolitioned. ALL OF THEM!
PS - Just ignore the imbecile Neothe1... he is not only a stupid retard, but he is also a racist stupid retard. (Poor guy, I actually pity people like him) He actually calls me a "nigga" yet he doesn't even know what I look like or which country I come from! LOL... Just remember Neothe1, white people make up only 11.6% of the entire world population, and they definitely DO NOT OWN the planet, no matter what the mass media wants to brainwash you into believing. I come from the other 88.4% of humanity - and although I do respect many intelligent white people and count them as friends, I do not make the mistake of regarding all people from a particular race as inferior nor do I assume that I am superior by birthright, simply because I inherited DNA passed down to me from parents I did not choose. Your arguments about racial superiority just because you are white, SUCK, and frankly, I would personally be very ashamed about your European history (let's see, 70,000,000 people killed in 2 World Wars, mass genocide of native indians and aborigines, high suicide rates, slavery, and many other forms of economic exploitation and oppression... too many to list here)... so I laugh at racists and rednecks who have been brainwashed into believing their own superiority... especially funny considering that most of us, whatever race we belong to... WILL DIE BEFORE THE AGE OF 100! So all this fuss about which race is better is nothing but mental masturbat!on by a bunch of highly insecure underachievers, who have nothing really interesting going on in their lives. People from any race can make mistakes and simply popping out of your mother's pink pussy, does not give you the right to put down people from the other 88.4% of the planet's population, because quite frankly, caucasians are the MINORITY on this planet and should show respect to all races, just like the 88.4% of non-white people try to show respect to white people for their useful technologies and high living standards. All people from all races have a lot to learn from each other, and being disrespectful and unkind (like racists) does nothing to promote peace and better understanding. Don't get me wrong... I am not a racist... in fact, my first serious relationships were with 3 girlfriends, and they were white (2 blondes and a brunette), but I have also dated Indians, Blacks, Africans, Asians... people are people, with similar needs and desires, whatever their race, sex, religion or level of wealth. The most important need is peace, security and the right to live without oppression or fear.
That's why debunking all the 9/11 Lies is so important. It started the massive fear campaign and has been used as an excuse to invade and control other harmless countries (Afghanistan, Iraq, soon Iran), and enforce "Police State" Orwellian-style laws to oppress people. Peace activists and 9/11 Truth seekers can now be considered as "enemy combatants" or "terrorist sympathizers", and Bush can now legally put anyone he doesn't like in jail, indefinitely, and even throw away the key, without any chance of the accused being able to defend himself in court. Read the "Military Commissions Act", which gives Military Courts higher authority than the US Supreme Court. Habeus Corpus, the right for the accused to defend himself in a court of law, is now gone if you are accused of being a terrorist or enemy of the USA, and Bush does not even need to supply any credible evidence or proof that you are a threat to the USA. The USA is no longer a democracy. Bush and the Republicans have stolen the last 2 federal lections, by not counting all democrat party votes from black voters (falsely accused of being felons just because their last names matched the names of convicted criminals), not supplying enough voting machines or falsifying electronic voting machine counts.
The USA is no longer a democracy, and is now a full-fledged "POLICE STATE" with Bush now ruling as the dictator and "the decider".
prison planet . com
The USA is in big trouble if people do not unbrainwash themselves about the lies of 9/11, and fake terrorism, like the London 7/7 bombings and the Bali bombings... where secretive government forces deliberately kill their own citizens and frame other countries or religious groups they don't like, for achieving political agendas, like creating more wars (more profits for arms suppliers and war profiteers) and occupying oil rich countries...
WAKE UP! YOU ARE LIVING IN A NEW NAZI EMPIRE, THAT IS DECIEVING YOU EVERY DAY! YOU COULD BE THE NEXT VICTIM ON THE BATTLEFIELD, DYING OR GETTING MAIMED FOR LIFE, FOR NO GOOD REASON, EXCEPT TO MAKE RICH LYING WAR PROFITEERS GET BIGGER NUMBERS IN THEIR BANK ACCOUNTS...
The obvious intention is world domination and control of the middle east by Israeli bankers and war profiteers. Why? By controlling most of the oil supplies in that region (in Iraq, Iran and Uzbekistan), they control Russia, China and India... the fastest growing emerging economies...
This is clearly a war for profit, and it would not have gained so much support had it not been for the fear campaign created by 9/11 and all the other fake "inside job" terror attacks in London and Bali.
>> University lecturer my arse!!!
That's right, your arse. Most of my students call me "Doctor" (because I have a PhD in engineering), and I am also research active, publishing several articles and papers every year (You might have even seen me on Australian TV once or twice). I am also a reviewer of engineering conference papers, dissertation thesis examiner, a book reviewer for several book publishers, and a brilliant inventor of high-tech machinery and patented products... I do not exaggerate one bit...
Actually, my boss and my superiors have strongly advised me not to reveal this type of information to the public because the University I work for does not want to get involved in politics or scandals... they agree with my assessments on world affairs, but they are afraid for my safety, saying that they don't want to worry about me getting investigated or suspended, or even worse, arrested and thrown in jail on sedition charges! Australia is turning into a mini-police state, just like the USA already is!
It doesn't matter if you don't believe me really! In fact, several other University lecturers, academics and professors have been speaking out about the lies of 9/11 and the numbers are growing, simply because there is too much hard scientific evidence to prove controlled demolitions were actually used on 9/11.
st911 . org
physics911 . net
Do you like to quote the words of scientists and doctors? Well, I am one! Ask me anything about mechanical engineering design, materials or manufacturing technologies, and I can give you facts, with full references, even video or hard evidence if you like.
One more thing for the technical minded people out there...
When a steel column or pillar is under severe axial compression loading (due to gravity), how does it fail?
Look up the "Modified Euler Johnson theory" on steel column buckling, and look at the equation for calculating critical vertical load necessary to cause elastic instability (or rapid collapse due to buckling failure)...
The fact that the WTC towers stood standing longer than 56 minutes, after getting hit by planes and being set on fire, means that each steel column was not subjected to a load higher than its critical buckling force.
Even if the steel columns did buckle, the grid-like nature of the outer perimeter columns allows neighbouring columns to "share the load", allowing the weight to be distributed to nearby columns, even if a few columns were "knocked out" or severly weakened by the jet impacts. The columns below where the jets hit, WERE NOT DAMAGED, and they stood strong and stable for more than 56 minutes...
Even if the damaged levels were able to collapse due to jet plane impact damage (not due to fire), the collapse should have been arrested and SLOWED DOWN by the strong undamaged materials below.
Don't forget that the Civil Engineers designed those Twin Towers to be 6 times stronger than they needed to be! 600% strength redundancy, or over-design safety factor! This high safety factor is also typical of mechanical components that are designed to withstand sudden shocks and impulse forces, like a jet plane.
Don't forget that Iron is typically more than 3 times stronger than Aluminium.
Yield strength of steel: 500-600 MPa (elastic strength, 0.2% proof)
Yield strength of aluminium: 70 MPa
High Carbon Steel (or HSS High Speed Steel) cutting tools are used to MACHINE or cut away aluminium!
Yes, steel is used for making cutting tools, to machine away aluminium easily, in milling machines, lathes, etc. If a flying 110 storey WTC 1 building struck a stationary aluminium jet plane, it would suffer far less damage than the jet plane, because steel is much harder than aluminium. But the relative velocity is the same for a plane hitting the 110 storey steel building! The steel would not suffer as much as the aluminium upon impact! My point is... those planes could not have done COMPLETE damage on all north, south, east and west walls of perimeter columns, and the north, south, east and west walls of the super strong central core colums... THE TWIN TOWER COLUMNS WERE ARRANGED LIKE 2 TUBULAR BOXLIKE STRUCTURES, ONE INSIDE THE OTHER...
How could all north, south, east and west side walls of steel columns fail EXACTLY AT THE SAME TIME to allow a vertical straight-down collapse? If all perimeter and core walls did not fail all at the same time, the building should have bent over or leaned over on an angle, like a chopped down tree but still connected and intact. Note that fire cannot weaken steel at 233-300 C ... steel is fireproof! How does steel go from full strength to zero strength all of a sudden, after 56 minutes?
Correction:
WTC STEEL:
(should be)
UTS strength 600-700 MPa (different from yield strength)
For steel, strengh varies from 270 MPa to around 700 MPa, depending on alloying, heat treatment and working (eg. rolling, forging, etc)
Melting point: 1532-1650 C
still way way way above 233-300 C
Also, do not forget that the BIGGER a piece of steel is, the longer it takes to heat up. Any surrounding steel connected to steel that is directly exposed to fires, will serve as "heat sinks", able to draw away heat energy and distribute heat to other neighbouring steel. ie. all the steel below and above the impacted floors.
That's 800,000 tons of steel! A lot for each tower! Amazing how jet fuel burning at 233-300 C (indicated by black smoke fires) can convert 800,000 tons of steel into giant pools of molten metal at over 1532 C !... when it is a known fact that materials exposed to an energy source, cannot get hotter than the energy source (fire) itself, no matter how long it is exposed to the energy source.
It's just like you have a freezer that goes down to -5 C. Wouldn't it be strange if you opened your freezer, and measured temperatures of below -40 C ? Or if you set your oven temperature to 200 C... but after opening it an hour later, not only are your chips and roast beef cooked, but you measured temperatures of over 1000 C, and the grills started going all saggy?
No, once the metal or material matches the temperature of the energy source, it stays there and does not exceed it, unless the energy source is removed.
REMOVE SPACES BELOW
debitel . net /user / andreas. bunkahle/ defaulte . htm
give it up, ken.
Blackcat said..."How the hell do you think I was able to tell you all of the previous engineering facts, with numbers?"
The Internet perhaps? LOL!!
Somebody who was a Mechanical Engineering Lecturer wouldn't have made such a rediculous statement as claiming the 4 inch concrete floor slabs within the WTC towers, maintained the buildings integrity.
And for someone who is a Mechanical Engineering Lecturer, you did a rather shit job of proving me wrong on the melted steel in WTC5 - a standard air fire.
And for someone who is a Mechanical Engineering Lecturer, your use of credible sources is simply laughable. Someone in that position wouldn't rely on conspiracy sites to put forward their argument.
And for someone who is a Mechanical Engineering Lecturer, you have made some glaring contradictions. Such as claiming that air fires can only reach 233-300 C, but then in the next comment concede that the Windsor Building fire could have reached 600 degrees.
Sorry mate, I'm not that gullible.
Is PrisonPlanet.com required reading on your course? LOL
A Mechanical Engineering Lecturer, wouldn't be asking questions about why WTC 5 and 6 didn't collapse, when they were a 5th of the size of WTC7. That is just simple physics.
Blackcat said..."Nothing we say will make you open your eyes"
ACtually, as I've already said, there are things you can do and say that will change my mind, regarding WTC7...
A) Show me pictures or video of the south face showing no damage, smoke or flames.
B) Show me recordings of the hundreds of bright flashes the deafening cracking explosions preceding the collapse.
C) Show me irrefutable hard physical evidence that the NYPD are liars.
D) Show me physical evidence of the NYPD having the know how, the capability and the authority to demolish sky scrapers ravished by fire - even when they can't enter the building, because of fire.
F) Show me hard physical evidence that the term "pull" has anything to do with explosives.
G) Show me physical evidence that perishable explosives, blasting caps and detonation chord can survive a massive blaze.
YOU KNOW NOTHING because you have no hands on experience with engineering and metals.
All you have to present is the lies and hearsay of others. At least I am stating facts that have been known for hundreds of years.
Yes, it IS possible to get air fires as hot as 600 C, with a HUGE amount of oxygen supply, but this is only the case for constant high velocity wind conditions, where lots of oxygen can feed the fires. As far as I know, the winds were not very strong on 9/11, and the fires were quite small in all 3 WTC buildings.
For someone who thinks I am really sh!t at Mechanical engineering, then why have you not even answered ANY of my questions above?
You are afraid aren't you?
Your Windsor Building in Madrid did not even collapse all the way to the ground, even though it burned for about 24 hours, thoroughly on almost every level (unlike the WTC towers)!!! LOL and you use that as proof that steel buildings can weaken and collapse due to fires!
Your own photographs show that building standing strong and firm, even after the fires are put out!
YOU ARE THE KIND OF DUMMY WHO CANNOT EVEN BELIEVE HIS OWN EYES, AND HIS OWN PHOTOGRAPHS AND HIS OWN EVIDENCE... BUT YOU WOULD RATHER GIVE BIRTH TO BUSH & CHENEY'S LOVE CHILD WOULDN'T YOU?
Don't talk to me about Buildings 5 and 6 not collapsing because "its just simple physics"... what do you know about PHYSICS???
I won top 1st place awards in all the science and physics subjects and high school and earned straight DISTINCTION MARKS in ALL engineering mathematics subjects are University (I even won the top prize in a statewide Westpac mathematics competition)... in year 12, I averaged 100% in Physics, scoring perfect 100% marks in all four exams for the 1st semester, and for the entire year, my average grades in physics were around 98%, the top in the state.
ANY IDIOT KNOWS THAT FOR OBJECTS TO DROP AT FREE-FALL SPEEDS, there must be nothing underneath them to slow them down or arrest their collapse! Strong attraction forces between Iron atoms and concrete particles just do not VANISH & DISAPPEAR at an instant for no good reason... and fire is not a good reason, since all these materials are all fire-proof with melting points about 1532 C.
Ok, so you thing WTC 7 collapsed due to lots of structural damage caused by the debris from WTC 1 and 2...
So answer this you omniscient genius!!! Why are the big buildings, marked pink in the photos, beside where WTC 7 used to be... why are they both hardly even damaged? Why are they both standing strong, showing hardly any damage on their front faces closest to the twin towers?
How can you get ALL sides of WTC 7 collapsing exactly at the same times, to create a vertical free-fall collapse, so that WTC 7 does not hit neighbouring buildings?
GO ON, DODGE THIS QUESTION, LIKE YOU HAVE DODGED 100% OF ALL THE QUESTIONS ABOVE...
Then go on and explain how molten metal ended up in the basements of all 3 WTC buildings smarty pants! MOLTEN METAL! Something that is very typical of controlled demolition operations... the super hot left-over byproducts of thermite style cutting charges melting away steel at high speeds at temperatures well over 2000 C | |
