Nation building

Quoted message said:

R Brickston said:

Quoted message said:

Technically speaking:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003&q=911+mysteries

Quoted message said:

What is your exact position on the premise of the video?

My inexact, non-personal opinion is:

It is more credible than any explanations for the chain of events put
forth in the 911 Commission Report. I shows many events for which the
report has no reasonable explanations. The immediate destruction and
removal of all structural evidence is the final straw. Demolition
experts could in one glance recognize the results of explosive effects
on the core structure. It was such dangerous hazardous material that
only the wrecking crew could see and touch it, if you believe that.

This event is so sensitive for our nation that no one wants to face
its origins and purpose. It rattles at the fundamentals of our nation
and its government. The alternative is denial and to ignore it.
There have been other nations where similar but smaller events were
perpetrated for similar ends. We are at war and getting deeper so
every day.

Jobst Brandt

heh.

Ron

Landotter who? said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> You will recall how even the press ridiculed anyone who expressed
> doubt about the collapse of Bldgs 1 & 2 and 7 with was not hit by
> anything.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Building 7 was indeed hit. It was severely damaged when one of the
towers fell nearby.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Occam's Razor.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In addition, nothing in this administration's near-flawless record
of hubris, incomplete execution, and incompetence suggests that
they are even remotely capable of successfully carrying out and
subsequently concealing an enterprise so large as a concocted 9/11
attack.

Quoted message said:

The most likely scenario is the guilt of complacency. They'd had a
hardon for invading Iraq since day one, get a briefing calling an
attack a 10/10 possibility, and do a little "get funky with the
rhesus monkey" dance--as an attack on American soil is a green card
to do pretty much whatever you want militarily. I don't see how
there could have been such an "incredible" amounts of failures on
that day otherwise. What they didn't predict was the severity of the
attack. They likely thought it would be one bomb or one plane, and
had a holyshit moment when they found out about the magnitude of the
operation.

Quoted message said:

The tower's complete collapse--both of them--it's just too nuts
considering the engineering. More core should have remained--but
that's outweighed by how incredibly impossible it would be to rig
the building.

I see you have not seen how large structures are laid flat by well
placed charges. Seeing the buildings come down immediately raises
questions for anyone who has done such things. I learned all about
this in the US Army Corps of Engineers where we cut steel beams and RR
rails with trivial amounts of TNT and primachord. Plastic explosive
did an even cleaner job.

In these courses, movies of charge placement and demolition were shown
before performing field work on similar steel beams. Explosive
charges placed at the base of main girders in such a building would be
less conspicuous than a mop bucket left by janitors. I do not claim to
know that this is what was done but saying it isn't possible is
sticking ones head in the sand.

Jobst Brandt

Quoted message said:

Landotter who? said:

Quoted message said:

>> You will recall how even the press ridiculed anyone who expressed
>> doubt about the collapse of Bldgs 1 & 2 and 7 with was not hit by
>> anything.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Building 7 was indeed hit. It was severely damaged when one of the
> towers fell nearby.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Occam's Razor.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In addition, nothing in this administration's near-flawless record
of hubris, incomplete execution, and incompetence suggests that
they are even remotely capable of successfully carrying out and
subsequently concealing an enterprise so large as a concocted 9/11
attack.

Quoted message said:

The most likely scenario is the guilt of complacency. They'd had a
hardon for invading Iraq since day one, get a briefing calling an
attack a 10/10 possibility, and do a little "get funky with the
rhesus monkey" dance--as an attack on American soil is a green card
to do pretty much whatever you want militarily. I don't see how
there could have been such an "incredible" amounts of failures on
that day otherwise. What they didn't predict was the severity of the
attack. They likely thought it would be one bomb or one plane, and
had a holyshit moment when they found out about the magnitude of the
operation.

Quoted message said:

The tower's complete collapse--both of them--it's just too nuts
considering the engineering. More core should have remained--but
that's outweighed by how incredibly impossible it would be to rig
the building.

I see you have not seen how large structures are laid flat by well
placed charges. Seeing the buildings come down immediately raises
questions for anyone who has done such things. I

I've seen plenty of buildings leveled both on the telly and a couple in
real life. That's sure what it looked like. I know those charges are
small, and could be set off by remote--but to rig an entire building
would be pretty hard. I used to work as a bike messenger in Chicago, so
I've been in and out of many many skyscrapers, and with my experience
of security, it's obviously only possible as an inside job...Marvin
Bush *did* run Securacom, which handled WTC security...but only till
2000.

On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 20:06:53 GMT, R Brickston

rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@ said:

The loon's video referenced by Jobst is total [censored].

[snip]

Dear R.,

A non-bicycling friend just emailed me to ask if I knew of any on-line
parody that debunks the alleged Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

He's looking for something along the lines of "Awfully convenient that
the supposedly sunken ships are out of sight underwater."

Do you know of anything humorous like that, perhaps something from the
Onion or the Weekly Standard?

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

landotter said:

The tower's complete collapse--both of them--it's just too nuts
considering the engineering. More core should have remained--but that's
outweighed by how incredibly impossible it would be to rig the building.

The WTC towers are not built like any other building, that's why bin
laden chose them. Had these planes flown into two steel girder
buildings, such as the Empire State, the results would have been
different.

Quoted message said:

since you bring up logic, I feel compelled to respond. I am not sure of
what brought the towers down. However, logically, the official
explanation alone does not account for how neatly they felt down,
defying the laws of physics.

The WTC towers are not built like any other building, that's why bin
laden chose them. Had these planes flown into two steel girder
buildings, such as the Empire State, the results would have been
different.

Quoted message said:

While I don't necessarily buy the
alternative models proposed, I do want an explanation that is more
logical. The reason all these conspiracy theories are emerging and
dipersing is exactly because the given explanations do not make that
much sense. The same holds true for the crash in the pentagon. The
damage and debris do not correspond to a jumbo jet. Empirical evidence
of large airplanes crashing show that debris and bodies and stuff gets
dispersed over a large radius and cause considerable damage.

The Pentagon bs has been thoroughly and completely debunked:

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

Quoted message said:

I see you have not seen how large structures are laid flat by well
placed charges. Seeing the buildings come down immediately raises
questions for anyone who has done such things. I learned all about
this in the US Army Corps of Engineers where we cut steel beams and RR
rails with trivial amounts of TNT and primachord. Plastic explosive
did an even cleaner job.

In these courses, movies of charge placement and demolition were shown
before performing field work on similar steel beams. Explosive
charges placed at the base of main girders in such a building would be
less conspicuous than a mop bucket left by janitors. I do not claim to
know that this is what was done but saying it isn't possible is
sticking ones head in the sand.

Jobst Brandt

Jobst, really, you should know better, because as an engineer and
pretty smart person, I'm sure you researched and know the real reasons
for the WTC towers coming down.
-------------------------------------------

It Looks Like A Controlled Demolition

What else is a large building collapse going to look like?

Until 9-11, our only experience in bringing down very large buildings
was controlled demolition. The highest buildings (apart from broadcast
towers) brought down were in the 30 story range. Once the building
starts to fall, the physics is going to be the same regardless of the
initial cause. So alleged similarities between 9-11 and controlled
demolitions prove nothing. You might as well argue that the collapse
of Mount St. Helens in 1980 was set off by explosives because it
looked just like a landslide caused by explosives.

One thing radically different about 9-11 is that controlled
demolitions always set off charges low in the structure and let the
weight of the building do the rest. Nobody ever set off charges high
in a building to pancake the stories beneath. So why resort to a
radical and unproven method if you want to bring down the World Trade
Center?

Probably the most revealing commentary on the controlled demolition
theory is Bringing Down The House by Michael Satchell in US News and
World Report (June 30, 2003). This article describes the work of
Controlled Demolition Inc., far and away the world leaders in
controlled demolition, and Mark and Doug Loizeaux, who run it.

Like most Americans, the Loizeauxs were transfixed by the
televised scenes of destruction shortly after the first jet struck.
But as experts in buildings' vulnerabilities, they knew right away
what few Americans realized. "I told Doug immediately that the tower
was coming down, and when the second tower was hit, that it would
follow," remembers Mark.

Horrified, the Loizeaux brothers watched first responders
streaming into the doomed towers and tried frantically, and
unsuccessfully, to phone in warnings. In the following days, CDI was
called to ground zero to consult on safety and develop plans for
demolition and debris removal. What if the twin towers, though badly
damaged, had somehow remained standing? Without doubt, the Loizeaux
family would have been called upon to bring them down. "Quite simply,"
says Mark in a rare moment of introspective uncertainty, "I don't know
how we would have done it."

So according to the world experts on building demolition:

* It was immediately obvious that the towers were going to fall
* They have no idea how they would have brought down the towers in
a controlled demolition.

Of course, you can always claim the Loizeaux brothers were in on the
plot. Some sites link to a story about Controlled Demolition later
being charged with illegal campaign contributions, which certainly
proves something. Or other.

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/911NutPhysics.HTM

R Brickston said:

landotter said:

The tower's complete collapse--both of them--it's just too nuts
considering the engineering. More core should have remained--but that's
outweighed by how incredibly impossible it would be to rig the building.

The WTC towers are not built like any other building, that's why bin
laden chose them. Had these planes flown into two steel girder
buildings, such as the Empire State, the results would have been
different.

Really? Bin Laden wasn't the mastermind behind the attack, Khalid Sheik
Muhammed was. Did you speak to him personally about his strategy? Did
ya'll have sweet Arab tea and discuss engineering? What part of
designed-to-survive-a-707 didn't you understand?

The likely reason these two buildings were chosen is their prestige,
the fact that there were two of them, and being on the edge of
Manhattan, they were easy to hit. The ESB's location in Manhattan would
have made it significantly harder to hit. Duh.

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman said:

Mark Hickey wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

One could also question "why". Would there really be a huge
difference in our reaction if the buildings had not collapsed?
Thousands of civilians would have still died, including all those we
saw leaping from the top when the flames were simply causing too much
pain to endure.

Quoted message said:

Compare the reaction of the US public to the 1993 attacks on the WTC
and the 2001 attacks.

Gee. Handful of deaths (still tragic, of course, and there SHOULD HAVE BEEN
A REACTION) versus thousands seen live on TV.

Big mystery.

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman said:

I believe the problem is exactly the opposite - people are too trusting
of those with power to actually be working for the common good, rather
than fulfilling their lust for power (the sin the churches in the US
refuse to address).

To think that human beings have changed much since the feudal era (or
that somehow the population of the US is inherently morally better than
the rest of the world) is laughable.

The US can lay solid claim to moral superiority post WWII period. At
that time the world had been struggling nation vs nation for world
dominion for ages. In 1946 the earth outside the US was exhausted plus
the US had a superweapon which would let it easily conquer the world.

In other words, the dream of empires was within the grasp of the US but
it demurred and instead ruled with a comparatively light hand. I say
comparatively if you use previous candidates for world dominion as
comparators.

That's a fact, but that was then and well before most of us were alive.
The question is if the US's moral superior stance 60 odd years ago gives
it any moral superiority today. I personally think that the moral blue
sky or goodwill or whatever you wish to call it that the US once accrued
has been squandered by grossly ignorant and arrogant policy decisions.
However, there are many who believe that the US still operates under a
halo due to it's behavior in post WWII earth so think it can do no wrong.

-paul

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman said:

To me the greatest mystery is how a president that did little to
prevent the attacks, reacts by finishing reading "My Pet Goat" to a
class of elementary school children, then zigzags all over the country
in Air Force One; gets to be seen (temporarily) as a hero with the
resulting 80+% approval rating and enough "political capital" to
ride over the Constitution of the United States of America and take the
country into a war of aggressive conquest?

How did a president who goaded Japan into attacking by intentionally
strangling its oil supply become so popular that he was elected again
and today is rated as a top prez?

The times make the man. BTW, Bush's confused itinerary post WTC
reinforce that he wasn't involved. Clearly, it seems to me, the folks in
power were as confused as we all were.

-paul

Landotter who? said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>> You will recall how even the press ridiculed anyone who expressed
>>> doubt about the collapse of Bldgs 1 & 2 and 7 with was not hit by
>>> anything.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> Building 7 was indeed hit. It was severely damaged when one of the
>> towers fell nearby.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> Occam's Razor.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> In addition, nothing in this administration's near-flawless record
> of hubris, incomplete execution, and incompetence suggests that
> they are even remotely capable of successfully carrying out and
> subsequently concealing an enterprise so large as a concocted 9/11
> attack.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The most likely scenario is the guilt of complacency. They'd had a
hardon for invading Iraq since day one, get a briefing calling an
attack a 10/10 possibility, and do a little "get funky with the
rhesus monkey" dance--as an attack on American soil is a green card
to do pretty much whatever you want militarily. I don't see how
there could have been such an "incredible" amounts of failures on
that day otherwise. What they didn't predict was the severity of the
attack. They likely thought it would be one bomb or one plane, and
had a holyshit moment when they found out about the magnitude of the
operation.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The tower's complete collapse--both of them--it's just too nuts
considering the engineering. More core should have remained--but
that's outweighed by how incredibly impossible it would be to rig
the building.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I see you have not seen how large structures are laid flat by well
placed charges. Seeing the buildings come down immediately raises
questions for anyone who has done such things. I

Quoted message said:

I've seen plenty of buildings leveled both on the telly and a couple in
real life. That's sure what it looked like. I know those charges are
small, and could be set off by remote--but to rig an entire building
would be pretty hard. I used to work as a bike messenger in Chicago, so
I've been in and out of many many skyscrapers, and with my experience
of security, it's obviously only possible as an inside job...Marvin
Bush *did* run Securacom, which handled WTC security...but only till
2000.

You need only cut the main support beams in the basement to have the
whole building come down. It's like the blasing of huge chimneys of
smokestack industiries of old. Once the base is blown out the whole
chimny collapses into a pile of bricks. The force of the upper
stories, once descending is enough to cause a collaps exactly the way
it is seen on the screen.

http://www.oilempire.us/demolition.html#pullit

Jobst Brandt

Paul Cassel said:

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman said:

To me the greatest mystery is how a president that did little to
prevent the attacks, reacts by finishing reading "My Pet Goat" to a
class of elementary school children, then zigzags all over the
country in Air Force One; gets to be seen (temporarily) as a hero
with the resulting 80+% approval rating and enough "political
capital" to ride over the Constitution of the United States of America
and take
the country into a war of aggressive conquest?

How did a president who goaded Japan into attacking by intentionally
strangling its oil supply become so popular that he was elected again
and today is rated as a top prez?

The times make the man. BTW, Bush's confused itinerary post WTC
reinforce that he wasn't involved. Clearly, it seems to me, the folks
in power were as confused as we all were.

That's an excellent point. If it had been an inside job or Bush (or his
people) had known in advance, then they'd have been ready to spring in to
action (in order to look good if nothing else).

But of course, maybe it was all part of the ACT. {Evil maniacal laugh goes
here}

[email hidden] wrote:
{snippage}

Quoted message said:

You need only cut the main support beams in the basement to have the
whole building come down. It's like the blasing of huge chimneys of
smokestack industiries of old. Once the base is blown out the whole
chimny collapses into a pile of bricks. The force of the upper
stories, once descending is enough to cause a collaps exactly the way
it is seen on the screen.

OK, JB, answer this: why didn't they bring the buildings down right after
the planes hit? It would have prevented MANY more people from escaping, and
would have been even more devastating to see on live TV.

Hell, they could have rigged it to KNOCK OVER the towers if they wanted to
really do it up for the 6:00 news. Amateurs!

Dan wrote in part:

Quoted message said:

For example: The video says the fires didn't get hotter than 1200 deg F
and that steel doesn't melt at that temperature. True enough but at that
temperature the low grade steel (usually A36) used in buildings loses
most of its stiffness (Modulus of elasticity) and strength (yield).
Review Euler's and Johnson's equations and see what happens to the
central core columns - especially if the lateral support of the floor
diaphragms is also lost. ...

They disappear? I never knew that.

Quoted message said:

The simplest explanation is very often the most accurate.

By the way, BOTH towers survived impact by an airliner as per design.
The did not survive the fire. Surviving 2 hours of fire is about the
best you can hope for in this type of building. Fire ratings in the
building code range from 1 to 4 hours. If the fireproofing is in place.

Then steel structures must be collapsing quite
often during raging infernoes. And yet nobody seems
to be able to provide another single example of it
happening, ever, despite numerous raging infernoes.

Sorry Dan, I am not buying this conspiracy theory
generally speaking, but I do find it highly interesting
how much trouble people are having with the basic
questions raised.

Robert

Quoted message said:

On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 20:06:53 GMT, R Brickston

rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@ said:

The loon's video referenced by Jobst is total [censored].

[snip]

Dear R.,

A non-bicycling friend just emailed me to ask if I knew of any on-line
parody that debunks the alleged Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

He's looking for something along the lines of "Awfully convenient that
the supposedly sunken ships are out of sight underwater."

Do you know of anything humorous like that, perhaps something from the
Onion or the Weekly Standard?

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

No, but see Jobst, I'm sure he has something.

Quoted message said:

You need only cut the main support beams in the basement to have the
whole building come down. It's like the blasing of huge chimneys of
smokestack industiries of old. Once the base is blown out the whole
chimny collapses into a pile of bricks. The force of the upper
stories, once descending is enough to cause a collaps exactly the way
it is seen on the screen.

http://www.oilempire.us/demolition.html#pullit

Jobst Brandt

Excuse me? Every demolition of a tall building I've seen has the
bottom of the building collapsing as the "base is blown out" and the
rest of it piling down at that juncture, at the bottom where the main
supports are located. So explain how, under your theory, the WTC
towers collapse starts at the entry point of the aircraft.

Further, Herr Engineer Jobst, watch this 35 second video of a tall
building being demo'd and notice where the collapse starts.

Also, do do you notice anything about the sound that is related to the
demolition? Perhaps the WTC demo team had a new silent explosive
developed by the CIA or maybe they simply stopped by Midas and got
some "thermite mufflers" for their charges.

Quoted message said:

Dan wrote in part:

Quoted message said:

For example: The video says the fires didn't get hotter than 1200 deg F
and that steel doesn't melt at that temperature. True enough but at that
temperature the low grade steel (usually A36) used in buildings loses
most of its stiffness (Modulus of elasticity) and strength (yield).
Review Euler's and Johnson's equations and see what happens to the
central core columns - especially if the lateral support of the floor
diaphragms is also lost. ...

They disappear? I never knew that.

Quoted message said:

The simplest explanation is very often the most accurate.

By the way, BOTH towers survived impact by an airliner as per design.
The did not survive the fire. Surviving 2 hours of fire is about the
best you can hope for in this type of building. Fire ratings in the
building code range from 1 to 4 hours. If the fireproofing is in place.

Then steel structures must be collapsing quite
often during raging infernoes. And yet nobody seems
to be able to provide another single example of it
happening, ever, despite numerous raging infernoes.

Once again, the design of the WTC towers is unique and different from
steel girder buildings.

Quoted message said:

Sorry Dan, I am not buying this conspiracy theory
generally speaking, but I do find it highly interesting
how much trouble people are having with the basic
questions raised.

Robert

Quoted message said:

Terry Morse said:

Quoted message said:

You will recall how even the press ridiculed anyone who expressed
doubt about the collapse of Bldgs 1 & 2 and 7 with was not hit by
anything.

Building 7 was indeed hit. It was severely damaged when one of the
towers fell nearby.

Occam's Razor.

In addition, nothing in this administration's near-flawless
record of hubris, incomplete execution, and incompetence
suggests that they are even remotely capable of successfully
carrying out and subsequently concealing an enterprise
so large as a concocted 9/11 attack.

I beg to disagree. The failings of the Cheney/Rove administration are
not due to incompetence, but rigid adherence to the ideology that the
purpose of the government is to help the well connected "old boys
network", while leaving the poor to fend for themselves.

Cheney/Rove have been very successful in implementing their policies.
One can only wonder how they will deal with the growing social
discontent, as the middle class finds its prosperity slipping away.

--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.

R Brickston said:

Quoted message said:

I see you have not seen how large structures are laid flat by well
placed charges. Seeing the buildings come down immediately raises
questions for anyone who has done such things. I learned all about
this in the US Army Corps of Engineers where we cut steel beams and RR
rails with trivial amounts of TNT and primachord. Plastic explosive
did an even cleaner job.

In these courses, movies of charge placement and demolition were shown
before performing field work on similar steel beams. Explosive
charges placed at the base of main girders in such a building would be
less conspicuous than a mop bucket left by janitors. I do not claim to
know that this is what was done but saying it isn't possible is
sticking ones head in the sand.

Jobst Brandt

Jobst, really, you should know better, because as an engineer and
pretty smart person, I'm sure you researched and know the real reasons
for the WTC towers coming down.
-------------------------------------------

It Looks Like A Controlled Demolition

What else is a large building collapse going to look like?

Until 9-11, our only experience in bringing down very large buildings
was controlled demolition. The highest buildings (apart from broadcast
towers) brought down were in the 30 story range. Once the building
starts to fall, the physics is going to be the same regardless of the
initial cause. So alleged similarities between 9-11 and controlled
demolitions prove nothing. You might as well argue that the collapse
of Mount St. Helens in 1980 was set off by explosives because it
looked just like a landslide caused by explosives.

One thing radically different about 9-11 is that controlled
demolitions always set off charges low in the structure and let the
weight of the building do the rest. Nobody ever set off charges high
in a building to pancake the stories beneath. So why resort to a
radical and unproven method if you want to bring down the World Trade
Center?

Probably the most revealing commentary on the controlled demolition
theory is Bringing Down The House by Michael Satchell in US News and
World Report (June 30, 2003). This article describes the work of
Controlled Demolition Inc., far and away the world leaders in
controlled demolition, and Mark and Doug Loizeaux, who run it.

Like most Americans, the Loizeauxs were transfixed by the
televised scenes of destruction shortly after the first jet struck.
But as experts in buildings' vulnerabilities, they knew right away
what few Americans realized. "I told Doug immediately that the tower
was coming down, and when the second tower was hit, that it would
follow," remembers Mark.

Horrified, the Loizeaux brothers watched first responders
streaming into the doomed towers and tried frantically, and
unsuccessfully, to phone in warnings. In the following days, CDI was
called to ground zero to consult on safety and develop plans for
demolition and debris removal. What if the twin towers, though badly
damaged, had somehow remained standing? Without doubt, the Loizeaux
family would have been called upon to bring them down. "Quite simply,"
says Mark in a rare moment of introspective uncertainty, "I don't know
how we would have done it."

So according to the world experts on building demolition:

* It was immediately obvious that the towers were going to fall
* They have no idea how they would have brought down the towers in
a controlled demolition.

Of course, you can always claim the Loizeaux brothers were in on the
plot. Some sites link to a story about Controlled Demolition later
being charged with illegal campaign contributions, which certainly
proves something. Or other.

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/911NutPhysics.HTM

Or the Loizeaux brothers don't want to scare away future clients by
rocking the boat.

Free speech is a tenuous concept unless one is independently wealthy,
and not in need of future income dependent of the business of others.

--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.