473,842 Members | 1,603 Online
Bytes | Software Development & Data Engineering Community
+ Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

OT: 9/11 Anniversary: Watch 9/11 Mysteries - How the World TradeCentre was demolished by the Neocons for an excuse to go back into Iraq

.
9/11 Mysteries
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...71955308136871

http://www.911weknow.com

Ignore those who would go to great effort and expend much of heir time
in poo-pooing this post. See for yourself what really happened in the
3 demolished buildings in the weeks before 9/11. Since 9-11 the
American public has shown a "remarkable indifference to being
deceived" (George Soros). But this is changing. As Hugo Chavez put it:
"The world is waking up. It's waking up all over. And people are
standing up." Millions around the world are realizing that they are
being lied to - not in a small, lazy way, but in a big way. It's time
to ask hard questions, many of which 911 Mysteries helps to answer. 90
minutes of evidence and analysis, filled with eyewitness testimonials.
Point-by-point review of the official story set alongside clear
science. The question is not one of politics or nationalism or
loyalty, but one of strict and simple physics. Does steel melt in open
air fires? What caused the core to vanish in seconds? No agenda. No
finger-pointing. Just the facts and the questions.

A story of people: Willie Rodriguez's strange recollection of noises
on the 34th floor. Who was up there, bumping around? Scott Forbes'
similar story, weeks before the towers fell. Here's how shaped charges
slice through steel beams to control the way they fall.

For greater clarity, download the movie over bittorrent - or buy a DVD
online at www.911weknow.com.

Sep 11 '08
176 5042
Don Pearce wrote:
Wolfspawn wrote:
>On Wed, 17 Sep 2008, theget wrote:
>>On Sep 17, 6:59 pm, ady...@panix.co m (Al Dykes) wrote:

In article
<e1f57e2a-d117-4ef3-bdf7-fe8dffe72...@m4 4g2000hsc.googl egroups.com>,

theget <the...@bigmail box.netwrote:

On Sep 17, 5:56 am, Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood. ed.ac.ukwrote:
>
>In rec.photo.digit al Al Dykes <ady...@panix.c omwrote:
>>
>>AFAICT, only 4 of the 100s of thousands of
>>people that saw or participated in some aspect of 9/11 at WTC have
>>claimed something unusual about WTC on 9/11 that relates to man-made
>>demolitio n or something other than two airplanes causing all the
>>damage and death.
>>
>As plenty of undisputed video footage and records show, three
>adjacent
>building s collapsed in the same manner,
>
Please define "same".
>
>but only two of them were hit
>by planes. Therefore plane impact can't explain all the damage.
>
Therefore direct plane impact can't explain all the damage.

And you expertise that allows you to come to this conclusion is????

Unless you have evidence of a plane directly hitting WTC7 my
correction stands on its own logically consistent merits.


You mean, there is no evidence of a gigantic building that collapsed
right
next to WTC7, spewing steel bars and chunks of itself, including flaming
chunks of itself, at the surrounding buildings, and damaging the water
supply for the surrounding neighborhood so that firefighters couldn't put
out the fires in WTC7? Are you claiming that no photos of huge chunks
missing from WTC7 exist? (there were several huge holes in WTC7, on the
south side, which the conspiracy videos never show you). Are you claiming
that WTC7 was not on fire on all floors? (which it was... again, the
conspiracy videos don't show you this, since the smoke was pouring out
the south side, due to the wind). The reason WTC7 collapsed was because,
without water to fight it, the fire got so out of control that the
structure began to fail in ons spot, which then dragged the rest of the
building down with it.

I also suspect that a million tons of concrete and steel being dropped
1500 ft a few yards from another building might just do a bit of damage.
Occam's razor seems to have been seriously dulled in some hands.

d
Oh, come on. Next, you'll be telling us that St. Paul's was
destroyed by German bombing even though it's well known that no bomb
actually touched it.

--
-------(m+
~/:o)_|
Illiteracy and stupidity fight to the death every day.
Trouble is, they breed first.
http://scrawlmark.org
Sep 19 '08 #131
theget wrote:
>
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/qualifier
"A word or phrase that qualifies, limits, or modifies the meaning of
another word or phrase."

If you have evidence of an airplane directly hitting WTC7 please tell
me and I will withdraw my previous correction and instead write:
"Direct plane impact can explain all the damage."

Is this clear?

Yabut you aren't. You've been fluffing the clear difference between
"direct cause" (absolutely, in the case) and "direct impact"
(obviously not) throughout the entire squawk, with a reasonable
accumulation of evidence that you aren't even aware of its existence
in the two quite distinct statements.
English grammar is distributive mostly, so that it damwell matters
which words you stick others next to.
The oversight is magnified by the fact that the true claim [direct
cause] is a complex sequence, while the true claim [no third plane]
is merely trivial, so that attention to the /statement/ is dismissed
along with attention to the fact.
>
Theget
Aren't you glad you brought this to a poultry froup?
Don't you wish everybody did?
Didn't think so.

--
-------(m+
~/:o)_|
Illiteracy and stupidity fight to the death every day.
Trouble is, they breed first.
http://scrawlmark.org
Sep 19 '08 #132
Bill Snyder wrote:
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 15:00:50 -0400, db*@gatekeeper. vic.com (David
DeLaney) wrote:

>>Dennis M. Hammes <sc********@arv ig.netwrote:
>>>PV wrote:

"Mike Schilling" <ms************ *@hotmail.comwr ites:

>All of those jerks on rec.arts.sf.wri tten are exactly those kinds of idiots.
>It would serve them right if you never talked to them again.

Yes, we all suck, and should only be ignored. *

Are you trying to vacuum a cat?
Never vacuum a cat.

Unless the cat enjoys it, of course.

Dave "determinin g whether your cat is of this kind is, however, fraught" DeLaney


I have this terrible feeling that this one might be well over the
line into Things Man Was Not Meant to Know territory -- but have
you ever determined a cat to be in that category?
Pick up a (any) cat in one hand and a Dust Buster in the other.
Wake them up simultaneously.
(Actually, waking up the Dust Buster will achieve all the rest
well within the apparent simultaneity of a PETN fuse.)

--
-------(m+
~/:o)_|
Illiteracy and stupidity fight to the death every day.
Trouble is, they breed first.
http://scrawlmark.org
Sep 19 '08 #133
On Fri, 19 Sep 2008, Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
Wolfspawn wrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2008, theget wrote:

>On Sep 17, 6:59 pm, ady...@panix.co m (Al Dykes) wrote:

In article <e1f57e2a-d117-4ef3-bdf7-fe8dffe72...@m4 4g2000hsc.googl egroups.com>,

theget <the...@bigmail box.netwrote:

On Sep 17, 5:56 am, Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood. ed.ac.ukwrote:

In rec.photo.digit al Al Dykes <ady...@panix.c omwrote:

>AFAICT, only 4 of the 100s of thousands of
>people that saw or participated in some aspect of 9/11 at WTC have
>claimed something unusual about WTC on 9/11 that relates to man-made
>demoliti on or something other than two airplanes causing all the
>damage and death.

As plenty of undisputed video footage and records show, three adjacent
buildings collapsed in the same manner,

Please define "same".

but only two of them were hit
by planes. Therefore plane impact can't explain all the damage.

Therefore direct plane impact can't explain all the damage.

And you expertise that allows you to come to this conclusion is????

Unless you have evidence of a plane directly hitting WTC7 my
correction stands on its own logically consistent merits.

You mean, there is no evidence of a gigantic building that collapsed right
next to WTC7, spewing steel bars and chunks of itself, including flaming
chunks of itself, at the surrounding buildings, and damaging the water
supply for the surrounding neighborhood so that firefighters couldn't put
out the fires in WTC7? Are you claiming that no photos of huge chunks
missing from WTC7 exist? (there were several huge holes in WTC7, on the
south side, which the conspiracy videos never show you). Are you claiming
that WTC7 was not on fire on all floors? (which it was... again, the
conspiracy videos don't show you this, since the smoke was pouring out
the south side, due to the wind). The reason WTC7 collapsed was because,
without water to fight it, the fire got so out of control that the
structure began to fail in ons spot, which then dragged the rest of the
building down with it.

Ah. You mean like a controlled-collapse demolition.
Not really, since controlled-collapse demolitions don't appear first as a
sagging in one portion of the building an hour before the final collapse.
And controlled demolitions don't take place in buildings that are on fire
on every floor, with smoke pouring out every window. Fire tends to mess up
demolitions set-ups. But the firefighters knew the building was about to
collapse. That's why the fire chief ordered everyone out of the expected
dust cloud area an hour before it went. One firefighter gives his acount
about how he had set up an emergency first-aid center in a park near WTC7,
and the fire chief was yelling at him for setting up so close, because the
expected dust cloud would ruin the set up when they were caught in it. So
he had to move it.

Sep 19 '08 #134
On Sep 19, 9:04 am, "Dennis M. Hammes" <scrawlm...@arv ig.netwrote:
theget wrote:
On Sep 18, 10:23 am, "Dennis M. Hammes" <scrawlm...@arv ig.netwrote:
>Al Dykes wrote:
Why not what you just put, since it isn't the original rather
ambiguous question or comment.
To say "The collapse of WTC7 was not the direct result of plane
impact" is deliberate fluff and literally untrue.
No. It's not fluff. You're missing the context. It is literally true.

Theget
Sep 19 '08 #135
On Sep 19, 9:25 am, "Dennis M. Hammes" <scrawlm...@arv ig.netwrote:
Wolfspawn wrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2008, theget wrote:
>On Sep 17, 6:59 pm, ady...@panix.co m (Al Dykes) wrote:
The reason WTC7 collapsed was because,
without water to fight it, the fire got so out of control that the
structure began to fail in ons spot, which then dragged the rest of the
building down with it.

Ah. You mean like a controlled-collapse demolition.
I'm not a demolition expert by any stretch, but from the documentaries
I've seen, this is not how controlled collapse demolition is done.
It's not failure at in one spot. There are multiple explosions over
time. Two very different things.

Theget
Sep 19 '08 #136
On Sep 19, 9:53 am, "Dennis M. Hammes" <scrawlm...@arv ig.netwrote:
theget wrote:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/qualifier
"A word or phrase that qualifies, limits, or modifies the meaning of
another word or phrase."
If you have evidence of an airplane directly hitting WTC7 please tell
me and I will withdraw my previous correction and instead write:
"Direct plane impact can explain all the damage."
Is this clear?

Yabut you aren't. You've been fluffing the clear difference

There's no fluffing on my part.

between
"direct cause" (absolutely, in the case) and "direct impact"
This implies that two different words don't change meaning. And you
accuse me of fluff?

Ok, then I accuse you of not reading my statement in it's context.
Take it out of context and you can reach any conclusion you wish.

Is that clear?
Theget
Sep 19 '08 #137
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Don Pearce <no****@nospam. comwrote:
>>But the WWII code breakers at Bletchley Park - thousands of them -
managed to go right through the war and into the fifties without a
single leak, so much so that to this day the USA still claims to have
invented the programmable computer when in fact the Colossus at
Bletchley had them well beaten.


Sorry, the Bletchley Park machine was programmable, but it was not a full
von Neumann machine.

A St. Cyr cipher with a programmable shift, or call it a teletype
with a second commutator shifting the code commutator during
transmission.
Not a VN "computer."
Miss either the setting code or any shift, you got garbage.
>
In fact, the Harvard Mark I was programmable, and was actually a full
von Neumann machine although it had seperate address and data space,
and predates the Colossus by a few years.

And most of those years were spent crawling through the guts looking
for the burnt-out tube.
The "reliabilit y" of the 12AU7A/ECC87 is miniscule when there's
35,000 of 'em hafta /all/ be working at the same time. The real
miracle of the 2N404 was -- no cathode heater filament. Though why
nobody stuck a grid in an 0B2 I'll never know, as there were plenty
of cold-cathode amplifiers in the books for a while, and a switching
triode /swamps/ any cathode noise.
>
Not that Alan Turing's work didn't have a lot to do with all of the
programmable systems of that era, because it did.
--scott

--
-------(m+
~/:o)_|
Illiteracy and stupidity fight to the death every day.
Trouble is, they breed first.
http://scrawlmark.org
Sep 19 '08 #138
On Sep 19, 8:09 am, Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood. ed.ac.ukwrote:
In rec.photo.digit al theget <the...@bigmail box.netwrote:
On Sep 18, 2:10 pm, Wolfspawn <cr...@bfn.orgw rote:
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008, theget wrote:
My fix was, and I repeat it here to maintain context since context is
very important here: "Therefore direct plane impact can't explain all
the damage."
Do you agree that the collapse of the Twin Towers, because of plane
impact, is sufficent to explain all the damage, such as the fall of WTC-7?
I'm not sure that it's relevant to my correction of Chris Malcolm's
claim here,
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...se_frm/thread/...
"As plenty of undisputed video footage and records show, three
adjacent buildings collapsed in the same manner, but only two of them
were hit by planes. Therefore plane impact can't explain all the
damage."
My correction was:
Therefore direct plane impact can't explain all the damage.

Some of the people who have got involved with this argument do not
appear to be native speakers of English. Let me give you an example
which should be familiar to Americans of whatever native language.

Suppose we have three gunmen facing three lawmen in a shoot out. They
all draw and shoot. Two of the gunmen are killed by bullets. All
bullets miss the third gunman. Unfortunately as one of the shot gunmen
goes down he throws his gun in the air and it comes down on the head
of the third unharmed gunman, causing him to stagger, lose his
balance, and fall. In his fall he hits his head on a rock and is
killed.

Let us now consider the meaning of the English word "impact". Among
its many meanings are "hit" and "collision" . These are the relevant
meanings when considering buildings being hit by planes or gunmen
being hit by bullets. There are always two things involved in a hit or
collision, the thing hit, and the thing by which it is hit.

In our shoot out we could therefore quite reasonably say that two
gunmen were killed by being hit by bullets, or if you like bullet
impact. It would not be a normal reasonable use of English to say that
the third gunman was killed by bullet impact because he wasn't hit by
a bullet. In terms of impacts he died as a result of the impact of a
rock. That rock impact was the indirect consequence of a gun
impact. That gun impact was in turn the indirect consequence of the
impact of a bullet on an adjacent gunman.

How about saying that the third gunman died as the indirect result of
bullet impact? That would be misleading, because it suggests that he
was hit by a bullet, but not killed by it, but something that happened
to him as a result of being hit by the bullet, such as falling over
and hitting his head, killed him.

So in English we would not say that the third gunman died as a result
of a bullet impact because he was not hit a bullet and the phrase
"bullet impact" implies being hit a by a bullet. We would also not say
that he died as an indirect consequence of bullet impact because that
suggest he was hit but not killed by a bullet. In the case in
question, where it was the impact of a bullet on another gunman which
indirectly led to his death, we would say that he died as the indirect
result of a bullet impact on another person.

Now let us return to the three buildings collapsing as a result of
two of them being hit by planes and the third being hit by debris from
an adjacent falling tower.

I hope it is now clear that it is correct English to say:

Only two towers collapsed as a result of plane impact. The third
tower did not collapse as a result of plane impact. It collapsed as
an indirect result of a plane impact on another tower.

Note too that the towers which collapsed as a result of plane impact,
i.e. being hit by planes, did not collapse as a direct result of those
impacts. They withstood the impacts and did not fall. They fell later
as an indirect result of the effects of the fires caused by the
impacts and assisted by the jet fuel from the planes.

In other words no WTC towers fell as direct consequences of plane
impact. Two of them fell as the indirect results of plane impact. The
third fell as an indirect result of the fall of an adjacent tower.

That's why my original statement is a correct normal use of English
which needs no correction of qualification to be understood.

I think your original statement said something a little bit different.

You wrote: "As plenty of undisputed video footage and records show,
three adjacent buildings collapsed in the same manner, but only two of
them were hit by planes. Therefore plane impact can't explain all the
damage."

So if you'll allow me, I'll repeat part of my original response to
your post.

'Please define "same".'

Maybe I should have written: Please define "same manner".

But your post was long and complicated so maybe I didn't understand
it. Grammer (and spelling) was never my strong point.

However, reading this post suggests that I'm guilty of the same thing
that many others here are guilty of IMO and I apologize for
misinterpreting what you wrote.
Theget

Sep 19 '08 #139
Regardless of how the towers were brought down, plane or explosives,
there is still the big problem. PNAC
Yes they have removed their website, but the people involved have not
been prosecuted. The war was based on a lie. Who benefited? The Bush
war monger and friends. Anybody with half a brain can see that he,
cheney, rumsfield, etc. were happy the attacks happened. They wanted
them to happen, and allowed or caused them to happen. They are the real
enemy, not al-qaida

stonerfish

--
Be a good citizen. Spit on a car that has a W sticker.
Sep 19 '08 #140

This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion.

By using Bytes.com and it's services, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

To disable or enable advertisements and analytics tracking please visit the manage ads & tracking page.