# Is the terrorism threat exaggerated?



## Rivmage (Dec 24, 2012)

http://www.decodedc.com/terrorism-threat-exaggerated/

Unless we snap out of it soon, the legacy of 9/11 in America will be a chronic, irrational fear of terrorism that will continue to sanction wasteful spending, tragically futile military adventures and growing compromises of our civil liberties and international principles.

Fourteen years after 9/11, Americaâs terrorism policy resembles a history museum crammed with dusty old assumptions, antiquated objectives, unexamined ledgers all shrouded in a cloak of secrecy and imminent, invisible danger that vanquishes skeptical inquisition.

As taxpayers, we are being scammed. As citizens, our constitutional values are being compromised. As human beings, we are being needlessly frightened.

One might say this shows the terrorists have won. They havenât. Itâs that our common sense has surrendered.

Weâre not much bothered, though. We are too paranoid to seriously question the basics of counterterrorism policy. The fundamental assumptions of the War on Terror have gone unexamined for a decade and a half.

The core premise is this: Global terrorism is the most serious, dangerous threat to the United States and its citizens.

It is heresy to challenge that orthodoxy.

But by any objective measure, it isnât true.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

So are you contending that ignoring terrorism is the best policy? Is there an example of a country with a Muslim population of any size that hasn't imposed such policies?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Terrorism is, most certainly, over hyped in order to justify further erosions of our freedoms. So are mass shootings, global warming, and what ever booger man the government wants to use to scare the bejesus out of us with this week.


----------



## Rivmage (Dec 24, 2012)

I disagree with the article. I think part of the reason we haven't had a major attack on US soil is we took the fight to them but, I feel America has given up a lot that we didn't need to or shouldn't have to feel safe. 

Freedom is a lot easier to giveaway than it is get back. 

Fear and anger made us make decision hastily and some of them were wrong. I honestly don't feel any more or less safe from a terrorist attack than I did before 9/11 but, if you listen to the mainstream news, there is a terrorist threat on every corner. 

We can't let fear drive our policies but, we must stand vigilant.

Scott


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

I don't see the point in ignoring the reality that terrorism is on the rise.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> Terrorism is, most certainly, over hyped in order to justify further erosions of our freedoms. So are mass shootings, global warming, and what ever booger man the government wants to use to scare the bejesus out of us with this week.


How does that differ from the anti-Govt hype?


----------



## Oldshep (Mar 28, 2015)

I believe that not only is it exaggerated, it is ENGINEERED by those who profess to be combating it. Just like any basic detective would do, ask yourself "who has gained by this?". And when we see a massively expanded domestic surveillance system, expanded government powers, and the erosion of our constitutional liberties we have our answer.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> How does that differ from the anti-Govt hype?


How is it anything like it? The government has the power to do whatever it wants and legions of people ready to give up any other freedom the government asks for as long as they make the booger men go away.


----------



## Rivmage (Dec 24, 2012)

Oldshep said:


> I believe that not only is it exaggerated, it is ENGINEERED by those who profess to be combating it. Just like any basic detective would do, ask yourself "who has gained by this?". And when we see a massively expanded domestic surveillance system, expanded government powers, and the erosion of our constitutional liberties we have our answer.


Well, the CIA did train some of the terrorist in the middle east and are training "Freedom" fighters once again. It will come full circle.

Scott


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> How is it anything like it? The government has the power to do whatever it wants and legions of people ready to *give up any other freedom *the government asks for as long as they make the booger men go away.


It's largely vague accusations of alleged acts.
With the terrorists there is at least evidence it's happening.

I can't see where I've lost any freedoms.
Which ones have you lost?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Oldshep said:


> I believe that not only is it exaggerated, it is ENGINEERED by those who profess to be combating it. Just like any basic detective would do, ask yourself "who has gained by this?". And when we see a massively expanded domestic surveillance system, expanded government powers, and the erosion of our constitutional liberties we have our answer.


Yes, but it was all over but the crying more than a decade ago. Conservatives collectively said, 'Take my constitutional rights, I don't care, just so I don't get hurt.' I warned that someday those powers would be in the hands of a democrat, but they still didn't care.

The government didn't take it. Conservatives handed it to the government.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Conservatives collectively said, '*Take my constitutional rights*, I don't care, just so I don't get hurt.'


What rights have you lost?
Be specific, and don't just say "Patriot Act" or "Bush did whatever" as if that answers the question


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Rivmage said:


> I think part of the reason we haven't had a major attack on US soil is we took the fight to them


That never made sense to me. You can't fight terror groups as if they're a conventional fighting force, for the simple reason that terror groups aren't personnel intensive. There's no reason why they couldn't have been plotting a mission here while the fight was in Afghanistan.

Besides, our military concentration was in Iraq. Iraqis never threatened a major terror attack here.


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

I think that our ISIS problem is a much worse threat that we have ever been told from the beginning. It has spread and spread and spread. Apparently our present Admin in WA has cooked the books on ISIS. We are much worse off today that we were 14 years ago.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> What rights have you lost?
> Be specific, and don't just say "Patriot Act" or "Bush did whatever" as if that answers the question


Oh, I think we've all lost some measure of our right to privacy. Since the Patriot Act passed I've never been comfortable speaking on the phone or communicating by email.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

gapeach said:


> I think that our ISIS problem is a much worse threat that we have ever been told from the beginning.


But remember, there wouldn't be an ISIS problem if we never invaded Iraq.


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

Obama and his Democrat supporters strive to control the narrative but that doesn't change the facts on the ground, or the overall poor performance of the economy this far into what they call a recovery, or the dangers of a deal with Iran, along with all his other foreign policy missteps, such as his support to the Arab Spring revolts that has produced upheaval and civil war all across the Arab world.


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

Invading Iraq was then. ISIS is now!


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

gapeach said:


> Invading Iraq was then. ISIS is now!


No, it's cause & effect. ISIS used to be Saddam's military, but we fired them and threw them out of government. Eventually they rose up to haunt us -- big time!

Now you admit that ISIS is a bigger problem than we had before.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

The controllers will create the crisis necessary to exert the control, so when we ask if terrorism is an over-hyped threat, the answer to that lies only in whether DC is bluffing this time or not.


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

What was done is done...... Now is now! First we fire the Iraqi generals after the latest Iraqi war. Then the Iraqi generals become ISIS, and now we gin our intelligence through Clapper? It takes US to stop this and so far we have done nothing. It boggles the mind that so many people blindly trust Obama and do nothing about his policies. So many opportunities to unite our nation and we are more divided than anytime since the civil war. The half truths and outright lies flow out of Washington and the White house in particular. every time they speak to a group the agenda fits what they perceive this select group to want and need. Never placing the needs of our nation as a whole at the forefront of any single issue they deal with.


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

Nevada said:


> No, it's cause & effect. ISIS used to be Saddam's military, but we fired them and threw them out of government. Eventually they rose up to haunt us -- big time!
> 
> Now you admit that ISIS is a bigger problem than we had before.


Yes! And I don't think that you have ever admitted that anything that Barack Obama has done was wrong.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Hmmm

A couple of handsome young men, carried backpacks full of fragmentation explosives, into the crowd at the Boston marathon.

That sounds pretty terrorizing to me. 

Conservatives are an odd bunch sometimes.

They are terrorized of terrorists, but when it comes to combating the threat, the thing to do is nothing.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Oh, I think we've all *lost some measure* of our right to privacy. Since the Patriot Act passed I've never been comfortable speaking on the phone or communicating by email.


That's pretty vague, and there has been no real "expectation" of privacy since cell phones and the internet came along.

Wiretap and "electronic surveillance" laws date back to the 70's and 80's, with few substantial changes since then.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> How does that differ from the anti-Govt hype?



Because the Gov't can, and has taken longstanding freedoms and rights away from Americans.
A terrorist can and has taken American lives, we all must die one day, but the the terrorists don't have the power to take away freedom from the still living.
The gov't does, that's the difference.



Bearfootfarm said:


> What rights have you lost?
> Be specific, and don't just say "Patriot Act" or "Bush did whatever" as if that answers the question





Bearfootfarm said:


> That's pretty vague, and there has been no real "expectation" of privacy since cell phones and the internet came along.
> 
> Wiretap and "electronic surveillance" laws date back to the 70's and 80's, with few substantial changes since then.


I can name a few that I've lost personally and others yet to be experienced. I'm careful to avoid an entanglement with the gov't that would result in an undetermined incarceration, a real loss of freedom.

When I name them, will you agree that it was a truthful and correct answer, or argue that it didn't really happen?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's pretty vague, and there has been no real "expectation" of privacy since cell phones and the internet came along.
> 
> Wiretap and "electronic surveillance" laws date back to the 70's and 80's, with few substantial changes since then.


Oh, I think wiretap laws date back a lot farther than that. But just because the information isn't being used against us in court doesn't mean it isn't still happening. They could still be trolling for information.

We don't know the extent of post-9/11 surveillance. The truth is that we don't know which constitutional rights we've lost.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Because the Gov't can, and has taken longstanding freedoms and rights away from Americans.
> A terrorist can and has taken American lives, we all must die one day, but the the terrorists don't have the power to take away freedom from the still living.
> The gov't does, that's the difference.
> 
> ...


Lots of rambling with no real answers, which is what I've come to expect from you.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Oh, I think wiretap laws date back a lot farther than that. But just because the information isn't being used against us in court doesn't mean it isn't still happening. They could still be trolling for information.
> 
> We don't know the extent of post-9/11 surveillance. The truth is that *we don't know which constitutional rights we've lost*.


So you can't name one right you actually "lost", which is exactly what I expected.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Yes...


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

plowjockey said:


> Hmmm
> 
> A couple of handsome young men, carried backpacks full of fragmentation explosives, into the crowd at the Boston marathon.
> 
> ...


I'm not understanding this post. Please help me to understand what you are saying.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Lots of rambling with no real answers, which is what I've come to expect from you.


No rambling. At least 3 from me personally.
Now, will you answer my question before I state them?





farmrbrown said:


> When I name them, will you agree that it was a truthful and correct answer, or argue that it didn't really happen?



I've come to expect a few things as well.


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

?????


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

I believe the terrorist threat is extremely real but we should fight it differently. Stop ALL Muslim immigration into our country and send all non citizen Muslims home ASAP. Then stay out of their affairs overseas and quit meddling. If a country or group, such as ISIS poses a real threat to us, annihilate them by any means necessary. Once or twice and the rest will get the message.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> No rambling. At least 3 from me personally.
> Now, will you answer my question before I state them?
> 
> I've come to expect a few things as well.


Your theatrics are boring.
I'll just have to assume you have no answer worth all this drama.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Your theatrics are boring.
> I'll just have to assume you have no answer worth all this drama.


Assume all you want.
Done any travel or banking lately?
When you ask a serious question and are given a valid, honest answer and you are told every time that it's irrelevant, dramatic, inconsequential or untrue, you can't be taken seriously anymore.

If you've traveled domestically or internationally since 9/11, conducted any financial transactions or dealt with any government agencies you know that privacy rights regarding the 4th amendment have been taken away.


----------



## Jim Bunton (Mar 16, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> So you can't name one right you actually "lost", which is exactly what I expected.


 *Amendment IV*

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Once the government decided that


*Amendment V*

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


*Amendment VI*

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.


These three amendments that were there to protect us all from government access have all been lost as part of the war on terror. When it was decided the suspected terrorist do not need to receive these protections then it was decided that no one need to receive these protections. 



This is a short, but important list. 



Jim


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Assume all you want.
> Done any travel or banking lately?
> When you ask a serious question *and are given a valid, honest answer* and you are told every time that it's irrelevant, dramatic, inconsequential or untrue, you can't be taken seriously anymore.
> 
> If you've traveled domestically or internationally since 9/11, conducted any financial transactions or dealt with any government agencies you know that privacy *rights regarding the 4th amendment have been taken away*.


You still haven't given any specific answers.
It's more of the same old vague allusions, as I expected.


----------



## popscott (Oct 6, 2004)

Nevada said:


> Yes, but it was all over but the crying more than a decade ago. Conservatives collectively said, 'Take my constitutional rights, I don't care, just so I don't get hurt.' I warned that someday those powers would be in the hands of a democrat, but they still didn't care.
> 
> The government didn't take it. Conservatives handed it to the government.


Have you got proof or links?

Please speak for yourself and not a group of people you don't have a clue about. That post is the biggest bunch of garbage that I have seen in a while.


----------



## popscott (Oct 6, 2004)

gapeach said:


> What was done is done...... Now is now! First we fire the Iraqi generals after the latest Iraqi war. Then the Iraqi generals become ISIS, and now we gin our intelligence through Clapper? It takes US to stop this and so far we have done nothing. It boggles the mind that so many people blindly trust Obama and do nothing about his policies. So many opportunities to unite our nation and we are more divided than anytime since the civil war. The half truths and outright lies flow out of Washington and the White house in particular. every time they speak to a group the agenda fits what they perceive this select group to want and need. Never placing the needs of our nation as a whole at the forefront of any single issue they deal with.


Obama has an agenda that is going to take this country down from within....

*America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.

Abraham Lincoln*


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

gapeach said:


> I'm not understanding this post. Please help me to understand what you are saying.


The 9/11 terrorists carried box cutters through, what _was_, relatively lax airport security. The shoe and underwear bombers, did similar.

So along comes the iron grip of the imperfect TSA, leaving no security stone unturned, patting down grandmothers and little children, intruding on the "Liberties" of all Americans. "they should be shot" "the TSA needs to go" The Right cannot get enough of trashing them and fight them at every turn, as outrageous, socialist, even even sinister, in their terrible deeds -as they security screen *800 million passengers per year.

*What is mostly ignored*, *by the Right, is we have not really had any terrorist attacks on, or using, aircraft since.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

popscott said:


> Obama has an agenda that is going to take this country down from within....
> 
> *America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
> 
> Abraham Lincoln*


I agree with your quote, but completely disagree with your premise, as would honest Abe himself (IMO).

It was the _American people_ themselves, who would have destroyed the republic back then and it is the _American people_, who are destroying the republic today.

It started happening long before Obama and it will continue, long after he is gone.

We are the Divided States of America.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You still haven't given any specific answers.
> It's more of the same old vague allusions, as I expected.


No I haven't.
Yet 3 times I asked you a specific question first and 3 times you didn't even acknowledge that I asked it.
We shall see if if my premise for asking was valid, won't we?

1) I lost the right to travel in the western hemisphere without a passport.
I can name the statute and the date which this happened, it was recent. Prior to this I could travel without one, and did.

2) I lost the right to travel within this country by air, and not be searched without a warrant. I could keep shoes on my feet and not be patted down by a gov't employee, without a search warrant. I could have a pack of smokes WITH a lighter in my pocket. I could carry a pocket knife with me as was my right to do, without being searched and my property seized, all without a warrant per the 4th amd.

3) I lost the right to open a bank account without multiple documents, in fact none at all, accompanied by several interrogating questions. I had the right to have my financial records kept from the gov't without producing a search warrant.
I can document the exact statutes and dates passed for these. 
Of course I did not in this post, to prevent the accusation of "rambling" again.


Now, your question has been answered as promised.
We'll see if mine is...........and if it will be "as I expected."


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

popscott said:


> Have you got proof or links?
> 
> Please speak for yourself and not a group of people you don't have a clue about. That post is the biggest bunch of garbage that I have seen in a while.


I expected conservatives to change their tune when a democrat became president and inherited those powers. But I didn't expect conservatives to deny that they backed Bush in fighting terrorism. I suppose that indicates that conservatives were never sincere about fighting terrorism and were only backing Bush for political gain.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Nevada said:


> I expected conservatives to change their tune when a democrat became president and inherited those powers. But I didn't expect conservatives to deny that they backed Bush in fighting terrorism. I suppose that indicates that conservatives were never sincere about fighting terrorism and were only backing Bush for political gain.


Apparently your standard is not applied to Democrat's doing the same thing.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Nevada is correct about when it started, why, and the reactions then and now.
He is probably reluctant to admit it is BOTH parties that are doing it with full knowledge that it violates the bill of rights.
But it is true that per the OP, this is documented in the Patriot Act, on of the most UNpatriotic laws ever passed.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> *No I haven't.*
> Yet 3 times I asked you a specific question first and 3 times you didn't even acknowledge that I asked it.
> We shall see if if my premise for asking was valid, won't we?
> 
> ...


None of those are "rights", and only one is actually controlled by the Govt, since banks and airlines can have any rules they like.

The one answer you got right was your first three words, saying you haven't answered


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> He is probably reluctant to admit it is BOTH parties that are doing it with full knowledge that it violates the bill of rights.


I don't like the Patriot Act under Obama any better than I liked it under Bush. Both parties want it for some reason, but it's not to keep us safe.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I expected conservatives to change their tune when a democrat became president and inherited those powers. But I didn't expect conservatives to deny that they backed Bush in fighting terrorism. I suppose that indicates that conservatives were never sincere about fighting terrorism and were only backing Bush for political gain.


I knew "Bush did it" was going to be the eventual answer


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> None of those are "rights", and only one is actually controlled by the Govt, since banks and airlines can have any rules they like.
> 
> The one answer you got right was your first three words, saying you haven't answered


100% wrong.
Banks and airlines CANNOT have any rules they like, the statutes are clear. Those statutes BTW come from the U.S, gov't thereby establishing they are indeed the ones who control it.
But there is no need to quote the specific laws, as you will say it's untrue, just as you said that I never had the rights I previously had under the previous laws.

As I expected.
This was the very reason for asking if you were going to accept a correct and honest answer, before I gave it.
It is all well documented and proven that U.S. citizens had the right to travel across borders in this continent without passports. That law has recently changed under this administration, primarily under the guise of terrorist security.
The other two were enacted under the Patriot Act and reconfirmed under this President.
These are not the only examples, but the 3 that I chose to use because they directly impacted me and I am a truthful witness to that fact.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> These are not the only examples, but the 3 that I chose to use because they directly impacted me and I am a truthful witness to that fact.


You are entitled to that opinion.
I don't agree any of the things you listed are "rights"



> This was *the very reason for asking* if you were going to accept a correct and honest answer, before I gave it.


No, that was just the usual drama in which you like to indulge. 

You're big on the drama and theatrics, while I prefer to just cut the drivel and get to the point. 

It's seldom worth the wait, and this was no exception to that rule


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> As I expected.
> This was the very reason for asking if you were going to accept a correct and honest answer, before I gave it.





Bearfootfarm said:


> You are entitled to that opinion.
> I don't agree any of the things you listed are "rights"
> 
> 
> ...




You are if nothing else, consistent.
A simple question, answered with a simple, documented fact and you disagree that it was indeed a legal right now declared unlawful, and call my answer "drama" to further demean it.
The only "drama" was waiting for your answer if you would accept it or deny it.
Why even ask if you won't accept the truth?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

I think you first have to define "exaggerated". Look at the security around the POTUS. Do you really think that every where he goes there is someone planning on killing him? If not then is the security "exaggerated"? Or do you think there have been enough attacks on Presidents in the past to justify such precautions?

I'm willing to bet the POTUS could take Marine 1 to the airport get on a Twin Bonanza, fly into Nashville, catch a cab to Ryman Auditorium, watch the Opry and fly back w/o being shot, blown up or poisoned.

But there is always that chance that because he is such a high priority target someone will try to kill him that he must err on the extreme side.

I work at a 'secure' facility where every one coming in AND going out must either have and produce for inspection two separate ID badges requiring background checks or be escorted by someone who does. IMO, its a stupid waste of time and money because even if some insane terrorist were to attack it there wouldn't be any terror instilled in the masses. Its not quite this bad but think if you woke up to the news that someone had just blew up a recycling bin at the local garbage dump. Would that cause you to start hording food and ammo?

Now I have no problem with massive, effective security (think Israel not TSA) at airports because the risk to reward ratio for terrorist is very high.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> You are if nothing else, consistent.
> *A simple question, answered* with a simple, documented fact and you disagree that it was indeed a legal right now declared unlawful, and *call my answer "drama" to further demean it.*
> The only "drama" was waiting for your answer if you would accept it or deny it.
> Why even ask if you won't accept the truth?


You admitted after three long, rambling posts you still hadn't actually answered my question: 



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Bearfootfarm View Post
> You still haven't given any specific answers.
> It's more of the same old vague allusions, as I expected.


Your reply


> *No I haven't.*


I called your LACK of an answer "drama" because that's what it is. 
It's what you always do. 

Rather than give a straightforward answer, you wanted to play silly mind games. 

It's not "documented fact" that any of the things you claimed are, or ever were "rights" that you lost.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> No I haven't.
> Yet 3 times I asked you a specific question first and 3 times you didn't even acknowledge that I asked it.
> We shall see if if my premise for asking was valid, won't we?
> 
> ...





Bearfootfarm said:


> You admitted after three long, rambling posts you still hadn't actually answered my question:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


When you quote a post to "prove" I haven't done something, you might keep in mind that the rest of the post still exists.
Take note of 1,2, and 3 which you edited out.

That's what's known as a straightforward answer.
The statutes exist and I can post them. The documentation exists where I traveled without a passport and obtained bank accounts without multiple forms of ID and questions about financing terrorism.

Now, do you wish to see the documentation, or will you deny that it is indeed factual?


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

I think the terrorism threats are inaccurately portrayed more than anything. Just saying they're exaggerated is an oversimplification, I think.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> When you quote a post to "prove" I haven't done something, you might keep in mind that the rest of the post still exists.
> Take note of 1,2, and 3 which you edited out.
> 
> That's what's known as a straightforward answer.
> The statutes exist and I can post them. The documentation exists where I traveled without a passport and obtained bank accounts without multiple forms of ID and questions about financing terrorism.


I left in the part where you *said* you hadn't answered
The rest was not relevant to my comment.

What you did before doesn't prove it was your "right".
It merely proves it was once allowed



> Now, do you wish to see the documentation, or will you deny that it is indeed factual?


I don't care what you post. You could have done so long ago, but you chose not to.

You're just continuing to be melodramatic instead of simply doing it, and it's become too boring for me to care at all.

It's too much like a soap opera that never ends, and I'm changing channels now. You can do whatever you like.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's largely vague accusations of alleged acts.
> With the terrorists there is at least evidence it's happening.
> 
> I can't see where I've lost any freedoms.
> Which ones have you lost?


Read the Patriot Act, or the NDAA, read up on Agenda 21

The freedoms that we have lost are numerous, you seem to not understand. 
Right now, if the President decides that you are a threat, you can lose not only those rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, you can be deprived of any right that you can think of, even the right to life. ...or did you miss that?

Rewatch how building 7 falls down and explain that miracle, 2.5 seconds of free fall. 

Enjoy.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Lots of rambling with no real answers, which is what I've come to expect from you.


This appears to be quite the nasty reply. Seems that you have quite the ability to apply in this fashion.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Your theatrics are boring.
> I'll just have to assume you have no answer worth all this drama.



lol... it is this type of answer that we expect from you... over and over again - rinse - repeat.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You still haven't given any specific answers.
> It's more of the same old vague allusions, as I expected.


Please see post #36 by Mr. Bunton. We eagerly await you wonderful non-reply.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> Read the *Patriot Act*, or the *NDAA*, read up on *Agenda 21*
> 
> The freedoms that we have lost are numerous, *you seem to not understand.*
> 
> ...


You seem to not understand the word "*specific*"

All the vague rhetoric was parroted earlier.

Gravity explains "free fall" which is in itself more parroting.

Try for some orginality once in a while


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Shine said:


> Read the Patriot Act, or the NDAA, read up on Agenda 21
> 
> The freedoms that we have lost are numerous, you seem to not understand.
> Right now, if the President decides that you are a threat, you can lose not only those rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, you can be deprived of any right that you can think of, even the right to life. ...or did you miss that?
> ...


Sigh. . .not another "the buildings were taken down" post. Unless it has gotten lost in all the shuffling somewhere in the archived post I have several post showing how this is, as our British friends like to say, a load of bollocks.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> None of those are "rights", and only one is actually controlled by the Govt, since banks and airlines can have any rules they like.
> 
> The one answer you got right was your first three words, saying you haven't answered



You must not read Supreme Court decisions very much, all of those "rights" identified have been ruled to be Rights. So much for that...

The right to travel is the only one that is not covered by the constitution, the others are covered by the 4th Amendment or is that hard for you to correlate?

*Freedom of movement under United States law* is governed primarily by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution which states, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." As far back as the circuit court ruling in _Corfield v. Coryell,_ 6 Fed. Cas. 546 (1823), the Supreme Court recognized freedom of movement as a fundamental Constitutional right. In _Paul v. Virginia,_ 75 U.S. 168 (1869), the Court defined freedom of movement as "right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them."

Me thinks that thou has missedeth thy bus....


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You seem to not understand the word "*specific*"
> 
> All the vague rhetoric was parroted earlier.
> 
> ...


Disingenuous at it's best...

Gravity overrules steel supports? That would seem to defy physics, but oh, you knew that...

Your question has been answered with "Specifics" and you do not get to alter the meaning to suit your purpose.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

watcher said:


> Sigh. . .not another "the buildings were taken down" post. Unless it has gotten lost in all the shuffling somewhere in the archived post I have several post showing how this is, as our British friends like to say, a load of bollocks.


Double sigh... can you explain how the top of the building could travel at the rate of free fall during a collapse into it's footprint? Maybe a link to those people that can explain as not even NIST will explain the 2.5 seconds, they admit it, but there is no explanation...

ETA: I did not suggest that they were "taken down" - you assumed that. I do not know what happened. The investigation never really happened. All I support is a more fuller investigation but alas, the evidence was destroyed by the government. Doesn't that seem a tad odd to you?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I knew "Bush did it" was going to be the eventual answer


I don't know that Bush did it. What I know for sure is that too much information about the WTC attack is classified to draw any definitive conclusions. I know that we have a perfectly good official story that we can simply accept on face value, but I would prefer to have good reason to believe it. Right now I can't say that.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

Let me just say. Having those close to us in govt security. Bush knew nothing. Nobody did. They only knew of the potential for threats involving Planes. No date or times. And we get thousands of threats daily. It would terrify you to know some of the things we face. They cant even talk about 3/4 of their work. But you definitely can determine its an awful job knowing what our country faces daily.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Vahomesteaders said:


> Let me just say. My FIL is in govt security. Bush knew nothing. Nobody did. They only knew of the potential for threats involving Planes. No date or times. And we get thousands of threats daily. It would terrify you to know some of the things we face. He cant even talk about 3/4 of his work. But you definitely can determine its an awful job determining what threats are viable and worth investigating.


How many whistle blowers need to be punished before we all step in line? How about Sibel Edmunds? How much of that "secret" info that your FIL dealt with was National Security because disclosing it would show that our government is deeply involved in the nasty side of improper dealings?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Vahomesteaders said:


> Let me just say. My FIL is in govt security. Bush knew nothing. Nobody did. They only knew of the potential for threats involving Planes. No date or times. And we get thousands of threats daily. It would terrify you to know some of the things we face. He cant even talk about 3/4 of his work. But you definitely can determine its an awful job determining what threats are viable and worth investigating.


Again, you ask that we simply accept the official story. That's not easy to do. Would your FIL accept a story without knowing the facts?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> the Court defined freedom of movement as "right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them."
> 
> Me thinks that thou has missedeth thy bus....


Now explain what any of that has to do with *passports*.
You haven't lost the right to go from state to state

I think you've been run over by a bus 

Your source:


> Freedom of movement under United States law is governed primarily by the *Privileges* and Immunities Clause


(Not "rights and immunities clause")


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Shine said:


> Double sigh... can you explain how the top of the building could travel at the rate of free fall during a collapse into it's footprint? Maybe a link to those people that can explain as not even NIST will explain the 2.5 seconds, they admit it, but there is no explanation...
> 
> ETA: I did not suggest that they were "taken down" - you assumed that. I do not know what happened. The investigation never really happened. All I support is a more fuller investigation but alas, the evidence was destroyed by the government. Doesn't that seem a tad odd to you?


Briefly. The construction of the building is why it fell into its own foot print. (That construction is also the main reason the building failed.) It had a structural steel 'skeleton' on the outside and structural steel columns on the inside. As the structural integrity of the floor failed the 'skeleton' and columns acted as a guides making it fall, more or less, straight down.

You can show why the building collapsed so quickly with a simple experiment. Build a tower with several floors. Put bags of concrete on each floor. Now set up a couple of high speed cameras, start them rolling before you drop enough weigh on the top floor so that it falls down on the floor below it and causes it to fail and fall down on the floor below it and causes it to fail and. . . well you get my point. You will see that the time it takes for the first floor to fail and fall on the second is just a little longer that it takes for the third to fail. Why? Physics. As the mass hitting the successive floor is equal to the mass of all the floors above it. At some point the resistance the floor offered to the falling mass was basically nil. Its like asking why a dropped bowling ball seemed to not have been slowed at all by the paper towel you placed 5 feet below it.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

Nevada said:


> Again, you ask that we simply accept the official story. That's not easy to do. Would your FIL accept a story without knowing the facts?


The thing is there are thousands of conspiracy theories on YouTube. They make believable points. But there are just as many showing different outcomes. If our government was that despicable to allow such a thing, we would have all been disarmed and living under a dictatorship long ago. They have the power to do it. Especially with the mindset that many have in this nation now.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> *Double sigh*... can you explain how the top of the building could travel at *the rate of free *fall during a collapse into it's footprint? Maybe a link to those people that can explain as not even NIST will explain the 2.5 seconds, they admit it, but there is no explanation...
> 
> ETA: I did not suggest that they were "taken down" - you assumed that. I do not know what happened. The investigation never really happened. All I support is a more fuller investigation but alas, the evidence was destroyed by the government. Doesn't that seem a tad odd to you?


Everything falls at "the rate of free fall"

Mindless parroting doesn't change the laws of physics, and rehashing that lame conspiracy is pointless, much like the melodramatic "double sigh"


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I don't know that Bush did it. What I know for sure is that too much information about the WTC attack is classified to draw any definitive conclusions. I know that we have a perfectly good official story that we can simply accept on face value, but I would prefer to have good reason to believe it. Right now I can't say that.


Occam's razor. Do you realize for it to have been much more than advertised how much would have to be hidden by how many people for this long?


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Our government/media keeps telling us how much of a target we are for terrorists, yet they don't seem to be doing anything to protect this country from it.

We have open borders, we are taking in more and more ME people, and yet we are supposed to believe they are all out to get us?

I remember the 'fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here', and that made no sense to me. For those of us who live in border states, we knew there was absolutely nothing keeping them from coming across the borders.

In fact, our meddling in the ME has created more terrorists who hate us. So, if they were bent on doing it, I'm thinking over the last decade, they could have accomplished it.

A few years ago, we spent some months in AZ working. We needed a bank for direct deposit. We could make deposits to our bank in Texas, from the AZ branch, we could make payments to the bank in Texas at the AZ bank, but we couldn't have our deposits made there. We had an account with that bank here in Texas, but evidently we would have to open a totally new account. 

My husband filled out the papers and told them he wanted a signature card for his wife. "Oh, no. The government demands everyone come in, in person, with 2 ID's, one a picture ID."

I'm stubborn and didn't do it, so we just used it as an in and out account.

Imagine my surprise, disgust, when I drove by that bank which displayed a huge banner stating they accepted the Matricula Card to open an account.

So it seems it's only citizens that must jump through the hoops.

Now if they were afraid of terrorists using the banks, all one had to do is get a Matricula Card and get an account.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> Occam's razor. Do you realize for it to have been much more than advertised how much would have to be hidden by how many people for this long?


I don't know about that. Iran-Contra was a huge operation for years with hundreds of operatives involved. We only found out by happenstance. In fact we almost didn't find out.

Right under our noses here in Las Vegas they've operated Area 51 (Groom Lake) as a covert military base since the 1950s. The Air Force denied its existence with a straight face, yet thousands of Las Vegas residents worked there.

What you say is a factor to consider, but there are ways of getting around that.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I don't know about that. Iran-Contra was a huge operation for years with hundreds of operatives involved. We only found out by happenstance. In fact we almost didn't find out.
> 
> Right under our noses here in Las Vegas they've operated Area 51 (Groom Lake) as a covert military base since the 1950s. The Air Force denied its existence with a straight face, yet thousands of Las Vegas residents worked there.
> 
> What you say is a factor to consider, but there are ways of getting around that.


We know exactly what the government wants us to know ---


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I left in the part where you *said* you hadn't answered
> The rest was not relevant to my comment.



It wasn't relevant because it exposed my supposition at the beginning and my subsequent statements were all true.

I asked you if you were going to deny a right was taken away after I posted the example.
I asked you 3 times what you were going to say.
I'm not an ignorant fool Bearfoot. If you are going to argue gravity doesn't exist on the earth, I'm not going to bother explaining why your apple just hit the ground.
This was mainly a demonstration for others and newcomers what it is like to attempt to discuss ANYTHING with you.



Bearfootfarm said:


> *What you did before doesn't prove it was your "right".
> It merely proves it was once allowed*


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is one of those times where everyone can see what a ludicrous statement looks like.




Bearfootfarm said:


> I don't care what you post. You could have done so long ago, but you chose not to.
> 
> You're just continuing to be melodramatic instead of simply doing it, and it's become too boring for me to care at all.
> 
> It's too much like a soap opera that never ends, and I'm changing channels now. You can do whatever you like.



Of course not.
The fact that I went to the Canadian side of Niagara falls in the 80's by simply driving across the border without a passport and now it can't be done that way would mean you'd have to say, "Sorry farmrbrown, I guess I was wrong about that."

Same with Mexico and the Caribbean and many other countries.
The new law went in effect in 2009 I believe after phasing in for a few years.

The truck drivers I know now need a special pass to go in and out of ports, THAT law didn't exist a few years ago.

The last time I opened a bank account I was quizzed like I had a prayer rug with me. "Sorry, DHS makes us ask this now."

And please don't ask me about losing the right to walk in an airport, buy a one way ticket for cash, hop on a plane with a lighter and a pocket knife.....with my shoes on......and just go.

It DID happen at one time and it DOESN"T anymore.
All because some people think it's better to remain in a cage and be safe than to live as free men.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Vahomesteaders said:


> If our government was that despicable to allow such a thing, we would have all been disarmed and living under a dictatorship long ago.


Sure, if disarming Americans and introducing a dictatorship was the objective. But what if the objective was something else, like getting Americans angry enough to back a war against a country who never attacked us, or even threatened to attack us.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> It DID happen at one time and it DOESN"T anymore.


It was never a "right"
You argue about things no one disputed, and ignore the relevant facts



> I asked you if you were going to deny a right was taken away after I posted the example.
> I asked you 3 times what you were going to say.
> I'm not an ignorant fool Bearfoot.


More drama, no substance



> This was *mainly a demonstration* for others and newcomers what it is like to attempt to discuss ANYTHING with you.


So you were trolling. 
Not a big surprise there



> The fact that I went to the Canadian side of Niagara falls in the 80's by simply driving across the border without a passport and now it can't be done that way would mean you'd have to say, "Sorry farmrbrown, I guess I was wrong about that."


No, you are wrong to assume that because they once allowed it, there was a "RIGHT" to do so.

I'm not running around these same circles again with you.
Your games are tiresome


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

We lived in a town in East Texas for almost 30 years, raised our children there. Our son still lived there.

We decided to take our RV up there for a while and work. I was doing Ebay and needed to check my emails, but had to wait for phone service as dailup was all that was available at the time, and out in the country.

I went to the library to use their computers. They told me I didn't have a library card and would have to have one. Since I had no telephone, I couldn't get a card. I had known this lady for all those 30 years. I'm sure when my kids grew up, they felt a financial pinch from all those late fees we paid.

One lady said, 'We know you, Ms. ____, but according to the new security rules, we can't let you use the computer.'

Finally, I leaned over the counter and told her I had paid taxes in that county for 30 something years and was still paying taxes and it should qualify me to 10 minutes on a computer.

She allows as to how that might be right and I used the computer.

Now I didn't know about WIFI at the time, and found out that I, and any terrorists that might feel that way inclined, could have parked outside MacDonald's and use the internet.

Again, just wonder who they are penalizing here - who are they watching.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Everything falls at "the rate of free fall"
> 
> Mindless parroting doesn't change the laws of physics, and rehashing that lame conspiracy is pointless, much like the melodramatic "double sigh"


What don't you get? The infrastructure disappeared?
ound:


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

watcher said:


> Briefly. The construction of the building is why it fell into its own foot print. (That construction is also the main reason the building failed.) It had a structural steel 'skeleton' on the outside and structural steel columns on the inside. As the structural integrity of the floor failed the 'skeleton' and columns acted as a guides making it fall, more or less, straight down.
> 
> You can show why the building collapsed so quickly with a simple experiment. Build a tower with several floors. Put bags of concrete on each floor. Now set up a couple of high speed cameras, start them rolling before you drop enough weigh on the top floor so that it falls down on the floor below it and causes it to fail and fall down on the floor below it and causes it to fail and. . . well you get my point. You will see that the time it takes for the first floor to fail and fall on the second is just a little longer that it takes for the third to fail. Why? Physics. As the mass hitting the successive floor is equal to the mass of all the floors above it. At some point the resistance the floor offered to the falling mass was basically nil. Its like asking why a dropped bowling ball seemed to not have been slowed at all by the paper towel you placed 5 feet below it.


Um... then what happened to the columns that "Guided" the floors into their foot print? You are talking about the pancake theory. The pancake theory meets resistance at each floor, a pancake collapse can never happen at the speed of free fall. You've said nothing about the symmetry of the building's outer facade, the building collapsed as if each floor was being destroyed at the bottom, that does not fit with the pancake collapse theory either. You said that it had a "Structural Steel Skeleton" on the outside. Can you look at the collapse and tell me how that possibly failed to allow the collapse in the fashion that it did? It is impossible.

https://youtu.be/bWorDrTC0Qg

Occam's Razor indeed...

ETA: AND if there has never been the collapse of a Steel Structure based Building due to fire in the history of time, why were these collapses not investigated with a fine toothed comb? - It makes absolutely no sense.

ETA: For something to achieve freefall, there is no resistance presented. Comparing Steel girders and concrete to paper towels is not apt. The top of the building fell at free fall speed for 2.5 seconds, please explain where the 8 floors went.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It was never a "right"
> You argue about things no one disputed, and ignore the relevant facts



I didn't plan on arguing anything, but in your case, it's good to be prepared.
Almost everyone I know, knows what a "right" is, and even defenders of the laws passed after 9/11 usually admit that certain rights were lost in the pursuit of safety.





Bearfootfarm said:


> So you were trolling.
> Not a big surprise there



Trolling?
No, more like exposing it. Your participation was invaluable BTW, thank you.



Bearfootfarm said:


> No, you are wrong to assume that because they once allowed it, there was a "RIGHT" to do so.


It isn't an assumption. It's one of the legal definitions of the word.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I don't know about that. Iran-Contra was a huge operation for years with hundreds of operatives involved. We only found out by happenstance. In fact we almost didn't find out.
> 
> Right under our noses here in Las Vegas they've operated Area 51 (Groom Lake) as a covert military base since the 1950s. The Air Force denied its existence with a straight face, yet thousands of Las Vegas residents worked there.
> 
> What you say is a factor to consider, but there are ways of getting around that.


Neither of those resulted in the loss of 3,000 lives on American soil. To be honest with you it would not be that hard to find a couple of hundred people in the US government's alphabet soup agencies who would be willing to turn a blind eye to an op which killed several thousand people in a far away land. But I don't think you could find anywhere near that many who would do it if the op was on American soil and killed Americans. And the ones you could find would probably not be the ones you could trust to keep their mouths shut for 14 months much less 14 years.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Shine said:


> Um... then what happened to the columns that "Guided" the floors into their foot print? You are talking about the pancake theory. The pancake theory meets resistance at each floor, a pancake collapse can never happen at the speed of free fall.


Do you think you could tell the difference in the speed of two bowling balls dropped from 20 feet if one of them had to pass through 10 separate sheets of paper towels on the way down? No you can't. Why? Because the resistance of the paper towels is so small compared to the momentum of the bowling ball its not going to slow its speed enough for you to measure without some very good equipment. With the momentum of the debris hitting the intact floors below the resistance they offered wasn't enough to noticeably slow them down. 




Shine said:


> You've said nothing about the symmetry of the building's outer facade, the building collapsed as if each floor was being destroyed at the bottom, that does not fit with the pancake collapse theory either. You said that it had a "Structural Steel Skeleton" on the outside. Can you look at the collapse and tell me how that possibly failed to allow the collapse in the fashion that it did? It is impossible.


Sigh. . . The external skeleton would not remain standing after a the floor or a few floors below it failed. It was not designed nor built to support its own weight alone. 

Do your own research to see what I'm about to say is true. The design of the WTC had the floor supports attached to the central columns on one end the the external skeleton on the other. The heat from the burning debris heated those floor supports to the point of elasticity and they started to sag. At some point the sag was so great that the connections on one or both ends failed. Once enough of the floor supports failed the entire floor fell down on to the floor below. This did two things. One, it weakened the structural integrity of the floor above and below because the floor supports were what prevent the external skeleton from bowing. Think of an extension ladder, if you are 3/4 of the way up and someone starts removing rungs below you what's going to happen.

Two, it allowed a huge mass to fall about 10 feet onto the flow below. Now you a floor that has been damage from the impact of an aircraft being hit with the energy of that falling mass. Take a piece of newspaper and tug on it. Its fairly difficult to tear. But if you take another piece of newspaper and yank on it will rip easily. 

At the speed it was falling at that point the floor would be gone before the outer wall had time to fail. 




Shine said:


> Occam's Razor indeed...
> 
> ETA: AND if there has never been the collapse of a Steel Structure based Building due to fire in the history of time, why were these collapses not investigated with a fine toothed comb? - It makes absolutely no sense.


There has never been a fire this massive in a building with the same construction of the WTC. In most buildings you have to cut out major parts of the steel support structure BEFORE you set the the explosive charges to implode it. 




Shine said:


> ETA: For something to achieve freefall, there is no resistance presented. Comparing Steel girders and concrete to paper towels is not apt. The top of the building fell at free fall speed for 2.5 seconds, please explain where the 8 floors went.


Do you have any idea of the numbers we are talking about? A loaded 767 weighs about 400,000 pounds. Now think about one falling 10 feet. Then there is the weight of the concrete, steel, desk, filing cabinets and other debris. You could had three fourths of a million pounds of stuff hitting the first floor below at about 17 miles per hour. The floor below it would have had to withstand the impact of all of that plus the stuff from the second floor hitting it at 17 miles per hour. Just how much of a delay would you expect between impact and failure? If I had to bet on it I'd put it in the millisecond range.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> I didn't plan on arguing anything, but in your case, it's good to be prepared.
> Almost everyone I know, knows what a "right" is, and even defenders of the laws passed after 9/11 usually admit that certain rights were lost in the pursuit of safety.
> 
> Trolling?
> ...


Again, you missed the really important part:



> I'm not running around these same circles again with you.
> Your games are tiresome


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Shine said:


> Rewatch how building 7 falls down and explain that miracle, 2.5 seconds of free fall.
> 
> Enjoy.


Yep, it's not like _*two skyscrapers*_ fell in the vicinity, or anything. 



> Conspiracy theorists say World Trade Center 7 is the best proof for controlled demolition because it wasn't hit by airliners and only had a few fires. They also claim that there was a confession from the building owner who said he "pulled" it. But this is deceptive because while *building 7 wasn't hit by an airliner, it was hit by the large perimeter columns of the Tower collapse. It was 400 ft away but the towers were more than 1300 ft tall. *As the tower peeled open, it easily tilted over to reach building 7. Below is evidence showing that conspiracy theorists are wrong.


http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Trixie said:


> *Our government/media keeps telling us how much of a target we are for terrorists, yet they don't seem to be doing anything to protect this country from it.*
> 
> We have open borders, we are taking in more and more ME people, and yet we are supposed to believe they are all out to get us?
> 
> ...


You've never heard of the TSA, NSA, DHS, etc. etc etc.?

pat downs and metal detectors at sporting events.



> My husband filled out the papers and told them he wanted a signature card for his wife. "Oh, no. The government demands everyone come in, in person, with 2 ID's, one a picture ID."
> 
> I'm stubborn and didn't do it, so we just used it as an in and out account.


The Right wants security from terrorists, but it's always somebody elses responsibility, to be secure.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Shine said:


> Disingenuous at it's best...
> 
> Gravity overrules steel supports? That would seem to defy physics, but oh, you knew that...
> 
> Your question has been answered with "Specifics" and you do not get to alter the meaning to suit your purpose.


Apparently, it's _momentum, _that overrules _gravity_, when it come to the limits, of steel supports. 



> In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.


http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtctowers.cfm

One does not even have to be an engineer, just have common sense, to figure this out.

You can lay a large tree trunk on a house roof and it will probably be perfectly fine.

Cut down a large tree and let it fall on a house roof, the results will probably be a little different.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

plowjockey said:


> You've never heard of the TSA, NSA, DHS, etc. etc etc.?
> 
> pat downs and metal detectors at sporting events.


Oh, we've heard of them.
Ever hear of the 4th amendment?





plowjockey said:


> The Right wants security from terrorists, but it's always somebody elses responsibility, to be secure.


It is someone else's responsibility.
My security is my responsibility, yours is yours.
I won't infringe on your freedoms and others had best keep their hands off mine.
Pretty simple, huh?


----------



## haley1 (Aug 15, 2012)

but without terrorist how would they justify the mega spending on the industrial military complex? those corporations that build the war machine pay lots to the politicians of both corrupt side to get those contracts.

do we need to worry about terrorist.. yes, it is way over blown... yes, have we lost to many rights form both parties .... a big yes.


----------



## BlackFeather (Jun 17, 2014)

The deputy secretary of state Steven Pieczenik came out after leaving his job saying that the attack on 9/11 was known about in advance by the White House. Later he said that the white house was complicate in the attack. He also endorses the demolition of the twin towers explanation. He was deputy secretary of sate from Carter through Bush 2. On the radio interview I heard, he said that a general from the military called the white house stating that intelligence discovered a plot to fly planes into the towers, the white house told the general to stand down. Then called him back and threatened him that if he went public with this information he would be thrown out of the military with no pension . This general reported this to Mr Pieczenik. By the way the character Jack Ryan is fashioned after him. He used to help Tom Clancy with technical information for his books.

Finally, those buildings were built to take a plane impact, and steel won't melt at the temperature of burning fuel. Even if it did it would weaken at the fire site causing failure of the adjacent structural beams causing the building to topple not collapse. Furthermore, an analysis was done of the dust from the building and the dust contained an exotic explosive compound. 

No one want to believe their government is criminal but it is clear the law doesn't seem to apply to our leaders. I keep seeing Occam's razor being used, in many cases it is correct unless you deal with spies like the CIA, they live for complexities.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

plowjockey said:


> Apparently, it's _momentum, _that overrules _gravity_, when it come to the limits, of steel supports.


First off you have no way to tell how fast the floors were falling. Your data is limited to fuzzy pictures full of debris taken at around 24 frames/sec. 

Secondly, as I pointed out in another post, how long would you expect it to take from impact to failure?





plowjockey said:


> One does not even have to be an engineer, just have common sense, to figure this out.
> 
> You can lay a large tree trunk on a house roof and it will probably be perfectly fine.
> 
> Cut down a large tree and let it fall on a house roof, the results will probably be a little different.


And if the tree if big enough someone watching it fall would swear the house didn't even slow it down.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

BlackFeather said:


> The deputy secretary of state Steven Pieczenik came out after leaving his job saying that the attack on 9/11 was known about in advance by the White House. Later he said that the white house was complicate in the attack. He also endorses the demolition of the twin towers explanation. He was deputy secretary of sate from Carter through Bush 2. On the radio interview I heard, he said that a general from the military called the white house stating that intelligence discovered a plot to fly planes into the towers, the white house told the general to stand down. Then called him back and threatened him that if he went public with this information he would be thrown out of the military with no pension . This general reported this to Mr Pieczenik. By the way the character Jack Ryan is fashioned after him. He used to help Tom Clancy with technical information for his books.
> 
> Finally, those buildings were built to take a plane impact, and steel won't melt at the temperature of burning fuel. Even if it did it would weaken at the fire site causing failure of the adjacent structural beams causing the building to topple not collapse. Furthermore, an analysis was done of the dust from the building and the dust contained an exotic explosive compound.
> 
> No one want to believe their government is criminal but it is clear the law doesn't seem to apply to our leaders. I keep seeing Occam's razor being used, in many cases it is correct unless you deal with spies like the CIA, they live for complexities.


He is also a political fiction thriller author trying to sell books and keep a show going. If what he was saying was true, he wouldnt live long telling everybody. It's been proven his statements are false which is why he is ignored.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

plowjockey said:


> Apparently, it's _momentum, _that overrules _gravity_, when it come to the limits, of steel supports.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The site you provided does not address WTC 7 except to say that NIST was commissioned to investigate the collapse. As far as your premise is concerned, I do not care how you come to your conclusion, you cannot explain how a building can FALL THROUGH ITSELF for 2.5 seconds at the rate of free fall in a symetrical fashion [meaning that ALL support columns gave way at exactly the same moment which is required to collapse in the fashion that we witnessed, I use this particular incident because it is the most glaring of deceptions, however that are other unanswered questions that bring other fallacies to light of the happenings of this day, the presence of military grade nanothermite all through the WTC complex is one] 

There are enough Engineers and Architects who have risked, and in some cases, lost their careers to come forward to say that there is something wrong here and ask simply for an investigation by an unbiased party. I am on their side.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

watcher said:


> First off you have no way to tell how fast the floors were falling. Your data is limited to fuzzy pictures full of debris taken at around 24 frames/sec.
> 
> Secondly, as I pointed out in another post, how long would you expect it to take from impact to failure?
> 
> And if the tree if big enough someone watching it fall would swear the house didn't even slow it down.



How do you think NIST admitted that the WTC 7 building fell at free fall speeds? You think that they would come forward of their own accord? David Chandler examined the collapse and provided enough documentation and precise measurements to NIST and FORCED them to admit that there free fall speeds were present in the collapse. Furthermore he provided this summary to explain his point:

"What if a heavy object falls through other objects, breaking them as it goes? Newton's third law says that when objects interact, they always exert equal and opposite forces on each other. Therefore, while an object is falling, if it exerts any force on objects in its path, those objects must push back, slowing the fall. If an object is observed to be in freefall, we can conclude that nothing in the path exerts a force to slow it down, and by Newton's third law, the falling object cannot be pushing on anything else either."

NIST has provided no analysis regarding this glaring fact that, in itself, invalidates their single point of failure analysis. So, if their summary of what happened to WTC 7 is in error, where is the correction?


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Nevada said:


> No, it's cause & effect. ISIS used to be Saddam's military, but we fired them and threw them out of government. Eventually they rose up to haunt us -- big time!
> 
> Now you admit that ISIS is a bigger problem than we had before.


That was a major mistake on the part of Paul Bremer and the Bush administration. We should have coopted Saddam's military. Instead we're still fighting them.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

BlackFeather said:


> The deputy secretary of state Steven Pieczenik came out after leaving his job saying that the attack on 9/11 was known about in advance by the White House. Later he said that the white house was complicate in the attack. He also endorses the demolition of the twin towers explanation. He was deputy secretary of sate from Carter through Bush 2. On the radio interview I heard, he said that a general from the military called the white house stating that intelligence discovered a plot to fly planes into the towers, the white house told the general to stand down. Then called him back and threatened him that if he went public with this information he would be thrown out of the military with no pension . This general reported this to Mr Pieczenik. By the way the character Jack Ryan is fashioned after him. He used to help Tom Clancy with technical information for his books.


He might have helped but he clearly had no experience with demo. It ain't like in the movies where the hero, or bad guy, puts a 3 oz strip of explosive on an I-beam and blows it in half. It takes a pounds to cut a single structural I-beam in one place. Think of how many hundreds of I-beams would have had to been cut to bring down even one floor?




BlackFeather said:


> Finally, those buildings were built to take a plane impact, and steel won't melt at the temperature of burning fuel. Even if it did it would weaken at the fire site causing failure of the adjacent structural beams causing the building to topple not collapse.


Ok let's go through this once again. The floor supports in WTC were connected on one end to the center support columns and on the other to the external skeleton. These floor supports had two functions. To support the weight of the floors and to connect the center to the outside to provide 'stiffness' to the building. As these supports were heated they started to sag and stretch. This caused them to put strains on their connection points in a way they were not designed to deal with. At some point these connections started failing. Once so many failed the entire floor would have failed.

Now why didn't the building topple? Again the answer is building's design. The floor supports failed first. As the floor was falling the center support columns and external skeleton which that floor was attached were still still standing because of our friend inertia. This means the falling floor was guided to fall straight down. Now as the debris continued falling the center columns and the external skeleton were damaged and because of this damage and the fact they were not designed to stand alone they also failed.





BlackFeather said:


> Furthermore, an analysis was done of the dust from the building and the dust contained an exotic explosive compound.


Traces of chemicals which might have been part of an explosive compound. Do you realize how much explosive residue would be in the dust if it was used to bring the building down? Add to that the fact that you would have to place the explosive in exactly the right place and have each aircraft hit each tower in the exact right place for it to work.




BlackFeather said:


> No one want to believe their government is criminal but it is clear the law doesn't seem to apply to our leaders. I keep seeing Occam's razor being used, in many cases it is correct unless you deal with spies like the CIA, they live for complexities.


I believe all governments have, are and/or will commit criminal acts. Some of the overt, some covert, but the evidence in this case doesn't even start to point to a government action. And history has shown time and time again that the more complex the action the likelihood of it working and being kept quite grows smaller.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Again, you missed the really important part:


IMO that's the LEAST important part of this discussion.
Remember?
Rights we have lost, or maybe better said, given away, thru ignorance or apathy.
IOW "I don't know" or "I don't care."


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Originally Posted by BlackFeather View Post
> Furthermore, an analysis was done of the dust from the building and the dust contained an *exotic explosive compound*.


No, there wasn't.
Don't fall for all the hype


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> No, there wasn't.
> Don't fall for all the hype


You missed this Peer Reviewed Analysis?

http://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOCPJ/TOCPJ-2-7.pdf


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

watcher said:


> He might have helped but he clearly had no experience with demo. It ain't like in the movies where the hero, or bad guy, puts a 3 oz strip of explosive on an I-beam and blows it in half. It takes a pounds to cut a single structural I-beam in one place. Think of how many hundreds of I-beams would have had to been cut to bring down even one floor?
> 
> There is such a thing as called a cutter charge. While I am not saying that this is what happened, it does exactly what its name implies, it cuts steel beams.
> 
> ...


...and it appears that there are quite a few that are willing to let this pass without receiving answers to the legitimate questions posed by a multitude. That seems to me to be quite un-american in nature.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> You missed this *Peer Reviewed* Analysis?
> 
> http://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOCPJ/TOCPJ-2-7.pdf


That overused, meaningless term means his buddies didn't disagree with the BS, or no one really looked at it anyway.

It's a lot like repeating "free fall speed" in that it seemingly sounds important, but it's really just empty words

Did you notice your PDF source is in the United ARAB Emirates?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bentham_Science_Publishers



> Bentham Open Science, has received attention for its *questionable peer-review practices*.


Oddly enough, one of the questionable papers they published just happens to be the one you cited:



> Bentham Open journals claim to employ peer review;[7] however, the fact that a fake paper generated with SCIgen had been accepted for publication, has cast doubt on this.[8][9][10] Furthermore, the publisher is known for spamming scientists with invitations to become a member of the editorial boards of its journals.[11]





> In 2009, the Bentham Open Science journal, The Open Chemical Physics Journal, published a study contending dust from the World Trade Center attacks contained "*active nanothermite*".[12] Following publication, the journal's editor-in-chief Marie-Paule Pileni resigned stating, "*They have printed the article without my authorization*â¦ I have written to Bentham, that I withdraw myself from all activities with them".[13]


If you know what "nano-thermite" is, you'd realize that what they found was some microscope particles of Aluminum, which is not an odd thing to find in dust from buildings hit by airliners made of ALUMINUM.

You fall for the BS without looking for a simple, easily found explanation


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That overused, meaningless term means his buddies didn't disagree with the BS, or no one really looked at it anyway.
> 
> It's a lot like repeating "free fall speed" in that it seemingly sounds important, but it's really just empty words
> 
> ...


Yeah, you're much smarter than the person that wrote the paper. We should believe you. Nano-thermite contains the components that you describe but it requires a sophisticated laboratory environment to fuse the components together. Can you explain how it got to the WTC complex? Or did you "debunk" his citations?

No, you appear to be grasping at straws. 

Do you know of any others that tested the dust from the WTC area that proves that there is no nano-thermite in that dust? 

The paper's first author is Dr. Niels Harrit, a 37-year Professor of Chemistry at Copenhagen University in Denmark and an expert in Nano-chemistry, who says, "The official account put forth by NIST violates the fundamental laws of physics."

Wow.. that name doesn't sound arabic to me...

wikipedia... you kill me...:hysterical:


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Yeah, you're much smarter than the person that wrote the paper. We should believe you. Nano-thermite contains the components that you describe but it requires a sophisticated laboratory environment to fuse the components together. Can you explain how it got to the WTC complex? Or did you "debunk" his citations?


I never claimed to be smarter than him.

I'm saying his paper doesn't prove there were "explosives" used in the building.

It's just more fantasy drivel like "free fall speed.

You whined about WIKI when it listed all the orginal sources, some of which were the ones you posted

Here's what your last link got me:



> Page Not Found
> Our apologies, the requested page was not found. Please double-check the URL for proper spelling and capitalization. If you're having trouble finding a page in Reuters, please choose from the options below


The good news is that had just as much useful information as the other links


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

People, we are never going to know the truth about 9/11. 

There is a truth and some know it - or part of it, that's true.

We have been subjected to such 'truths', propaganda, outright lies, and spin, until we can never separate out the wheat from the chaff.

Maybe instead of attempting to argue the scientific truths, we should go behind the scenes, so to speak, and find out the why of it.

It's too simple to accept the government spin that those Muslims hated us so much, they came over here and did their dirty deeds.

Now I could have perhaps believed that if not for the fact that tragedy was used to get us into first two wars that have lasted over a decade and now we are embroiled in how many more. One that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 -

At the same time, we are expending American lives, the lives of innocent civiilians in those countries, tons of money - yet our borders are open and our government continues to bring in more and more Muslims.

Something does not compute - it just doesn't add up.

So who benefits------answer that and we may know the truth.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Shine said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by watcher View Post
> He might have helped but he clearly had no experience with demo. It ain't like in the movies where the hero, or bad guy, puts a 3 oz strip of explosive on an I-beam and blows it in half. It takes a pounds to cut a single structural I-beam in one place. Think of how many hundreds of I-beams would have had to been cut to bring down even one floor?
> 
> There is such a thing as called a cutter charge. While I am not saying that this is what happened, it does exactly what its name implies, it cuts steel beams.


I know, heck I even know how to make and lay them but it still takes a good sized a shaped ribbon charge to slice through an I-beam. Try googling military demolition charge calculation and see. You'll have to research to find out how large the floor support beams were but but you should be some idea of the weight necessary for each and every beam you want to cut. Then there is the fact all the charges would have to be primed to go off at once. That would require thousands of feet of either detcord or wire to be laid and hundreds if not thousands of blasting caps. Plus you'd have to have someone place these charges DIRECTLY on the beams. They would have to at the very least remove hundreds of ceiling tiles to access the floor beams. We are talking thousands of man-hours of work. Are there any reports from anyone about this much maintenance activity going on in both towers in the days before 9/11? It would have to be done just days before or the chance of one of them being found would have been too great.




Shine said:


> Ok let's go through this once again. The floor supports in WTC were connected on one end to the center support columns and on the other to the external skeleton. These floor supports had two functions. To support the weight of the floors and to connect the center to the outside to provide 'stiffness' to the building. As these supports were heated they started to sag and stretch. This caused them to put strains on their connection points in a way they were not designed to deal with. At some point these connections started failing. Once so many failed the entire floor would have failed.
> 
> Now why didn't the building topple? Again the answer is building's design. The floor supports failed first. As the floor was falling the center support columns and external skeleton which that floor was attached were still still standing because of our friend inertia. This means the falling floor was guided to fall straight down. Now as the debris continued falling the center columns and the external skeleton were damaged and because of this damage and the fact they were not designed to stand alone they also failed.
> 
> What was the entire duration from the start of the collapse until the end? What was the resulting debris - where did the concrete go? What force is necessary to turn concrete into dust? How tall was the debris pile upon complete collapse? What generated the molten metal that maintained a temperature of 1500+ F for over three months?


Idk, but the answer is out there . The pile of rubble. Idk, but look at the pics of the debris and you will see the concrete was not turned into "dust". Idk but you do know that there were 7 underground levels and a subway station for the debris to fall into don't you. It didn't.




Shine said:


> Traces of chemicals which might have been part of an explosive compound. Do you realize how much explosive residue would be in the dust if it was used to bring the building down? Add to that the fact that you would have to place the explosive in exactly the right place and have each aircraft hit each tower in the exact right place for it to work.
> 
> Please see the Peer Reviewed Paper cited above regarding the military grade nano-thermite traces found in the WTC dust that was scattered all over NYC


I don't have time to check just tell me what chemical make up of these traces were. I'm willing to bet its powdered AL and powdered Fe both metals were abundant in WTC and just about everything else in every major city in the world. I have to wonder; has anyone checked for these same traces in the dust of other major cities? 




Shine said:


> I believe all governments have, are and/or will commit criminal acts. Some of the overt, some covert, but the evidence in this case doesn't even start to point to a government action. And history has shown time and time again that the more complex the action the likelihood of it working and being kept quite grows smaller.
> 
> ...and it appears that there are quite a few that are willing to let this pass without receiving answers to the legitimate questions posed by a multitude. That seems to me to be quite un-american in nature.


Do you not have to wonder how it is after 14 years with so many people looking for evidence of government involvement none has been found?


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

watcher said:


> Do you not have to wonder how it is after 14 years with so many people looking for evidence of government involvement none has been found?


Not at all - when you are talking about finding evidence against our government - not at all.

Oh, someone may have found it - they just didn't get to tell it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Trixie said:


> Not at all - when you are talking about finding evidence against our government - not at all.
> 
> Oh, someone may have found it - they just didn't get to tell it.


Yeah, that's it


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

farmrbrown said:


> Oh, we've heard of them.
> Ever hear of the 4th amendment?


Yes I have heard of it. What's your point? That airlines should have no security? 





farmrbrown said:


> It is someone else's responsibility.
> My security is my responsibility, yours is yours.
> I won't infringe on your freedoms and others had best keep their hands off mine.
> Pretty simple, huh?


It's not that simple at all.

So, if I get on a jet airliner, I'm responsible for the security of my family and myself?

Exactly, how does that work?


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Trixie said:


> People, we are never going to know the truth about 9/11.
> 
> There is a truth and some know it - or part of it, that's true.
> 
> ...


You are welcomed to be as confused, about 9/11, as you wish, but for me it could not be more crystal clear.

Muslim extremists, went to school, to learn how to fly jetliners, they smuggled box cutters through lax airport security, highjacked 4 airliners, flew three of them into buildings and a fourth into a field, because their attempt to crash it elswhere, failed.



> It's too simple to accept the government spin that those Muslims hated us so much, they came over here and did their dirty deeds.


You do realize that "those Muslims" already tried to take down the WTC, by bombing it in 1993, right?

Or was that an "inside job" also? 



> On February 26, 1993, a truck bomb was detonated below the North Tower of the World Trade Center in New York City. The 1,336 pounds (606 kg) urea nitrateâhydrogen gas enhanced device[1] was intended to send the North Tower (Tower 1) crashing into the South Tower (Tower 2), bringing both towers down and killing tens of thousands of people.[2][3] It failed to do so but killed six people and injured more than a thousand.[4]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_World_Trade_Center_bombing


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

My confusion is our government's reaction to it - that's what made me wonder.

Shortly after 9/11, they allowed a group of ME men to come to the country to attend a flight school, taught only in Arabic. This was in a populated area of a few million people and within a few minutes, air time to a nuclear power plant. This kinda made me wonder.

We didn't close our borders - well, we did put some National Guard on the gates. If they were smart enough to do what they did, I'm thinking they wouldn't go through the gates - they would just wade the Rio Grande and they are here. That kinda made me wonder.

So we go after Bin Laden - OK, we believed that. After we had bombed the heck out of those mountains, put a oil consultant in charge of Afghanistan, Bin Laden was 'no longer a priority' and suddenly Saddam Hussein was the real culprit. we had to do it and do it right now. That kinda made me wonder.

Our government put a whole host of laws, regulations, etc., in place - evidently against citizens - that kinda made me wonder.

In other words, nothing was done to stop any further attacks - in fact less than nothing and our government is bringing in Muslims by the thousands. That kinda makes me wonder.

We did have the bombing in Boston, but what other attacks have we had? Could be some, I just don't know. With the lack real security measures for the country, if the Muslims wanted to destroy us, they have had ample opportunity to do so.

There are open borders, we are blowing them up by the thousands, invading their countries, and already have tens of millions in the country - and somehow they haven't attacked us - except Boston. That kinda makes me wonder.

But yes, if I knew the truth, I'd keep my mouth shut - real tight.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> We did have the bombing in Boston, *but what other attacks have we had*? Could be some, I just don't know. With *the lack real security measures* for the country, if the Muslims wanted to destroy us, they have had ample opportunity to do so.


You complain when the Govt takes actions designed to prevent attacks, and then complain they are taking no action, while also complaining about the lack of attacks :shrug:


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You complain when the Govt takes actions designed to prevent attacks, and then complain they are taking no action, while also complaining about the lack of attacks :shrug:


It's just unfortunate that we have to take the government's word for what a terrific job they've been doing on national security.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You complain when the Govt takes actions designed to prevent attacks, and then complain they are taking no action, while also complaining about the lack of attacks :shrug:




I DO NOT think they took actions designed to prevent attacks - that's just the problem.

I'm confused as to what actions they did take to prevent attacks.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

plowjockey said:


> Yes I have heard of it. What's your point? That airlines should have no security?


Airlines can have all the security they want, all they can afford. Have at it, they are a private business.
Now, a gov't employee is another thing. We have a little thing called a Bill of Rights, you may have heard of it too.
In it there's something called the 4th amendment that says a gov't employee can't touch me without a warrant. He or she can't take my wife in a private room and ask her to undress, at least not without eating thru a straw for a long time, capisce?
OK, that last part isn't part of the 4th, that's my own "personal" law......and I enforce it whether you wear a piece of cloth on your head or a shiny blue hat and a badge.
Keep your hands to yourself and you can eat breakfast tomorrow morning with them.




plowjockey said:


> It's not that simple at all.
> 
> So, if I get on a jet airliner, I'm responsible for the security of my family and myself?
> 
> Exactly, how does that work?


You got it.
If you need some lessons, give me a call.
Even better, call this guy.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/train-staff-locked-americans-subdued-gunman-article-1.2334132


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You complain when the Govt takes actions designed to prevent attacks, and then complain they are taking no action, while also complaining about the lack of attacks :shrug:


Twist of the century award... 

I do not see how you can get that out of what she wrote...


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Shine said:


> Twist of the century award...
> 
> I do not see how you can get that out of what she wrote...



Thanks, I don't either. 

Sometimes I don't express myself well, and thought I hadn't then.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Trixie said:


> We didn't close our borders - well, we did put some National Guard on the gates. If they were smart enough to do what they did, I'm thinking they wouldn't go through the gates - they would just wade the Rio Grande and they are here. That kinda made me wonder.


The problem is you can't really take on terrorist with troops and tighter boarders. You might be able to slow it down some but as long as you have a system which allows a fair measure of freedom you will have dangers. 

You are probably to young to remember "The Troubles" in Northern Ireland. Take some time and read up on it. The Brits had all kinds of troops, laws and such but the IRA still managed to kill the Queens cousin in 79, to launch attack on #10 Downing Street (about equal to the White House in the US) with home made mortars in 91 and here's a picture of what they did in London in 93.










Again all of this was done with a massive military presence and draconian laws in place.

You fight terrorism with intel and in some cases allowing wantabe/small terrorist into the nation can allow you to gather intel against real/big terrorist. You will note that there have not been any large acts of terror since 9/11 which shows, IMNSHO, that someone somewhere is doing something right.




Trixie said:


> So we go after Bin Laden - OK, we believed that. After we had bombed the heck out of those mountains, put a oil consultant in charge of Afghanistan, Bin Laden was 'no longer a priority' and suddenly Saddam Hussein was the real culprit. we had to do it and do it right now. That kinda made me wonder.


Oranges and tangerines. Each was a threat but one was a larger threat. 

I have no facts to back it up, and if I did I wouldn't be allowed to say  , but I think the reason it took us so long to get Bin Laden was we were using him as an intel source. Not as an agent but to lead us to others. 

I also think that taking him out the way we did was not a good thing. He should have been quietly, and yes illegally, "disappeared". Harsh but I'd say shoot him in the back of the head, bury him in the sand and move on. There would have been much more havoc instilled in his followers if one day he just wasn't there. Knowing he is dead means the next in command just takes charge. Not knowing if he may turn up tomorrow would make it much more difficult for anyone to command. I'd be willing to bet that was the plan (based a lot on the amount of time it took to get him) but something prevented it from happening.




Trixie said:


> Our government put a whole host of laws, regulations, etc., in place - evidently against citizens - that kinda made me wonder.


That was happening long before 9/11 but that's standard. People have demanded and governments happily oblige when there are calls for knee jerk reactions to such things.




Trixie said:


> We did have the bombing in Boston, but what other attacks have we had? Could be some, I just don't know. With the lack real security measures for the country, if the Muslims wanted to destroy us, they have had ample opportunity to do so.


And yet nothing major has happened. Boston was not a major terrorist event. The bomb used wasn't even that sophisticated. Neither was the explosive material they used, heck they took apart fireworks to get it. 




Trixie said:


> There are open borders, we are blowing them up by the thousands, invading their countries, and already have tens of millions in the country - and somehow they haven't attacked us - except Boston. That kinda makes me wonder.


Wonder what? That maybe our strategy of hitting them over there to prevent them from hitting us here is working?

One thing to remember we have to get it right EVERY TIME, they only have to get it right once. If we stop 999 out 1,000 terrorist attacks the 1 we don't is what is going to make the news.




Trixie said:


> But yes, if I knew the truth, I'd keep my mouth shut - real tight.


Again, some would but not all.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> It's just unfortunate that we have to take the government's word for what a terrific job they've been doing on national security.


The fact that there are not car bombs going on on The Strip doesn't count for anything?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

I think some of ya'll need to think about it. Considering how wide open the US is to all kinds of truly massive terrorist attacks and the world wide threats there are out there the fact we haven't been hit since 9/11 is amazing. Do you think this has just been luck?

A few men with ATVs and cable cutters could take out a huge segment of the power grid in a few hours. And they could do it over and over in different areas.

With a few hand tools they could derail trains around the nation. Bringing rail transport to a stand still for days or weeks or maybe longer. Plus after the trains started rolling they would be very limited because each mile of track ahead of a train would have to be inspected just before it could be allowed to travel it.

They, given the smallest amount of support, could wreak havoc on the food supply. Any of you remember what happened when someone put poison in a few Tylenol bottles? What do you think would happen if someone managed to put some into a shipment or three of flour? It wouldn't even have to be enough to kill anyone, its presence in the system would be enough. What kind of havoc would ensue if all the flour and bread products had to be pulled from the shelves? 

These are just a few of the scenarios I remember being put forth in the early 80s all of which could be carried out with 10 men or fewer. 

More people and the more damage possible. I suggest anyone here who doesn't know anything about it read about IRA, England and The Troubles. Its a good example of what an organized terrorist group can do to.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

I'm going to have to learn how to do the partial quotes - it does make things easier.

Certainly, we need intelligence, but a big part of protecting ourselves from terrorists would be with tighter borders, cleaning house.

There was and is nothing being done on our Southern border to keep terrorists from coming here - armed with plenty of deadly things. Of course, our country refused to clean house, so there are plenty here already to either do the deed or aid and abet.

Why would a terrorist bent on the destruction of America, stay in the ME and face, perhaps, the baddest military on the planet, when they could simply walk across our Southern border and do plenty of damage. 

It just doesn't compute - it just doesn't.

That's like if a group invades your homes, hurts your family, you don't even check your house to be sure they are all gone. You don't lock your doors, windows, gates, post a guard, before you head off to attack some people who happen to be of the same faith.

The laws I was talking about was the Patriot Act - 

Personally, I think Bin Laden was CIA at one time anyway. I also think he was already dead.

As for their stopping 999 out of a 1000 - we have to believe there were a 100 attacks - I don't. I think we would hear about it - big time.

As for Saddam Hussein being a threat - to whom? To the bankers, oil corporations????

As for being old enough - I'm 74 - I remember a lot of things.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> Twist of the century award...
> 
> *I do not see *how you can get that out of what she wrote...


It doesn't surprise me. You still think microscopic dust is proof of explosives

This sounds like "taking actions" to me:



> So we go after Bin Laden - OK, we believed that. After we had bombed the heck out of those mountains, put a oil consultant in charge of Afghanistan, Bin Laden was 'no longer a priority' and suddenly Saddam Hussein was the real culprit. we had to do it and do it right now. That kinda made me wonder.
> 
> Our government put a whole host of laws, regulations, etc., in place - evidently against citizens - that kinda made me wonder.


There were also complaints about needing ID to use the computers at the library.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Well, yes, I did list a lot of 'actions' the US took.

Just not 'actions' that protected this country - that's my point.

So why did suddenly Bin Laden become a non issue? If he was still alive, was he not still 'an issue'? Doesn't compute.

Suddenly Saddam Hussein was the most immediate threat to this country - and based on hype and untruths, we were taken into a war to protect whom? Not the US, obviously. 

Yes, they took action and I wasn't supposed to use a computer at a library - that's action. The rest of the story is, if a terrorist has WI-FI, they can pick it up anywhere. So just what part of that 'action' was to protect this country?

The government took all kinds of actions - on the other side of the world - but left us vulnerable to terrorists attacks.

So yes, the government took a lot of 'actions' - just none to protect this country. 

Like Dick Cheney and the Vietnam war - I guess I country 'had other priorities' other than protecting this country.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

watcher said:


> I think some of ya'll need to think about it. Considering how wide open the US is to all kinds of truly massive terrorist attacks and the world wide threats there are out there the fact we haven't been hit since 9/11 is amazing. Do you think this has just been luck?
> 
> A few men with ATVs and cable cutters could take out a huge segment of the power grid in a few hours. And they could do it over and over in different areas.
> 
> ...


I would suggest looking at our southern border, how many cross it illegally everyday and the gov't complacency about doing anything about it.
If we were in that much danger as the gov't alarmists tell us, then we'd be sitting in the dark right now.
OTOH, if it isn't as bad as all that, WTH is the purpose for ignoring the constitution, other than to be a dictatorship?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Trixie said:


> Well, yes, I did list a lot of 'actions' the US took.
> 
> Just not 'actions' that protected this country - that's my point.
> 
> ...


Don't let yourself get sidetracked. I read your post and understood it well.
You were critiqued by someone who doesn't know the definition of a legal right and won't acknowledge it.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's largely vague accusations of alleged acts.
> With the terrorists there is at least evidence it's happening.
> 
> I can't see where I've lost any freedoms.
> Which ones have you lost?


 I am not speaking of only terrorism, but, our freedoms lost are numerous. Every gun control law is freedom lost. Every pat down at the airport is freedom lost. Every bit of meta data gathered is freedom lost. With every new regulation we lose freedom. New banking rules, new agricultural rules, new travel rules, etc. etc., are all infringements on our freedom. 

This has been happening for a long time, it has only ramped up since 9/11 and the Great Recession. 

It matters not if you "notice" or "miss" them or not, They are gone.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

watcher said:


> I think some of ya'll need to think about it. Considering how wide open the US is to all kinds of truly massive terrorist attacks and the world wide threats there are out there the fact we haven't been hit since 9/11 is amazing. Do you think this has just been luck?
> 
> A few men with ATVs and cable cutters could take out a huge segment of the power grid in a few hours. And they could do it over and over in different areas.
> 
> ...


Yeah, makes you wonder... maybe the government is doing a wonderful job... or maybe there is little to no actual threat. One side that pushes the threat scenario pushes untold amounts of money into the MIC and provides sweeping death and misery to alleged "terrorists" and any women, children and elderly that might be in their area. The other side just watches in horror.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> The fact that there are not car bombs going on on The Strip doesn't count for anything?


Isn't it possible that there were never any plots to attack the Strip? The fact is that we don't know, so we have to take their word for it.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Trixie said:


> I'm going to have to learn how to do the partial quotes - it does make things easier.
> 
> Certainly, we need intelligence, but a big part of protecting ourselves from terrorists would be with tighter borders, cleaning house.
> 
> ...


Saddam was a threat to the Saudis and their buddies.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Darren said:


> Saddam was a threat to the Saudis and their buddies.


Saddam was no threat to Saudi. They didn't exactly see eye to eye, but they were both Sunnis.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Trixie said:


> I'm going to have to learn how to do the partial quotes - it does make things easier.


Its not really easy but its not that difficult either. There might be another way but I haven't found it. When you a message you see [ QUOTE=username;#### ] at the top and [ QUOTE ] at the bottom. When you want to quote part of a message you have to put the part with the user name at the start of the OP's words and the quote part at the end of the segment you wish to quote. That tells the program the words in between are to show up as quotations. 




Trixie said:


> Certainly, we need intelligence, but a big part of protecting ourselves from terrorists would be with tighter borders, cleaning house.
> 
> There was and is nothing being done on our Southern border to keep terrorists from coming here - armed with plenty of deadly things. Of course, our country refused to clean house, so there are plenty here already to either do the deed or aid and abet.


I agree mostly.




Trixie said:


> Personally, I think Bin Laden was CIA at one time anyway. I also think he was already dead.


Possibly but there's an old saying, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. We provided support to a lot of bad guys in our proxy wars with the USSR and China. A lot of young people today are amazed that fought with Russia and China against Germany and Japan during WWII.




Trixie said:


> As for their stopping 999 out of a 1000 - we have to believe there were a 100 attacks - I don't. I think we would hear about it - big time.


You hear about a few, there's even a list on Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsuccessful_terrorist_plots_in_the_United_States_post-9/11. But it would be foolish for the government to tell about all of them.




Trixie said:


> As for Saddam Hussein being a threat - to whom? To the bankers, oil corporations????


Like it or not the US and the world runs on oil and a threat to the free flow of oil is a threat to the US and the world. Remember what happened when the flow of oil the the US was slowed in the 70s? And the percentage of oil we were importing then was lower than in the 90s. We didn't really care when Iran and Iraq were fighting because the conflict didn't really interrupt the flow of oil but Iraq's grab of Kuwait did and would have continued to.

And like it or not w/o bankers and corporations the world would be a much worse place. I don't know about you but I know very few people who could have bought their house w/o a banker. And most of the people I know have jobs which are dependent on corporations.




Trixie said:


> As for being old enough - I'm 74 - I remember a lot of things.


Then you should remember how the IRA continued to cause terror in England even with all the things the Brits did to stop them.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

watcher said:


> We didn't really care when Iran and Iraq were fighting because the conflict didn't really interrupt the flow of oil but Iraq's grab of Kuwait did and would have continued to.
> 
> Did we supply Saddam with any chemical precursors and did those get used on Iranian troops and then again on Saddam's own people? Did we provide Saddam with nuclear seed material and if so, what was the intent for providing those? For what reason did Saddam attack Kuwait? Did he have our implied consent for him to do so?
> 
> ...



My comments in that wonderful Fusia color text


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Trixie said:


> So why did suddenly Bin Laden become a non issue? If he was still alive, was he not still 'an issue'? Doesn't compute.


There are possible reasons. One, he was under so much pressure he could not operate effectively. Two, allowing him to operate was giving intel benefits which outweighed the threat he posed. Three, there was a power struggle which weakened the organization and taking him out would have ended it.




Trixie said:


> Yes, they took action and I wasn't supposed to use a computer at a library - that's action. The rest of the story is, if a terrorist has WI-FI, they can pick it up anywhere. So just what part of that 'action' was to protect this country?


Knee jerk reactions taken by ignorant people to make other ignorant people feel better. Back when everyone was demanding a ban on "military assault weapons" a town was talking about passed a law banning Swiss Army knives because the town leaders felt it was too dangerous to allow "military" knives to be in the hands of criminals. I don't remember if common sense won the day or not.




Trixie said:


> The government took all kinds of actions - on the other side of the world - but left us vulnerable to terrorists attacks.


Yet there have been no major terrorist attacks since then. Kinda makes you go hummm doesn't it?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> I am not speaking of only terrorism, but, *our freedoms lost are numerous*. Every gun control law is *freedom lost*. Every pat down at the airport is *freedom lost*. Every bit of meta data gathered is *freedom lost.* With every new regulation *we lose freedom*. New banking rules, new agricultural rules, new travel rules, etc. etc., are all *infringements on our freedom*.
> 
> This has been happening for a long time, it has only ramped up since 9/11 and the Great Recession.
> 
> It matters not if you "notice" or "miss" them or not, *They are gone*.


Everyone keeps repeating that, and *no one* has listed one specific "right" they have lost.

You're all still just whining about everything in general, while constantly contradicting yourselves as to the reasons. 

(Too many actions, no actions, too many attacks, no attacks)


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Vahomesteaders said:


> The thing is there are thousands of conspiracy theories on YouTube. They make believable points. But there are just as many showing different outcomes. If our government was that despicable to allow such a thing, we would have all been disarmed and living under a dictatorship long ago. They have the power to do it. Especially with the mindset that many have in this nation now.


That is coming. Incremental application, as it has always been. Don't underestimate what they have done or what they will do. No theories are going on about any of this. Nobody really needs to guess.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> My comments in that wonderful Fusia color text


That method makes it very difficult to quote your posts.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> Yet there have been no major terrorist attacks since then.


It depends on how you define 'major.' I'm not impressed with the government's ability to stop terror attacks, but I am impressed with the government's ability to track citizens.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> So why did suddenly Bin Laden become a non issue? If he was still alive, was he not still 'an issue'? Doesn't compute.
> 
> Suddenly Saddam Hussein was the most immediate threat to this country - and based on hype and untruths, we were taken into a war to protect whom? Not the US, obviously.


bin Laden never became a "non issue". He just stopped getting headlines.
Saddam had 12 years of cease fire agreement violations as well as a history of supporting attacks against the US and our allies.

Trying to pretend it was all about 9/11, or that one took the place of the other isn't realistic. We eventually got them both.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

BlackFeather said:


> The deputy secretary of state Steven Pieczenik came out after leaving his job saying that the attack on 9/11 was known about in advance by the White House. Later he said that the white house was complicate in the attack. He also endorses the demolition of the twin towers explanation. He was deputy secretary of sate from Carter through Bush 2. On the radio interview I heard, he said that a general from the military called the white house stating that intelligence discovered a plot to fly planes into the towers, the white house told the general to stand down. Then called him back and threatened him that if he went public with this information he would be thrown out of the military with no pension . This general reported this to Mr Pieczenik. By the way the character Jack Ryan is fashioned after him. He used to help Tom Clancy with technical information for his books.
> 
> Finally, those buildings were built to take a plane impact, and steel won't melt at the temperature of burning fuel. Even if it did it would weaken at the fire site causing failure of the adjacent structural beams causing the building to topple not collapse. Furthermore, an analysis was done of the dust from the building and the dust contained an exotic explosive compound.
> 
> No one want to believe their government is criminal but it is clear the law doesn't seem to apply to our leaders. I keep seeing Occam's razor being used, in many cases it is correct unless you deal with spies like the CIA, they live for complexities.


The only thing that keeps many people from identifying the simplest explanation is blind trust that our government isn't murderous.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> It depends on how you define 'major.' I'm not impressed with the government's ability to stop terror attacks, but I am impressed with the government's ability to track citizens.


If they can track one group they can track the other, and the lack of attacks here should prove their effectiveness, since we have long been told that "every terrorist we killed created 2 more", and "terrorists can just walk across the border with any weapons they want".

All the claims can't be true.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Woolieface said:


> The only thing that keeps many people from identifying *the simplest explanation *is blind trust that our government isn't murderous.


I think it's more that all the various conspiracy theories are just too lame to believe.

They all just parrot the same tired false logic that's been disproven countless times, and cite sources with no credibility

It's called "reverse science" when you decide beforehand what you want to believe, and them disregard anything that could possibly contradict that explanation, like all the drivel about "explosives" bringing down the towers.

They also tend to believe anything anyone says IF it fits their agenda, without digging into the reality about the source:

Steven Pieczenik:



> Pieczenik was born in Cuba of Jewish parents from Russia and Poland and was reared in France.[2]


He's good with fiction too:



> Pieczenik has made a number of ventures into fiction, as an author (of State of Emergency and a number of other books)[24] and as a business partner of Tom Clancy for several series of novels.[25]



He appears to be one who will say most anything to get attention:



> On October 20, 2011 in an interview with *Alex Jones*, Pieczenik claimed that Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi is alive and said "There&#8217;s no way they killed Muammar Gaddafi, that&#8217;s not our operating mode and I&#8217;ve been involved in 30 years with the takeouts and regime changes." He also slammed President Barack Obama by calling him an "obsessional pathological liar".[32][33]
> 
> 
> On September 16, 2012, during an interview with *Alex Jones, *Pieczenik stated that Israel planned to initiate war with Iran during Yom Kippur 2012, unless ex-Mossad and ex-Shin Bet agents assassinated Benjamin Netanyahu.[34] *Neither prediction came to pass*.
> ...


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Everyone keeps repeating that, and *no one* has listed one specific "right" they have lost.
> 
> You're all still just whining about everything in general, while constantly contradicting yourselves as to the reasons.
> 
> (Too many actions, no actions, too many attacks, no attacks)


 Ok, we have the right to be secure in our persons, papers etc. That is no longer true if you use a cell phone, computer, want to board a plane, show your face in public, etc. 

Our 2nd amendment rights used to me un-infringed, we were entitled to purchase any small arm available to any soldier in the world. We used to be able to order fully automatic machine guns through the mail. With every new gun law, more of our 2nd amendment rights are eroded. 

We are no longer, in many states, allowed to sell milk, for human consumption, that hasn't been pasteurized. 

I can't sell meat to the public unless it has the government's stamp of approval on it, but, I can give that meat to the same people, and that is fine. 

We used to have the freedom of association, but, that is quickly going away as well and is being replaced with forced association. 

Our rights to use our property as we see fit is being eroded at an alarming rate. 

We are now forced to purchase a product from a private company simply because we exist. 

Religious liberty is increasingly under attack. 

These are only a few examples. There are many more.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Trixie said:


> People, we are never going to know the truth about 9/11.
> 
> There is a truth and some know it - or part of it, that's true.
> 
> ...


I have some truth. I don't expect it to be taken seriously by many who don't know me, but take it for what it's worth to you. I did not get any of this information from the internet, alternative media or any other public source.

There were exactly 0 Arabs on the flight manifests of the planes in question on 911. There were also exactly 0 human beings on the "planes" that actually hit the buildings. The passengers were disembarked at John Hopkins airport in Cleveland Ohio and "disappeared". What hit the buildings were remotely operated and unmanned, not the original passenger planes. Charges were placed in all the buildings that collapsed prior to any of this.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Shine said:


> ...and it appears that there are quite a few that are willing to let this pass without receiving answers to the legitimate questions posed by a multitude. That seems to me to be quite un-american in nature.


I found this picture in a story about the CA wildfires. Look at what a fast moving wildfire did to the steel. If you check you will find that wood burns at about 500 degrees therefore it just couldn't cause steel the "melt". Its must be that someone, maybe the government, came in and put some nano thermite in the building.

And answer me this. If the roofing material had been fireproof, say slate or tile, and had not burned away do you think the roof supports would have failed and the roofing material would have fallen to the ground?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Everyone keeps repeating that, and *no one* has listed one specific "right" they have lost.
> 
> You're all still just whining about everything in general, while constantly contradicting yourselves as to the reasons.
> 
> (Too many actions, no actions, too many attacks, no attacks)


Yes they have. You just refuse to see it.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> If they can track one group they can track the other, and the lack of attacks here should prove their effectiveness, since we have long been told that "every terrorist we killed created 2 more", and "terrorists can just walk across the border with any weapons they want".
> 
> All the claims can't be true.


Except that the system is geared towards tracking us, not them.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

watcher said:


> I found this picture in a story about the CA wildfires. Look at what a fast moving wildfire did to the steel. If you check you will find that wood burns at about 500 degrees therefore it just couldn't cause steel the "melt". Its must be that someone, maybe the government, came in and put some nano thermite in the building.
> 
> And answer me this. If the roofing material had been fireproof, say slate or tile, and had not burned away do you think the roof supports would have failed and the roofing material would have fallen to the ground?


I would need more information. It appears that the vehicles might have contributed to this occurrence, I do not know the thickness of the metal is that I am to evaluate, I do not know whether or not the vehicles were in an enclosed "building" before the fire started, I do not know if this occurred during an event associated with high winds. I do not know what roofing material was used if any. 

I can guess if you want me to...

I see you took this opportunity to make light of the findings that I provided with valid backing. It is telling that you did so.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> Ok, we have the right to be secure in our persons, papers etc. That is no longer true if you use a cell phone, computer, want to board a plane, show your face in public, etc.
> 
> Our 2nd amendment rights used to me un-infringed, we were entitled to purchase any small arm available to any soldier in the world. We used to be able to order fully automatic machine guns through the mail. With every new gun law, more of our 2nd amendment rights are eroded.
> 
> ...


You're listing things that happened as far back as the 30's, and have nothing at all to do with the OP topic.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Except that the system is geared towards tracking us, not them.


It's geared towards "tracking".
It makes little difference who is using a device being tracked, and the electronic surveillance dates back to Carter and Clinton, not 9/11


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Woolieface said:


> I have some truth. I don't expect it to be taken seriously by many who don't know me, but take it for what it's worth to you. I did not get any of this information from the internet, alternative media or any other public source.
> 
> There were exactly 0 Arabs on the flight manifests of the planes in question on 911. There were also exactly 0 human beings on the "planes" that actually hit the buildings. The passengers were disembarked at John Hopkins airport in Cleveland Ohio and "disappeared". What hit the buildings were remotely operated and unmanned, not the original passenger planes. Charges were placed in all the buildings that collapsed prior to any of this.


I don't know that any of that's true, but I don't know that the official story is true either. I have reason to be suspicious of the official story, since the administration worked so hard to block an independent investigation. It might be that the administration was just covering up incompetence, but again I don't know. Why is ANYTHING about the WTC attack still classified? Again, I just don't know.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's geared towards "tracking".
> It makes little difference who is using a device being tracked, and the electronic surveillance dates back to Carter and Clinton, not 9/11


Yes, except that terrorists aren't carrying RFID chips or opening bank accounts. They know how to stay under the radar.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Woolieface said:


> I have some truth.* I don't expect it to be taken seriously* by many who don't know me, but take it for what it's worth to you. I did not get any of this information from the internet, alternative media or any other public source.
> 
> There were exactly 0 Arabs on the flight manifests of the planes in question on 911. There were also exactly 0 human beings on the "planes" that actually hit the buildings. The passengers were disembarked at John Hopkins airport in Cleveland Ohio and "disappeared". What hit the buildings were remotely operated and unmanned, not the original passenger planes. Charges were placed in all the buildings that collapsed prior to any of this.


How *could* anyone take any of that seriously?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Yes, except that terrorists aren't carrying RFID chips or opening bank accounts. They know how to stay under the radar.


No one is being "tracked" with RFID chips, and many terrorists have been liinked to bank accounts.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> I would need more information. It appears that the vehicles might have contributed to this occurrence, I do not know the thickness of the metal is that I am to evaluate, I do not know whether or not the vehicles were in an enclosed "building" before the fire started, I do not know if this occurred during an event associated with high winds. I do not know what roofing material was used if any.
> 
> I can guess if you want me to...
> 
> I see you took this opportunity to make light of the *findings that I provided with valid backing.* It is telling that you did so.


One debunked paper isn't exactly "valid backing"
There's no evidence to support his conclusions outside of all the conspiracy sites 

Thermite (nano nor otherwise) could not have been used to bring those buildings down without everyone being aware

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_controlled_demolition_conspiracy_theories


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Shine said:


> Um... then what happened to the columns that "Guided" the floors into their foot print? You are talking about the pancake theory. The pancake theory meets resistance at each floor, a pancake collapse can never happen at the speed of free fall. You've said nothing about the symmetry of the building's outer facade, the building collapsed as if each floor was being destroyed at the bottom, that does not fit with the pancake collapse theory either. You said that it had a "Structural Steel Skeleton" on the outside. Can you look at the collapse and tell me how that possibly failed to allow the collapse in the fashion that it did? It is impossible.
> 
> https://youtu.be/bWorDrTC0Qg
> 
> ...


The pictures of the plane hitting the second tower explains a lot.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVhhu5OjMf8[/ame]

The flame that extends out from the plane's impact is the jet fuel from ruptured fuel tanks. You can't dump that much fuel into a building and expect it to remain standing. On top of that the fireproofing on the steel was an older type that is not as good as the stuff used now. When that fuel ignited at impact, the building was gone. It was just a matter of time.

Once the column connections were lost, the pancaking started. The internal structure for the elevators, raceways, utilities, etc. affected the speed and manner in which the building collapsed.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> One debunked paper isn't exactly "valid backing"
> There's no evidence to support his conclusions outside of all the conspiracy sites
> 
> Thermite (nano nor otherwise) could not have been used to bring those buildings down without everyone being aware
> ...


Yeah, wikipedia has all the truth. Why is wikipedia not allowed as valid source info in College? Um... he gathered his evidence and provided a chain of contact to validate his research that would be acceptable in a court
of law. Have you been able to prove in a peer reviewed paper that his conclusions are flawed, or do you have a citation for some other entity that has done this or are you talking out yer...


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Woolieface said:


> I have some truth. I don't expect it to be taken seriously by many who don't know me, but take it for what it's worth to you. I did not get any of this information from the internet, alternative media or any other public source.
> 
> There were exactly 0 Arabs on the flight manifests of the planes in question on 911. There were also exactly 0 human beings on the "planes" that actually hit the buildings. The passengers were disembarked at John Hopkins airport in Cleveland Ohio and "disappeared". What hit the buildings were remotely operated and unmanned, not the original passenger planes. Charges were placed in all the buildings that collapsed prior to any of this.


I have heard that as well.

My son in laws father worked in one of the towers.

He had been going into work early, but that morning he told his wife he was going to have another cup of coffee and catch the next train.

As they neared the city, it was announced the train would be diverted to the upper part of the city as their was a fire in the WTC. As he walked back down the city, he saw them burning and since his son worked in one of the buildings right next to them, he said he was sure when the collapsed, they would possibly fall on the building where his son worked.

I, too, wondered why it didn't collapse - and we will have debate for years to come, and will never know for sure.

In order to question the government, one has to believe it is capable of such things. Many people don't, can't, refuse. I am sure it would be tough. My family was always those that questioned, 'walked around the back of an issue' and studied it from all directions.

My Mother was the baby of the family and a young girl during the depression. She said she remembered the men in the store laughing and making fun of my Grandfather because he told them SS was not a good thing. He told them there would come a time when you wouldn't be able to have a bank account, buy and sell land, etc.,

He got similar response then as is given today regarding government intentions or actions.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Darren said:


> The pictures of the plane hitting the second tower explains a lot.
> 
> The flame that extends out from the plane's impact is the jet fuel from ruptured fuel tanks. You can't dump that much fuel into a building and expect it to remain standing. On top of that the fireproofing on the steel was an older type that is not as good as the stuff used now. When that fuel ignited at impact, the building was gone. It was just a matter of time.
> 
> Once the column connections were lost, the pancaking started. The internal structure for the elevators, raceways, utilities, etc. affected the speed and manner in which the building collapsed.


You too are suggesting that the towers collapsed in a "pancake collapse" - as flawed as the 9/11 Report is, they did not suggest that as what was the cause of progression for the collapse. 

I wonder how many gallons burned up outside the buildings. Remember, the jet fuel was also traveling at about 500 MPH. 

Where did all the explosions come from that were reported by the Firefighters?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> Yeah, wikipedia has all the truth. Why is wikipedia not allowed as valid source info in College? Um... he gathered his evidence and *provided a chain of contact to validate his research* that would be acceptable in a court
> of law. Have you been able to prove in a peer reviewed paper that his conclusions are flawed, or do you have a citation for some other entity that has done this or are you talking out yer...


No, he did *not* provide the "chain of custody" which you would have learned if you had bothered to read anything I posted. (Or anything reported shortly after the paper was published)

You whine about WIKI while ignoring that they show all the original sources for the information. They even linked to your refuted paper.



> Why is wikipedia not allowed as valid source info in College?


WIKI isn't a "source". 
It compiles various sources in one place.
That's why they have all the footnotes.

There were no explosives involved in bringing down those buildings.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're listing things that happened as far back as the 30's, and have nothing at all to do with the OP topic.


 Some do, some don't. I fail to see what difference it makes. My claim was that the government overblows things in order to gain power. That includes terrorism as well as other "booger men". My examples speak to many different "booger men". The surveillance state certainly was pushed into overdrive after 9-11.

To be clear, I am no 9-11 truther. I simply look a the threat for what it is worth. The chances of me, or, you dying in a terrorist attack is miniscule. The Patriot acts were legislation waiting for a crisis. I have a larger statistical chance of dying in my neighbors pool than in a terrorist attack, yet, I don't wish for government to ban the ownership and use of pools.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> Some do, some don't. * I fail to see what difference it makes.* My claim was that the government overblows things in order to gain power. That includes terrorism as well as other "booger men". My examples speak to many different "booger men". The surveillance state certainly was pushed into overdrive after 9-11.
> 
> To be clear, I am no 9-11 truther. I simply look a the threat for what it is worth. The chances of me, or, you dying in a terrorist attack is miniscule. The Patriot acts were legislation waiting for a crisis. I have a larger statistical chance of dying in my neighbors pool than in a terrorist attack, yet, I don't wish for government to ban the ownership and use of pools.


It makes no difference as long as all you want is an anti-Govt rant about vague "lost rights".

The "threat" to any one individual is meaningless, since the acts of "terrorists" harm more than just those they kill. 

That's part of the definition.

The threat is much lower here than most other countries.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The threat is much lower here than most other countries.


That's the point exactly.

The threats are being overblown in order to keep everyone frightened.

It would tend to make one wonder if it every really existed at all - at least to any degree.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It makes no difference as long as all you want is an anti-Govt rant about vague "lost rights".
> 
> The "threat" to any one individual is meaningless, since the acts of "terrorists" harm more than just those they kill.
> 
> ...


 I listed examples of some of our lost rights. Most resulted from of some government generated, overblown "booger man". nothing vague about them. 

It would seem that the terrorist win if we let the government take our rights because of their actions. I am sure they feel empowered.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> I listed examples of some of our lost rights. Most resulted from of some government generated, overblown "booger man". nothing vague about them.
> 
> It would seem that the terrorist win if we let the government take our rights because of their actions. I am sure they feel empowered.


Not singling out anyone or even speaking specifically of this site - but over the years of posting and chatting, you get the same postings -

'What rights have we lost?"

"It's always been that way."

"It's been that way since _______."

I don't know if people really believe that, if they want to believe it, if they have other reasons for posting it.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> One debunked paper isn't exactly "valid backing"
> There's no evidence to support his conclusions outside of all the conspiracy sites
> 
> Thermite (nano nor otherwise) could not have been used to bring those buildings down without everyone being aware
> ...


From that site:
"Jones informed NIST of his findings and *NIST responded that there was no "clear chain of custody"* proving that the dust indeed came from the WTC site. Jones invited NIST to conduct its own studies with dust under custody of NIST itself, but NIST has not done so.[14]"

So... NIST pulled a Bearfootfarm eh? 

NIST, who also originally said that Building fell much slower than "free fall" rates which you find to be of no importance. You will not even explain how a steel structure building can fall through itself and at the same time achieve the speed of Free Fall. You appear to think this can happen. Well, so you know, it cannot.

So... why after telling Jones that there was an uncertain Chain of Custody [thank you for the correct phrase] [also which I believe that Niels did provide a valid chain of custody for the tested samples] and if there might have even been the slightest chance of the presence of explosives, and if NIST had some "pure" samples with a good chain of custody, why was there no test done to affirm or deny that existence?

Can you provide information as to what entity proved that there were no traces of nano thermite in WTC samples with a valid chain of custody?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Shine said:


> From that site:
> "Jones informed NIST of his findings and *NIST responded that there was no "clear chain of custody"* proving that the dust indeed came from the WTC site. Jones invited NIST to conduct its own studies with dust under custody of NIST itself, but NIST has not done so.[14]"
> 
> So... NIST pulled a Bearfootfarm eh? NIST, who also originally said that Building fell much slower than "free fall" rates which you find to be of no importance. You will not even explain how a steel structure building can fall through itself and at the same time achieve the speed of Free Fall. You appear to think this can happen. Well, so you know, it cannot.
> ...


You can't really argue these things using science. If you do you'll find yourself arguing over whether water runs uphill, and you'll never win. It's the same with arguing evolution vs creationism, or even global warming.

Science is a poor argument because it will either be argued that there are too many black swan events for it to be credible, or that science is just a liberal conspiracy cooked up by left-wing elitists. Don't waste your time.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Can you provide information as to what entity proved that there were no traces of nano thermite in WTC samples with a valid chain of custody?


No one ever proved it was there.
No other evidence supports the "explosive" theory.

Nano dust and speculation is all you've offered and rehashing decades worth of hype is silly


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Shine said:


> I would need more information. It appears that the vehicles might have contributed to this occurrence, I do not know the thickness of the metal is that I am to evaluate, I do not know whether or not the vehicles were in an enclosed "building" before the fire started, I do not know if this occurred during an event associated with high winds. I do not know what roofing material was used if any.
> 
> I can guess if you want me to...
> 
> I see you took this opportunity to make light of the findings that I provided with valid backing. It is telling that you did so.


You do not need any of that info. The point is that a fire got hot enough to 'melt' steel to the point it deformed and there was no high tech thermite involved, only commonly used materials. The main "fact" all the "it was an inside job" types bring up is there's no way that the fire could burn hot enough to 'melt' steel and cause the floor to fail therefore there must have been something else. This picture CLEARLY shows that "fact" is not true. 

That means that the common sense explanation of the fire caused the floor supports to fail causing a chain reaction failure is also the most logical conclusion. 

I didn't even notice it until now if you look at the vertical supports in the picture you'll even see evidence to show why the floors fell straight down. There is almost no distortion of the vertical supports therefor if the roof had been heavy and fireproof it would have not been able to fall to the side when its horizontal supports failed.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Nevada said:


> You can't really argue these things using science. If you do you'll find yourself arguing over whether water runs uphill, and you'll never win. It's the same with arguing evolution vs creationism, or even global warming.
> 
> Science is a poor argument because it will either be argued that there are too many black swan events for it to be credible, or that science is just a liberal conspiracy cooked up by left-wing elitists. Don't waste your time.


I agree - there is always an 'expert' with an opposing set of 'facts'. I think there are some out there who have some scientific integrity and may very well have the real facts - or some of the facts. I think there are some out there who have a differing set of facts and present them with such, supposed integrity - whose job is simply obfuscation and diversion.

Since, speaking for myself, I am far from scientific, and I can doubt a finding, but to know for sure, I can't. I can, however, look at results, how things were/are handled, who benefits, what actions were taken - and why.

Science, if we could get it, would only tell us what did or did not happen. It could tell us if it was deliberately made to happen - but not who caused it - or why.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Trixie said:


> That's the point exactly.
> 
> The threats are being overblown in order to keep everyone frightened.
> 
> It would tend to make one wonder if it every really existed at all - at least to any degree.


Not a great analogy but. . . Most people will NEVER be in an automobile accident. Most people who are in automobile accidents will not be in a major accident. IOW, the odds of you, as an individual, being involved in a car wreck which would result in major injury or death is very, very small. That means that the threat of injury or death to you is CLEARLY over blown. So if you were given the option would you drive a car w/o an airbag while not wearing your seat belt?

I agree that a lot of the stuff being done as anti-terrorist is a waste of time and resources and some of it interferes with individual rights but the facts are; no right is 100% all the time and it seems to be working, for now. 

We need to be more active and less reactive to the threat.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Shine said:


> You too are suggesting that the towers collapsed in a "pancake collapse" - as flawed as the 9/11 Report is, they did not suggest that as what was the cause of progression for the collapse.
> 
> I wonder how many gallons burned up outside the buildings. Remember, the jet fuel was also traveling at about 500 MPH.
> 
> Where did all the explosions come from that were reported by the Firefighters?


The explosions could have resulted from multiple sources. Were there any medical offices in the buildings? It wouldn't be unusial to have high pressure cylinders in such an office depending on the treatments or safeguards offered. Inert gases also have uses that may result in presence in an office building. None of those are going to react well to extreme heat.

There's also a Norwegian study about the effect of molten aluminum and the possible release of hydrogen. You're probably familiar with the hydrogen explosion at Fukushima and the destruction of the secondary containment structure over the reactor building and the fuel pool.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

My fear of getting a ticket is why I wear a seatbelt - I feel it is my right to choose to wear one or not - the government thinks otherwise. I do know people have auto accidents and are killed.

I've been trying to think of a way of explaining how I see what was done in regard to terrorism - after 9/11 and even now.

The gist is, our country did nothing rational toward protecting this country.
The left the country full of people they had no clue who, why, how many, or what the intentions were. They left the entrances to this country open. The government didn't even try to pretend or announce to the world we were controlling the borders. An open invitation to anyone bent on doing harm.

They even continued to allow them to come in - men came in to train at a flight school taught only in Arabic??? shortly after 9/11. 

The went to the ME - took over Afghanistan, put the Occidental consultant on the throne - then invaded Iraq and 'liberated their oil resources, their water resources, their banking system, and their national treasure of wheat developed over centuries. And of course, there's also the question of what happened to all that money we saw them packing into the metal suitcases and being hauled out by flatbed trucks????

Nothing in those actions did or were designed to make this country safer. In fact, stirring up the ME and leaving our borders open is begging for terrorists - yet they didn't come - why.

Some believe it's because our intelligence agencies are so wonderful they have thwarted all the attempts but one - strange they can't 'find' all the illegals, who are operating in plain sight and on the government dole.


I'm trying to figure out what exactly they have done to ferret out those terrorist?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> I agree that a lot of the stuff being done as anti-terrorist is a waste of time and resources


It might be a waste of time as it relates to reducing terror threat, but since they persist in doing it it's not a waste of time to them. The stuff being done is important to someone, that's for sure. Whenever congress discusses backing off of some of the tactics heads explode. For whatever reason, it's critically important to the powers that be.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Is it possible to object to allowing Syrian refugees to come to the US because they raise the level of threat of terrorism and simultaneously hold that there is no creditable terrorist threat to argue that it is a government plot? 
Seems that if it is manufactured by the government, what could the objection be to admitting the refugees?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

where I want to said:


> *Is it possible* to object to allowing Syrian refugees to come to the US because they raise the level of threat of terrorism and simultaneously hold that there is no creditable terrorist threat to argue that it is a government plot?
> Seems that if it is manufactured by the government, what could the objection be to admitting the refugees?


It must be since a few are complaining about a lot of things that are contradictory


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> No one ever proved it was there.
> No other evidence supports the "explosive" theory.
> 
> Nano dust and speculation is all you've offered and rehashing decades worth of hype is silly


No, I've offered much more. You however are too much of an authority to accept any of it. You are a good american who believes much more of what the government tells you than I think is safe...

Just watching Building 7 collapse is enough to tell me that this was somehow rigged. And I believe that to the core of my being.

YOU cannot toss away the violations of physics because you do not want to entertain them, you cannot just say, "Oh, that's just hype" as you seem to repeatedly offer as a dismissal. 

If you want to have a back and forth discussion, you have to at least consider my points, if not, I should not waste my time. 

I've offered that there is something different than the official story going on here. I have offered evidence here to validate that, so far you seem to just dismiss things out of hand.

You say that NIST did not accept the chain of custody, I say that NIST was given the opportunity to put the matter to rest, I further submit that because of the inference of the explosive's presence in the dust that they had an obligation to confirm or refute it.

Building 7 appeared to be a controlled demolition, because of that "appearance" it has to be ruled out, if not, then you do not have the strength in your argument to dismiss, out of hand, the presence of explosives.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

where I want to said:


> Is it possible to object to allowing Syrian refugees to come to the US because they raise the level of threat of terrorism and simultaneously hold that there is no creditable terrorist threat to argue that it is a government plot?
> Seems that if it is manufactured by the government, what could the objection be to admitting the refugees?


My objection is not that they are terrorists although I do think we have created a whole lot of people who hate this country and would do us harm

Right now those people aren't here - 

My objection, though, is this country is full - it already has more foreigners than we can possible absorb into the system or attempt to assimilate them into the American culture - whatever that is.

We don't need to bring in a million young men, who neither know, nor respect our laws. Why would we think they would respect the people after we have been responsible for so much death and destruction in their part of the world.

We have no jobs for those young men.

What are we going to do with them?

Some people are just now either realizing or being allowed to speak out about the harm done by the illegal Mexicans and so far we have only touched the tip of the iceberg with that.

We haven't even begun to consider what is going to happen with all those 'unattended children' we have let in - much disease being brought in, many gang members, lots of crime and criminals.

In other words, our plate is full.

I think America is already toast - but this would assure it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> No, I've offered much more. You however are too much of an authority to accept any of it. You are a good american who believes much more of what the government tells you than I think is safe...
> 
> Just watching Building 7 collapse is enough to tell me that this was somehow rigged. And I believe that to the core of my being.
> 
> ...


You offered one paper that was worthless, and lots of unconfirmed rumors about what people think they heard or saw 

Why keep repeating it endlessly? 
It's not real.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Trixie said:


> The went to the ME - took over Afghanistan, put the Occidental consultant on the throne


UNOCAL consultant. Yes, that's correct, Mohammed Karzai and I were both on the payroll for the same company at the same time. But Union Oil was a pretty big company at the time...


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Nevada said:


> UNOCAL consultant. Yes, that's correct, Mohammed Karzai and I were both on the payroll for the same company at the same time. But Union Oil was a pretty big company at the time...




Truly, I don't remember for sure, but wasn't Occidental one of those interested in building some pipeline in the area?

I could be wrong.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

watcher said:


> You do not need any of that info. The point is that a fire got hot enough to 'melt' steel to the point it deformed and there was no high tech thermite involved, only commonly used materials. The main "fact" all the "it was an inside job" types bring up is there's no way that the fire could burn hot enough to 'melt' steel and cause the floor to fail therefore there must have been something else. This picture CLEARLY shows that "fact" is not true.
> 
> That means that the common sense explanation of the fire caused the floor supports to fail causing a chain reaction failure is also the most logical conclusion.
> 
> I didn't even notice it until now if you look at the vertical supports in the picture you'll even see evidence to show why the floors fell straight down. There is almost no distortion of the vertical supports therefor if the roof had been heavy and fireproof it would have not been able to fall to the side when its horizontal supports failed.


This is even worse than the 9/11 report. OK, so the entire floor was all engulfed with fire hot enough to warp all the support beams so that at one certain point ALL of them let go to allow the type of symmetrical collapse that we all witnessed? Do you realize how far out there that suggestion is, all the support columns failed at the same moment? What happened to all of the corner supports? Were they so warped by the fires that they would just pulverize at some point lower than we could witness, they maintained their rigidity until they were out of sight in almost all of the videos. 

Please explain, once again, I must have missed it, how a steel structured building, collapsing through itself, can achieve free fall speeds? I know how that can happen, all resistance that WOULD be there is removed. How do you do that?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Darren said:


> The explosions could have resulted from multiple sources. Were there any medical offices in the buildings? It wouldn't be unusial to have high pressure cylinders in such an office depending on the treatments or safeguards offered. Inert gases also have uses that may result in presence in an office building. None of those are going to react well to extreme heat.
> 
> There's also a Norwegian study about the effect of molten aluminum and the possible release of hydrogen. You're probably familiar with the hydrogen explosion at Fukushima and the destruction of the secondary containment structure over the reactor building and the fuel pool.


Listen to the firefighters telling their stories, they were there. When I hear them say that the floors were "popping out" before the collapse even started, I tend to accept what they say. I do not think that there were any medical labs on the floors that were hit, just office space.

Is it your suggestion that the fire fighters heard multiple detonations of Hydrogen Gas Explosions?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Trixie said:


> Truly, I don't remember for sure, but wasn't Occidental one of those interested in building some pipeline in the area?
> 
> I could be wrong.


I don't recall involvement by Occidental, but in the 1990s the Russians were involved. It could be that Armand Hammer had a hand in the planning without my knowing of it.

Unocal was a player in the TAPI pipeline at one time but no longer exists (was absorbed into Chevron in 2005). Karzai was a consultant for Unocal. Look at the first 20 seconds of this clip.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUbvCkhkEFs[/ame]


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You offered one paper that was worthless, and lots of unconfirmed rumors about what people think they heard or saw
> 
> Why keep repeating it endlessly?
> It's not real.


See, OK, so we will not have a back and forth discussion. Have a nice day.

You see what you think is going on and I shall also. 

Discussing things with you is a dead end.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Shine said:


> Listen to the firefighters telling their stories, they were there. When I hear them say that the floors were "popping out" before the collapse even started, I tend to accept what they say. I do not think that there were any medical labs on the floors that were hit, just office space.
> 
> Is it your suggestion that the fire fighters heard multiple detonations of Hydrogen Gas Explosions?


Again, the fact that none of the firefighter eye witness accounts were taken seriously is cause for concern. Let's face it, there was never a comprehensive investigation into the WTC attack.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Nevada said:


> I don't know that any of that's true, but I don't know that the official story is true either. I have reason to be suspicious of the official story, since the administration worked so hard to block an independent investigation. It might be that the administration was just covering up incompetence, but again I don't know. Why is ANYTHING about the WTC attack still classified? Again, I just don't know.


"I don't know" Is a whole lot better than "I believe everything they tell me."


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I don't recall involvement by Occidental, but in the 1990s the Russians were involved. It could be that Armand Hammer had a hand in the planning without my knowing of it.
> 
> Unocal was a player in the TAPI pipeline at one time but no longer exists (was absorbed into Chevron in 2005). Karzai was a consultant for Unocal. Look at the first 20 seconds of this clip.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUbvCkhkEFs


I may have meant Unocal - I know the man our government installed was a consultant for an oil/energy company and I really thought that company had some desire to build a pipeline.

I can't watch videos on my computer - but thanks for the link.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Trixie said:


> My fear of getting a ticket is why I wear a seatbelt - I feel it is my right to choose to wear one or not - the government thinks otherwise. I do know people have auto accidents and are killed.


You will note I said if you had the option. I have worn my seat belt from the time I got my first car equipped with them, a brand new right off the show room floor 1970 Ford, not because I was required but because I knew they could save my life.

But clearly you have never been killed in one, which is my point. The risk of any one specific individual being severely injured or killed in one specific accident is very small. 




Trixie said:


> I'm trying to figure out what exactly they have done to ferret out those terrorist?


They have done the same thing they have been doing throughout all of history, they have put systems into place to find them. You don't find terrorist by walking around asking people if they are terrorist. You find them by acting like you want to be a terrorist yourself. Its kinda like having a major drug ring causing problems in a city. Putting dozens upon dozens of police on the streets and arresting hundreds of street level dealers would look good and make the news but it really wouldn't do much to solve the problem. What would solve the problem is using just a few people to get into the ring and find out how it works and who is in charge then taking them out. If this was going on would you expect the police to put out press releases informing the public what they were doing to solve the problem?

The US used to be very good at such things until it became politically incorrect. At that point we tried to get our intel from sources which do not involve people from having to actually get their hands dirty dealing with dirty people. Its like how we have for decades been trying to fight "wars" w/o killing anyone other than the bad guys. If you try to fight by the Marquess of Queensberry rules while your opponent isn't in the end you are going to lose.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> You don't find terrorist by walking around asking people if they are terrorist. You find them by acting like you want to be a terrorist yourself. Its kinda like having a major drug ring causing problems in a city. Putting dozens upon dozens of police on the streets and arresting hundreds of street level dealers would look good and make the news but it really wouldn't do much to solve the problem. What would solve the problem is using just a few people to get into the ring and find out how it works and who is in charge then taking them out.


As I've been saying for over a decade, military force is ineffective against terrorism. But evidently it's effective at accomplishing what the government wanted done. The US invasion of Iraq was very effective at bringing Iraqi natural resources under US control, and the military occupation of Iraq was effective at providing enough security to conduct business. I believe those were the real US objectives in Iraq.

Unfortunately we really angered Sunni militants. Apparently they didn't like getting shot & subjugated in Fallujah, so they've risen up as a new entity called ISIS.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> It might be a waste of time as it relates to reducing terror threat, but since they persist in doing it it's not a waste of time to them. The stuff being done is important to someone, that's for sure. Whenever congress discusses backing off of some of the tactics heads explode. For whatever reason, it's critically important to the powers that be.


There's reasons for the. First reason is doing would cost jobs and that could lead to the second reason it would cost someone political power.

There's an old military adage which says: When in danger, when in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout! Meaning if you have no idea how to deal with a problem do something, anything to make it seem like you know what to do. 

The pols follow a variant of this when ever there's a big problem which has a complicated (or non-existent) solution. But they run to the microphone, scream, shout and then pass simple laws which makes the people feel good but actually do nothing to fix the problem.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

No, I've never been killed in one. You are absolutely right since I'm still here.

To suggest I do not know people can be killed in an auto accident - you couldn't be farther from the truth. Believe me, I am aware of that every day of my life.

Just me, but I wouldn't use the 'war on drugs' as any kind of example - it hasn't been a stellar success.

Of course, I'll point out the obvious and say if we worked harder at keeping the drugs out - we wouldn't have so much on the streets.

Same goes for people who should not be in the US.

When did we start killing only the bad guys in war?


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Nevada said:


> As I've been saying for over a decade, military force is ineffective against terrorism. But evidently it's effective at accomplishing what the government wanted done. The US invasion of Iraq was very effective at bringing Iraqi natural resources under US control, and the military occupation of Iraq was effective at providing enough security to conduct business. I believe those were the real US objectives in Iraq.
> 
> Unfortunately we really angered Sunni militants. Apparently they didn't like getting shot & subjugated in Fallujah, so they've risen up as a new entity called ISIS.


Oh yeah, like the handing over to the Iraqi civilians the forming of the new Iraqi government, with the great opportunity to exercise old hates, had nothing to do with the Sunnis being excluded. Yup, I guess more American intrusion would have stopped that. 
And didn't you tick off on your "America bad" list the tremendous financial cost of this process, yet the control of those Iraqi natural resources hasn't apparently made up for it.
Such an over simplification.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Sorry, double post -


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Nevada said:


> As I've been saying for over a decade, military force is ineffective against terrorism. But evidently it's effective at accomplishing what the government wanted done. The US invasion of Iraq was very effective at bringing Iraqi natural resources under US control, and the military occupation of Iraq was effective at providing enough security to conduct business. I believe those were the real US objectives in Iraq.
> 
> Unfortunately we really angered Sunni militants. Apparently they didn't like getting shot & subjugated in Fallujah, so they've risen up as a new entity called ISIS.





Nevada said:


> As I've been saying for over a decade, military force is ineffective against terrorism. But evidently it's effective at accomplishing what the government wanted done. The US invasion of Iraq was very effective at bringing Iraqi natural resources under US control, and the military occupation of Iraq was effective at providing enough security to conduct business. I believe those were the real US objectives in Iraq.
> 
> Unfortunately we really angered Sunni militants. Apparently they didn't like getting shot & subjugated in Fallujah, so they've risen up as a new entity called ISIS.


Thank you - 

I will admit to not understanding a lot of things.

Terrorists don't operate with big military equipment - armies as such. They use few people and few materials to achieve their goal. 

Why in the world would they hang around anywhere in the ME and face our army, when they can bring in, or find in this country what they need to create havoc.

The fact they created enemies when they took over Iraq was something they were warned about by quite a few people before they went in - so yes, evidently it was important they go into Iraq and they go in at that particular time.

Why?


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

farmrbrown said:


> Airlines can have all the security they want, all they can afford. Have at it, they are a private business.
> Now, a gov't employee is another thing. We have a little thing called a Bill of Rights, you may have heard of it too.
> In it there's something called the 4th amendment that says a gov't employee can't touch me without a warrant. He or she can't take my wife in a private room and ask her to undress, at least not without eating thru a straw for a long time, capisce?
> OK, that last part isn't part of the 4th, that's my own "personal" law......and I enforce it whether you wear a piece of cloth on your head or a shiny blue hat and a badge.
> ...


Does your tough guy approach work well, at your recent trips to the airport? Just curious.

The high courts, do not deem TSA searches as unreasonable. Apparently, they thinks they have a say so in the matter.

Trains don't have nearly the screenings, that the airlines do, which is why the terrorist got the weapons on board. What about next time? Will the brave U.S. servicemen be there?

Flight 93 passengers fought off the 9/11 hijackers, too. They saved the intended target - which is awesome, but it did not work out so good for them.

I passed through TSA security last year. one of the biggest _non-issues_, i can think of, especially since _*tight security is everywhere*_ any more.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Shine said:


> No, I've offered much more. You however are too much of an authority to accept any of it. You are a good american who believes much more of what the government tells you than I think is safe...
> 
> Just watching Building 7 collapse is enough to tell me that this was somehow rigged. And I believe that to the core of my being.


I've watched the videos. There one taken from another building where WTC7 is between you and the water. The water is to the right and the left side is smoke covered. I thought I had the URL saved but I don't and a quick search didn't find it. Its out there, maybe you have a copy or can find it. When you do watch it very carefully and frame by frame. Watch the left roof section of the building very carefully. You will see that part of the roof give away. Then if you watch the windows below that section you'll see something. They go from dark to light just before the building starts to fall. What is happening is the floors are falling which allows the light from the other side of the building to be seen from the viewing side. 

There are other videos showing it as it falls. Look at them and notice something strange. Almost EVERY window in intact as it starts to fall. It there had been a series of explosions powerful enough to cut the beams there would have been several, if not all of the, window on several levels blown out *before *it started falling. 




Shine said:


> YOU cannot toss away the violations of physics because you do not want to entertain them, you cannot just say, "Oh, that's just hype" as you seem to repeatedly offer as a dismissal.


What physics is being violated? 





Shine said:


> Building 7 appeared to be a controlled demolition, because of that "appearance" it has to be ruled out, if not, then you do not have the strength in your argument to dismiss, out of hand, the presence of explosives.


I will admit that it does fall the same general way it would have if it had been a controlled implosion but that's the only thing about it that looks that way. All the other visual evidences does not support it. You also must add into the equations there are no reports showing any of the massive amount of work that would have had to be done to the building before hand to prep the building for implosion. When you add things up the implosion theory just implodes. I know that was bad but I just had to use that line.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

where I want to said:


> Oh yeah, like the handing over to the Iraqi civilians the forming of the new Iraqi government, with the great opportunity to exercise old hates, had nothing to do with the Sunnis being excluded. Yup, I guess more American intrusion would have stopped that.
> And didn't you tick off on your "America bad" list the tremendous financial cost of this process, yet the control of those Iraqi natural resources hasn't apparently made up for it.
> Such an over simplification.


I'm not following you too well, but I'm guessing you are saying that we didn't go in to 'liberate' their resources because they haven't been enough compensation to pay for the war?

If I'm wrong, I apologize - but if that is what you meant - I didn't say the American people or American government got those resources.

Private oil companies, Bechtel/water, world bank/financial, etc., - all the American people got was dead family members, and the bill for 'liberating' them.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

where I want to said:


> Oh yeah, like the handing over to the Iraqi civilians the forming of the new Iraqi government


Not just Iraqi civilians, Shiites. We kicked out Sunnis and handed the government to Shiite thugs. After the transition Shiites drove Hummers while Sunnis rode camels. Sunnis want it back, and they're willing to kill to get it. But you know all this already.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Trixie said:


> Thank you -
> 
> I will admit to not understanding a lot of things.
> 
> ...


The people we were fighting in Iraq weren't just random terrorists, they were Sunnis who were born in Iraq. They believe that the natural resources in Iraq are something they deserve to share in. They had it all when Saddam was in charge, then we kicked them out and left them with nothing.

Those displaced Sunnis didn't have any interest in becoming international terrorists. They were fighting for what they believed was theirs, but Shiites weren't willing to share.

In short, the Sunnis stayed in the ME and faced US troops because their homeland had been invaded. They resisted having foreign troops with rifles in front of their houses, the same as any of us would resist foreign occupation. They're fighting for what they believe is theirs.

If they leave where would they go? They're Iraqis fighting for their homeland.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Shine said:


> This is even worse than the 9/11 report. OK, so the entire floor was all engulfed with fire hot enough to warp all the support beams so that at one certain point ALL of them let go to allow the type of symmetrical collapse that we all witnessed? Do you realize how far out there that suggestion is, all the support columns failed at the same moment? What happened to all of the corner supports? Were they so warped by the fires that they would just pulverize at some point lower than we could witness, they maintained their rigidity until they were out of sight in almost all of the videos.
> 
> Please explain, once again, I must have missed it, how a steel structured building, collapsing through itself, can achieve free fall speeds? I know how that can happen, all resistance that WOULD be there is removed. How do you do that?


Sure, it's rather easy -really.

Fly a *280,000 pound aircraft*, nearly loaded with jet fuel *(20,000 gallons)*and made up of a lot of *burnable magnesium alloy* (5,900 degrees f), right into the side of a skyscraper - one that was _never_ designed, to withstand that type of impact.

Hit it as low a possible, in one case damaging the 92-98 floors severely.

Let burn for about an hour, _weakening whatever steel structure is left_ in the *6 impacted floors.
*
*The 10 floors above the impact area*, are still in one piece, so they act like a giant sledge hammer, using their huge weight and momentum, to start crushing the floors below it - *one floor at a time.*

The "free-fall speed" is just that what speed that 10 floor chunk, wanted to use, harnessing gravity and momentum.

Any building would be designed with just enough steel to support itself, not thwart off a collapse. 

Maybe they thought no one would ever fly a jetliner into it. 

How thick do you think those beams were?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> See, OK, so we will not have a back and forth discussion. Have a nice day.
> 
> You see what you think is going on and I shall also.
> 
> Discussing things with you is *a dead end*.


Of course it is when you only offer the same tired theories and misinformation, and keep asking questions that have long ago been answered, while ignoring everyone who doesn't go along with you.



> Specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering accept the model of a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse of the World Trade Center buildings, an explanation that *does not involve the use of explosives*.[3][4][5]





> NIST "found *no corroborating evidence* for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to Sept. 11, 2001





> Allegations of controlled demolition have been found to be *devoid of scientific merit *by mainstream engineering scholarship.[25][3] The magazine Popular Mechanics also found *the theories lacked scientific support* in its special report "Debunking the 9/11 Myths".[26]





> Eyewitnesses have repeatedly reported of explosions happening before the collapse of the WTC towers, and the organization "International Center for 9/11 Studies" has published videos obtained from NIST, together with indications about when such explosions could be heard.[52]
> 
> There are many types of loud sharp noises that are not caused by explosives,[53] and *seismographic records of the collapse do not show evidence of explosions*.


http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm



> In every photo and every video, you can see columns far outpacing the collapse of the building.
> 
> Not only are the columns falling faster than the building but they are also falling faster than the debris cloud which is ALSO falling faster than the building.
> 
> ...


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

plowjockey said:


> Does your tough guy approach work well, at your recent trips to the airport? Just curious.


Curious?
Or do you mean you're one of the ones that would smugly smile as I was handcuffed and taken away for defending a constitutional right many Americans have died to secure for all of us?

No, it's hard to keep my mouth shut in line, I'll admit to a few smart remarks. Thank God, my wife traveled alone to see her sister when they fondled her breasts in the "special" screening she got. She changed flights at the last minute while she was there caring for her sister and got tagged for extra screening. 
I don't think I would have been able to stand by and see that.

My last trip was Memorial Day. If it hadn't been to get my 80 year old mother and drive her and her stuff in a U-Haul back 600 miles to be 15 minutes from us to live her last years, I would do what I normally do. Don't fly and drive my own truck to my destination.
I haven't left the country in years because I won't get a passport, there's too many places in this land I still want to see.
But I avoid going into an airport whenever possible now, it makes my blood pressure too high.





plowjockey said:


> The high courts, do not deem TSA searches as unreasonable. Apparently, they thinks they have a say so in the matter.


No doubt.
They also ruled corporations are people and said they can use eminent domain for private use, one of the most blatantly unconstitutional rulings since Dred Scott.
I have no use for any judges like that and despise them.





plowjockey said:


> Trains don't have nearly the screenings, that the airlines do, which is why the terrorist got the weapons on board. What about next time? Will the brave U.S. servicemen be there?
> 
> Flight 93 passengers fought off the 9/11 hijackers, too. They saved the intended target - which is awesome, but it did not work out so good for them.
> 
> I passed through TSA security last year. one of the biggest _non-issues_, i can think of, especially since _*tight security is everywhere*_ any more.


Glad you brought up flight 93, the only attack that failed, and only one reason why.
It wasn't our military and it wasn't enhanced security that stopped them. Just brave Americans taking action, just like in France.
God bless them.
One of the most disturbing things I've seen in my lifetime is the apparent acceptance of this loss of our freedom.
Ben Franklin warned us, so did my patriarchs.
Too many won't heed the warning though.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Shine said:


> This is even worse than the 9/11 report. OK, so the entire floor was all engulfed with fire hot enough to warp all the support beams so that at one certain point ALL of them let go to allow the type of symmetrical collapse that we all witnessed? Do you realize how far out there that suggestion is, all the support columns failed at the same moment?


They didn't have to all fail at once. Let me put you in a climbing harness and raise you 30 feet in the air. Then I'll start slicing through the individual threads which make up the rope. Do you think you will stay up there just because I don't cut the entire thickness of the rope at once? How far out is that? I'd be willing to bet that at some point after I cut one thread you will fall because the remaining rope will no longer be strong enough to support your weight. Once enough of the supports failed the rest would not be able to hold and you'd have a catastrophic failure of the entire system. 




Shine said:


> What happened to all of the corner supports? Were they so warped by the fires that they would just pulverize at some point lower than we could witness, they maintained their rigidity until they were out of sight in almost all of the videos


Watch the video. As the floors fail the building starts to fold in on itself but before it could do that the weight of the now unsupported wall caused it to fail. Envision yourself balancing on the top of the out side supports, which I had to google to find out are called the rails (I leaned something today) of this ladder as it stands perfectly vertical. 










Now say something comes along and suddenly rips away all the rungs. We will say that you have very good balance and are able to remain standing on top of the rails. Now if you are very good and very lucky you will be able to keep your weight perfectly in line with long axis of the rails and you will be fine. But not very likely and w/o the rungs to support them what is most likely going to happen once your weight is on one side or the other of the center line of the rails? They are going to start bowing. And once the bow so far you weight will cause them to bend and collapse because they were not designed to support weight in any direction other than along their long axis. One other thing, after this happens where do you think you will most likely land? Again if I had to bet I'd say you'd hit within 3 feet of the base of the former ladder.






Shine said:


> Please explain, once again, I must have missed it, how a steel structured building, collapsing through itself, can achieve free fall speeds? I know how that can happen, all resistance that WOULD be there is removed. How do you do that?


Once the floors are going what would have been there to resist the the falling walls?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> As I've been saying for over a decade, military force is ineffective against terrorism. But evidently it's effective at accomplishing what the government wanted done. The US invasion of Iraq was very effective at bringing Iraqi natural resources under US control, and the military occupation of Iraq was effective at providing enough security to conduct business. I believe those were the real US objectives in Iraq.
> 
> Unfortunately we really angered Sunni militants. Apparently they didn't like getting shot & subjugated in Fallujah, so they've risen up as a new entity called ISIS.


As with most things no one thing is effective. Military force can not be ignored when fighting terrorism especially when the terrorist are receiving support from a source which can be removed by military force. 

But I would not call ISIS a terrorist group, its a guerrilla force using brutal tactics to control the people in the areas they control. Fighting that is different than fighting terrorist. And until and unless we realize that and understand their mindset we will not do what needs to be done to defeat them either. IMO, the west no longer has the stomach to take the necessary actions to defeat them.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Curious?
> Or do you mean you're one of the ones that would smugly smile *as I was handcuffed and taken away for defending a constitutional right many Americans have died to secure for all of us?*


No one would laugh at that, since it's not going to happen.
Let's be realistic


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Nevada said:


> The people we were fighting in Iraq weren't just random terrorists, they were Sunnis who were born in Iraq. They believe that the natural resources in Iraq are something they deserve to share in. They had it all when Saddam was in charge, then we kicked them out and left them with nothing.
> 
> Those displaced Sunnis didn't have any interest in becoming international terrorists. They were fighting for what they believed was theirs, but Shiites weren't willing to share.
> 
> ...



I get that - but these people weren't even fighting when they begin scaring us about terrorists - putting laws in place - remember the color coded warnings??

The people fighting in their civil war, so to speak, aren't what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about all those fanatical, hateful people our government kept saying were bent on our destruction and they had to take our army over there, take over two countries - and 'fight them there, so we wouldn't have to fight them here.' As if they wouldn't scatter like ants when we first started the shelling and certainly when we planted all that big equipment there.

They stayed to fight because they were fighting for their homes - not because they were really planning on coming here to blow up some buildings, but decided to stay and face the US army?

So, seeing they did nothing to keep them from coming here - it made no sense. Still doesn't.

Now, when those people get tired of fighting each other and realize who stirred up this firestorm, we may very well have countries full of people who desire our demise. If that happens,I don't think they will remain there - They will follow our lead and bring the fight to us. We still will not be prepared.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

plowjockey said:


> Sure, it's rather easy -really.
> 
> Fly a *280,000 pound aircraft*, nearly loaded with jet fuel *(20,000 gallons)*and made up of a lot of *burnable magnesium alloy* (5,900 degrees f), right into the side of a skyscraper - one that was _never_ designed, to withstand that type of impact.
> 
> ...


The steel girders at the top section were 3/8th of an inch thick, as it got progressively lower they were more thick, to a point where the girders were, IIRC, 4 inches thick. Each floor was designed to handle 3x the weight above it. This was why they said that it could handle the crash of a 707 without the building falling. Don't trust me, the engineering reports are available online. I am not sure where you are gathering your info from but those buildings were designed to handle Hurricane Force Winds which entails stressing the entire building. The building was built to able to withstand forces that make an airplane crash pale in comparison. The buildings was way too strong to be crushed out of existence.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Trixie said:


> No, I've never been killed in one. You are absolutely right since I'm still here.
> 
> To suggest I do not know people can be killed in an auto accident - you couldn't be farther from the truth. Believe me, I am aware of that every day of my life.


So knowing what you do about what can happen in a car wreck if seat belt laws were repealed today would you stop wearing yours? After all the odds of you being involved in one is really quite small, you could even say the threat is overblown.




Trixie said:


> Just me, but I wouldn't use the 'war on drugs' as any kind of example - it hasn't been a stellar success.


I wasn't talking about winning the war on drugs just one battle. I don't think you could ever completely eliminate drugs but if we really wanted to we could reduce it to the point you could call it a non problem. Just change the laws to where being caught with or under the influence of an illegal drug means they are put to death within 30 days. I'm willing to bet it wouldn't be long before the supply and demand side of the drug problem dropped to a very, very low level. One thing for sure it would reduce the recidivism rate and reduce the problem of jail crowding.




Trixie said:


> When did we start killing only the bad guys in war?


Vietnam. The military was not allowed to bomb important military targets because there was too much risk of killing civilians.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Trixie said:


> Sorry, double post -


Who is this double post person and why are people always apologizing to him?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Trixie said:


> Thank you -
> 
> I will admit to not understanding a lot of things.
> 
> ...


It comes down to human nature, you tend to defend what is close to you first and lash out at those farther away later. ISIS is doing some really nasty things right now but they are doing them there. If they ever form and maintain a state then they would no longer need to expend their resources there and could start focusing on targets farther away.

IMO, we made a big mistake in the 80s by not selling arms to Iraq AND Iran. As long as they were fighting each other they were not a threat to anyone else. Plus as long as they needed money to buy weapons they were not going to do anything which interfered with the flow of oil.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

watcher said:


> They didn't have to all fail at once. Let me put you in a climbing harness and raise you 30 feet in the air. Then I'll start slicing through the individual threads which make up the rope. Do you think you will stay up there just because I don't cut the entire thickness of the rope at once? How far out is that? I'd be willing to bet that at some point after I cut one thread you will fall because the remaining rope will no longer be strong enough to support your weight. Once enough of the supports failed the rest would not be able to hold and you'd have a catastrophic failure of the entire system.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So, with the above explanation, you have proven Newton's Third Law to be incorrect? I really do not have time nor the desire to answer point by point, if this is what you think happened then fine. There is much more data available to concisely dissect the tracking of this collapse. Your explanation above should cause the world to ban buildings of this sort. You cannot get a symmetrical collapse from an asymmetrical series of occurrences. The building should have fallen over rather than into it's own footprint. NIST does not even go that far out on a limb to come to their progressive failure theory.

If thousands of Engineers and Architects are willing to sacrifice their careers to bring this out then I intend to listen to what they have to say, believe me, it makes MUCH more sense than what the government is telling us. You think that they're making millions of dollars with this "scam" or are they good Americans standing up for their country when they know something is wrong? Is the MIC making billions more dollars thanks to this event. Cui Bono? 

I wish you well...


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Shine said:


> The steel girders at the top section were 3/8th of an inch thick, as it got progressively lower they were more thick, to a point where the girders were, IIRC, 4 inches thick.


You might want to check out that last number. I don't think the make one that thick. Anyway the floor supports would not need to get increasingly thick. They only supported one floor. The weight of the building was carried by the central and external supports.




Shine said:


> Each floor was designed to handle 3x the weight above it.


Take a rope which will fail at 101 pounds and cut it into to sections. Use one to hang up 100 pounds and it will hang as long as you wish. Take the other section, tie a 100 pound weight to one end then drop it 10 feet and the rope will snap. The floors might have been designed to handle 3X its intended load but I'm willing to be they were not designed to withstand the impact of the load of the floor above it along with the weight of an aircraft falling on it from 10 feet.




Shine said:


> This was why they said that it could handle the crash of a 707 without the building falling.


And they did withstand the impact. The problem is no one seemed to consider what might happen in the fire after that impact.




Shine said:


> Don't trust me, the engineering reports are available online. I am not sure where you are gathering your info from but those buildings were designed to handle Hurricane Force Winds which entails stressing the entire building.


True but those designs relied on the the forces being distributed across the entire undamaged building. You house might be designed to withstand hurricane force winds but if someone crashes a car into it during said hurricane then all bets are off.




Shine said:


> The building was built to able to withstand forces that make an airplane crash pale in comparison. The buildings was way too strong to be crushed out of existence.


They were only strong as long as they were intact. Once the structural integrity was compromised a catastrophic failure was only a matter of time.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Shine said:


> So, with the above explanation, you have proven Newton's Third Law to be incorrect? I really do not have time nor the desire to answer point by point, if this is what you think happened then fine. There is much more data available to concisely dissect the tracking of this collapse. Your explanation above should cause the world to ban buildings of this sort. You cannot get a symmetrical collapse from an asymmetrical series of occurrences. The building should have fallen over rather than into it's own footprint. NIST does not even go that far out on a limb to come to their progressive failure theory.
> 
> If thousands of Engineers and Architects are willing to sacrifice their careers to bring this out then I intend to listen to what they have to say, believe me, it makes MUCH more sense than what the government is telling us. You think that they're making millions of dollars with this "scam" or are they good Americans standing up for their country when they know something is wrong? Is the MIC making billions more dollars thanks to this event. Cui Bono?
> 
> I wish you well...


No, I'm showing you that the laws of physics are being followed you are just either not willing or capable of understanding them. 

The building fell like an imploded building because like an imploded building its internal structure was removed. What you are missing is WHY the internal structure in these buildings failed. Its not because someone blew them up its because of how they were designed. No one in charge considered what might happen if something caused one or more floors to fail catastrophically or if they did they didn't consider it within the ream of possibility. I'm sure a few of the engineers considered it, after all one of the things we do is to look at all the ways something may fail and what could be done to prevent it. We do tend to be a paranoid group.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

watcher said:


> Who is this double post person and why are people always apologizing to him?


Thanks, I needed a laugh.

Well, you know us Southern ladies, we always apologize for everything - just before we poke you with our parasol.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Again, the fact that none of the firefighter eye witness accounts were taken seriously is cause for concern. Let's face it, there was never a comprehensive investigation into the WTC attack.


I have been thinking. . .all the talk about how the WTC failed because of its design might that have been the real reason there was no comprehensive investigation. Could you even begin to image the legal, financial and political fallout if a court had ruled that the design and construction was a major contributing factor to the collapse?


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

watcher said:


> It comes down to human nature, you tend to defend what is close to you first and lash out at those farther away later. ISIS is doing some really nasty things right now but they are doing them there. If they ever form and maintain a state then they would no longer need to expend their resources there and could start focusing on targets farther away.
> 
> IMO, we made a big mistake in the 80s by not selling arms to Iraq AND Iran. As long as they were fighting each other they were not a threat to anyone else. Plus as long as they needed money to buy weapons they were not going to do anything which interfered with the flow of oil.


Didn't we sell, or give arms to Iraq to fight Iran? Even, if you believe it and I do, chemical weapons? Also, I thought we sold arms to Iran as well. I am sure we did when the Shah was on the throne over there.

I think we should leave all those countries alone and let them deal with things in their own way.

That won't happen because, I think, our corporations want control of the resources over there and Israel wants us to try to wipe them out.

As to the seatbelts, I just feel it is my right to decide if I want to wear one or not - just that simple. I feel the stuff in the food I eat is more of a threat than seatbelts.

We won't win the war on drugs until we take out the profit incentive - and I'm not talking about the little man. I believe the profits from drugs goes from the lowly pusher on the corner all the way up the food chain - to those in ivory halls and Amen corners on Sunday. That's why there is no real desire to stop them.

Also, since we have for profit prisons, they want to keep them full - keeps the corporations happy, who in turn, fill the pockets of politicians.

After WWII, Gen Billly Mitchell was trying to get the government to go forward with an air force as he believed that was the future of war. He met opposition, one was 'We just don't make war on civilians.' 

I was thinking of the firebombing in Germany, of course the A bomb, napalm an defoliants in Vietnam. Of course the shelling of Iraq we saw, which couldn't have been anything but war on civilians.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

watcher said:


> I have been thinking. . .all the talk about how the WTC failed because of its design might that have been the real reason there was no comprehensive investigation. Could you even begin to image the legal, financial and political fallout if a court had ruled that the design and construction was a major contributing factor to the collapse?


Still does not account for the first hand accounts of the firefighters... What if this is the reason that these three buildings were chosen?


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

watcher said:


> I have been thinking. . .all the talk about how the WTC failed because of its design might that have been the real reason there was no comprehensive investigation. Could you even begin to image the legal, financial and political fallout if a court had ruled that the design and construction was a major contributing factor to the collapse?


Actually, it crossed my mind.

Also, I read (don't know how credible) the buildings were actually being seriously investigated and some serious work mandated for them.

It might explain why an owner would go along with a deliberate 'take down'.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> The steel girders at the top section were 3/8th of an inch thick, as it got progressively lower they were more thick, to a point where the girders were, IIRC, 4 inches thick. Each floor was designed to handle 3x the weight above it. This was why they said that it could handle the crash of a 707 without the building falling. *Don't trust me*, the engineering reports are available online. I am not sure where you are gathering your info from but those buildings were designed to handle Hurricane Force Winds which entails stressing the entire building. The building was built to able to withstand forces that make an airplane crash pale in comparison. *The buildings was way too strong to be crushed out of existence*.


Evidently the engineers were incorrect, since they did indeed collapse



Shine said:


> Still does not account for *the first hand accounts of the firefighters*... What if this is the reason that these three buildings were chosen?


Once again you repeat questions already answered
Why ask if you don't read? 

Scroll back and you can find the answers to all these questions
http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=68&v=mo7zl62vNng

Flash before WTC 7 collapsed


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> No one would laugh at that, since it's not going to happen.
> Let's be realistic


No, not yet anyway.
No one laughed in 1991, or 1996 or 2007, one of those I did get handcuffed.
In 2009 I got cuffed again, and later received a personal apology from the Chief of police and a little interview with IA.
Good to know you're a fortune teller though.
Those were 1st, 2nd and 4th amendment defenses.

:cowboy:
You're welcome.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1zED8dy63w[/ame]

Explosions in the Lobby


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

More first hand accounts of explosions...

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qu07Gte-BU[/ame]

...there are many more...


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Wow... guess it's hard to refute direct and multiple accounts from people who were there...


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Trixie said:


> Didn't we sell, or give arms to Iraq to fight Iran? Even, if you believe it and I do, chemical weapons? Also, I thought we sold arms to Iran as well. I am sure we did when the Shah was on the throne over there.


Because of the hostage taking it was legally and politically impossible to sell arms to Iran at the time. We were providing some to Iraq. As for chemical weapons. Iraq used chemical weapons but they were home grown. Remember making "basic" chemical weapons is 1910 tech. Heck making "sophisticated" chemical weapons is 1960s tech. 




Trixie said:


> I think we should leave all those countries alone and let them deal with things in their own way.


That was good thinking in the past but it isn't today. The old adage about the world getting smaller is true. You can get from even the most backwards nation to the US in a matter of days today.




Trixie said:


> That won't happen because, I think, our corporations want control of the resources over there and Israel wants us to try to wipe them out.


Like it or not we are dependent on those resources. As are the rest of the 1st and 2nd world nations on the planet. Stop the free flow of oil from there and well ever seen any of the Mad Max movies? Might not be that bad but it would be close. Remember OPEC oil embargo and the gas lines in the 70s?

And if you check you will find that Israel hasn't been pushing to wipe anyone out. 




Trixie said:


> As to the seatbelts, I just feel it is my right to decide if I want to wear one or not - just that simple. I feel the stuff in the food I eat is more of a threat than seatbelts.


You still haven't answered the question. If the laws didn't require it would you wear a seat belt when you were in a car? 




Trixie said:


> We won't win the war on drugs until we take out the profit incentive - and I'm not talking about the little man. I believe the profits from drugs goes from the lowly pusher on the corner all the way up the food chain - to those in ivory halls and Amen corners on Sunday. That's why there is no real desire to stop them.


I agree which is why I say if we really were fighting a war on drugs we be killing the enemy.




Trixie said:


> After WWII, Gen Billly Mitchell was trying to get the government to go forward with an air force as he believed that was the future of war. He met opposition, one was 'We just don't make war on civilians.'


Which was bunk seeing as how we had just deliberately fire bombed and killed 100,000+ civilians in Tokyo alone. 




Trixie said:


> I was thinking of the firebombing in Germany, of course the A bomb, napalm an defoliants in Vietnam. Of course the shelling of Iraq we saw, which couldn't have been anything but war on civilians.


Time for a bit of military history. The US does have a history of trying to limit civilian casualties but we had no problem doing it when it was tactically or strategically necessary until Vietnam. 

One of the reasons the US flew daylight raids over Germany during WWII was to allow for more precise bombing which meant less collateral damage but that was secondary to the fact more precision meant more damage. The fire bombings of Germany were carried out mostly by the British.

In Vietnam things changed. The defoliants and napalm were not aimed at civilian targets, although the North, VC and US press wanted you to think so. They would often mix with civilians and attack troops which would lead to civilian deaths which they could use as political ammo. Areas defoliated were done so to expose enemy troop movements. And as we found out in WWII napalm was one of the few weapons which was very effect on enemy targets in thick jungle. 

The few pictures Iraq managed to get out of civilian casualties were usually a result of them putting military equipment near or mixed in with civilians.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Shine said:


> Still does not account for the first hand accounts of the firefighters... What if this is the reason that these three buildings were chosen?


Eyewitness or earwitness testimony is often flat out wrong. Your brain sees, and hears, what it wants to. There is a good example of this in a National Geographic (not really a right wing org) show called Brain Games (you can watch it here [ame="http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xq1p3e_national-geographic-test-your-brain-episode-1-pay-attention_shortfilms"]http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xq1p3e_national-geographic-test-your-brain-episode-1-pay-attention_shortfilms[/ame])

It has a group of people witness a 'mugging' then it asks them to describe what they saw. Some of them are so sure of what they saw they think the video of the actual event was fake.

BTW, its a VERY interesting show in general. You should watch it if you get a chance.

I'm sure the firemen heard something and to them it sounded like explosions and they "know" it was because that's what their brain has told them. But there is no evidence of it.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Billy Mitchell was after WWI - before we even had an Air Force - which he was trying to get created. We hadn't fought WWII yet - wrong time in history. It does illustrate what a short time it took to get from 'we don't make war on civilians' to firebombing and the A bomb, though.

It is always the excuse that civilians were put in military areas and that's why they are killed. That gets kinda old.

War is inhumane, innocents get hurt. There is no way around it. If you decide you are going to take over or attempt to take over another country - you are going to wreck havoc on innocent civilians.

American and British planes took part in the firebombing. 

We did sell arms to Iran - remember the 'arms for hostage' deal, and the Iran Contra. Besides we had sold/given arms to the Shah - I'm not sure who he was supposed to kill besides his own people. Some of those must have been around.

A young solder was interviewed after the first gulf war. His job was to drive the vehicle that 'sensed' chemical weapons. He said he was approaching a tin shed when the sensors sounded. When they went in, it had canisters of chemical weapons with US Army markings on them.
I often wonder about that young man's safety.

I know our government said Saddam gassed his own people with his chemical weapons - and we believe that, right? They also said he had tons of weapons, they knew where they were, how much and Iraq was just on the brink of attacking the US - Oh, and remember the 'mushroom shaped cloud'? They even stuck to that until it became laughable - if it hadn't been so very tragic.

No, I would not wear seatbelts if I were not concerned about getting a ticket. If, however, I felt the need, I would make the decision for myself. There are many, many things in my life that pose a more imminent threat.
The food, air, water, government, ---

As for Israel - get real. They have a huge lobby in Washington and huge presence in all parts of the decision making in our country. 

The world is awash in oil - there is no need to kill people for it except for corporations to control it. But, one small detail we forget when we talk of 'protecting the resources' - it is THEIR resources - not ours.

Giving oil resources to big corporations, giving water resources to Bechtel - doesn't help those countries.

You're right the world is smaller - even more reason to not stir things up.

You don't spray napalm and defoliant without hurting civilians - 
The whys of the spraying are evident - so's the damage to civilians.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> Wow... guess it's hard to refute direct and multiple accounts from people who were there...


People can *say* anything.

It's not proof without other evidence to support it, and that doesn't exist.

They may have heard "explosions", but that has nothing to do with "explosives" being used to bring down any buildings.

It's just talk


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

watcher said:


> Eyewitness or earwitness testimony is often flat out wrong. Your brain sees, and hears, what it wants to. There is a good example of this in a National Geographic (not really a right wing org) show called Brain Games (you can watch it here http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xq...your-brain-episode-1-pay-attention_shortfilms)
> 
> It has a group of people witness a 'mugging' then it asks them to describe what they saw. Some of them are so sure of what they saw they think the video of the actual event was fake.
> 
> ...


Yeah, you're probably right, all the first hand witnesses probably didn't hear the explosions nor were they capable of rendering a good reflection of what actually happened. Those people in the basement probably didn't have the skin sagging off of the arms because of an explosion, the lobby probably just could not withstand an airplane strike 90 stories above, yeah, you're much smarter and you probably actually know what happened that day enough to tell eye witnesses, all of them, that they did not see nor hear what they saw and heard.


Sarcasm off...

I am sincerely wondering why you stick to the government's telling of the event when there are so many gaps where important facts are left out. It is almost as if you have something to gain from following their story to the tee... I don't get it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> No, not yet anyway.
> No one laughed in 1991, or 1996 or 2007, one of those I did get handcuffed.
> In 2009 I got cuffed again, and later received a personal apology from the Chief of police and a little interview with IA.
> Good to know you're a fortune teller though.
> ...


I don't understand why anyone would presume that being obnoxious at an airport security checkpoint is some sort of "defense", or that anyone would thank you when your only accomplishment was to increase the likely hood of getting your name on a watchlist.

It certainly didn't help anyone in any way


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Shine said:


> More first hand accounts of explosions...
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qu07Gte-BU
> 
> ...there are many more...


Wearing an SCBA is interesting. Sometimes what you feel and what you hear manipulate the same body structures. I don't doubt the firefighters heard something. BTDT. Interpretation is something else especially in a building on the verge of collapse.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Darren said:


> Interpretation is something else especially in a building on the verge of collapse.


Why would the lower floors be on the verge of the collapse? The official story says the lower floors were taken out by 'pancaking.' Those floors wouldn't have been distressed at all until the final moment.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Why would the lower floors be on the verge of the collapse? The official story says the lower floors were taken out by 'pancaking.' Those floors wouldn't have been distressed at all until the final moment.


You'll need to specify which buildings, which floors and what specific statements you're referring to.

Vague general remarks take everything out of context and leave out critical details. It's like how Shine keeps repeating then meaningless phrase "free fall speed" when evidence has been shown that's a fantasy

Without knowing exactly what you are talking about, one *logical* reason "lower floors" would be stressed is the sudden addition of the weight of a couple of fully loaded airliners, and then by the fire-weakened steel support structures causing loads to shift.

The "final moment" is when the first floor collapsed unto the one below, starting the chain reaction, and building *momentum* which increases stresses exponentially.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> People can *say* anything.
> 
> It's not proof without other evidence to support it, and that doesn't exist.
> 
> ...


Yes, we should no longer allow First Hand Eye-Witnesses in a court of law, they're just too fallible.

"It's not proof without other evidence to support it, and that doesn't exist"

...in your mind.

So.. we have eye witnesses that hear "explosions", we have witnesses that saw what was a "flash" before the beginning of a collapse, we have people that, while exiting the building in search of safety who tell of the lobby looking like a "bomb" had gone off inside of it, we have firefighters mimicing the sounds cause by controlled demolitions and still you say NIST had no obligation to test for explosives in and around WTC? 

Your position has no value in a legitimate debate. If there are allegations of explosions, then they have to be ruled out. Or does your fact finding method just rule them out cause you say so? 

Show me the tests done to rule out the presence of explosives to rebut the findings of Professor Niels.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I don't understand why anyone would presume that being obnoxious at an airport security checkpoint is some sort of "defense", or that anyone would thank you when your only accomplishment was to increase the likely hood of getting your name on a watchlist.
> 
> It certainly didn't help anyone in any way


yup, we should all lay down and let them do with us what they will, now that's freedom.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You'll need to specify which buildings, which floors and what specific statements you're referring to.
> 
> Vague general remarks take everything out of context and leave out critical details. It's like how Shine keeps repeating then meaningless phrase "free fall speed" when evidence has been shown that's a fantasy
> 
> ...


Shine was one who was explaining noise interpretation on lower floors with pre-collapse stresses.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> Yes, we should no longer allow First Hand Eye-Witnesses in a court of law, they're just too fallible.
> 
> "It's not proof without other evidence to support it, and that doesn't exist"
> 
> ...


No one needs to "rebut" a flawed paper. That matter was settled years ago.

I've shown links to tests that prove there couldn't have been enough explosives used without people knowing for miles around, and you act as if you haven't seen it . There were no explosions that registered on seismographs, so there were none strong enough to take down anything.

(You probably haven't really looked at anything that doesn't fit your agenda, based on the repeated questions on things already answered)

There can easily be "explosions" and "flashes" without "explosives"

Electrical panels and transformers create both of those with no "explosives" involved. 

Most any closed containers in an intense fire can cause an "explosion" but they aren't "explosives either. Batteries explode when heated. Water pipes will explode when heated beyond 212 degrees.

Gas lines will explode, and ruptured gas lines will cause further explosions

There were thousands of gallons of diesel fuel stored in the buildings for their back-up generators that added to the heat and stress on the structure.

You're so caught up in wanting to *believe* it's a Govt conspiracy that you will ignore common sense to keep up the charades.

You've also been shown documented evidence of how unreliable eye witnesses are. 

Without *corroboration*, they are not proof of anything other than their own impressions, true or not. 

Without parroting meaningless phrases or useless evidence, you can't show any logical reason to think explosives were used


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Shine was one who was explaining *noise interpretation* on lower floors with pre-collapse stresses.


He's attempted to "explain" a lot of things , and "free fall speed" is one of his most often parroted fantasies.

Scroll back and count the times it's been used (and disproven)

http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's like how Shine keeps repeating then meaningless phrase "free fall speed" when evidence has been shown that's a fantasy


So you are saying that the NIST report is "fantasy". If you say something that is not true, does that make you a liar?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> So you are saying that the NIST report is "fantasy". If you say something that is not true, does that make you a liar?


I haven't used the phrase "NIST report" at all
You're the one repeating "free fall speed" endlessly, when the videos show something different


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I haven't used the phrase "NIST report" at all
> You're the one repeating "free fall speed" endlessly, when the videos show something different


Let the chips fall where they may...

The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:


Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm


You have been proven wrong and disingenuous... You did not do your due diligence.


How many other things have you been wrong about? I wonder how you did not know that this was true. You must not be paying attention.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> The analyses of the video (both the *estimation* of the instant the roofline began to descend and the *calculated *velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:


It's guesswork
Which of those words confuse you?

Where is any evidence or even a mention of "explosives" being a realistic possibility?

Did you not see this?:



> The failure of WTC 7 was an example of a *fire-induced* progressive collapse.


You also seem to have focused so much on the term "*free fall*" that you didn't read far enough to see the conclusion that states the collapse was SLOWER than "free fall:



> This analysis showed that the *40 percent longer descent time*&#8212;compared to the 3.9 second free fall time&#8212;was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face


Once more your own source contradicts your claims, even after you quoted it yourself:



> Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., *slower than free fall).*
> Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
> Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again *less than that of gravity*



You must not be paying attention yourself, since it also answered your repeated questions about explosives:



> Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?
> Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that* blast events inside the building did not occur *and found *no evidence* supporting the existence of a blast event.
> In addition, *no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks* of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses.
> 
> ...


Apparently you want to rely on *two words* from the report, while disagreeing with all the rest. 

That's pretty silly, don't you think?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> No, not yet anyway.
> No one laughed in 1991, or 1996 or 2007, one of those I did get handcuffed.
> In 2009 I got cuffed again, and later received a personal apology from the Chief of police and a little interview with IA.
> Good to know you're a fortune teller though.
> ...





Bearfootfarm said:


> I don't understand why anyone would presume that being obnoxious at an airport security checkpoint is some sort of "defense", or that anyone would thank you when your only accomplishment was to increase the likely hood of getting your name on a watchlist.
> 
> It certainly didn't help anyone in any way




You have an uncanny ability to ignore the facts and focus on the non-factual.
NONE of the above incidents occurred at an airport or involved obnoxious behavior. The only discussion of that was your interpretation of a future event in which I may or may not be put in a position to invoke my 4th amendment right, to which you dismissed as unrealistic.
I can understand why you might have been confused by my previous post, but to assume that I would not be willing to be detained or arrested in defense of my rights is another incorrect assumption on your part, that's why I referenced previous dates where is was VERY realistic. 

However the above events were at a congressman's town hall meeting, a city council meeting and a few traffic stops.
All of which resulted in a government policy or law being changed to comply with the U.S. constitution.
Everyday across this land unknown people do unpublicized things to defend all of us, whether they are grateful, or care, or not.
Thank God there are still some left.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> You have an uncanny ability to ignore the facts and focus on the non-factual.
> *NONE of the above incidents occurred at an airport or involved obnoxious behavior*. The only discussion of that was your interpretation of a future event in which I may or may not be put in a position to invoke my 4th amendment right, to which you dismissed as unrealistic.
> I can understand why you might have been confused by my previous post, but to assume that I would not be willing to be detained or arrested in defense of my rights is another incorrect assumption on your part, that's why I referenced previous dates where is was VERY realistic.
> 
> ...


We were talking about security at airports, your "tough guy approach", and being handcuffed when you made your comments

If you weren't being "obnoxious" in some way, you wouldn't have been in any danger of being handcuffed, so those incidents would be totally out of context



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by plowjockey View Post
> Does your tough guy approach work well, at your recent trips to *the airport*? Just curious.





> Originally Posted by farmrbrown:
> Curious?
> Or do you mean you're one of the ones that would smugly smile as *I was handcuffed and taken away for defending a constitutional right* many Americans have died to secure for all of us?





> You have an uncanny ability to ignore* the facts* and focus on the non-factual.


It seems the facts would support thinking a question specifically *about airports* should have gotten a response about airports.

How was one supposed to know your answer had no relation to the real question?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's guesswork
> Which of those words confuse you?
> 
> Where is any evidence or even a mention of "explosives" being a realistic possibility?
> ...


I think that your reply is more than just silly but a wonderful example of what you will do when caught in a lie.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

LOL
No lies at all. 
The source countered everything you have been claiming about "free fall speed" and "explosives" 



> *It is this report that contains factual errors.* It is provable, however you do not have enough nads to own up to the fact that reality.


Like I stated, you want to believe some parts and disregard the rest, based only on your preconceived notions

Stop focusing on my "nads" and just stick to the fact the report goes against your claims



> You lied, you said that "freefall is "fantasy"" Own up or shut up. Its right there* in black and white.*


It is a fantasy which they explained
It's not in "black and white"
You posted it in your girly PINK


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

farmrbrown said:


> Curious?
> Or do you mean you're one of the ones that would smugly smile as I was handcuffed and taken away for defending a constitutional right many Americans have died to secure for all of us?
> 
> No, it's hard to keep my mouth shut in line, I'll admit to a few smart remarks. Thank God, my wife traveled alone to see her sister when they fondled her breasts in the "special" screening she got. She changed flights at the last minute while she was there caring for her sister and got tagged for extra screening.
> ...


I'm always forced to look at the big picture, whether I like it or not.

9/11 Extremists hijacked 4 aircraft -with relative ease, crashing 3 of them into very important buildings. We all know for fact, it could have nearly just as easily, been 40 aircraft - or 400.

If you are willing to take these types of risks, for sake of constitutional comfort, that is your choice. Personally, I realizewhat the threat really is and am willing to address it accordingly.

You're ok if their airlines do pat down searches, but not the Government. Not sure how that even makes sense.

I'd bet lunch, if the _founding fathers_ saw live video, of 3rd degree burned Americans, doing a desperate, 1,000 foot swan dive, into the pavement, below the crumbling WTC, they would give the _thumbs-up_, for the TSA and adjusted the Constitution accordingly, because they would realize it was the smart thing to do.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> No, not yet anyway.
> No one laughed in 1991, or 1996 or 2007, one of those I did get handcuffed.
> In 2009 I got cuffed again, and later received a personal apology from the Chief of police and a little interview with IA.
> Good to know you're a fortune teller though.
> ...





Bearfootfarm said:


> We were talking about security at airports, your "tough guy approach", and being handcuffed when you made your comments


Yes we were.
At which point you made your remark to me that "it wouldn't happen" which I took to meant you thought I would back down under threat of arrest.


Bearfootfarm said:


> No one would laugh at that, since it's not going to happen.
> Let's be realistic



I have taken that route before, but it is in no way a "sure bet".




Bearfootfarm said:


> If you weren't being "obnoxious" in some way, you wouldn't have been in any danger of being handcuffed, so those incidents would be totally out of context


That's incorrect again.
*You* may consider it obnoxious to politely refuse an unconstitutional search of your vehicle, but declining permission while obeying the officer "to get out, I'm going to search it anyway" is not a fair representation of the facts, IMO.
The judge and prosecutor in one case and the chief and head of Internal affairs in the other, agreed with me BTW.
I was in cuffs due to protocol of the officers safety during his search, which yielded nothing illegal.
The stops were and searches were ruled unlawful and I was uncuffed and released both times after a brief detention during which I remained silent and compliant.
I was also respectful, yet firm in the public meetings, both times seated next to the local chiefs of police in those towns.
No restraint was ever considered necessary on those occasions.

Sorry to disappoint you.









Bearfootfarm said:


> It seems the facts would support thinking a question specifically *about airports* should have gotten a response about airports.
> 
> How was one supposed to know your answer had no relation to the real question?




I apologize if my response to your remark was hastily written. I forget that sometimes people's remarks about my character or actions may come from not knowing the person to whom they are making it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> That's incorrect again.
> You may consider it obnoxious* to politely refuse* an unconstitutional search of your vehicle, but declining permission while obeying the officer "to get out, I'm going to search it anyway" is not a fair representation of the facts, IMO.


More off topic tales that have nothing to do with a search *at the airport*


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> LOL
> No lies at all.
> The source countered everything you have been claiming about "free fall speed" and "explosives"
> 
> ...


_Knew you didn't have any...
_
My Post 57 - Cut and paste:
Rewatch how building 7 falls down and explain that miracle, 2.5 seconds of free fall. 

My Post 65 - cut and paste:
Maybe a link to those people that can explain as not even NIST will explain the 2.5 seconds, they admit it, but there is no explanation...

Your Post 104 - Cut and Paste:
It's a lot like repeating "free fall speed" in that it seemingly sounds important, but it's really just empty words

Your Post 106 - Cut and Paste:
It's just more fantasy drivel like "free fall speed.

Your Post 203 - Cut and Paste[from the NIST Document]:
NIST "found *no corroborating evidence* for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to Sept. 11, 2001 

_My comment, the report also said that NIST did not test for explosives in the dust. So, yeah, I guess they found no corroborating evidence._

Your Post 235 - Cut and Paste:
It's like how Shine keeps repeating then meaningless phrase "free fall speed" when evidence has been shown that's a fantasy

Your Post 240 - Cut and Paste:
He's attempted to "explain" a lot of things , and "free fall speed" is one of his most often parroted fantasies.

Your Post 242 - Cut and Paste:
You're the one repeating "free fall speed" endlessly, when the videos show something different 

My Post 243 - Cut and Paste:
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
_[The above note is from the NIST Factsheet on their website]_

Your Post 244 - Cut and Paste:
You also seem to have focused so much on the term "*free fall*" that you didn't read far enough to see the conclusion that states the collapse was SLOWER than "free fall

_Note: I never, ever said that the entire building collapse was at free fall speeds - you did or tried to make it sound like my words._

Summary:
You went out of your way to imply that I suggested that the free fall was for the entire duration of the collapse. The above cut and paste snipits show the truth, I am certain that you have lied as shown by the proof above.

Unless these are harmless mistakes then it is certain now that you are operating in a dishonorable fashion.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Shine said:


> The steel girders at the top section were 3/8th of an inch thick, as it got progressively lower they were more thick, to a point where the girders were, IIRC, 4 inches thick. Each floor was designed to handle 3x the weight above it. This was why they said that it could handle the crash of a 707 without the building falling. Don't trust me, the engineering reports are available online. I am not sure where you are gathering your info from but those buildings were designed to handle Hurricane Force Winds which entails stressing the entire building. The building was built to able to withstand forces that mae an airplane crash pale in comparison. The buildings was way too strong to be crushed out of existence.


LOL hurricane winds?

Oh did I fail to mention, that those hijacked airliners, that weight *over 110 tons each*, hit the towers at *almost 600 MPH*? 

Assuming your facts are even true, just because something is "engineered" to withstand something, does not necessarily mean it will.

I'm not an engineer, but _facts_, state that* EACH tower weighed 500,000 tons *(not counting that extra 110 ton aircraft ). After hearing that, you telling me that it had *4 inch girders,* at the bottom, frankly, does not really sound all that thick.

You tell me that the upper girders were 3/8" thick? That's about as thick as the average drill bit.

The towers were made with *425,000 cubic yards of concrete* -each. 

1 yard of concrete weight 4,000 pounds.

But hey, I'm no engineer.

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2004/EricChen.shtml


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

plowjockey said:


> LOL hurricane winds?
> 
> Oh did I fail to mention, that those hijacked airliners, that weight *over 110 tons each*, hit the towers at *almost 600 MPH*?
> 
> ...


yes, you are not an engineer. 110/500,000 = .0002 percent - yeah, right. the weight of that plane was a factor.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Unless these are harmless mistakes then it is certain now that you are operating in a dishonorable fashion.


You keep wanting to imply the *2 seconds* of "apparent free fall" of one section validates your claims of the purposeful use of explosives.

If you take it *all in context* you're still repeating false claims.

The total collapse was slower than "free fall speed" whether you choose to "believe" or not.

There was no *need* to test the dust when there was no *corroborating* evidence of explosives. 

It didn't happen due to explosives, as the report you posted as credible state


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You keep wanting to imply the *2 seconds* of "apparent free fall" of one section validates your claims of the purposeful use of explosives.
> 
> If you take it *all in context* you're still repeating false claims.
> 
> ...


No, as was shown, I have stuck to the same story the whole time with you dancing around me telling me that what you understood me to say was "fantasy". NO ONE except for those persons that gathered the dust samples, who are listed in Dr. Niels Chain of Custody along with the information as to how he obtained them, from four different people, all who submitted affidavits as to the authentication and Dr. Niels, by his testing of that dust, has even LOOKED FOR explosive residue in that dust. 

As the government does quite often, and it seems that you find this tactic useful also, they object to something away from the subject, call themselves winners and then refuse to do as they should do. You yourself indicated that there was no testing for explosives so I ask you, if no testing was done, except that of Dr. Niels, how can you say that there was no explosive residue in the WTC Dust?

Your argument carries no weight.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

The subject of the period of 2.25 to 2.5 second of free fall.

When seen in a building collapse, the upper portions are supported by the lower portions. For free fall to occur, those portions that are in motion must not encounter ANY resistance [air resistance is factored into the rate of speed by altitude. The speed of free fall varies at different altitudes] during its period of free fall. So, if something is travelling at the rate of free fall then that has to mean that there is no resistance, i.e... something that slows it down. In this occurrence the top of the building was used as a focal point. The top of the building, when it began to move downwards rapidly accelerated to the speed of free fall. This means that somewhere between the top of the roof and the surface of the ground, there was no resistance. That speed was measured to have continued for 2.25 to 2.5 seconds. When the computed distance that the top of the roof moved during this period compared to the height of the floors in WTC 7, the top of the roof traveled an equivalent distance to 8 of the WTC 7 floors. 

So, the question is and has always been, how did this happen? Were there 8 floors that had absolutely no support? Did anything inside WTC 7 travel at faster than the speed of free fall thus making way for something to travel at free fall speeds?

I'll tell you right now that I do not know what happened to allow for this anomaly, I only stand with the Architects and Engineers that are prompting for a new and unbiased investigation by a third party that has nothing to gain regardless of the direction that that investigation goes.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> No, as was shown, I have stuck to the same story the whole time with you dancing around me telling me that what you understood me to say was "fantasy". NO ONE except for those persons that gathered the dust samples, who are listed in Dr. Niels Chain of Custody along with the information as to how he obtained them, from four different people, all who submitted affidavits as to the authentication and Dr. Niels, by his testing of that dust, has even LOOKED FOR explosive residue in that dust.
> 
> As the government does quite often, and it seems that you find this tactic useful also, they object to something away from the subject, call themselves winners and then refuse to do as they should do. *You yourself indicated that there was no testing for explosives* so I ask you, if no testing was done, except that of Dr. Niels, how can you say that there was no explosive residue in the WTC Dust?
> 
> *Your argument carries no weight*.


Once more you ask questions already answered and try to play word games

I haven't said there was "no testing for explosives", and no one has* proven *there was any "explosive residue" in the dust that came from the building

I said what NIST said, which is "no *corroborating* evidence was found"

It's all in the report you insist *corroborates* your claims (even though it doesn't)

That means in all their *observations and tests*, there was nothing to indicate the *use *of explosives.

You're the one hung up on the fantasy fairy dust theory.



> corÂ·robÂ·oÂ·rate
> [k&#601;&#712;rÃ¤b&#601;&#716;r&#257;t]
> VERB
> confirm or give support to (a statement, theory, or finding):


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Once more you ask questions already answered and try to play word games
> 
> I haven't said there was "no testing for explosives", and no one has* proven *there was any "explosive residue" in the dust that came from the building
> 
> ...


I tire of your blather. You are not making sense.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

plowjockey said:


> I'm always forced to look at the big picture, whether I like it or not.
> 
> 9/11 Extremists hijacked 4 aircraft -with relative ease, crashing 3 of them into very important buildings. We all know for fact, it could have nearly just as easily, been 40 aircraft - or 400.
> 
> ...


I'd take that bet, our Founding Fathers would have abhorred what we have done with regards to "foreign entanglements". 

Don't you understand "Blowback"?

Maybe they're upset about our messing with their sovereign processes to get our companies a bigger cut of their cash and resources... Maybe?

Some people would call that thievery...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> I tire of your blather. You are not making sense.


That would be a comprehension problem since I'm quoting from the report you offered as "proof"



> Did anything inside WTC 7 travel at faster than the speed of free fall thus making way for something to travel at free fall speeds?


That was explained in the NIST report also.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Shine said:


> I'd take that bet, our Founding Fathers would have abhorred what we have done with regards to "foreign entanglements".


Not half as much as they would dislike the Patriot Act.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That would be a comprehension problem since I'm quoting from the report you offered as "proof"
> 
> 
> That was explained in the NIST report also.


You are trying to twist the info in the report, I'm tired of you doing that.

To your second suggestion, - show me where it explains the free fall. You can't because it is not there, I've looked and looked - not there. Wrong again. Their computer model only shows half of the collapse and it is no where near what was witnessed by millions of people so far.

So, yawn... whatever you say.

ETA... Hey, for some fun, why don't you explain how the top of the building was able to travel at the proven rate of speed for that 2.25 to 2.5 seconds. This should be a hoot.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Shine said:


> yes, you are not an engineer. 110/500,000 = .0002 percent - yeah, right. the weight of that plane was a factor.


I do have common sense though.

That building - airliner or not, was a* whole lot of weigh*t coming down, on *your 4 inch thick girders.*


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Shine said:


> I'd take that bet, our Founding Fathers would have abhorred what we have done with regards to "foreign entanglements".
> 
> Don't you understand "Blowback"?
> 
> ...


It almost sounds, like you think we _deserved_ those 9/11 attacks.

That is your choice, but "foreign entanglements" good and bad, have been a _fact of life_ for America, through it's entire existence. 

Personally, I can't see where any of them, justify killing innocent people.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> More off topic tales that have nothing to do with a search *at the airport*


Yes Bearfoot, tales of lost rights, or at least in my case, an attempt to have them taken and what someone has to go thru to secure them.
I'm not going to let the cops take them, nor the terrorists.
That IS the topic of the thread isn't it?

I pretty much handle all attacks on me the same way.
A firm warning.
A good defense.
And one helluva "I didn't see that coming" offense.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

plowjockey said:


> I'm always forced to look at the big picture, whether I like it or not.
> 
> 9/11 Extremists hijacked 4 aircraft -with relative ease, crashing 3 of them into very important buildings. We all know for fact, it could have nearly just as easily, been 40 aircraft - or 400.
> 
> ...



It makes sense if you know the entire premise of the constitution. 
You aren't alone however. I have found several on here that don't realize or don't believe that the constitution outlines the limits of GOVERNMENT, not private entities.
It's a shame. That basic concept should have been learned in elementary school.





plowjockey said:


> I'd bet lunch, if the _founding fathers_ saw live video, of 3rd degree burned Americans, doing a desperate, 1,000 foot swan dive, into the pavement, below the crumbling WTC, they would give the _thumbs-up_, for the TSA and adjusted the Constitution accordingly, because they would realize it was the smart thing to do.



I'd take that bet.
Of course that breaks one of my cardinal rules of gambling........
Never bet on anything that eats.



plowjockey said:


> It almost sounds, like you think we _deserved_ those 9/11 attacks.
> 
> That is your choice, but "foreign entanglements" good and bad, have been a _fact of life_ for America, through it's entire existence.
> 
> Personally, I can't see where any of them, justify killing innocent people.




Another basic premise that escapes people.
Those "foreign entanglements" referred to, going all the way back to George Washington?
Do you realize that they too, result in killing innocent people?

Just to be clear, as I have often endorsed, completely annihilating an attacking enemy will certainly result in innocent killings.
But that is NOT the same as meddling, installing rulers and stealing resources.
You reap what you sow.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

plowjockey said:


> I do have common sense though.
> 
> That building - airliner or not, was a* whole lot of weigh*t coming down, on *your 4 inch thick girders.*


Yes, it is a lot of weight. I might be in error on the 4" girders but that was the only fact sheet that I could find. However, a girder of that size, when reinforced with other girders would be incredibly strong, wouldn't you think?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

plowjockey said:


> It almost sounds, like you think we _deserved_ those 9/11 attacks.
> 
> That is your choice, but "foreign entanglements" good and bad, have been a _fact of life_ for America, through it's entire existence.
> 
> Personally, I can't see where any of them, justify killing innocent people.


I should have worded it better. I do not think "we" - you nor I deserve to be attacked, I do believe that the actions of our government, behind our back, are not necessarily actions of a "Guy wearing a Badge and a White Hat" though. When you mess with people's lives and effectively steal from them, there are going to be problems.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> You are trying to twist the info in the report, I'm tired of you doing that.
> 
> To your second suggestion, - *show me where it explains the free fall*. You can't because it is not there, I've looked and looked - not there. Wrong again. Their computer model only shows half of the collapse and it is no where near what was witnessed by millions of people so far.
> 
> ...


Nothing was "proven".
It was "calculated" based on "estimates" as the report clearly stated, and has already been explained

I've already shown you the report, and you've linked to it yourself.
I can't make you understand it if you refuse to try, or are simply unable.

You keep wanting to pretend explosives were involved and using "free fall speed" to support that claim based on this report, but you have to ignore the rest of the report that says *no evidence explosives were used*

The total collapse time was *less than *"free fall" would have been:



> *This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent timeâcompared to the 3.9 second free fall timeâwas due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face.
> 
> During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below.
> 
> ...


It's clearly saying the brief instant of "free fall" was because one set of columns failed before another. 

It's what happens when gravity takes over, and there is nothing mysterious about it at all

It is not evidence of anything other than the building collapsed


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Yes Bearfoot, tales of lost rights, or at least in my case, an attempt to have them taken and what someone has to go thru to secure them.
> I'm not going to let the cops take them, nor the terrorists.
> That IS the topic of the thread isn't it?
> 
> ...


And you pretty much turn every topic into "all about YOU" :yawn:


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

plowjockey said:


> It almost sounds, like you think we _deserved_ those 9/11 attacks.
> 
> That is your choice, but "foreign entanglements" good and bad, have been a _fact of life_ for America, through it's entire existence.
> 
> Personally, I can't see where any of them, justify killing innocent people.


Just because 'we've always done something', doesn't mean it is the right thing.

Of course, nothing justifies killing innocent people. That goes for stirring up revolts in other countries.

Putting cruel bloody despots on the throne who torture and kill their own innocent people.

Lobbing bombs from miles away on cities that kill innocent people

I don't think admitting the reason for something happening is the same as saying it was justified.

As people constantly point out - the world is smaller now. There was a time when we could destroy other countries and we enjoyed the comfort of distance from them, and sometimes enjoy the fact they were poor, poorly armed. That is no longer the case.

People all over the world are well informed now - thanks to technology. They are also familiar with technology - we aren't the only ones who possess it.

We have been poking at rattlesnakes for many years - it's a new world, they are now within striking distance of us.

Having said that, I still think the threat is overblown and I evidently our government doesn't think so - we still have open borders, thousands of illegals coming in, bringing in thousands of 'refugees' from that part of the world.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Nothing was "proven".
> It was "calculated" based on "estimates" as the report clearly stated, and has already been explained
> 
> I've already shown you the report, and you've linked to it yourself.
> ...


whatever.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

LOL 

No more running in circles :nono:

It's too boring


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> LOL
> 
> No more running in circles :nono:
> 
> It's too boring


I agree, if you don't want a back and forth discussion, I don't have time for your misunderstandings.

I flat out told you that the report does not explain the free fall, I offered you the chance to link to or provide your own explanation. You've done neither.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

Shine said:


> I agree, if you don't want a back and forth discussion, I don't have time for your misunderstandings.
> 
> I flat out told you that the report does not explain the free fall, I offered you the chance to link to or provide your own explanation. You've done neither.


It is just the US thinking most will never think ones own Gov would kill a few thousand people to accomplish their goals .Most will never get the fact any other than the elite or considered cannon fodder .

For fun look up implosions gone wrong , when for any reasons a charge goes wrong a building will go sideways or in many directions . Every building that fell occupied it's foot print . Who ever set those charges were experts and destroyed any evidence at the same time . It did what TPTB wanted it to do and now we live with the exact results they wanted it to have ,along with the people believing what they intended them to believe .:hobbyhors


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Sawmill Jim said:


> It is just the US thinking most will never think ones own Gov would kill a few thousand people to accomplish their goals .Most will never get the fact any other than the elite or considered cannon fodder .
> 
> For fun look up implosions gone wrong , when for any reasons a charge goes wrong a building will go sideways or in many directions . Every building that fell occupied it's foot print . Who ever set those charges were experts and destroyed any evidence at the same time . It did what TPTB wanted it to do and now we live with the exact results they wanted it to have ,along with the people believing what they intended them to believe .:hobbyhors


It is like something affected their brain, they seem to be of above average intelligence but the small things that are passed off turn out to be really important. 

Like the premise of free fall. Free fall cannot occur in a steel structured building unless there is no support, you cannot say that this corner failed therefore the building fell symmetrically at free fall speeds, nope, wrong. You can't say that there was 10% damage to this section so that caused the free fall. You cannot say that there were fires on this floor, that floor and this other floor and that caused free fall. None of these things could have removed ALL of the supports at the SAME instant causing the building to collapse in a symmetrical fashion at free fall speeds.

If the building fell in a almost perfect symmetrical fashion at free fall speeds then there is some other answer, they do not wish to look for it, they are happy with a lame-***ed report and they are ready to become front men for the government. 

I do not get it.

It is right there before your eyes...

The Bible tells us that towards the end times that there will be those that are led by those that will show wondrous miracles wrought by man[meaning that they cannot see the truth], I wonder if this is happening?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I flat out told you that the report does not explain the free fall, I offered you the chance to link to or provide your own explanation. *You've done neither*.


You seem confused again, since I did in fact show the explanation from your link
"No more" means no more. 
Make of that what you will, because it makes no difference to me


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> And you pretty much turn every topic into "all about YOU" :yawn:


Brilliant deduction.
Let's see if we can trace this.
Internet topic posted that you have experience with, another poster asks a question about how you dealt with it or your plan of action.
You respond.
Other than posting links from other sites, exactly how DO you type the response without using the pronouns "I" or "Me"?
For that matter, isn't everyone guilty of your accusation when they post on here?
Or is this just more of your chain yankin'?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You seem confused again, since I did in fact show the explanation from your link
> "No more" means no more.
> Make of that what you will, because it makes no difference to me


Your Quote: Post 270 - Cut and Paste

"It's clearly saying the brief instant of "free fall" was because one set of columns failed before another. "

This will not achieve free fall spanning the duration of 8 floors. This is NOT an explanation, it is dancing.

Then there's this:
You keep wanting to pretend explosives were involved and using "free fall speed" to support that claim based on this report, but you have to ignore the rest of the report that says *no evidence explosives were used. 

*You call, or rather you support NIST calling every witness a liar with this. You were there, with all the witnesses?* Well then, you are either guessing or making believe or taking the side of a report that is as lame as your responses.* I posted video evidence that many people heard explosions and you come back with this crap that "Oh, those weren't explosions, those were something else" like you know what you are talking about - you do not. So, there is PROOF that some people believe that there were explosions, this alone REQUIRES that it be investigated, it was and explosive residue was found, until the report is FORMALLY debunked, it stands.


See how NIST is dancing like you do? They say this:
*indicating negligible support from the structure below. 
*When they mean this:
There was NO SUPPORT FROM THE STRUCTURE BELOW.

Get it?

The person that did the measurements of the complete collapse that forced NIST to admit it did not "Guess", he did not "Estimate" and NIST HAD TO ADMIT that the building fell, for a portion of time, at free fall speeds. 

You cannot spin that. I am sure that you will try though. Your Kung-fu is weak.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Shine said:


> I should have worded it better. I do not think "we" - you nor I deserve to be attacked, I do believe that the actions of our government, behind our back, are not necessarily actions of a "Guy wearing a Badge and a White Hat" though. When you mess with people's lives and effectively steal from them, there are going to be problems.


What are we stealing from them - oil? The producing countries are not doing too bad, with their gold-plated toilet seats. 

We give about as much as we take.

We gave billion$ to Pakistan and tons of advanced weapons, for Osama Bin Ladin and his Mujaheddin, to serve a major beat-down, to the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. 

It worked, but apparently, Bin Laden did not appear to be all that grateful.

We shovel money to the Middle East - big time. I guess it's fair that _some_ ME "citizens" might be bummed, if we overthrow their government and do not put them in charge.. 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCUQFjABahUKEwiujez-5_zHAhWMU5IKHVe_A2w&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fas.org%2Fsgp%2Fcrs%2Fmideast%2FRL32260.pdf&usg=AFQjCNHVJWnWJvqOTaA2zTg4LewWllAa7g&sig2=oqq-VxYxuso8UzKGFXk8qg&cad=rja


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

plowjockey said:


> What are we stealing from them - oil? The producing countries are not doing too bad, with their gold-plated toilet seats.
> 
> We give about as much as we take.
> 
> ...


Here are the Coups that are not "Secret":


1 Cold War 
1.1 Syria 1949
1.2 Iran 1953
1.3 Guatemala 1954
1.4 Tibet 1955â70s
1.5 Indonesia 1958
1.6 Cuba 1959
1.7 Iraq 1960â63
1.8 Democratic Republic of the Congo 1960â65
1.9 Dominican Republic 1961
1.10 South Vietnam 1963
1.11 Brazil 1964
1.12 Chile 1970â73
1.13 Afghanistan 1979â89
1.14 Turkey 1980
1.15 Poland 1980â89
1.16 Nicaragua 1981â90 
1.16.1 Destablization through CIA assets
1.16.2 Arming the Contras


2 PostâCold War 
2.1 Iraq 1992â96
2.2 Venezuela 2002
2.3 Iran 2005âpresent

Now, what would you do if you found out that other countries were messing in who leads our country behind the scenes?


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

plowjockey said:


> What are we stealing from them - oil? The producing countries are not doing too bad, with their gold-plated toilet seats.
> 
> We give about as much as we take.
> 
> ...



Serious - are you serious.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Shine said:


> I'd take that bet, our Founding Fathers would have abhorred what we have done with regards to "foreign entanglements".
> 
> Don't you understand "Blowback"?
> 
> ...


Speaking about blowback, it would be nice if Iran got proper credit.

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/As-I-See-It-Game-changer-Irans-involvement-with-911-416488


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Darren said:


> Speaking about blowback, it would be nice if Iran got proper credit.
> 
> http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/As-I-See-It-Game-changer-Irans-involvement-with-911-416488


I can't read it, somehow my computer and the site don't work together, it just keeps jumping around.

What is the gist of the story.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Trixie said:


> I can't read it, somehow my computer and the site don't work together, it just keeps jumping around.
> 
> What is the gist of the story.


http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/As-I-Se...ith-911-416488


> The most remarkable aspect of this US surrender to Iran is that the Iranian regime is not some hypothetical threat. It has been perpetrating acts of war against Western interests for more than three decades â including playing a key role in the 9/11 attacks on America.
> 
> Thatâs not just my opinion. Itâs the view of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In a judgment that has received virtually no attention, federal Judge George B. Daniels found in December 2011 that Iran, with the participation of its Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was directly and heavily involved in the 9/11 atrocities.
> 
> This was previously suspected. The 9/11 Commission, having been presented with last-minute evidence from National Security Agency intercepts, found âstrong evidenceâ that Iran had enabled al-Qaida members, including some of the future 9/11 hijackers, to travel in and out of Afghanistan before 9/11. In its 2004 report, it concluded: âWe believe this topic requires further investigation by the US government.â


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The most remarkable aspect of this US surrender to Iran is that the Iranian regime is not some hypothetical threat. It has been perpetrating acts of war against Western interests for more than three decades &#8211; including playing a key role in the 9/11 attacks on America.


Iran wasn't involved in 9/11. It's believed that Al Qaeda, a Sunni organization, was behind 9/11. But Iran wouldn't support a Sunni cause. Iran is Shiite and hates everything to do with Al Qaeda. Iran & Al Qaeda wouldn't work together.

I suspect this is a tactic resurrected from Bush's Iraqi invasion playbook. I'll be disappointed to see this argument get any traction.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Just me, but I suspect they made this up just to hold it back Iran in case they got much opposition to the war - but they got their war without it.

The timing of the release of the news seems 'convenient', now in light of the debate.

I do not believe for a moment that Iran holds any great love for this country - at least it's government. It has very good reasons not to have.

You don't force a bloody tyrant on a country, who kills it's people and expect them to love you and not forget it.

I did read something the other day - no I don't have a link, source, just something to take or leave.

The reason they took the embassy hostage was because the CIA was operating out of the embassy and stirring up discord in the country. They had evidently let other Americans go. 

It might answer why Ross Perot was able to get his people out. it might not have been because of any he man rescue, simply they let them go.

I don't know what the terms of the agreement with Iran is - probably only a few do and I don't think any in Congress, and I'm pretty sure no ordinary person knows.

While I don't want anyone to have nuclear weapons, I don't know how America thought/thinks it should have the right to say Iran cannot have them. Many of the countries around Iran have them - most especially Israel - not exactly people who wish well for Iran.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

Trixie said:


> Just me, but I suspect they made this up just to hold it back Iran in case they got much opposition to the war - but they got their war without it.
> 
> The timing of the release of the news seems 'convenient', now in light of the debate.
> 
> ...


I think with a little research you will find no one simply let Perots men go . It appears that some of his men saw a good opportunity to start a riot and they emptied the whole prison :hobbyhors As usual in Iran unrest is their national past time :runforhills:


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Sawmill Jim said:


> I think with a little research you will find no one simply let Perots men go . It appears that some of his men saw a good opportunity to start a riot and they emptied the whole prison :hobbyhors As usual in Iran unrest is their national past time :runforhills:


We say, do a little research, but that just means to access what is available to us at the time.

Sometimes it takes a while for the truth to come out and by that time it has become 'history' and very few will accept anything else.

One thing I have learned over the years - the 'official' version is always self-serving and quite often wrong, or half wrong.

This is the first time I've heard the Iranians had a reason for holding the embassy hostage, although it really doesn't take a lot to figure out there may have been a reason. We are always simply told everyone hates us so much - and it's only been lately we are learning what the rest of the world - especially the ME knew. There's a reason they don't like us.

Why would the Iranians hate us?

Just because we put the Shah in power and supported him and he brutalized his own people, they shouldn't dislike us. 

Why would the Iraqis hate us? I'm sure it wasn't 'because of our freedom' as President Bush said.


As for the Perot thing it was just a thought - but at the time, we were told he sent in a commando type team and got his people out. Might the Iranians have let them riot, to let them escape or might the 'official' version be wrong?


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

Trixie said:


> We say, do a little research, but that just means to access what is available to us at the time.
> 
> Sometimes it takes a while for the truth to come out and by that time it has become 'history' and very few will accept anything else.
> 
> ...


No every thing in Iran at that time was up in the air ,as I said they have been fighting off and on since the time of Mohamed around 630 AD for one reason or another . Yes the west does interfere and antagonize them now and again but any true Quran thumping Muslim has in his hand all the reason to hate anyone that does not embrace Islam .:hobbyhors Facts are facts deny them all anyone wants too .


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Sawmill Jim said:


> No every thing in Iran at that time was up in the air ,as I said they have been fighting off and on since the time of Mohamed around 630 AD for one reason or another . Yes the west does interfere and antagonize them now and again but any true Quran thumping Muslim has in his hand all the reason to hate anyone that does not embrace Islam .:hobbyhors Facts are facts deny them all anyone wants too .


Not from time to time - every since they found oil in that part of the world.

But think about it, the ME was once the cradle of civilization - they were advanced, productive people.

They still are not as backward as we are led to believe, but it really doesn't matter what they do in their own country - it's their country.

We need to butt out.

I fear we are going to reap what we sowed - sooner rather than later - as they say.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

Trixie said:


> Not from time to time - every since they found oil in that part of the world.
> 
> But think about it, the ME was once the cradle of civilization - they were advanced, productive people.
> 
> ...


I'll agree with all but the advanced part if they didn't have any oil they would still be riding their tired wore out camels .


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Sawmill Jim said:


> I'll agree with all but the advanced part if they didn't have any oil they would still be riding their tired wore out camels .


I was speaking of advanced for their time -


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Sawmill Jim said:


> I'll agree with all but the advanced part if they didn't have any oil they would still be riding their tired wore out camels .


I have to disagree.
Astronomy, math, metallurgy, etc. are all credited with coming from the Arabs and the Persians.
Don't you remember the 3 wise men?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Trixie... Operation Ajax, 1953.

And for some... it appears that the "new" version of history has taken hold...

I wonder what we would think if the Iranians had pulled something like Operation Ajax on us... Hmmm.....


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Shine said:


> Trixie... Operation Ajax, 1953.
> 
> And for some... it appears that the "new" version of history has taken hold...
> 
> I wonder what we would think if the Iranians had pulled something like Operation Ajax on us... Hmmm.....


Yes, all the 'history' today is of those fighting crazy Arabs who hate all Americans for no reason.

That has happened in so many places and I don't know if Iran could pull it off here now.

We did similar things in South America - for lot of reasons, but a lot of it was to keep the drugs flowing. Now we are filled with people from Mexico and that part of the country.

In fact, many of those 'unaccompanied children' are young men from the part of the country we brought a living hell to - we may find out what it's like.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Iran wasn't involved in 9/11. It's believed that Al Qaeda, a Sunni organization, was behind 9/11. But Iran wouldn't support a Sunni cause. Iran is Shiite and hates everything to do with Al Qaeda. Iran & Al Qaeda wouldn't work together.
> 
> I suspect this is a tactic resurrected from Bush's Iraqi invasion playbook. I'll be disappointed to see this argument get any traction.


You'll have to take that up with the author of the article I quoted.
I suspect any terrorist will overlook religious differences long enough to cooperate in an attack on a common enemy.

After 15 years you still blame everything on Bush, so that part is no big surprise


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Trixie said:


> Serious - are you serious.












LOL

Here's *one year's worth.

*


> In fiscal year 2013, the U.S. government allocated the following amounts for aid:
> Total economic and military assistance: $40.11 billion


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_foreign_aid#Amounts


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Sawmill Jim said:


> No every thing in Iran at that time was up in the air ,as I said they have been fighting off and on since the time of Mohamed around 630 AD for one reason or another . Yes the west does interfere and antagonize them now and again but any true Quran thumping Muslim has in his hand all the reason to hate anyone that does not embrace Islam .:hobbyhors Facts are facts deny them all anyone wants too .


Let's get real. It was not about hate, or even religion - it was about money.



> In 1953, the CIA worked with the United Kingdom to overthrow the democratically elected government of Iran led by Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh who had attempted to nationalize Iran's petroleum industry, threatening the profits of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, now known as BP.[5] Declassified CIA documents show that Britain was fearful of Iran's plans to nationalize its oil industry and pressed the U.S. to mount a joint operation to depose the prime minister and install a puppet regime.[6] In 1951 the Iranian parliament voted to nationalize the petroleum fields of the country.[6][7]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions#cite_note-7


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Shine said:


> Here are the Coups that are not "Secret":
> 
> 
> *Now, what would you do if you found out that other countries were messing in who leads our country behind the scenes?*


I dunno, I guess I'd hijack an airliner and crash in into one of _their_ buildings, killing thousands of _their_ innocent people, which, in turn accomplishes absolutely nothing, but terrorizing yet even more innocent people. 

{and yes, this is sarcasm}

I'm really not big on political coups, but we did not directly attack their citizens, for what ever dumb reasons we used.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Originally Posted by Shine View Post
> Here are the Coups that are not "Secret":


That would tend to prove the threats aren't exaggerated.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

plowjockey said:


> Let's get real. It was not about hate, or even religion - it was about money.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions#cite_note-7


As usual you fast forwarded a few years from the start in 630 AD .Your quran must have to many missing pages like many others .:runforhills:


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

plowjockey said:


> I dunno, I guess I'd hijack an airliner and crash in into one of _their_ buildings, killing thousands of _their_ innocent people, which, in turn accomplishes absolutely nothing, but terrorizing yet even more innocent people.
> 
> {and yes, this is sarcasm}
> 
> I'm really not big on political coups, but we did not directly attack their citizens, for what ever dumb reasons we used.


This wasn't addressed to me, but which ones did we not directly attack their citizens?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Shine said:


> Yeah, you're probably right, all the first hand witnesses probably didn't hear the explosions nor were they capable of rendering a good reflection of what actually happened. Those people in the basement probably didn't have the skin sagging off of the arms because of an explosion, the lobby probably just could not withstand an airplane strike 90 stories above, yeah, you're much smarter and you probably actually know what happened that day enough to tell eye witnesses, all of them, that they did not see nor hear what they saw and heard.
> 
> Sarcasm off...
> 
> I am sincerely wondering why you stick to the government's telling of the event when there are so many gaps where important facts are left out. It is almost as if you have something to gain from following their story to the tee... I don't get it.


The human mind is a screwy thing. It quite often 'bends' reality to fit what it thinks it should be. I'll tell you what. Watch the following video and tell me if you could make your mind see reality or if it 'bent' the reality of what is there to fit what it thinks should be there. Its only 2 minutes.

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbKw0_v2clo"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbKw0_v2clo[/ame]


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Why would the lower floors be on the verge of the collapse? The official story says the lower floors were taken out by 'pancaking.' Those floors wouldn't have been distressed at all until the final moment.


Most likely the entire building would have transmitted the sound of the falling floors. How loud would that have been? I have no idea but I'd think anyone close enough to hear that or any explosions that would have caused the implosion would not have survived.

Also with all the recordings we have of this where are the ones with the sounds explosions on them?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Shine said:


> Yes, we should no longer allow First Hand Eye-Witnesses in a court of law, they're just too fallible.


I could never convict someone based on eyewitness testimony alone because it has been proven over and over again to be fallible. You have told us to watch the videos have you watched the videos I linked to? The National Geographic one shows you just how fallible such testimony can be.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Shine said:


> yes, you are not an engineer. 110/500,000 = .0002 percent - yeah, right. the weight of that plane was a factor.


The weight of the aircraft was a factor. 

Crunch some numbers.

You have one aircraft coming in at about 180,000 kg moving around 237 m/s. Using our old E(k) = 1/2mv^2 we discover that aircraft had 5,055,210,000 j of energy when it hit. Put another way, using the website http://www.onlineconversion.com/, that is equal to 1.21 TONS of TNT. If you do the numbers for the other you find it hit with the energy equal to 1.25 TONS of TNT. 

Think about the damage that much energy would do the building's internal structure.


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

Things really haven't changed that much in the last 30 to 35 years in regard to personal threat/risk , domestic and international terrorism fear perspectives.

In 1983 I was 22 and because of the west coast influenced "folk street gangs" and area drug culture fueled criminal element, I generally packed my .38 Colt detective six shot revolver as back up to my 13 round max capacity 9 mm semiautomatic as I went about my usual activities.

Also in 1983 this song debuted lamenting all the reported violence and can just as easily apply today just by changing the names of some of the folks referred to



[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTJcchmKhPw"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTJcchmKhPw[/ame]

Now 32 years later I still carry the same weapons most of the time and while the risk of street gang violence has decreased a small bit, drug related violence is still there and increased a bit but none of it overly affects my personal environment any more than it did in the 1980s.
Terrorist threats exist today. They existed then also. Then we had the Ayatolla Khomeni and Omar Khadafi in the news along with reports of street gangs. Now we have new fanatics with new names in the news with meth manufactures and addicts.

Then we had the Shah of Iran exiled and various terrorist attacks against Americans as shown in this PBS archived timeline
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/target/etc/cron.html

Now we have the scar of 9/11 and Al Queda in it's various names and some of the same political extremist players on stage.




Although the threats and risks and our basic daily activities haven't changed that much in 30 years or so, recently our Flag was raised over Havana again and soon we may once again be abe t enjoy a legal Cuban cigar in this nation again.

The only really big difference I see over the last 35 years is the growth of this social media disease called the internet which sadly some folks become addicted to as if it were computerized crack cocaine and even worse, others apparently turn to for their only form social interactions and unfortunately some of them take a terrible turn to the dark side of life or their observance of the environment around them.

While the internet has limited value as a reference tool , entertainment toy and line of communication, it's overhyped informational capability and social interaction value often have the exact opposite effect of misinformation and social isolation.

30 to 40 years ago many parents still limited their children's media exposure to a few hours a day and Saturday morning cartoons. Now kids as young as four are frequently left occupied with mind numbing devices as their parents play mind numbing games on their own devices for the entire day like electronic device hooked version of addicts in a crack house.

As terrorism both domestic and global has been a concern to be addressed by our nation for decades, yes its been exaggerated as communications of information and disinformation both gain speed exponentially.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Nevada View Post
> Why would the lower floors be on the verge of the collapse? The official story says the lower floors were taken out by 'pancaking.' Those floors wouldn't have been distressed at all until the final moment.


WTC 7 sustained it's damage to the lower portions from fire and debris hits from the other buildings, which is why the lower supports failed first.

For the taller towers, it was also fire (in addition to the impact and extra weight) that weakened the support structure to the point that it began to sag, putting more stress on the lower sections up until the first one failed completely.

Heated steel gets weak long before it nears the melting point

In the two taller buildings, the supports that failed first *were* the "lower" floors in relation to the floors *above the impact points*


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Shine said:


> Yes, it is a lot of weight. I might be in error on the 4" girders but that was the only fact sheet that I could find. However, a girder of that size, when reinforced with other girders would be incredibly strong, wouldn't you think?


You are starting to see the light. The key words are "when reinforced with other girders". What happens when those other girders are no long there or they lose their support? Your house is strong but if you go up in the attic and start cutting ceiling joist free from the top plate and rafters at some point it will fall down.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Sawmill Jim said:


> It is just the US thinking most will never think ones own Gov would kill a few thousand people to accomplish their goals .Most will never get the fact any other than the elite or considered cannon fodder .
> 
> For fun look up implosions gone wrong , when for any reasons a charge goes wrong a building will go sideways or in many directions . Every building that fell occupied it's foot print . Who ever set those charges were experts and destroyed any evidence at the same time . It did what TPTB wanted it to do and now we live with the exact results they wanted it to have ,along with the people believing what they intended them to believe .:hobbyhors


Have you ever dealt with explosives? Its not like you see on TV where the good or bad guy puts 2 oz of explosive on the bridge support and it blows it to splinters. It takes a LOT of explosives to blow things up. And if its not placed in the exactly the right places it takes even more.

Now think about it logically. Do you think anyone could have carried the necessary amount of explosives into the building and placed them against the support structure in the dozens if not hundreds of places that would be necessary and no one saw a thing?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Iran wasn't involved in 9/11. It's believed that Al Qaeda, a Sunni organization, was behind 9/11. But Iran wouldn't support a Sunni cause. Iran is Shiite and hates everything to do with Al Qaeda. Iran & Al Qaeda wouldn't work together.
> 
> I suspect this is a tactic resurrected from Bush's Iraqi invasion playbook. I'll be disappointed to see this argument get any traction.


The enemy of my enemy is my friend and politics makes for strange bedfellows.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

watcher said:


> The human mind is a screwy thing. It quite often 'bends' reality to fit what it thinks it should be. I'll tell you what. Watch the following video and tell me if you could make your mind see reality or if it 'bent' the reality of what is there to fit what it thinks should be there. Its only 2 minutes.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbKw0_v2clo


Cute... now this fits in where?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> The enemy of my enemy is my friend and politics makes for strange bedfellows.


Obviously, since we're fighting along side of Iranian troops in Iraq right now.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

watcher said:


> Have you ever dealt with explosives? Its not like you see on TV where the good or bad guy puts 2 oz of explosive on the bridge support and it blows it to splinters. It takes a LOT of explosives to blow things up. And if its not placed in the exactly the right places it takes even more.
> 
> Now think about it logically. Do you think anyone could have carried the necessary amount of explosives into the building and placed them against the support structure in the dozens if not hundreds of places that would be necessary and no one saw a thing?


There was a 3 week electrical maintenance refit in July where some floors were totally without electricity[read no security, no cameras], find out who owned the company and that will make you go Hmmmm...


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Shine said:


> Cute... now this fits in where?


Simple. It shows that facts and reality don't really matter once your mind has decided what is going on. You know that that mask is hollow. You can plainly see that as the inside hollow part rotates around toward you. But when it if fully facing you can CLEARLY see it is NOT hollow. 

Now think about this. If instead of linking to the video I had take a screen shot of the mask with the hollow part facing you and posted it. Then told you that you were looking at the inside/hollow part of a Halloween mask and explain in great detail why it doesn't look hollow. Do you think you could ever be convince that you are wrong if all I used were words, facts and studies? The ONLY way you could ever be convince you are wrong is by them actually seeing the video and watching the hollow mask become a solid projection.

A fireman heard something that his his mind said was an explosion. At that point it would be next to impossible to convince him otherwise. Even if 99 people standing right beside him told him what he heard was a door slamming he'd still "know" what he heard was an explosion.

And if you had watched the NatGeo video you would see how easy it is for one person's view of reality can be changed. If a fireman had heard something and said something like; "Was that an explosion?" or "Did you hear that explosion?" or "I heard an explosion." then a large number of those around him would also have heard an explosion. At that there is almost no way that you would ever convince them what they heard was not an explosion.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Obviously, since we're fighting along side of Iranian troops in Iraq right now.


Not that long ago most of the high school grads I dealt with couldn't hardly believe that during WWII the USSR and China were fighting with the US against Germany and Japan. Things change. 

That reminds me of something. In the 80s I had an Iranian friend who came up to me one day saying he wanted to tell me good-bye. He had "arraigned" to go to Iraq and join the army so he could fight against the Iranian army. Some days the lyrics of Lennon's song echo through my head; Strange days indeed -- most peculiar, mama.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

watcher said:


> Simple. It shows that facts and reality don't really matter once your mind has decided what is going on. You know that that mask is hollow. You can plainly see that as the inside hollow part rotates around toward you. But when it if fully facing you can CLEARLY see it is NOT hollow.
> 
> Now think about this. If instead of linking to the video I had take a screen shot of the mask with the hollow part facing you and posted it. Then told you that you were looking at the inside/hollow part of a Halloween mask and explain in great detail why it doesn't look hollow. Do you think you could ever be convince that you are wrong if all I used were words, facts and studies? The ONLY way you could ever be convince you are wrong is by them actually seeing the video and watching the hollow mask become a solid projection.
> 
> ...


Why is it so easy and apparently so important for you to want to convince people that things went exactly as the 9/11 report states? I want to know more, do you? I don't know what happened that day, I do want to know. If there's a chance that it was a false flag, I would ---- sure want to have that revealed. Wouldn't you? 

All I know is that there is a concerted effort to not know what happened that day, and you are on that team.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Shine said:


> Why is it so easy and apparently so important for you to want to convince people that things went exactly as the 9/11 report states? I want to know more, do you? I don't know what happened that day, I do want to know. If there's a chance that it was a false flag, I would ---- sure want to have that revealed. Wouldn't you?
> 
> All I know is that there is a concerted effort to not know what happened that day, and you are on that team.


There's more at stake here than just 9/11. Since 9/11 was used as justification for two wars it's critical that it happened the way of the official story. If it happened any other way it opens a Pandora's Box that conservatives could never live down. They HAVE TO take their word for it.

I don't expect enough information about the WTC attacks to be declassified during my lifetime to really know what happened. I've pretty much accepted that.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

watcher said:


> Have you ever dealt with explosives? Its not like you see on TV where the good or bad guy puts 2 oz of explosive on the bridge support and it blows it to splinters. It takes a LOT of explosives to blow things up. And if its not placed in the exactly the right places it takes even more.
> 
> Now think about it logically. Do you think anyone could have carried the necessary amount of explosives into the building and placed them against the support structure in the dozens if not hundreds of places that would be necessary and no one saw a thing?


I never made the big jobs those guys doing building implosions but yes I am quite good ,if I do say so my self . 

Even youtube has implosions gone wrong and anyone can see if it isn't done just exactly right things go a lot of places they shouldn't ,not staying in their foot print .

Structural steel is highly ductile, when subjected to compression and bending it buckles and bends long before reaching its tensile or shear capacity. Under the given assumptions, âifâ the structure in the vicinity of either burning aircraft started to weaken, the superstructure above would begin to lean in the direction of the burning side. The opposite, intact, side of the building would resist toppling until the ultimate capacity of the structure was reached, at which point, a weak-link failure would undoubtedly occur. Nevertheless, the ultimate failure mode would have been a toppling of the upper floors to one sideâmuch like the topping of a tall redwood treeânot a concentric, vertical collapse.

Another thing those planes were different from the ones those supposed pilots trained in ,next a inexperienced pilot hitting a building I just got to call bull . 

And yet the four alleged hijackers who were supposedly flying the aircraft were amateur pilots, who had learned to fly in small propeller planes, and were described by their instructors as having had only "average" or even "very poor" piloting skills. But on their first attempt at flying jet aircraft, on September 11, 2001, these men were supposedly able to fly Boeing 757s and 767s at altitudes of tens of thousands of feet, without any assistance from air traffic control. Three of them were apparently able to successfully navigate their planes all the way to the intended targets, which they hit with pinpoint accuracy.

Most wants to believe the Gov story or need to ,which defy s all logic :thumb:


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Shine said:


> Why is it so easy and apparently so important for you to want to convince people that things went exactly as the 9/11 report states? I want to know more, do you? I don't know what happened that day, I do want to know. If there's a chance that it was a false flag, I would ---- sure want to have that revealed. Wouldn't you?
> 
> All I know is that there is a concerted effort to not know what happened that day, and you are on that team.


The problem is the "evidence" offered as "proof" is about as good as the evidence the people who claim the moon landings didn't take place offer. If you look at a single piece and listen only to what they say it makes perfect sense. But if you look at the totality of the evidence and listen to more you realize the truth. 

Use the Chaplin mask as an example. There is clear visual evidence that the mask is not hallow and that evidence is even provided by the very people who are claiming that the mask is hollow. You have seen it heck you could even post a picture for all to see showing that the mask is CLEARLY not hollow. Your "proof" could convince all kinds of people that the mask is solid and those saying otherwise are just members of a vast conspiracy. Yet anyone who looks at all the evidence will see the truth.

Are there some questions about what happened? Sure there are always questions about what happened in a major event. But most, if not all, of the questions raised by the "the government did it" crowd are easily answered by the totality of the evidence and supported by science.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Sawmill Jim said:


> Structural steel is highly ductile, when subjected to compression and bending it buckles and bends long before reaching its tensile or shear capacity. Under the given assumptions, âifâ the structure in the vicinity of either burning aircraft started to weaken, the superstructure above would begin to lean in the direction of the burning side. The opposite, intact, side of the building would resist toppling until the ultimate capacity of the structure was reached, at which point, a weak-link failure would undoubtedly occur. Nevertheless, the ultimate failure mode would have been a toppling of the upper floors to one sideâmuch like the topping of a tall redwood treeânot a concentric, vertical collapse.


That is correct in a standardly constructed steel building where the weight of the building is supported across the entire structure and the fire is located or limited to one area. But the WTC was not constructed that way and the fire was spread across the entire floor. The construction is the biggest factor. The weight of the building was supported only by the central columns and the exoskeleton. This means the beams supporting the floors could be lighter. Not only were they lighter more of their surface area would have been exposed the the heat of the fire. Look at the wildfire pic I posted and notice the difference in damage between the thicker vertical support and the thinner horizontal ones. 

As I have explained several times as these floor supports started to sag they would have started to pull away from the central column and the outer support. At some point enough of the floor supports failed causing the floor to fall. Which would have started a cascade failure of the floors. Now the construction again becomes a factor as to why the building fell the way it did. The floor fell away so what happens. As stated the support structure for the building was the central columns and the exoskeleton so a floor failing would not have a lot of effect on the building's stability. But as more floors failed due to the damage and the impact of the floor above the exoskeleton lost the bracing it needed to keep from bowing. At some point that bowing would cause it to bend and buckle and fail. Now what happens when it fails? The building above the failure starts to fall. Again remember the construction of the building. The main structure support is a central column of steel. So as the building starts to fall in the very center of it you have a ridged support which would act as guide for the debris to fall down. Now at some point the weight of the debris and the damage from it falling would have damaged it to the point it would have failed as well. But at that point the debris field has fallen below it and its momentum would have been straight down.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

For Watcher.

So, rather than accept that the firefighters and other people could have actually heard the explosions that did occur, you're more comfortable just saying that it really does not matter, the explanation that you have received is good enough for you?

That right there does not make any sense to me. You could take two stills from your clip to show what you could say is two full faces, a solid mask, shown side by side seems conclusive. One would conclude that the mask is solid except for the eyeholes. [that was the giveaway for me] 

You are asking us to not consider the portions of the clip where the rotation absolutely proves that the mask is hollow with regards to what happened on 9/11, you only want us to look at the two still photographs of that "mask" and then to make our decision.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

Again it was to controlled no random falling . Notice this one guys experiment and he is using home made stuff not the good stuff the Gov has. I just find it odd that people don't think our Gov would kill a few thousand when they have killed hundreds of thousands of their own citizens in the past .

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g[/ame]


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

The main reasons people don't believe the government could or would do this go like this:

They just wouldn't - our government couldn't be that sadistic.
They just can't - a conspiracy that large would surely be found out.

Funny thing is, they have and they could more than once in the past and no one talks about that.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

Woolieface said:


> The main reasons people don't believe the government could or would do this go like this:
> 
> They just wouldn't - our government couldn't be that sadistic.
> They just can't - a conspiracy that large would surely be found out.
> ...


There are three classes of people in this world the elite, useful idiots and the expendable . History says once the useful idiots have served their purpose they move to the expendable class and are executed first, because they know to much. :thumb:

Ever here the rumor about the 300 tons of gold missing from one those buildings basement ? Naw that would never happen either :thumb:


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Shine said:


> For Watcher.
> 
> So, rather than accept that the firefighters and other people could have actually heard the explosions that did occur, you're more comfortable just saying that it really does not matter, the explanation that you have received is good enough for you?


The firemen think they heard explosions and some of them maybe sure they heard them but there is no real evidence to support it. On top of that when you look at the facts you see they all line up with the evidence and explanation of what happened. When you look at the entire picture you either apply logic or you apply 'feelings'. Cold hard logic tells us there were no explosives. Feelings can tell you that the buildings were brought down by aliens from outerspace who used mind control to make us think it was really a couple of aircraft.




Shine said:


> That right there does not make any sense to me. You could take two stills from your clip to show what you could say is two full faces, a solid mask, shown side by side seems conclusive. One would conclude that the mask is solid except for the eyeholes. [that was the giveaway for me]
> 
> You are asking us to not consider the portions of the clip where the rotation absolutely proves that the mask is hollow with regards to what happened on 9/11, you only want us to look at the two still photographs of that "mask" and then to make our decision.


No you are the one who only wants to look at the parts which show it to be solid. Anything which shows you to be wrong is said to be incorrect or ignored. I posted a picture I found which shows that the heat from a wildfire can cause steel to bend. What did you do? You sloughed it off saying not enough data was provided. I pointed out that in the very videos you use to "prove" the buildings were imploded there was evidence that it couldn't have happened because the the windows were intact as the building was falling. What did you do? Ignored it. I have repeatedly described from an engineering and physics stand point of why the buildings fell the way they did yet you say it couldn't happen w/o explosives. I tell you the human mind sees and hears what it wants to and provide some non-scientific data to back it up and you say it doesn't matter because the firemen are sure they heard explosions. 

All you have is some supposed data about chemicals which could possibly came from some high tech thermite, some data saying that for less than a second it appears from low quality 24 frames per second video the buildings were in free fall and the statements from people in a high stress high emotional chaotic event.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Sawmill Jim said:


> There are three classes of people in this world the elite, useful idiots and the expendable . History says once the useful idiots have served their purpose they move to the expendable class and are executed first, because they know to much. :thumb:
> 
> Ever here the rumor about the 300 tons of gold missing from one those buildings basement ? Naw that would never happen either :thumb:


The list of dead bankers in the last few years is mind boggling...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Sawmill Jim said:


> Again it was to controlled no random falling . Notice this one guys experiment and he is using home made stuff not the good stuff the Gov has. I just find it odd that people don't think our Gov would kill a few thousand when they have killed hundreds of thousands of their own citizens in the past .
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g


Yeah, I'm sure a Youtube is the most credible evidence there could possibly be.

Unfortunately, it bears no resemblance to anything real at all.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Originally Posted by Shine View Post
> For Watcher.
> 
> So, rather than accept that the firefighters and other people could have actually heard the explosions that did occur, you're more comfortable just saying that it really does not matter, the explanation that you have received is good enough for you?


It's entirely possible ( as has been explained more than once) that they heard "explosions".

That does NOT prove there were any "explosives" used to bring down the building.

It's not rocket science. 

You keep ignoring all the evidence that proves there were no LARGE explosions strong enough to blast apart the supports


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

watcher said:


> The firemen think they heard explosions and some of them maybe sure they heard them but there is no real evidence to support it. On top of that when you look at the facts you see they all line up with the evidence and explanation of what happened. When you look at the entire picture you either apply logic or you apply 'feelings'. Cold hard logic tells us there were no explosives. Feelings can tell you that the buildings were brought down by aliens from outerspace who used mind control to make us think it was really a couple of aircraft.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


OK, how about the video where firefighters said that the Lobby was blown up before any collapse had happened, or is it possible that what they experienced, was not a bomb but some other unexplained and mis-experienced event?

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1zED8dy63w[/ame]

Do you need the clips showing the damage in the lobby to corroborate their hallucinations?


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

People who thought the official story was not THE story include...

242 Professional Engineers 
163 Civil Engineers 
157 BS Electrical Engineering 
110 Bachelors, Architecture 
69 Masters, Architecture 
70 Masters, Engineering 
52 Bachelors, Civil Engineering 
8 Masters, Civil Engineering Considering All Majors
513 Bachelors of Science 
191 Masters of Science 
77 PhDs in AE fields Other Degrees
99 AIA members 
7 FAIA members

They must have gotten together and designed one heck of a tinfoil hat...


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Yeah, I'm sure a Youtube is the most credible evidence there could possibly be.
> 
> Unfortunately, it bears no resemblance to anything real at all.


Shouldn't you be using the copyright symbol when you respond? I mean, wow, just wow... You're so smart...

<sarc off>


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's entirely possible ( as has been explained more than once) that they heard "explosions".
> 
> That does NOT prove there were any "explosives" used to bring down the building.
> 
> ...


Your reply is pure foolishness. You saw the video where a FIREFIGHTER said he heard sounds just like a building "popping out the floors". Gee, how would he know about controlled demolitions?? Wonder who provides the licenses and insures the safety of those around those types of events? Would not someone who is as trusted as a fire fighter, let alone almost all of the firefighters on that scene, have a pretty good idea what they are talking about when they say it was a bomb? I mean, they've heard gas canisters, aerosol cans, gas tanks and other explosions go off, why would they say it was a bomb? Oh, that's right, you studied up and have enough information to void all that they saw and heard that day. 

Isn't that a little sanctimonious? This takes the cake.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Shine said:


> OK, how about the video where firefighters said that the Lobby was blown up before any collapse had happened, or is it possible that what they experienced, was not a bomb but some other unexplained and mis-experienced event?
> 
> Do you need the clips showing the damage in the lobby to corroborate their hallucinations?


Ok let me get this straight. You are saying the the WTC was taken down by explosives and after these explosives went off it fell at free fall speed and these firemen were in the lobby when the explosives went off and the managed to escape the falling building completely uninjured. Do you see any problems at all with that statement?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

watcher said:


> The firemen *think* they heard explosions and some of them maybe sure they heard them but there is no real evidence to support it. On top of that when you look at the facts you see they all line up with the evidence and explanation of what happened. When you look at the entire picture you either apply logic or you apply 'feelings'. Cold hard logic tells us there were no explosives. Feelings can tell you that the buildings were brought down by aliens from outerspace who used mind control to make us think it was really a couple of aircraft.
> 
> First - they "Think" they heard... Who might you be to validate or invalidate what they saw or heard? Were you there? No real evidence, um... none that they will accept, OH, but, they have samples that they are not going to test as diligently as Dr. Harrit. Why not after so many reports of explosions in all three buildings? You call discarding actual happenings, eye witness reports from legit sources applying logic? lol Cold Hard Logic REQUIRES TESTING for explosives if there is ANY possibility they were used. You've had quite a bit of that kool aid when you try to tell others what someone else saw and heard. WERE YOU THERE?
> 
> ...


A high ordered evaluation of some dust that came from the scene. NIST questions the Chain of Custody and then disregards the findings when they should have not done so until they CONFIRMED that there was none in their samples. Show me the tests that are comparable to the tests done by Dr. Harrit. Nice, "low quality" video, oh and only "24 frames", slick, real slick. Are you a politician, I've seen this behavior before... If you were sticking to the facts, you would not have to embellish your story like that. Logic, yeah, that's the ticket. OK, shut me up, explain, technically, how free fall speeds can be achieved in a steel structured building again? Telling me like it said in the report that"some girders fell away to allow others to then fall" is not going to cut it. You will come up empty because I KNOW what that answer is. Come on, tell me or link to a credible explanation.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

watcher said:


> Ok let me get this straight. You are saying the the WTC was taken down by explosives and after these explosives went off it fell at free fall speed and these firemen were in the lobby when the explosives went off and the managed to escape the falling building completely uninjured. Do you see any problems at all with that statement?


Again, you try to discredit what I am saying by twisting my words to your advantage. That is a dishonest way to behave. I have repeatedly said that I DO NOT KNOW WHAT HAPPENED THAT DAY. Got it? I am further saying that I am for another UNBIASED investigation. There are too many unanswered questions. There is some hiding going on....

You lose all credibility when you attempt what you just did above.

Why do you not want another investigation?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

watcher said:


> Ok let me get this straight. You are saying the the WTC was taken down by explosives and after these explosives went off it fell at free fall speed and these firemen were in the lobby when the explosives went off and the managed to escape the falling building completely uninjured. * Do you see any problems at all with that statement?*


He won't see any problems at all since it would prove how his "logic" is flawed


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> He won't see any problems at all since it would prove how his "logic" is flawed


Wrong, you of all people I would expect to get this. You are the one that is pish-pishing on solid data.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> He won't see any problems at all since it would prove how his "logic" is flawed


Oh, yeah, you... weren't you the one that was going to explain the 2.3 seconds of free fall to me? How's that logic thing going for you???


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Nevada said:


> Yes, but it was all over but the crying more than a decade ago. Conservatives collectively said, 'Take my constitutional rights, I don't care, just so I don't get hurt.' I warned that someday those powers would be in the hands of a democrat, but they still didn't care.
> 
> The government didn't take it. Conservatives handed it to the government.


Only the miniscule portion left after liberals decided to take whatever they wanted in the name of justice for the few at cost for the many. 
The very idea that a liberal ever fight for the rights of the majority is so fanciful as to be surreal.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

Shine said:


> Oh, yeah, you... weren't you the one that was going to explain the 2.3 seconds of free fall to me? How's that logic thing going for you???


Hey Shine this guy can explain it really good :surrender:

Major General Albert N. Stubblebine

All of the air defense systems in that part of the country had been turned off that day. All of the air defense systems had been turned offâ¦ Why would you turn off all of the air defense systems on that particular day unless you knew that something was going to happen? Itâs a dot. Itâs information. But, itâs strange that everything got turned off that day. DOT.â
http://consciouslifenews.com/911-pr...gon-major-general-albert-stubblebine/1145271/


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Shine said:


> Again, you try to discredit what I am saying by twisting my words to your advantage. That is a dishonest way to behave. I have repeatedly said that I DO NOT KNOW WHAT HAPPENED THAT DAY. Got it? I am further saying that I am for another UNBIASED investigation. There are too many unanswered questions. There is some hiding going on....
> 
> You lose all credibility when you attempt what you just did above.
> 
> Why do you not want another investigation?


Actually I was trying to see if what you have said made any sense. 

All of this is taken from what you have posted.

You seem to believe that the WTC was taken down by explosives.
You seem to believe that the WTC fell at free fall because it was taken down by explosives.
You seem to believe that these two firefighters were in the lobby when the explosives went off. 

I don't care if they investigate it six or seven more times because no matter how many times they do it the evidences are going to come to the same conclusions. The buildings fell due to the damage and fire from the aircraft strikes and the building design. The problem is that no matter how many investigations done by what organisations there are going to be people who "KNOW" what happened and will say that the conclusions of the investigations are wrong.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> I don't care if they investigate it six or seven more times because no matter how many times they do it the evidences are going to come to the same conclusions. The buildings fell due to the damage and fire from the aircraft strikes and the building design. The problem is that no matter how many investigations done by what organisations there are going to be people who "KNOW" what happened and will say that the conclusions of the investigations are wrong.


And you "KNOW" what happened also. Other than having a perfectly good official story to believe, how do you know it to be true?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

watcher said:


> Actually I was trying to see if what you have said made any sense.
> 
> All of this is taken from what you have posted.
> 
> ...


You seem to believe that the WTC 7 was taken down by explosives.
There seems to enough valid information so as to throw the Official Report into the crapper.

You seem to believe that the WTC fell at free fall because it was taken down by explosives.
I don't know of any valid explanation regarding a collapse of a steel structure falling through itself so I would like for this to be investigated further. Can you explain it further than what NIST provided as an explanation?

You seem to believe that these two firefighters were in the lobby when the explosives went off. 
Well, judging from their looks, the time stamp on the report and their own admission that they were, um... yes. [please do not refer me to out takes from Face-Off or inform me of the steps taken to don theatrical costumes]

You see, the first investigation had the government officials dragging their feet, they got to choose who did the investigation, they got to choose what was in the investigation and what was out, they had restraints, by their own admission, regarding what could be included into the report. You think that an unbiased team would come up with the travesty that the government people provided? They had a conflict of interest from the get-go. You had, I think, the first time ever where a Tag-Team of two Persons of Interest that got to testify TOGETHER, OFF THE RECORD and IN SECRET.... What's up with that? You comfortable with that?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

How about a motive for those in office to commit this themselves???

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=211&v=oxz06SwfnlU


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Originally Posted by Shine View Post
> Oh, yeah, you... weren't you the one that was going to explain the 2.3 seconds of free fall to me? How's that logic thing going for you???


It was explained in the NIST report you posted.
I highlighted it several times
It's not my fault you can't seem to grasp one side fell before the other, causing the latter to fall for a couple of heartbeats at "calculated free fall speed".

If the numbers they used for the "calculations" were incorrect, the speed may not be accurate.

Nothing you've shown really supports your theories at all, and even often contradicts them


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> And you "KNOW" what happened also. Other than having a perfectly good official story to believe, how do you know it to be true?


The forensic evidence supports the most logical version, and "explosives" don't fit anywhere when logic is applied.

The conspiracy sites rely on hearsay and innuendo, but fall apart under scrutiny.

That's why some want to focus so intently on a couple of seconds of an hours ling event


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The forensic evidence supports the most logical version, and "explosives" don't fit anywhere when logic is applied.
> 
> The conspiracy sites rely on hearsay and innuendo, but fall apart under scrutiny.
> 
> That's why some want to focus so intently on a couple of seconds of an hours ling event


[for watcher too]

Really? Scrutiny this. Here is some here-say for you:

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rkp-4sm5Ypc&feature=youtu.be[/ame]

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXTlaqXsm4k[/ame]

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw[/ame]

<sarc on>You're probably are much smarter and have probably done much more research on the subject than anyone else. <sarc off>

I asked you to explain the Free Fall segment of the collapse of the WTC 7 building, you defer to the NIST report. I have explained to you that NIST tried to squeegee the data. Here is a view from those that did the measurements, they ran it frame by frame, they showed that the entire expanse of the top of the building traveled at free fall speeds for over two seconds. NIST had to change their report but... Guess what? They say it does not matter after the Lead Investigator stated that "Free Fall speeds cannot happen in a natural collapse"

So, do you have a better explanation or are you still saying that the NIST report is above reproach?

I will now look for the video of the person that did the actual measurements, it shows without a doubt with all of the calculations that you could possibly want that the speed of the collapse was at a rate near within 1 to 2% of the speed of free fall and sometimes equal to absolute free fall.

Now, I wish to remind you that the lead investigator is in this video saying more than once that in a "Natural Building Collapse" that free fall speeds CANNOT be achieved.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It was explained in the NIST report you posted.
> I highlighted it several times
> It's not my fault you can't seem to grasp one side fell before the other, causing the latter to fall for a couple of heartbeats at "calculated free fall speed".
> 
> ...


I will take you to task with regards to your methodology here. Look at what you are trying to reply with:
"It was Explained" OK, if you accept their explanation, I call your methodologies for ascertaining an answer to be quite lame.

You cited this report which I posted and SPECIFICALLY stated and identified that there were flaws therein as the "answer" to my question.

Herein, with regards to my last post, I have shown you that NIST fudged the report with phantom collapse data.

Now you try to change the measured speed to a trivialized "few heartbeats" in an attempt to minimize the importance of this event. You fail, I have clearly and unequivocally stated the period of free fall in a measured rate. Your attempt is dishonest. Why not use the number that NIST admitted to? Are you ashamed to admit that Free Fall did occur in this collapse? You certainly do not have an answer, that I have seen, that provides a technical explanation. 

Then you reply "Nothing that you've shown..." as some sort of cleanser that wipes the slate clean. You continue to be disingenuous at best.

Last question: [Yeah, I know, you won't answer it] If NIST is unable to technically explain the period of free fall, and there has been no one else to come forward to justify this observation and you fail to provide a justification, do you still stand behind the NIST report of the WTC 7 collapse?

ergo, explosives MUST be considered.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Sawmill Jim said:


> Hey Shine this guy can explain it really good :surrender:
> 
> Major General Albert N. Stubblebine
> 
> ...


There's no evidence that is true, and air defense systems guard against attacks from *outside *the country, not domestic flights.

Anyone who claims they can prove it "was not an airplane that hit the Pentagon" is a lunatic, as is anyone who believes them

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Stubblebine


> After retirement Stubblebine became widely known for his interest, while on active duty, in psychic warfare and his hope to develop an army of soldiers with powers such as the ability to walk through walls.


This is why some have no credibility


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> This is why some have no credibility



Yes, we're finding more and more of "those" people...


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> And you "KNOW" what happened also. Other than having a perfectly good official story to believe, how do you know it to be true?


I don't know we landed on the moon, I wasn't there. I don't know the earth is round, I've never see it myself. I don't know even know that Elvis is really dead, I haven't seen his body. But the evidence that these things are true are far out weigh any evidence given to the contrary.

I've seen the videos, I've watched/read info from both sides, I have a background in engineering, I have dealt with explosives (IOW, I've blown stuff up) and I have studied history and human nature. When all that is mixed together then sifted through common sense and logic the only conclusion I can come up with is the buildings failed the way they did because of the combination of the damage from aircraft strikes, failure of the structural steel due to the heat from the fire and the building's design.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

All right Watcher, I can accept that you see it differently, I wish you well.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> I don't know we landed on the moon, I wasn't there. I don't know the earth is round, I've never see it myself. I don't know even know that Elvis is really dead, I haven't seen his body. But the evidence that these things are true are far out weigh any evidence given to the contrary.
> 
> I've seen the videos, I've watched/read info from both sides, I have a background in engineering, I have dealt with explosives (IOW, I've blown stuff up) and I have studied history and human nature. When all that is mixed together then sifted through common sense and logic the only conclusion I can come up with is the buildings failed the way they did because of the combination of the damage from aircraft strikes, failure of the structural steel due to the heat from the fire and the building's design.


Do you think it's beyond the capabilities of our government to pull something like that off?

By the way, I wasn't aware that you studied engineering. I'd like to learn more about that.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Shine said:


> You seem to believe that the WTC 7 was taken down by explosives.
> There seems to enough valid information so as to throw the Official Report into the crapper.
> 
> You seem to believe that the WTC fell at free fall because it was taken down by explosives.
> ...


Now think about this. If these firemen were in the lobby when the explosives which caused the building to implode and fall at free fall speeds went off, how did they get out alive?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Do you think it's beyond the capabilities of our government to pull something like that off?


No. But I don't see them being able to do it and get away with it in the past and current environment. With the hatred of Bush and 8 years of people digging for ANYTHING that could be used against him the odds of something that big and complicated remaining secure are very slim indeed.




Nevada said:


> By the way, I wasn't aware that you studied engineering. I'd like to learn more about that.


You are unaware of most things about my private life because I do not put much of my personal life info online. I'll tell you this and no more. The wife and I went to one of the top 10 engineering schools in the US (that's where I met her). I'm not a civil engineer (I know that Pi is not equal to 3) but I do know you can't push a rope, stuff flows down hill and when a floor loaded with debris loses support it falls down releasing much more energy on the floor below it than if you have slowly applied the same weight (and payday is Friday).


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Nevada said:


> Do you think it's beyond the capabilities of our government to pull something like that off?
> 
> By the way, I wasn't aware that you studied engineering. I'd like to learn more about that.


 
To pull it off? No. To keep it secret? Yes. 

The amount of explosives needed to do that much damage would be noticed, upon instillation, by workers in the buildings. 

Also, watch the films of the collapses, they start from where the damage was caused by the jet liners and go down. It looks like the buildings are being crushed by the upper part of the building falling. 

In a controlled demolition, the fall would occur from the bottom, where the explosives are placed.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

Farmerga said:


> To pull it off? No. To keep it secret? Yes.
> 
> The amount of explosives needed to do that much damage would be noticed, upon instillation, by workers in the buildings.
> 
> ...


I think you missed a lot of things ,especially if you watched the two video's I posted . In the one that man who is a engineer built a model of the beam supports then used homemade trermate to shear it up . The Gov has access to the good stuff nano thirmite . 

In the second one with the General all he is doing is pointing out DOTs then connecting them in some order . Even at that there had been work crews in those buildings for a long while .I lost all those reports from my last computer crash . 

Even aside from that no prop plane pilot could graduate to those types aircraft
switch from auto pilot and find much less hit those buildings .

The biggest thing that made the cover up easy is they know \ knew how the American people think .They used the peoples mindset against them ,by giving them a story not only they WANTED to believe but would DEFEND and forever will. They not only got a war with a country they needed a excuse to attack but gave the American people many, many other laws they had prepared and wrote years in advance of their black flag event . They understood the odds were against any that would ever suspect Gov. involvement ever convincing the peons their benevolent Gov. would kill that many at once to accomplish their goals . And it worked .Kill them slow and no one says a word . 
After 4,486 U.S. soldiers died in Iraq and 2,345 U.S. soldiers died in Afghanistan, 1 million U.S. soldiers wounded in both wars, and a potential cost of up to $6 trillion, a new group like ISIL now causes havoc in the Middle East.Sep 17, 2014

Retrain your thinking and look at the facts ,not those they want you to see or the ones being an American has taught you to see .


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

watcher said:


> Now think about this. If these firemen were in the lobby when the explosives which caused the building to implode and fall at free fall speeds went off, how did they get out alive?


The explosion happened way before the collapse. The report said that the jet fuel was delivered to the lobby via the elevators... [lol] where it exploded... [lol]


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Farmerga said:


> To pull it off? No. To keep it secret? Yes.
> 
> *Gee, I don't think it's really a secret, do you?*
> 
> ...


WOW, just like WTC 7, hey, you got something there...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Now, I wish to remind you that the lead investigator is in this video saying more than once that in a "Natural Building Collapse" that free fall speeds CANNOT be achieved.


There's nothing "natural" about that disaster, and there's no evidence of explosives
You just keep parroting the same tired lines

If "free fall can't happen" then the calculations must have been wrong.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> There's nothing "natural" about that disaster, and there's no evidence of explosives
> You just keep parroting the same tired lines
> 
> If "free fall can't happen" then the calculations must have been wrong.


....I'll bet that your sores never heal...


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Shine said:


> The explosion happened way before the collapse. The report said that the jet fuel was delivered to the lobby via the elevators... [lol] where it exploded... [lol]


Well there's a hair in your biscuit. If the building was imploded via explosives and fell in free fall then how do you explain the delay between the explosion and the fall of the building? Cartoon gravity?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Shine said:


> WOW, just like WTC 7, hey, you got something there...


How do you set off explosives in an enclosed space and not blow out the windows? Watch the video of it falling and notice that the windows.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> The explosion happened way before the collapse. The report said that the jet fuel was delivered to the lobby via the elevators... [lol] where it exploded... [lol]


There was no jet fuel in WTC 7
The more you talk, the more your theories fall apart


----------

