Truthers are boring, silly fools. 

by Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 350 comments) on Tuesday, Feb 19, 2008 at 8:16:24 PM

  (0+)

Thanks for taking the time to craft such a clever, erudite response.  I'm going to print out your reply and put it at the bottom of my bird-cage, but maybe that would be redundant.

by CasaZaza (10 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 202 comments [15 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Feb 20, 2008 at 9:30:57 AM

  (0+)

Typical 14 year old frat boy response.

by John Hanks (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1760 comments [39 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Feb 20, 2008 at 9:45:16 AM

  (0+)

On the day of the hijackings the US Government is running drills with its Air Force where it is simulating "Multiple Hijackings of Aircraft" within the United States of America. This drill causes great confusion amongst Air Traffic Controllers as it provides a "Cover" for the real Hijackings. Without these drills it is very possible that the Aircraft that were hijacked could have been intercepted far earlier. Certainly one has to consider this some sort of "Miracle"

One agency was running a simulation in a single building of an acident where a plane crashed into the building, hardly the entire goverment.  Please try to keep things in their proper perspective. 

by Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 350 comments) on Tuesday, Feb 19, 2008 at 8:24:45 PM

  (0+)

"As Major Kevin Nasypany, the facility's mission-crew commander, drove up the hill to work on the morning of 9/11, he was dressed in his flight suit and prepared for battle. Not a real one. The Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS), where Nasypany had been stationed since 1994, is the regional headquarters for the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), the Cold War–era military organization charged with protecting North American airspace. As he poured his first coffee on that sunny September morning, the odds that he would have to defend against Russian "Bear Bombers," one of NORAD's traditional simulated missions, were slim. Rather, Nasypany (pronounced Nah-sip-a-nee), an amiable commander with a thick mini-mustache and a hockey player's build, was headed in early to get ready for the NORAD-wide training exercise he'd helped design. The battle commander, Colonel Bob Marr, had promised to bring in fritters.

For the NEADS crew, 9/11 was not a story of four hijacked airplanes, but one of a heated chase after more than a dozen potential hijackings—some real, some phantom—that emerged from the turbulence of misinformation that spiked in the first 100 minutes of the attack and continued well into the afternoon and evening.

08:37:52
BOSTON CENTER: Hi. Boston Center T.M.U. [Traffic Management Unit], we have a problem here. We have a hijacked aircraft headed towards New York, and we need you guys to, we need someone to scramble some F-16s or something up there, help us out.
POWELL: Is this real-world or exercise?
BOSTON CENTER: No, this is not an exercise, not a test.

Powell's question—"Is this real-world or exercise?"—is heard nearly verbatim over and over on the tapes as troops funnel onto the ops floor and are briefed about the hijacking. Powell, like almost everyone in the room, first assumes the phone call is from the simulations team on hand to send "inputs"—simulated scenarios—into play for the day's training exercise.

8:37:56
WATSON: What?
DOOLEY: Whoa!
WATSON: What was that?
ROUNTREE: Is that real-world?
DOOLEY: Real-world hijack.
WATSON: Cool!

"When they told me there was a hijack, my first reaction was 'Somebody started the exercise early,'" Nasypany later told me. The day's exercise was designed to run a range of scenarios, including a "traditional" simulated hijack in which politically motivated perpetrators commandeer an aircraft, land on a Cuba-like island, and seek asylum. "I actually said out loud, 'The hijack's not supposed to be for another hour,'" Nasypany recalled.

09:04:50
—Is this explosion part of that that we're lookin' at now on TV?
—Yes.
—Jesus …
—And there's a possible second hijack also
—a United Airlines …
—Two planes?…
—Get the f*ck out …
—I think this is a damn input, to be honest.
 

The last line—"I think this is a damn input"—is a reference to the exercise, meaning a simulations input. It's either gallows humor or wishful thinking. From the tape, it's hard to tell."

– Vanity Fair (08/01/06)

by Michael Fury (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 88 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Feb 20, 2008 at 8:35:46 AM

  (0+)

The author is EXACTLY CORRECT, Roark and the others are either hopelessly ignorant on these issues, or possibly agents meant to keep you from looking at truths.

Read Michael C. Ruppert's "Crossing the Rubicon" for a full understanding of the multiple mysterious war games held on 9/11.

It looks as though Cheney ordered them.  What he needs to be asked under oath, is why he didn't call them off after the first plane hit the first tower on 9/11/2001.

[Also, to break the corporate media blockade and FORCE a 9/11 discussion in mainstream media, URGE ALL TO GET "THE SHELL GAME".  A new explosive edu-tainment novel by a NY Times best selling author.  This book includes quotes from "Crossing the Rubicon" and he advocates it in media interviews and on his website!!  www.TheShellGame.net "

by Bill Douglas (69 articles, 2 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 434 comments) on Thursday, Feb 21, 2008 at 4:45:27 PM

  (0+)

Months prior to the hijackings the US Government changes the rules of engagement for hijacked Aircraft. Now in order to send up planes to intercept, the approval of the Defense Secretary, one Donald Rumsfeld, is required. Unfortunately he goes missing for 30 minutes, on the morning of the attacks, again impeding the ability of intercepts to be flown. Not only this but on the day of those intercepts, supersonic US fighter aircraft that are scrambled suddenly have a top speed of only around 200 MPH.

 In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999. With passengers and crew unconscious from cabin decompression, the plane lost radio contact but remained in transponder contact until it crashed. Even so, it took an F-16 1 hour and 22 minutes to reach the stricken jet. Rules in effect back then, and on 9/11, prohibited supersonic flight on intercepts. Prior to 9/11, all other NORAD interceptions were limited to offshore Air Defense Identification Zones (ADIZ). "Until 9/11 there was no domestic ADIZ," FAA spokesman Bill Schumann tells PM. After 9/11, NORAD and the FAA increased cooperation, setting up hotlines between ATCs and NORAD command centers, according to officials from both agencies. NORAD has also increased its fighter coverage and has installed radar to monitor airspace over the continent.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=3

by Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 350 comments) on Tuesday, Feb 19, 2008 at 8:27:42 PM

  (0+)

The US President is on a pre-scheduled event in a school in Florida. The Government has no idea of how many Aircraft have been hijacked or what the targets of the hijackers are.  Indeed, given that the president’s location that morning had been televised, the President himself might well be a target. Yet, rather then rush him to safety as they are trained ~ and expected ~ to do, the Secret Service is certain the President is not at risk. They let the President sit in the classroom and continue with his story about a pet goat for the next half hour ~ even after he was told the second tower was hit. A miracle of faith if anything.

by Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 350 comments) on Tuesday, Feb 19, 2008 at 8:30:08 PM

  (0+)

According to Philip Melanson, an expert on the Secret Service, Bush should have been removed from the school immediately after Flight 175 hit the second WTC tower. Melanson says: "With an unfolding terrorist attack, the procedure should have been to get the president to the closest secure location as quickly as possible, which clearly is not a school. You're safer in that presidential limo, which is bombproof and blastproof and bulletproof." Furthermore, considering the president's responsibilities as commander in chief, Melanson adds that Bush's limousine had key advantages: "In the presidential limo, the communications system is almost duplicative of the White House -- he can do almost anything from there but he can't do much sitting in a school."

- Quoted in Susan Taylor Martin, "Of fact, fiction: Bush on 9/11." St. Petersburg Times, July 4, 2004

President Bush, a high-profile target, was not only allowed to remain in the school for a half hour after the second tower hit, he was allowed to make an internationally televised live address from the school at 9:30--his pre-announced, scheduled time--when an unknown number of hijacked aircraft were still in the air, thus broadcasting his exact location to anyone wishing to target him.

by Michael Fury (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 88 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Feb 20, 2008 at 9:00:48 AM

  (0+)

The  safest place for the president was right where he was at at that point in time.  Rushing him out of the building when the true extent of the threat was still unknown would have been foolhardy in the extreme. 

Much more likely that Bush was awaiting instructions from the shadow president, Dick Cheney ~ who was in the White House Command Center directing operations at that time ~  as he does to this day .

Allen L Roland

by Allen L Roland (1045 articles, 7 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 420 comments [15 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Feb 19, 2008 at 8:41:49 PM

  (0+)

For you, 9/11 isn't about reality, it's about your political viewpoint. 

Figures. 

by Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 350 comments) on Tuesday, Feb 19, 2008 at 9:20:36 PM

  (0+)

Thank you for your insightful article Teilhard.

It is futile dealing with credulity and ignorance, ya know?

Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong. Thomas Jefferson

by Munich (1 articles, 86 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 1125 comments [86 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Tuesday, Feb 19, 2008 at 11:43:16 PM

  (0+)

Five Israeli Citizens manage to be across the river from the WTC towers and are in place to film the planes crashing into the towers. Great is their Joy as they realize that the United States will certainly discover that Al Qaeda is the Culprit and this will lead to the destruction of Israel's many enemies. How they came to be there is certainly a miracle, and that the attack lead to the destruction of their arch enemies, the Iraqis, even more so. Why, after traces of explosives were detected their vans by bomb-sniffing dogs these men were inexplicably released by the police, only adds to this miracle. (They later admitted during an interview on Israeli television that they had been sent to the the United States “to document the event”, but no one asked them who sent them.)

by Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 350 comments) on Tuesday, Feb 19, 2008 at 8:42:18 PM

  (0+)

http://tinyurl.com/2gdsfo

by Michael Fury (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 88 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Feb 20, 2008 at 9:11:03 AM

  (0+)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,52681,00.html

http://www.kingsbayperiscope.com/stories/052704/kin_truck001.shtml

by Michael Fury (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 88 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Feb 20, 2008 at 9:38:41 AM

  (0+)

The high fiving Israelis were covered by local media, the FBI released some details of their arrest, and numerous sources and eyewitnesses exist  to show that that part of the tale is true. FACTS cannot be 'anti-semitic' only attitudes can be labeled as such. quit being so defensive.

by Brad Griffeth (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 138 comments [12 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Feb 21, 2008 at 5:20:35 AM

  (0+)

No steel-framed buildings in the history of construction had ever suffered total structural collapse due to fires, yet on this single day, within hours of one another, THREE buildings collapse after fires burn through them. This even after Firefighters claim to have had the fires under control.

Sigh.  How many times do I have to point out the stupidity of this argument.   

The buildings didn’t collapse due to fire alone, they collapsed due to a combination of structural damage (you do remember the planes, don’t you?) and fire combined. 

In addition, not all steel framed buildings are alike.  The structural designs of the collapsed buildings were unique.  To try and compare the performance of the WTC buildings under structural damage and uncontrolled fire is pointless.   

In the case of WTC 7, the building was also structurally damaged by the collapse of WTC 1.  In addition, the fire in this building burned for 7 hours, well past the limit of the applied fireproofing.   

Finally to suggest that the fires in the buildings were under control is just, well just insane, (or incredibly stupid, take your pick) 

by Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 350 comments) on Tuesday, Feb 19, 2008 at 8:50:19 PM

  (0+)

Please point out what part of WTC7 suffered a 7 hour fire.

Please elaborate on, and provide proof of, the structural damage to WTC7 that was so massive as to contribute to its collapse. 

by Harold Smith (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 556 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Feb 20, 2008 at 1:32:31 PM

  (0+)

All three towers collapse neatly into their own footprints, exactly as they do in controlled demolitions,

at freefall speeds—I.e., in the same time it would take apples dropped from the roofs. All 110 floors fell as if nothing existed beneath them but air.

by Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 350 comments) on Tuesday, Feb 19, 2008 at 8:54:35 PM

  (0+)

Rabid anti-Semitism is just as distasteful as anti-Islamicism. There are morons of every nationality, including you. 

Typical comment from someone who can only comment ~ when reading the truth ~ you resort to labeling it anti-semitism.

You are the dimwit moron with regid blinders to shield you from the obvious unanswered questions regarding 9/11.

Allen L Roland

by Allen L Roland (1045 articles, 7 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 420 comments [15 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Feb 19, 2008 at 8:59:16 PM

  (0+)

Rabid anti-Semitism is just as distasteful as anti-Islamicism. There are morons of every nationality, including you. 

Typical comment from someone who can only comment ~ when reading the truth ~ you resort to labeling it anti-semitism.

You are the dimwit moron with rigid blinders to shield you from the obvious unanswered questions regarding 9/11.

Allen L Roland

by Allen L Roland (1045 articles, 7 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 420 comments [15 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Feb 19, 2008 at 9:01:52 PM

  (0+)

The owner of the buildings slips up on national television and admits that he ordered one of the towers (building 7) to be “pulled”. A “Pull”—jargon for controlled demolition—

So wrong it’s not even funny anymore.  “pull” is not a term used in the demolition industry.  It never has and never will.  People in the demolition industry have pointed this out to the conspiratards for years to no avail.

Furthermore, he was talking to a firefighter.  Firefighters don’t demolish buildings.  To a firefighter, the term pull has a totally different meaning – pull back out of a fire.     

requires months of planning and preparation. Yet, no one to this day has asked this man how he managed to achieve this incredible feat in a matter of hours, and amidst the chaos of 9/11.

The 9/11 Commission surely must also have assumed this to be a miracle because they did not even address this in their report.

That the insurance company paid out 7 billion dollars without even the slightest investigation

—even after the owner’s admission of a ‘pull’—only compounds the magnitude of this miracle.

by Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 350 comments) on Tuesday, Feb 19, 2008 at 9:06:39 PM

  (0+)

Silverstein said:

"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

Regardless of what the phrase "pull it" may or may not mean in the jargon of the demolition industry, it's obvious from the rest of his statement that Silverstein was referring to the controlled demolition of building 7.

Since obviuosly FDNY is not in the demolition industry. and, since demolishing the building as such would not only be illegal, but is not something that could be done in a short time on short notice, Silverstein's statement obviously makes no sense whatsoever except as a deliberate distraction, intended to confuse. Which is of course exactly what it was. I hope that clears things up for you. 

by Harold Smith (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 556 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Feb 20, 2008 at 3:17:18 PM

  (0+)

Regardless of what the phrase "pull it" may or may not mean in the jargon of the demolition industry, it's obvious from the rest of his statement that Silverstein was referring to the controlled demolition of building 7.

Talk about circular reasoning. 

“He meant to demolish it because he said Pull, but even if the term “pull” has no validity in the demolition industry he meant to demolish the building because he was talking to the fire department and the fire department allways says pull when they intentionally demolish a building.” 

Yeah, right. 

by Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 350 comments) on Wednesday, Feb 20, 2008 at 3:35:59 PM

  (0+)

Apparently you either didn't read what I wrote, or you just have no comprehension of the English language?

by Harold Smith (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 556 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Feb 20, 2008 at 3:59:29 PM

  (0+)

do you see that part in the box?  That is exactly what you wrote.

by Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 350 comments) on Wednesday, Feb 20, 2008 at 7:27:24 PM

  (0+)

do you see that part in the box?  That is exactly what you wrote.

Well of course that's part of what I wrote. The problem is that you apparently don't understand plain text. 

by Harold Smith (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 556 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Feb 20, 2008 at 11:00:00 PM

  (0+)

Jet fuel is essentially refined kerosene. It burns without problem in millions of steel stoves, heaters and furnaces around the world every day. Yet on 9/11, in less than an hour, this innocuous substance MELTED all the massive steel beams of three skyscrapers and caused the structures to collapse like pillars of sand in less than 10 seconds. How do we know the steel melted? Firefighters and other first responders reported seeing molten metal “flowing like rivers” in the basements of the collapsed buildings for several weeks. 

My god, that has to be one of the stupidest things I have ever read on this website. You really can’t be that ignorant, can you?  

All right, you win.  I have to throw in the towel against such a total dearth of intellect.  {roll eyes}

by Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 350 comments) on Tuesday, Feb 19, 2008 at 9:19:01 PM

  (0+)

... without problem in millions of steel stoves, heaters and furnaces around the world every day. Yet on 9/11, in less than an hour, this innocuous substance MELTED all the massive steel beams of three skyscrapers and caused the structures to collapse like pillars of sand in less than 10 seconds. How do we know the steel melted? Firefighters and other first responders reported seeing molten metal “flowing like rivers” in the basements of the collapsed buildings for several weeks."

That's what the writer said. Within your all-too-familiar Bush-apologist abuse and scoffing, I have seen nothing to counter the arguments. Jet fuel is essentially kerosene and burns at about 1500 degrees Fahrenheit. Steel melts at about 2700 degrees Fahrenheit. Therefore, those fires could not have melted the steel. Moreover, kerosene fires don't pulverise steel and concrete, as what happened. Also, a building cannot collapse in its own footprint at free-fall speed except if at any moment the structure is made to crumble, and the resistence nullified, ahead of the oncoming mass. This can only happen with timed explosives. OK, let's have your arguments.

You believe in fairy tales.

Sydney, Australia

by Robert Hoogenboom (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 234 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Feb 20, 2008 at 5:35:41 AM

  (0+)

That's why he raves on like a fool.  Oh, he's also ignorant, rude, and a few other qualities come to mind - but we need not go into details lest we sink to the level of this egregious moron.

by CasaZaza (10 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 202 comments [15 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Feb 20, 2008 at 9:25:50 AM

  (0+)

How many buildings structurally similar to the WTC buildings have suffered massive structural damage and the fire loads experienced by those buildings on that day?   

The correct answer is: none.   

Therefore the claim that the collapses were the result of a deliberate CD just because it had never happened before is a bad argument, wouldn’t you agree?

by Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 350 comments) on Wednesday, Feb 20, 2008 at 10:31:35 AM

  (0+)

He's just trying to sell more subscriptions to 'Popular Mechanics'... No matter how many respected physicists, structural engineers and architects refute the 'Official' version of the Buildings' collapse on 9/11, the backers of the 'official' story always go back to the supposed 'facts' presented in the ONLY mainstream outlet to support the preposterous and illogical official explanation- the 'Popular Mechanics' so-called 'investigation'!

Hmmm... Structural engineers, well-respected phsicists, world-renown architects, or government shills working for Popular Mechanics- who do YOU trust?

It's always amusing how those who support the 'Official' version of events on 9/11 resort to ad-hominem attacks like calling doubters names like 'conspiracy theorist' and such, yet they themselves are the ones talking and acting like a 'true believer' in a cult, where dogma cannot be questioned by the presentation of scientific fact!

xtrabiggg

++++++++++++++++++++

by Thaddeus Kaczor Jr (7 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 46 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Feb 20, 2008 at 10:35:00 AM

  (0+)

Hmmm... Structural engineers,

Name them.

well-respected phsicists,

Jones is a lone nut.  Furthermore, he has been drifting back to the "official Story" lately.  I guess the 9/11 truth gig isn't panning out like he though it would.   

world-renown architects,

Who?  Richard Gage?  LOL - the man designs food courts in shopping malls and high school gymnasiums.   

  or government shills working for Popular Mechanics- who do YOU trust?

Typical, everyone who disagrees with you is a government shill.  You have an exagerated sense of self importance. 

by Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 350 comments) on Wednesday, Feb 20, 2008 at 8:04:51 PM

  (0+)

Not to mention any names, but is it me or does it seem like one non-critical thinker who would usually would debunk this topic and who we haven't heard from in sevaral days has suddenly been replaced by Roark?

An ignore feature would come in handy right about now. Just way too much feckless fobbing by this Roark! 

by Munich (1 articles, 86 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 1125 comments [86 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Wednesday, Feb 20, 2008 at 6:09:05 PM

  (0+)

I could explain to you all the ways in which that statement is B.S., but you would have to be able to understand basic physical and chemical properties of matter and combustion.  You would need to understand that heat is not the same as temperature.  You would have to grasp the fact that structural steel would fail long before it’s melting point was reached.  You would have to grasp the basic concepts of structural engineering.  Go back to school. 

by Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 350 comments) on Wednesday, Feb 20, 2008 at 10:25:11 AM

  (0+)

Also, a building cannot collapse in its own footprint at free-fall speed

Earth to Truther:  the WTC strucutres did neither when they collapsed.  You FAIL. 

by Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 350 comments) on Wednesday, Feb 20, 2008 at 10:27:11 AM

  (0+)

Jet fuel is essentially kerosene and burns at about 1500 degrees Fahrenheit. 

No, actually that is not entirely true (the temperature part, not the kerosene part).  You really ought to develop a better understanding of the difference between heat and temperature.  A given combustion reaction can only release a fixed amount of heat, measured in calories.  The actual temperature achieved by that combustion can vary tremendously depending on a number of factors. 

Reference books list temperatures like “1500 degrees F” based on a number of standard assumptions, such as the combustion being in an open system, the reactants being at standard temperature and pressure, etc.  Vary these conditions, such as burning the material in an enclosed space like a building and the temperatures can build up tremendously. 

Even a normal building fire with no kerosene involved can reach 2000 degrees F.  Furthermore, steel rapidly looses strength at elevated temperatures.  Even at 900 degrees F, steel loses half of its strength.   Here is an excellent paper on the behavior of the type of trusses found in the WTC towers under typical fire conditions.  http://fire-research.group.shef.ac.uk/Downloads/SC_Baltimore.pdf  

Steel melts at about 2700 degrees Fahrenheit. Therefore, those fires could not have melted the steel.

No one has ever provided any proof of melted steel.  Let me ask you this.  Since aluminum melts at much lower temps than steel, how come you don’t have any proof of molten aluminum?  If the steel melted, so would have the aluminum.

 Moreover, kerosene fires don't pulverise steel and concrete, as what happened. 

What?  Where did you come up with the notion that steel was pulverized?   

Also, a building cannot collapse in its own footprint at free-fall speed 

Nope, there was no free fall speed, except of course for those pieces of the building that were falling outside the building envelope.  Like the huge panel sections visible falling in many of the photos.   

except if at any moment the structure is made to crumble, and the resistence nullified, ahead of the oncoming mass. This can only happen with timed explosives. 

Please provide some definitive mathematical calculations to support your argument.  Otherwise you are just arguing from personal disbelief, a common logical fallacy. 

by Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 350 comments) on Wednesday, Feb 20, 2008 at 7:58:53 PM

  (0+)

Damn I hate that Yahweh-Allah Satan Asshole! 

by Sha Llel (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 90 comments) on Tuesday, Feb 19, 2008 at 10:11:12 PM

  (0+)

No biscuit!

by Millie Merian (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 10 comments) on Monday, Feb 25, 2008 at 7:14:28 PM

  (0+)

that George Bush, Dick Cheney and the rest of the Neocon gang (so to speak) are murderers, who thought nothing of killing 3000 innocents on 9/11, 2001, so that they would have an excuse to go into Iraq and organise the oil? What's the matter with you Americans, don't you read the papers?! The rest of the world has been saying this for a long time now (including the Japanese parliament and, soon to join in now, the European parliament).

Sydney, Australia

by Robert Hoogenboom (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 234 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Feb 20, 2008 at 4:37:51 AM

  (0+)

When people argue about something that heats their blood, as 9/11 is sure to do, there are bound to be rough edges in the arguments on both sides. Lets get away from this hot region and consider something that was written in the cool clear light of day, when there was time to get the points right - something that provides food for thought.

by gravity32 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 201 comments [38 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Feb 20, 2008 at 6:06:09 AM

  (0+)

Allen, 

I've been reading you for quite some time here on opednews.  Your articles always seem to bring together an aspect that at once encompasses your excellent research abilities, while demonstrating a sense of compassion and  empathy toward the human condition. 

Thanks 

by CasaZaza (10 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 202 comments [15 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Feb 20, 2008 at 9:21:11 AM

  (0+)

The drill caused only momentary confusion, as discussed in the Vanity Fair article linked by one of the commenters.  Steel-framed buildings have collapsed  due to fire before; google "Kader Toy Factory fire" or "Enigma Business Park fire" for two very simple examples; those buildings did not have 767s crash into them either.  Marvin Bush had left the board of the security company you refer to in 2000; that security company lost its contract (for electronic security, not guards) at the WTC in 1998, and anyway, what was a security company going to do to protect the towers from having planes crash into them.  The president sat there reading My Pet Goat for seven agonizing minutes, not a half hour.  The buildings did not collapse at freefall speeds (sic), and did not collapse into their own footprints.  Pull it is not jargon for a controlled demolition, Silverstein did not make money off the attacks (and the settlement he received from the insurance companies was not $7 billion) as he is required to rebuild.  Of course he insured the buildings against terrorist attacks; it had been attacked 8 years earlier, remember?

In short, this is what we have come to expect from the 9-11 "Truthers" a mixture of lies, half-truths and nonsense.

by Patrick Curley (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 18 comments) on Wednesday, Feb 20, 2008 at 11:33:18 AM

  (0+)

Steel-framed buildings have collapsed  due to fire before; google "Kader Toy Factory fire" or "Enigma Business Park fire" for two very simple examples; those buildings did not have 767s crash into them either. 

To the extent your examples are relevant at all (and they're obviously not very relevant), by showing what a "real" collapse due to fire looks like, they actually support a claim of controlled demolition for the WTC buildings. 

Here's a building that apparently did collapse due to fire:

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2116/144/1600/FireSteelBuildingCollapse.jpg

Unfortunately it's not a skyscraper (but a 2 story? bldg) but even as short as it was, it's plain to see that the collapse wasn't symmetrical. Which is obviously what you'd expect for a "legitimate" real-world case. And it's intuitively obvious that if the building were taller, the asymmetry would be even more pronounced. Thanks for your support!

by Harold Smith (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 556 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Feb 20, 2008 at 2:42:50 PM

  (0+)

It looks like it is collapsing into its own footprint to me.

:)

by Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 350 comments) on Wednesday, Feb 20, 2008 at 3:38:05 PM

  (0+)

The salient feature is the apparent asymmetry...which, if the building were significantly taller, would obviously result in a collapse looking much different that the tidy little imploded pile that WTC7 became.

by Harold Smith (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 556 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Feb 20, 2008 at 4:41:19 PM

  (0+)

You are totally insane, did you know that?

by Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 350 comments) on Wednesday, Feb 20, 2008 at 8:06:18 PM

  (0+)

 You are totally insane, did you know that?

Well, since trying to reason with a troll like you is obviously a hopeless task, you may have a point. Although on the other hand, I suspect that one reason I persist is because, eventually, your illiteracy and ignorance of the subject matter become painfully obvious, and that embarrasing display may be of benefit to lurkers. 

by Harold Smith (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 556 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Feb 20, 2008 at 10:53:56 PM

  (0+)

To the extent your examples are relevant at all (and they're obviously not very relevant),

So, if those examples are not relevant, then the claim that "It was a CD because no building had ever collapsed before" is false simply because you can not produce any relevant examples of a building that did not collapse under the same circumstances. 

by Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 350 comments) on Wednesday, Feb 20, 2008 at 4:27:27 PM

  (0+)

So, if those examples are not relevant, then the claim that "It was a CD because no building had ever collapsed before" is false simply because you can not produce any relevant examples of a building that did not collapse under the same circumstances.   

Huh? I wonder, how do you even keep up with your own incoherent nonsense? I appreciate your need to be contrary, but your obsession with semantics and your attempt to twist the meaning of every statement must be starting to get quite burdensome for you, no?

Anyway, I suppose I should start by asking you to point out where I made that claim you're quoting.

by Harold Smith (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 556 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Feb 20, 2008 at 4:57:46 PM

  (0+)

Are you admitting that the claim that "It was a CD because no other building has ever collapsed from a fire before" is B.S.?

SInce you are denying that you said it, are you willing to deny that you believe it?

by Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 350 comments) on Wednesday, Feb 20, 2008 at 8:08:42 PM

  (0+)

LOL! Ok, so now you've changed the wording again. Do you know what quotation marks mean? The use of quotation marks, as you've used them, means you're quoting someone verbatim. You can't just change the words around at your convenience. Do you follow?

 Are you admitting that the claim that "It was a CD because no other building has ever collapsed from a fire before" is B.S.?

by Harold Smith (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 556 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Feb 20, 2008 at 10:40:56 PM

  (0+)

You are all very very quicklly to attempt to refute what this author is trying to pose to you as legitimate questions regarding the "official story".

 Let me pose some questions to you:

 - Was the 9/11 Commission an investigation?  Or an inquiry?
(be careful answering this, I have Victim's Family Members who know the real answers to this and will quickly refute anything you say to their contrary)
- Show me where there is only ONE drill being run on the day of 9/11, because if you were to do some of your own research, the drill you are pertaining to re: a plane crash is one of.... oh, I don't know, a double digit number of legitimate drills placing aircrafts and military scattered throughout.
- Show me where, in the 9/11 Commission Report... or wait, better yet the original FEMA Report, where they say the resulting collapse of WTC 1 or WTC 2 is a result of structural damage.   The original FEMA report blames the "intense fires" for the collapse.  
- Explain to me why WHISTLEBLOWER after WHISTLEBLOWER pertaining to pre-9/11 foreknowledge has not only been gagged, but lost their securty clearance - and jobs for that matter - when speaking up pertaining to programs such as Able Danger, etcetera.  (Google:  Able Danger,  Google:  Sibel Edmonds,  Google: 9/11 Whistleblowers)
- Explain to me why Sen. Joe Biden openly admits to meeting with Pakistani ISI General Mahmoud Ahmad, when this man was found to be wiring $100,000 to Mohammad Atta, lead 9/11 hijacker?   Show me where the 9/11 Commission touches on that at all?
- And last but not least, go speak to one of the THOUSANDS of Victim's Family Members, and tell them that the government did a great job investigating the worst tragedy in modern day American History and see what they say to you.  

We are the ignorant ones for questioning our government?   Try again.   We are the RIGHTEOUS ones for having a spine to ask some hard questions.  If the victim's family members still have a hard time sleeping because they don't know how their loved one was murdered, why is it right for the general public who genuinely cares not to back such a cause for a PROPER INVESTIGATION, not an INQUIRY.

Stop looking at "THEORY"... Stop looking at the SCIENCE.  Look at the cold, hard facts.   That's where the cold, hard truth lies.

 Controlled demolition?  That's neither here nor there.    Go look at the NORAD guidelines, go look at the Joint Chiefs of Staff requirements for rogue aircraft, go research the 9/11 Whistleblowers.    Quit making this argument based on science, and let the facts speak for itself....  because the facts don't add up!

by Mark P (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Wednesday, Feb 20, 2008 at 12:14:33 PM

  (0+)

I like how all these government trolls come out of the woodwork to try and debunk what's said.  They only post on these pieces, never anything else.  These people have got to be in the pay of our government or completely stupid.

Either way, we all know who they are.  We should just all agree to ignore them.  If you don't give the buttheads any fodder, it's no fun anymore.  They are just being disruptive and they aren't convincing anyone our government did NOT pull off 9/11 in a false flag operation, because we all know they did.  More and more in America is waking up to that fact and there aren't enough web trolls in their pay to try and convince all of us to continue to believe their ridiculous lies.

by Pixie (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 50 comments) on Wednesday, Feb 20, 2008 at 2:55:12 PM

  (0+)

Why don't you answer some of the questions that I've asked.

1)  What is the difference between heat and temperature?

2) How many steel buildings have ever suffered major structural damage and major fires like the WTC buildings and have NOT collapsed?

3) what are the structural design issues that make WTC 1,2, and 7 unique?

4) How could William Rodriguez have possibly known that one sound he heard was from the plane impact and the other was not?

5) Why has Rodriguez changed his story so many times?

6) How can a hydraulic grappler pick up molten steel without having the hydraulic oil boil or catch fire? 

7) Why are truther videos of the collapse of WTC 7 always edited so that the first 12 seconds of the collapse sequence are not shown?

8) the last time, prior to 9/11 that the US Air Force intercepted a civilian plane over the continental U.S. was the Payne Stewart incident.  Why do you think that their performance on the morning of 9/11 should have been better than that example? 

Hey, I'm just asking questions here. 

by Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 350 comments) on Wednesday, Feb 20, 2008 at 3:25:13 PM

  (0+)

"6) How can a hydraulic grappler pick up molten steel without having the hydraulic oil boil or catch fire?"

It cannot. 

click here 

The whole "molten steel" issue is a red herring if you ask me. How can there be "pools of molten steel" and fire-hoses dumping tons of water without a gigantic steam explosion?  See the examples of disinfo from our friends Pataki and Giuliani:

There is something else happening to the steel as it turns to dust and rust!

by Millie Merian (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 10 comments) on Thursday, Feb 21, 2008 at 1:55:17 PM

  (0+)

OK WE ALL AGREE 911 WAS A INSIDE JOB. NOW THAT THIS IS EXPOSED, AND YOU ARE A MEMBER OF CONGRESS AND THE SENATE KNOWING THE TRUTH, YOU HAVE TWO WAYS TO GO , TELL THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THE TRUTH , AND HOPE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL BELIEVE THAT YOU HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ATTACK. OR COVER IT UP AND MAKE BELIEVE YOU KNOW NOTHING. AND OUR CONGRESSMEN AND SENATORS TOOK THE LATER. AND NOW THE CLOSER WE GET TO THE TRUTH THE MORE THEY HAVE TO COVER THEIR TRACKS. AND THEY IN FEAR IF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE GET TO THE BOTTOM OF 911 TRUTH, WE COULD POSSIBLY REVOLT AGAINST THEM. SO THATS WHY ALL OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ARE BEING TAKEN AWAY, ONE BY ONE, TO STOP ANY CHANCE THAT WE WILL START A REVOLT, THEY MADE A BAD DECISION TO COVER THE TRUTH, AND WHERE TOLD THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL NEVER LEARN THE TRUTH BY THE NEOCONS BUSH AND CHENEY. ITS LIKE WHEN SOMEONE COMMITS A CRIME AND THEIR MASK FALLS OFF THE ONLY WAY TO GET OFF THE HOOK IS TO KILL EVERYBODY THAT HAS SEEN THEM. AND OUR CONGRESS AND SENATE CAN'T DO THIS, SO THE NEXT THING IS MAKE ANYONE WHO IS GETTING CLOSE TO THE TRUTH CRIMINAL UNDER THEIR NEW LAWS BEING PASSED. THIS IS ALL ABOUT BEING COMPLICATE, AND IT HAS GONE TO FAR TO TURN BACK. AND SOMETIMES THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN GOOD PEOPLE MAKE A BAD DECISION, AND THERE IS KNOW BACKING UP. AND I KNOW THIS IS SIMPLE ANALOGY, BUT HOW CAN SO MANY GOOD CONGRESSMEN AND SENATORS LET THE COUNTRY THAT THEY LOVE AND TOOK AND OATH TOO UP HOLD THE CONSTITUTION GO TO THE DARK SIDE , ITS LIKE WHAT OLD MAN BUSH SAID IF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE EVERY NEW WHAT WE DID------------. I AM JUST TRYING TO UNDER STAND WHY ALL THESE SEEMLY HONEST AND FORTH RIGHT MEN GOT TO THE POINT OF NO RETURN. IT DOESN'T GET ANY SADDER. AND YOU KNOW THIS NEVER SHOULD HAVE HAPPEN TO US WE ARE ALL GIVEING AND CARING AND LOVING PEOPLE, THAT SIMPLY TRUSTED OUR GOVERNMENT AND ELECTED OFFICALS . AND IF I EVERY THOUGH LIKE THEY DO I WOULD WISH GOD WOULD STRIKE ME DOWN.

by RICHARD SHADE (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 460 comments) on Wednesday, Feb 20, 2008 at 5:16:04 PM

  (0+)

- Show me where, in the 9/11 Commission Report... or wait, better yet the original FEMA Report, where they say the resulting collapse of WTC 1 or WTC 2 is a result of structural damage.   The original FEMA report blames the "intense fires" for the collapse.    

The FEMA report was preliminary in nature.

The NIST report looked at the collapses in much greater detail. 

NIST found that it was a combination of the fires and the structural damage that caused the collapse.  The primary issue was the impact related loss of the fireproofing from the floor trusses which allowed them to quickly heat up and fail due to the fire.  This failure caused the floors to sag, which pulled in on the external columns compromising their integrity. 

by Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 350 comments) on Wednesday, Feb 20, 2008 at 3:44:01 PM

  (0+)

How did Leonhard Euler, an 18th Century mathematician predict the collapse of the towers? 

by Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 350 comments) on Wednesday, Feb 20, 2008 at 3:46:36 PM

  (0+)

Anyone?

by Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 350 comments) on Wednesday, Feb 20, 2008 at 8:18:01 PM

  (0+)

which right there makes me suspicious.

You go off and on and on about about the physical aspect of what made buildings collapse and such and there is many puzzles concerning this part of 9/11 and it can be debated by many different experts in the field as to what happened. But I'm more interested in the humane anomalies that took place and it is always this aspect of 9/11 where people of you ilk shrivel-up and cower.

As in the advice Deep Throat offered, "follow the money" Kucinich has just announced an investigation into the "put options" placed the day before 9/11. Perhaps with all your knowledge you can save Mr. Kucinich some time and explain to us the "put options" placed on the very principles attached to this event and why the SEC suspended regulations on these trades allowing them to go through under anonymous buyers?

When Kean was asked why he and the 9/11 Commission didn't investigate who financed the attack he answered "We didn't think it all that important."

How can one make such a statement? By what rational is it that you would not want to find out where the money came from? There is good argument that finding those that financed it would be top priority and to completely ignore this smacks of deceit and cover-up. Can you clear this up? Perhaps tell us where the money came from?

And one has to conclude that if two things happen at the same time concerning the same incident it's coincidence, but when three things happen, it's a pattern and where's there's a pattern, there's conspiracy.

Are we to conclude that bush's brother and cousin just happened to have the security company for all the principle locations and that the contract ended that very day was just a coincidence?

And are we to also accept that people in caves half a world away somehow knew about the 15 exercises of simulated attacks being performed at the very same day at the very same time? Gee, how lucky can they get?

Can you answer how the FBI who had a agent living with 2 of the alleged hijackers, had warnings from numerous other agents about flight training of Arabs ignored, and where dozens of warnings were ignored - "Obama Determined to Attack With-in the United States"? Why did the FBI to this date ever put binLaden as a suspect in 9/11?  Why hasn't authorities released video tape from the 80 cameras surrounding the Pentagon? Surely if those pictures can show what hit it they'd want us to see it? And with your knowledge maybe you can explain how an entire 747 can fit into a 16' hole and it's flimsy aluminum nose can penetrate 8 walls of overly fortified steel and concrete?

Of course the last question gets back into your field of expertise, and btw, just exactly is your "field of expertise"?

This is just a very small sampling of questions that need to be addressed that I'm sure you'll give us all the answers to. (snicker)

But the real question is who benefited from all this? Experts have concluded that it would take a minimum of 6 months to draft something of the magnitude of Patriot Act, yet in a matter 2 weeks it was before congress - how can this be? And who benefited most from the so-called "War on Terror"? (How does one fight a war on a "noun" anyway?) Which companies are making trillions off this bogus war? Why was there such a rush into war? And now that even the MSM couldn't cover the lies that brought us this farce, why is it such a stretch to think that if our government would lie to us about a war that is killing one million people, that it wouldn't stage an event to kill 3,000 of it's own citizens to get us into it?

It's not like it hasn't happened before. History is full of examples. The Reichstag fire, Gulf of Tonkin, USS Liberty to name just a few of the more recent. These aren't "theories" they're facts. Governments have stage "false flag" attacks since the beginning of civilization for one reason or another, but mostly to preclude war - so please, tell us, what makes 9/11 any different?

by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Friday, Feb 22, 2008 at 2:47:10 PM

  (0+)

Dear Mr Roark,

Obviously you are unaware that numerous evidence exist of explosives at the world trade center.  An enourmous fiery explosion can be seen at the initiation of collapse of the North Tower.  Im sure you fancy yourself some sort of architect or epitomy of logic, as you have chosen the name Roark Howard on this forum.  I doubt this is your real name, Howard Roark was Ayn Rand's hero of her book The Fountainhead.  I know there's no point in trying to demonstrate any physics to you.  Just go look at the CNN footage.  It's all right there in front of your face.  It is your fear, and the fear of all those who believe the official conpsiracy theory, that keeps you all from accepting the truth.  You want to be able to go on with your lives, as long as there is someone else, or someone else's kids doing the dying and the killing not in the name of defense but of the allmihty dollar.  This same thing has happened throughout our history.  Look up the USS Maine.  While your at it, look up the Law of Falling bodies, or the Law of Conservation of Momentum, or the Laws of Thermodynamics, or ideal gas law. 

The official story violates all these laws of physics.  I didn't make it up, they are nature's laws.  You must put away your fear, you and all the rest of Americans.  You must open your eyes to what is in front of them. The argumant is not just about 911 or politics but about the fundamentle nature of the physical and engineering science that allowed people too construct all those buildings and airplanes in the first place.  If you believe that magic brought them down then maybe you believe that magic put them up.  I don't think Ayn Rand believed in magic.  Now there was a lady who knew a thing or two about logic.  It seems you've shamed your namesake.

There is an old axiom: If you knew what I know, you would feel the way I feel.  Jet fuel fires could not and did not destroy the WTC.  You can cry about it if you want, you can deny it, you can call me names, it wont change the reality of the situation.  Im a veteran and a patriot, and I know an explosion when I see one

by Heath Widdowson (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 20 comments) on Wednesday, Feb 20, 2008 at 4:17:48 PM

  (0+)

An enourmous fiery explosion can be seen at the initiation of collapse of the North Tower. 

So, you don't think that it was possible that as the internal floors started to fall, they would have forced out all the air and flames from the fire floors?

Why not?

by Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 350 comments) on Wednesday, Feb 20, 2008 at 4:22:16 PM

  (0+)

I regarded Roark as simply one of the Pentagon's disinfo employees....

Certainly he met most of the criteria. But I have come to realize that he's probably not at the competence level expected of pentagon players.  Certainly not at the level evinced by TM.

But, hey, I could be wrong.

Roark, I think you need to post a bunch on non-911-related topics to, you know, build up your credibility a bit first .... oops, too late. 

by richard (0 articles, 5 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 1359 comments [399 recommended, 8 rejected]) on Wednesday, Feb 20, 2008 at 4:34:14 PM

  (0+)

Hey,

Maybe it's hard to get good help on these matters.

He could be an intern.

Maybe his pay-grade isn't all that high?

by Michael Zimmer (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 20 comments) on Thursday, Feb 21, 2008 at 3:11:38 PM

  (0+)

Roark, whatever you know about heat vs. temperature, you don't know much about human psychology. I doubt you're a government shill, and I doubt they need such things with such a compliant press anyway.

Let me just point out that social psychology has shown that when you confront people with viewpoints that differ radically from something they believe, you effectively innoculate them against your position. So even if you're right, and these people are stupid and misguided, they're certainly no worse off than you.

Roark, you conspiracy theorists are all the same.

Apart from that the article seems to have alot of incorrect factual information, which I guess doesn't help when you have the Roarks of the world hanging around. Personally I think that Operation Gladio etc, prove that false flag operations do happen, and you'd have to be in a deep state of denial not to even entertain the notion that Bush et al are at least capable of something like that.

Questioning power elites is the healthiest thing anyone can do at the moment, we may never know the facts of the day, but at least you guys are questioning exploitative power structures - good on you.

by Chippy LeChump (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Wednesday, Feb 20, 2008 at 5:09:56 PM

  (0+)

I suspect you are right. Otherwise, why would he spend so much time and effort in an attempt to debunk the truthers? I'm sure he does have an impact on people who have not formed a strong opinion on this and who have been heavily influenced by the corporate-controlled mass media. In other words, there is a pay-off for this kind of effort that would be of interest to certain people with money. To Roark: we saw what happened with our own eyes and we saw the trail hotly pursued against the insider traders suddenly go cold and we saw myriad other incongruities. Your deep and abiding faith in President Bush's explanation is really odd.

by Oh (7 articles, 5 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 321 comments [41 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Feb 20, 2008 at 10:57:03 PM

  (0+)

I would just like to take a few moments to point out to the casual reader that all of Roark’s pompous debunking arguments are easily, and have already been by countless others, debunked.  Some of them are already so asinine and silly, such as Payne Stuart’s plane being the only air intercept, that no counter argument is necessary.  One only needs to use their intuition and their critical thinking skills to realize the absurdity of the proposition and know it can’t be true.  Or, you can research it.  I have been researching this subject on my own for close to 3 years and can state unequivocally that each of Roark’s debunking statements are indeed false, with one exception.

That exception is the use of the word ‘pull’ as a by-word of the controlled demolition industry.  I must admit here that I have found no evidence yea or nay (neither in the firefighting industry it must be said).  I attribute this to the fact that this is a very small, tight knit, group with only a handful of people in the world possessing this type of skill.  I admit that this did bother me (despite the mountain of other, high profile, damning evidence) until I came to the realization that the proof is, indeed, in the pudding.  The pudding in this case is the very film where the owner of the WTC, Silverstein, is filmed making his ‘pull’ statement.  In that very same film there is an employee of a company named Controlled Demolition, Inc.  He is there, working on the site cleanup, many weeks after 9/11/01.  Long past the time when any firefighters were ‘pull’ed out of any fire detail in any of the buildings.  He is caught on camera saying, “We’re getting ready to ‘pull’ Building 6.”  Building 6 had been damaged during the collapse of one of the towers and he says this in reference to the fact that they’re (his company) getting ready to completely demolish the building in a controlled demolition.  Proof positive, recorded on film/video for posterity, that ‘pull’ IS a term used, by at least one member, of the controlled demolition industry to signify the initiation of a controlled demolition of a building. 

One of the most difficult things to understand in all of this is the reasoning behind someone such as Roark’s irrational embrace of the official Arab hijacker fairytale.  It’s impossible to know their motivation but there are at least a couple of, in my opinion, good possibilities.  The first would be that they are a member of a certain ethnic/religious group.  The group which enjoys a rather large enrollment in the membership of PNAC and whose mother country had/has the most to gain with the acceptance of the official story.  The second would have to be the admission by Rumsfeld of the Pentagon missing 2.3 trillion dollars on 9/10/01.  I don’t think most people realize, or have any idea, how much money that is.  They just can’t account for it, it just disappeared.  2.3 trillion dollars vanished.  How much is that?  Well, to put it another way, it’s 2.3 million, million dollars.  In other words, it’s enough to make 2.3 million people, instant millionaires.  Instant millionaires of almost 1% of the entire U.S. population.  Now, that’s quite an operating budget I’d say.  Certainly enough to pull off any black op, white op, grey op, anything the mind could dream up and definitely enough to hire a whole army of Roarks.

by Les Orr (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Thursday, Feb 21, 2008 at 1:34:52 AM

  (0+)

That exception is the use of the word ‘pull’ as a by-word of the controlled demolition industry.  I must admit here that I have found no evidence yea or nay (neither in the firefighting industry it must be said).  I attribute this to the fact that this is a very small, tight knit, group with only a handful of people in the world possessing this type of skill.  I admit that this did bother me (despite the mountain of other, high profile, damning evidence) until I came to the realization that the proof is, indeed, in the pudding.  The pudding in this case is the very film where the owner of the WTC, Silverstein, is filmed making his ‘pull’ statement.  In that very same film there is an employee of a company named Controlled Demolition, Inc.  He is there, working on the site cleanup, many weeks after 9/11/01.  Long past the time when any firefighters were ‘pull’ed out of any fire detail in any of the buildings.  He is caught on camera saying, “We’re getting ready to ‘pull’ Building 6.”  Building 6 had been damaged during the collapse of one of the towers and he says this in reference to the fact that they’re (his company) getting ready to completely demolish the building in a controlled demolition.  Proof positive, recorded on film/video for posterity, that ‘pull’ IS a term used, by at least one member, of the controlled demolition industry to signify the initiation of a controlled demolition of a building. 

OK, so if I understand your argument correctly, you are stating that because a construction/ demolition worker used the word “pull” in one context, that Silverstein’s use of the word in a different context has the same meaning.  Fine, that is your argument.   

However, let’s look at the exact context that the construction / demolition worker used the word in.  Here is the quote again:

Worker #1: Oh, we’re getting ready to pull building six.

Luis Mendes: We have to be very careful how we demolish building six. We were worried about the building six coming down and demolishing the slurry wall, so we wanted that particular building to fall within a certain area.

Worker #1: We’ve got the cables attached in four different locations..  Now they’re pulling [gestures to vehicles] pulling the building to the north. It’s not every day you try to pull down a eight storey building with cables”

This follows with a scene showing large excavators with cables attached to them pulling on the remnants of building 6.  So what does this tell us about use of the word “pull” by the construction/demolition worker? 

1)      he was referring to the attachment of cables to the building and pulling the structure over with large machines. 

2)      This was done to force the collapse to be non-symmetrical, to use a truther term. 

3)      Pulling a structure over like this is not a common practice for high rise structures.

Going back to the Silverstein statement.  Applying the context of the term “pull” as used by the construction/ demolition worker to the Silverstein statement, according to your logic, Silverstein is telling the fire department to attach cables to the building and pull it over.  (using the fire trucks?).  Going a step further, this would have resulted in a non-symmetrical collapse, something that truthers have claimed did not happen. 

Frankly I find this theory of yours to be absurd. 

by Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 350 comments) on Thursday, Feb 21, 2008 at 10:28:50 AM

  (0+)

"Building 6 had been damaged during the collapse of one of the towers and he says this in reference to the fact that they’re (his company) getting ready to completely demolish the building in a controlled demolition.  Proof positive, recorded on film/video for posterity, that ‘pull’ IS a term used, by at least one member, of the controlled demolition industry to signify the initiation of a controlled demolition of a building. "

I agree with everything you've said, except the above comment. 

I've seen the video you mention and have listened to all the hoopla about it.  You are wrong that they were getting ready to "pull" building 6 and take it down by controlled demolition.  Building 6 was all but destroyed and had no need to be taken down by controlled demolition.  That video was "cut" at the end after the guys says "they're getting ready to pull building 6."  What follows, and if one pays attention, is that building 6 was harnessed to cables and it was literally and figuratively "PULLED DOWN" by cables, not by controlled demolition.

Sorry. I'd love to be able to say "pull" is such a common term and at first glance it does seem to be so, but that video does no good.  Silverstien's comments are wierd, I have no idea what he meant or why he said it, but we don't need Silverstein's stupid comments to prove the building was destroyed by controlled demolition.

by Pixie (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 50 comments) on Thursday, Feb 21, 2008 at 2:14:25 PM

  (0+)

What follows, and if one pays attention, is that building 6 was harnessed to cables and it was literally and figuratively "PULLED DOWN" by cables, not by controlled demolition.

You are stating that the term "Pull" does NOT mean controlled demolition.  Is this correct?

by Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 350 comments) on Thursday, Feb 21, 2008 at 2:17:55 PM

  (0+)

Now that's an interesting question - do shills actually exist. After my post I went and had a look as Roark's profile and he comments only on 9/11 related issues, plus as far as I can see he does so throughtout the working day. This means he's either unemployed, works in an out of the way burger king, or is paid to do it.

Another thing that interested me was his profile. It actually says nothing more than that this chap believes he has special access to the truth and think he's right - onward Christian soldier!

Finally he seems to spend a lot of time concentrating on the demolition of the towers. If you look at the picture rationally the collapse of the towers, whilst very visually impressive, are not really integral to 9/11 skepticism at all. By diverting attention into this matter and dealing with a very complex situation with many unknown factors he basically bogs the whole thing down.

The use of an Ayn Rand character as a name is also interesting. Ayn Rand would have applauded the current administration, she believed firmly that a capitalist elite needed to run the world.

So is he a shill? I don't know. Over the last 2 years I have seen so called skeptics who literally live on pages for months at a time just repeating the same old information. Must be a shitty job!

by Chippy LeChump (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Thursday, Feb 21, 2008 at 2:22:40 AM

  (0+)

Check out what I put together months ago regarding the cover-up of Mineta's testimony before the 9/11 Commission on May 23, 2003, http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=4831.

by Tom Harper (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Thursday, Feb 21, 2008 at 8:20:06 AM

  (0+)

You have lied about several things. Israel, had a lot to do with 911. Evidence is overwhelming. The so called dancing Israeli's were arrested, were interviewed, were seen taking pictures, it is all on record, so how can you say, it is not true! You are a liar, or else very misinformed.

http://www.antiwar.com/israeli-files.php Here is all the info you need to learn about the dancing Israeli's. If the links do not work, (they work fine for me, but sometimes on this website, they will not work) just google: Dancing Israeli's on 911

William Rodriquez did NOT change his story. He was standing in one of the basement levels when a bomb went off BELOW his feet, his workers came running upstairs all burned. Then he heard a loud BOOM from high up..he did not know it was a plane at the time...he is a hero.

All you are doing is typing WRONG...as if that makes you right. Your assessment of most of what you have said is wrong. Strange, how Larry Silverstein buys these buildings and then this happens. And the one poster is correct. Do not dwell on how the building collapsed, look at the how and why it all happened. Who was involved. Start with the Pentagon, trillions of dollars missing (stolen), google: Dov Zakheimm , he was in control at the time.

911 was started by our government and Israel in order to get into the middle east. The people believed the lies about WMD, and the rest is history. We were lied to, everything was a lie, and that includes who did 9/11.

Here is an actual eyewitness; he was at the Pentagon when it happened, and he is standing right in front of the damage and talking on camera, he is a reporter: GOOGLE: Jamie McIntyre pentagon 911

you can listen to the Shanksville mayor being interviewed by German TV about how he was one of the first at the site of plane crash , and there was NO plane, NO wreckage, nothing, just a hole!!! Google: Shanksville mayor interview German TV .  He was one of first people at crash site.

For what ever reason, links I post on this site do not work, that is why I have asked you to GOOGLE to find the info yourself. It is all incriminating. For whatever reason, anytime anyone calls out Israel for something the anti semitic word comes up...well, that is getting old. It has no value. If we speak bad of our county are we anti american? so, save your breath with the anti semitic stuff, it won't work, for I know who I am and what I am. I am only anti bullshit!

The truth is known...Italy is having a conference on whether 911 was an inside job. The world knows the truth. 911 was an inside job.

by joyce (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 73 comments) on Thursday, Feb 21, 2008 at 8:50:54 AM

  (0+)

William Rodriquez did NOT change his story. He was standing in one of the basement levels when a bomb went off BELOW his feet, his workers came running upstairs all burned. Then he heard a loud BOOM from high up..he did not know it was a plane at the time...he is a hero.

Nope, that is not what he said on 9/11/01.

He said that it was a “Heavy Rumble, like someone dragging furniture, but in a massive way” not that there was a bomb beneath his feet. 

Now I don’t know about you, but to me his statement that it sounded like someone dragging heavy furniture across the floor implies that the sounds came from above him.  At any rate, he said rumble, not boom and there is a clear difference between the two. 

William is on record stating the following:

A person comes running into the office saying 'explosion, explosion, explosion.' When I look at this guy; has all his skin pulled off of his body. Hanging from the top of his fingertips like it was a glove. And I said, what happened? He said the elevators. What happened was the ball of fire went down with such a force down the elevator shaft on the 58th (50A) – freight elevator, the biggest freight elevator that we have in the North Tower, it went out with such a force that it broke the cables. It went down, I think seven flights. The person survived because he was pulled from the B3 level. But this person, being in front of the doors waiting for the elevator, practically got his skin vaporized -  -  -  - 

He also stated this:

"Last, funny everybody brings the position that the ball of fire went down the center elevator shaft and exploded in the basement, since the actual elevator operator of the 50A car is alive and after braking both ankles did not get burned by any of this. He should have been burned alive.

He never resolves the contradictions between the two statements.  

In particular let’s look at Willies inconsistent time line. 

He stated that he heard two rumbles. 

I was in the basement, which is the support floor for the maintenance company, and we hear like a big rumble. Not like an impact, like a rumble, like moving furniture in a massive way. And all of sudden we hear another rumble, and a guy comes running, running into our office, and all of skin was off his body. All of the skin

And this:

And at that terrible day when I took people out of the office, one of them totally burned because he was standing in front of the freight elevator and the ball of fire came down the duct of the elevator itself,

He also knows that the airplane impact cut the cables of the elevator.

And we went up, he opened the door on the lobby. We went on the basement, number one. And there when we opened the door, the fire department was there waiting in front of the 50 car elevator, which was already gone, because the airplane, when he came through the building, broke all the cables and practically destroyed the elevator because the elevator went down seven flights of floors.

Do you see the inherent dishonesty here?  He knows that the airplane impact cut the cables to the elevator, yet, he claims that the fireball that resulted in his friend being burned was from the same event.  In other words, it is his claim that the impact and the fireball were simultaneous. 

by Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 350 comments) on Thursday, Feb 21, 2008 at 1:13:05 PM

  (0+)

you managed to combine his statements. When Willie was speaking of loud scraping noised going across the floor, we was speaking about several weeks earlier when he was in the bldg, after it was closed. He heard these noises coming from a floor that was vacant, and it frightened him as he thought no one else was around. He did not say that on 9/11.

Your other statements are lies also. He never said a fireball came down elevator. He felt a rumble under his feet, and thought a generator or something blew, then the elevator door opened and it was one of his maintenance workers who came UP from the basement and said bombs were exploding down there, and he was severely burned.

Now. you are not worth any more time, from me or anyone else. You are hear to lie, to try to confuse, but you know what. It won't work.

Did you check some of the websites I showed you. Of course not. Did you listen to the mayor of Shanksville say there was NO Plane of anykind or any wreckage at all in the hole in Shanksville...bet you didn't.

Did you check the websites about the dancing Israelis, the missing trillions from the Pentagon. Now, the pentagon is another story.

You are not worth any more time.

by joyce (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 73 comments) on Thursday, Feb 21, 2008 at 2:19:36 PM

  (0+)

Friends, continually playing into Roark's little game will get you no where.  His purpose here, like the many trolls of his type, is to distract and detract from the actual topic.  Why bother discussing the facts when you can make personal attacks against the people presenting them.

 It's in the first chapter of the guidebook they give you when you get hired on to work at Faux News.

 You will never convince him to investigate any of this, you will never get him to go away.  He will appear in more and more articles, doing the same thing, until most of you get fed up and just stop posting.  Don't play his game.  He is spreading DISinformation, and you need not listen.

 This isn't to say that he doesn't have any valid points, he does have a few, but that's a happy bonus, as it wasn't his intention.

Pull it IS a term used by most demolitions experts, go ahead and call one out of the yellow pages and ask them, and they will tell you, yes, pull it is a term used when bringing a building down via controlled demolition.

 Firefighters ALSO use the term, and it refers to pulling the men out and letting it burn, again go ahead and call your local fire department and ask them.

Several weeks before 9/11 they did indeed change the standard operating procedure for hijackings, requiring donald rumsfeld to give the order, where as in the past, as soon as it appears to be a hijacking, and is confirmed, jets are scrambled.

 Several different 'training' scenarios dealing with terrorist attacks were underway using Norad, the 4 E4b 'doomsday' jets, and various other forces.  Northern Guardian, Vigilant Shield, google them.  The scarey part is that some of the drills were exactly what happened on 9/11, exactly when the drills took place.

 Aswell, instead of scrambling the nearest jets, they sent them in the wrong direction, and only travelled at 200mph, instead of full speed, which would have allowed them to intercept the other 3 planes.

 Bush's and the secret services actions that morning were completely AGAINST standard procedures, and they have all but publicly admitted to this.

 Bush lied, and said he saw the first plane hit the tower live on tv, then went into the classroom.  No one saw plane #1 live, that video didn't air til the next morning.  And before you say maybe he saw the 2nd plane and was confused, there's no confusing the top of tower 1 billowing smoke and flames as the 2nd plane hits, not even for someone with the ability to choke and almost die on a pretzel.

According to the steel company, the company that rated it, and the WTC designers and engineers, the fires did not burn long enuff or hot enuff to reach the failing point, infact the jetfuel burned off almost immediately, which is the huge fireball you see, the rest of the fires are burning on office supplies, which again wouldn't provide the needed fuel to create the blast furnace needed to melt the supports.

 Check google video for "building the WTC" to see why the popular mechanics explanation is a joke, they completely ignored the center steel columns, and didn't even put them into their videos.

 The fact is, the twin towers were built to withstand a jet strike, just not at that size and speed.  Yes, structural damage was very evident, watch the collapse and note how instead of twisting and buckling over the damaged area, like physics would expect, it starts to list, then disintigrates into dust, no center columns left anywheres, AT freefall speed, which has been demonstraited various times.

 The NIST report ignores building 7 completely, which fell completely into its footprint, and it recived little to no structural damage, and suffered small isolated fires, just like the WTC according to the firefighters that DIED in it (again google it and you can listen to some of the reports) 

Various agencies failed that day, various proceedures where changed or ignored.  Put it into context, where was the country at on 9/10?

Well, rumsfeld had just told you that something like 2.3 trillion dollars in spending at the pentagon couldn't be accounted for, and the investigation had already been underway, which of course, ended when most of those people and records were destroyed in WTC7 and the pentagon.

Enron had just burst and implicated most of the government in part of the scam.  

 Bush's approval rating was in the shits, people didn't forget about the fraudulent election, they pelted his limo  with eggs in the street!

Then he stands up with the Bullhorn and rallies the 'troops' into  a war against a few cave dwelling muslims.  When that didn't pan out well (bombing hills and dirt gets boring) they create an elaborate plan to sucker the world into bombing Iraq, and it worked.

And regardless of YOUR thoughts, Isrealies were caught videotaping and celebrating the event, aswell as being some of the workers that got advanced warning not to show up to the WTC that day for work.  To present this fact does not make one and anti-semite.   On that note, and anti-semite is actually someone who discriminates against people that speak one of the semetic languages.  Arabic is one of them.  This makes any of you attacking muslims for their faith, and any Isreali  who attacks a palestinian child, an anti-semite.

 Don't get me wrong, I'm not voicing my opinion here, as that's a waste of time, regardless of what I or YOU believe, many of these questions need answering.  I'm not saying who is right or wrong, and neither was the author.  We merely see the biggest event of our time, not being investigated half as indepth as Brittany's latest trip to rehab.

PREDICTION:

 Roark will attack my name, my spelling, my grammer, and everything else, but will fail to provide relevant facts to answer any of the questions posed, or counter any of the facts provided.  This is how this always plays out. 

by Phishy (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Thursday, Feb 21, 2008 at 10:01:57 AM

  (0+)

According to the steel company, the company that rated it, and the WTC designers and engineers, the fires did not burn long enuff or hot enuff to reach the failing point,  

Let’s take this one step at a time.  There are two parts to your contention that the fires did not burn hot enough nor long enough to reach the point of failure.  One is that the fires were not hot enough.  The second is that the point of failure was not reached.   

Let’s look the first.  You have no proof that the fires burned cooler than a typical structure fire.  In fact, with the fuel loads from the office furnishings and such, as well as from the aircraft itself, there is ample reason to assume that the fires were hotter than typical structure fires.   However, for the sake of this debate, I am wiling to postulate that the fires were equivalent to standard structure fires in heat release and temperature curves.   

What is a typical peak temperature in a structure fire?  According to my research, temperatures of around 1000° C are common in structure fires, and that temps can easily hit up to 1,200° C.  These temperatures are generally reached fairly quickly in a typical fire scenario.  So, what I am seeing is that the contention that the fires were not hot or that extremely high temperatures were not reached quickly in the fire does not hold up. 

The second claim that you make is that the point of failure was not reached.  Again, according to my research, steel loses up to 50% of its strength when it reaches 600°C.   So the temperatures were more than adequate to cause the steel to fail. 

Now one other question we need to look at is how quickly the steel would have heated up.  In spite of what some truthers claim, steel is a poor conductor of heat.  Look at any picture of a blacksmith working hot steel on an anvil and you will see one end of the steel, cherry red and the other end is not.  So the claim that the steel would have conducted heat away from the fire is wrong. 

The only real issue affecting the rate of the temperature rise of the steel is the mass of the steel directly impinged by the heat of the fire.  If we look at the floor trusses we see that they were constructed of small, thin angle irons for the chords, and 1” diameter rods for the diagonal.  Nope, there isn’t much mass there at all.   

A good reference to the effect of the fire on the floor trusses can be found here.

http://fire-research.group.shef.ac.uk/Downloads/SC_Baltimore.pdf

Please read that paper before you reply to this post. 

by Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 350 comments) on Thursday, Feb 21, 2008 at 11:42:00 AM

  (0+)

infact the jetfuel burned off almost immediately, which is the huge fireball you see, the rest of the fires are burning on office supplies, which again wouldn't provide the needed fuel to create the blast furnace needed to melt the supports. 

1)      Not all the jet fuel burned off immediately.  There were several thousand gallons of fuel in each plane.  The fireballs were not big enough to account for all of it.

2)        The jet fuel did ignite most of the building materials on the impact floor almost immediately These materials have high caloric values on thier own.

3)        Even if there was as little as 1,000 gallons of jet fuel remaining in the building after the impact, and assuming that your contention is correct, that the fuel burned off within, let’s say 10 minutes have you even the faintest idea of the amount of heat energy that would release into the building?  (keep in mind that there is a fundamental difference between heat and temperature)

4)        Finally, the structure would have failed long before any steel melted.  How many times do I have to point t his out? 

by Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 350 comments) on Thursday, Feb 21, 2008 at 12:11:40 PM

  (0+)

1)      Not all the jet fuel burned off immediately.  There were several thousand gallons of fuel in each plane.  The fireballs were not big enough to account for all of it.

Sorry to trouble you with facts, but the size of the fireball at WTC2 (and that of WTC1 was almost as big) is in fact big enough to account for approximately ALL of the fuel that Flt. 175 would have been carrying when it hit. 

2)    The jet fuel did ignite most of the building materials on the impact floor almost immediately These materials have high caloric values on thier own.

Well obviously not, since most of the jet fuel burnt up outside the buildings.

3)        Even if there was as little as 1,000 gallons of jet fuel remaining in the building after the impact, and assuming that your contention is correct, that the fuel burned off within, let’s say 10 minutes have you even the faintest idea of the amount of heat energy that would release into the building?  (keep in mind that there is a fundamental difference between heat and temperature)

About 1.3 GJ or so, assuming efficient combustion (which can't be assumed). The question is, do you have any idea of the thermal mass involved, or the amount of heat you would lose through conduction, convection and radiation? Apparently not.

4)        Finally, the structure would have failed long before any steel melted.  How many times do I have to point t his out? 

Why keep pointing it out whan it's so irrelevant? BTW, the fires likely didn't burn long enough (especially in the case of WTC2), to have any significant structural damage happen from fire, as you couldn't get enough air in to burn enough fuel to release enough heat to get anywhere near what you'd need. But that kind or reasoning is obviously way above your level.)

by Harold Smith (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 556 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Feb 21, 2008 at 3:12:44 PM

  (0+)

About 1.3 GJ or so, assuming efficient combustion (which can't be assumed). The question is, do you have any idea of the thermal mass involved, or the amount of heat you would lose through conduction, convection and radiation? Apparently not

The building stucture maybe?  k, not all of it, but a significant amount of that heat energy would have been absorbed by the floor trusses.

What, do you think that the energy just dissapeared?

by Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 350 comments) on Thursday, Feb 21, 2008 at 8:48:57 PM

  (0+)

Why keep pointing it out whan it's so irrelevant? BTW, the fires likely didn't burn long enough (especially in the case of WTC2), to have any significant structural damage happen from fire, as you couldn't get enough air in to burn enough fuel to release enough heat to get anywhere near what you'd need. But that kind or reasoning is obviously way above your level.)

I seem to recall a couple of big honkin holes in the side of the building.  Furthermore, when the plane pentrated the core areait would have opened up the HVAC air shafts and the elevator shafts, and the stairwells, and the pipe shafts, you get my drift.  

Are you familiar with stack effect?   

by Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 350 comments) on Thursday, Feb 21, 2008 at 8:53:04 PM

  (0+)

I debunked that "pull" nonsense above.

by Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 350 comments) on Thursday, Feb 21, 2008 at 10:33:30 AM

  (0+)

Sorry but the only thing you've successfully "debunked" here is your own infantile nonsense.

by Harold Smith (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 556 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Feb 21, 2008 at 11:41:08 AM

  (0+)

"The second claim that you make is that the point of failure was not reached.  Again, according to my research, steel loses up to 50% of its strength when it reaches 600°C.   So the temperatures were more than adequate to cause the steel to fail".

Where's you common sense?  People have been burning fires in steel stoves for a looong time now.  Helps to heat the house, you know.  Sometimes they build raging fires with the air vents open until the stove itself turns red/orange hot.  Their stoves don't sag, melt, fall apart and collapse or any other some such thing.  You are making a mockery of common sense and intuition.  The WTC buildings had no long burning super hot fires.  NYFD radio chatter substantiates that the resultant fires were clearly able to be dealt with...plus, People were peering out of some of the holes following.  Toxic smoke was their biggest problem -- not heat and fire.

Take kerosene/gas, whatever and mix it with a lot of air, and you create a huge explosion and firefall with the aerosol fuel/air mixture (like the military's "wadcutter" bomb used to clear jungle in Vietnam). 

Big wampum, and flash -- air/fuel mixture gone in a few seconds.  WTC still standing after initial explosion.  Nothing, I repeat, Nothing is going to be reaching the basement and lower levels that can affect the structural integrity "from above". 

And by the way, this simple reply took at least a couple minutes to consider, and then type.  Where do you find the time? 

by boomerang (0 articles, 7 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 556 comments [215 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Thursday, Feb 21, 2008 at 12:46:42 PM

  (0+)

It is OK to be paid to do a job.  It is quite evident this is what is happening with you. 

After years of reading, studying and cross referencing all information, I am truly disappointed with the number of people ignorant enough to believe the garbage that people like Roark Howard are actually spewing.

Just remember Roarke, there will soon come a day when you will be considered a traitor for your lies and disingenouos remarks . Many bad things will happen before that day comes, but he truth shines through eventually. 

Ignorance is not bliss; it is ignorance.  Ignorance leads to much more dangerous things than carrying the burden of being properly informed.

by edo tabin (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Thursday, Feb 21, 2008 at 1:54:20 PM

  (0+)

One simple question for Dork Coward, if building 7 was not demolished, then what is this interview with Kevin McPadden???

Demolition Countown Interview with Kevin McPadden,

911 FIRST RESPONDER!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6431721197140945319

I suppose he is lying though, and is making up all of the health problems that they are having also...right?

 Here is an interview with William Rodriguez on the explsosions in buildings 1 and 2.

 He was the last person pulled from the Trade Center alive.  He was the janitor there.  This is the 911 Truth Symposium that aired on CSPAN in 2006.  Is this all made up also, and I suppose Charlie Sheen had no where else to be so he just showed up at this conference to ruin his name?

http://www.jonhs.net/911/william_rodriguez.htm

Here is an article from FEB. 4th, 2008 in the San Francisco Chronicle on the preparations for Martial Law...I know, they are crazy also...as you would say yawn yawn.  You won't be yawning  at the FEMA CAMP you BROWN SHIRT!

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/04/ED5OUPQJ7.DTL 

Oh, and here is video of a camp that is ready to go:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/September2006/170906Camp.htm

Let me guess, someone was bored and put all of this up as a big joke.  Either you are extremely nieve, or you are working for those that have overthrown our governement and are doing all of this.   My guess is the last one.

by Chris Evans (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Thursday, Feb 21, 2008 at 1:58:32 PM

  (0+)

You state about William Rodriguez:

 He was the last person pulled from the Trade Center alive.  He was the janitor there. 

Well, he was the janitor, I'll agree with that, but he was not the last person to be "pulled from the Trade Center alive." 

That distinction goes to John McLoughlin and William J. Jimeno.  In addition, I bet you've never even heard of the "Stairwell B" survivors, have you?

by Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 350 comments) on Thursday, Feb 21, 2008 at 2:28:31 PM

  (0+)

One simple question for Dork Coward, if building 7 was not demolished, then what is this interview with Kevin McPadden???  

Simple, McPadden is a liar. 

According to that turd, the FDNY, the Red Cross, and Journalist Amy Goodman are all “in on it.” 

I bet it sucks that no one asked you to be “in on it” also. 

by Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 350 comments) on Thursday, Feb 21, 2008 at 2:34:43 PM

  (0+)

joyce

you are full of it

you managed to combine his statements. When Willie was speaking of loud scraping noised going across the floor, we was speaking about several weeks earlier when he was in the bldg, after it was closed. He heard these noises coming from a floor that was vacant, and it frightened him as he thought no one else was around. He did not say that on 9/11.

Your other statements are lies also. He never said a fireball came down elevator. He felt a rumble under his feet, and thought a generator or something blew, then the elevator door opened and it was one of his maintenance workers who came UP from the basement and said bombs were exploding down there, and he was severely burned.

Now. you are not worth any more time, from me or anyone else. You are hear to lie, to try to confuse, but you know what. It won't work.

Did you check some of the websites I showed you. Of course not. Did you listen to the mayor of Shanksville say there was NO Plane of anykind or any wreckage at all in the hole in Shanksville...bet you didn't.

Did you check the websites about the dancing Israelis, the missing trillions from the Pentagon. Now, the pentagon is another story.

You are not worth any more time.

by joyce (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 73 comments) on Thursday, Feb 21, 2008 at 2:33:50 PM

  (0+)

you managed to combine his statements. When Willie was speaking of loud scraping noised going across the floor, we was speaking about several weeks earlier when he was in the bldg, after it was closed. He heard these noises coming from a floor that was vacant, and it frightened him as he thought no one else was around. He did not say that on 9/11.

Oh, yes he did.

RODRIGUEZ: I was in the basement, which is the support floor for the maintenance company, and we hear like a big rumble. Not like an impact, like a rumble, like moving furniture in a massive way. And all of sudden we hear another rumble, and a guy comes running, running into our office, and all of skin was off his body. All of the skin.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/11/bn.24.html

Thank you, however, for pointing that out.  If you notice, the second time he used that simile he was talking about noises coming from above him.  So, I think it is fair to say that was what he was talking about on the afternoon of 9/11/01.

Try again please

by Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 350 comments) on Thursday, Feb 21, 2008 at 2:42:31 PM

  (0+)

It came from below, and lifted him up..an explosion so hard, it came from the basement level...

click here don't you acknowledge the dancing Israeli's, or the mayor of Shanksville.

Willie also said that weeks before 911 he heard loud scraping noises coming from a vacated floor above, he went to investigate, as the bldg was supposed to be empty, but got a weird feeling and was frightened.

by joyce (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 73 comments) on Thursday, Feb 21, 2008 at 3:11:42 PM

  (0+)

I consider his account from that afternoon more reliable than the account from after when he learned he could make money from truthers. 

by Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 350 comments) on Thursday, Feb 21, 2008 at 8:45:18 PM

  (0+)

" In fact, with the fuel loads from the office furnishings and such, as well as from the aircraft itself, there is ample reason to assume that the fires were hotter than typical structure fires.  "

 That statement has absolutely no basis in science at all.  NOTHING in those buildings could produce temperatures hot enough to weaken steel.  It doesn't matter how MUCH material you have, it still burns at the same temperature!  Geez!   The jet fuel burned off, most of it during impact (NIST states this), the rest of it was largely gone within 10 minutes.  It's highly volitale and burns quickly, the rest of the items that burned were hydrocarbon type material that doesn't EVER burn hot enough, even if applied all day, to weaken steel.

Dude, you need to brush up on your NIST reports.  NIST acknowledges that the fires in the Towers only burned for 20 minutes in  ANY ONE PLACE.    That means that the fire wasn't hot enough and it didn't burn long enough ANYWHERE in any one place to weaken the steel.  Steel as it cools regains it's strength.

The person above is correct that there is ONLY one elevator (car 50) which is a shuttle elevator, that ran the entire length of the building to enable it to get "jet fuel" spilled into it.  Even the lead engineer of the WTC admitted that even if jet fuel did get into the shafts there is no reason to suggest that it would have exploded.

Another interesting comment by this engineer is that none of the main eletrical leads on all the main columns had been even remotely damaged.  The main eletrical leads ran up the core.  After the impacts the elevators still worked, you can see firemen walk out of the elevators after coming from another floor.  Also, the lights in the stairwells were also working, yet lo and behold, the 47 core columns disappeared, supposedly because they had been damaged by the impacts.  It's malarky, and the one man who knew where those leads went to said so.  The core was NOT damaged and it should have remained standing, yet it too crumpled into nothing.

There is so much scientific evidence and information to prove that nothing NIST says has even a shread of truth.

by Pixie (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 50 comments) on Thursday, Feb 21, 2008 at 2:37:04 PM

  (0+)

That statement has absolutely no basis in science at all.  NOTHING in those buildings could produce temperatures hot enough to weaken steel.  It doesn't matter how MUCH material you have, it still burns at the same temperature!  Geez!