ICONOPHILI wrote:CGW wrote:So, Iconophili: having wasted all of Lent, you've fallen behind on wasting the Easter season and have to catch up?
KEEP QUIET HERETIC, Your not one of us.
Iconophili, CGW has not been banned so he has every right to respond to the conspiracy theories that you post as long as he does not violate the rules.
CGW wrote:OK, so a guy from the water testing side of Underwriter's Laboratories questions details of an NIST report, and this is supposed to be a conclusive refutation?? :ohvey: No wonder UL fired him.
1. Explosives Expert Van Romero also prooves official story is not true. http://www.rense.com/general17/eyewitne ... ersist.htm, I aslo noticed you seem to not be able to, look back at the site I posted to see that 9/11 supporter was disprooven by the questions thrown at her, and thats why she did not till this day respond back, 2. William Rodriguez
Rodriguez, an employee at the World Trade Center, had just stepped outside of the North Tower when it started to collapse. He quickly slid under a fire truck as the debris was crashing around him. He survived only because of luck; he had jumped under a section of the truck that was strong enough to protect him from the steel beams that were crashing on top of it,
Since we all have a fascination with people that set records, Rodriguez became somewhat famous because he set the record of being the last person to get out of the North Tower alive. Furthermore, the reason he was so late getting out of the tower was that he was helping other people escape, so his rescue efforts brought him more fame and admiration.
The fame brought him into contact with a lot of news reporters, government officials, and 9-11 victims over the next few years. He told people how he had heard explosions in the building, including one in the basement, but the investigative reporters ignored his remarks about explosions.
Rodriguez would eventually become a thorn in the government side for organizing the victims and demanding a better investigation of the 9/11 attack:
http://williamrodriguezwtc.blogspot.com/ 3. Christopher Bollyn, an investigative reporter for the small weekly newspaper The American Free Press, wrote articles that cast doubts on the official explanation 9-11. His articles appeared on the Internet and in the small, weekly newspaper The American Free Press. He wrote about Van Romero and about eyewitness reports of bombs going off inside the WTC towers:
americanfreepress article 22 Oct 2001
He pointed out that the law requires that all the rubble be saved after a disaster so that engineers can inspect the pieces and determine whether they need to change building codes to make them stronger.
It appears that the commission ignored all witnesses and testimony that contradicted the original explanation for the September 11 attack.
Their final report did not mention Building 7, so there was still no official explanation for why it collapsed. 6. And Last but not least, The magazine Popular Mechanics wrote an article criticizing 9/11 theories:
www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html
Suspecting something diabolical because of the illogical reasoning in the article, Christopher Bollyn investigated the Popular Mechanics staff and discovered that many of their editors had been fired, and Benjamin Chertoff was put in charge of this particular article. Benjamin Chertoff is a relative of Michael Chertoff (our homeland security director):
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/ar ... read=66176
This is what we refer to as "a conflict of interest".
'How could a fire 90 floors up cause fire etc... in the basement.'
Well, the first thing you don't do in a fire is go to the elevators, because they are chimneys. Especially in a building where only drywall was used around the elevator shafts.
From other eyewitnesses (See PM - real experts) a film crew saw people burning from the elevator shaft. Unexploded Jet fuel poured down the shaft (it takes a fair amount of heat to ignite jet fuel, so often the tanks fuel leaks all over the place before it ignites). Recall also that the fire burned for some time.
There was allot of fuel on those planes. From the engines, the fuel ignited right away and blasted outward, from other tanks it spilled all over the place and went down the shaft according to eyewitnesses.
Finally, as the building collapses, the fire has no place to go but with the air - outward or down through the shaft. The fire goes with the air.
If you watch the building collapse, you will see fire balls radiating outward when it collapses on top of burning high floors. These are caused by the air being forced out floor by floor, and the fire going with the air - outward.
The shaft in the center of the building acted like a piston, with the fire/air being forced to the bottom of the building.
So on the top floors, you see fire balls as the building collapses on burning floors. The building forces the fire in the shaft with the air downward like a piston, and then it explodes out from the basement when the pressure becomes overwhelming. All very logical explanations and grounded in reality.
Iconophili, your so-called experts are either not experts or are being silly. The physics of your scenarios is just plain wrong. THINK ABOUT IT. PRAY ABOUT IT TOO.
andy holland
sinner
I'm starting to get tired of reading the words of stupid people or thoughtless people or self-important "experts" who are smarter than anyone who worked on the real investigations.
For instance, at the end of the "Bombs" article, we get a pile-up of unsupported and pretty much unjustifiable assertions.
"Most of its fuel burned in an outside explosion." They don't know that. Nobody knows that.
"However, this building collapsed first, long before the North Tower, into which a similar plane entered completely." Well, yeah, maybe because the south tower impact was much lower than the impact on the north tower. So, maybe the stress on the damaged areas was a lot higher?
And then there are all the bombs and explosions supposedly witnessed. I'm betting that these are things that people heard and did not see.
I'm still wondering why I should care about all of this. There is after all nothing I can do about it anyway.
I think allot of the confusion was due to the fact that billows of flames and explosions did occur during the collapse, and most lay people did not expect it or understand what they were seeing.
The floors compressed air causing an explosion due to the billows effect.
Also, when steel fails, it explodes mechanically. When children build toothpick bridges and fail them with weights, they use safety goggles for a reason.
These observations are confusing to most people, also, allot of structural engineers were taken aback by the fact the building collapsed. But those structural engineers were not skyscraper designers!
There is confusion (myself included when I first heard these things) with regards to fire intensity (temperature) and heat energy (BTU) - the fire had a great deal of heat over a wide area at the same time. I am still not personally convinced some aircraft aluminum did not ignite, but its irrelevant - the heat energy was too high for a building to withstand over a wide area.
Also, people had been taught that controlled demolition was needed to bring a building straight down. Well, yes and NO. Yes if you are completely off - but for the most part NO. Buildings have wide bases and it takes allot of asymetric force to topple a building. So they fall straight down.
Those who actually designed skyscrapers understood these things and have commented on them. Its a good physics lesson.
andy holland
sinner
AndyHolland wrote:'How could a fire 90 floors up cause fire etc... in the basement.'
Well, the first thing you don't do in a fire is go to the elevators, because they are chimneys. Especially in a building where only drywall was used around the elevator shafts.
From other eyewitnesses (See PM - real experts) a film crew saw people burning from the elevator shaft. Unexploded Jet fuel poured down the shaft (it takes a fair amount of heat to ignite jet fuel, so often the tanks fuel leaks all over the place before it ignites). Recall also that the fire burned for some time.
There was allot of fuel on those planes. From the engines, the fuel ignited right away and blasted outward, from other tanks it spilled all over the place and went down the shaft according to eyewitnesses.
Finally, as the building collapses, the fire has no place to go but with the air - outward or down through the shaft. The fire goes with the air.
If you watch the building collapse, you will see fire balls radiating outward when it collapses on top of burning high floors. These are caused by the air being forced out floor by floor, and the fire going with the air - outward.
The shaft in the center of the building acted like a piston, with the fire/air being forced to the bottom of the building.
So on the top floors, you see fire balls as the building collapses on burning floors. The building forces the fire in the shaft with the air downward like a piston, and then it explodes out from the basement when the pressure becomes overwhelming. All very logical explanations and grounded in reality.
Iconophili, your so-called experts are either not experts or are being silly. The physics of your scenarios is just plain wrong. THINK ABOUT IT. PRAY ABOUT IT TOO.
andy holland
sinner
HAHAHA, YOU SOUND like a mad man after he's been disproven, I gave you EXPERTS that you never heard de-bunked the Offical story, now your excuse is, they must not, be experts, 1. How can you say that when your not an expert, if it was me that said that about Pop Mechanics, you would have, said you Iconophili are not an expert, so you have no basis for your wild claims, and I think some one did say that, to me, well heres the experts, and what do you have left, but to say, "They must not be Experts", HAHAHA your defeated 100%, You claim fire balls from Elevator shafts, any one could have told you, thise are NOT from Elevator shafts, those fires which are not even fire balls, when you look at them, are from fires alread still burning in the area's hit by the planes, HERE more EXPERTS, Scientific Panel Investigating 9/11= http://www.physics911.net/
CGW wrote:I'm starting to get tired of reading the words of stupid people or thoughtless people or self-important "experts" who are smarter than anyone who worked on the real investigations.
For instance, at the end of the "Bombs" article, we get a pile-up of unsupported and pretty much unjustifiable assertions.
"Most of its fuel burned in an outside explosion." They don't know that. Nobody knows that.
"However, this building collapsed first, long before the North Tower, into which a similar plane entered completely." Well, yeah, maybe because the south tower impact was much lower than the impact on the north tower. So, maybe the stress on the damaged areas was a lot higher?
And then there are all the bombs and explosions supposedly witnessed. I'm betting that these are things that people heard and did not see.
I'm still wondering why I should care about all of this. There is after all nothing I can do about it anyway.
ALL this maybe this aand maybe that, shows, you don't have the info, and now that I have shown there are people, who have heard and testified, there were bomb explosions, what do you, say, "They must have made a mistake" When I said those people didn't see, the plane hit the Pentagon, your husband, said I wasn't there, what do I know about the Pentagon plane, and the Pentagons, Deminsions, who do I know that the Highjackers where'nt able to fly those planes, no one told him (Ebor) that it's posible to determin wheather or not those people where capable to fly the planes or not, but all agreed whith his questions, well now you, (CGW) are saying "They must have not heard explosions, but made mistakes" Where you there (CGW) did you hear? no you didn't, so your living in Denial, you are now assuming he made a mistake, why? = Because you can't fathom CONSPIROUSIES happening, I asked you to proove that The Constitution, isn't being broken, if you did this THEN, you PROOVE 1005 with no doubt, that people like me AND me, are CRASY, and we need to Relax, but you didn;t not because you didn't have time, but because, you don't know how the Constitution works, thats why, Look at the whole Picture on 9/11 not just one or two things, the whole thing, 1. Phone can't work at 25,000 feet, No way those amertures could have flown, the planes, how did they actually, kill the pilots, this is VERY important also, WHEN ever something Tramatic happens, especiallt to people who are bystanders, ABC's 20/20, CBS's 60 Minutes, FOXNews, and CNN usualy Interview these people, 1. Why hasn't any of these news Orginisations, Interviewed the "TicketSales persons" who supposedly sold the Tickets to Muhammed ATTAH, and others? ANSWER= Because the ticketsalsmen at those airports on 9/11 never saw those Terrorists, because there were no terrorists, those planes where remote controlled into the WTC's, there where many reporters, that where showing the Gov lied about 911, and the hijackers, 1. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 559151.stm 2. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... iden23.xml 3. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hijackers_video.html
