 |
ATTENTION POSTERS
|
 |
|
|
|
We just recieved an Alert from a member that NEW Posts to the "FORUM ARCHIVE (OLD THREADS)" were not showing up in the "Most Recent Posts" column
These forums were long since placed in the "Forum Archive". It was decided that the more appropriate place to have this conversation was in the Community Center Forum under "9/11 Facts and Theories" because it was designed to be available to any members throughout the Country instead of just in Seattle.
The Seattle (and all of the other 9/11 Truth Activist Sites in this portal community have all agreed to keep the conversation focued on Local Events and Activism to make that information more readily accessable.
When the recent conversations started by new members in forums marked "OLD ARCHIVED" started overwelming the "Recent Posts" list we decided to not include them in the list rather than just deleting the forums and posts.
Therefore if you still wish to discuss these subjects please do so in the Community Center "9/11 Facts and Theories" forum.
Thanks for your understanding,
Admin@911TruthGroups.org
|
  |
 |
|
 |
|
|
Forum Guidelines and HELP
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Most Recent Posts
|
|
|
|
|
| Larry Silversteins super yacht being built in Seattle!!! | | by insider 10/05/2009 9:01 PM | | That's right, Larry Silverstein is having a super yach built right here in Seattle! It's far along at Delta Marine yard and goes under hull name 175038. "Silver Shalis" is to be the final name.
http:... | | RE: Saying hi from Mike in Tacoma | | by cobaltinee 10/05/2009 4:57 PM | | Hello Mike. You are very lucky to join in this wonderful and nice forum. Just have relax and enjoy posting. :)
________________
web hosting | | RE: Hello from Arlington | | by cobaltinee 10/05/2009 4:47 PM | | Hello Jaw. I am very glad you join inthis 911truthgroup forum. Just enjoy posting and have a smile always. :)
________________
web hosting | | RE: New Truther Here | | by Host 05/08/2008 4:24 AM | | Hi Jeremy, Were you at the meeting? If you were I am sure that you know who I am. Which person were you? Mike | | Vancouver 9/11 Truth Conference Link | | by Drew Noftle 05/02/2008 2:34 AM | | Hi there,
The Vancouver 9/11 Truth Conference page has been moved. The new link is: http://vancouver911truth.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=16&Itemid=71
If... | | RE: New Truther Here | | by futumpsh 04/23/2008 4:39 PM | | Michael,
Thank you so much for taking the time to thoughtfully respond to my post. Your words and advice are very encouraging.
I most certainly did go WAY too far when I started talking... | | RE: New Truther Here | | by Host 04/22/2008 9:41 PM | | Hi Jeremy,
Welcome to the difficult road of discovery when you first learn to see 9/11 through different eyes. I will share a few of the things that I learned that might help you with your frie... | | New Truther Here | | by futumpsh 04/21/2008 5:48 PM | | Greetings.
Well, it's been almost a week now since I stumbled upon some videos on the internet that led me to do some research into the events surrounding September 11th. I've spent nearly ever... | | RE: Notice to Americans: Canada's action for 9/11/8 | | by Drew Noftle 02/22/2008 4:30 AM | | The Website is now up and running!!
www.marchonottawa2008.org
| | Notice to Americans: Canada's action for 9/11/8 | | by Drew Noftle 02/11/2008 8:36 AM | | Dear fellow 9/11 Truth activists to the South.
I am writing to inform you about an action that is being planned here in Canada for 9/11/8...
... | | RE: Bring Richard Gage to Seattle and Bellingham | | by Philippok 01/05/2008 11:44 PM | | Hi Scott,
I wonder where the structural engineers at UW stand? Could they be invited to a talk by Richard?
Phil | | RE: Why is the "sacred story" so hard to debunk? | | by Philippok 01/05/2008 11:37 PM | | Hi,
I htink it has to do with http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/92.html..
Philippok | | RE: Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth | | by pamin 12/23/2007 8:27 AM | | Scott, thanks for the post. I will help in any way I can to get Gage to Seattle and to pack the event. I think I can get Microsoft to host the event, I can get hundreds of engineers to sho... | | RE: Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth | | by sthomp 12/22/2007 4:40 PM | | Good for you Paul. Your summary is much like my story. Many of the 9/11 discrepencies are rather vauge and seem to be red herrings. However I don't know how anyone with a good mechan... | | RE: Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth | | by Host 12/21/2007 2:41 PM | | Hi Paul,
Welcome to the Seattle Truth Movement. It is always good to hear peoples "Ah-Ha" moment when something clicks for them personally. You may be interested to know that th... | | Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth | | by pamin 12/21/2007 4:46 AM | | One of my coworkers has stated for some time that he thought 911 was an inside job. I've always had some theories, but never thought that the two towers were brought down by controlled demolitio... | | RE: Bring Richard Gage to Seattle and Bellingham | | by sthomp 12/12/2007 5:16 PM | | Thanks Mike. I regret that I missed some of the events you helped with during the past year, but want to help with another soon. An email is on the way.
Regards,
Scott Thompso... | | RE: Bring Richard Gage to Seattle and Bellingham | | by Host 12/12/2007 3:32 AM | | Scott, I have been out of the country for the last 2 weeks so I apologize for not getting back to you sooner. I see from an earlier post that you had some trouble getting registered but that appe... | | Bring Richard Gage to Seattle and Bellingham | | by sthomp 12/01/2007 4:14 PM | | I'm new to this group so forgive any poor etiquette, but I would like to help bring Richard Gage up to Seattle and Bellingham for a brief tour in the next few months. I believe that he makes a go... | | RE: Hello from Arlington | | by kfkonrad 10/07/2007 1:11 AM | | Whaddup Larry? |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
These forums has been organized to discuss local "9/11 Truth ACTIVITIES" in the Seattle Area.
If you want to discuss 9/11 then do so in the Community Center "9/11 Facts and Theories" forum.
|
|
Seattle Area Forum
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Messages |
|
skybolt
Posts:34
 |
| 12/08/2006 3:28 AM |
|
This is a second, more considered, response to the email from Jim, JB,urging people not to focus on the collapses.
The names Alex and WHY THE COLLAPSES ARE A DEAD END refer to people who posted at the Stanford Daily website. The latter posted JB's letter about the reactions of his friends in the architecture and construction fields, so I commented there as follows.
Please go to this website:
http://hereisnewyork.org/gallery/thumb.asp?CategoryID=3&picnum=181
and look at the first photograph, top left, no. 5973.
It is a sequence of four photographs of one of the towers, I think the South with the North obscured by smoke, but maybe the North, it doesn't matter.
The sequence seems out of order, the first photograph should be the 3rd from the left, then 1, 2, 4
See how the top is already gone in photo 3. Yet this is the immense weight is supposed to be what is pile driving the building down into dust in photos 1, 2, 4. It's gone, so how is that happening?
The building was pulverized into dust from the top down. How did this happen?
Alex's argument is flawed, to be kind:
"Each tower weighed roughly 500,000 tons, and was roughly 400 meters tall. If you do the math using those numbers you'll find that each building contained roughly 1 terrajoule in potential energy. That's a LOT of energy. More than enough to sever the brackets propping up each
floor, and plenty to pulverize quite a bit of concrete."
Alex, the potential energy is based on the mass. This goes both ways -- that mass of the building would offer tremendous resistance in a collapse starting at the 80th or 90th floor. Yet the underlying structure, 80 to 90% of the 500,000 tons, offered no resistance, hence free-fall speed.
NIST has not explained this except in the most ridiculous, tautological terms:
"Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the
falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass."
Translation: "Why did the buildings fall so fast? Because they did."
In order to remove the resistance of the stories below "the level of collapse initiation," a tremendous amount of energy was necessary. Where did it come from?
JB should show this photograph to his architect friends. There are many other pictures. Also show the picture of the South tower top leaning to the side, then disintegrating.
http://home.debitel.net/user/andreas.bunkahle/defaulte.htm
Show them the pictures of pulverization into dust on this page:
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam3.html
Then, ask your architect friends if they really think this was a gravity-driven collapse. Anyone, without any special training, applying common sense, as formulated in fundamental Newtonian mechanics, can see that this was not a gravity-drive collapse. NIST made no attempt to explain and only modelled to the point of collapse initiation, simply saying "global collapse ensued," without any explanation of the pulverization into dust going upward from the 80th and 90th floor of the towers, and going downward from those points.
Again, the top floors can't be pile drivers if they are gone.
The email posted by WHY THE COLLAPSES ARE A DEAD END mentions the report of Brent Blanchard.
Here it is:
http://www.jod911.com/WTC COLLAPSE STUDY BBlanchard 8-8-06.pdf
Here is a reply which I think is pretty good:
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/blanchard/index.html
Blanchard has not explained what is happening in those pictures, and doesn't even try. Based on much undisclosed evidence, he just says that it did not look like a controlled demolition and no evidence of explosions or thermate was found. All this may be true, but it stil does not explain what happened.
Please look at this picture:
http://hereisnewyork.org/gallery/thumb.asp?CategoryID=3&picnum=265
Top left, No. 5797.
The building is being pulverized into dust from the top down. Look at the size of that mushroom. How is this happening? Demolition expert Blanchard states in his report: "One primary difference between these two collapses and a typical building implosion was that the initial failures occurred very high up on the structures, which lead to an extended-duration "pancake" effect down to the ground. With the weight and mass of the upper sections forcing the floor trusses below rapidly downward, there was no way for outer perimeter walls to fall in, so the had to fall out. A review of all photographic images clearly shows about 95% of falling debris being force away from the footprint of the structure, creating a giant "mushroom" effect around the perimeter."
5 questions for Mr. Blanchard, based on above picture 5797:
1. The weight and mass of the upper sections is gone in this picture. What is driving the floors down?
2. NIST has disavowed the "pancake" model, because it does not account for the massive cores. What is happening to the cores in this picture -- what mass is destroying them with gravity?
3. You say this pancaking is "extended duration," but the building was destroyed to the ground in free-fall time. How did that happen?
4. Where were the floors that "pancaked" down? Not in the small amount of rubble.
5. You say the walls are "falling out," hence the mushroom cloud. Why are they being pulverized into dust in this picture, rather than falling away at an angle on a pivot; how are the pulverized walls being propelled upward and outward if they are "falling"? Would the amount of material in those walls create such a large mushroom cloud?
Blanchard cannot be serious.
Here are compilations of videos of both towers collapsing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bc4plbUtCas&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-luTU0zSKw&mode=related&search=
If anyone with expertise watches these and says that these are gravity-driven collapses, they are lying.
I quote from David Hume's On Miracles, the origin of Carl Sagan's advice "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence":
"'I should not believe such a story were it told me by Cato', was a proverbial saying in Rome, even during the lifetime of that philosophical patriot. The incredibility of a fact, it was allowed, might invalidate so great an authority." David Hume, Of Miracles.
"When anyone tells me, that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened." David Hume, Of Miracles.
NIST, FEMA, Blanchard, building designer Les Robertson, Oklahoma federal building and WTC government consultant Gene Corley, and a thousand MIT professors (I have read two) cannot convince me that those buildings "collapsed" into fine dust as a result of an airplane and fire. This is an extraordinary claim - a miracle, if you will.
Their writings are really a sick perversion of science ---they are religious writings in worship of the state, asking us to believe in a miracle.
Our society is like an alcoholic's family dominated by the presence and denial of alcoholism. Experts at the pinnacle of our scientific establishments employ any argument they can to explain away the 800-pound gorilla in the room. He's not there if you don't hypothesize
him.
JB's email talks about Michael Ruppurt, who for years has been telling everyone to ignore this physical evidence. Ruppert is wrong, to be kind. All the stuff about stand down orders, NORAD, put options, etc. is too hard to prove, and too easy to explain in an innocuous manner.
This evidence can fit anyone's theory of complicity: Al Qaeda, U.S., Israel, or any combination thereof; opportunism, LIHOP, or MIHOP. The destruction of these buildings leads one place, in my opinion, and it's not Afghanistan. Nor is it incompetence or let it happen, unless you can show me that foreign terrorists could pulverize those buildings as we saw. All this other stuff, even if true, is a sideshow.
The destruction of the towers cannot be explained by the alleged airplane impacts and the fires. These could only explain, and this is a big maybe, a slow, sagging, assymetrical collapse that would likely be arrested by the floors below, making the path of least resistance a falling off to one side.
Conventional explosives and incendiaries would have to somehow be installed in large amounts. That seems unlikely, as Blanchard states in his report, although that doesn't mean it can be ruled out if the alternative is believing the NIST fairy tale. The indisputable fact is that a tremendous amount of energy was applied to turn those buildings to dust. Wood may be right -- some kind of new weapon was used. I could see such a weapon possessed by the U.S. or Russia, no other state. We are not at war with Russia, so I'll rule Russia out.
The pulverization of the towers probably cannot be explained as the action of a non-state actor - this is a sophisticated military operation. If this kind of capability has been privatized, we are in worse trouble than I thought.
This physical evidence must not be ignored. JB, show your architect and construction-industry friends these images, then ask their opinions. Don't talk about how it happened, as we do not know. Just show them that it did happen - this is not a gravity-driven collapse. That must
be explained, and Able Danger, put options, and Sibel Edmonds won't do it. Stand-down orders, war games, and the unimpeded actions of Mohammed Atta before 9/11 might be useful in explaining the crime, but only after the physical facts of the crime have been established. This includes the physical facts of the alleged airline impacts.
Dwight Van Winkle
Seattle
|
|
|
|
|
|
| You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
|
|
ActiveForums 3.7
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|