One Picture Is Worth 1000 Words - Tell Me - What Do You See?

On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 16:43:06 -0800, "Izheet Madroors"
<I_Zheet_Madroors@yaSPAMLESShoo.com> wrote:

>
>"garciyalater@gmail.com" <garciyalater@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:e0ed62ca-dc86-4c4c-a5d3-51e478057e42@m34g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>
>>> Me neither, but when these stupid fawks (not you garcia) come out and say
>>> that there's no way those planes could have taken the towers down,
>>> they're
>>> talking out of their ass because their mouth knows better.
>>
>> you just cant convince me it was the planes. I know a lot of firemen,
>> none think that the fire was anything that couldnt be controlled. The
>> amount of black smoke alone is an indication that the fire was for the
>> most part under control and losing intensity.
>>
>> you also cant tell me that witnesses didnt hear an explosion in the
>> basement prior to the plane hitting.
>>
>> you also cant tell me that sonographs picked up some serious booms
>> just before the building came down.
>>
>> I saw the planes hit. Just as everyone else did. I also know
>> Guiliana was told to get out as the building was going to come down.
>> Who knew it was coming down? No building had ever collapsed due to
>> fire like that before, and none ever will again.
>>
>> there are mini explosions on each floor as the building comes down,
>> that cant be explained by the planes and the fire.
>>
>> I dont even want to get into the who's and why. It just blinds from
>> the issue of how they came down. I dont know who or why and I never
>> will. What I do know is that something other than fire and planes
>> brought those towers down.
>
>Nothing posted above is hard evidence that the planes didn't bring the
>towers down. It's merely conjecture and opinion. You and I both know that
>this argument could go on forever.
>
>I have to bow out of this conversation now. I probably set myself back a
>year getting my button around here.
>


Design Life built into Trade Center:




Introduction to Structural Engineering and Steel Design:




"September 11, Revisited" Watch the movie online:

http://911revisited.com/

 

On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 18:33:48 -0800 (PST), "garciyalater@gmail.com"
<garciyalater@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Mar 4, 7:24 pm, "garciyala...@gmail.com" <garciyala...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>> > Me neither, but when these stupid fawks (not you garcia) come out and say
>> > that there's no way those planes could have taken the towers down, they're
>> > talking out of their ass because their mouth knows better.
>>
>> you just cant convince me it was the planes. I know a lot of firemen,
>> none think that the fire was anything that couldnt be controlled. The
>> amount of black smoke alone is an indication that the fire was for the
>> most part under control and losing intensity.
>>
>> you also cant tell me that witnesses didnt hear an explosion in the
>> basement prior to the plane hitting.
>>
>> you also cant tell me that sonographs picked up some serious booms
>> just before the building came down.
>>
>> I saw the planes hit. Just as everyone else did. I also know
>> Guiliana was told to get out as the building was going to come down.
>> Who knew it was coming down? No building had ever collapsed due to
>> fire like that before, and none ever will again.
>>
>> there are mini explosions on each floor as the building comes down,
>> that cant be explained by the planes and the fire.
>>
>> I dont even want to get into the who's and why. It just blinds from
>> the issue of how they came down. I dont know who or why and I never
>> will. What I do know is that something other than fire and planes
>> brought those towers down.
>
>everything above can be seen, heard, and studied quite easily. It is
>all well documented. FWIW, a case that is just as strong can be made
>for demolition as can be made for planes. The problem is, their is no
>sense arguiuing it one way or the other as it really doesnt matter.
>they came down. people died. And thats it.
>
>I agree with you though that it could go on forever, like you though
>too, I have no interest in doing it.

 

On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 12:09:29 -0800 (PST), garciyalater@gmail.com wrote:

>> Name one other steel building to ever get t-boned by a passenger
>> airliner loaded with jet fuel.
>
>
> but if it was the jet fuel.....
>
> why did it look more or less like the fire was out before the building
> came down?
>
> I am not trying to incite a fight or disagree. Its a difficult
> subject. I realize that. But there is extremley credible scientific
> evidence to indicate it was something other than the planes that
> brought the building down....
>
> thats all I can say about it, I guess, you either accept the official
> story, or you dont, know amount of debate will change your mind...
>
> but if you have ever worked in demolitions or know someone who has,
> ask them what they think......

They think that setting up trip wires for a controlled demolition would be
futile since they would melt once subjected to the high heat of burning jet
fuel.

--
Don't take life so seriously... It's not permanent.

RocinanteREMOVETHIS@gmail.com
3/4/2008 10:28:46 PM

 

On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 22:29:43 -0500, Rocinante
<RocinanteREMOVETHIS@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 12:09:29 -0800 (PST), garciyalater@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>> Name one other steel building to ever get t-boned by a passenger
>>> airliner loaded with jet fuel.
>>
>>
>> but if it was the jet fuel.....
>>
>> why did it look more or less like the fire was out before the building
>> came down?
>>
>> I am not trying to incite a fight or disagree. Its a difficult
>> subject. I realize that. But there is extremley credible scientific
>> evidence to indicate it was something other than the planes that
>> brought the building down....
>>
>> thats all I can say about it, I guess, you either accept the official
>> story, or you dont, know amount of debate will change your mind...
>>
>> but if you have ever worked in demolitions or know someone who has,
>> ask them what they think......
>
>They think that setting up trip wires for a controlled demolition would be
>futile since they would melt once subjected to the high heat of burning jet
>fuel.


I'm thinking about buying a new wireless keyboard to replace
the one I spilled coffee on.

 

On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 22:37:22 -0500, Pisano wrote:

> On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 22:29:43 -0500, Rocinante
> <RocinanteREMOVETHIS@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 12:09:29 -0800 (PST), garciyalater@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>> Name one other steel building to ever get t-boned by a passenger
>>>> airliner loaded with jet fuel.
>>>
>>>
>>> but if it was the jet fuel.....
>>>
>>> why did it look more or less like the fire was out before the building
>>> came down?
>>>
>>> I am not trying to incite a fight or disagree. Its a difficult
>>> subject. I realize that. But there is extremley credible scientific
>>> evidence to indicate it was something other than the planes that
>>> brought the building down....
>>>
>>> thats all I can say about it, I guess, you either accept the official
>>> story, or you dont, know amount of debate will change your mind...
>>>
>>> but if you have ever worked in demolitions or know someone who has,
>>> ask them what they think......
>>
>>They think that setting up trip wires for a controlled demolition would be
>>futile since they would melt once subjected to the high heat of burning jet
>>fuel.
>
>
> I'm thinking about buying a new wireless keyboard to replace
> the one I spilled coffee on.

Duh. Low powered, wireless devices would not work in a steel building.

--
"All I ask is a chance to prove that money can't make me happy."

RocinanteREMOVETHIS@gmail.com
3/5/2008 10:50:16 PM

 

On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 22:51:20 -0500, Rocinante
<RocinanteREMOVETHIS@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 22:37:22 -0500, Pisano wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 22:29:43 -0500, Rocinante
>> <RocinanteREMOVETHIS@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 12:09:29 -0800 (PST), garciyalater@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Name one other steel building to ever get t-boned by a passenger
>>>>> airliner loaded with jet fuel.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> but if it was the jet fuel.....
>>>>
>>>> why did it look more or less like the fire was out before the building
>>>> came down?
>>>>
>>>> I am not trying to incite a fight or disagree. Its a difficult
>>>> subject. I realize that. But there is extremley credible scientific
>>>> evidence to indicate it was something other than the planes that
>>>> brought the building down....
>>>>
>>>> thats all I can say about it, I guess, you either accept the official
>>>> story, or you dont, know amount of debate will change your mind...
>>>>
>>>> but if you have ever worked in demolitions or know someone who has,
>>>> ask them what they think......
>>>
>>>They think that setting up trip wires for a controlled demolition would be
>>>futile since they would melt once subjected to the high heat of burning jet
>>>fuel.
>>
>>
>> I'm thinking about buying a new wireless keyboard to replace
>> the one I spilled coffee on.
>
>Duh. Low powered, wireless devices would not work in a steel building.


Takes more than "low level power" to pull something off like
that.

Do you think some people living in a cave could do it?

 

On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 20:12:05 -0500, Pisano <kenpisano@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Design Life built into Trade Center:
>
>
>
>
> Introduction to Structural Engineering and Steel Design:
>
>
>

Ah, yes, youtube.com, the bastion of good investigative journalism.

 

On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 22:29:43 -0500, Rocinante
<RocinanteREMOVETHIS@gmail.com> wrote:

>> but if you have ever worked in demolitions or know someone who has,
>> ask them what they think......
>
>They think that setting up trip wires for a controlled demolition would be
>futile since they would melt once subjected to the high heat of burning jet
>fuel.

The whole concept of triggering a well-controlled demolition of a
building by the massively destabilizing, uncontrollable, and
unpredictable event of crashing a large jetliner into the building is
so insane it's just plain silly.

 

On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 13:43:12 -0500, BAH <bah44@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 22:29:43 -0500, Rocinante
><RocinanteREMOVETHIS@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> but if you have ever worked in demolitions or know someone who has,
>>> ask them what they think......
>>
>>They think that setting up trip wires for a controlled demolition would be
>>futile since they would melt once subjected to the high heat of burning jet
>>fuel.
>
>The whole concept of triggering a well-controlled demolition of a
>building by the massively destabilizing, uncontrollable, and
>unpredictable event of crashing a large jetliner into the building is
>so insane it's just plain silly.

I just saw this in another newsgroup - LMAO!

Here is my equation:

W = DetonationWire
T = TNT
H = Holes drilled for explosives
D = Dust
N = Nutjob conspiracy theories

Length of detoation wire located in the rubble was none.
W = 0

Holes drilled into the structure was none.
H = 0

Pounds of TNT smuggled into the building was none.
T = 0

Dust from drilling thousands of holes was not evident prior to the
colapse.
D = 0

Nutjob conspiracies are abundant
N = 100's

W x H x T x D x N = 0

Zero possibility of a controlled demolition.

 

On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 13:43:12 -0500, BAH <bah44@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 22:29:43 -0500, Rocinante
><RocinanteREMOVETHIS@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> but if you have ever worked in demolitions or know someone who has,
>>> ask them what they think......
>>
>>They think that setting up trip wires for a controlled demolition would be
>>futile since they would melt once subjected to the high heat of burning jet
>>fuel.
>
>The whole concept of triggering a well-controlled demolition of a
>building by the massively destabilizing, uncontrollable, and
>unpredictable event of crashing a large jetliner into the building is
>so insane it's just plain silly.


Repost from another group:


* * *

On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 07:24:56 -0800 (PST), Merlin
<johndoe99@fastmail.fm> wrote:

>On Mar 5, 4:51?pm, Pisano <kenpis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 13:04:05 -0800 (PST), Merlin
>>
>> <johndo...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> >On Mar 5, 1:40?am, kenpis...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >> ? ? ? ? Where is the respect for the dead? ?Where is the respect for their
>> >> surviving families who, seeking the truth for nearly a decade, have
>> >> been fought every step of the way?
>>
>> >The surviving families have had the truth for some time now. The
>> >buildings fell as a result of fire heating the support beams until
>> >they would no longer support the buildings.
>>
>> ? ? ? ? The jet fuel burned away relatively quickly. ?Most of it
>> outside of the buildings in those huge fireballs. ?That is why in at
>> least one video segment shown live in early news reports you can
>> clearly see a woman standing in the gaping hole left by one of the
>> airplanes, holding onto a torn piece of metal. ?If it were actually
>> hot enough to weaken steel inside, she would have certainly succumbed
>> to such an intense heat very quickly indeed.
>
>Your scenario is naive, uneducated and you assume something you don't
>have any possible proof of.


That sounds more like a description of the "official story".


But I *provided* proof. You, however, snipped it out.

Why ever would you do that?

Here . . . let's put it back again:


http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc1_woman.html



> Obviously you haven't a clue what you're talking about.
>


Sorry, but I know exactly what I am talking about.



>> >The fact that you choose not to believe the truth doesn't negate it.
>>
>> ? ? ? ? The fact that it ISN'T true . . . does, however, negate it.
>
>You and a comparative few conspiracy nuts who haven't enough education
>to know any better think that the obvious isn't true. What you think
>really doesn't matter. No one will ever take you seriously.
>

Believe me. There are plenty of people who take this
seriously. Probably at least 1000 times or more as many as are now
openly talking about it.

And this is why:

>> ? ? ? ? Structures of steel and concrete simply can not fall through
>> successive layers of progressively stronger steel and concrete as
>> quickly as they would fall through thin air. ?It defies the laws of
>> physics. ?Also, most of the steel columns and beams on the ground were
>> found in sections, averaging around 30 feet in length.
>
>What bullshit. Obviously it can. It did. What is your educational
>background in Physics? People who are respected as experts have
>determined that you're full of shit.
>

You mean like these guys?

http://www.ae911truth.org/

"Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth"


>> ? ? ? ? For the entire structure to fall the way it did, at free-fall...
>
>Well there you have it. It didn't fall at "free-fall". Why would you
>say such an obvious lie?
>

It is certainly not a lie, but indeed the obvious truth.

Why again, did you snip out the rest?

Here. I'll put it back for you:


>> For the entire structure to fall the way it did, at free-fall
>>speed, without being previously rigged for demolition would require
>>that literally hundreds of thousands of welded and bolted construction
>>joints failed simultaneously, all the way down to the ground.


Now look here:


http://www.ae911truth.org/twintowers.php


In the alternative . . .

Do the math yourself, and then get back to me.


>> >There is nothing that you would accept as proof. You WANT it to be a
>> >conspiracy no matter how foolish your reasoning is.
>>


How did the planes bring down Building 7?

It wasn't hit by any plane, and only partially hit by debris.


Both immense towers "collapsed" on top of Buildings 3 and 5.

Why didn't Buildings 3 and 5 collapse?



>> ? ? ? ? The official story is, in fact, a conspiracy theory. ?
>
>Bullshit.
>

Sure it is. It goes something like this: "A group of 19
muslims who were members of a foreign terrorist organization and a
wealthy relative of the prominent Bin Laden family engaged in a
conspiracy to use box cutters to hijack four commercial jet airliners,
completely evade NORAD defenses and crash those planes into various
buildings in the United States . . . (Blah-blah-blah)."



>> >Why discuss something that you have no intention of changing your mind
>> >on?
>>
>> ? ? ? ? I am not looking to change "my" mind.
>
>You wouldn't, no matter what was proven to you.
>


I've seen plenty enough proof to make up my mind. I certainly
have no need of your approval or endorsement to do that.



>> >You're performing mental masturbation.
>>
>> ? ? ? ? One picture is worth a thousand words:
>>
>> ? ? ? ?http://tinyurl.com/yvqmda
>
>Exactly.


Yes. Exactly.

Note that in the photo the upper portion of the south tower is
falling away in a southernly direction, thereby removing the load
entirely from the northern face of the building, and eventually from
the rest of the structure. What then, in particular, are we to assume
was causing the violent voluminous ejection of such a mass of material
from not only the northern face, but the remainder of the structure as
well?

Also, what turned not only the concrete, but most everything
else in the building into a fine powder?


> A building right after a jet flies into it and explodes,
>resulting in the collapse of the building.
>

The World Trade towers were designed to withstand even
multiple hits from large passenger airliners, and remain structurally
sound.


Design Life built into Trade Center:




Introduction to Structural Engineering and Steel Design:




"September 11, Revisited" Watch the movie online:

http://911revisited.com/



>> >Quit, it'll make you go blind.
>>
>> You have obviously been masturbating far more than I have.
>
>Not hardly. You and your bunch of idiots are nothing but another
>version of Chicken Little.


You mean like these guys?





Or is Faux News out there terrorizing America again with scary
reports of "imminent terror attacks" from invisible boogy men?

 

On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 13:39:40 -0500, BAH <bah44@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 20:12:05 -0500, Pisano <kenpisano@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>> Design Life built into Trade Center:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Introduction to Structural Engineering and Steel Design:
>>
>>
>>
>
>Ah, yes, youtube.com, the bastion of good investigative journalism.


Yes, yes. Nothing like the "responsible" reporting you see on
Faux News, where Giraldo was seen this morning, spreading his own
brand of "good investigative journalism" across America by likening
the Mid-city Bomber to, "one of those '911 was an inside job' types".

It will certainly be interesting to see which particular group
ultimately gets the blame.