PDA

View Full Version : Do they make tin foil Cossack hats?


pikesome
04-16-2007, 08:25 AM
American radio icon Don Imus disgraced, fired after threat to reveal 9/11 secrets

Link (http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/89728-0)


In a clear sign of its intent to reign in dissident American media personalities, and their growing influence in American culture, US War Leaders this past week launched an unprecedented attack upon one of their most politically 'connected', and legendary, radio hosts named Don Imus after his threats to release information relating to the September 11, 2001 attacks upon that country.

According to European reports of the events surrounding Don Imus that have gripped the United States this past week, it was during an interview with another American media personality, Tim Russert, who is the host of a television programme frequently used by US War Leaders, wherein while decrying the state of care being given to American War wounded stated, "So those bastards want to keep these boys [in reference to US Soldiers] secret? Let's see how they like it if I start talking about their [in reference to US War Leaders] secrets, starting with 9/11."

Unable to attack such a powerful media figure as Don Imus, directly, the US War Leaders, and as we have seen many times before, resorted to a massive media attack against him using as the reason a racial slur against a US woman's basketball team, but which has been pointed out by other media outlets was not by any means a rare occurrence for the legendary radio icon to make.

But, to the US War Leaders, Don Imus represented the most serious threat, to date, of the growing assault against them by America's media personalities threatening to expose the truths behind the events of September 11, 2001 and the Iraq/Afghanistan Wars; and to such an extent that another American media personality, Rosie O'Donnell, has expressed concern that US Military Leaders could actually imprison Mr. Imus.

From our past research of the tactics used against those threatening America's War Leaders, the likelihood of imprisonment for Don Imus would only occur should he persist in his threats to undermine their authority, and which appears, at this time, unlikely after the public disgrace he has had to endure.

It is expected, also, that the US War Leaders actions against Don Imus will have a further chilling affect upon other American media personalities questioning their authority, such as the popular US movie actor, Charlie Sheen, and who was one of the first to question the events of September 11, 2001, and as we can read as reported by New Zealand Herald News Service in their article titled "Charlie Sheen may voice 9/11 documentary", and which says:

"US actor Charlie Sheen is reportedly in talks to narrate an internet documentary that suggests elements of the US government were behind the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Centre.

Sheen's representatives say he was involved in the production of a new version of Loose Change, a 90-minute conspiracy theory film that has been seen by more than 10 million internet viewers."

Apparently lost upon America's media personalities is that a government being investigated by the International Red Cross for the torture of an Iranian Diplomat by whipping with steel cables on his feet; a government that would have its soldiers imprison in an Ethiopian torture jail a Swedish teenage girl; a government that would even contemplate the release of one of the World's most wanted terrorists, Posada Carriles; does not hesitate, for even a second, to crush any, and all, opposition to it.

To the American people themselves their remains no evidence that they know, much less care, about the dire state of their once Free Nation.

By: Sorcha Faal, and as reported to her Western Subscribers


Stupidity is international I guess. Or, more likely, spin is international.

I find it both comical and slightly insulting to have a Russian lecture us about the "dire state of their once Free Nation".

Radar Chief
04-16-2007, 08:42 AM
:LOL: ROFL

Amnorix
04-16-2007, 08:49 AM
:eek:

Russia is reverting back to totalitarian dictatorship. Why in hell did Yeltsin pick this guy to follow after him?

tiptap
04-16-2007, 09:05 AM
As opposed to the trend in accepting an Imperial Presidency in the US. It is true there is a LOT MORE impedance in the political process in the US, build up over the years, than in Russia against power residing in one branch of government. But people always want personal security and accept heavy handed governments to get there. With a history of Czars absolute ownership of one and all, Communistic policy that just redress that concept in democratic language we should expect this appeal of strong central rule to be Russian. The question is whether the present regime is of the same ilk or whether it represents a more malleable form.

Dictatorship won't be tolerated if Russia wants entry into the European Union. It will be a moderation on that. And with only 125 million people in Russia they can't afford to totally isolate themselves from the rest of Europe.

Eleazar
04-16-2007, 09:15 AM
Check out the article about Kasparov

Kasparov, the Pawn

Garry Kasparov, arrested today near Pushkinskaya Square in Moscow for subversive activities, is the epitome of the big fish in the small pond which through its unfettered ambition, became a tiddler in the shark-infested waters of the Ocean. Garry Kasparov, the Grand Master of chess, is the political pawn who has sold his soul to the traitors who plot Russia’s demise and who in turn will leave him stranded after he fails to be elected.

One could add another short paragraph and end the article here, mentioning the fact that the whole “Other Russia” debacle is a sham, nothing more than the oligarchs who had put their hands on Russia’s resources and were prepared to mastermind the break-up of the Russian Federation in return for vast fortunes at the behest of the USA, oligarch-fraudsters and criminals who in turn were booted out by Putin and his Chekist Patriots, who now sense the March 2008 election looming up – without Putin – and want to position themselves to do the same again. Unable to do the dirty work themselves, they turn to the brilliant, incisive and energetic Garry Kasparov to be their front man.

Garry Kasparov is indeed the leader of a front, called Obyedinyonniy Grazhdanskiy Front, or United Civil/Citizens’ Front. However, today this wild-eyed Azeri Berezovsky supporter, calling the Russian (twice democratically elected) Government “criminal”, then “scared”, looked more like a street punk caught vandalising cars. He knowingly broke the law because he was aware that his demonstration was illegal, for it had been banned.

But what to expect from one who participates in a movement which includes Boris Berezovsky, who this week stated that Russia’s leadership could only be removed by force? What a great democratic front this must be! The fact is that Kasparov has become a victim of his own ambitions, which served him well on the chess board, but politics breeds successes – and failures.

Putin, a success

Whether Kasparov likes it or not, President Vladimir Putin has, at the very least, for the vast majority of the Russian people (although he would not know this because he is neither Russian, nor does he live in Russia), provided them with stability and economic security. Full stop.

Eleazar
04-16-2007, 09:16 AM
For a start, President Putin was democratically elected, twice. His intelligent yet firm policy has steadied the potentially volatile situation in Russia’s border regions. His foreign policy, underlining the need for a multipolar world using multilateral approaches to crisis management and following the precepts of international law is approved almost unanimously in the international community. His economic policy has brought stability and wealth to a growing and dynamic middle class. Russian companies are today major players on the world stage. Inflation has been controlled, Russian teachers today receive their salaries at the end of the month, the shops are full of the widest range of products visible anywhere in the globe, GDP is growing steadily and Russia has paid off the major part of its foreign debt. Add to that the return of the rule of law and not mob rule and we see that in short, Vladimir Putin has hauled a country on the verge of a deep crisis under the shambling wreck, Eltsin, placing it once again in the front line of development and re-affirming it as a world power.

This is why the Russian people voted for Vladimir Putin not once, but twice, with clear majorities. This is a process which is called democracy. Moreover, the Russian people would vote for Putin for a third time if he could be a candidate in March 2008.

Kasparov, the pawn

Yet is this the Russia that Kasparov wants? Apparently not, since he stands for everything which does not represent the Russian democratically-elected Government, even if this means having communists and fascists in his entourage, or perhaps even the Demon himself. Communists, fine. Fascists – not everyone’s choice but democracy at least provides for an alternative based on coherence. But how can Kasparov be called coherent when he, a non-Russian, as the front man of “The Other Russia”, represents anything or anyone, even political opposites, which can promote his personal agenda, since he has never produced a political one?

What does Kasparov stand for? What are his policies? He does not have any. He is simply anti. Anti what? Everything. He always was. Those who follow chess remember the chaos wrought on this hitherto calm and conservative backwater infested by bespectacled and intelligent nerds moving pieces around a board, kicking their opponents’ legs, taking frequent trips to the toilet and looking so intense they could have been prime contenders on an advertisement for anti-constipation products. The International Chess Federation, FIDE, was never the same after Kasparov became irate with the entire system and tried to set up an alternative one, turning a respected game with a professional image into a bickering gaggle of grandmothers.

The only policy matters he is quoted as saying are obscure references to Russia’s Government, complaining that Russia is in the G8, stating that the USA should have dominated the world in the 1990s and little else. Indeed, with this Azeri lover of Made in USA, who served as a member of the Advisory Council for National Security of the USA, setting up pro-Washington regimes in post-Soviet space, who needs the CIA?

What is “The Other Russia”? What is Kasparov?

Simply this, the “other” Russia - and Kasparov. The “Other Russia” is the unholiest of crusades, including the traitors who Putin swept from power, breaking their grip on Russia’s resources and returning these to their rightful owners – the Russian people – not Berezovsky, Guzinsky and Khodorkovsky, their anti-Russian playmakers and their pawn, Kasparov, the Azeri.

The Other Russia is as absurd a gang of misfits and loony toons as the political stage of any country has ever seen – the banned National Bolshevik Party, complete with its Nazi-type insignia, fraudsters such as Berezovsky, the one who sits in London along with the Chechen terrorist Zakaev, whose forces were none other than the Butchers of Beslan, failed pro-Washington politicians such as Kasyanov (People’s Patriotic Union), nationalists, socialists... and Kasparov. Oh, and according to the latter, also the Communists by the end of the year.

Any possible agenda which could unite this army of criminals and political mercenaries is logically non-existent. Therefore they stain the noble precept of democracy with their diatribes and make fools of themselves while trying to score points with the Russophobic elements in the international community.

Yet who was the first Russian President to set up a system of open press conferences? Who was the first Russian President to field questions posed openly by citizens in his periodic and regular phone-ins? Who was responsible for drawing up legislation to define the role of - and protect - the NGOs in Russia. Who was democratically elected, twice?

And who is Kasparov? While the Russian people strive to build a better country with improved conditions (after the leaders of The Other Russia destroyed the state during the 1990s), this Azeri sits amidst his western habits in his millionnaire apartment in Manhattan, New York, and speaks to foreign journalists about “dismantling” Russia’s government.

Fortunately, this mottley army of deviants, criminals, wannabe politicians, fraudsters and gangsters on the fringes of Russian society will only see the Kremlin from the Aleksandrovsky Garden. Some of them perhaps through an alcoholic haze, others through a wishful gaze.

In Kasparov’s case, it may be from a bench with a chess board in front of him, where he exerts his tremendous intelligence on the 64 squares and 32 pieces in front of him. Yes, 32, because he will not find anyone willing to sit and play with him, so he will have to play with himself.

patteeu
04-16-2007, 09:56 AM
Lefties are constantly harping about how US public opinion ratings are down in the international community and proclaiming their own innocence in the process, but when Charlie "Taco John" Sheen lend their own "credibility" to these types of conspiracy theories it feeds rising anti-Americanism more than anything the Bush administration actually does, IMO.

Even here in this thread we have tiptap bemoaning the so-called "imperial presidency" instead of just disagreeing with some of the President's positions in less extreme terms. (Although to be clear, I'm not suggesting that tiptap's "sin" is even close to the same scale as the loose change video and the Rosie O'Donnell / Charlie Sheen type support for the most looney of conspiracy theories.)

pikesome
04-16-2007, 10:04 AM
Even here in this thread we have tiptap bemoaning the so-called "imperial presidency" instead of just disagreeing with some of the President's positions in less extreme terms.

Because, in American politics, once you pick your horse you ride it in to the ground even after it's dead. You are your political beliefs, an attack on those beliefs is a personal, physical attack. Everyone who disagrees is a Fascist or a Commie or an Anti-Semite or racist or an Uncle Tom or sell out or a sexist pig or whatever insult can be thrown their way. It's only illegal or immoral if the other side does it.

And Bush is the root of all evil. And stupid.

tiptap
04-16-2007, 10:39 AM
Lefties are constantly harping about how US public opinion ratings are down in the international community and proclaiming their own innocence in the process, but when Charlie "Taco John" Sheen lend their own "credibility" to these types of conspiracy theories it feeds rising anti-Americanism more than anything the Bush administration actually does, IMO.

Even here in this thread we have tiptap bemoaning the so-called "imperial presidency" instead of just disagreeing with some of the President's positions in less extreme terms. (Although to be clear, I'm not suggesting that tiptap's "sin" is even close to the same scale as the loose change video and the Rosie O'Donnell / Charlie Sheen type support for the most looney of conspiracy theories.)

Charlie Sheen or Taco John ARE presenting particular positions. They are stating that our government was complicit, if not, involved in duplicit acts resulting in destruction of American assets. That is a long, long way from discussing, from a intellectual position about the philosophy of the workings of the Office of the President. This Presidency has sought to make war a tool of US interests and put it out there front and center. That is the position of Neocons. That is the position of this Administration. To be pro active to get in the first blow in their constitution of a War on Terror. That philosophy is central to a discussion of the reasonings of this administration. That makes an Imperial Presidency central to a discussion of the merits of this administrations actions.

If it weren't the undisputable act that Americans in the hundreds are dying, in the thousands being mamed and that thousands of Iraqi are dying we could afford to be blase about the reach of such insistance upon rather small group of isolated Executive Branch Baffoons, who see mirrored in all others, the uncharitable characterizations which they play front and center in their assertion of motive.

Eleazar
04-16-2007, 11:23 AM
I'm convinced that you could mention any negative event in all of human history, and libs will show up and say "the Bush admin is doing the same thing!" (only worse)


"So, that Turkish/Armenian genocide around the turn of the 20th century was pretty bad".

"But did they kill 1293872934723802098 Iraqis like the Bush administration has? It's been proven, here is a link to rightiesmakemepeepee.org."


"So that battle at Stalingrad, that was pretty rough."

"No rougher than what our troops face every day in Baghdad! I bet Stalingrad was safer!"


"So, that Hitler fellow wasn't such a nice guy."

"Bush makes him look like a rank amateur!"

Taco John
04-16-2007, 12:10 PM
Occams razor does not allow for WTC 7 to be the first steel framed building in the history of architecture to suffer complete and progressive collapse due to a small fire. Occams razor says that explosives had to be involved, because that is the most plausible, scientific conclusion.

The amount of scientific dominoes you have to set up in order to make a complete and progressive collapse of that building by fire makes the official government explination impossible.

I understand why many people don't want to examine the evidence and reject it out of hand. That's their perogative.

Taco John
04-16-2007, 12:15 PM
For what it's worth, I don't think Imus got fired because he was going to reveal any secrets. I think he got fired because he's an idiot.

BucEyedPea
04-16-2007, 12:18 PM
That is a long, long way from discussing, from a intellectual position about the philosophy of the workings of the Office of the President. This Presidency has sought to make war a tool of US interests and put it out there front and center. That is the position of Neocons. That is the position of this Administration.... That philosophy is central to a discussion of the reasonings of this administration. That makes an Imperial Presidency central to a discussion of the merits of this administrations actions.

You mean like relying on their own writings, in their own words, to see their point-of-view about the world and their policies for it.

The Case for American Empire (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=318 )
by Max Boot
10/15/2001, Volume 007, Issue 05
The Weekly Standard

More on American Empire…or how to maintain it. (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=6200)
Here they cry about how the liberals destroyed the British Empire...which means the liberals now are doing the same.
by Jonathan V. Last
10/21/2005 12:00:00 AM
The Weekly Standard

WHAT DOES MODERN HISTORY have to teach us about the age of American empire? The final chapters of the British Empire offer lessons and parallels aplenty.


NeoCon PNAC Watch (http://pnac.info/index.php/2005/the-weekly-standard’s-war/)

Yep, they're called "Empire Builders" by traditional conservatives.....from reading their own words. They sure left a trail of this stuff too. But this makes it a conspiracy. LMAO!

Radar Chief
04-16-2007, 12:24 PM
Occams razor does not allow for WTC 7 to be the first steel framed building in the history of architecture to suffer complete and progressive collapse due to a small fire. Occams razor says that explosives had to be involved, because that is the most plausible, scientific conclusion.

The amount of scientific dominoes you have to set up in order to make a complete and progressive collapse of that building by fire makes the official government explination impossible.

I understand why many people don't want to examine the evidence and reject it out of hand. That's their perogative.

:rolleyes: (http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/911myths/4213805.html)

http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/wtc7-430.jpg

Rosie O'Donnell 9/11 Conspiracy Comments: Popular Mechanics Responds

March 30, 2007

Recently, Rosie O’Donnell, a co-host of ABC talk show The View, made comments on the show that renewed controversy over the collapse of World Trade Center 7.
While saying she didn’t know what to believe about the U.S. government’s involvement in the attacks of Sept. 11, she said, “I do believe that it’s the first time in history that fire has ever melted steel. I do believe that it defies physics that World Trade Center tower 7—building 7, which collapsed in on itself—it is impossible for a building to fall the way it fell without explosives being involved. World Trade Center 7. World Trade [Center] 1 and 2 got hit by planes—7, miraculously, the first time in history, steel was melted by fire. It is physically impossible.”
She continued: “To say that we don’t know that it imploded, that it was an implosion and a demolition, is beyond ignorant. Look at the films, get a physics expert here [on the show] from Yale, from Harvard, pick the school—[the collapse] defies reason.” (Watch the clip here)
For those interested in what physics and demolition experts have said regarding WTC 7’s collapse, as detailed in our book Debunking 9/11 Myths, Popular Mechanics offers these notes:
1. Initial reports from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) misunderstood the amount of damage the 47-floor WTC7 sustained from the debris of the falling North Tower—because in early photographs, WTC7 was obscured by smoke and debris.
Towers 1 and 7 were approximately 300 ft. apart, and pictures like the ones here and here offer a clear visual of how small that distance is for structures that large. After further studies, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) told Popular Mechanics that debris from the 110-floor North Tower hit WTC7 with the force of a volcanic eruption. Nearly a quarter of the building was carved away over the bottom 10 stories on its south face, and significant damage was visible up to the 18th floor (see p. 24 of this report, and the screengrab below of an image of WTC7's damaged south face).

http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/WTC7-Damage.jpg

The unusual design of WTC7 is also crucial to the discussion, in that key columns supported extreme loads—as much as 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor—as the building straddled an electrical substation. “What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors,” NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder told Popular Mechanics, “it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down.” The tower wasn’t hit by a plane, but it was severely wounded by the collapse of the North Tower. Which is when the fires started.
2. The North and South Towers of the World Trade Center weren’t knocked down by planes—they both stood for more than a half-hour after the impacts. But the crashes destroyed support columns and ignited infernos that ultimately weakened—not melted—the steel structures until the towers could no longer support their own weights (NIST offers a primer here). Ms. O’Donnell fundamentally misstates the case with her use of the word “melted”: Evidence currently points to WTC7 also collapsing because fires weakened its ravaged steel structure.
Tower 7 housed the city’s emergency command center, so there were a number of fuel tanks located throughout the building—including two 6000-gal. tanks in the basement that fed some generators in the building by pressurized lines. “Our working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time,” according to Sunder. Steel melts at about 2,750 degrees Fahrenheit—but it loses strength at temperatures as low as 400 F. When temperatures break 1000 degrees F, steel loses nearly 50 percent of its strength. It is unknown what temperatures were reached inside WTC7, but fires in the building raged for seven hours before the collapse.
3. Demolition experts tell Popular Mechanics that wiring a building the size of WTC7 for clandestine demolition would present insurmountable logistical challenges. That issue aside, there’s a clear-cut engineering explanation for why the building fell the way it did. Trusses on the fifth and seventh floors of the building were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another; with the south face heavily damaged, the other columns were likely overtaxed. In engineering terms, the “progressive collapse” began on the eastern side, when weakened columns failed from the damage and fire. The entire building fell in on itself as the slumping east side dragged down the west side in a diagonal pattern. Still, damage to the Verizon Building (see p. 21 of this report), directly west of WTC7, and to Fiterman Hall (see here) directly north, show that it was hardly an orderly collapse.
NIST is currently preparing its final report on the collapse of WTC7, which is expected to be released this spring. In order to address concerns of conspiracy theorists, the organization added “Hypothetical Blast Analysis” to its research, according to a December 2006 progress report. The report also points out that “NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition.”

BucEyedPea
04-16-2007, 12:26 PM
Taco,
I accept the offical story of 9/11. I have examined the evidence and discussed it with my brother who is a structural engineer ( studied how the WTC was built as most structural engineering curriculums do) and his firm was involved in the WTC clean up. I don't see that science is unsound at all. The fuel's fire and heat are enough to weaken that steel. It's a lightweight steel building and as such has been considered an aggressive design. I read the civil engineer's report on it too. BTW, his politics are the same as mine. He's also an NRA member.

I think it's being an exploited tragedy by some though, who wanted to invade Iraq before that event. And I think that tragedy has lead to hysteria which makes the masses more controllable. Especially, the right who are more inclined to respond with force and in particular Protestant Dispensationalists who want Armageddon to convert the Jews.

StcChief
04-16-2007, 12:30 PM
Rosie would look good in a Tin foil Cossack hat.

Taco John
04-16-2007, 01:05 PM
Taco,
I accept the offical story of 9/11. I have examined the evidence and discussed it with my brother who is a structural engineer ( studied how the WTC was built as most structural engineering curriculums do) and his firm was involved in the WTC clean up. I don't see that science is unsound at all. The fuel's fire and heat are enough to weaken that steel. It's a lightweight steel building and as such has been considered an aggressive design. I read the civil engineer's report on it too. BTW, his politics are the same as mine. He's also an NRA member.

I think it's being an exploited tragedy by some though, who wanted to invade Iraq before that event. And I think that tragedy has lead to hysteria which makes the masses more controllable. Especially, the right who are more inclined to respond with force and in particular Protestant Dispensationalists who want Armageddon to convert the Jews.


Certainly, your opinion holds water with me.

I'm still skeptical of the events surrounding WTC 7. I don't have any doubt about the fact that there were terrorists in charge of the operation to put planes into buildings. I do have doubts about the extent of government knowedge into their plans (not to mention the fact that the terrorists were products of the CIA).

I think it's easy to give the benefit of a doubt on the entire matter. I think it's way too easy...

pikesome
04-16-2007, 01:28 PM
Occams razor does not allow for WTC 7 to be the first steel framed building in the history of architecture to suffer complete and progressive collapse due to a small fire. Occams razor says that explosives had to be involved, because that is the most plausible, scientific conclusion.

The amount of scientific dominoes you have to set up in order to make a complete and progressive collapse of that building by fire makes the official government explination impossible.

I understand why many people don't want to examine the evidence and reject it out of hand. That's their perogative.

Occam's Razor works both ways though. It's hard for me to buy that the Gov could have participated in this, it would have required a massive and complicated operation. Even deleting some email seems to be too hard to hide.

BucEyedPea
04-16-2007, 01:34 PM
(not to mention the fact that the terrorists were products of the CIA).
That's interesting. I haven't heard this one anywhere. I'd like to hear how.

I'll tell you what I did find fishy:
Our incredibly competent intel and investigative services not knowing anything at all—that it was a complete surprise and the standown by Norad. I find that incredibly hard to accept. Norad works fine all year every year. I did read right after in the mainstream press that the US was informed by the French and Mossad when it was near. They've known how dangerous binLaden was for awhile. I know a man from another NFL board who claims to work for Norad here in Tampa. He said there was just confusion and incompetence combined. One never knows about these things. But I could buy, someone could have known and didn't pass it on up.

I do think the way info was shared contributed due to old laws from the 70's. But all that was needed was to reform those areas not set up a new huge massive bureaucracy like the Dept of Homeland Security. A huge bureacracy would be less efficient and responsive according to limited govt conservative philosophy reasoning. And these are conservatives in charge? wtf?

Logical
04-16-2007, 02:12 PM
I love it when Occam's Razor is bandied about. It basically say for those who are not informed that all things being equal the simplest solution is the most logical. I am not sure how an all things being equal principle can be applied to anything that occured on 9-11.

Logical
04-16-2007, 02:17 PM
:rolleyes: (http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/911myths/4213805.html)

http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/wtc7-430.jpg



http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/WTC7-Damage.jpgThe flaw with all this is the damage indicates the building should have fell to the direct of the corner damaged, not in on itself.

Radar Chief
04-16-2007, 02:26 PM
The flaw with all this is the damage indicates the building should have fell to the direct of the corner damaged, not in on itself.

The lead investigator from the National Institute of Standards and Technology disagrees with you.

The unusual design of WTC7 is also crucial to the discussion, in that key columns supported extreme loads—as much as 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor—as the building straddled an electrical substation. “What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors,” NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder told Popular Mechanics, “it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down.” The tower wasn’t hit by a plane, but it was severely wounded by the collapse of the North Tower. Which is when the fires started.

Logical
04-16-2007, 02:29 PM
The lead investigator from the National Institute of Standards and Technology disagrees with you.He is not saying the building would collapse in on itself there, he is say the structual loads would lead to a progressive collapse, ie like an accordion.

BucEyedPea
04-16-2007, 02:31 PM
Originally Posted by Popular Mechanics
The unusual design of WTC7 is also crucial to the discussion, “What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors,” NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder told Popular Mechanics, “it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down.”
This is one thing my brother pointed out....all these WTC buildings,were based an unusual design. It's this aspect that's not fully understand.IIRC he said Bldg 7 follows the same as the others. They're not like regular buildings which are made of reinforced steel and concrete.

Radar Chief
04-16-2007, 02:33 PM
He is not saying the building would collapse in on itself there, he is say the structual loads would lead to a progressive collapse, ie like an accordion.

:spock: He’s also not say’n that the damage would cause the building to collapse to it’s south, but whatever. :shrug:

StcChief
04-16-2007, 03:58 PM
So can we torch the WTC conspiracy and the Tin Foil hats too?

patteeu
04-16-2007, 05:15 PM
(not to mention the fact that the terrorists were products of the CIA).


Don't keep mum, please mention a link. :)

Taco John
04-16-2007, 10:19 PM
I probably shouldn't have said "fact that" when what I meant to say was "linked to." I ran across the information during the Able Danger discovery, and as I recall, at the very least Atta may have been a CIA intelligence asset.

Here is a link that connects the CIA to Al Queda:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO206A.html


If I recall correctly, Osama's CIA name was "Tim Osman."

patteeu
04-17-2007, 06:58 AM
I probably shouldn't have said "fact that" when what I meant to say was "linked to." I ran across the information during the Able Danger discovery, and as I recall, at the very least Atta may have been a CIA intelligence asset.

Here is a link that connects the CIA to Al Queda:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO206A.html


If I recall correctly, Osama's CIA name was "Tim Osman."

Maybe you should have said "linked to by a bunch of acid-tripping morons" instead. :bong:

(FTR, I'm referring to the people making up this nonsense, not you.)

What I don't understand is why elements within the US government would go to the trouble of secretly creating Osama bin Laden, funding Mohammed Atta, and blowing up WTC 7 in order to start some big war in the Middle East, but they don't bother to plant a few WMD stockpiles in Iraq to make sure our crusade doesn't get immediately discredited. :shrug:

BTW, Tim Osman (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0652073/) was a grip in Home Alone 3 and Field of Dreams.

Seriously, this is all entertaining stuff, but after wading through several websites talking about this stuff, I still haven't come across any credible evidence of what you are talking about.

TrickyNicky
04-17-2007, 07:46 AM
Its been a while since I've seen Loose Change, but how long was the alleged window of time that there could have been bombs planted in both towers?

FishingRod
04-17-2007, 01:40 PM
Occams razor does not allow for WTC 7 to be the first steel framed building in the history of architecture to suffer complete and progressive collapse due to a small fire.


Small fire??? I guess the Hindenburg was a cute little balloon.