The Proven Government Liars Re: 9/11

Originally posted by KnowItAll
HUH?
Guess that's it then.....if you said it, must all be true....I do not understand the relevence to 911 of some of your refernences.

Cheney and Colin Powell Lied about Iraq Evidence
www.pbs.org...

The FEMA and the EPA Lied About the Air Quality At Ground Zero
www.cbsnews.com...
www.nydailynews.com...

Libby Lied to the FBI to Aid the Coverup
link

Perhaps I just don't understand...but how are these relevent to 911?

[Mod Edit: Link format edited. Please review this post. thank you - Jak]


[edit on 7/9/06 by JAK]

I honestly do not know why you came to a conspiracy site to act the way you do.

Explain why you even came here in the first place? That post by slap didn't make sense to you? Honestly? No joke? Wow. It takes a special one like you to follow the 9/11 commision/NIST/government story with out a single question and no shred of doubt.

I am not sure what was so hard to understand so Il use laymens terms.

Government lies about every major event = a government with something to hide.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by snoopy
You have this notion that they are simply going to retain their shape and epxand outward.

Everytime I've done calculations for expansion of steel, it has been that they expand outward. What are they going to do? Twist?

It simply does not work that way.

Yes it does....do a little research into the expansion of steel and the thermal expansion coefficient.

But again, you are better off reading the NIST report which can do a far better job of explaining than I ever can since those guys are experts in the matter and not you or I.

While not an expert, I think I have enough qualifications to discuss this material.

It expands outwards you say? But yet you are pretty much arguing that it doesn't. So when it expands outwards, what is going to happen to the columns it's attached to? When it cools, and contracts, that's going to happen to the columns it is attacked to? When it becomes soft, what effect is gravity going to have on it? If you have an uncooked piece of spagetti and hold it horizontel it's going to make a straight line. If you make it wet so it is soft, what is it going to do? It's going to sag is it not? So when steel becomes hot enough to be soft, is it not going to behave in the same way?

I am not implying that you are not qualified to discuss the material, b ut you are also implying that you are more qualified than the scientists who did the studies. All 200 of them. My point being that this is not my argument, it's theirs. I am not the one coming up with these ideas as I have no expertise. i am merely passing along theirs and noted how they are much better at explaining it than I am in the reports.

The story is really about hi-jackers

Why is the USA powerless against it's own government?

What led to 911? The story is truly about hijackers. Individuals who hijacked,
not a plane, but a country. It seems they like to drown us with double meanings and their apparent incline for numerology.

Originally posted by snoopy

Look at it this way. The trussese get soft and sag in the middle.

what is your evidence of this? Please locate some evidence that this behavior actually ocured.

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Originally posted by snoopy

Look at it this way. The trussese get soft and sag in the middle.

what is your evidence of this? Please locate some evidence that this behavior actually ocured.

The NIST report.

Slap Nuts,

Can you explain to Snoopy how steel expands please. I just don't have the patience anymore.

Snoopy,

You say NIST is your proof, yet NIST doesn't show an conclusive evidence of sagging floor trusses. Try doing some research instead of just paroting the NIST report.

Originally posted by snoopy

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Originally posted by snoopy

Look at it this way. The trussese get soft and sag in the middle.

what is your evidence of this? Please locate some evidence that this behavior actually ocured.

The NIST report.

I asked fopr EVIDENE... not conjecture. Do they show a PHOTO of a bent truss? Can they produce on for us?

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by snoopy
You do the math.

Ok I'll do the math.

Coefficient of thermal expansion of steel: 7.3 in./in. degree F x10 exp. -6

Sorce: www.engineeringtoolbox.com...


62 feet = 744 inches 38 feet = 456inches

let's start with 200 C and go up to 100C
200C = 392F
300C = 572F
400C = 752F
500C = 932F
600C = 1112F
700C = 1292F
800C = 1472F
900C = 1652F
1000C = 1832F

7.3 x 744 inch. x 392F x 10 exp -6 = 2.129 inches.

let's just skip to 1000C shall we.

7.3 x 744 inch. x 1832F x 10 exp -6 = 9.95 inches.

So, even at 1000C the steel expanded almost 10 inches. You really think that is going to push on the columns enough to have them buckle? Keep in mind the elastomeric dampener. I'm not sure but I think it was 4 inches? That's 4 inches on both sides = 8 inches. So, 2 inches of elongation is going to buckled those huge steel columns? BTW, the steel trusses would have bowed before they would have put any kind of pressure on the columns. Try it yourself. Get paperclip and unbend it. Now try and push that against a rod of bigger diameter. Does the paperclip make the rod bend or does the paperclip bend itself before the rod?

Also, good point Slap Nuts.....the steel would go to it's original length when cooled....not shrink. Is that enough math for you Snoopy?

If I'm wrong in any of my assumptions or calculations...please let me know so I can change it.

How we got onto this subject I'm not sure when the title of the thread is government liars? back to topic.

Snoopy, here is the explination of how steel expands and why it would not have shrank.

For the LAST time.

Sorry to going off topic on here...but I guess NIST lying to us counts?

Does NIST really expect us to believe that 2 inches of expansion (if the temperature of the steel reached 1000C) is enough to bow a column? I mean, the outer columns were designed for hurricane winds, earth quake forces, ect. But a truss (that is something like an inch in diameter steel) is going to produce enough force to bow a column. I don't think so. The trusses would have sagged before affecting the columns IMO.

Let's do the same calculation for the maximun temperature NIST says 700C.

7.3 X 744 inch x 1292F x 10 exp. -6 = 7.02 inches. That is LESS than the dampener of 4 inches on each side. Right there blows the NIST truss pushing and pulling theory....by their own evidence. Again they assume something and don't back it up with empirical data or other evidence.

Edit to add:

Even if I'm wrong in my assumption of there being a dampener at both ends....a concrete floor slab of the size of the WTC buildings (trusses, etc.) would have many control joints to account for the steel expansion. Or we would see this in every office fire in a steel building. But I'm sure people will come on here and say....nah uh....the WTC was shotty and they didn't have this or that.

[edit on 9/12/2006 by Griff]

Griff,

The NIST has changed their story so many times I do not really count them as "liars".

They use other methods, "tweaked" models, ignoring evidence, dodging questions, evasive answers, etc. One could consider these lies so I guess you are right, but I cannot find an exact quotation where they have 100%, without a doubt lied lied. I will keep looking.

The reason is they NEVER TALK... they let their papers do the talking for them... The papers are very carefully crafted to avoid a direct lie but to employ all of the tactics I outlined above.

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
The papers are very carefully crafted to avoid a direct lie but to employ all of the tactics I outlined above.

Being an engineer yourself, you know that's a totally engineering way of writing things. I always write...at the time of inspection (in case something changed after I've left site) or appears to be. Engineers don't use definitive wording.

I guess you're right about NIST....I wouldn't call them lying either. I truely believe they are doing what they feel is right. The only beef I have with them is they started with a preconcieved notion and fit their data, calculations and modeling after that and ignored everything else.

Originally posted by Griff
The only beef I have with them is they started with a preconcieved notion and fit their data, calculations and modeling after that and ignored everything else.

Backwards science to fit the story they were given.

They are PATSYS, they know it and they deserve to be punished...

I just do not have a "direct quote" from public record showing they lied.

Did I mention Colin Powell is a LIAR:

"We know that he has been working hard on developing a means to disseminate those weapons…. We have evidence that he has been looking at aerial vehicles."

Then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, Sept. 8, 2002

Committee finding:

• "Postwar findings do not support the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) assessments that Iraq had a developmental program for Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) 'probably intended to deliver biological agents' or that an effort to procure U.S. mapping software 'strongly suggests that Iraq is investigating the use of these UAVs for missions targeting the United States.' Postwar findings support the view of the Air Force, joined by the DIA [Defense Intelligence Agency] and the Army, in an NIE published in January 2003, that Iraq's UAVs were primarily intended for reconnaissance."

The ALL lied about thsi unimportant stuff:

1. Postwar findings do not support the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) judgment that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Information obtained after the war supports the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research's (INR) assessment in the NIE that the Intelligence Community lacked persuasive evidence that Baghdad had launched a coherent effort to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program.
2. Postwar findings do not support the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) assessment that Iraq's acquisiton of high-strength aluminum tubes was intended for an Iraqi nuclear program. The findings do spport the assessments in the NIE of the Department of energy's Office of Intelligence and the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) that the aluminum tubes were likely intended for a conventional rocket program.
3. Postwar findings do not support the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) assessment that Iraq was "vigorously trying to procure uranium ore and yellowcake" from Africa. Postwar findings support the assessment in the NIE of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) that claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are "highly dubious".
4. Postwar findings do not support the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) assessment that "Iraq has biological weapons" and that "all key aspects of Iraq's offensive biological weapons (BW) program are larger and more advanced than before the Gulf War."
5. Postwar findings do not support the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) assessment that Iraq possessed, or ever developed, mobile facilites for producing biological warfare (BW) agents.
6. Concerns existed within the Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA) Directorate of Operations (DO) prior to the war about the credibility of the mobile biological weapons program source code-named CURVE BALL. . . .
7. Postwar findings do not support the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) assessments that Iraq "has chemical weapons" or "is expanding its chemical industry to support chemical weapons (CW) production."
8. Postwar findings support the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) assessment that Iraq had missiles which exceeded United Nations (UN) range limits. The findings do not support the assessment that Iraq likely retained a covert force of SCUD variant short range ballistic missiles (SRBMS).
9. Postwar findings do not support the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) assessments that Iraq had a developmental program for an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) "probably intended to deliver biological agents: or that an effort to procure U.S. mapping software "strongly suggests that Iraq is investigating the use of these UAVs for missions targeting the United States." Postwar findings support the view of the Air Force, joined by DIA and the Army, in an NIE published in January 2003, that Iraq's UAVs were primarily intended for reconnaissance.

Crediting Wolfofwar on this one BUT...

RUMSFELD TOLD THE TRUTH ONCE:

"I think all of us have a sense if we imagine the kind of world we would face if the people who bombed the mess hall in Mosul, or the people who did the bombing in Spain, or the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania and attacked the Pentagon, the people who cut off peoples' heads on television to intimidate, to frighten – indeed the word 'terrorized' is just that. Its purpose is to terrorize, to alter behavior, to make people be something other than that which they want to be."

BTW, for anyone interested...

here is a full list of the questions that have yet to be answered...

they aren't really lies, they are parts that are being ignored so that they dont have to lie...

and many deserve answers...
questions that our leaders should be obligated to answer.

there are many questions, that point to absolute neglegence on the part of our government surrounding 9-11...
19 muslims may have done the job, but if our government had not failed in so many crucial ways, many less than 3000 would have died...

Originally posted by Griff
Slap Nuts,

Can you explain to Snoopy how steel expands please. I just don't have the patience anymore.

Snoopy,

You say NIST is your proof, yet NIST doesn't show an conclusive evidence of sagging floor trusses. Try doing some research instead of just paroting the NIST report.

Yes they do. It's the primary basis of their theory. And it's a proprty of metal. Actually it's a property of physics not exculsive to metals. Guess how they shape metal. it's not magic, they heat it up. Those steel trusses didn't get intot their shapes via osmsis, it was heat. And that same heat is going to change their shape after the fact as well. So you get it soft from heat, and add gravity, what's going to happen? It's going to sag. It's going to sag at the weakest point, which is not going to be th points that are connected to the columns, thus it will sag at the middle.

Like all things, Steel will contract whern it cools down. If it contracts while connected to the inner and outer cores, what's going to happen? It's going to pull them twards it, or it's going to seperate from them and fall down. Ehnce the visible buckling and the collapse.

Originally posted by snoopy

Like all things, Steel will contract whern it cools down. If it contracts while connected to the inner and outer cores, what's going to happen? It's going to pull them twards it, or it's going to seperate from them and fall down. Ehnce the visible buckling and the collapse.

Obviously you are not understanding this. When the steel is at room temperature it is a certain length. When it is heated it will expand. When it cools back down to room temperature (the same temperature it started out as) it will NOT contract anymore than what it started out as. BTW, there is no way it would have "cooled" to room temperature if the fires were blazing like we are suppossed to believe.

Tell me Snoopy, how is the steel that has been heated by this ONGOING fire going to cool? BTW, room temperature is the minumum temperature it could cool down to....unless there was a refrigerant in the towers to take the steel down BELOW room temperature. How is that possible in a fire?

Also, this arguement is moot anyway because the floors would have had control joints built in to accommodate expansion and contraction. Or as I've said before, every single steel structure in the world would be failing due to office fires. Or is the WTC steel the only steel that expands in fire? I'm not argueing with you anymore on this point.

Bottom line is the steel could and can NOT contract to less than it's original length....it's impossible.......unless the temperature in the fire somehow magically became LESS than room temperature. Period.

BTW, when steel cools it attains it's original strength along with it's original length. So, NIST and you are saying that the steel heated up enough to loose strength but then cooled enough to pull on the columns. They and you can NOT have it both ways. Either it heated and expanded or it cooled and gained it's strength back. Again, I am done trying to explain this common law of thermal expansion to you.

Originally posted by Griff

Ok I'll do the math.

Coefficient of thermal expansion of steel: 7.3 in./in. degree F x10 exp. -6

Sorce: www.engineeringtoolbox.com...


62 feet = 744 inches 38 feet = 456inches

let's start with 200 C and go up to 100C
200C = 392F
300C = 572F
400C = 752F
500C = 932F
600C = 1112F
700C = 1292F
800C = 1472F
900C = 1652F
1000C = 1832F

7.3 x 744 inch. x 392F x 10 exp -6 = 2.129 inches.

let's just skip to 1000C shall we.

7.3 x 744 inch. x 1832F x 10 exp -6 = 9.95 inches.

So, even at 1000C the steel expanded almost 10 inches. You really think that is going to push on the columns enough to have them buckle? Keep in mind the elastomeric dampener. I'm not sure but I think it was 4 inches? That's 4 inches on both sides = 8 inches. So, 2 inches of elongation is going to buckled those huge steel columns? BTW, the steel trusses would have bowed before they would have put any kind of pressure on the columns. Try it yourself. Get paperclip and unbend it. Now try and push that against a rod of bigger diameter. Does the paperclip make the rod bend or does the paperclip bend itself before the rod?

I actually messed up a little on my calculations. It's the difference in temperature not the temperature. My cals are for steel at 0C.

If we want to get technical, we have to take the difference in temperature from room temperature and not 0C. So, if we start with say 70F...we can all agree that is around room temperature right?

ok...here goes again.

200C = 392F

So, if we take the difference we get....322F

So the expansion would be 1.75 inch.

1000C = 1832F

Difference makes it....1762F

So the expansion is 9.56 inch.

700C = 1292F

Difference is....1222F

Expansion is 6.64 inch.

Not much of a difference but wanted to make things technical. I'm surprised all the smarter people than me on here haven't called me out on that yet. So, Snoopy as you can see, for there to be contraction of the steel, the difference in temperature had to be a negative. That means the temperature of the steel would have had to have been LOWER than 70F. How does that happen in a fire?

Originally posted by Griff
Tell me Snoopy, how is the steel that has been heated by this ONGOING fire going to cool? BTW, room temperature is the minumum temperature it could cool down to....unless there was a refrigerant in the towers to take the steel down BELOW room temperature. How is that possible in a fire?

you will get no answer from snoopy regardign this question.