I'm pretty sure this building is going to collapse - Sharjah Skyscraper!

reply to post by SimontheMagus

I'm not going to quote the whole thing, it's too long. You have to read it. Then you have to refrain from lying about whats in it.

I'm afraid that would be impossible sir.

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst

 

Can you PLEASE do more than just breeze through Wikipedia before you comment. You package C4 in flame retardant gel -- or whatever.

I read the whole article before posting. I have handled C-4, powder and gel explosives.(oops, forgot ANFO)

Can you ever admit to what you post?
You said that C-4 is highly flame retardant.
Nothing could be further from the truth.

So your response is that I don't read? Then you say this....."You package C4 in flame retardant gel -- or whatever."
Whatever? I guess that means that you have researched 'whatever' you think that they packaged the C-4 in????

edit on 2-5-2012 by butcherguy because: to add

We are talking about IGNITING C4 -- so it needs heat and a hard shock -- just burning it won't set it off -- so yes, you can burn it like a log on a fire -- but as far as it letting everyone know that a building is primed to implode because there is a fire -- no. C4 in a fire retardant gel, with an electronic primer cap, brass plate == quick and easy cutting of an I-Beam. Couple that with some painted on thermite and the same kind of rig to start if off and you've got yourself all the equipment you need to remotely remove supports on a building.

We can debate if that's what happened -- but it isn't the least impossible, farfetched, and nothing about this would have given us a result any more unusual than this nonsense about fires bringing down steel buildings -- much less at freefall.

>> I've handled a cougar before but that hardly makes me a lion tamer.

Originally posted by maxella1

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by maxella1


link

link

You people are a bunch of clowns . lol

edit on 3-5-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)

Yeah that totally proves that it's a crime because Dick Cheney is in jail now.

Jeez...

It proves something else, wiseguy!

Then why did you post it?

You were purporting to show that this was a crime. Absurdly your link - either because you are naive or because you didn't think this through properly - shows no such thing. Do you understand that that damages your credibilty and makes you look a bit silly?

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by maxella1

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by maxella1


link

link

You people are a bunch of clowns . lol

edit on 3-5-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)

Yeah that totally proves that it's a crime because Dick Cheney is in jail now.

Jeez...

It proves something else, wiseguy!

Then why did you post it?

You were purporting to show that this was a crime. Absurdly your link - either because you are naive or because you didn't think this through properly - shows no such thing. Do you understand that that damages your credibilty and makes you look a bit silly?

Lol, you guys.
You can't fix stupid, so I won't even try.
Maybe when you'll grow up a little you'll understand how stupid you make Americans look to the rest of the world.

Originally posted by sunnybrae

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by SimontheMagus

 

That is a 5 year old article and does absolutely nothing to substantiate a "standown" order. Who issued it ? When ? to whom ?

Norman Mineta never for a second suggests there might have been a standown order. His testimony can be pretty much summed up in this exchange :

Not so fast Alfie.

Norman Mineta Testimony in the 9/11 investigation.

Norman gives an account about the "stand down" orders.

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

edit on 3-5-2012 by sunnybrae because: (no reason given)

I am sorry but there is absolutely nothing in there about a "standown order" to NORAD. I can't believe how this stuff continues to be served up.

It couldn't be plainer that Norman Minetta only talks with reference to a shootdown order. If you don't agree please point to precisely where he is referring to a standown order.

reply to post by VitriolAndAngst

I told you to come back with something better than this.

Black smoke, white smoke. Modern steel making facilities use scrubbers on the exhaust to minimize pollution so what you see is white smoke. 19th century smelting was done without any EPA constraints and had a whole other look. Try and imagine what this "looks like":


Did you see twin something there?
Now stop with the color of smoke stuff...K?

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
You were purporting to show that this was a crime. Absurdly your link - either because you are naive or because you didn't think this through properly - shows no such thing. Do you understand that that damages your credibilty and makes you look a bit silly?

Which is really the only weapon that OS'ers have. Discredit the people trying to find the truth. Certainly neither the facts nor logic is on your side.

To those of you readers who may not fully understand what the "911 Commission Hearings" were all about, they were certainly never about getting to the truth of 911. From the beginning, they were all about COVERING UP the truth. There is no greater of evidence of this than the fact that Bush, who like his Superior, yes Superior, Dick Cheney, were never called to testify but instead gave their testimony in PRIVATE (what an outrage in itself), originally tried to get the world's greatest liar, mass murderer, thief, top Bilderberg mastermind and criminally insane psychopath HENRY KISSINGER, of "useless eater" fame, to head up the "Commission".

So you must realize that all of the interrogations were designed to try and trip up or discredit the highly qualified first-hand witnesses, most of them high-ranking military and Intelligence people. They were looking to protect the perps. All their testimony was thrown out because of "National Security" and the gov't exercised "State Secret Privilege". Just one example: Sibel Edmonds.... www.justacitizen.com... ....... FBI translator who tried for months to alert her superiors about the information she was intercepting, and instead of acting on those warnings, John Ashcroft threatened her life.

Rest assured, when you hear "National Security", the only thing being threatened is their own asses.

Originally posted by Alfie1
It couldn't be plainer that Norman Minetta only talks with reference to a shootdown order. If you don't agree please point to precisely where he is referring to a standown order.

You still haven't read the article. It answers you.

You're hopeless. I will now be ignoring your posts.

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
You were purporting to show that this was a crime. Absurdly your link - either because you are naive or because you didn't think this through properly - shows no such thing. Do you understand that that damages your credibilty and makes you look a bit silly?

Which is really the only weapon that OS'ers have. Discredit the people trying to find the truth. Certainly neither the facts nor logic is on your side.

To those of you readers who may not fully understand what the "911 Commission Hearings" were all about, they were certainly never about getting to the truth of 911. From the beginning, they were all about COVERING UP the truth. There is no greater of evidence of this than the fact that Bush, who like his Superior, yes Superior, Dick Cheney, were never called to testify but instead gave their testimony in PRIVATE (what an outrage in itself), originally tried to get the world's greatest liar, mass murderer, thief, top Bilderberg mastermind and criminally insane psychopath HENRY KISSINGER, of "useless eater" fame, to head up the "Commission".

So you must realize that all of the interrogations were designed to try and trip up or discredit the highly qualified first-hand witnesses, most of them high-ranking military and Intelligence people. They were looking to protect the perps. All their testimony was thrown out because of "National Security" and the gov't exercised "State Secret Privilege". Just one example: Sibel Edmonds.... www.justacitizen.com... ....... FBI translator who tried for months to alert her superiors about the information she was intercepting, and instead of acting on those warnings, John Ashcroft threatened her life.

Rest assured, when you hear "National Security", the only thing being threatened is their own asses.

Couldn’t have said it better myself.

Sibel Edmonds has a new book out :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by 4hero

Originally posted by Mianeye
reply to post by JibbyJedi

 

I'm still waiting for my wood stove and barbecue grill outside to turn to dust and melt under the intense heat. That steel isn't even close to the quality used for those towers, yet my grill and stove are doing great after many many years of constant use.

Are you still drunk

How much weight is on top of your stove/grill

Lets just pretend their were planes involved on 9/11 for a minute, if hypothetically they did crash, then the amount of weight at the top that did collapse is not enough to pulverise the huge solid mass below it!
Maybe it's you that is drunk?

I am not an expert but I do believe that there would have been some resistance involved in the collapse of WTC1 and 2 when the top portions of the building literally fell into the lower sections of the building. In my opinion they should of at least toppled to one side of the other. (any research on that?) The building was pulverized all the way down to its foundation like it vaporized.

There are some people on the boards saying there were witnesses who saw the building "bowing" to one side or the other because of the damage. Wouldnt it make sense the top halves of the building would slide off on the most damaged side instead of straight down into the path of most resistance? (I am not a physics major but it seems logical to me)

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Originally posted by Alfie1
It couldn't be plainer that Norman Minetta only talks with reference to a shootdown order. If you don't agree please point to precisely where he is referring to a standown order.

You still haven't read the article. It answers you.

You're hopeless. I will now be ignoring your posts.

All I am asking is for someone, anyone, to point out to me exactly where Norman Minetta has ever referred to a standown order to NORAD.

All I get is fluff , obfuscation and irrelevant youtube clips.

reply to post by takaris7

There are some people on the boards saying there were witnesses who saw the building "bowing" to one side or the other because of the damage. Wouldnt it make sense the top halves of the building would slide off on the most damaged side instead of straight down into the path of most resistance? (I am not a physics major but it seems logical to me)

Yes it would make sense but then you would be a conspiracy theorist.

reply to post by SimontheMagus

Which is really the only weapon that OS'ers have. Discredit the people trying to find the truth. Certainly neither the facts nor logic is on your side.

You discredit yourself.

Like I have asked before please state the person and the exact crime.

If it was Cheney you need to show that ordering a shoot down, that was never accepted by the military was actually a crime.

If you can't then you are making your self look bad by claiming something that isn't true.

Originally posted by maxella1

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by maxella1

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by maxella1


link

link

You people are a bunch of clowns . lol

edit on 3-5-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)

Yeah that totally proves that it's a crime because Dick Cheney is in jail now.

Jeez...

It proves something else, wiseguy!

Then why did you post it?

You were purporting to show that this was a crime. Absurdly your link - either because you are naive or because you didn't think this through properly - shows no such thing. Do you understand that that damages your credibilty and makes you look a bit silly?

Lol, you guys.
You can't fix stupid, so I won't even try.
Maybe when you'll grow up a little you'll understand how stupid you make Americans look to the rest of the world.

According to Cheney he had the President's approval from a telephone conversation that morning. Has GWB ever contradicted that ?

If the order was illegal are you doing anything about bringing it to the attention of law enforcement ?

I really couldn't care less either way on the legality but it is interesting that you obviously don't doubt that Cheney issued a shootdown order. So you don't agree with the old truther canard that a standown order was issued because plainly standown and shootdown are not compatible.

reply to post by takaris7

Wouldnt it make sense the top halves of the building would slide off on the most damaged side instead of straight down into the path of most resistance? (I am not a physics major but it seems logical to me)

Not at all.

The design was planned for a vertical load. Once the top section tilted all bets were off.
Remember the Titanic tilted and tore in half.

reply to post by VitriolAndAngst

C4 in a fire retardant gel, with an electronic primer cap, brass plate == quick and easy cutting of an I-Beam

You do realize that controlled demolitions of steel structures doesn't involve just slapping some C-4 on a beam, right?
They use linear shaped charges to cut beams to direct the blast through the beam. the amount of C-4 that you would have to wad onto a beam to cut through it would make a huge explosion and would have been dreadfully more obvious than a cutting charge before the explosion.

Couple that with some painted on thermite

Have you ever seen thermite in action?
Do you know how it works?
Can you show me some proof of 'painted on' thermite ever cutting through a steel beam?

I've handled a cougar before but that hardly makes me a lion tamer.

That's cool.
More importantly though, since you are speaking on the subject of explosives and demolition.... have you handled explosives? When i say handled, I am not talking about touchy feely. I have loaded, tamped, primed, set and detonated those that I listed.

Originally posted by takaris7

Originally posted by 4hero

Originally posted by Mianeye
reply to post by JibbyJedi

 

I'm still waiting for my wood stove and barbecue grill outside to turn to dust and melt under the intense heat. That steel isn't even close to the quality used for those towers, yet my grill and stove are doing great after many many years of constant use.

Are you still drunk

How much weight is on top of your stove/grill

Lets just pretend their were planes involved on 9/11 for a minute, if hypothetically they did crash, then the amount of weight at the top that did collapse is not enough to pulverise the huge solid mass below it!
Maybe it's you that is drunk?

I am not an expert but I do believe that there would have been some resistance involved in the collapse of WTC1 and 2 when the top portions of the building literally fell into the lower sections of the building. In my opinion they should of at least toppled to one side of the other. (any research on that?) The building was pulverized all the way down to its foundation like it vaporized.

There are some people on the boards saying there were witnesses who saw the building "bowing" to one side or the other because of the damage. Wouldnt it make sense the top halves of the building would slide off on the most damaged side instead of straight down into the path of most resistance? (I am not a physics major but it seems logical to me)

You know NIST spent quite a bit of time and money on their World Trade Center Disaster Study and employed more PhD's than you can shake a stick at.

Given that you admit you are not qualified at all then what seems logical to you is really of no more relevance than your opinions on brain surgery or nuclear physics.

Have you read the NIST report ?

reply to post by Alfie1

According to Cheney he had the President's approval from a telephone conversation that morning. Has GWB ever contradicted that ?

Link

At about 10:15, a uniformed military aide came into the room to tell me that a plane, believed hijacked, was eighty miles out and headed for D.C. He asked me whether our combat air patrol had authority to engage the aircraft. Did our fighter pilots have authority, in other words, to shoot down an American commercial airliner believed to have been hijacked? “Yes,” I said without hesitation. A moment later he was back. “Mr. Vice President, it’s sixty miles out. Do they have authorization to engage?” Again, yes.

Link

When the country was attacked on the morning Sept. 11, 2001, Mr. Bush was in Florida and Vice President Cheney was in a command bunker beneath the White House. Asked whether the military should shoot down an apparently hijacked plane, Mr. Cheney authorized them to do so. Josh Bolten, a White House aide who was also in the bunker, then asked Mr. Cheney to call Mr. Bush to "confirm" that order; the vice president is not part of the military chain of command. (As it turned out, the question was moot: all four hijacked planes had already crashed.) Later, Mr. Cheney and Mr. Bush told the 9/11 Commission that there had been an earlier phone call in which the president had previously given the vice president authorization to deliver a shoot-down order if necessary. But the 9/11 Commission found "no documentary evidence for this call" amid numerous communications logs and contemporaneous notes from the White House bunker and Mr. Bush’s airplane.

Maybe you can answer why would the White House aide who was also in the bunker, then asked Mr. Cheney to call Mr. Bush to "confirm" that order?

reply to post by butcherguy

When i say handled, I am not talking about touchy feely. I have loaded, tamped, primed, set and detonated those that I listed.

Don't worry they are not going to let reality get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by Alfie1

 

According to Cheney he had the President's approval from a telephone conversation that morning. Has GWB ever contradicted that ?

Link

At about 10:15, a uniformed military aide came into the room to tell me that a plane, believed hijacked, was eighty miles out and headed for D.C. He asked me whether our combat air patrol had authority to engage the aircraft. Did our fighter pilots have authority, in other words, to shoot down an American commercial airliner believed to have been hijacked? “Yes,” I said without hesitation. A moment later he was back. “Mr. Vice President, it’s sixty miles out. Do they have authorization to engage?” Again, yes.

Link

When the country was attacked on the morning Sept. 11, 2001, Mr. Bush was in Florida and Vice President Cheney was in a command bunker beneath the White House. Asked whether the military should shoot down an apparently hijacked plane, Mr. Cheney authorized them to do so. Josh Bolten, a White House aide who was also in the bunker, then asked Mr. Cheney to call Mr. Bush to "confirm" that order; the vice president is not part of the military chain of command. (As it turned out, the question was moot: all four hijacked planes had already crashed.) Later, Mr. Cheney and Mr. Bush told the 9/11 Commission that there had been an earlier phone call in which the president had previously given the vice president authorization to deliver a shoot-down order if necessary. But the 9/11 Commission found "no documentary evidence for this call" amid numerous communications logs and contemporaneous notes from the White House bunker and Mr. Bush’s airplane.

Maybe you can answer why would the White House aide who was also in the bunker, then asked Mr. Cheney to call Mr. Bush to "confirm" that order?

Because the aide wasn't aware of the earlier telephone conversation between the Vice President and the President ?

But, as I said, if someone wants to charge Cheney with something that is fine by me. My only interest is that a shootdown order, which you evidently don't doubt, is incompatible with an "inside job" and a "standown order".