Why The Physics Community Is A Historical Laughing Stock

wrote:

Vandar wrote:

Schoenfeld wrote:


John P. wrote:


"Schoenfeld" wrote in a message



An examination of this video
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...32340306101329
reveals that the collapse of WTC 7 started at second 17 and completedat
second 23. That is a total of 6 seconds.

Funny how a 6 second clip of the collapse shows the collapse taking 6
seconds. Of course, if you watch the entire collapse, from the beginning,
when the mechanical penthouse falls into the building, then you find it
actually tool at least 13 seconds.


Denying reality won't make it go away.

Don't let that stop you.


Your link does not work for me, and here is ANOTHER showing 6 second
collapse (use sound for precision timing).

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...88991907845273

And here's one showing the 13 second collapse John referred to:
http://911research.com/wtc/evidence/...html#building7
You want the one titled "CBS video of Building 7 collapse".


Rather than finding refuge in fantasy, bother to examine that video you
cite and and observe the 6 second freefall collapse, just like the
other videos show, just like controlled demolition predicts.

So you plan to just ignore the penthouse collapse repeat the same ****
over again?

"Schoenfeld" wrote in a message

Funny how a 6 second clip of the collapse shows the collapse taking 6
seconds. Of course, if you watch the entire collapse, from the beginning,
when the mechanical penthouse falls into the building, then you find it
actually tool at least 13 seconds.

Denying reality won't make it go away.

That's true... but it will give you hundreds of pages of conspiracy
theories.

Your link does not work for me, and here is ANOTHER showing 6 second
collapse (use sound for precision timing).
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...88991907845273

Wow. It's amazing how 6 second clips of the last part of the collapse show
the collapse taking 6 seconds!

Do you have a link that shows the collapse... including the beginning of it?

http://s24.photobucket.com/albums/c2...NewsReport.flv

WTC 7 collapse starts at about 3:24 and ends around 3:37. 13 seconds.

wrote:

John P. wrote:

"Schoenfeld" wrote in a message


An examination of this video
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...32340306101329
reveals that the collapse of WTC 7 started at second 17 and completedat
second 23. That is a total of 6 seconds.

Funny how a 6 second clip of the collapse shows the collapse taking 6
seconds. Of course, if you watch the entire collapse, from the beginning,
when the mechanical penthouse falls into the building, then you find it
actually tool at least 13 seconds.

http://s24.photobucket.com/albums/c2...NewsReport.flv

WTC 7 collapse starts at about 3:24 and ends around 3:37. 13 seconds.


It can be easily shown that this building collapsed in the same time it
would take an apple to fall from the roof of this building and hit the
ground - a freefall.

It can be easily shown... but, we're looking for it to be accurately shown.
If the latter is done, you get 13 seconds and nothing near free fall speed.


The 10 year old intellect can easily deduce then that WTC 7 must've
freefallen, further deducing that the ENTIRE STRUCTURE MUST'VE
COLLAPSED SIMULTANEOUSLY.

Although visual evidence proves otherwise. It is only through the intellect
of a 10 year old that one arrives at erroneous conclusions.


No minor fires can do that, _ONLY_ synchronized explosions can.

Major fires obviously can do it. The lack of any explosions - visual or
audio, indicates any theory suggesting explosives were used is without
merit.


xxein: It appears obvious that the penthouse collapses first. It
would be a miracle that it had anything to due with the further
collapse. There was no outsplashing of material at any point except
for ground level. This means that the penthouse did not cause the
collapse.

There was cause for collapse only at ground level (or at least out of
view to the posted video links here). There was no evidence of
pancaking at any visible height (except for the penthouse itself).

That leaves only a lower support to be responsible. Now I can ask you
how ALL the lower supports gave up at the same time. And exactly how
coincidental was it that the penthouse collapsed (independently, at the
top) at the same time (at -.~2 secs)?

I usually reserve the word "idiot" to my workplace and do not extend it
to a public forum, but you are coming close to the exception to the
rule.

Do you have a physically evident scenario that supports your view of a
fire or whatever? Or are you just accepting a dictator's explanation?

It's the explanation of the FDNY Deputy Chief on scene, not your
phantasmal dictator.

I think we would all like to hear it, whatever it is, but I doubt that
it contains any physics that we have ever heard of.

I'll give the collapse 7 or 8 secs. if you want to extend it, but not
hardly 13.

It took 13 seconds from the beginning of the building's collapse (left
portion of penthouse falls) until the entire building disappeared from view.

What you see at 13 is ground clutter that becomes visible
only after a ~ten block travel. If you want to cite the black smoke,
it only becomes visible in the video shot after it rises to view. 2 or
3 secs. after the penthouse arrives to the ground.

You can't see the ground in the video.

Why don't you show me a video of a plane striking the Pentagon?

Why? You don't believe something happened unless you see it happen?

We are
shown a hole where the fusalage entered --- where are the engine holes?

One of them is in the wall. The other engine didn't penetrate the building.

There was no debris outside except for an engine part that that they
showed us that belonged to a mothballed fighter jet.

That's a lie.
There was a large amount of debris all over the place and the engine
part belonged to the exact type of engine used on the flight 77 aircraft.

If you really want to believe something true, just click your red heels
together and come back to this universal physics.

Physics disproves the conspiracy.

Nevermind. Just follow the yellowbrick road. There is no man behind
the curtain. And don't come back. We have no use for you here.

And you call another a dictator?

Dear xxein:

wrote in message
oups.com...
....
xxein: It appears obvious that the penthouse collapses
first. It would be a miracle that it had anything to due
with the further collapse.

Not a miracle. An impulse. Several thousand pounds of material
falling 10+ feet, onto a floor that could support a static load
of the penthouse, but not a mighty hammer blow...

There was no outsplashing of material at any point
except for ground level.

There was no outsplashing on the twin towers either. The top
floors drove the lower floors into the basement. Some of the
outer masonry/glass spalled away. But it all came pretty much
straight down.

This means that the penthouse did not cause the
collapse.

No, it means the bulding was largely a compressible structure,
being made of thin layers of structure, with lots of air in
between.

There was cause for collapse only at ground level (or
at least out of view to the posted video links here).
There was no evidence of pancaking at any visible
height (except for the penthouse itself).

The twin towers behaved much the same.

That leaves only a lower support to be responsible.
Now I can ask you how ALL the lower supports
gave up at the same time. And exactly how
coincidental was it that the penthouse collapsed
(independently, at the top) at the same time
(at -.~2 secs)?

Coincidence is not the word. Another link in the chain of
failure, is what the penthouse collapse was.

I usually reserve the word "idiot" to my workplace
and do not extend it to a public forum, but you are
coming close to the exception to the rule.

Do you have a physically evident scenario that
supports your view of a fire or whatever? Or are you
just accepting a dictator's explanation?

Usually one accepts the written reports. Like in newspapers,
broadcast on TV, and the like. One doesn't have to invoke words
from Fidel (or Raul) Castro.

I think we would all like to hear it, whatever it is,
but I doubt that it contains any physics that we
have ever heard of.

Fire is new physics? Impulse is new physics?

I'll give the collapse 7 or 8 secs. if you want to
extend it, but not hardly 13.

Because it is inconvenient, or because you have witnessed so many
buildings collapse?

What you see at 13 is ground clutter that
becomes visible only after a ~ten block travel.
If you want to cite the black smoke, it only
becomes visible in the video shot after it rises
to view. 2 or 3 secs. after the penthouse
arrives to the ground.

It was smoking all day long.

Why don't you show me a video of a plane striking
the Pentagon? We are shown a hole where the
fusalage entered --- where are the engine holes?
There was no debris outside except for an engine
part that that they showed us that belonged to a
mothballed fighter jet.

Oh. So you like playing in ignorance. What a shame.

If you really want to believe something true, just
click your red heels together and come back to
this universal physics.

You *must* be looking in the mirror.

Nevermind. Just follow the yellowbrick road. There
is no man behind the curtain. And don't come back.
We have no use for you here.

Right. No possibility of having an open mind here. No use in
looking at the numerous reports that are available. No memory of
being just a few miles from these buildings when they were hit,
burned, and collapsed. Nothing but people that have to hide
their shame at still being alive, by creating a conspiracy to
make "The Man" the evildoer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivor_guilt

Don't you realize that is the same thinking that drove those
planes into the towers? "The Man" wasn't in those towers. "The
Man" didn't suffer when those people died. "The Man" didn't drop
WTC7.

Don't let Schoenfeld in his "grief" blind you to *real* physics.
You are smarter than this conspiracy will allow you to be.

David A. Smith

wrote in a message

So? How fast was it supposed to fall? How do you know this?

It shouldn't have fallen at all, since nothing hit this building, and
had a few waste basket fires for only an hour or two,

Those few wastebasket fires had smoke coming from every floor in this video
http://s24.photobucket.com/albums/c2...eryfloor-1.flv

FDNY strongly disagrees with your assessment:

"From there, we looked out at 7 World Trade Center again. You could see
smoke, but no visible fire, and some damage to the south face. You couldn't
really see from where we were on the west face of the building, but at the
edge of the south face you could see that it was very heavily damaged."
- FDNY Battalion Chief John Norman (Special Operations Command - 22 years) -
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/9...gz/norman.html

"But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk
across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an
order from Fellini, we're going to make a move on 7. That was the first time
really my stomach tightened up because the building didn't look good. I was
figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant
pressure. I wasn't really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I'm
standing next to said, that building doesn't look straight. So I'm standing
there. I'm looking at the building. It didn't look right, but, well, we'll
go in, we'll see.

So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed
toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch
Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody's going into 7, there's
creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And
probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I
guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and
things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final
thing and that was abandoned.

Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base
of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there.
It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right
in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in
7, we said all right, we'll head back to the command post. We lost touch
with him. I never saw him again that day."
- FDNY Captain Chris Boyle (Engine 94 - 18 years) -
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/9.../gz/boyle.html


"The next thing I did was we saw a fire starting to show at windows in 7
World Trade Center, decided to go in and try and see if there was anybody in
the building and/or put out the fires, and we did a search from floor to
floor of 7 World Trade Center
passing fire on floors 3, 7, 9. The standpipes had no water. We tried to
extinguish a few fires with cans. When we got to 11, there was just too much
smoke and we decided that, without water, if we went any higher, we'd be on
fool's mission. So we left 7 World Trade Center, back down to the street,
where I ran into Chief Coloe from the 1st Division, Captain Varriale, Engine
24, and Captain Varriale told Chief Coloe and myself that 7 World Trade
Center was badly damaged on the south side and definitely in danger of
collapse. Chief Coloe said we were going to evacuate the collapse zone
around 7 World Trade Center, which we did."
- FDNY Lieutenant Rudolf Weindler -
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110462.PDF


"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the
collapse had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story
building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very
heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient
around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue
operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far
enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we wouldn't lose any more
people."
- FDNY Chief of the Department Daniel Nigro -
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110154.PDF

"Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of
damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those
areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned
about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a
good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure
that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the
southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that
and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see
there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about
5 o'clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we
realized this thing was going to collapse.

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?

Hayden: No, not right away, and that's probably why it stood for so long
because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of
fire in there and then we didn't make any attempt to fight it. That was just
one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the
collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional
collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the
Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of
surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to
pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety."
- FDNY Deputy Chief Peter Hayden (Division 1 - 33 years) -
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/9...gz/hayden.html


... and was blocks away from the twin towers.

That's an interesting interpretation of reality. Got a map?

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c2...apsedamage.jpg

They say a picture is worth a thousand words

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c2...plexBefore.jpg


It's based on an elementary understanding of physics, an understanding
it seems the physics elites are completely lacking. If the roof of WTC
7 freefell, then everything below the roof freefell. Simultaneous
structure failure is the providence of controlled demolition and only
controlled demolition.

Therefore, lcak of "freefall" would be proof that there was no controlled
demolition. With a collapse time of 13+ seconds, WTC 7 wasn't anywhere near
freefall. Thus, you have provided us all with the proof we need to know
there was no controlled demolition.

wrote in a message

And here's one showing the 13 second collapse John referred to:
http://911research.com/wtc/evidence/...html#building7
You want the one titled "CBS video of Building 7 collapse".

Rather than finding refuge in fantasy, bother to examine that video you
cite and and observe the 6 second freefall collapse, just like the
other videos show, just like controlled demolition predicts.

Note the collapse initiates with the mechanical penthouse (top left)
collapses into the building. For a full 6 seconds after the collapse
initiates, we cannot see what is happening. Did the penthouse drop one floor
and stop? Or is it making it's way to the basement, destroy the inside of
the structure as it goes? ... finally, the rest of the roof structure comes
in and the building collapses.

You don't get to cherry pick which part of the collapse you like. You get
the whole thing, whether it fits your illusion or not.

wrote in a message

xxein: It appears obvious that the penthouse collapses first. It
would be a miracle that it had anything to due with the further
collapse. There was no outsplashing of material at any point except
for ground level. This means that the penthouse did not cause the
collapse.

So your contention would be that the collapse of the tons of equipment into
the penthouse was:
1) A fluke
2) A mere coincidence that it happens just prior to the collapse of the
building
3) Would not in any way damage the building as it collapsed through it

Interesting opinion.

There was cause for collapse only at ground level (or at least out of
view to the posted video links here). There was no evidence of
pancaking at any visible height (except for the penthouse itself).

That leaves only a lower support to be responsible. Now I can ask you
how ALL the lower supports gave up at the same time. And exactly how
coincidental was it that the penthouse collapsed (independently, at the
top) at the same time (at -.~2 secs)?

Given the unique design of WTC 7, especially considering the design changes
made in order to build it on the foundation that was poured for another
building, is it really all that odd that the fires would cause the initial
failure at the basement level?

How much of the structure would need to be destroyed to cause that? Was it
hundreds of beams? 40 beams? ... or would it be possible if just a few
crucial beams failed?

Feel free to provide as much detail regarding the design of the structure
and your understanding of where the failures initiated as required to
support your opinion.

I usually reserve the word "idiot" to my workplace

Bummer. They make you wear a name tag? That's rather cruel.

Do you have a physically evident scenario that supports your view of a
fire or whatever? Or are you just accepting a dictator's explanation?

GW hasn't talked to me about WTC 7. I'll go with video evidence and FDNY
statements:

http://s24.photobucket.com/albums/c2...eryfloor-1.flv

Smoke from every floor - where there's smoke, there's fire.

"From there, we looked out at 7 World Trade Center again. You could see
smoke, but no visible fire, and some damage to the south face. You couldn't
really see from where we were on the west face of the building, but at the
edge of the south face you could see that it was very heavily damaged."
- FDNY Battalion Chief John Norman (Special Operations Command - 22 years) -
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/9...gz/norman.html

"But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk
across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an
order from Fellini, we're going to make a move on 7. That was the first time
really my stomach tightened up because the building didn't look good. I was
figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant
pressure. I wasn't really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I'm
standing next to said, that building doesn't look straight. So I'm standing
there. I'm looking at the building. It didn't look right, but, well, we'll
go in, we'll see.

So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed
toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch
Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody's going into 7, there's
creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And
probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I
guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and
things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final
thing and that was abandoned.

Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base
of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there.
It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right
in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in
7, we said all right, we'll head back to the command post. We lost touch
with him. I never saw him again that day."
- FDNY Captain Chris Boyle (Engine 94 - 18 years) -
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/9.../gz/boyle.html


"The next thing I did was we saw a fire starting to show at windows in 7
World Trade Center, decided to go in and try and see if there was anybody in
the building and/or put out the fires, and we did a search from floor to
floor of 7 World Trade Center
passing fire on floors 3, 7, 9. The standpipes had no water. We tried to
extinguish a few fires with cans. When we got to 11, there was just too much
smoke and we decided that, without water, if we went any higher, we'd be on
fool's mission. So we left 7 World Trade Center, back down to the street,
where I ran into Chief Coloe from the 1st Division, Captain Varriale, Engine
24, and Captain Varriale told Chief Coloe and myself that 7 World Trade
Center was badly damaged on the south side and definitely in danger of
collapse. Chief Coloe said we were going to evacuate the collapse zone
around 7 World Trade Center, which we did."
- FDNY Lieutenant Rudolf Weindler -
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110462.PDF


"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the
collapse had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story
building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very
heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient
around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue
operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far
enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we wouldn't lose any more
people."
- FDNY Chief of the Department Daniel Nigro -
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110154.PDF

"Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of
damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those
areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned
about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a
good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure
that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the
southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that
and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see
there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about
5 o'clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we
realized this thing was going to collapse.

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?

Hayden: No, not right away, and that's probably why it stood for so long
because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of
fire in there and then we didn't make any attempt to fight it. That was just
one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the
collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional
collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the
Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of
surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to
pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety."
- FDNY Deputy Chief Peter Hayden (Division 1 - 33 years) -
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/9...gz/hayden.html


I think we would all like to hear it, whatever it is, but I doubt that
it contains any physics that we have ever heard of.

Probably not. Alternate conspiracies have physics that allow FDNY personnel
to see a bulge in a wall (imminent sign the building is going to collapse) 3
hourse before the first 'explosion'. No controlled demolition in history has
ever accomplished this feat,

I'll give the collapse 7 or 8 secs. if you want to extend it, but not
hardly 13. What you see at 13 is ground clutter that becomes visible
only after a ~ten block travel. If you want to cite the black smoke,
it only becomes visible in the video shot after it rises to view. 2 or
3 secs. after the penthouse arrives to the ground.

I count from the beginning of the collapse initiation, until you can't see
the building falling any more - I probably cut a second or two off the end
in doing so.

Why don't you show me a video of a plane striking the Pentagon? We are
shown a hole where the fusalage entered --- where are the engine holes?

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c2...onDamage02.jpg
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c2...onDamage01.jpg
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c2...57-Graphic.jpg
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c2...ge-graphic.jpg

I know some people are amazed that a 14 foot diameter fuselage can fit
through a 16 foot diameter hole. Must be the mushrooms. You're not one of
thos people, are you?

There was no debris outside except for an engine part that that they
showed us that belonged to a mothballed fighter jet.

You mean this:
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/P200030-1.jpg

What is your evidence indicating it didn't come from flight 77? Where are
the engines from flight 77?

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question...cy/q0265.shtml

Where did these come from:
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/P200042-1.jpg
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/P200045-1.jpg
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/P200047-1.jpg
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/P200048-1.jpg

Rense does some looking into this:
http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm

How did the bodies of the flight 77 passengers (or parts of them) end up in
the pentagon if flight 77 didn't crash there?

Where did the 757 go, if it didn't crash into the pentagon?

Where are the hijackers that were on flight 77?

Why are they praised as martyrs in the film "19 Martyrs", shown on
Aljazeera?

"John P." wrote in message
. ..
wrote in a message

xxein: It appears obvious that the penthouse collapses first. It
would be a miracle that it had anything to due with the further
collapse. There was no outsplashing of material at any point except
for ground level. This means that the penthouse did not cause the
collapse.

So your contention would be that the collapse of the tons of equipment
into the penthouse was:
1) A fluke
2) A mere coincidence that it happens just prior to the collapse of the
building
3) Would not in any way damage the building as it collapsed through it

Interesting opinion.

There was cause for collapse only at ground level (or at least out of
view to the posted video links here). There was no evidence of
pancaking at any visible height (except for the penthouse itself).

That leaves only a lower support to be responsible. Now I can ask you
how ALL the lower supports gave up at the same time. And exactly how
coincidental was it that the penthouse collapsed (independently, at the
top) at the same time (at -.~2 secs)?

Given the unique design of WTC 7, especially considering the design
changes made in order to build it on the foundation that was poured for
another building, is it really all that odd that the fires would cause the
initial failure at the basement level?

How much of the structure would need to be destroyed to cause that? Was it
hundreds of beams? 40 beams? ... or would it be possible if just a few
crucial beams failed?

WTC 7 used a lot of large transfer beams at the lower levels. A single
failure there could easily have caused the collapse.


Feel free to provide as much detail regarding the design of the structure
and your understanding of where the failures initiated as required to
support your opinion.

I usually reserve the word "idiot" to my workplace

Bummer. They make you wear a name tag? That's rather cruel.

Do you have a physically evident scenario that supports your view of a
fire or whatever? Or are you just accepting a dictator's explanation?

GW hasn't talked to me about WTC 7. I'll go with video evidence and FDNY
statements:

http://s24.photobucket.com/albums/c2...eryfloor-1.flv

Smoke from every floor - where there's smoke, there's fire.

"From there, we looked out at 7 World Trade Center again. You could see
smoke, but no visible fire, and some damage to the south face. You
couldn't really see from where we were on the west face of the building,
but at the edge of the south face you could see that it was very heavily
damaged."
- FDNY Battalion Chief John Norman (Special Operations Command - 22
years) -
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/9...gz/norman.html

"But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the
sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we
received an order from Fellini, we're going to make a move on 7. That was
the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn't
look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There
was no hydrant pressure. I wasn't really keen on the idea. Then this other
officer I'm standing next to said, that building doesn't look straight. So
I'm standing there. I'm looking at the building. It didn't look right,
but, well, we'll go in, we'll see.

So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed
toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch
Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody's going into 7,
there's creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just
stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on
West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in
some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7,
so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.

Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the
base of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to
it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or
many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there.
It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right
in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes
in 7, we said all right, we'll head back to the command post. We lost
touch with him. I never saw him again that day."
- FDNY Captain Chris Boyle (Engine 94 - 18 years) -
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/9.../gz/boyle.html


"The next thing I did was we saw a fire starting to show at windows in 7
World Trade Center, decided to go in and try and see if there was anybody
in the building and/or put out the fires, and we did a search from floor
to floor of 7 World Trade Center
passing fire on floors 3, 7, 9. The standpipes had no water. We tried to
extinguish a few fires with cans. When we got to 11, there was just too
much smoke and we decided that, without water, if we went any higher, we'd
be on fool's mission. So we left 7 World Trade Center, back down to the
street, where I ran into Chief Coloe from the 1st Division, Captain
Varriale, Engine 24, and Captain Varriale told Chief Coloe and myself that
7 World Trade Center was badly damaged on the south side and definitely in
danger of collapse. Chief Coloe said we were going to evacuate the
collapse zone around 7 World Trade Center, which we did."
- FDNY Lieutenant Rudolf Weindler -
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110462.PDF


"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the
collapse had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story
building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had
very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area
sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue
operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far
enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we wouldn't lose any more
people."
- FDNY Chief of the Department Daniel Nigro -
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110154.PDF

"Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of
damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in
those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were
concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because
there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were
pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a
bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a
transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You
actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three
floors. It came down about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, but by about 2
o'clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?

Hayden: No, not right away, and that's probably why it stood for so long
because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of
fire in there and then we didn't make any attempt to fight it. That was
just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about
the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about
additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and
the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of
hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We
started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety."
- FDNY Deputy Chief Peter Hayden (Division 1 - 33 years) -
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/9...gz/hayden.html


I think we would all like to hear it, whatever it is, but I doubt that
it contains any physics that we have ever heard of.

Probably not. Alternate conspiracies have physics that allow FDNY
personnel to see a bulge in a wall (imminent sign the building is going to
collapse) 3 hourse before the first 'explosion'. No controlled demolition
in history has ever accomplished this feat,

I'll give the collapse 7 or 8 secs. if you want to extend it, but not
hardly 13. What you see at 13 is ground clutter that becomes visible
only after a ~ten block travel. If you want to cite the black smoke,
it only becomes visible in the video shot after it rises to view. 2 or
3 secs. after the penthouse arrives to the ground.

I count from the beginning of the collapse initiation, until you can't see
the building falling any more - I probably cut a second or two off the end
in doing so.

Why don't you show me a video of a plane striking the Pentagon? We are
shown a hole where the fusalage entered --- where are the engine holes?

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c2...onDamage02.jpg
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c2...onDamage01.jpg
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c2...57-Graphic.jpg
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c2...ge-graphic.jpg

I know some people are amazed that a 14 foot diameter fuselage can fit
through a 16 foot diameter hole. Must be the mushrooms. You're not one of
thos people, are you?

Kooks expect a cartoon like imprint on the building


There was no debris outside except for an engine part that that they
showed us that belonged to a mothballed fighter jet.

You mean this:
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/P200030-1.jpg

What is your evidence indicating it didn't come from flight 77? Where are
the engines from flight 77?

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question...cy/q0265.shtml

Where did these come from:
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/P200042-1.jpg
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/P200045-1.jpg
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/P200047-1.jpg
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/P200048-1.jpg

Rense does some looking into this:
http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm

How did the bodies of the flight 77 passengers (or parts of them) end up
in the pentagon if flight 77 didn't crash there?

Where did the 757 go, if it didn't crash into the pentagon?

Where are the hijackers that were on flight 77?

Why are they praised as martyrs in the film "19 Martyrs", shown on
Aljazeera?

In article . com,
wrote:


He and his like-minded clique of elitist snobs implicitly endorse the
notion that buildings pancake collapse into themselves. They facilitate
the brainwashing of the masses, and convince them into giving them the
authority to disseminate matters related to physics. If people realize
they don't understand physics, they may start to form their own
independent and objective conclusion, not whatever the mind-masters
dictate.


Froth on!

--
Relf's Law? -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Bull**** repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."
Corollary -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
³It approaches the asymptote faster, the more Œpseduos¹ you throw in
your formulas.²

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

YOU SHILLS SURE LIKE TO TALK TO YOURSELVES ALOT.

THIS IS LIKE A SHILL MASTURBATORY THREAD YOU EACH LUBE UP THE OTHER
COCK-A-MAMIE SHILL EXCUSE TILL YOU ALL EXPLODE IN A SHOWER OF SHILL GOO.

TOO FUNNY
"animal" wrote in message
...