BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Jul 07 - 05:24 PM

And, if you read WHAT I WROTE, I did not claim that Bush was an alien: YOU are the one who thinks that Bush is the center of the universe, and responsible for all things.

Actually, I don't. I think Bush is a puppet who does what he's told.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Jul 07 - 05:30 PM

Glad to know I have credibility with you. I will expect to have my comments taken seriously.

Which one of those professions is your, beardedbruce?

I am familiar with your posting history, beardedbruce. I take your posts as they come. Some of them I take seriously, and some I don't.

I didn't say that their professions mean that you should automatically take them seriously. I am saying that you can't automatically call them kooks. At least, you can't do that and deserve to be taken seriously.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: Peace
Date: 16 Jul 07 - 05:35 PM

"Prominent Engineer Calls for a New Investigation of 9/11

SAN FRANCISCO, CA July 16, 2007 -- San Francisco architect Richard Gage, AIA, founder of the group, 'Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth,' announced today the statement of support from J. Marx Ayres, former member of the California Seismic Safety Commission and former member of the National Institute of Sciences Building Safety Council."

From


. . . but the town has no need to be nervous.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Jul 07 - 05:36 PM

Instead of running around like a collection of headless chickens and wasting time, energy, and brain-power concocting all this Baroque silliness, we should be agitating for a genuine investigation asking that question.

A genuine investigation asking only that question will not turn anything up at all if that isn't what happened. And the evidence suggests that it isn't what happened.

If you really want to get at the truth, you have to ask ALL relevant questions, including, "what caused the buildings to fall" and "what caused the damage to the pentagon". A real investigation that asks those questions can at least rule out the possibility that the administration was directly responsible if it wasn't, and that would be a good thing. And if your scenario is the correct one, then that will be discovered too, if they ask ALL of the relevant questions. But you won't get anywhere at all if you ask the wrong questions, or only the questions you particularly like yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Jul 07 - 05:38 PM

I have ceased posting because I doubt that ANY investigation would be believed by Carol C and various others unless it supported their theories.

This looks to me like the kind of logical fallacy you call 'ad hominem', Bill.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Jul 07 - 05:42 PM

The rest of your 16 Jul 07 - 04:25 PM post contains quite a few other logical fallacies, as well. And you make a lot of assumptions. Your suggestion that people like me are only reading the stuff that is written by the "conspiracy mongers" is not only a straw man, it is also a lie. Either that, or you haven't read any of the evidence I have provided, because if you had, you would know that I haven't quoted any conspiracy mongers at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 16 Jul 07 - 07:25 PM

"They did not show any damage to the fireproofing"

... which cleverly ignores the documentation that the fire proofing had been falling off by itself for years, only some of it having been replaced prior to 9/11 - also how fragile it was to even the slighest impact, shedding easily. 'Modelling' which builds a new structure, smears new goop on then, then 'tests' it without using the original faulty material but new good stuff and not waiting the decades the original goop had to give it chance to fail, is faulty modelling.

As a Computer geek, one of the first things we were told in programming was about the rockets lost because some clever dickhead used a + sign instead of a - sign... feedback then being positive and driving the thing further out of control instead of being negative and bringing back on course. Great assurance were given by the original writers of the code that it was perfect, until it was examined closely by others.

I did my own scale modelling last night.

My friend has a wood stove - it has a firebox lined with refractory material, which approximates the insulation given in WTC due to teh fireproofing and drywall. I burned wood, which glowed red heat - about 600-800 deg C from my memory of blacksmithing.

As the stove is old, the gap where the ashes fall thru has spread, so I placed some steel mesh - 1/4 square gaps there. The firebox is about 6 inches wide by 10 inches deep - so the thickness and gaps of the mesh would be about in proportion to the WTC.

Once the wood had burned down to have the embers on the mesh, I checked about 20 mins later and the mesh had vanished, the coals now having no support were starting to fall thru as they normally do.

Aliens? no sorry BB :-)

Oxidation for a period of time at high heat - this proves that sustained 600 deg C heat for a period of time in a confined space would have caused damage to the steel in WTC, leading to failure.

QED.

I'm only a Fool, but my qualification are impeccable...

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: Peace
Date: 16 Jul 07 - 07:30 PM

The place the plane went into the building was not a confined space. There was no flashover. Just a boom of jet fuel weighing about 70 tons. Makes for a fast release of heat into the atmosphere.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 16 Jul 07 - 07:45 PM

"place the plane went into the building was not a confined space"

Windows? Floors above and below?

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: Peace
Date: 16 Jul 07 - 08:00 PM

The windows blew out when the aviation fuel exploded.

However, another site suggested that it wasn't so much the heat generated by the fuel burning as it was the sheer weight of the fuel itself that caused much of the building to 'skew'. And additional 70 tons is lots of weight.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Jul 07 - 08:01 PM

What people choose to believe about this or that line of evidence always follows directly along the line they have already decided to give their support to...which is typical of all such arguments.

The only question here is whose set of basic initial assumptions about 911 is the most nearly correct one. The arguments pro and con will go on indefinitely, regardless of the evidence and people's interpretations of the evidence, because their interpretations are directly shaped by their bias...every time.

The people on one side or the other will never be able to quite believe that the other side doesn't have the sense to see it the way they do, and they will probably make dismissive and testy remarks to their opponents that cause the argument to get worse. They may get downright insulting. They may get mad and walk out in a huff.

A lot of wars have been fought over that kind of thing. Like the War Between the States, for example. It lasted several years. I wonder how long this argument will last? Probably even longer, unless something really unusual happens.

I mean....really unusual. It would have to be big.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 16 Jul 07 - 08:17 PM

"The windows blew out when the aviation fuel exploded."

Which provided a steady source of oxygen.

The fire did not take place in an 'open space' like a field. The fire was 'contained' in the space - people keep saying that 70 tons of fuel is a bloody lot - in that size space...

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: Peace
Date: 16 Jul 07 - 08:25 PM

I have no wish to argue about confined space with you. It's a term used in emergency rescue. What you are proposing in the Twin Towers is not confined. Too small for the fuel load for sure. But it vented to the atmosphere--look at the flames from the fireballs when the fuel blew.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Jul 07 - 08:26 PM

As you all know, of course, I think the buildings (1, 2, and 7) had preplaced demolition charges in them set to bring them down in a controlled fashion....so I figure it was at least 50% an inside job. Maybe more than 50%.

But I don't expect to convince anyone of that who isn't already convinced of it, believe me. Nor do I plan to try pedalling a tricycle up Mount Everest or pogo sticking across the Atlantic. Heh! There are better ways to waste one's time, I figure. It's probably easier to shapeshift than it is to change the average person's mind about anything political that they feel strongly about.

I just talk about it (911) from time to time because it happens to interest me. Period. If my opinions annoy you, well, just remember...we're probably even when it comes to that.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: Peace
Date: 16 Jul 07 - 08:26 PM

. . . and as far as I know, I'm the only one to mention the 70 tons.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: Peace
Date: 16 Jul 07 - 08:43 PM

Fire tetrahedron: Heat, fuel, oxygen, sustained chemical reaction. Remove one and the fire goes out. On a smaller scale, one can picture it like this. Water gets sprayed on fire in a house. The expansion of water to steam is 1:1700. That is, one cubic foot of water becomes 1700 cubic feet of steam. The function of the steam is to cool the heat and hopefully drop it to a temperature that is below the ignition point of whatever is burning. Thanks to Ray Bradbury, the whole world knows that the ignition point of paper is 451 degrees F. Keep it at 450 degrees and it won't flare up and burn. Flashover is a phenomena that occurs in less than 1 1/2 seconds. Literally, everything that can burn bursts into flame in that 1 1/2 seconds. It's a killer, because from the middle of even a small room, no one will get to the point of egress.

******************************************************

"In addition to ignition temperature, other properties associated with the flammability of a liquid are its flash point, flammable range, and vapor density. The flash point is the temperature at which a flammable liquid vaporizes and is therefore able to ignite. Liquids with a flash point under 40 °C are considered combustible liquids. Gasoline has a flash point of about -45 °C. The flammable range of a liquid is the ratio of the flammable liquid to air that would create a volatile mixture. The flammability range of gasoline is between 1.4 and 7.6%. If the ratio of gasoline to air is less than 1.4%, then the mixture is to thin to burn. The mixture cannot burn when it contains more than 7.6% gasoline because it is too rich to burn. The vapor density is the weight of a vapor relative to the weight of air. The vapor density of gasoline is heavier than air and therefore will sink when in air."

Just some food for thought.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 16 Jul 07 - 09:02 PM

"but it vented to the atmosphere"

... and that combined with the ready access to the oxygen caused a draught that intensified the heat, like in a blast furnace, an object which is also larger that your defintion of 'confined space', but gets so hot internally when fired by low temperature burning fuels that it even melts steel rather nicely...

Confined

Confine \Con*fine"\ (k[o^]n*f[imac]n"), v. t. [imp. & p. p.
   {Confined}; p. pr. & vb. n. {Confining}.] [F. confiner to
   border upon, LL. confinare to set bounds to; con- + finis
   boundary, end. See {Final}, {Finish}.]
   To restrain within limits; to restrict; to limit; to bound;
   to shut up; to inclose; to keep close.
   [1913 Webster]

         Now let not nature's hand
         Keep the wild flood confined! let order die! --Shak.
   [1913 Webster]

         He is to confine himself to the compass of numbers and
         the slavery of rhyme.                   --Dryden.
   [1913 Webster]

   {To be confined}, to be in childbed.

   Syn: To bound; limit; restrain; imprison; immure; inclose;
       circumscribe; restrict.
       [1913 Webster]

        -- From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48

confined \confined\ adj.
   1. having movement restricted to within a certain area; --
      usually a building. Opposite of {unconfined}.

   Note: [Narrower terms: {claustrophobic}; {close, confining};
         {homebound, housebound, shut-in}; {in
         childbed(prenominal)}; {pent, shut up(predicate)};
         {snowbound}; {weather-bound}; {stormbound,
         storm-bound}]
         [WordNet 1.5]

   2. deprived of liberty; especially placed under arrest or
      restraint.
      [WordNet 1.5]

   3. having movement restricted to within an enclosed outdoor
      area; -- of animals.

   Syn: fenced in, penned.
       [WordNet 1.5]

   4. (Med.) not invading healthy tissue.
      [WordNet 1.5]

   5. held prisoner.

   Syn: captive, imprisoned, jailed.
       [WordNet 1.5]

   6. having movement or progress restricted to a certain area;
      as, an outbreak of the plague confined to one quarter of
      the city; wildfires confined to within the canyon.
      [PJC]

        -- From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48

confined
    adj 1: not free to move about [ant: {unconfined}]
    2: enclosed by a confining fence [syn: {fenced in}, {penned}]
    3: not invading healthy tissue [ant: {invasive}]
    4: deprived of liberty; especially placed under arrest or
       restraint
    5: in captivity [syn: {captive}, {imprisoned}, {jailed}]

        -- From WordNet (r) 2.0

113 Moby Thesaurus words for "confined":
   angustifoliate, angustirostrate, angustisellate, angustiseptal,
   authoritative, barred, bedfast, bedridden, beleaguered, beset,
   besieged, blockaded, bound, bounded, boxed in, cabined, caged,
   circumscribed, cloistered, close, close-fitting, closed-in,
   conditioned, constricted, cooped, copyrighted, cordoned,
   cordoned off, corralled, cramp, cramped, cribbed, crowded,
   detained, disciplined, down, enclosed, expert, feature, featured,
   fenced, finite, geographically limited, hedged, hedged about,
   hedged in, hemmed, hemmed in, hospitalized, icebound, immured,
   impounded, imprisoned, in childbed, in confinement, in hospital,
   incapacious, incarcerated, incommodious, insular, invalided,
   isthmian, isthmic, jailed, kept in, knowledgeable, laid up,
   landlocked, leaguered, limited, local, localized, meager, mewed,
   moderated, narrow, near, of a place, paled, parochial, patented,
   penned, pent, pent-up, prescribed, proscribed, prostrate,
   provincial, qualified, quarantined, railed, restrained, restricted,
   scant, scanty, shut-in, sick abed, slender, snowbound, specialist,
   specialistic, specialized, stinted, strait, straitened, technical,
   tight, topical, under restraint, vernacular, walled, walled-in,
   windbound




        -- From Moby Thesaurus II by Grady Ward, 1.0


'Ya burn 70 tons, and whadda ya get?'

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: Peace
Date: 16 Jul 07 - 09:03 PM

"'Ya burn 70 tons, and whadda ya get?' "

Lots of people wondering how the planes got there.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: Peace
Date: 16 Jul 07 - 09:08 PM

'Fires Versus Steel Buildings
The official explanation that fires caused the collapse of Building 7 is incredible in light of the fact that fires have never caused a steel-framed building to totally collapse, before or after September 11th, 2001.

Steel-framed high-rises (buildings of fifteen stories or more) have been common for more than 100 years. There have been hundreds of incidents involving severe fires in such buildings, and none have led to complete collapse, or even partial collapse of support columns.


The Interstate Bank Building fire consumed several floors but did not damage the steel superstructure.
Recent examples of high-rise fires include the 1991 One Meridian Plaza fire in Philadelphia, which raged for 18 hours and gutted 8 floors of the 38-floor building; 1   and the 1988 First Interstate Bank Building fire in Los Angeles, which burned out of control for 3-1/2 hours and gutted 4 floors of the 64 floor tower. Both of these fires were far more severe than any fires seen in Building 7, but those buildings did not collapse. The Los Angeles fire was described as producing "no damage to the main structural members". 2 '

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: Peace
Date: 16 Jul 07 - 09:12 PM

"Much (perhaps, in the case of the second impact, as much as two-thirds) of the jet fuel was consumed immediately in the fireballs which erupted when the planes hit the towers. Furthermore, according to one FEMA investigator (Jonathan Barnett), most of the jet fuel which managed to enter the towers was consumed within ten minutes."

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 16 Jul 07 - 09:21 PM

"most of the jet fuel which managed to enter the towers was consumed within ten minutes."

...so what else burned and caused such intense heat for so long?

And the towers collapsed only when the fires died down... allowing the heat expamded distorted steel beams to shrink and fail...

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Jul 07 - 09:28 PM

You want really intense heat? Try thermite.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 16 Jul 07 - 09:31 PM

Thermite is good. So is the center of the sun.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 16 Jul 07 - 09:32 PM

how hot does lava get?

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: Peace
Date: 16 Jul 07 - 09:33 PM

That's the problem I'm having with the story. The smoke coming from the towers gets really black. Notice no flames visible. Smoke was billowing OUT of the building, and not that much O2 was getting in. So the fire was suffocatiing OR the fuel load had been msotly consumed. However, it's not all about fuel. The structure had been damaged at one corner--on one of the buildings. Fifty floors above is lots of weight. And that weight falling straight down--which it didn't (photographs on one site show the entire top of the building at about a 25 degree angle off perpendicular)--yet the report would have us believe the buildings, both of them, pancaked down. One just like the other.

There were no major cross supports in either building. The sturdy parts of the structure were the corners and the core. Assume the buildings DID pancake down. Why did the core pancake with the rest of the building?

Sorry, buddy, but too many questions didn't get asked at the time and too many questions were NOT addressed in the official report. The report reads lots like fantasy or sci-fi to me: First you suspend your disbelief and THEN ya get led where the author wants to take you.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 16 Jul 07 - 09:33 PM

couldn't we get just one frickin laser?

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 16 Jul 07 - 09:35 PM

" The smoke coming from the towers gets really black."

new pope??

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: Peace
Date: 16 Jul 07 - 09:37 PM

LOLOL

Good one, Ron.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 16 Jul 07 - 09:38 PM

we did see the devil in the smoke after all

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: Peace
Date: 16 Jul 07 - 09:39 PM

Man, that ain't what I had lit, man. Like, SARA LEE! I'm in.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 16 Jul 07 - 09:46 PM

Good thing you didn't step in it... eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Jul 07 - 09:53 PM

Okay, guys, let me in on the joke. ;-) What does "the pope" reference mean?

The problem, Ron, with using the sun would be...we don't have a lever long enough to move it to New York. Or a fulcrum to put the lever on. Thermite, however, can be contained in small portable incendiary devices, and it's great if you want to slice right through solid steel. Lasers are an okay idea, I guess, but wouldn't thermite be fundametally more Rambo-esque? Lasers are for sissies.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: Peace
Date: 16 Jul 07 - 09:58 PM

Here ya go, LH.
Bottom of page 1 and top of page 2.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/04/0401_050401_popeelection.html

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 16 Jul 07 - 09:59 PM

"The problem, Ron, with using the sun would be"

That's why the attack had to be during the day - it wouldn't work at night...

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 16 Jul 07 - 10:01 PM

when they elect a new pope they burn straw after every ballot. If the smoke is white, they have not come to a decision. If the smoke is black, they have a new pope. Or vice versa.

Thermite would be more Rambo-esque, but a frickin laser beam would smack of James Bond. Perhaps it was a Bizarro Superman using his heat vision.    Also, the steel did not look cut, so perhaps it was someone dropping acid in little packets of sugar causing it to melt into liquid pools in a Dali-like dream sequence that would have some people seeing airplanes and others seeing missles.

I saw this magician on TV last night, the Mindfucker or something like that. He made an elephant appear out of thin air. Perhaps him or David Blaine actually created this illusion. The WTC was never there to begin with. Wait a second - that was how the Alec Baldwin "Shadow" movie ended. That came out a few years before 9/11. There is our smoking gun! Hollywood did it in!!!!! Screw this termite and Al-Quiet crap, it was a fignewton of our imagination. George Bush isn't real - Ronnie Raygun is still alive and simply filming a sequel in DC!!!   Somebody get me Walt Disney on the line....

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 16 Jul 07 - 10:03 PM

... oh yeah, and after the black smoke, the new pope comes out on the balcony in St. Petersburg square. If he sees his shadow, we have six more weeks of winter.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: Peace
Date: 16 Jul 07 - 10:03 PM

"That's why the attack had to be during the day - it wouldn't work at night... "

Now THAT is funny. Good one, FT.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Jul 07 - 10:48 PM

... which cleverly ignores the documentation that the fire proofing had been falling off by itself for years, only some of it having been replaced prior to 9/11 - also how fragile it was to even the slighest impact, shedding easily.

The part that was actually tested didn't behave that way. They had to shoot it several times with a shotgun to get the fireproofing off.


Once the wood had burned down to have the embers on the mesh, I checked about 20 mins later and the mesh had vanished, the coals now having no support were starting to fall thru as they normally do.


Are you really suggesting that your scale modeling was in any way comparable to the conditions in the WTC on 9/11?

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 16 Jul 07 - 11:13 PM

I do not casually dismiss the theories that 9/11 had US government complicity, if not active assistance. However, I am far more troubled by the fact (readily and voluminously proven by non-partisan statisticians and *eye witnesses*) that the presidential elections of 2000 and 2004 were both positively stolen. Although it did not lead directly to the deaths of 1,700+/- people (only, perhaps 3,500 to 650,000 so far), this is a far more dangerous precedent. Let's spend equal time on THIS conspiracy fact (not theory).

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: Peace
Date: 16 Jul 07 - 11:25 PM

The stolen elections are a piece of history. There is not a snowball's chance in hell that Republicans will again control the White House for at least two more terms. Unfortunately, the Democrat ticket may be an equal amount of garbage. So even with a fair election the people will lose. Assuming of course that the Neocons allow it to reach an election. I ain't convinced about that. No sir!

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: GUEST,sooo sweet
Date: 16 Jul 07 - 11:43 PM

My favorite refutation of the "pancake theory". This lady makes it REALLY simple:

Let's say I tell you that I ran, by foot,
to a store (10 miles away), then
to the bank (5 more miles), then
to the dog track (7 more miles), then
to my friend's house (21 more miles), then home ...all in 2 minutes.

To disprove your story, I could present to you a simple case. I would present to you that the world's record for running just one mile is 3:43.13, or just under four minutes. So, it does not seem possible that I could have run over 40 miles in 2 minutes. i.e. It does not seem possible for me to have run 43 miles in half the time it would take the holder of the world's record to run just one mile. Even if you gave me the benefit of having run all 43 miles at world-record pace, it would not have been possible for me to have covered that distance in two minutes.

Remember, the proof need not be complicated.   You don't need to prove exactly how long it should have taken me to run that distance. Nor do you need to prove how much longer it would have taken if I stopped to place a bet at the dog track. To disprove my story, you only need to show that the story I gave you is not physically possible.

Now, let us consider if any of those collapse times provided to us seem possible with the story we were given.

If we assume the second mass is initially at rest [(v2)i = 0], the equation reduces to

(m1 * v1)i = (m1 * v1)f + (m2 * v2)f

As you can see, if mass m1 = m2 and they "stick" together after impact, the equation reduces to ,

(m1 * v1)i = (2m1 * vnew)f

or vnew = (1/2) * v1

If two identical masses colliding and sticking together, they will travel at half the speed as the original single mass.

Etc.

http://drjudywood.com/articles/BBE/BilliardBalls.html

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: Peace
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 12:06 AM

Thanks for that link, sooo sweet. Never saw it before.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: GUEST,sooo sweet
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 12:15 AM

It's the bestest. She makes the point that to disprove a story, you just have to show it's not possible. You don't have to give an ALTERNATE explanation to disprove, you just need to show that what you've been told doesn't make sense. Then she shows that freefall speeds weren't possible. Incredible work. So, so obvious.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: Peace
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 12:17 AM

Yeah, and it's elegant, too.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: GUEST,CB_Brooklyn
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 12:37 AM

Government Official Says 9/11 Directed Energy Weapon Research "Worthy"

The Director of Public Affairs at the Directed Energy Directorate, Air Force Research Laboratory/DEO-PA, Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico, says Dr Judy Wood's research on directed energy weapon usage at the World Trade Center is "interesting and worthy of further consideration".

See here for an image of the FAX sheet sent to Dr Wood's attorney, Jerry Leaphart: http://drjudywood.com/home/Garcia4.jpg

The above FAX followed a letter sent by Dr Wood to a number of directed energy professionals: http://drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/DEW_letter.html



Also of note: NIST emailed Dr Wood stating they need more time to respond to her Request for Correction: http://drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/NIST_letter.html

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 12:51 AM

Biographical information about Dr. Judy Wood, the author of the "Billiard Balls" page...


Brief Biographical Sketch for

Judy D. Wood, Ph.D.

Website: http://drjudywood.com/
email: lisajudy [at] nctv.com

Judy D. Wood is a former professor of mechanical engineering with research interests in experimental stress analysis, structural mechanics, optical methods, deformation analysis, and the materials characterization of biomaterials and composite materials. She is a member of the Society for Experimental Mechanics (SEM), co-founded SEM's Biological Systems and Materials Division, and currently serves on the SEM Composite Materials Technical Division.

Dr. Wood received her

* B.S. (Civil Engineering, 1981) (Structural Engineering),

* M.S (Engineering Mechanics (Applied Physics), 1983), and

* Ph.D. (Materials Engineering Science, 1992) from the Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg, Virginia.

Her dissertation involved the development of an experimental method to measure thermal stresses in bimaterial joints. She has taught courses including

* Experimental Stress Analysis,

* Engineering Mechanics,

* Mechanics of Materials (Strength of Materials)

* Strength of Materials Testing

From 1999 to 2006 Dr. Wood has been an assistant professor in the Mechanical Engineering Department at Clemson University in Clemson, South Carolina. Before moving to Clemson she spent three years as a postdoctoral research associate in the Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics at Virginia Tech. Dr. Wood is currently writing a book with Morgan Reynolds on the physical evidence explaining the events on 9/11.

One of Dr. Wood's research interests is biomimicry, or applying the mechanical structures of biological materials to engineering design using engineering materials. Other recent research has investigated the deformation behavior of materials and structures with complex geometries and complex material properties, such as fiber-reinforced composite materials and biological materials. Dr. Wood is an expert in the use of moiré interferometry, a full-field optical method that is used in stress analysis. Dr. Wood has over 60 technical publications in refereed journals, conference proceedings, and edited monographs and special technical reports.

Dr. Wood started to question the events of 9/11 on that same day when what she saw and heard on television was contradictory and appeared to violate the laws of physics. Since that day she has used her knowledge of engineering mechanics to prove that the collapse of the World Trade Center twin towers could not have happened as the American public was told.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: GUEST,sooo sweet
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 01:11 AM

Well, she proved the government's version WASN'T possible, so she's investigating what WAS possible. That's what a scientist should do.

But most importantly, she shows that the buildings couldn't have fallen the way the government says they did.

She proved that, and she proved the government is lying.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 08:41 AM

GUEST,sooo sweet ,

If you read the presented arguement that the towers could not have fallen in the observed time, you might notice that they ALSO prove that, unless the demolition occurred at least 18 seconds BEFORE the observed collapse, the collapse could not have been caused by controlled demolition. Since the "squibs" were observed as the towers were falling, controlled demolition could NOT have been the cause of the collapse.

My postulate, that we.. the aliens used gravity generators to increase the speed of the collapse is the ONLY way that the arguement as presented can be true AND fit the facts as observed. The 'squibs' were the implosions of the gravity generators AFTER they had performed thier task of bringing down the tower(s).

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 09:26 AM

... and also the fact that the buildings did not fall at "freefall" speed, nor does the report say they did.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: GUEST,sooo sweet
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 09:42 AM

Not sure what you're getting at, but explosions were heard almost constantly that morning. And whatever the series and timings of the explosions, they worked.

Entire floors were pulverized. No one knows what type of demolition techniques were used, though the presence of thermate in the debris has been proven. Most likely a combination of old and new techniques. Blasting may have been needed around key points outside (squibs), while the interior was pulverized with no telling what.

The important thing is that it has been shown the buildings could not have fallen at the speeds they did if they simply "collapsed." They had help. We may never know what that "help" was, but the buildings didn't fall from one floor simply dropping down onto the next.

I personally don't think an advanced beam was used. Not space-based, at any rate. The atmosphere holds the equivalent of 30 feet of water and several inches of dense particulate matter. Too thick for pinpoint aiming. There were some odd events around NYC that morning, like cars blocks away from the WTC complex being burned up, and that's led to some speculation of new weaponry being involved, but when facts are witheld, the mind is forced to speculate.

Important thing is floor hitting floor a hundred stories to the ground would take much, much, much longer than the filmed collapse times.