A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » alt.parenting » Solutions
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Ventura Slams Media Witch Hunt For Questioning 9/11



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 21st 08, 11:40 PM posted to alt.parenting.solutions,alt.conspiracy,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics
127.0.0.1[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default Ventura Slams Media Witch Hunt For Questioning 9/11

Ventura Slams Media Witch Hunt For Questioning 9/11
Former Governor shocked by state of free speech in America - "Has our
country really become that?"

Former Governor Jesse Ventura slammed the media witch hunt that he was
subjected to in the wake of questioning the official 9/11 story and
admitted that he was shocked by the reaction to his comments about the
demolition of WTC 7 and the twin towers, but the ex-wrestling and movie
star reiterated and expanded upon his views on 9/11 during an appearance
on The Alex Jones Show.

"How come we're not allowed to ask any questions today?" asked Ventura,
referring to the hostile corporate media reaction that was elicited in
response to his last appearance on The Alex Jones Show when he
questioned the official 9/11 story.

"I can't believe how I simply asked some questions and the way you're
attacked....has our country really become that - that you're not even
allowed to publicly question the government," added the former Governor,
who labeled the response to his comments "eye opening".

Ventura was attacked by both Bill O'Reilly and Hannity on Fox News as
well as numerous other corporate media outlets last month after he
questioned the government's version of events behind the 2001 terror
attacks.

(Article continues below)

Ventura slammed the corporate media for obsessing about issues of little
or no significance, drawing from personal experience when he was told
what stories to cover during his tenure as an MSNBC host, but warned,
"Rest assured the Internet will be the next thing the government will
try to control."

Ventura reiterated and expanded on the shocking facts behind 9/11 that
provoked him into going public with his questions.

"I served three years with the Navy underwater demolition team 12 west
coast and our specialty, what I was trained in, was blowing things up,
and from a professional standpoint in watching how these three buildings
fell it sure looks like demolition to me and I believe I have an eye for
it having been trained by the best our military has," said Ventura.

Ventura underscored the blatant demolition of Building 7, the 47-story
building that was not hit by a plane yet collapsed within 8 seconds into
its own footprint in the late afternoon of 9/11.

"When you look at it from my viewpoint, that looks like demolition
explosions bringing it down and I view that as a member of the
underwater demolition team," said Ventura.

Asked what spurred him to go public with his doubts about the official
9/11 story, Ventura explained that he spoke out because he felt bad
about his initial reaction to 9/11 when it happened which was to believe
everything he was told by the government. He lamented that he was
Governor of Minnesota at the time and would have had more influence in
seeking a real investigation into 9/11 compared to now.

"Why if the Al-Qaeda truly attacked us, why would we not be fighting
them in Afghanistan, instead we're focusing in the opposite direction
and going into Iraq who had nothing to do with it," said Ventura,
adding, "In fact Saddam Hussein feared Al-Qaeda as a problem for him."

Ventura stated that one of the biggest alarm bells that made him
suspicious about 9/11 was George W. Bush's reluctance to form a
commission to investigate the attacks.

"I put myself in that position as a Governor or as a President - if I
had a disaster happen like the one we had here in Minnesota where the
bridge fell into the water, you would immediately commission a full
blown public study," he said.

"Yet George Bush stonewalled an investigation for over two years and the
only reason he did one was because of pressure from the 9/11 victims,"
added Ventura.

The former Governor also highlighted the absence of air defense on the
morning of 9/11, speaking from experience as a Navy Seal where "failure
is not an option".

"In the case of our air national defense failure is not an option and on
9/11 they thoroughly failed and here's my point - why was nobody fired?
Why did no one lose their job over the catastrophic failure of 9/11 if
it's indeed what they told us it was," asked Ventura, comparing it to
the lost nuclear warheads story last year which resulted in the
re-assignment or firing of no less than 70 people.

"You have the death of 3,000 people and nobody loses their job over it,"
he added.

Ventura said that his education about 9/11 had increased recently when
he saw a video presentation given by William Rodriguez - former WTC
janitor and last man out of the North Tower who saved victims while
witnessing multiple secondary explosions before the collapse of the
buildings.

"When I watched a DVD of William Rodriquez, this guy is totally talking
from what he what he remembers, you can clearly see it, he is not making
anything up… he’s a hero’s hero, there’s no doubt about… and when you
hear him talk and he tells about what he knows, how can you not question
what went on that day?" said the former Governor.

Ventura's voice in the call for a new 9/11 investigation could become
significantly more influential if he decides to run for the Senate which
the former Governor said he was seriously considering and would come to
a final decision by July.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...witch_hunt.htm
  #2  
Old May 22nd 08, 12:53 AM posted to alt.parenting.solutions,alt.conspiracy,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics
Vandar
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default Ventura Slams Media Witch Hunt For Questioning 9/11

127.0.0.1 wrote:

Ventura Slams Media Witch Hunt For Questioning 9/11
Former Governor shocked by state of free speech in America - "Has our
country really become that?"

Former Governor Jesse Ventura slammed the media witch hunt that he was
subjected to in the wake of questioning the official 9/11 story and
admitted that he was shocked by the reaction to his comments about the
demolition of WTC 7 and the twin towers, but the ex-wrestling and movie
star reiterated and expanded upon his views on 9/11 during an appearance
on The Alex Jones Show.

"How come we're not allowed to ask any questions today?" asked Ventura,
referring to the hostile corporate media reaction that was elicited in
response to his last appearance on The Alex Jones Show when he
questioned the official 9/11 story.

"I can't believe how I simply asked some questions and the way you're
attacked....has our country really become that - that you're not even
allowed to publicly question the government," added the former Governor,
who labeled the response to his comments "eye opening".


Of course you're allowed to publicly question the government.
Ventura's problem seems to be that others are also allowed to call him a
****ing loon for it.

  #3  
Old May 22nd 08, 01:32 AM posted to alt.parenting.solutions,alt.conspiracy,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics
Al Dykes
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default Ventura Boo-Hoos Over Media Witch Hunt For Questioning 9/11

In article ,
127.0.0.1 wrote:
Vandar wrote:
127.0.0.1 wrote:

Iarnrod wrote:

Somebody call the Wahhhh-mbulance for this klown.


How Gravity Acts

Sir Isaac Newton noticed, centuries ago, that apples fell (down! never
up...) from trees. Lots of others, before him, had also noticed this,
but none had ever devised a theory of gravity from the observation.
Over the years, mankind has learned that the force of gravity comes
from an acceleration of known constant magnitude, depending only upon
mass and separation. (That doesn't mean we know HOW it works, or WHY,
but we have managed to be able to predict its effects with a high
degree of precision and an even higher degree of certainty -- gravity
has always had the same, predictable, effect.)

Of course, people didn't figure this stuff out immediately. According
to legend, Galileo Galilei used the leaning tower of Pisa to
demonstrate that a large ball and a small one (of lesser mass) fell
(accelerated) at the same rate. Prior to Galileo, people had just
assumed that heavier objects fell faster (much the way mankind had
long assumed that the Earth was flat!).

So while an object of greater mass will exert more force upon anything
which is supporting it against gravity's pull (ie, it's heavier), it
does not experience any greater acceleration when gravity's pull is
not opposed (ie, when it's falling). Earth's gravity can only
accelerate objects downward at one known, constant, maximum rate (1
g). Heavier objects are not accelerated any quicker than are lighter
objects, as Galileo demonstrated centuries ago.


The Simplest Case

From experimentation, it has been discovered that, near the surface
of the Earth, Earth's gravity will produce a downward acceleration of
32 feet per second per second.

What that means is that an object, after falling one second, will be
falling at 32 ft/sec.

After the 2nd second, it will be falling at 64 ft/sec.

After the 3rd second, it will be falling at 96 ft/sec.

And so on.

Further, since gravity's acceleration is constant, and it's falling at
32 ft/sec after one second has elapsed, we know that it has averaged
16 ft/sec for the entire distance, which, after one second, is 16 feet.

As you might imagine, after quite a few such thought experiments, some
simple free-fall equations have been derived which can be used to
harness this knowledge via numbers and arithmetic:

Velocity = Gravity x Time

and

Distance = 1/2 x Gravity x Time(squared)

So if we want to know how far the object has free-fallen after 3 seconds:

Distance = 1/2 x 32 x 9 = 144 feet

So after 3 seconds, in Earth's gravity, an object will have fallen 144
feet and will be falling at 96 ft/sec.


Checking Our Work

OK, we've just solved a simple physics problem! Now let's check our
work, using conservation of energy.

We know that energy is neither created nor destroyed. It merely
changes forms. If we take the potential (chemical) energy in a barrel
of oil and burn it, we get heat energy. When we take refined oil and
burn it in our car's engine, we get kinetic (ie, motion) energy (plus
some heat; an engine's not 100% efficient). When we use our car's
brakes to bleed off some of that kinetic energy (ie, slow down), the
energy is converted into heat (the brakes get HOT).

In the case of the free-falling body, the two kinds of energy we are
concerned with are kinetic energy and potential energy. Examples of
potential (gravitational) energy are the water stored way up high in a
water tower, or a boulder perched atop a hill. If whatever's holding
them up there is removed, they will come down, under the influence of
gravity's pull.

So, as an object falls, it gives up potential energy for kinetic energy.

It turns out that the equation for potential energy is as follows:

Potential Energy = Mass x Gravity x Height

It turns out that the equation for kinetic energy is as follows:

Kinetic Energy = 1/2 x Mass x Velocity(squared)

So let's just say, for the sake of simplicity, that our falling object
has a mass of 1. (Remember, the object's mass will affect its energy,
and its momentum, but not its rate of free-fall.)

The potential energy given up by falling 3 seconds (144 ft) is 1 x 32
x 144 = 4608

The kinetic energy gained after falling 3 secs is 1/2 x 1 x
96(squared) = 1/2 x 9216 = 4608

So, all of the available potential energy was converted to kinetic
energy. Seeing that energy was, in fact, conserved is how we know that
the answer in The Simplest Case, above, was correct. We've checked our
work, using an independent analysis, based upon the sound principle of
conservation of energy. Now, and only now, we can be certain that our
answer was correct.


One Little Complication

Air resistance.

The free-fall equations reflect a perfect, frictionless world. They
perfectly predict the behavior of falling bodies in a vacuum. In fact,
some of you may have seen a science class demonstration in which the
air is pumped out of a tube and then a feather will fall, in that
vacuum, as fast as will a solid metal ball.

That's how parachutes work: much of the falling object's potential
energy gets expended doing the work of pushing a lot of air out of the
way in order for the object to fall. As a result, not all of the
potential gravitational energy can go towards accelerating the object
downward at gravity's maximal rate of 32 ft/sec/sec.

In other words, only when there is zero resistance can any falling
object's potential energy be completely converted into kinetic energy.
Anything which interferes with any falling object's downward
acceleration will cause its acceleration to be reduced from the
maximum gravitational acceleration of 32 feet per second per second,
as some of gravity's potential energy is consumed doing work
overcoming resistance.

That's why you may have heard the term "terminal velocity". The
free-fall equations predict that a falling object's velocity will
continue to increase, without limit. But in air, once a falling object
reaches a certain speed, it's propensity to fall will be matched by
air's resistance to the fall. At that point the object will continue
to fall, but its speed will no longer increase over time.


A Quick Recap

Earth's gravity causes objects to fall. They fall according to
precise, well-known equations. The equations assume no (air)
resistance. Any resistance at all will cause the object to fall less
rapidly than it would have without that resistance.

It is that last sentence which bears repeating.

There is a maximum possible rate at which objects fall, and if any of
gravity's potential energy is consumed doing anything other than
accelerate the object downward -- even just having to push air out of
the way -- there will be less energy available to accelerate the
object downward, and so that object's downward acceleration will be
diminished.

And if an object's downward acceleration is diminished, it will be
going slower along the way, and thus it will take longer to fall a
given distance.

[based upon a core-omitted graphic @stopthelie.com]
If dropped at the same time, which would reach the ground first?



[based upon a core-omitted graphic @stopthelie.com]
If dropped at the same time, which would reach the ground?

[from an image at GreatBuildings.com]
Free-falling from WTC heights

The towers were 1350 and 1360 feet tall. So let's start by using our
trusty free-fall equation to see how long it should take an object to
free-fall from the towers' former height.

Distance = 1/2 x Gravity x Time(squared)

or

2 x Distance = Gravity x Time(squared)

Time(squared) = (2 x Distance) / Gravity

Time(squared) = 2710 / 32 = 84.7

Time = 9.2

So our equation tells us that it will take 9.2 seconds to free-fall to
the ground from the towers' former height.

Using our simpler equation, V = GT, we can see that at 9.2 seconds, in
order to reach the ground in 9.2 seconds, the free-falling object's
velocity must be about 295 ft/sec, which is just over 200 mph.

But that can only occur in a vacuum.

Since the WTC was at sea level, in Earth's atmosphere, you might be
able to imagine how much air resistance that represents. (Think about
putting your arm out the window of a car moving half that fast!) Most
free-falling objects would reach their terminal velocity long before
they reached 200 mph. For example, the commonly-accepted terminal
velocity of a free-falling human is around 120 mph. The terminal
velocity of a free-falling cat is around 60 mph. (source)

Therefore, air resistance alone will make it take longer than 10
seconds for gravity to pull an object to the ground from the towers'
former height.


Observations from 9/11

On page 305 of the 9/11 Commission Report, we are told, in the
government's "complete and final report" of 9/11, that the South Tower
collapsed in 10 seconds.


That's wrong.


Wrong? Tell us how long it took the towers to fall?



The 9/11 commission report was not a physics and engineering paper and
it was written before the NIST report was published. The NIST report
was more rigorous and ISTR it said 12 seconds.

So what?


The people that claim relevant expertise and make these k00k claims
represent .001% ot the world's experts and none of your experts will
answer questions from any of the 99.999% that don't agree with Twoofer
claims.



--
Al Dykes
News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising.
- Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail

  #4  
Old May 22nd 08, 03:55 AM posted to alt.parenting.solutions,alt.conspiracy,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics
BDK[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default Ventura Slams Media Witch Hunt For Questioning 9/11

In article , says...
Ventura Slams Media Witch Hunt For Questioning 9/11
Former Governor shocked by state of free speech in America - "Has our
country really become that?"

Former Governor Jesse Ventura slammed the media witch hunt that he was
subjected to in the wake of questioning the official 9/11 story and
admitted that he was shocked by the reaction to his comments about the
demolition of WTC 7 and the twin towers, but the ex-wrestling and movie
star reiterated and expanded upon his views on 9/11 during an appearance
on The Alex Jones Show.

"How come we're not allowed to ask any questions today?" asked Ventura,
referring to the hostile corporate media reaction that was elicited in
response to his last appearance on The Alex Jones Show when he
questioned the official 9/11 story.

"I can't believe how I simply asked some questions and the way you're
attacked....has our country really become that - that you're not even
allowed to publicly question the government," added the former Governor,
who labeled the response to his comments "eye opening".

Ventura was attacked by both Bill O'Reilly and Hannity on Fox News as
well as numerous other corporate media outlets last month after he
questioned the government's version of events behind the 2001 terror
attacks.

(Article continues below)

Ventura slammed the corporate media for obsessing about issues of little
or no significance, drawing from personal experience when he was told
what stories to cover during his tenure as an MSNBC host, but warned,
"Rest assured the Internet will be the next thing the government will
try to control."

Ventura reiterated and expanded on the shocking facts behind 9/11 that
provoked him into going public with his questions.

"I served three years with the Navy underwater demolition team 12 west
coast and our specialty, what I was trained in, was blowing things up,
and from a professional standpoint in watching how these three buildings
fell it sure looks like demolition to me and I believe I have an eye for
it having been trained by the best our military has," said Ventura.

Ventura underscored the blatant demolition of Building 7, the 47-story
building that was not hit by a plane yet collapsed within 8 seconds into
its own footprint in the late afternoon of 9/11.

"When you look at it from my viewpoint, that looks like demolition
explosions bringing it down and I view that as a member of the
underwater demolition team," said Ventura.

Asked what spurred him to go public with his doubts about the official
9/11 story, Ventura explained that he spoke out because he felt bad
about his initial reaction to 9/11 when it happened which was to believe
everything he was told by the government. He lamented that he was
Governor of Minnesota at the time and would have had more influence in
seeking a real investigation into 9/11 compared to now.

"Why if the Al-Qaeda truly attacked us, why would we not be fighting
them in Afghanistan, instead we're focusing in the opposite direction
and going into Iraq who had nothing to do with it," said Ventura,
adding, "In fact Saddam Hussein feared Al-Qaeda as a problem for him."

Ventura stated that one of the biggest alarm bells that made him
suspicious about 9/11 was George W. Bush's reluctance to form a
commission to investigate the attacks.

"I put myself in that position as a Governor or as a President - if I
had a disaster happen like the one we had here in Minnesota where the
bridge fell into the water, you would immediately commission a full
blown public study," he said.

"Yet George Bush stonewalled an investigation for over two years and the
only reason he did one was because of pressure from the 9/11 victims,"
added Ventura.

The former Governor also highlighted the absence of air defense on the
morning of 9/11, speaking from experience as a Navy Seal where "failure
is not an option".

"In the case of our air national defense failure is not an option and on
9/11 they thoroughly failed and here's my point - why was nobody fired?
Why did no one lose their job over the catastrophic failure of 9/11 if
it's indeed what they told us it was," asked Ventura, comparing it to
the lost nuclear warheads story last year which resulted in the
re-assignment or firing of no less than 70 people.

"You have the death of 3,000 people and nobody loses their job over it,"
he added.

Ventura said that his education about 9/11 had increased recently when
he saw a video presentation given by William Rodriguez - former WTC
janitor and last man out of the North Tower who saved victims while
witnessing multiple secondary explosions before the collapse of the
buildings.

"When I watched a DVD of William Rodriquez, this guy is totally talking
from what he what he remembers, you can clearly see it, he is not making
anything up=3F he=3Fs a hero=3Fs hero, there=3Fs no doubt about=3F and when you
hear him talk and he tells about what he knows, how can you not question
what went on that day?" said the former Governor.

Ventura's voice in the call for a new 9/11 investigation could become
significantly more influential if he decides to run for the Senate which
the former Governor said he was seriously considering and would come to
a final decision by July.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...witch_hunt.htm


I heard Jesse on Howard Stern today. He's sliding toward the kookside.

Kind of sad. Truly a swallower of the kookpage bull****.
--
BDK
Kook Magnet Supreme!
NJJC#1
Shill #1
  #5  
Old May 22nd 08, 12:44 PM posted to alt.parenting.solutions,alt.conspiracy,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics
Animal02[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5
Default Ventura Slams Media Witch Hunt For Questioning 9/11


"BDK" wrote in message
...
In article , says...




I heard Jesse on Howard Stern today. He's sliding toward the kookside.

Kind of sad. Truly a swallower of the kookpage bull****.
--
BDK
Kook Magnet Supreme!
NJJC#1
Shill #1


Steriods must have rotted his brain

  #6  
Old May 22nd 08, 01:14 PM posted to alt.parenting.solutions,alt.conspiracy,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics
Al Dykes
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default Ventura Boo-Hoos Over Media Witch Hunt For Questioning 9/11

In article ,
127.0.0.1 wrote:
Patrick Keenan wrote:
"Al Dykes" wrote in message
...
In article ,
127.0.0.1 wrote:
mike3 wrote:
On May 21, 5:51 pm, "127.0.0.1" wrote:
Iarnrod wrote:
SNIP!
But the "collapse" proceeded "through" the lower stories of the tower.
Those undamaged floors below the impact zone would have offered
resistance that is thousands of times greater than air. Recall that
those lower stories had successfully supported the mass of the tower
for
30 years.

But can they support the IMPACT force generated by that mass
CRASHING DOWN on them? Here's a hint: Your hand can support
a 20-lb rock. Now, can your hand survive that rock being dropped on
it from 1 storey above? Didn't think so.
Don't play semantics with me.


You didn't take a High School physics course, did you?


You have to excuse little Tommy, who is an underage wannabe racist. He
hasn't finished high school yet. He is around 16 years old.



I'm not that old yet Pat.. As for a wannabe racist, I'm a full blown
RACIST!
Why would you claim that "I'm A Wannabe Racist?" When you know that
isn't true?

You will quickly find that once he has to get past his cut and paste
technique, he starts contradicting himself.



The only contradictions I've made are your delusions.


Like many 16-year olds, he thinks he knows a lot more than he does.



Tell us Pat, do YOU believe the governments version of 9/11?




To believe that something other than 4 hijacked airplanes caused all
the destruction on 9/11 is to look stupid and IMO, this is the real
purpose of the "Truth Movement", to make critics of the administration
look like idiots

--
Al Dykes
News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising.
- Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail

  #7  
Old May 22nd 08, 01:33 PM posted to alt.parenting.solutions,alt.conspiracy,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics
Al Dykes
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default Ventura Boo-Hoos Over Media Witch Hunt For Questioning 9/11

In article ,
SgtMinor wrote:
Al Dykes wrote:
In article ,
127.0.0.1 wrote:
Iarnrod wrote:

Somebody call the Wahhhh-mbulance for this klown.
How Gravity Acts


Sir Isaac Newton noticed, centuries ago, that apples fell (down! never
up...) from trees. Lots of others, before him, had also noticed this,


The purported "gravitational collapse" (video) of World Trade Center
building 7, which was hit by zero aircraft, and which also vertically
collapsed in within a second of free-fall-time-in-a-vacuum later that
same day, similarly fails this same conservation-of-energy analysis.






You are wrong by a couple thousand ft. WTC7 was 610 ft. tall. Free
fall from that height would be 6.10 seconds. As shown in the video,
WTC7 collapsed in 12-15 seconds. Free fall in that time would be a
couple thousands feet higher.

The final collapse of WTC7 was about 15 seconds by this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4k6GMddY-lQ

snip


We have FOUR demolition experts that are on record saying that WTC was
not a man-made demoliiton job and will explain why they think that:
Ron Craig, Jowenko, and Loizeaux, and Blanchard.

There are no demolition experts that say that WTC was man-made
demolition.

In this video, demolition expert Jowenko explains why WTC 1, 2 and 7
were NOT demolition jobs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkZMQ...elated&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkZMQ...elated&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QajDx...elated&search=
http://jowenko.nl/


Actually, about WTC7, Danny Jowenko, in the final video you cited
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QajDx...lated&search=), says
the exact opposite. He is convinced that WTC7 was a controlled demolition.

In another video he claims it was done by a team of experts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgoSOQ2xrbI




No such "team of experts" got into WTC7, or got out, either. ANd the
ywould have needed tons of high explosives and related equipment. WTC7
was under close observation by firemen and structural engineers. It
was on fire and showing signs of collapse. WTC7 was shown to be
starting to collapse as early as 2PM. See [1], [7], and [8], below.


At 3 minutes, your video is cherrypicked from the full interview,
below, in which he says that it was hypothetical. He doesn't claim it
happened.



Here's an interview in which Jowenko says that WTTC7 could only fallen
as it did with massive preperation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QajDx...elated&search=

In this video, he says (in English subtitles) specifically, WTC 1 and
2 WERE NOT demolition jobs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkZMQ...elated&search=


This video shows demolitions and preperation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnqHLoa-ml8


Jowenko WTC7 Demolition Interviews, 1 of 3 7 minutes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DRh...eature=related

Jowenko WTC7 Demolition Interviews, 2 of 3 (7 minutes)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sep-H...eature=related

Jowenko WTC7 Demolition Interviews, 3 of 3 (8 minutes)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...31148229700505




1. Statement of FDNY Chief Hayden
2. Statement of FDNY Chief Scheuerman
3. High School Physics for fall time of WTC7 with video of WTC7 to establish time.
4. Four Demolition experts say WTC collapse was caused by fire
5. Frame of WTC7 was unlike any other building & probably contributed to collapse
6. Evidence of no man-made demolition,
7. TV News showing WTC7 on fire and close to collapse on the afternoon of 9/11
7.1 Video of WTC7 on fire
8. Transcripts of all firemen and others. 100+ firemen say WTC7 collapse was caused by fire.
9. FDNY Chief Nigro explains the collapse of WTC7
10. Richard Gage and Prof. Jones have no relevant expertise for what tehy say about WTC.
11. No all-steel building was ever doused with gas, set on fire and allowed to burn.
12. Why some buildings near WTC collapsed and some didn't
13. Preventing Injuries and Deaths of Fire Fighters Due to Truss System Failures
14. BUILDING FIRE AND STRUCTURAL FAILURE (Steel buildings DO collapse because of fire)
15. WTC7 Interim report & other links
16. Fireproofing on WTC7 was sub-standard
17. FDNY Training - Including building collapse.
18. Participation of members of Structural Engineers Assoc of NY from early on 9/11.
19. Fire Dept training for Explosions in a steel bulding fire (Not WTC)
20. Video: BBC Early Report on WTC7 Collapse Explained (3 minutes)

[1] ----------------------------

FDNY Chief Haydem explains how they knew that WTC7 was beginning to
collapse as early ast 2:00PM.

FDNY Chief Hayden sighting it with a surveyor's transit: .. 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.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/9...gz/hayden.html

[2] --------------------------------------------------

The Collapse of Building 7 by Arthur Scheuerman December 8, .06
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/Scheuerman...entDec2006.pdf
(good diagrams and pictures. )

Arthur Scheuerman, Battalion Chief FDNY (Retired), Former Deputy
Chief Instructor Nassau County Fire Training Academy and high-rise
Fire Safety Director

[3] ----------------------------

The WTC7 "fast as free-fall" crap is wrong by huge amounts. Free fall
for WTC7 (610 ft.) would be 6.17 seconds. WTC7 could be 2,000 ft high
for 11 seconds to be "free fall".

WTC7 was 610 ft tall.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center

The final collapse of WTC7 was about 15 seconds by this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4k6GMddY-lQ

Equations: http://www.school-for-champions.com/...ns_falling.htm


[4]----------------------------


We have FOUR demolition experts that are on record saying that WTC was
not a man-made demoliiton job and will explain why they think that:
Ron Craig, Jowenko, and Loizeaux, and Blanchard.

There are no demolition experts that say that WTC was man-made
demolition.

In this video, demolition expert Jowenko explains why WTC 1, 2 and 7
were NOT demolition jobs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkZMQ...elated&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkZMQ...elated&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QajDx...elated&search=
http://jowenko.nl/

[5] ----------------------------

Nobody that is familiar with the structural frame of WTC7 thinks there
is anything about the collapse that requires man-made explosives,

Diagram http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ns/thumb/3/3a/
Wtc7_transfer_trusses.png/180px-Wtc7_transfer_trusses.png

http://preview.tinyurl.com/2aftg3

[6]--------------------------

There is a massive amount of evidence that there was no man-made
demolition at WTC. WTC 1 and 2 were videotaped from all angles from
the moment of the first impact to the point of collapse. No video
shows any man-made demolition.

This video is all about man-made demolition. All sources and
documentation for the video is in the second link.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...71255585611926
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/some...sandvideosbyme

No video exists that shows what every known man-made demolition shows.

[7] -----------------------------------


NBC TV news report showing WTC7 on fire and at risk of collapse.
This was broadcast well before early in the day.
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?doc...88033431294%20

[7.1]
http://youtube.com/watch?v=DpAHh-yT25Q&feature=related
WTC7 on fire at 0:44
1:10

[7.2] More WTC7 fire vidoes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afb7e...eature=related
[7.3] Even more WTC7 fire vidoes.
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/WTC7_Fire_Videos

[8]----------------------------

About 100 firemen state clearly that WTC7 was damages by on fire and
about to collapse beginning at about 2PM. Their names and full text
transcripts are online via the following links.

41 firemen mention severity of fire in WTC7
29 firemen mention damage to WTC7
104 firemen mention pullback from WTC7
36 firemen mention "Pull" to mean withdraw from the building

Summary spreadsheet names & statements: http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/WTC7_Eyewitnesses.xls
Full text transcripts for those names: http://preview.tinyurl.com/36rak3
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/
nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html

Lookup for a few non-fireman transcripts:
http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=01...%3Ahx2yxincxdu

[9] ----------------------------

FDNY Chief Nigro was in command at WTC on the afternoon of 9/11.

This is a message Chief Nigro addresses the conspiracy theories
surrounding the collapse of WTC7. Source:
http://911guide.googlepages.com/danielnigro


Chief of Department FDNY (ret.) Daniel Nigro Addresses Conspiracy Theories

Regarding WTC 7: The long-awaited US Government NIST (National
Institute of Standards and Technology) report on the collapse of
WTC 7 is due to be published at the end of this year (although it
has been delayed already a few times [ adding fuel to the
conspiracy theorists fires!]). That report should explain the
cause and mechanics of the collapse in great detail. Early on the
afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1
& 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff).

The reasons are as follows:

1. Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never
collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain
high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and
from fire will collapse.

2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.

3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns
providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.

4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without
sufficient water supply to attack them.

For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the
owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that
decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone
surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that
zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7
collapsed.

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.

Regards, Dan Nigro
Chief of Department FDNY (retired)

[10] ----------------------------

NOBODY with relevant structural engineering or demolition expertise
thinks that there is anything strange about how WTC7 collapsed. None
of the people in AE911 that speak about WTC7 have this expertise.
That includes Jones and Gage.

Gage's Resume: http://members.shaw.ca/loudstudios/GageCV.pdf
Jones' resume http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/...c/jones_cv.htm

Professor Jones nas vener released teh full lab results for his
claims.

[11] ----------------------------

No all-steel building in history was ever doused with thousands of
fuel, set afire and allowed to burn without any firefighting. WTC1,
2, and 7 were unique in that each was hit by tons of something, had
structural damage and had minimal fire-proofing, and had no
firefighting.

[12] -----------------------------------------------------------

Wounded Buildings Offer Survival Lessons (Dec 4, 2001)
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...p=1&sq=&st=nyt
Illustration from article. http://tinyurl.com/ynjre3
Also: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=108006

When the south tower collapsed, said Mr. Trelstad, the engineer,
some of its huge columns fell and ripped out many of the steel
spandrels, or cross beams between windows, on the north facade of
90 West Street. One series of spandrels, from the 11th down to the
3rd floors on the east part of the facade, was destroyed as if a
giant claw had run down the front of the building.
...
He was first struck by the scale of the devastation and the
eeriness of the setting. Fires set by the south tower's debris had
gutted the 2nd, 3rd, 10th and 23rd floors, and much of the northern
portions of the 4th, 5th, 8th and 21st floors. At least two people
are believed to have died in the building, trapped in an elevator.

[13] ---------------------------------------------------

NIOSH Publication No. 2005-132:
Preventing Injuries and Deaths of Fire Fighters Due to Truss System Failures

All-steel trusses present their own hazards when exposed to fire. The
mass and surface area of steel truss components are factors that
determine time to failure. A heavy, thick section of steel has greater
resistance to fire than a lightweight section of the same length
because of the increased mass. A large, solid steel truss can absorb
heat and take longer to reach its failure temperature, whereas a
lightweight steel truss such as an open-web bar joist will be heated
to its failure temperature much faster. ...

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2005-132/

(see table D-1 http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2005-132/#ad )

[14] ------------

Title: A BUILDING FIRE AND STRUCTURAL FAILURE (Steel buildings DO collapse because of fire)

URL Source: http://www.mutualbox.com/a_building_...ructural_f.htm
Published: Jul 6, 2006


When you enter a lightweight steel bar joist building on fire and you
hear popping, cracking, creaking and metal to metal rubbing together,
get out, the trusses are failing. It is not safe to enter for any
reason. At 205 West Jefferson Street Captain Patterson, Engine 108,
the first engine on the scene reported hearing popping sounds,
cracking sounds and things that just did not sound right. After moving
in about twenty feet attacking the fire, he wisely evacuated the
building. The roof collapsed shortly after they evacuated. All of
these sounds were steel I beams and trusses failing. At a recent
warehouse fire in Prince George.s County MD companies were operating
on the interior of the lightweight steel bar joist building. When
Volunteer Chief 33, Ricky Riley, arrived on the scene and radioed his
engine crew, he asked them, "what do you hear, do you hear anything",
the response from the company officer was "yes, there are popping
sounds" He ordered all interior companies to evacuate the
building. The roof collapsed approximetley ten minutes after
evacuation. Again, the sounds were the roof trusses failing.

http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/r...?ArtNum=148816

---

[15] --------------------------------------------------

Interim Report on WTC 7
http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_.../appendixl.pdf
Links to other WTC7 reports
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center
---

[16] -----------------------------------------

Why the World Trade Center Buildings Collapsed A Fire Chief's Assessment
http://vincentdunn.com/wtc.html

---

[17] ----------------------------------

John Jay College teaches about stuture fires for NY firemen.
http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~firesci/fi...ce_faculty.htm

Glenn Corbett, professor of fire science at John Jay College of
Criminal Justice says the CD people are k00ks and explains why in this
20 minute interview.
http://www.wnyc.org/shows/bl/episodes/2007/09/14


FDNY Training - Including building collapse.
http://www.fdtraining.com/NewCourses.html


[18] --------------------------------

Many members of Structural Engineers Assoc of NY
reported to WTC early on 9/11 to supertvice investigation.
http://www.seaony.org/

Source: Book: _Nine Months at Ground Zero_ By Stout, Vitchers, & Gray

[19] -----------------------------

Explosions in a steel bulding fire (Not WTC)

"As Engine 15 turned up Liberty street Captain John Kahl could see
light smoke from the top floor of the Hurst Building. Captain Kahl
did not think he had much of a fire so he went to check the
automatic alarm box. The box indicated that there was fire in the
basement, so Captain Kahl had his crew force entry threw a glass
door on the German street side and entered the building with a 3/4
inch chemical line and 2 1/2 hand line. As the crew was standing
on the stairs to the basement they could see the fire rolling
across the ceiling towards the elevator shaft. It was not long
after Captain Kahl entered the building when a smoke explosion
occurred in the elevator shaft. The explosion was powerful enough
to blow off the roof , break several windows and also throw large
embers across the street into the broken windows of several
buildings. All the firefighters escaped with out injury"

What you have just read describeds what firemen call a smoke
explosion at a fire in Boston. This phenomenon occurs when a fire
creates a pocket of hot explosive gas in an enclosed area. The gas
comes from material in the area of the fire that is heated to the
point of giving off gas, but the area is not hot enough for
spontaneous combustion to occure. All it takes is a spark or the
inrush of oxygen rich air to make the gas ignite. Its similar to a
backdraft but in a backdraft the gas has space to expand and burn,
in a smoke explosion the enclosed space make the effect more
explosive in nature.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=477

[20] ----

BBC Early Report on WTC7 Collapse Explained
http://youtube.com/watch?v=zZrlNw-31R8
---



Don't respond with "people heard...." or "experts say.." unless you
have the names of those people. Lets see what they heard or saw.

Don't respond with a video of eyewitness claims. I want names and text
transcripts. That's what I give you and am prepared to give you more
of. There is video on Twoofer sites that has had explosion sounds
added to it.

Don't respond by changing the topic or making a counterclaim.

You can prove me wrong by posting a name with credentials and a
statement.




--
Al Dykes
News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising.
- Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail

  #8  
Old May 22nd 08, 03:04 PM posted to alt.parenting.solutions,alt.conspiracy,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics
SgtMinor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default Ventura Boo-Hoos Over Media Witch Hunt For Questioning 9/11

Al Dykes wrote:
In article ,
SgtMinor wrote:
Al Dykes wrote:
In article ,
127.0.0.1 wrote:
Iarnrod wrote:

Somebody call the Wahhhh-mbulance for this klown.
How Gravity Acts

Sir Isaac Newton noticed, centuries ago, that apples fell (down! never
up...) from trees. Lots of others, before him, had also noticed this,
The purported "gravitational collapse" (video) of World Trade Center
building 7, which was hit by zero aircraft, and which also vertically
collapsed in within a second of free-fall-time-in-a-vacuum later that
same day, similarly fails this same conservation-of-energy analysis.




You are wrong by a couple thousand ft. WTC7 was 610 ft. tall. Free
fall from that height would be 6.10 seconds. As shown in the video,
WTC7 collapsed in 12-15 seconds. Free fall in that time would be a
couple thousands feet higher.

The final collapse of WTC7 was about 15 seconds by this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4k6GMddY-lQ

snip

We have FOUR demolition experts that are on record saying that WTC was
not a man-made demoliiton job and will explain why they think that:
Ron Craig, Jowenko, and Loizeaux, and Blanchard.

There are no demolition experts that say that WTC was man-made
demolition.

In this video, demolition expert Jowenko explains why WTC 1, 2 and 7
were NOT demolition jobs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkZMQ...elated&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkZMQ...elated&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QajDx...elated&search=
http://jowenko.nl/

Actually, about WTC7, Danny Jowenko, in the final video you cited
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QajDx...lated&search=), says
the exact opposite. He is convinced that WTC7 was a controlled demolition.

In another video he claims it was done by a team of experts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgoSOQ2xrbI




No such "team of experts" got into WTC7, or got out, either. ANd the
ywould have needed tons of high explosives and related equipment. WTC7
was under close observation by firemen and structural engineers. It
was on fire and showing signs of collapse. WTC7 was shown to be
starting to collapse as early as 2PM. See [1], [7], and [8], below.


I don't care. I'm just telling you that Jowenko says the exact opposite
of what you claim.



At 3 minutes, your video is cherrypicked from the full interview,
below, in which he says that it was hypothetical. He doesn't claim it
happened.


There must be a lot of pressure on Jowenko to get him to change his story.





Here's an interview in which Jowenko says that WTTC7 could only fallen
as it did with massive preperation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QajDx...elated&search=

In this video, he says (in English subtitles) specifically, WTC 1 and
2 WERE NOT demolition jobs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkZMQ...elated&search=


I know Jowenko did not claim that WTC1 and 2 were controlled
demolitions. But as far as WTC7 was concerned you offered him as
"support" when he actually indicted your claim.

Personally, I'm fascinated by the official story supporters. It is
amazing to me that there is a group of people who believe the "official"
story, whatever that may be, with the same fervor as the hijackers
believed in their Korans.

How can anyone see film of WTC7 coming down, and read about its small
debris field, and not wonder? How can a big building like that come
down from so little damage? What kind of crappy design and construction
are people getting away with?

It seems that reality deniers can't stand any nuances in their lives.
  #9  
Old May 22nd 08, 03:24 PM posted to alt.parenting.solutions,alt.conspiracy,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics
Just go look it up!
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default Ventura Boo-Hoos Over Media Witch Hunt For Questioning 9/11

On Thu, 22 May 2008 10:04:34 -0400, SgtMinor
wrote:



How can anyone see film of WTC7 coming down, and read about its small
debris field, and not wonder? How can a big building like that come
down from so little damage? What kind of crappy design and construction
are people getting away with?

It seems that reality deniers can't stand any nuances in their lives.


They're getting away with the crappy design of building a bridge over
a ConEd substation and then plopping a building on top of it. Once
the bridge collapsed, what do people expect the building on top of it
to do?
  #10  
Old May 22nd 08, 05:41 PM posted to alt.parenting.solutions,alt.conspiracy,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics
Vandar
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default Ventura Boo-Hoos Over Media Witch Hunt For Questioning 9/11

SgtMinor wrote:

Al Dykes wrote:

In article ,
SgtMinor wrote:

Al Dykes wrote:

In article ,
127.0.0.1 wrote:

Iarnrod wrote:

Somebody call the Wahhhh-mbulance for this klown.

How Gravity Acts

Sir Isaac Newton noticed, centuries ago, that apples fell (down!
never up...) from trees. Lots of others, before him, had also
noticed this, The purported "gravitational collapse" (video) of
World Trade Center building 7, which was hit by zero aircraft, and
which also vertically collapsed in within a second of
free-fall-time-in-a-vacuum later that same day, similarly fails
this same conservation-of-energy analysis.





You are wrong by a couple thousand ft. WTC7 was 610 ft. tall. Free
fall from that height would be 6.10 seconds. As shown in the video,
WTC7 collapsed in 12-15 seconds. Free fall in that time would be a
couple thousands feet higher.

The final collapse of WTC7 was about 15 seconds by this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4k6GMddY-lQ

snip


We have FOUR demolition experts that are on record saying that WTC was
not a man-made demoliiton job and will explain why they think that:
Ron Craig, Jowenko, and Loizeaux, and Blanchard.

There are no demolition experts that say that WTC was man-made
demolition.

In this video, demolition expert Jowenko explains why WTC 1, 2 and 7
were NOT demolition jobs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkZMQ...elated&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkZMQ...elated&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QajDx...elated&search=
http://jowenko.nl/

Actually, about WTC7, Danny Jowenko, in the final video you cited
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QajDx...lated&search=),
says the exact opposite. He is convinced that WTC7 was a controlled
demolition.

In another video he claims it was done by a team of experts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgoSOQ2xrbI





No such "team of experts" got into WTC7, or got out, either. ANd the
ywould have needed tons of high explosives and related equipment. WTC7
was under close observation by firemen and structural engineers. It
was on fire and showing signs of collapse. WTC7 was shown to be
starting to collapse as early as 2PM. See [1], [7], and [8], below.



I don't care. I'm just telling you that Jowenko says the exact opposite
of what you claim.


And Dr. Bill Frist incorrectly diagnosed Terry Schiavo by looking at one
video as well.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Constant questioning Donna Metler General 7 February 28th 08 05:27 AM
Motion Questioning Henry Child Support 58 October 30th 07 05:13 PM
CT: New Haven witch hunt for deadbeat fathers - notice that NO mothers were on their list... Dusty Child Support 1 April 5th 05 06:37 AM
Missing in Ventura California MeltnMetal Solutions 0 December 17th 04 07:30 PM
Questioning Doctor's advice. karen hill Pregnancy 48 January 16th 04 01:01 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:11 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.