Some more shoe talkers Another list...sorry if some of the names are duplicated. didn't want to be accused of editing it... 1. Costello, Edward J. Jr., Former Special Agent, Counterintelligence, FBI 2. Cole, John M., Former Veteran Intelligence Operations Specialist, FBI 3. Conrad, David "Mark", Retired Agent in Charge, Internal Affairs, U.S. Customs 4. Dew, Rosemary N., Former Supervisory Special Agent, Counterterrorism & Counterintelligence, FBI 5. Dzakovic, Bogdan, Former Red Team Leader, FAA 6. Edmonds, Sibel D., Former Language Specialist, FBI 7. Elson, Steve, Retired Navy Seal & Former Special Agent, FAA & US Navy 8. Forbes, David, Aviation, Logistics and Govt. Security Analysts, BoydForbes, Inc., 9. Goodman, Melvin A., Former Senior Analyst/ Division Manager, CIA; Senior Fellow at the Center for International Policy 10. Graf, Mark, Former Security Supervisor, Planner, & Derivative Classifier, Department of Energy 11. Graham, Gilbert M., Retired Special Agent, Counterintelligence, FBI 12. Kleiman, Diane, Former Special Agent, US Customs 13. Kwiatkowski, Karen U., Lt. Col. USAF (ret.), Veteran Policy Analyst-DoD 14. Larkin, Lynne A., Former Operation Officer, CIA 15. MacMichael, David, Former Senior Estimates Officer, CIA 16. McGovern, Raymond L., Former Analyst, CIA 17. Pahle, Theodore J., Retired Senior Intelligence Officer, DIA 18. Sarshar, Behrooz, Retired Language Specialist, FBI 19. Sullivan, Brian F., Retired Special Agent & Risk Management Specialist, FAA 20. Tortorich, Larry J., Retired US Naval Officer, US Navy & Dept. of Homeland Security/TSA 21. Turner, Jane A., Retired Special Agent, FBI 22. Vincent, John B., Retired Special Agent, Counterterrorism, FBI 23. Whitehurst, Dr. Fred, Retired Supervisory Special Agent/Laboratory Forensic Examiner, FBI 24. Wright, Ann, Col. US Army (ret.); and Former Foreign Service officer 25. Zipoli, Matthew J., Special Response Team (SRT) Officer, DOE
General Question for moderator? I was wondering if it would be acceptable to refer particular groups of people to this forum in the form of a link via email. Would I be violating any rules/laws of this forum? I'm interested in contacting some pro 911 media/professional folks that I think would "enjoy" some of the brilliance exhibited here. Is that ok? Thanks.
My mistake..93 was never shot down. http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/shootdown.html Now I'm confused again...was it or wasn't it???
Tom what I see there is a couple of windows popping out, now that could have been due to internal preassure there is no indication of a series of controlled explossions. Watch it in inverted colour at 1/4 speed you will see two to three explosions or windows popping with smoke ejecting from them. Now compare that footage with this http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5526343190896185363#docid=6979955002470780153
Use some common sense...if a flat piece of paper slams into another piece of paper...air will escape from it's perimeter edges. This is EXACTLY when happened when the floors "pancaked" in the WTC after "true" muslims attacked it on 9/11/01. You had all of that volume of air needing to go somewhere and it went OUT...quickly!
If all Tom is going to do is post you tube videos to make his case, then I guess we should post some internet crap to combat his internet crap. Explain this site Tom. http://layscience.net/?q=node/124 10 PHOTOGRAPHS TRUTHERS HATE!
Yes De Orc.."pressure" is the most popular explanation. Some things to consider if you buy that. There was this really big hole that the plane created. I submit that any "pressure" would escape through that great big hole first. Now..if the building was like a syringe, and no fluid (in this case air) could escape, then it might be reasonable to ASSUME that it might be pressure. You are going to tell me that the floors "pancaking" together (which if you recall was the standing explanation as to how the buildings collapsed..until the laws of physics caught up with them...now it's "thermal expansion") formed such a "syringe like" seal that the only path for most of the pressure to go was to blow the windows? Well...according to the "latest and greatest" version of the official story, the steel beams were all twisted and bent up from the intense desk and trashcan fires..so how can these twisted hot bent up beams hold such a seal on the escaping air? How could there be this kind of vacuum tight seal that forcibly blew out the windows? All the way down? Then if you say yes to that, then, I submit that this "high pressure" vacuum syringe like seal, would have offered at least "some" (if not very significant) RESISTANCE to each succeeding floor, thus adding up cumulatively, SLOWING DOWN the free fall speed of the collapse. As it is now...the timer shows freefall speed.....no resistance WHATSOEVER. You can't have it both ways. The speed of the collapse is the main thing that is wrong with that scenario either way. It's amazing..you folks can offer up all kinds of apologies/alternative explanations as to how these things "might" have occurred by analyzing what you think you see, but you can't analyze the most obvious or anything that subjects the "official story 2.0" to the same level of scrutiny. If, for arguments sake, you could throw out 75% of the most common and questionable "conspiracy" theories (which, scientifically, you couldn't do) you'd still have much, much MORE THAN ENOUGH rope left to hang them with. Almost of all you don't/won't/can't offer to defend most of the points I've tried to make...and I can come up with many more..trust me on that one. If these points are all so very easy to dismiss, then do it! Pick one! I'd entertain anything reasonable points (reasonable being something you can calmly explain, without insults, and hopefully with some type of support towards your alternative) other than "maybe...what if". You know..we can all go on countering with "alternative" theories till the end of time. How bout we stick with the most obvious, explainable ones? I started slow, with a few different points...I got little credible response. So I have tried the "shotgun effect" of offering many different, what I would call, problem points, or aspects of different buildings, different flights, different testimony, etc. I basically tried to come from all over the place, thinking maybe one of them would pry something loose is somebody's brain. It hasn't happened. If it did, more importantly, if the offerings were true, .then the basic explanations folks would come up with, would all be similarly defended. (unless you call "similarly defended" as 'yup..they're all nut cases...couldn't happen'). That's about as common as it gets... and to me...and to many other folks, that just ain't cuttin' it.
No Tom what I was going to say is that the air would have rushed forward going with the direction of the plane to start with and then followed the route of least resistance Ie corridors stairwells lift shafts etc, this is what happens with a explosion the shock waves travel outward. Certainly you would have had some expell itself out through the hole made by the plane that is only common sence. Now did you take the time to watch the footage I provided of a actual controlled demolition of a tower? and did you see the diffrences Tom, they are quite distinct compare the number of explosions required to drop that much smaller tower to what is shown on your vid link. Now those Tom are facts they do not match up
C'mon De Orc...do you know the method of demolition used in your example?? The design of the structure compared to WTC1 and 2? Would you at least admit that there could possibly be a distinct difference between high tech nano thermite cutter charges versus whatever method was employed in your example? A quick search would easily seperate the characteristics of thermite and several other methods of demolition. The number of explosions is your main point there?? Those "squibs" are just air pressure huh? That's all anybody's got? Hmmm...you know I saw a steaming oil puddle underneath a car the other day. It could have been from the same car, since it's engine was also smoking and steaming and had a big hole in it but, I could be wrong. It MIGHT have been from someone elses car that was there prior. Walks like a duck quacks like a duck, it might be.....an oversized baby chicken???
I do have to admit though De Orc. The time it took to fall wasn't far off from the WTC's time. It IS easy to see the similarities between the two. Both WTC 1 and 2 fell straight down "explosively assisted", and also in your example, an "explosively assisted" building falling down. Very similar. Thanks for the help.
Wow, The propaganda just never stops. So you don't think that air pressure could blow out the windows of the building huh. You submit that any pressure would escape through the big hole made by the plane. What are you smoking. Tom, over one million pounds of metal and other material collapsed on top of the lower floors. The hole from the plane was no longer there. Not to mention that every floor has drop ceilings that would prevent the air from going up anyway. Once the million pounds of the upper floors came crashing down, you are submitting that the air traveled upwards through the cracks and debris. Oh and the steel beams were twisted. Wow! I am stunned. A 110 story building collasped and the debris was twisted. No way. You think the floors didn't pancake together because it violates the laws of physics. Exactly what law does it violate Tom. I have been waiting for a physics lesson from the guy who does not understand metallurgy or pyrology. So which law does it violate Tom? The Law of Inertia? The Law of Force? Newtons third law? Your childish attempt to downplay facts that hurt your case is obvious. You insinuated that the steel beams were twisted and burnt by the intense desk and trash can fires. Anybody watching on TV could see the ferocity of the fire burning inside those buildings. I have posted a link several times that shows the average temperature of a normal structure fire is over 900 degrees Celsius. You continue to ignore that link and then post misleading information about the open air burning temperature of jet fuel and the melting point of steel. Both temperatures are completely irrelevant to the conversation. After calling you out on it, you then brought up the forging temperature of steel which is also irrelevant. I have told you before that steel loses its strength once the critical anneal temperature is reached. The critical annealing point of most steel alloys is between 600-650 degrees Celsius. Furthermore, I will submit that you have never personally been involved in a fire or any other disaster. Just so you know. I was the plant manager in an aluminum master alloys plant when the entire dust collection system caught fire. I had two induction furnaces full of molten aluminum at the time of the fire. Without thinking, I called 911 from the office which was located on top of the furnace deck. The fire was right beneath the steel platform I was standing on. When I finished the call and came out of the office, the entire building was overcome with intense black smoke. I could not breathe or see and had to find my way out of an industrial building using only memory. Now I can promise you that the heat I felt from that fire through the steel platform was higher than 500 degrees Celcius. If that is not enough, I was also involved in a building collapse. The year before the casino expansion was complete, the new parking structure collapsed. It was only 5 stories high at the time of the collapse but I can tell you from personal account, there was nothing left but rubble and four dead construction workers. The bedlam and confusion that took place after the collapse was staggering. I can't even imagine the confusion on 9/11. Making light of the intensity of the fires or the magnitude of the disaster sickens me as does your unrelenting disregard for everything logical. Your little vacuum theory. Well we can bust that right now. When a wave breaks in the ocean the resulting white water is not completely liquid. There are air pockets in the water. For the purposes of 9/11, imagine a wave 100 feet high and the associated white water it would produce. I submit to you Tom that anything that white water touches (including air) will travel in the same direction of the white water. Now imagine instead of water, the wave consisted of millions of pounds of falling debris. Do you still think anything in it's way (including air) is going any direction but down? You love to claim that nobody can even put a dent into anything you say. That is easy to claim when you ignore it when it happens. You have also in a very cowardly way weaseled out of having to respond to my points because you refuse to argue with me citing that I am mean spirited or something like that. The only reason you find me irritating Tom is because you know I am right but don't have the manhood to admit it. The truth is you don't want to debate, you don't even want to argue. You simply want to post your left wing propaganda over and over in hopes that you can dupe a few people with your misleading drivel.
Tom do you have any idea as to what a sudden rush of air pressure will do to a building? So far I have heard people talk about the explosion resulting fire etc but nothing about that one little effect of a big bang!
