Speak Out Network
OSAMA ASSASSINATED
After almost one million deaths and more than $1 trillion, Smiley & West ask: Was it worth it?
|
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by joe on -
Walter, with respect, I have answered that question. It is not a question of steel melting-that is the total error of the premise. Steel doesn't have to melt in order to fail-not at all. There was not an implosion, there was a EXPLOSION, the explosion and consequent pouring down the structure of the fuel on fire, caused a structural failure-that is why I referenced as examples, the modeling of the structural failures by the MIT papers-but it is not just MIT structural engineers-you read the engineering literature there are quite a few models that show the same effect. There was debris sent outward, but also the plane was going at around 300 mph+, the explosion went outward, and also Inward-because remember, it went INSIDE a building, right? It wasn't in the open, say like a grenade exploding in a open field. Consider the case of a grenade, and this was more than a grenade, but follow the analogy. Consider a grenade exploding in a building, and that was a incideary grenade--all of the elements from the explosion would not escape the building, some of it would be contained within it. Now, this case was of a airliner, coming into a building and fully fueled, and you had explosion seen from the outside, and fire and flame within. The fuel burned and went down the structure, spreading the fire. The steel did not have to reach melting point to fail-that is the key error by the 9/11 truth or so called truth folks. Steel wont fail unless it melts. Factually false. There was 7 years after 9/11, a overpass in Los Angeles that had a fire, and a steel framework underneath the concrete-when a tanker full of oil crashed with another car, causing a fire, and way beneath the melting point of steel saw same structural collapse. A good friend of mine, who questioned the collapse of the Towers, wrote me in email, saying that now, after reading the story, said that the claim that steel had to melt in order to fail was false. I wrote back, I have with respect, known that for some time.
Walter Simtec Simmons said:You experts have not answered my questions yet. How can a plane create an implosion? How can steel melt that quick. How long does it take for steel to heat up and collapse? I know common sense is not common but it tells me that an explosion sends debris outward and not inward. It sounds to me that you guys are so certain.
-
Permalink Reply by joe on
-
Walter, just catching up to your thread been away for awhile, the analogy of a bottle under pressure is not the case of two jet, fully fueled, impacting a building at high speed. The way that steel can get hot quickly, is dependent on the amount of energy, in this case flaming fuel,and the temperature of the fuel. Specifically, the equations of thermodynamics controls this, and this is quite consistent with those laws. To say that there was not enough pressure to penetrate to the base, that is also incorrect. Precisely because it is not an issue of 'pressure to penetrate the base'-it is the weight of the floors themselves and how that weight-when they collapsed caused a pancaking effect.
Of course heat takes time to travel, but one of the things that you know from experience here, is that if you have a dense material, that both sound, any type of matter wave, will travel faster in a denser material-light wont, but sound will, if you put your ear on a railroad, you can hear the train coming for example, before you could hear it in the air-density is less in the air. Heat is a matter wave, it is the vibrational movement of molecules, so heat will travel faster in metal, and consider the case that you have a large energy source-an fully fueled plane, plus the kinetic energy of the plane impacting the building.
Again, Walter I appreciate the question--but the physics really does support the collapse as described--please do take a look at the analysis of the MIT group--that is why I posted them.
Walter Simtec Simmons said:How can steel get flaming hot that quick and travel that far. Too simple to rap my mind around. Heat takes time to travel and it must be concentrated from one beam to the other. Does the steel run horizontal & vertical? thanks for you explanation.
Walter Simtec Simmons said:
Walter, When STEEL gets flaming HOT it travels one END to the other END, and that's why the two TOWERS collapsed...You experts have not answered my questions yet. How can a plane create an implosion? How can steel melt that quick. How long does it take for steel to heat up and collapse? I know common sense is not common but it tells me that an explosion sends debris outward and not inward. It sounds to me that you guys are so certain.
-
Permalink Reply by Darrell C. Greenhouse on -
@joe,
Thanks for the elementary physics refresher...
joe said:Walter, just catching up to your thread been away for awhile, the analogy of a bottle under pressure is not the case of two jet, fully fueled, impacting a building at high speed. The way that steel can get hot quickly, is dependent on the amount of energy, in this case flaming fuel,and the temperature of the fuel. Specifically, the equations of thermodynamics controls this, and this is quite consistent with those laws. To say that there was not enough pressure to penetrate to the base, that is also incorrect. Precisely because it is not an issue of 'pressure to penetrate the base'-it is the weight of the floors themselves and how that weight-when they collapsed caused a pancaking effect.
Of course heat takes time to travel, but one of the things that you know from experience here, is that if you have a dense material, that both sound, any type of matter wave, will travel faster in a denser material-light wont, but sound will, if you put your ear on a railroad, you can hear the train coming for example, before you could hear it in the air-density is less in the air. Heat is a matter wave, it is the vibrational movement of molecules, so heat will travel faster in metal, and consider the case that you have a large energy source-an fully fueled plane, plus the kinetic energy of the plane impacting the building.
Again, Walter I appreciate the question--but the physics really does support the collapse as described--please do take a look at the analysis of the MIT group--that is why I posted them.
Walter Simtec Simmons said:How can steel get flaming hot that quick and travel that far. Too simple to rap my mind around. Heat takes time to travel and it must be concentrated from one beam to the other. Does the steel run horizontal & vertical? thanks for you explanation.
Walter Simtec Simmons said:
Walter, When STEEL gets flaming HOT it travels one END to the other END, and that's why the two TOWERS collapsed...You experts have not answered my questions yet. How can a plane create an implosion? How can steel melt that quick. How long does it take for steel to heat up and collapse? I know common sense is not common but it tells me that an explosion sends debris outward and not inward. It sounds to me that you guys are so certain.
-
Permalink Reply by Walter Simtec Simmons on -
Hi Joe.
Are you saying that the jet fuel escaped from the explosion and saturated the steel beams and was ignited by the fire which caused the steel beams to collapsed from within all the way to the bottom of that tall building? Remember Joe, this is not a movie we are talking about. I understand that the government have a job to do and that is to not allow the general public to panic. I had a real challenge trying to explain to my granddaughter where her grandmother went when she made her transition. What scientific formula was used to insure that the end justified the means.
-
Permalink Reply by PR Joe Felix on -
Properly applied "Panic" can be quite useful.
Walter Simtec Simmons said:
Hi Joe.
Are you saying that the jet fuel escaped from the explosion and saturated the steel beams and was ignited by the fire which caused the steel beams to collapsed from within all the way to the bottom of that tall building? Remember Joe, this is not a movie we are talking about. I understand that the government have a job to do and that is to not allow the general public to panic. I had a real challenge trying to explain to my granddaughter where her grandmother went when she made her transition. What scientific formula was used to insure that the end justified the means.
-
Permalink Reply by Penguin Board of Directors on -
Hello thinkers and doers,
I admire and keep company of those who have the wherewithal to look authority straight in-between the eyes and ask for answers to patent inconsistencies. That is how that should be. The real challenge for the camp of conspiracy theorists is ridding itself of folks who are simply too lazy to think. If the camp can get past that, it can sidestep the menace of its pseudo-intellectuals seeking their lunch bowl by churning out third-rated, jaundiced stuff.
From 9/11 spinners, through birthers and deathers to preachers of America's imperialism who nonetheless refuse to renounce their American citizenship and become Libyans (or something else), conspiracy theorists are cut from the same cloth. Among them are these intellectual quacks yet to learn that untainted data and critical analysis drive study outcome; not the other way around. They try too hard to force-feed otherwise sacrosanct data and analysis to say what they personally wish to say. Sadly, these frauds will remain in business for as long as they have drones to keep taking in their garbage; hook, line and sinker. I am all for justified skepticism founded on critical analysis to keep public and private functionaries accountable; but there is a clear line of demarcation between informed critique and crass gangsterism.
Darrell C. Greenhouse said:
What I mean is that you're going up against some entrenched ideas from some of the other individuals in the thread. Plus, I'm pretty sure many are afraid to state publicly what they may truly believe.
On the particular issue you've been pounding on; (i.e. whether 911 was a "false flag" operation or not and whether it was in collusion directly or indirectly with the hijackers), the positions of the individuals on both sides of the matter in this long thread are very entrenched (as already stated). As I mentioned previously, “My jury” is still out and I haven't studied the data enough to form an educated opinion. Although as alluded to previously, I have seen a number of interviews and read a number of articles pertaining to the above. The points you've made regarding the physics of the incident(s) are well taken and logical/thoughtful individuals would more than likely come to the same conclusions. I'm well aware that there are “rough elements” in our society and throughout history that will/did go to any ends to further their nefarious designs. Finally and in all honesty, I’ve been “straddling the fence” on the matter. I find it hard to believe that something of this magnitude would have been perpetrated on our soil indirectly or directly by U.S. citizens. But of course, following my thesis above; vis-à-vis “the dark ones”, I believe it’s within the realm of possibility.
So stated simply and without all the “melodious double talk”, people are going to believe what people are going to believe and you won’t change their opinion(s); they have to do that themselves. Finally-Finally - “You can lead a horse to water, but only the horse can stop itself from jumping in and drowning!”
-
Permalink Reply by LibyaWest on -
Eyewitness Libya: Cynthia McKinney Reports Back On The Massive Bombing of Tripoli
http://www.answercoalition.org/national/news/eyewitness-libya-cynth...
The ANSWER Coalition is sponsoring a nationwide speaking tour featuring former Congressional representative and presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney, who is currently in Libya on her second fact-finding mission. McKinney will offer an eyewitness report exposing the truth that has been concealed by the western corporate media.
Also speaking on the tour will be Akbar Muhammad of the Nation of Islam, former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark and Brian Becker, National Coordinator of the ANSWER Coalition.
McKinney and the other speakers will shed light on the devastating impact of the U.S./NATO bombing of Libya and the extensive civilian casualties that the White House, Pentagon and the media have persistently denied. McKinney is currently on her second trip to Libya during the NATO bombing. During her time there, she has visited several hospitals, and has conducted video interviews with doctors and the wounded.
Under the guise of humanitarian intervention and protecting civilians, NATO has carried out a massive bombing of Africa's largest oil producer. McKinney's report shows how devastating the bombing has been for civilians in Tripoli and elsewhere.
Los Angeles
Saturday, June 18, 6pm
Immanuel Presbyterian Church
Westminster Chapel
3300 Wilshire Boulevard
Info: 213-251-1025
SPEAKERS: Cynthia McKinney, Akbar Muhammad, Muna Coobtee
San Francisco
Tuesday, June 21, 6:30pm
Unitarian Universalist Church
Thomas Starr King Room
Franklin & Geary Sts.
Info: 415-821-6545
Co-sponsored by the Unitarian Universalists for Peace
SPEAKERS: Cynthia McKinney, Akbar Muhammad, Omar Ali
Chicago
Wednesday, June 22, 7pm
University of Illinois at Chicago
BSB Building, Room 140
Corner of Harrison and Morgan
Info: 773-463-0311
SPEAKERS: Cynthia McKinney, Akbar Muhammad, Brian Becker
Washington, D.C.
Friday, June 24, 7pm
Festival Center
1640 Columbia Rd. NW
Info: 202-265-1948
SPEAKERS: Cynthia McKinney, Akbar Muhammad, Brian Becker
New York City
Saturday, June 25, 2pm
Location to be announced
Info: 212-694-8720
SPEAKERS: Cynthia McKinney, Akbar Muhammad, Ramsey Clark, Brian Becker
-
Permalink Reply by LibyaWest on
-
http://www.answercoalition.org/national/news/eyewitness-libya-cynth...
The ANSWER Coalition is sponsoring a nationwide speaking tour featuring former Congressional representative and presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney, who is currently in Libya on her second fact-finding mission. McKinney will offer an eyewitness report exposing the truth that has been concealed by the western corporate media.
Also speaking on the tour will be Akbar Muhammad of the Nation of Islam, former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark and Brian Becker, National Coordinator of the ANSWER Coalition.
McKinney and the other speakers will shed light on the devastating impact of the U.S./NATO bombing of Libya and the extensive civilian casualties that the White House, Pentagon and the media have persistently denied. McKinney is currently on her second trip to Libya during the NATO bombing. During her time there, she has visited several hospitals, and has conducted video interviews with doctors and the wounded.
Under the guise of humanitarian intervention and protecting civilians, NATO has carried out a massive bombing of Africa's largest oil producer. McKinney's report shows how devastating the bombing has been for civilians in Tripoli and elsewhere.
Los Angeles
Saturday, June 18, 6pm
Immanuel Presbyterian Church
Westminster Chapel
3300 Wilshire Boulevard
Info: 213-251-1025
SPEAKERS: Cynthia McKinney, Akbar Muhammad, Muna Coobtee
San Francisco
Tuesday, June 21, 6:30pm
Unitarian Universalist Church
Thomas Starr King Room
Franklin & Geary Sts.
Info: 415-821-6545
Co-sponsored by the Unitarian Universalists for Peace
SPEAKERS: Cynthia McKinney, Akbar Muhammad, Omar Ali
Chicago
Wednesday, June 22, 7pm
University of Illinois at Chicago
BSB Building, Room 140
Corner of Harrison and Morgan
Info: 773-463-0311
SPEAKERS: Cynthia McKinney, Akbar Muhammad, Brian Becker
Washington, D.C.
Friday, June 24, 7pm
Festival Center
1640 Columbia Rd. NW
Info: 202-265-1948New York City
Saturday, June 25, 2pm
Location to be announced
Info: 212-694-8720
SPEAKERS: Cynthia McKinney, Akbar Muhammad, Ramsey Clark, Brian Becker
-
Permalink Reply by Sonya Waggoner on -
Amen!
charles derrick jr said:
People are quick too forget America has done so many people dead wrong on the same soil we on now karma doesn't discriminate people do
-
Permalink Reply by joe on
-
Well said Yomi..Well said..
Yomi Ace said:Hello thinkers and doers,
I admire and keep company of those who have the wherewithal to look authority straight in-between the eyes and ask for answers to patent inconsistencies. That is how that should be. The real challenge for the camp of conspiracy theorists is ridding itself of folks who are simply too lazy to think. If the camp can get past that, it can sidestep the menace of its pseudo-intellectuals seeking their lunch bowl by churning out third-rated, jaundiced stuff.
From 9/11 spinners, through birthers and deathers to preachers of America's imperialism who nonetheless refuse to renounce their American citizenship and become Libyans (or something else), conspiracy theorists are cut from the same cloth. Among them are these intellectual quacks yet to learn that untainted data and critical analysis drive study outcome; not the other way around. They try too hard to force-feed otherwise sacrosanct data and analysis to say what they personally wish to say. Sadly, these frauds will remain in business for as long as they have drones to keep taking in their garbage; hook, line and sinker. I am all for justified skepticism founded on critical analysis to keep public and private functionaries accountable; but there is a clear line of demarcation between informed critique and crass gangsterism.
Darrell C. Greenhouse said:
What I mean is that you're going up against some entrenched ideas from some of the other individuals in the thread. Plus, I'm pretty sure many are afraid to state publicly what they may truly believe.
On the particular issue you've been pounding on; (i.e. whether 911 was a "false flag" operation or not and whether it was in collusion directly or indirectly with the hijackers), the positions of the individuals on both sides of the matter in this long thread are very entrenched (as already stated). As I mentioned previously, “My jury” is still out and I haven't studied the data enough to form an educated opinion. Although as alluded to previously, I have seen a number of interviews and read a number of articles pertaining to the above. The points you've made regarding the physics of the incident(s) are well taken and logical/thoughtful individuals would more than likely come to the same conclusions. I'm well aware that there are “rough elements” in our society and throughout history that will/did go to any ends to further their nefarious designs. Finally and in all honesty, I’ve been “straddling the fence” on the matter. I find it hard to believe that something of this magnitude would have been perpetrated on our soil indirectly or directly by U.S. citizens. But of course, following my thesis above; vis-à-vis “the dark ones”, I believe it’s within the realm of possibility.
So stated simply and without all the “melodious double talk”, people are going to believe what people are going to believe and you won’t change their opinion(s); they have to do that themselves. Finally-Finally - “You can lead a horse to water, but only the horse can stop itself from jumping in and drowning!”
-
Permalink Reply by joe on
-
Uhh Walter, no one is talking about a movie, that is what happened. You have a plane hitting a building sir, at over 300 mph, that is a lot of kinetic energy, and yes, that is enough to cause the combustion of jet fuel, as was seen by the very fact of the collision with the building, and it was fully fueled. The fuel which was then on fire, when down the building, that is how you have the spread of fire, and actually, this kind of motion of burning fuel is well known. So, I am surprised at your surprise.This is simple classical physics at this point sir. No reference to a movie, and please go and reread what I said and the analogies that I gave about heat transfer, and matter waves.
Let me also add something else about hot materials.Classicial Kinetic theory, models heat by the vibrational moment of the molecules in the material concerned-the other thing from outside, is that you see the material glowing. That is because for the outer atoms/molecules, and some of the molecules closer to the core of the material, the electrons are excited to higher energy levels, and then they drop to lower energy levels. That dropping to lower energy levels, releases energy in the form of photons, some are in the visible spectrum, and others are in the infrared. So the heating of the steel or any metal, the energy of the fire is absorbed into the metal, and you see the heating and stressing of the material due to vibrational movement of the atoms/molecules of the material, and also energy given off in terms of light, both in the visible spectra and also infrared, which if you were near it, you would feel also as heat.
Now, I don't know where the movie comment comes from, sir really. The explaination that was given is something that has been known about the thermodynamics, since the time at least of Kelvin, and regarding the emission of light based on molecular and atomic motion, since the time of Thompson and Planck. So, there is nothing regardng a movie in this-straight forward thermodynamics, and also straightforward quantum theory to, because when one is talking about the emission of visible light from heated materials, that is in the realm of Blackbody radiation, and that is Planck's theory of Quanta.
Okay, so do you follow? As far as formulae, those are in the research articles modeling what happened at 9/11, from the MIT website-I listed the specific articles, which each provide the mathematical models-would you like me to repost them-it is not a scientific formula, it is scientific formulas-plural-would you like me to repost?
Walter Simtec Simmons said:Hi Joe.
Are you saying that the jet fuel escaped from the explosion and saturated the steel beams and was ignited by the fire which caused the steel beams to collapsed from within all the way to the bottom of that tall building? Remember Joe, this is not a movie we are talking about. I understand that the government have a job to do and that is to not allow the general public to panic. I had a real challenge trying to explain to my granddaughter where her grandmother went when she made her transition. What scientific formula was used to insure that the end justified the means.
-
Permalink Reply by Darrell C. Greenhouse on
-
I have to admit, I don't know who has which position in this thread; I guess I'll have to read the whole thing...
Events
© 2013 Created by Smiley and West.
