Mrsteak21

You are so funny....Im sorry I have an outside life out of this place. Here you go - an article from a group of scientists and physicists that explains it all in simple terms for you - it even has pictures! : http://physics911.net/closerlook An outake: The height of the South Tower is 1362 feet. I calculated that from that height, freefall in a vacuum (read, absolutely no resistance on earth) is 9.2 seconds. According to testimony provided to the 9-11 Commission, the tower fell in 10 seconds. Other data shows it took closer to 14 seconds. So the towers fell within 0.8-4.8 seconds of freefall in a vacuum. Just like WTC7, this speed seemed impossible if each of the 110 floors had to fail individually. As I was considering this, another problem arose. There is a principle in physics called the Law of Conservation of Energy. There is also the Law of Conservation of Momentum. I’ll briefly explain how these principles work. Let’s assume there are two identical Honda Civics on the freeway. One is sitting in neutral at a standstill (0 mph). The other is coasting at 60 mph. The second Honda slams into the back of the first one. The first Honda will then instantaneously be going much faster than it was, and the second will instantaneously be going much slower than it was. This is how the principle works in the horizontal direction, and it works the same in the vertical direction, with the added constant force of gravity added to it. Jim Hoffman, a professional scientist published in several peer-reviewed scientific journals, took a long look at all of this. He calculated that even if the structure itself offered no resistance, that is to say, even if the 110 floors of each tower were hovering in mid-air, the “pancake” theory would still have taken a minimum of 15.5 seconds to reach the ground. So, even if the building essentially didn’t exist, if it provided no resistance at all to the collapse, just the floors hitting each other and causing each other to decelerate would’ve taken 15.5 seconds to reach the ground. Secondary explosions in the basement of the building along with many of the floors - firefighters interviews: http://youtube.com/watch?v=YhjwJyXRQH8&feature=related MIT engineer, National Institute of Standards and Technology reject floor pancake theory: Part 1: Part 2: Im done with after this post, either take it or leave it, i dont care. I highly doubt you read or watch all of this anyways. Im sure you will ignore it and call me names or whatever. Even your precious 9/11 Commission admits that they made mistakes and that their report was not entirely correct. I have the physics you have the tinfoil. Link: http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/peter_...ig_coverup.html An outake for RP: The chair and vice chair of the 9/11 Commission, respectively Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, assert in their book, Without Precedent, that they were "set up to fail" and were starved of funds to do a proper investigation. They also confirm that they were denied access to the truth and misled by senior officials in the Pentagon and the federal aviation authority; and that this obstruction and deception led them to contemplate slapping officials with criminal charges. Despite the many public statements by 9/11 commissioners and staff members acknowledging they were repeatedly lied to, not a single person has ever been charged, tried, or even reprimanded, for lying to the 9/11 Commission. LAST THING FOR YOU RP - QUARTER 3 and 9/11 I'm 2 for 2!

God you are stupid. Not only are you wrong on the economy you are wrong on this. The steel and concrete to reinforce each floor would provide enough resistance to slow down the building fallling at unresisted gravity speed. The building came down at basically the speed of gravity in a vacuum - which is impossible with all of the structure built in to support it. Your sarcasm makes you stupid.....

You are right there are hundreds of respective professors around the world that have said the govt story is BS. Here is a link to some: http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2008/...s-have-now.html 14 structural engineers now publicly challenge the government's account of the destruction of the Trade Centers on 9/11: A prominent engineer with 55 years experience, in charge of the design of hundreds of major building projects including high rise offices, former member of the California Seismic Safety Commission and former member of the National Institute of Sciences Building Safety Council (Marx Ayres) believes that the World Trade Centers were brought down by controlled demolition (see also this) Two professors of structural engineering at a prestigious Swiss university (Dr. Joerg Schneider and Dr. Hugo Bachmann) said that, on 9/11, World Trade Center 7 was brought down by controlled demolition (translation here) Kamal S. Obeid, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Berkeley, of Fremont, California, says: "Photos of the steel, evidence about how the buildings collapsed, the unexplainable collapse of WTC 7, evidence of thermite in the debris as well as several other red flags, are quite troubling indications of well planned and controlled demolition" Ronald H. Brookman, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Davis, of Novato California, writes: "Why would all 110 stories drop straight down to the ground in about 10 seconds, pulverizing the contents into dust and ash - twice. Why would all 47 stories of WTC 7 fall straight down to the ground in about seven seconds the same day? It was not struck by any aircraft or engulfed in any fire. An independent investigation is justified for all three collapses including the surviving steel samples and the composition of the dust." Graham John Inman, structural engineer, of London, England, points out: "WTC 7 Building could not have collapsed as a result of internal fire and external debris. NO plane hit this building. This is the only case of a steel frame building collapsing through fire in the world. The fire on this building was small & localized therefore what is the cause?" Paul W. Mason, structural engineer, of Melbourne, Australia, argues: "In my view, the chances of the three buildings collapsing symmetrically into their own footprint, at freefall speed, by any other means than by controlled demolition, are so remote that there is no other plausible explanation!" Mills M. Kay Mackey, structural engineer, of Denver, Colorado, points out: "The force from the jets and the burning fuel could not have been sufficient to make the building collapse. Why doesn't the media mention that the 11th floor was completely immolated on February 13th, 1975? It had the weight of nearly 100 stories on top of it but it did not collapse?" Haluk Akol, Structural Engineer and architect (ret.) Charles Pegelow, structural engineer, of Houston, Texas (and see this) Dennis Kollar, structural engineer, of West Bend, Wisconsin Doyle Winterton, structural engineer (retired) Michael T. Donly, P.E., structural engineer William Rice, P.E., structural engineer, former professor of Vermont Technical College Postscript: Since writing this list, I have found other structural engineers who challenge the government's version of 9/11. I'm not going to constantly update the title from "14" to a higher number. For example: David Scott, Structural Engineer, of Scotland, argues: "Near-freefall collapse violates laws of physics. Fire induced collapse is not consistent with observed collapse mode . . . ." Nathan Lomba, Structural Engineer, of Eureka, California, states "I began having doubts about, so called, official explanations for the collapse of the WTC towers soon after the explanations surfaced. The gnawing question that lingers in my mind is: How did the structures collapse in near symmetrical fashion when the apparent precipitating causes were asymmetrical loading? The collapses defies common logic from an elementary structural engineering perspective. “If” you accept the argument that fire protection covering was damaged to such an extent that structural members in the vicinity of the aircraft impacts were exposed to abnormally high temperatures, and “if” you accept the argument that the temperatures were high enough to weaken the structural framing, that still does not explain the relatively concentric nature of the failures. Neither of the official precipitating sources for the collapses, namely the burning aircraft, were centered within the floor plan of either tower; both aircraft were off-center when they finally came to rest within the respective buildings. This means that, given the foregoing assumptions, heating and weakening of the structural framing would have been constrained to the immediate vicinity of the burning aircraft. Heat transmission (diffusion) through the steel members would have been irregular owing to differing sizes of the individual members; and, the temperature in the members would have dropped off precipitously the further away the steel was from the flames—just as the handle on a frying pan doesn't get hot at the same rate as the pan on the burner of the stove. These factors would have resulted in the structural framing furthest from the flames remaining intact and possessing its full structural integrity, i.e., strength and stiffness. Structural steel is highly ductile, when subjected to compression and bending it buckles and bends long before reaching its tensile or shear capacity. Under the given assumptions, “if” the structure in the vicinity of either burning aircraft started to weaken, the superstructure above would begin to lean in the direction of the burning side. The opposite, intact, side of the building would resist toppling until the ultimate capacity of the structure was reached, at which point, a weak-link failure would undoubtedly occur. Nevertheless, the ultimate failure mode would have been a toppling of the upper floors to one side—much like the topping of a tall redwood tree—not a concentric, vertical collapse. For this reason alone, I rejected the official explanation for the collapse of the WTC towers out of hand. Subsequent evidence supporting controlled, explosive demolition of the two buildings are more in keeping with the observed collapse modalities and only serve to validate my initial misgivings as to the causes for the structural failures." Edward E. Knesl, civil and structural engineer, of Phoenix, Arizona, writes: " We design and analyze buildings for the overturning stability to resist the lateral loads with the combination of the gravity loads. Any tall structure failure mode would be a fall over to its side. It is impossible that heavy steel columns could collapse at the fraction of the second within each story and subsequently at each floor bellow. We do not know the phenomenon of the high rise building to disintegrate internally faster than the free fall of the debris coming down from the top. The engineering science and the law of physics simply doesn't know such possibility. Only very sophisticated controlled demolition can achieve such result, eliminating the natural dampening effect of the structural framing huge mass that should normally stop the partial collapse. The pancake theory is a fallacy, telling us that more and more energy would be generated to accelerate the collapse. Where would such energy would be coming from ?" David Topete, civil and structural engineer, San Francisco, California See this website and this website for further additions. There are many other structural engineers who have questioned the government's account in private. We support them and wish them courage to discuss these vital issues publicly. See also this.

Wow how original time for you to start slinging mud. No one said we know it all, just that there are some big holes in the govt's story and that my opinion is that they had a hand in either letting this happen or helping. Your PM article has been has debunked multiple times (written by Micheal Chertoff's (secretary of homeland security) cousin - but that must be a coincedence), but you decide not to read it or believe it. Doesnt matter to me to each his own.

Indestructable is the wrong word to use. I should have used almost impossible to destruct - like he said there have been accidents just as bad as this one and they have been able to retrieve the black boxes. I got the following from aerospaceweb.org - link: http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/inves...ons/q0302.shtml A common misconception states that the black boxes are "indestructible." No manmade device is indestructible, and no material has ever been developed that cannot be destroyed under severe enough conditions. The black boxes are instead designed to be highly survivable in a crash. In many of the worst aviation accidents, the only devices to survive in working order are the Crash Survivable Memory Units (CSMUs) in the black boxes. The remainder of the recorders, including the external case and other internal components, are often heavily damaged. The CSMU, however, is contained within a very compact cylindrical or rectangular box designed to safeguard the data within against extreme conditions. The box is composed of three layers to provide different types of protection to the recording medium. The outermost shell is a case made of hardened steel or titanium designed to survive intense impact and pressure damage. The second layer is an insulation box while the third is a thermal block to protect against severe fire and heat. Together, these three layered cases allow the FDR and CVR to survive in all but the most extreme crash conditions. Current regulations require the black boxes to survive an impact of 3,400 g's for up to 6.5 milliseconds. This rapid deceleration is equivalent to slowing from a speed of 310 miles per hour (500 km/h) to a complete stop in a distance of just 18 inches (45 cm). This requirement is tested by firing the CSMU from an air cannon to demonstrate the device can withstand an impact force at least 3,400 times its own weight. The black boxes must also survive a penetration test during which a steel pin dropped from a height of 10 ft (3 m) impacts the CSMU at its most vulnerable point with a force of 500 pounds (2,225 N). In addition, a static crush test is conducted to demonstrate that all sides of the CSMU can withstand a pressure of 5,000 pounds per square inch (350 kg/cm²) for five minutes. The fire resistance of the CSMU is further tested by exposing it to a temperature of 2,000°F (1,100°C) for up to an hour. The device is also required to survive after lying in smoldering wreckage for ten hours at a temperature of 500°F (260°C). The following is from the NTSB website: FLIGHT DATA RECORDER Time recorded: 25 hour continuous Number of parameters: 5 - 300+ Impact tolerance: 3400Gs /6.5ms Fire resistance: 1100 degC/30 min Water pressure resistance: submerged 20,000 ft Underwater locator beacon: 37.5 KHz Battery: 6yr shelf life 30 day operation The flight data recorder and the CMSU are inside the black box and there are 2 black boxes on each plane - so a total of 8 Black boxes happen to all be destroyed...... Highly suspicious to me when kerosene's max burning temp is 980 °C (1796 °F). All of the planes G forces do not reach 3,400 either..... Also I think you overestimate how many people would have to be in the "inside" of this job. A lot of the CIA actions are just misinformation or are disguised as something else. Also agents/officers dont question orders - if your commanding officer tells you to do something you do it no questions asked. It would be an easy way to keep people out of the know and have them do what you want.

FICO is crap. One of my friends from high school went off to college and ran up 25,000 G's in credit card debt. He played DI sports and didnt have a job but still lived like a rockstar. This was 6 years ago. He had collectors calling him day or night for years - he told me he just stopped making payments about 8 months in. It took him 5 years to get out of debt, he is free and clear as of about two weeks ago. He also has about $40,000 in student loans. His credit score is 790 something. I have no debt, car, house loans or even student loans. I have never missed a payment on anything. I pay almost everything in cash and have like $30 grand sitting in my checking account. My credit score is 715. How the hell does that work? If I were a bank I would rather rent to myself than my friend and I would certainly give myself a lower rate....

I thought he did great on hannity and colmes. I think he had some great points about losing our freedoms with the Patriot Act and I thought he had great points on 9/11. I cant believe some of you guys still like Sean Hannity - what a toolbag. Here is the link the the Opie and Andy show with Jesse on it. http://www.foundrymusic.com/media/displaym...mber_17899.html I also think he made a ton of great points in this interview - although he can come over as a jackass sometimes. The pancake theory, the maintence shutdowns, the indestructible black boxes being never recovered but they found one of the terrorists paper passports, propane vs. kerosene analogy was great @ 4:00 sec, molten metal stopped the digging, etc. Although im not going to hijack this thread. Im sure the tinfoil hat comments will come... I thought Jesse did great on both interviews - i think he dominated the opie and anthony interview.

Urban myth, I saw this tested on that smash lab show and also on mythbusters. Smash lab they poured like 5 gallons of gas in a small camper (the type you pull behind your car) and put 10-12 cell phones inside. They had people call all the cell phones at the same time with vibrate on. Nothing happened, they did this 3 or 4 times. This myth is busted. http://www.snopes.com/autos/hazards/gasvapor.asp

The state said there will be a six month gap of vulnerability at the border when feds pull National Guard troops. State homeland security said the National Guard on the border will leave in July, six months earlier than expected. Officials said border agents won’t take over until December at the earliest, leaving more than 180 miles of border virtually unwatched. The original plan was to have the National Guard watch the border until 6,000 new agents could be properly trained. Border patrol officials said that won’t happen until December, but state officials said that’s not stopping the feds from pulling the plug early. State officials said the feds are not saying what’s behind the early withdrawal of guard troops from across the country. The state said the withdrawal leaves the New Mexico border vulnerable. "We'll create a window where the smugglers and the cartels and the border criminals may try and take advantage of," said Tim Manning of New Mexico Homeland Security. Homeland security said heavy patrols and new fencing in Arizona and Texas means there will be a funneling effect of immigrants and smugglers into New Mexico. http://kob.com/article/stories/S367486.shtml?cat=0 What an f'in joke. I am fully convinced the govt wants more illegals in this country. How about a free pass for terrorists to walk right in! Oh wait I forgot we are bringing the war to them in Iraq and Afganistan while the sneak in the back door - god, anybody that knows how to play risk first protects the homeland, unless you want to lose.... No one patrolling the New Mexico border for 6 months? Great! About 2 ft of the fence that was supposed to be built is finished now? Great! Printing this story so the cartels and human trafficers can get early warning? Great! I also wonder what the hell the need the National Guard troops for - Iraq? Iran? N. Korea? The elected reps dont do a damn thing that the voters want. Its all a bunch of lies. Man, im so sick of this crap.

Yeah I guess your right, i was trying to be hopeful but it pretty much looks like no one really wants to take care of the problem.

So because this country is still great we should be fine when bad things happen that can effect our country's well being? Yeah that makes a lot of sense.... I am a very right wing conservative very far from the democrat you paint me as. You dont even know what a true conservative is. Hint: republicans want the border secure.

once upon a time people cared about this, but with the crappy economy #1 this will be ignored.

Is anyone comfortable that this kid effectively has more voting power than 50,000+ regular voters? What a bunch of crap that is.....

First try Round 15 done score of 201,700. Pretty fun game, got lucky a few times - those helicopters can be pretty tough.

Are you serious? There is a reason Brock was signed to one of the biggest UFC contracts and why Kimbo fights nobodys in EliteXC. Kimbo would be on his back in about 15 sec, fight over within a minute.

Lesnar made a mental mistake - he was too aggresive and opened himself up for a submission while he rushed to end the fight early. He totally dominated 89 sec of the 90 total and just plain screwed up. Once he settles down and takes his time no one will be able to stop him. Also he will never get gassed before his opponent. He is the only heavyweight really in shape - the guy wrestled in college with the same aggresiveness and never was gassed. Bottom line: the guy is a total machine, he needs a little more submission defense training and he needs to learn how to take his time. He was throwing Mir around like a rag doll, he was stronger, faster, a better wrestler and striker than Mir. I say he is champ and unbeatable within 2 years.

What that he wants out of Iraq? Heck, 70% of the US people want that - what is so whacked out about that?

Pretty scary stuff, ive seen a ton of videos on the vote fraud that is happening. Even those carppy Diebold machines that count 40% of the votes are easily manipulated, but we still use them? There are a bunch of youtube videos on how easy it is to hack into and change the vote #'s. We take about security all the time, but our own voting system is unsecure. What a joke...

So you still believe that crap that they moved them into Syria before we invaded?

You still believe this junk after we couldnt find any WMDs after we invaded. Man you are thick - 1st graders can grasp the concept of a lie.

hint: govt spending is greater than the money gained from income tax maybe you need to go back to 3rd grade and learn these signs: >, <, =

the govt wont let it drop 10%, they will shut the market down before that happens. 10% is 1200 points.

Here is my take on Ron Paul: I am a 25 year old kid. When i talk to my co-workers, friends, etc. around my age the majority of these people are 1) scared of big govt. 2) scared of losing freedoms 3) ready to get out and vote My generation has been taught from their parents that we deserve freedoms and responsibilities that they fought and worked for. My age is waking up that we are being held down by the current admistration/policies (no im not a democrat) and our freedoms are being restricted (doesnt matter what party is in control). #1 - Ron Paul has the highest amount of 18-24 aged voters of republican party #2 - Ron Paul has the highest % of military member voters There is something there, kids are sick of this bullshit and manipulation. We are wiser and more adapt to learning the "real story" about current events ala the internet, blogs, word of mouth, etc. There will be a revolution and it will start with us....hopefully it is not too late....

Quote from former Navy officer: All ships at sea use a common UHF frequency, Channel 16, also known as “bridge-to bridge” radio. Over here, near the U.S., and throughout the Mediterranean, Ch. 16 is used pretty professionally, i.e., chatter is limited to shiphandling issues, identifying yourself, telling other ships what your intentions are to avoid mishaps, etc. But over in the Gulf, Ch. 16 is like a bad CB radio. Everybody and their brother is on it; chattering away; hurling racial slurs, usually involving Filipinos (lots of Filipinos work in the area); curses involving your mother; 1970’s music broadcast in the wee hours (nothing odder than hearing The Carpenters 50 miles off the coast of Iran at 4 a.m.) On Ch. 16, esp. in that section of the Gulf, slurs/threats/chatter/etc. is commonplace. So my first thought was that the “explode” comment might not have even come from one of the Iranian craft, but some loser monitoring the events at a shore facility. My take - The video and audio werent even recorded together, they were recorded seperately and spliced together (govt admitted). Also, why no wind, water, engine noise in the audio on open cockpit boats? Think about trying to get clear audio on your own boat going 40 mph across the lake - almost impossible and never that clear. This stinks to high heaven and I am felling the Gulf of Tonkin II. http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/1...naval-incident/

You hit the nail on the head. There are only a few whacko islamic terrorists, the majority of muslims (just like christians) are peace loving normal people. This was my main beef with the war in Iraq and Afganistan - we should have targeted only the terrorists and used laser guided bombs to take them out not to invade two whole countries and try to take both over while occupying the civilians as well. All that does is cause more muslims hating us controling them and then they want to fight back and get labeled as "terrorists" by the US govt. I agree that the boats' actions we not okay. Also not okay is the govt linking the "im going to blow you up blah blah" audio that could be from anybody to the iranian boats. I applaud the naval officers with their restraint, they did the right thing without firing. All this does govt misinfo creates a huge public following to invade (their goal) and I think we can see how that worked out in Iraq. I guarantee a major conflict with Iran before CooCoo for Cocoa Puffs is out of office.