WAR: Former Bush Administration Economist Believes WTC Felled by Controlled Demolition

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
..................
Even my 13 year old nephew knows that sound is an alternation in pressure, particle displacement, or particle velocity propagated in an elastic material. This material is usually air, but sound will travel through anything, even concrete. Sound has nothing to do with sub-atomic wave-particle duality, apart from the fact that sound travels in waves. You just remembered "wave-particle duality" from your Year 7 science class and decided to spin it into here as a BTWB technique. Nice one.

.

wecomeinpeace....first, i would like other members and mods.... to notice that you keep insulting me, which makes it harder and harder to keep this conversation civil....

You are again trying to use science, which you do not understand, and then try to make your own conclusion out of the excerpted material you took from scientific websites, and made it look like it was you who came up with all of this by adding some comments of your own....

Almost everyone knows, or should have a general idea, of what pressure is. Let's find out the definitions of "particle displacement" and "particle velocity."

Particle displacement or particle amplitude ξ is a distance measurement in m (metre) of the movement of a particle(real or imagined) in a medium as it transmits a wave.

And

Particle velocity is the velocity of a particle(real or imagined) in a (A means or instrumentality for storing or communicating information) medium as it transmits a ((physics) a movement up and down or back and forth) wave.

Excerpted from.
www.absoluteastronomy.com...

Do notice that both definitions state that " a particle transmits a wave..." but is there really a transmission of a wave? does the particle really transforms energy from its particle form into a wave form? Not really according to Quantum physics.

This is where wave-particle duality fits in. Electrons do not change one form of energy into another to produce sounds, electrons have characteristics of waves which produces sounds.

When you throw a baseball, part of the kinetic energy is not "lost" or transformed to produce sound.... The wave qualities of the particles that make up the mass of the baseball, is what produces sound when the baseball interacts with other mediums, such as air, or another object.

Second, why is it that you keep thinking something else must have happened after some other members and i, proved that those claims you are making, and those came claims from those websites you gave, are false?

I think not....
You, along with those you think, are not paying attention to what I have said.
How many times do I need to post it in the simplest of forms? If you cant understand it from it's simplest form, then that degree you have is worthless.

Funny how quite a few here got what I was saying, and very INTERESTING that one of the biggest debunkers here, that being Howard, not once tried to debunk my postings on the said issue.If anyone would have done so, it would have been him.But he did not.I think that says something dont you think

Also, I never once said, nor claimed to have a degree in anything.Im not sure why you would assume that.Not everything needs to be figured out by having a rocket science degree.It is what is called common sense.

Here is a little example for you:
Say there is this tree all by itself.One day this tree falls.Looking at the possibilities, we see that it happened to rain the night before and were also experiencing high winds.Common sense tells us why and how that tree fell.The rain sofens the ground, the high wind then uproots the tree.

Now lets take that same tree.One day that tree falls.Looking at the possibilities, we see that we had no rain, no wind, and some odd markings on this tree.Now we have this uprooted tree that was in dry dirt, no wind, and strange marks on it.Common sense would tell us that someone had to have pulled this tree down.We dont have suffciant proof, but we can be rest assured that wind nor a soft ground allowed it to fall.

Now as I stated, from the FEMA report, Preliminary indications were that, due to lack of water, no manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY. -FEMA: WTC Building Performance Study, Chp 5 (05/02)
The whole thing states, "...the firefighters made the decision fairly early on not to attempt to fight the fires, due in part to the damage to WTC 7 from the collapsing towers. Hence, the fire progressed throughout the day fairly unimpeded by automatic or manual suppression activities.
It appears that the sprinklers may not have been effective due to the limited water on site and that the development of the fires was not significantly impeded by the firefighters because manual firefighting efforts were stopped fairly early in the day.
WTC 7 collapsed approximately 7 hours after the collapse of WTC 1. Preliminary indications were that, due to lack of water, no manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY. -FEMA: WTC Building Performance Study, Chp 5 (05/02)

So this tells us, since no firefighters were in building 7 trying to put it out, what or WHOM was pulled if that is what you say the term means?
Now I know there were 'people' around the area.I mean many 'people' were in the area.They werent directly THERE for WTC 7 though.
We know some firefighters were around the area as they were keeping an eye on it to make sure the other 'people' around it, didnt get to close.
This is common sense thinking.It isnt like they blocked off the entire block around WTC 7
But when Larry states PULL IT, he isnt saying, get all the peolpe around that area out of there.He isnt saying PULL those people away.They, the 'people' arent doing anything!They are what you call bystander's.

If he meant to PULL those peole away, he would not have used a term PULL IT

When you see a large crowd of people and a cop trying to get all those people to dispurse, you dont see him say 'Ok everybody, pull it'

EDIT TO ADD:
I just came across this on page 5 in this thread.I thought this might be interesting.You quoted me, then posted your reply...

"I remember getting a call from the, uh, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'You know we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is, is pull it.' Uh, and they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."

When he says to pull, he means to pull his people, the firefighters, out and let the building burn. Ask any real firefighters what it means. Just go to your nearest firefighting station and ask them yourself if you want to make sure....

Now wait a cotten-pickin-minute here
Back then, you were so sure that there were firefighters in the building.
Now later down the line AFTER I show you FACT that there werent ANY firefighters in the building, you change up and say NOW that he means to get all the people in the street around BLD 7 to get out of there....man, not even to sure about your own claims are you
You changed your mine from PULL IT meaning get OUT, to pull the firefighters out, to now meaning pull people away from the SURROUNDING area.

Thats tasty, real tasty

[edit on 30-6-2005 by SMR]

wecomeinpeace....first, i would like other members and mods.... to notice that you keep insulting me, which makes it harder and harder to keep this conversation civil....

Oh, and your oh-so-sweet tongue has graced this entire thread with a shining example of lyrical expression and courteous rebuttals? Give it a rest, mate. Many in the community here wonder to no small extent how you get away with some of your insulting remarks while others get warns. For a recent example, u2u "hillbilly bob" or subz. Stop trying to play mod and suddenly take the moral high-ground. If a moderator deems me to have transgressed the TOS, they will communicate such to me directly. Enough said.

You are again trying to use science, which you do not understand, and then try to make your own conclusion out of the excerpted material you took from scientific websites, and made it look like it was you who came up with all of this by adding some comments of your own....

Yes, ducky, I am trying to make it look like I invented science and came up with Newton's Laws. You constantly ask for people to quote from scientific websites, and when they do, you cry plagiarism. Disinfo special with a side order of spin free of charge.

Almost everyone knows...,

[...]

or another object.

More BTWBS. Your ability to spin rubbish like this astounds me. Have you ever considered showbiz? Why does the baseball stop, ducky? Can you explain that with your wave-particle reasons? If you can't understand the simple concept of energy transference within a defined system, then we might as well not bother debating it any more. You got trumped on that one, so lets move on, shall we?

[edit on 2005/6/30 by wecomeinpeace]

ENOUGH!

Whether it's former Bush Administration Economists or ATS engineering graduates providing info or disinfo, my view is that the engineers and consultants who know most about what happened at the WTC and what is now called Ground Zero were the principals and employees of Controlled Demolition Inc., the company that devised the strategy for the clean-up and prevention of any testing being done on the materials.

They played their part in 9/11 very well.

Nice try, MA, but I don't think there's enough potential energy contained in "this dou" to pulverize such a towering sentence. It might require some explosive rebukes to bring it crashing down.

Originally posted by SMR


So this tells us, since no firefighters were in building 7 trying to put it out, what or WHOM was pulled if that is what you say the term means? . . .

You changed your mine from PULL IT meaning get OUT, to pull the firefighters out, to now meaning pull people away from the SURROUNDING area.

Your logic is incredibly circular.

You claim that they couldn't pull anyone out because there was no one fighting the fires to pull, but according to the firefighters that were on the scene, they were going to fight the fires in the building, but they were pulled back at the last second.

Captain Chris Boyle, 18 years FDNY
A little north of Vesey I said, we’ll go down, let’s see what’s going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see.

So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.

And it is not entirely obvious when all this was going on. due to the general confusion, the time line is a bit sketchy at best.

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden, 33 years FDNY
We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also 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.

It sure looks like it's controled to me, And what I have read of the FEMA reports

Did the collapse of the WTC 7 benefit corporations who were being sued by the SEC?

Aimed at the world's financial heart, the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks were designed to throw capitalism into chaos. In one respect they succeeded: Millions of crucial documents were vaporized in the tragedy, and the process of sorting the losses out has been difficult and has included charges of opportunism.

A Citigroup lawyer, for instance, recently told a congressional committee looking into the bank's role in the WorldCom mess that she couldn't provide them with all the information they sought because some of it was destroyed in the attack on the World Trade Center.

"Some further email records the committee has requested cannot be retrieved," wrote Citigroup Deputy General Counsel Jane Sherburne in an Aug. 7 letter to House Committee on Financial Services.

"The backup tapes for external emails from September 1998 through December 2000, and for a short time period in September 2001, were lost when the building in which they were stored (7 World Trade Center) was destroyed in the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001."
Maybe no financial institution lost more critical documents than the Securities and Exchange Commission, which had its New York regional office at 7 World Trade Center. While the regulatory agency was fortunate in that it lost no employees in the terror attacks, it suffered setbacks in a number of long-running securities investigations.

In August, defense lawyers for several former executives of Rite Aid, who've been charged by the SEC with fraud and obstruction of justice, filed a motion seeking a delay in the trial, claiming some of the documents gathered by the SEC had been lost in the attack. SEC attorneys contend many of the original copies of those documents still exist at other locations but acknowledge it will take time to reconstruct all the evidence in the case.

The SEC says the main problem it encountered was that an index for the documents in the Rite Aid case was destroyed in the attack -- not necessarily the documents themselves.

A similar reconstruction of evidence had to take place in a decade-old insider trading case against several former executives of Motel 6, a chain of low-cost motels. The SEC settled the case against the remaining defendants in June. But before that could occur, it had to obtain a court order directing the lawyers for some of the defendants to assist the SEC in reconstructing files "that were destroyed due to the events of Sept. 11, 2001."

In the Motel 6 case, the four remaining defendants, without admitting or denying the insider-trading charges, entered into a settlement with the SEC in which they agreed to pay fines and penalties totaling $798,000. In all, the 10-year case netted $6.36 million in fines, penalties and disgorged profits for the SEC.

SEC officials won't discuss how many cases may have been impacted by the terror attacks, but they claim the lost information was limited to two weeks' worth of data stored on the agency's computers that hadn't yet been backed up.

But it's clear from talking to securities lawyers who practice before the SEC that things haven't gone as smoothly as the agency would like the public to believe.

"Regardless of what the regulators say, they lost a ton of files," says Bill Singer, a New York securities lawyer, who says one case he had pending before the SEC quickly settled because so many of the original documents were destroyed. "In my opinion it was a wholesale loss of documents."

TheStreet.com (9/09/02) Link



"...it appears that the collapse initiated at the lower levels on the inside and progressed up..." -FEMA: WTC Study, Chp 5 (05/02)

Doesn't the fact that the WTC 7 did collapse on it's own footprint and caused relatively little damage to the surrounding buildings gives strong support to the theory that it was imploded by demolition?



Link

Tenets of WTC 7

Tenant, Floor, & Industry
CIA
25
Government

Department of Defense (DOD)
25
Government

IRS Regional Council
24, 25
Government

Mayor's Office of Emergency Mgmt WTC 7 was also the location of a kind of a doomsday bunker (a $15 million project of Rudy Giuliani's), a command post from which to operate in case of a total infrastructure breakdown. Building 7 had apparently been bullet proofed and reinforced to withstand hurricane force winds and attacks of all kinds, a fact which makes its alleged fatal vulnerability to falling debris all the more puzzling.
23
Government

Federal Home Loan Bank
22
Financial Institutions

First State Management Group, Inc
21
Insurance

ITT Hartford Insurance Group
19-21
[Insurance]

NAIC Securities
19
Insurance

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
18
Government

(Vacant)
14-17

Securities & Exchange Commission
11,12,13
Financial Institutions

Standard Chartered Bank
10,13,26,27
Financial Institutions

U.S. Secret Service
9,10
Government

Provident Financial Management
7,13
Financial Institutions

American Express Bank International
7,8,13
Financial Institutions

Salomon Smith Barney
GRND,1-6,13,18-46
Financial Institutions

-Compiled from CNN & FEMA

THE FEMA REPORT ON WORLD TRADE CENTER 7 COLLAPSE IS A TOTAL JOKE


Controlleddemolition.com


[edit on 30/6/2005 by Sauron]

Dexpan Non-Explosive Demolition Agent Noiseless Jackhammer, no vibration.
It can be used with explosives as well


Now I'm not saying this was used but who knows, It is sold by Controlled Demolition. I'm sure other Demolition company's probably sell it too.



[edit on 1/7/2005 by Sauron]

Whatever the particle makeup of this cloud, it was part of the WTC and remaining parts of airplane that stayed inside the WTC! It does have mass and will coat this street with particulate matter to a considerable depth. The mechanics of conversion from the WTC tower to this cloud are still debatable.



Before my retirement, I was an Aerospace Project Engineer. However, I see no need to prove that to anyone, nor to give my real name as that would serve no useful purpose in this debate.

I'm appalled at the huge amount of space in this forum that has been devoted to arguments as to who is right or to insist that others MUST see that a given statement is true or false. Ten years from now, little of it will have enough importance to comment about.

In this thread there are "FACTS", things proven to be true. Then, there are theories, conjectures, suppositions, and beliefs, all subject to question depending on a person's knowledge, mindbent, and research. Anything taken out of context degrades the validity of the information whether proven or not.

Please, let's stop the people bashing. Put your information and the thoughts you might have on the forum without feeling that others HAVE to interpret it just as you have. Forums are meant for sharing information, not for criticizing all who do not share your interpretation of the shared information.

Originally posted by jafo72
Whatever the particle makeup of this cloud, it was part of the WTC and remaining parts of airplane that stayed inside the WTC! It does have mass and will coat this street with particulate matter to a considerable depth. The mechanics of conversion from the WTC tower to this cloud are still debatable.

Before my retirement, I was an Aerospace Project Engineer. However, I see no need to prove that to anyone, nor to give my real name as that would serve no useful purpose in this debate.

Forums are meant for sharing information, not for criticizing all who do not share your interpretation of the shared information.

yeah. it's a big heavy cloud of very fine dust that billows out to a great distance in a big hurry.

forums are a warground. sometimes, it's hard not to lose patience. there is a concerted effort in cyberspace to quell certain memes. there are tries and true techniques for guiding group behaviour, such as the "delphi technique". there is evil afoot, watson!

cool! a real engineer!

Due to childish tit-for-tat exchanges in this once interesting thread, it is closed and removed from ATSNN.

All parties involved should consider this a blanket warning.