kuzadd

No riverwind, I am waiting for you to demonstrate your knowledge or obvious lack theoreof. heat plus time can equal damage. I NEVER DENIED THAT. How much heat? How much time? what is the approx. temp of a normal hydrocarbon fire? what is the temp, unprotected structural steel will burn at? HOW LONG would a normal hydrocarbon fire have to burn to cause SEVERE structural damage to structural steel?? 45 minutes to an hour??? Tell me about the applied fireproofing in wtc? what was it? how was it applied? How is that type of fireproofing removed? Were upgrades done to the fireproofing in wtc 1 & 2 to deal with the asbestos problem? I am waiting for this theory of your to be explained and also other questions to be answered. wrt: any research I and my spouse have done along with access to info and blueprints. What it demonstrates and enables me to demonstrate, and makes quite clear, to me, is you have none of that type of knowledge. Hence your convoluted statetments wrt alleged lack of redundancy in the construction, lateral load, wind force on the buildings, your table arguements and more.

Yes, I agree, you are truly deluded, as you promote random inconsistencies as the norm, and you still have not grasped that. "Engineers" have understood what for years? 'normal hydrocarbon fires can cause severe structural damage' another bow to authority! To support your theory what is the approx. temp of a normal hydrocarbon fire? what is the temp, unprotected structural steel will burn at? HOW LONG would a normal hydrocarbon fire have to burn to cause SEVERE structural damage to structural steel?? 45 minutes to an hour??? Tell me about the applied fireproofing in wtc? what was it? how was it applied? How is that type of fireproofing removed? Were upgrades done to the fireproofing in wtc 1 & 2 to deal with the asbestos problem? Tell me about that, please? I am very interested in what you know. Oh and BTW, it;s only fair to tell you, I have a spouse who has been in construction for over 20 years. I have a copy of wtc 1 blueprints and loads of research, documented, I have done on my own, and with my spouse, over the past 5 yrs. So please do tell me riverwind about the construction of the towers, hydrocarbon fires, and structural steel, and the fireproofing. You should have got that already, and it was that much easier to spot your complete lack of knowledge. Would you now like to bow to my authority?!

actually riverwind, your arguments consist of looking at random 'anomolies' . You infact use the random anomolies of the 3 towers collapsing as proof that buildings fall naturally into their own footprint. Riverwind: That is your theory, which you then back up with the anomolies of the trade towers collapsing. reitieration which you ignored: As Bcat said to you if this is correct, you should be able to back that up with more , if that is the norm, as you are claiming, yet I notice you didn't. Is it because there have been numerous fires in big steel structured buildings, inc the WTC #1 previously, that burned for longer and they didn't collapse??? That would be why, wouldn't it riverwind? So you have fun with your random anomolies! oh and btw: sorry, it isn't. You simply BELIEVE it is because an authority figure told you so. In fact that is your entire arguement, bow to authority. The official story is infact riddled with so many anomolies, itself, it cannot be considered coherent. But then you accept anomolies as the norms?! whatever floats your boat!

That YOU accept the ABNORMAL as the normal is incomprehensible. Another poster explained to you why buildings do not fall into there own footprints, NATURALLY, as you stated. You were informed buildings fall according to how they were built, perhaps the other poster would inform us if location is also a factor (example, on a hill). When a demolition crew, is planning to take down a building the manner in which they were constructed, plays a huge role in how they are demolished. You have been unable to grasp these simple concepts. I asked you this: How would/could any building be demolished, in a manner to prevent/minimize damage AND make clean up quick and easy,( in order to keep costs down) without demolition experts?? (people who know what they are doing) well according to You and the "official theory" now all it takes is to set your building ablaze and in an hour it will come crashing down "naturally". NO PLANES necessary as the official theory relies on fire, it is all about fire and heat weakening steel. It is acknowledged the plane hits alone did not take down the buildings, never mind building number 7!! So in summary according to you and the official theory a 1 hour burn time, and a natural collapse!! All demolition companies shall now be put out of business, henceforth! also wrt this statement you made That is a FALSE statement. When the wtc towers collapsed they DAMAGED surrounding buildings, but did not DESTROY them, 3,4,5,6 were demolished at later dates, and the Deutsch bank, with the 7 alarm fire , burning for 7 hours, was also damaged and in the process if being demolished presently. BUT wait, it forgot to collapse, naturally!!! rofl!!!!! You made the claim that buildings fall naturally into their own footprint and that my friend is the FALSE CLAIM. You then provide 3 ANOMOLIES as proof, to back up your false claim. As Bcat said to you if this is correct, you should be able to back that up with more , if that is the norm, as you are claiming, yet I notice you didn't. Is it because there have been numerous fires in big steel structured buildings, inc the WTC #1 previously, that burned for longer and they didn't collapse??? That would be why, wouldn't it riverwind? The simple fact and truth is riverwind, we KNOW, none of that to be true. You just assume it is. I know that will fly right over your head. We only KNOW the incoherent nonsensical story as told to us by the Bush regime. That is all we KNOW. Therein lies the problem, doesn't it? There is too much of the story, that is not quite right. Not quite coherent? I would beg to question the Bush regime where is the coherent story based on facts? I haven't seen it. The onus of cohesiveness was on the Bush administration, that was never demonstrated. Your post is truly one of the most convoluted I have ever read. Your entire posts falls into "demands" like a petulant child, I can almost hear you stomping your foot! Rant, rail and then ridicule! When I see that, I know, you have nothing, nothing.

Those were objectives laid out by the UN, and were not necessarily ever the objectives of US foreign policy. The objective of US foreign policy has long been the removal of Saddam. Cheney calls it a 'battle interruptus '?! I call it the first battle in the war. whatever. It misses the mark in your opinion only. If you look at US foreign policy, Saddam's removal has long been a goal, and that it was necessary, for strategic reasons of dominance in the region by the US. Again look at the history of the US's foreign policy and there agenda wrt ME oil. again US foreign policy and their agenda with regards to dominance in the ME region. One can ask the same question in a number of manners, and the answer is the same. and they are exactly where they want to be!

So the police admit it, but, not to provoke violence eh?? lol! So why carry rocks, if not to throw? They were caught, nailed by the protestors. The planting of agents like this serves two purposes, IMO, to justify the massive budget for security, and it's also a PR move, if one can get the crowd to take the bait, it can then be used as a public relations tool to demonize the protestors. Look, bad protestors, see, they are ruly, destructive and we need these big security shows costing taxpayers loads of cash. "Since when have "agent provocateurs" ever been required to turn one of these protests ugly?" Since always, protestors have spoke of them, time and time again, at all major protests. From Seattle, to Genoa, the agent provocateurs, have been present.

I think, you need to "get out more" myself. or just , like, read. Provocateurs, nothing new under the sun there! here M, I'll help you ok? let's start with wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_provocateur Then you can go from there, maybe some historical references to provocateurs,(spies, double agents) etc., Anyway, the fact that they ran TO the cops, and were whisked away , without charge is pretty damning in itself.

sorry B, I missed the reference to the bank building, I gave riverwind some links anyway. Yes, except for wtc 1,2& 7 which in riverwinds eyes, the anomolies, have become the norm.

Yes, from 'fire', all 3 of them, that should most defintely do away with all demolition companies! Set your building on fire, let it burn for an hour and it will collapse neatly into it's footprint (more or less) LOL! Did you notice the news on the bank building in NYC?? Already damaged from wtc collapses , in the process of demolition, it burnt for seven hours and, OMG! it didn't collapse! http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...ernational/home http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2007/08/18...m_deutsche.html seven alarm fire, battled for seven hours and, the badly damaged, in the process of being demolished building stood firm! Gosh, why didn't that fire just neatly collapse that building, seven hours of fire!!!! rofl! Oh yeah, your other claim wrt contsruction redundancy in the structure of the towers, was your other big, big flub!

Your 'prove it" demands are quite funny, given your complete lack of knowledge. Your contention is so hilarious! You can't even see it yourself. "demolition experts work so hard to prevent damage to other building precisely because buildings DO NOT FALL into their own footprint, EVER!" well riverwind, riddle me this, : how would/could any building be demolished, in a manner to prevent/minimize damage AND make clean up quick and easy,( in order to keep costs down) without demolition experts?? I'll await your reply!

Another point to make wrt the alleged smashing success of GW1. If GW1 was such a job well done, a won war, why in the heck would we be witnessing a GW2????? See if GW1 would have been 'won' ,Saddam would have been removed at that time, puppet installed, and the beat would go on. In fact, because of the invasion of Kuwait, the US had probably more support to actually get the 'job done' as opposed to the lack of support for GW2. Therefore.....GW1, was not a war, WON. Perhaps it was just the first battle?

The consensus amongst the people I am in touch with is that, as you concurred, Kerry , Bush, other then domestic rhetoric, foreign policy, would have stayed the same. From the time of the Carter Doctrine 1980, it has not deviated.it in all actuality has gone on longer, then this, but, I will use the Carter doctrine as a base point, to demonstrate, how the policy carried on. The US has not deviated from this agenda, of use of military force in the ME, in fact it has expanded on this, under every President, Republican or Democratic! While at the time of the Carter Doctrine , the US was also breeding the the mujahadeen in Afghanistan/Pakistan, as part of that doctrine. As the US has expanded on the fomentation of Islamic radicalization since the Carter Presidency. Through the use of USAID, propagating brainwashed kids, right in the school systems of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Quite well documented , if I may add! Therefore I quite never understand this Bush vs kerry Repub vs Democrat wrt Foreign policy.

demolition experts work so hard to prevent damage to other building precisely because buildings DO NOT FALL into their own footprint, EVER! riverwind: why don't you explain that,( it is so obvious )and then why don't you explain, how it is done, and then how it is removed, etc., FYI: riverwind structural steel can take the effect of normal hydrocarbon fires with out fire retardant for the approximately 45 minutes to one hour that the buildings burned. You claim you were "dealing with idiots" in this thread. That was clearly a reference to yourself. Based on the number of extremely foolish statements you racked up throughout this thread! Inc you misunderstanding of lateral load? You terrific table arguement! and others lol! it's been hilarious!

Riverwind: You said this, you actually said this???!!! Unbelievable!!!! Unbleepin believable!!! You have ZERO understanding of construction or anything, that is so clear!

Don't hold your breath for that!

I am also not getting why Kimmy assumes Iraq 2 is a fiasco under Bush 2 as opposed to the holy hell wrought by Iraq 1, under Bush the first? Weird? perhaps Kimmy does not understand the damage that was brought onto the Iraqis with GW1? That she somehow see's the years of sanctions as "acceptable" despite the massive deaths that emanated from it? I guess she assumes the war on Iraq actually ended, when most of the troops left?? Regardless of the sanctions and the almost continual bombings??? Feb. 28, 1991: 'Cease-fire' in the Persian Gulf War. 'cept the missiles kept right on firing! April 10, 1991: The United States and Britain impose a no-fly zone to protect three Kurdish provinces in northern Iraq. Aug. 26, 1992: U.S. and British forces begin patrolling a second no-fly zone south of the 32nd parallel, over territory populated mainly by Iraqi Shiites. Jan. 7, 1993: A U.S.-led coalition attacks missile sites and a nuclear facility in Iraq. 1999-2000: U.S. flyovers and missile strikes continue. inc pre-attacks by Britian and the US on Iraq, prior to the attack "official" start date of "shock and awe" or Iraq attack 2. I guess if the war ended in the media, (no news coverage)it must have ended for 'real' eh? as for Iraq2 under Bush, IMO, a smashing success, look at the military bases built there! The justification for further occupation. Perfect for further warmaking!

Hey BC, question, in your opinion wrt US foreign policy, Kerry or Bush, would the policy have changed, Iraq? Afghanistan? ME oil ? Now I am not referring to the "security" perceived or otherwise, that Americans may or may not have felt, from Bush vs Kerry as president. I am referring to US foreign policy wrt ME geopolitically/strategically speaking. Would that foreign policy have changed under Kerry? Cause from what I have read, it hasn't ever changed.

wrt : jessica lynch, pat Tillman and WMD's kimmy were they, I would say that is not true. jessica lynch, do you recall the coverage? over the top! Did the media dutifully report the garbage, or did they look into it? They dutifully reported. Pat Tillman, did the media look into that, NOPE, dutifully reported. Had Tillman's parent's not pushed the issue, the media would have been quiet. WMD's. where was the media on that one? Did they do there homework? Nope! Instead we had the propaganda mistress Judith Miller and most pundits, simply regurgitating, Bush co. drivel, where was there credible investigation????? There wasn't any, so to speak of. Did their dutiful reporting mean these stories were the real deal,or were credible. NOPE! Yet, there they were being reported on as if all was good in the land of make believe. This is your logic wrt Aljazeera playing the tapes, that makes the tapes credible, it doesn't make them anything. Except a sensational scoop. Many networks regurgitated the Jessica Lynch story, it was still a lie. Pat Tillman: Lie Wmd's : Lie Saddam's Statue coming down, reported as a milestone! Not so much, when it was quietly found out it was a PR stunt, bet you didn't know that?. Gosh wonder why it wasn't screaming from the front pages?! Because in war time the media will engage in a support the President mentality.Yup! Because the media, will willingly cooperate with the gov. to engage in wartime propaganda. Yup! (Long, long history on that, read up on it. ) See also: Yellow Journalism: especially Randolph Hearst and outright LIES during wartime. How about GW1 and the Kuwaiti princess, do you know what I am referring to? I'll tell you , you didn't see that bit of bs, front page, either once that scam, got out! The media will report, on what get's the ratings, sells advertising, but, will NOT REALLY cross the admin. in power, particularly during war time.

kimmy: my "new buddy" lol, BC, will tell you, of that I am certain, that Kerry would have had the same policy, as Bush. There would have been NO withdrawal from Iraq, for one. FYI: OBL and his network, were created under a democratic president Jimmy Carter, do some homework on that, Jimmy Carter and Zbigniew Brzezinski see interview here: http://www.counterpunch.org/brzezinski.html http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timelin...ncy_afghanistan and loads of other info, inc. entire books When Carter was out and Mr Reagan came in, the Republican, his administration kept right on with the funding , supplying weapons, funding the ISI, and the madrass schools throughout Pakistan, educating, training, supplying weapons. 1984-1994: US Supports Militant Textbooks for Afghanistan Edit event and this nonsense continued on through Bush 1 and Clinton (Serbia) In other words, Republican, Democrat, it didn't matter, AlQuaeda was fomented, funded, aided, abetted, through numerous administrations, as they were useful, very useful wrt the US's foreign policy. NOTHING has Changed! Kimmy: and the Bush administration touting it as such, constitutes ZERO evidence, that the tape is authentic.( for numerous reasons) Nor does AlJazeera playing it. Nor do anonymous mail drops or deliveries by persons CLAIMED to be affiliated with AlQuaeda, lend credibility. Therefore Kimmy, the "confession tape #2 ", (cause #1, was touted also by the Bush administration as the "real thing" also) is, or should be realistically viewed as suspect. The Bush admin., did nothing to authenticate said tapes, because there was NO advantage to doing so for them, and that should tell you something. Why Kimmy? Big red flags, should be waving. They aren't for you because you so dearly wish to believe this nonsense, based on no factual evidence, or any supported reason, to actually believe it.

hey gosthacked, oh the OBL thing is very valid as a propaganda tool don't get me wrong, I firmly believe this is his only use, any more! His face is always reared, when the fear-o-meter needs upping. I think rather then being the "main focus", of the war on terror ,which went from OBL and Afghanistan, to Saddam in Iraq, which way next Mush in pakistan? the guy in Iran?. Since the Bush regimeis continually giving us so many boogey-men! But OBL, is the one, that is consistently dragged out as the 9/11 boogey man, when we need some fear injections. So he, OBL, is the main focus of the 9/11 fear campaign, from which grows the perpetual justification for the war on terror. In other words he is the mascot, he is the Ronald McDonald of "the war on terror" I mean every good campaign needs, a mascot, for a spokesperson! The war on terror, whichever way it is taken, always has OBL, and his Hamburgler sidekick, to do what needs to be done, to ramp up fear, and scare some people ...... That is literally how cheezy and obvious it is.

bush_cheney2004: Now BC! It don't happen often, but I agree,TWICE, here with your statements! He is useful for general purpose propaganda. He is good to ramp up the fear factor, rather in the way of, remember, the "bad man" is still out there.

Kimmy falsely believes the tapes are valid because the Bush admin says so.! Kimmy falsely believes the tapes are valid because Aljazeera played them.! Kimmy denies that validation of the tapes, which could have only bolstered the Bush regime case,as NOT necessary. Therefore it should not have been done. ???? Incredible and non-credible! As the Bush regime, would never mislead, propagate falsities, falsify intel, etc., to advance a an agenda (facetious and hilarious). Kimmy falsely believes it would have made a difference to Arabs ,based on who was President,(because of some nonsensical rhetoric, about Bush/BinLaden.) Different presidents, same foreign policy! No one believes Kerry would have done a thing different wrt ME policy, then Bush, the domestic rhetoric would have changed, and not much In summary: Kimmy doesn't grasp the FACT, the President is irrelevant the policy is the same! why? because that would blow a big hole through a nonsensical belief. Too bad about the tapes, wrt perception of them being false, causing AlJazeera to lose face. More nonsense! Mass media, shoots itself in the foot repeatedly with falsities, your point is irrelevant! Where to begin, Jessica Lynch,Pat Tillman, WMD's, all dutifully reported, all BS! GW1 we had , for ONE: the Kuwaiti princess doing her schtick in front of "congress"2: the bullcrap about the Iraqi troops massed outside of Saudi Arabia, all dutifully reported on , and in all seriousness, of course! Both false claims! in summary, Kimmy, seems blinded by a hatred, of "truthies",thereby avoiding looking at facts, preferring to lean on rhetoric and name calling. BTW: OBL: Never have I heard it said of him that he was very smart, nor have I read that anywhere. Arrogant, very arrogant, full of bravado, not smart, though.

personally speaking, If there is a 'God' all knowing ,omni-potent,creator, he is going to be really pissed at people who've supported war, discrimination and destroyed his creations. Including ALL the people who were made in his image. That ain't me!

"Her hatred and lack of beliefs are not a positive in a democratic society," Oh too hilarious!!! Hmmmm, no hatred and my lack of beliefs are a total plus in a democratic society as to fanaticism in a intolerant society? "she wreaths in glee when she sees someone suffer. " The word your looking for is actually writhes. when have you ever SEEN me writhing in glee??? In fact when have you actually ever seen me??? more non-credible nonsense, and personal smear jobs from Moxie! Yahoo!!!!!!!!!!!!! BTW: for a non-christian you do seem smitten with the christian right

The labour abuses, pending before the courts, are irrelevant in the world of public relations, it is bad PR, to abuse ones workers, it is bad PR to have court cases pending, it is bad PR to have a human rights group make a statement of concern, wrt labour practices. Wal-mart should know better.