kuzadd

You have answered your own question....China has already hitched its "cart" to the USA. As have Japan, and Canada, and Mexico. Giddyup! "China has already hitched its "cart" to the USA." For now, but this is a futuristic type question. checked the foreign press lately? Soon enough, this won't be the case. Then it will be so long US, as Eurasia forms an economic/military superpower. For now the US is merely the big bully, everyone cowtows to

why would anyone vote back the USA? Talk about hooking your cart to the losing horse.? China is already a greater economic powerhouse then the US. China 'owns' the US, money holdings wise. China is the rising star, US the falling star. Just had to comment, on the fact, I found that interesting, and would have thought there would have been at the very least more 'neutral' votes.

stignasty: again what a nonsensical analogy. is what we see on t.v a realistic eyewitnessing of an event as opposed to people who were physically present?? I cannot believe you, I really can't! So hundreds of witnesses, and our minute snaps of t.v viewing supercede that, OMG. I simply cannot believe you, nor your thought process, that you would even say that.? Or think that is realistic? What we saw on t.v. was filtered, cut, editted for time, we couldn't possibly hear anything , feel anything, etc., But the combination of hundreds of eye/ear witnesses give us a much better picture of the reality. Here, I will present your assumption in another manner. Let's use your accounting, of witnessing a shooting on t.v. You see only what the camera shows you. That's all you see. Someone present, physically present, see's the murder, the background, the lead-up, the setting, the surroundings, the before, the after, the smells, the sounds, etc., etc.,You would be privy to none of that. You see,only what the camera sees. But I guess, in your logic, that makes you, the superior witness to this crime and by extension 9/11. flawed, flawed thinking.

How do you expect anyone to take you seriously if you continually act like a child? Anyway, the overpass also didn't have 40 stories of a skyscraper for extra weight coming down on the structure beneath it. Do you think the overpass below would have held if 40 stories of a skyscraper fell on it? The point is that we continually hear that the fuel fire from the jet couldn't soften the steel enough to cause a collapse, yet here's an example of just that. act like a child? I find the comparison hilarious, which is why i laugh. sorry :-( Sorry, the whole premise to the official story is pancaking, as one floor hit the next that floor failed, verbatim. At free fall speed of course. "Anyway, the overpass also didn't have 40 stories of a skyscraper for extra weight coming down on the structure beneath it. " nope it had another overpass, probably of similar weight and structure fall on it and it held!! wonder was the overpass below designed to hold up another overpass, along with it's own weight?? WTC was designed that way as every building is with the lower floor construction , supporting the upper floors. But then I'll bet you didn't know that? I wonder if overpasses are designed in that manner? what about the non-pulverizing concrete, at the overpass, it's just there in big chunks, it didn't turn into dust? I find it fascinating that you see some similarity to that, an overpass, and the wtc towers, two entirely different structures, BUT, the madrid hotel , with similar construction inc. a central core construction similar to wtc's , and the wtc buildings no connection? Right? How much steel relative to how much jet fuel? Was it just a fuel fire alone, asphalt is a petroleum product, wouldn't it burn? what is it's burn temp? how long will it burn for? Which fuel is more volatile? so many variations? seriously stignasty, If anything the overpass collapsing doesn't help your cause at all. it dams the pancake theory all to hell, and demonstrates that concrete should not pulverize in a collapse. Two mainstays of the offical conspiracy theory.

Interesting how our resident conspiracy theorists decided not to comment on this. If a petrol fire was hot enough to make a steel re-enforced overpass collapse, why wouldn't it make a steel building collapse? Or were space based laser weapons used to collapse this too? wasn't it amazing that the partial collapse of the overpass, PANCAKED, on to the overpass below, and lordy oh lordy, the overpass below held!!! Amazing, eh? Yet wtc , floors just instantaneously collapsed the floors beneath it!!! In under 10 seconds, no less. lol.lol, lol,lol,lol verbatim, like wtc floors?? oh yeah and the concrete, stayed in chunks, I guess it forgot to pulverize. like the wtc concrete? ?????????????

hey, PN, how does it feel being all powerful!!! pretty darn good, I would think!

wow! is PN ever all powerful, that he can 'suck' riverwind into a 9/11 discussion. How exactly is he doing that? Or is riverwind, an unwitting victim of PN's 'powers'? what a silly thing to say. Please note the number of posts poly has made. Now compare them to yours. Poly has been around here as long as me, and I have noticed the poly trends. He is a conspiracy theorist nut. He has a theory for every thing. Really. Everything. He just finished a thread on 9/11 that was over 100 pages, all filled with the same old repeated engineer arguments. He could not answer some very valid points, so ignored them. Now he is starting a new thread with the same old subject matter. We are worried about Poly and the people he sucks in. As a matter of fact, some have contacted Maury to see if there is a show in there somewhere and Maury is really excited. Stay tuned. sharkman: the simple fact is PN, has no magical power to "suck" Riverwind into another 9/11 thread. Riverwind participates of his/her own freewill. That's all there is too it. When you make the claim, that you do, it makes Riverwind seem some sort of weak, witless victim of PN, Which, unless that is what you are inferring, is not the case. I certainly do not think that is what Riverwind is about, nor is that the way Riverwind, would like to see him/herself portrayed as.

Pretty much. when did I say all these alleged quotations, you are attributing to me?? I looked through this entire thread and other then the "rofl", all the other's are MIA. Please direct me to them or retract them. You can link me to the posts within this thread, right, your capable, right? I'll be waiting........................

Yeah, I sort of got that part. Provide an eyewitness who saw detonator cables or explosives in the building or else admit that your claim has no merit. I don't think there were explosives in the building - because none were observed. Again, the obvious answer to why Fiterman Hall was damaged was because a building five times taller than it fell down onto it. To somehow extrapolate that the damage was from invisible explosives is silly. why limit yourself to detonator cable and implanted explosives?? Is that all the truth you can handle?? "I don't think there were explosives in the building - because none were observed. " observed? in what manner? did numerous people report explosions? see and photograph squibs? have foreknowledge of a building about to collapse, in enough time, to evacuate the exterior premises?? Under 7 second collapse time for wtc 7. nice pieces , easy clean up. well none of that sounds like a random collapse. But then, none of that was ever investigated. And really why bother, the government is right, and all the people who heard and saw unusual sounds are wrong, and in light of 9/11 being "the biggest alleged terrorist incident on US soil" it is only right and correct that all eye/ear witness are discounted, in place of a official narrative, set out by the government. I mean if someone witnessed a murder and testified to that fact, then despite the dead body, it should be quickly discounted, in your world that is, In which that kind of behaviour is right and true and good, right???? rofl!!!!! i do hope you realize bolded words are you, and your view. You see, in an attack such as the 9/11 attacks, there should have been a complete, thorough and exhaustive INVESTIGATION, but, there wasn't. Instead their is a "narrative" a nice story, geared particularily to the gullible. Instead of no stone, left unturned, we get.... a report, actually a few reports, that don't even call themselves investigations. Hundreds of reports of explosions, are ignored. In an investigation?? As I said, it's like someone saying they witnessed a murder, the dead body lies there, and no one even inquires. We get dead bodies scooped up as trash, and bones being found still today. But then, I mean, quick clean-ups do not leave time, to properly and respectfully find the remains of the dead. Nor do quick clean ups indicate exhaustive forensic investigation. But I digress...............no stone left unturned right??

NO!

What I'm saying, is that in order for your hypothesis to be valid you had to assume that there were explosives in the building (since none were observed). That's different from attributing the damage of the smaller building to the larger building falling on it. my hypothesis is the official story is baloney! it was in fact your hypothesis that, the building falling, in a non-controlled demolition was what damaged the nearby building, I merely demonstrated, this was not so. If there were explosions pre-planted in wtc 7, do you think whomever planted them would go to the trouble of wrapping the building to prevent projectiles being ejected, at a pretty darn good speed. I don't think so....... do you?

It is much more likely that the damage to 30 West Broadway was suffered when a 47 story building fell on a 15 story building, than your scenario where you propose that explosives (that no one saw, and there is no other evidence for) damaged the structure. Your abrasive tone does not camouflage the fact that your theory holds no merit. I wasn't attempting an 'abrasive tone'. IMO the regurgitation of occams razor was nonsensical and not necessary to a hypothetical discussion. Your claim that damage to a neighbouring building is indicative of non-useage of explosives is wrong. when a building is demolished vis a vis controlled demolition it sends projectiles of cement etc outwards, at explosive placement. see interview here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/kaboom/loizeaux.html it's an interview with stacey loizeaux, from controlled demolition. read the interview, scroll down to the building wrapped on the exterior to prevent projectiles. image here http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/kaboom/images/fence.jpeg "But we work on several upper floors to geotextile fence around building help fragment debris for the contractor, so all the debris ends up in small, manageable pieces. Other preparatory operations are covering—wrapping the columns with chain link fence and then in geotextile fabric, which is very puncture resistant and has a very high tensile strength. It allows the concrete to move, but it keeps the concrete from flying. The chain link catches the bigger material and the fabric catches the smaller material from flying up and out. We also sometimes put up a curtain around the entire floor, to catch the stuff that gets through these first two layers.That's really where your liability is. " so, therefore in a controlled demolition in which precautions were not taken to prevent "concrete flying" you would get damage to neighbouring buildings. Therefore damage to neighbouring buildings does NOT DISPROVE a controlled demolition. comprende?

lol, typical western response! No offense intended.

Sarkozy is not a leader at this time. Has this been done before? By France's leaders? anyone know? Quebecers are not necessarily citizens of France, entitled to vote in France's election, anyone have info on that??? then if any quebecers do have the privelage, how many Quebec citizens do? Then how many actually vote in any sort of substantial way to influence the elections in France, requiring an office??. I don't know if it is a cut and dry as that, BC chick, it even has me wondering?

Wrong. The onus is on you to show that the buildings could not have collapsed symmetrically without a controlled demolition. You have not and cannot show that which means your arguments regarding the symmetric collapses are irrelevant.That's your arguement!please show me where I made that arguement? You have claimed that the buildings 'should have' tipped over but you have provided nothing to support your claim. Instead you try to reverse the onus of proof and claim that others must prove that the buildings could not have tipped over. The overwhelming weight of circumstantial evidence supports the hypothesis that the buildings came down as a result of structural damage and fires. If you wish to dismiss this circumstantial evidence then the onus is on you to prove your claims.I have demonstrated that it is possible for a building to collapse symmetrically from asymmetric damage. Showing that the buildings had a lot of redundancy when compared to other skyscrapers does not prove that the buildings had enough redundancy to tip over. No where did I claim, the buildings should have tipped over, that's why you can't back it up! here's my quote "The wtc towers were extremely redundant structures, it is yourself, that cannot back up the claim you made that they aren't." I am sorry, I see nowhere in the quote you used, that I said anything at all , about buildings tipping, as you are claiming, read what I wrote, not what you THINK I wrote. I am talking about redundancy, quite frankly, your response has zero to do with what I said. You are simply having the conversation YOU wish to have, so you can make yourself look righteous or whatever you are attempting to prove.

wow! is PN ever all powerful, that he can 'suck' riverwind into a 9/11 discussion. How exactly is he doing that? Or is riverwind, an unwitting victim of PN's 'powers'? what a silly thing to say.

Occam's razor One of the most fundamental principles of reasoning and investigation is what has come to be known as Occam's Razor. Named after the 14th century logician William of Occam, it is the principle which favors the lea your response is fluff and irrelevant to the discussion we are having, which is why you put it here. The facade damage could have equally been caused by demolition charges, as Fiterman hall was very close to wtc 7 building. in a hypothetical discussion, which is all we are having. because you cannot accept that as a possibility does not mean it is not a possibility.

riverwind: clarify this statement, and if you mean what I think you mean, be prepared...... but, i ask you to clarify, first.

damage to Fiterman hall could equally demonstrate that explosives blowing outward at crticial points damaged the facade of Fiterman hall! Still fitting the controlled demolition scenario.

Wrong. The onus is on you to show that the buildings could not have collapsed symmetrically without a controlled demolition. You have not and cannot show that which means your arguments regarding the symmetric collapses are irrelevant. That's your arguement! please show me where I made that arguement? You are only discreditting yourself, more with more bogus claims!

completely false! I said to you......The term 'a lot of redundancy' is a relative term that means nothing unless you understand the reference point. When I made my statement I was comparing skyscrapers to smaller structures. IWO - my statement is correct.You can make the case that the WTC1 & 2 towers had a fair amount of redundancy, when compared to other skyscrapers, however, that redundancy means nothing once the building starts to collapse. At that point the domino effect can lead to the near simultaneous collapse of the supports. You have no scientific evidence to back up your claim that buildings could not have collapsed symmetrically from asymmetric damage. You are simply assuming it is true because it supports your fantasies. again you speak of yourself, LOL! Your hilarious, i never made that claim!! That's actually the opposite of your claim, which you have assumed, I am making, whatever? Please quote me verbatim and direct me to the post in which I made the alleged claim. BUT, you will be unable to. The wtc towers were extremely redundant structures, it is yourself, that cannot back up the claim you made that they aren't. I have spent hours and hours of my own time researching the construction of WTC buildings, they were built in a superior manner, the steel far exceeded minimum standards , the welding far exceeded, the bolts, etc, all far exceeded necessary standards of construction. The quote from MIT verifies the buildings were very redundant and resilient. Check Eagers report for further verification as exemplified by the towers sway after plane impact. You are simply assuming, your bogus, false claim requiring redundancy is true , because it supports your fantasies.(delusions). You're claim is totally non-credible!

correct! Fiterman hall has not been demolished yet, and, is NOT being demolished due to damage from WTC 7, which was only facade and not structural damage. Fiterman hall is being demolished due to mold and toxins from the WTC towers. The Verizon building, was also structurally sound and has been/is being repaired actually the building between wtc tower 1 and building number 7, was wtc building number 6. wtc 6 did NOT collapse, but was demolished, at a later date. see image http://www.studyof911.com/articles/winston...Images/Fig6.jpg Fiterman hall was in fact behind building # 7. http://killtown.911review.org/images/wtc7/wtc_aerial.jpg check image for building positioning.

No structural engineer has come out and said that buildings cannot symmetrically collapse after experiencing asymmetric damage.A tall steel framed building does _not_ behave like a tower of LEGO. These building can sustain a lot of damage and remain standing. However, once they start to collapse the domino effect can cause a near simulatenous failure of supports which leads to a symmetric collapse. The word 'can' is critical - it implies that it does not always occur. But it does also means the symmetric collapse is _not_ evidence of a controlled demolition - no matter how many times you repeat it. You demonstrated a total lack of knowledge regarding structural redundancy in the WTC buildings. Don't admonish me, when you own knolwedge is severely and I mean severly lacking. You should acknowledge your huge error, one of many, I may add. I'll repeat your faux pas, as you breezed right on by it, without acknowledging it riverwind: completely false! I said to you...... "You remember that Eager report, even he acknowledges the WTC buildings were built with lots of redundancy. IMO, you know nothing about construction, PERIOD! Your whole scenario is faulty, flawed and sheer quackery. The egg-crate construction made a redundant structure (i.e., if one or two columns were lost, the loads would shift into adjacent columns and the building would remain standing). The WTC was primarily a lightweight steel structure; however, its 244 perimeter columns made it “one of the most redundant and one of the most resilient” skyscrapers.1 not to speak of it's massive core columns!! “one of the most redundant and one of the most resilient” skyscrapers. “one of the most redundant and one of the most resilient” skyscrapers. that reference came from here 1. Presentation on WTC Collapse, Civil Engineering Department, MIT, Cambridge, MA (October 3, 2001). my answer was to the fact that you yourself, clearly know nothing of structural engineering, hence your lack of realization of wind as lateral load, along with your totally bogus statement on construction redundancy, as lacking which is blatantly false wrt wtc structure or by extension any other building.

I looked but could find no confirmation news source on perle's whereabout physically, except he was already yapping! notice that too? the dem vs repubs? it's irrelevant. who cares? Unless the us vs them mentality is all that matters.

I've missed, whomever made this statement, please, which building ,adjacent to wtc7 had to be demolished because of wtc 7's collapse?? adjacent meaning: next to, ADJACENT may or may not imply contact but always implies absence of anything of the same kind in between a house with an adjacent garage