It was quite useful reading, found some interesting details about this topic, Thanks…

Rapid lender of rapid no fax payday advances with online payday loan approvals.

Web traffic can be increased by placement of a site in search engines and purchase of advertising, including bulk e-mail, pop-up ads, and in-page advertisements. Web traffic can also be increased by purchasing non-internet based advertising.

And yet, IAEA’s authority is never questioned when it suits the Bush administration, i.e., regarding Iraq, and now Iran.

Not only nobody in the Bush administration ever says anything about IAEA’s “improper interference” in Iran’s internal affairs, they pressure both the IAEA tougher measures and Iran for more openness.

I guess what is good for the goose is not good for the gander.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/11/04/if-this-doesnt-scare-the-hell-out-of-you/
.

CNN Late
Edition (Wolf Blitzer)
Below are the topics and guests announced for
this program, along with my take on the “memes” that the show is trying to
push. With each guest’s name are a series of links that I found in a web search
that…

As you should. It’s what Thomas Jefferson expected from us.

But, you’re way too intelligent to adopt a conspiracy theory that is no more based on facts than the 9/11 Commission Report is based in reality.

In order to make the buildings that tall, they did something new with those towers – they put some of the structure at the core, and most of it along the exterior face. It was a new idea and it had not been done before (therefore it had not been tested in real world applications).

They used tube steel, which is, in section, shaped like a rectangle with rounded corners, and is hollow at the exterior wall.

After the planes took out one side of each building, the jet fuel (as the planes were filled just before take off), poured out and saturated the entire floor at impact, as well as several floors below. Think of how water acts when poured on the carpet – it quickly spreads. The jet fuel would have done the same, engulfing the entire floor with a uniform fire that evenly weaken the remaining 3 exterior structural faces, as well as the core columns that we were no longer fire proofed.

As a result of the distributed fire, the steel weakened to the point of failure. As a result, the structure above came crashing down upon itself. When things fall, they actually accelerate in their descent. So, think of an accelerating car hitting a brick wall. It’s basically the same – just in a horizontal application. You’re gonna destroy the wall you hit with that speeding car. Imagine what a falling 20 story building would do…

If you realize that the building that was impacted first fell last, you hold a big piece of the puzzle. The building that was hit first was hit higher up than the one that was hit second. As a result, the size and weight of the part of the building that was being held up by the weakening structure was the deciding factor in how long the building held. If there had been explosives, they would have fallen at relatively the same duration between explosion and fall, because the explosions would have evenly distributed the damage. The fact that the first tower fell last suggests that explosives were not present, and the towers indeed fell as a result of the plane crashes alone.

I saw the documentary filmed by the guy who was in the first tower. The ‘explosions’ eye-witnesses were describing seemed to actually be the fall out from the damage and the collapsing building hitting the building, cars and the street. Hitting a car with a piece of steel that had fallen 800′ would create quite a racket…

– Unbelievable.

Actually, it was the slide show on your link which claimed that the planes disintegrated upon impact, yet also completly destroyed 6 of the heavy inner core columns in one building and 10 in the other.

At this point I am questioning. Seriously questioning.

They should be held accountable at the Hague along with the neocons.

It drives me nuts when liberals tell others to shut up… No, I won’t. This impacts my profession and I have a right to be offended by it.

Actually, it’s more like discussing religion. There’s a lot of blind faith involved…

Perhaps it was growing up in the Bible Belt that has an impact on the religious culture? I’ve heard that explanation a lot around here, even though my friend was raised in Pennsylvania and Southern Florida, and is Catholic.

First of all, it’s not a choice between just these two things. Both are biased, and neither is credible. If I don’t ascribe to organized religion, I’m not going to accept other people’s explanations without proof. I have seen proof for neither version, and therefore, based on my education and real experience as an architect, came to my own conclusion.

The PBS site doesn’t address what you posted above because those things are not based on facts. It’s like trying to prove that something doesn’t exist, or didn’t happen.

It is the burden of those who claim this position to provide facts. You only posted, nearly verbatim, the Inside Job Theory’s opinions. I’ve seen no facts from them either – just unequal comparisions to other buildings under different circumstances. You know that you can’t do that and expect to be taken seriously…

It is, quite frankly, unbelievable.

Is this really you? Usually the trolls or extreme left nutjobs say this…

Even the PBS slide show on your link raises a question. If the commercial jet aircraft disintegrated upon impact, how was there enough mass and energy to completely destroy 10 steel reinforced inner core support pillars?

If it disintegrated upon impact? You’re hinging your credibility on if?

You’re also trying to force me to disprove your explanation, instead of considering that the plane impact did something else…

I don’t believe the plane destroyed the inner columns based on study of statics (structural physics), strength of materials and all those other really difficult structural courses.

The planes, more likely, just knocked off the fire-proofing, and allowed the immediate and intense fire to do what we put the fire-proofing there to prevent – weaken the steel. That’s all that has to happen. It just has to weaken it enough for it to fail. Very plausible and the more simple explanation. It’s my acceptance of Occum’s Razor that leads me to understand that the simplest explanation is usually the right one.

I’ve seen far more than the PBS documentary now, and I have serious questions; questions that are not answered by the official version.

But that doesn’t automatically mean that this opposing Inside Job Theory is true either. There are other explanations that are reality based that exclude both, and include both. That’s what I’ve been trying to suggest for the last 6 months, but no one seems to be willing to form their own hypothesis – just pick a side and fight like crazy.

A theory of how the towers fell must account for all the details. The presentation on your link fails to do so. Please, research the events further and explain how the official version can answer the points I made above.

All the details? That’s a tall order. They were trying to educate the average person with an IQ of about 110. It wasn’t meant to be a 4 year education in building design.

Again, I do not subscribe to teh Official Version. And I have researched the matter enough, as well as practiced as an architect for 14 years. I know what I’m talking about.

I realize what it means to reject the official story. It means to accept the possibility that our own government, or at least a faction within our own government, was willing to sacrifice American lives in order to ascend to a position of power.

When have I ever hesitated to do that? I do it all the time. Are you sure this is you?

Yet, in the aftermath of 9/11, isn’t that exactly what has happened? Have we not seen civil liberties diminished and the power of the President expand to the point of dictatorship?

It’s why I think Bush is an accomplice to 9/11. By his failure to act, and perhaps, his willingness to ignore what was about to happen. That makes sense. Him orchetsrating it does not. All I have to do is look at every thing he’s touched to see that he is and always has been a failure. But this one time, he succeeded? Maybe. But you’ll have to prove it, and so far, I’ve only seen opinions.

Something to think about.
Comment by Briseadh na Faire — November 4, 2006 @ 1:46 pm

Sorry, but not really. For someone who was educated on this subject (the building aspect), and practiced it for a decade and a half, and now teaches it, I think the Inside Job explanations are without facts. So far, I’ve just seen a lot of opinions and comparisions to other buildings that are neither like the Trade Towers or under similar circumstances.