...

The video evidence shows a commercial airliner sized plane [crashing into the Pentagon]

On 2018-09-17 07:45, juan wrote:

no it does not - it show a small blured smudge. At best the blured smudge is 20x10 pixels in size.

A roughly plane shaped smudge, and, assuming it is roughly the same distance as the ensuing explosion, roughly commercial airliner size and moving at roughly plane speeds.

Because, if a real plane had hit the pentagon, then the real surveillance cameras installed in the pentagon would have recorded full speed, high definition images. But since no plane hit the pentagon, they don't have any video of it, and so all they offer is that fake bullshit done in mspaint.

Humans on the road saw the plane fly overhead, and it clipped light poles on the road, consistent with what is shown on the video, a plane flying almost horizontally at almost ground level.

On 16/09/18 22:45, juan wrote:

On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 06:30:09 +1000 jamesd@echeque.com vomited:

What was actually shown was the controlled demoltion of the twin towers.

Controlled by OBL perhaps. But it didn't need any explosives, hand-positioned thermate, or the like - the burning jet fuel would do that to a building like WTC. I am a Brit and I don't know crap about WTC7, or the Pentagon, except to suggest that if I were the terrorist in charge I'd have attacked the White House, Congress, Senate, suchlike instead - but OBL was well-known for antipathy to the New York financial world and the US military. But I do know a lot about metal (and more than enough about explosives, and demolitions), and let me tell you, the jet fuel fire woulda done it. No need for any explosives. If a lot of men in black suits or keffiyas did somehow carefully plant explosives and/or thermate in WTC (without anyone noticing), their effort was wasted.

...

it was surprising to me as I watched the second plane hit the second tower that it did no fall immediately.

Actually that would have astonished me - the building weighs maybe 5000 times more than the plane, and is built to take huge wind side loads. Getting knocked over by the plane crashing into it would be like you getting knocked over by a pingpong ball. But after the crash, the thermal protection on the interior steelwork had been shattered, and the fuel started burning. The steel never melted, nor did it come close to melting - but there was a lot of fuel, and the whole of two or so floors was on fire. That's a lot of heat in one place. The word "inferno" comes to mind. The temperature in the center of the floor would have been at least 650C, and more likely somewhere around 700-800C. Even at 650C A36 structural steel has only 38% of its room-temperature yield strength. At 800C it would be less than 17%. How much steel do you think they put into something like WTC? - the answer is, a little more than three times what's needed to stop it collapsing. Ever seen a blacksmith work? He takes the steel out of the furnace and squashes it with a hammer. It starts off at about 900C, when it's glowing yellow and the steel is quite soft, but he will still hammer the steel until it is dull red at about 550C, when it becomes too hard to squash with a hammer blow. Hey, would you even think about the possibility of squashing that lump of steel at room temperature with a hammer? Yet a smith can do it with ease when the metal is at the same temperature as the steel in WTC got to. Then consider that the inside of the outer steel shell would have been a lot hotter than the outside - which would cause the box columns of the shell to bend and buckle. Both the above phenomena, the loss of strength and the bending and buckling are well-known to metallurgists, and are easy to demonstrate. So, no wonder it collapsed. The straight-down nature of the collapse might seem surprising, but it isn't really - take a rod as long as the WTC was high, and tip it over slightly. It takes a long time to get moving - but it only took ten seconds for the WTC to collapse. There wasn't enough time for it to go any way except straight down. The reason it collapsed so fast is interesting though - one or two floors collapsed, then the the top ten floors fell down on the next-highest intact floor - which had no chance of withstanding the impact. That floor failed immediately, and so the cascade continued. If I have given the impression that the first floor to collapse collapsed all at once, it probably didn't - most likely part of it, perhaps a part which had been damaged by the impact as well as weakened by the fire, collapsed first; then the uncollapsed part of the floor had a whole lot of extra weight on it. In time this might have tipped the top ten floors sideways - IIRC the top floors did tip a bit on one tower, but I haven't seen the film recently - but there wasn't enough time for that to develop, the uncollapsed part of the floor also collapsed, and the top ten floors fell as a lump. After that, once the top ten floors get some momentum, they go straight down; and there ain't nothing underneath strong enough to stop that momentum. So, that's how it would have happened if the fire caused the collapse. Seems to me to be pretty much what actually happened. If it was spies, or terrorists, or demolition contractors, I'd expect something different. Peter Fairbrother

On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 03:24:39 +0100 Peter Fairbrother <peter@tsto.co.uk> wrote:

On 16/09/18 22:45, juan wrote:

...

On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 06:30:09 +1000 jamesd@echeque.com vomited:

...

What was actually shown was the controlled demoltion of the twin towers.

Controlled by OBL perhaps.

But it didn't need any explosives, hand-positioned thermate, or the like - the burning jet fuel would do that to a building like WTC.

sure - because when the buildings were designed to withstand a plane crash, nobody was aware that planes have 'fuel' in them. >nobody realized that "burning jet fuel would do that to a building like WTC" can I dismiss the rest of your message as bullshit/? Anyway... ...You can see a huge ball of fire when one of the planes(?) hit. Guess what was that fireball? Well it must have been fuel no? Oops, so it didn't burn inside the building. So even if your bullshit claim was true, the fuel is missing?

I am a Brit and I don't know crap about WTC7, or the Pentagon,

OK. So you are ignoring substantial evidence showing that the official hollywood-style conspiracy is bullshit, and parroting more bullshit of your own. You could have taken 2 minutes to watch countless videos of the controlled demolition of WTC7 but instead you are parroting govt propaganda. Impressive. Not.

except to suggest that if I were the terrorist in charge I'd have attacked the White House,

wasn't the white house allegedly a target as well? Not that your musings about what you'd do if you were a 'terrist' prove anything at all anyweay...

Congress, Senate, suchlike instead - but OBL was well-known for antipathy to the New York financial world and the US military.

anybody who is not a complete piece of shit has total 'antipathy' for wall street and the US nazis. So what woul be your point here? That the financial mafia and the US military are not legitimate targets by ANY standard? Excecpt of course the standard of the US military nazis themselves.

But I do know a lot about metal (and more than enough about explosives, and demolitions), and let me tell you, the jet fuel fire woulda done it. No need for any explosives.

So how is it that you "know a lot about metal"? Does your knowledge come from teh US military PSYOPS department?

If a lot of men in black suits or keffiyas did somehow carefully plant explosives and/or thermate in WTC (without anyone noticing), their effort was wasted.

...

...

it was surprising to me as I watched the second plane hit the second tower that it did no fall immediately.

Actually that would have astonished me - the building weighs maybe 5000 times more than the plane, and is built to take huge wind side loads. Getting knocked over by the plane crashing into it would be like you getting knocked over by a pingpong ball.

Well james nonsense is just a bit more comical than yours, whp claim that the demolition was caused by fire.

But after the crash, the thermal protection on the interior steelwork had been shattered, and the fuel started burning.

yeah parroting US military propagnada like clockwork. you mean the thermal protection was 'shattered' im the 200 floors of the two towers? OR at best it may have been damaged in PARTS of a COUPLE of floors?

The steel never melted, nor did it come close to melting - but there was a lot of fuel, and the whole of two or so floors was on fire. That's a lot of heat in one place. The word "inferno" comes to mind.

so the whole building collapsed because a couple of floors burned. Yeah, you know so much about 'metals'.

The temperature in the center of the floor would have been at least 650C, and more likely somewhere around 700-800C. Even at 650C A36 structural steel has only 38% of its room-temperature yield strength. At 800C it would be less than 17%.

How much steel do you think they put into something like WTC? - the answer is, a little more than three times what's needed to stop it collapsing.

the answers is a lot of steel : now you 'expert on metals' apparently never considered the fact that such huge amount of metal is a huge thermal sink. In other words, vast majority of the structure was always at room temperature. And yet the whole thing collapsed in seconds.

Ever seen a blacksmith work?

OK - enough bullshit.

The straight-down nature of the collapse might seem surprising, but it isn't really - take a rod as long as the WTC was high, and tip it over slightly. It takes a long time to get moving - but it only took ten seconds for the WTC to collapse. There wasn't enough time for it to go any way except straight down.

so apparently you don't understand what controlled demolition is and you are unable to grasp the fact that big steel structures are not a house of cards that magically collapses under its own weight. The thing is, in the 'down' direction there were huge amounts of mass (the buildings...) so that was NOT, AT ALL, the path of least resistance, and so this comment "enough time for it to go any way except straight down' is sheer nonsense. Time has fuck to do with anything whereas the fact that the way down was blocked by the building itself is the reason why demolition is needed.

The reason it collapsed so fast is interesting though

yeah, it is 'interesting'...

On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 21:59:43 +0100 Peter Fairbrother <peter@tsto.co.uk> wrote:

On 17/09/18 19:51, juan wrote:

...

On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 03:24:39 +0100 Peter Fairbrother <peter@tsto.co.uk> wrote:

...

...

How much steel do you think they put into something like WTC? - the answer is, a little more than three times what's needed to stop it collapsing.

the answers is a lot of steel

Nope, the answer is "a little more than three times what's needed to stop it collapsing".

that is to say A LOT of steel.

On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 22:20:19 +0100 Peter Fairbrother <peter@tsto.co.uk> wrote:

On 17/09/18 19:51, juan wrote:

...

On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 03:24:39 +0100 Peter Fairbrother <peter@tsto.co.uk> wrote:

...

...

But it didn't need any explosives, hand-positioned thermate, or the like - the burning jet fuel would do that to a building like WTC.

sure - because when the buildings were designed to withstand a plane crash, nobody was aware that planes have 'fuel' in them.

The designers simply never considered the combination of impact and fire.

because you say so. Because, again, they never figured out the fact that there's fuel in planes.

It wasn't required in the 70's when WTC was built - still isn't generally required.

http://www1.ae911truth.org/faqs/655-faq-9-were-the-twin-towers-designed-to-s...

...

...

nobody realized that "burning jet fuel would do that to a building like WTC"

Oh yes they realised. Look closely:

WTC was rated for 3 hours major fire resistance.

Put that another way - *it was rated so that it _would_ collapse after 3 (or so) hours of major conflagration*.

source? It doesnt' matter because you know, there was no "major conflagration"

It's in the design docs.

3 Hours. Source it. Link it. Thank you.

I guess WTC7 was designed the same way

I guess you are a troll?

...

...You can see a huge ball of fire when one of the planes(?) hit. Guess what was that fireball? Well it must have been fuel no? Oops, so it didn't burn inside the building.

That's maybe 50 gallons

and how did you arrive at that number?

The thick black smoke which came from the building for about 1/2 hour is jet fuel burning badly, ie where there isn't enough oxygen.

right - which means burning at very low temperature. And the 'smoke' is, guess what? Unburnt fuel.

After a while the smoke thins, the fuel/air ratio has become more favourable,

LMAO! The smoke thins because...there's nothing else to burn.

carbon burns to carbon dioxide rather than carbon monoxide giving off more heat, and the temperature rises even more.

ha ha - how cute - see above.

...

So how is it that you "know a lot about metal"? Does your knowledge come from teh US military PSYOPS department?

10 years of designing alloys. Mostly for rocket engines. :)

Guess what? I don't believe a word you say =) Also you are an expert on alloys who doesn't have a clue about the most basic laws of physics? Is that why you are ignoring the fact that huge steel structures do not magically collapse AS IF cut into pieces UNLESS they are cut into pieces, with bombs?

Plus a lot of explosion theory, analyses of several hundred actual unintended explosions, and occasionally actually blowing stuff up ...

...

you mean the thermal protection was 'shattered' im the 200 floors of the two towers? OR at best it may have been damaged in PARTS of a COUPLE of floors?

The latter. The rest of the steelwork in the building was unaffected by the impact or the fire.

Well at least we agree on that basic fact. And so since MAYBE, ONLY PART of the insulation failed in A COUPLE of floors, then all the rest of the structure was undisturbed and had no reason to collapse.

...

...

The steel never melted, nor did it come close to melting - but there was a lot of fuel, and the whole of two or so floors was on fire. That's a lot of heat in one place. The word "inferno" comes to mind.

so the whole building collapsed because a couple of floors burned.

Yup. That's how it was designed, and that's what it did.

http://www1.ae911truth.org/faqs/655-faq-9-were-the-twin-towers-designed-to-s...

Was the design crap? With hindsight, frankly, yes.

that, or it was blown up. Guess which one is the most likely theory? Now, humour me. You've been a subscribed to the list for 16 years - but that doesn't mean that you are a 'crypto' anarchist, right? On the other hand, what does the fact that you parrot US military propaganda tell 'us' about your political views?

-- Peter Fairbrother

On 17/09/18 22:56, juan wrote:

...

10 years of designing alloys. Mostly for rocket engines. :)

Guess what? I don't believe a word you say =)

Also you are an expert on alloys who doesn't have a clue about the most basic laws of physics? Is that why you are ignoring the fact that huge steel structures do not magically collapse AS IF cut into pieces UNLESS they are cut into pieces, with bombs?

That's not a law of physics - it's something you think is true and relevant. It is neither. Steel structures can and do collapse. Bridges, all sorts. It's not like WTC is the first, or only, large steel-framed building to collapse in a fire. WTC was not a simple steel structure; it was the concrete floors which fell. The steel just failed to hold them up. WTC did not collapse "as if cut into pieces" - the remaining undamaged steel outer shell guided the falling mess downwards inside it. Momentarily, at least.

Now, humour me. You've been a subscribed to the list for 16 years - but that doesn't mean that you are a 'crypto' anarchist, right? On the other hand, what does the fact that you parrot US military propaganda tell 'us' about your political views?

Try the list archives, as you don't believe a word I say. Or maybe Google cypherpunks fairbrother as "the" list archives is a bit of a mess.

...

-- Peter Fairbrother

...

WTC did not collapse "as if cut into pieces"

On 2018-09-19 04:02, juan wrote:

Not as neatly as WTC7,

You are making up physics to suit yourself, and denying the reality that we saw in front of our faces. People saw an airliner fly into the pentagon, and people saw WTC7 start its fall by toppling sideways towards the holes smashed by the plane like a tree toppling sideways towards the notch cut by the axeman. It did not immediately start going straight down You assert that the WTC7 fell most like a demolition, because the reality in front of our eyes was that was the one that fell least like a demolition.

On 2018-09-19 04:26, juan wrote:

So are you saying all the videos are fake? Because they don't show that at all. They do show that the center of the building implodes and the penthouse falls inside of it. Which is, you know, typical controlled demolition.

Liar: The fall starts with building seven toppling like a tree towards the holes smashed into it by the plane: https://blog.jim.com/images/building_7_collapse.jpg https://blog.jim.com/images/building_7_collapse.mp4 In a controlled demolition, the building lands on its own footprint. Trade Tower Seven landed beside its own footprint. The location of the pile of debris testified that it was not a controlled demolition.

On 2018-09-19 10:48, juan wrote:

...

https://blog.jim.com/images/building_7_collapse.jpg

that can be seen AT THE END. Don't you know the difference between "starts" and "ends"?

The building starts rotating and moving sideways at the very beginning, and rotates at constant speed and moves sideways at constant speed all the way down. Thus in a still photograph, that it *has* rotated and moved sideways is more visible at the end than at beginning.

On 2018-09-20 04:28, juan wrote:

See attached picture (yours). If you bother to count the floors you will see that at the time of that frame, 23 floors have gone down. That's half the building. Now, measure the angle I marked in red. It's 8 degrees, 10 at best if you correct for perspective.

Eight degrees is a fall that starts with a topple sideways towards the holes on the south side blasted by the terrorists, not a controlled demolition. And then, after the fall starts, *then*, it goes into free fall *almost* straight down. But not straight enough to land on its own footprint.

On 2018-09-20 12:03, Mirimir wrote:

But again, does it really matter whether there was a plane, or just a missile? As long as we're assuming that the US military orchestrated the attack, or at least played some nontrivial role, that is ;)

It is unlikely that the US military orchestrated the attack. Insofar as the US is to blame, the hijackings were obviously and undeniably real, planes got destroyed, airline passengers died, bits of them got spread over the landscape. And the guy who ordered the FBI to turn a blind eye to the hijackers is Robert Mueller, who is in a state of proxy war with the US military.

On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 10:58:34 +1000 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:

On 2018-09-20 04:28, juan wrote:

...

See attached picture (yours). If you bother to count the floors you will see that at the time of that frame, 23 floors have gone down. That's half the building. Now, measure the angle I marked in red. It's 8 degrees, 10 at best if you correct for perspective.

Eight degrees is a fall that starts with a topple sideways towards the holes on the south side blasted by the terrorists,

that sentence doesn't even make sense, and let me add again the part you left out

So if the building "toppled like a tree" then at that time (half way through) it should be tilted FOURTY FIVE degrees, not 10.

and again, just in case

So if the building "toppled like a tree" then at that time (half way through) it should be tilted FOURTY FIVE degrees, not 10.

not a controlled demolition.

so yes, a controlled demolition. Face it james you are the worst scum on the planet.

On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 15:58:01 +1000 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:

On 2018-09-20 12:35, juan wrote:

...

So if the building "toppled like a tree" then at that time (half way through) it should be tilted FOURTY FIVE degrees, not 10.

As I said, it *began* by toppling like a tree,

No. You can see in second 2 of your video that it begins with only the penthouse disappearing inside the building. See these pictures. https://anonfile.com/O694Pehcb7/d1_png https://anonfile.com/W19ePeh9b5/d2_png https://anonfile.com/f5A9Pfh2b3/d3_png https://anonfile.com/rbA5Pfhfb3/d4_png https://anonfile.com/t0A1Peh4b8/d5_png You keep focusing on the minor tilt, because it's irrelevant. If you cut a wedge at the bottom of a tree then the tree topples. It DOESN'T go almost straight down through the fucking ground, and it doesn't go through itself either. But that's what exactly what the building does. It goes down in an almost vertical trajectory AND the structure ceases to work as a whole (i.e. it's being cut into pieces).

which shattered the structure,

that's a funny word. A material like glass shatters because it's brittle. Steel is flexible and maleable. It doesn't shatter.

and *then* it went into freefall.

Hence, no need to invoke explosives to cause it to go into freefall.

Right because all the structure magically 'shattered'. Because some imaginary tilt at the beginning, something like 0.5 degrees. Which actually wasn't even there. So again, you are focusing on a secondary, small effect that has shit to do with the cause of the collapse. Yes, it tilts because of some damage present. Yes, the damage caused the tilt, but the tilt dind't cause the collapse.

Had it continued to behave like a falling tree, then it would have been 45 degrees when half way down.

But because it almost immediately started to disintegrate, only ten degrees.

That's the only thing you got right. It desintegrated. Because - bombs.

On Sat, 22 Sep 2018 11:03:54 +1000 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:

On 2018-09-22 04:55, juan wrote:

...

On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 15:58:01 +1000 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:

...

On 2018-09-20 12:35, juan wrote:

...

So if the building "toppled like a tree" then at that time (half way through) it should be tilted FOURTY FIVE degrees, not 10.

As I said, it *began* by toppling like a tree,

No. You can see in second 2 of your video that it begins with only the penthouse disappearing inside the building. See these pictures.

https://anonfile.com/O694Pehcb7/d1_png https://anonfile.com/W19ePeh9b5/d2_png https://anonfile.com/f5A9Pfh2b3/d3_png https://anonfile.com/rbA5Pfhfb3/d4_png https://anonfile.com/t0A1Peh4b8/d5_png

Liar.

Not what those pictures show.

Exactly what the pictures show. Not only a dent appears at the top, but the left( on picture) side of the building buldges/moves to the left. So it looks as if the building is being squashed from the top. At any rate it is fuckingly obvious that in that timespan the building isn't behaving at all like a single piece or 'tree' being toppled. In reality differnt parts of the buildings are moving in different directions - what you get when the structure is being shattered...by bombs.

Notice the dark line on the side of the building. It is tilting.

In the final image, the part of the line furthest from you, south end, has dropped as much as the penthouse, while the part of the line closest to you, north end, has dropped as much as the front of the building.

Measure it.

Yep. Here's more pictures for you. I've marked/tracked a few prominent features. https://anonfile.com/12u4V4hcbc/e1_png https://anonfile.com/37u7V9hdbc/e2_png https://anonfile.com/J4u0Vehcb4/e3_png As can be seen, the penthouse dissapears inside the building. The distance travelled by the penthouse is at least 4 times longer than the distance travelled by the corner of the building. WHAT'S MORE, you can see that the corner of the building is moving in the wrong direction. If the building was tilting like a fucking tree, in one piece, then the corner should be moving to the RIGHT. But it's actually moving to the left. Lastly, the row of windows you referred to as 'black line' seems to be moving slightly the way you want it, but the movement is very small. Again, all the other changes in the shape of the building are a lot more significant than your tilt. And let me repeat the stuff you ignored : The fact that there's some deviation from the ideal case doesn't disprove controlled demolition. Indeed if there was some previous damage in the structure, then a perfectly symetrical collapse would be impossible. Stil you haven't proved at all that the building fell because of that damage. The only thing you can say is that the damage affected somewhat the way the building fell, not that it caused the fall.

This shows that penthouse is not collapsing inside the building,

but of course it is, you retarded liar. https://anonfile.com/12u4V4hcbc/e1_png https://anonfile.com/37u7V9hdbc/e2_png https://anonfile.com/J4u0Vehcb4/e3_png

the entire building is tilting away from you

no it is not. https://anonfile.com/12u4V4hcbc/e1_png https://anonfile.com/37u7V9hdbc/e2_png https://anonfile.com/J4u0Vehcb4/e3_png

In any case, World Trade Tower was only designed to survive three hours of uncontrolled fire before the steel softened

another stupid lie that you can't provide evidence for. No, the fact that insulation is 'rated for xx hours' doesn't mean the building will collapse in xx hours. Those are two different thigns that even retards could tell apart but that dishonest assholes like you conflate.

On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 06:30:39 +1000 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:

Not what those pictures show

Your annotation is a lie, since it shows (https://anonfile.com/J4u0Vehcb4/e3_png) the dark line moving straight downwards,

Which is what it does. I provided the pictures with no annotations, which are frame 50 and frame 80 of your video. Any retard can download the pictures and view them sequentally and see clearly how my annotations track what's going on. The annotations can't be faked.

when the unannotated picture shows the dark line rotating,

no it doesn't

indicating that during this initial part of the fall, the outer shell of the building is falling like a rigid object,

no it isn't. The pictures show it isn't and my 'annotations' make it even more clear. So now tell me that the penthouse isn't moving down a lot faster than the rest of the building, you lying piece of shit =)

On 24/09/18 00:13, juan wrote:

especially dedicated to agent fairbrother, 'expert' on metals

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGYrFxOL0vY

One ought to learn to sort out the obviously bullshit. Begins: "Never before or after 9/11 have steel framed buildings collapsed due to fire". Unfortunately that is simply not true; nor relevant to what purports to be a comparison between WTC and Windsor Tower, as Windsor Tower was not steel-framed (nor incomplete as later stated). I didn't bother watching much more. Windsor Tower was a composite building with a large occupied reinforced concrete core. The outer parts were steel-framed. There was a separate reinforced concrete service tower. The reinforced concrete core and service tower survived the extensive and prolonged fire. The lower steel-framed outer parts, which had not been exposed to such prolonged fire, which were still supported by the reinforced concrete core, and which were protected from falling debris and progressive collapse from above by the reinforced mechanical floor [1], survived. About a tenth of the steel-framed part of the top 11 floors which was protected and supported between the reinforced concrete service tower and the core also survived. The rest of the upper 11 stories of the steel-framed part of the building collapsed. Ooops. http://www.elmundo.es/documentos/2005/02/windsor/album2/05.html shows the surviving concrete core. http://www.elmundo.es/documentos/2005/02/windsor/album2/10.html http://www.elmundo.es/documentos/2005/02/windsor/album5/08.html and http://www.elmundo.es/documentos/2005/02/windsor/album3/05.html show where the outer parts have collapsed and some of the debris. The building was originally rectangular - the outsides of the top have fallen off leaving the core sticking up. [1] The reinforced mechanical floor can be seen in http://www.elmundo.es/documentos/2005/02/windsor/album5/09.html - it was about the 19th floor, at the bottom of the collapse, with no windows. -- Peter Fairbrother

On 2018-09-24 22:59, z9wahqvh wrote:

the report itself says in plain English at the same time. NIST engineers did/do consider what happened at WTC7 to be unusual.

It is unusual for a building to be smashed up by the collapse of an adjacent building, and for there then to be no water with which to fight the fires and firemen facing considerably more urgent matters. That World Trade Center Seven was designed to withstand at least three hours of fire implies that the designers expected the fires to be controlled in less than three hours. And, of course, they were not.

"Since WTC 7 was not doused with thousands of gallons of jet fuel, large areas of any floor were not ignited simultaneously.

But the fires, being unfought, then joined together in subsequent hours as one big fire.

On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 08:19:15 +0100 Peter Fairbrother <peter@tsto.co.uk> wrote:

Cases, especially from Russia and China, were excluded because data was lacking or censored.

China's Netizens Ridicule CCTV Fire - so much for censorship. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrDb_k5wJ28 Now this does look like a fucking "major conflagration" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hSPFL2Zlpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beijing_Television_Cultural_Center_fire "Six hundred firefighters arrived on the scene to fight the blaze, which lasted five hours" look! totally collapesed. Oops. Not. At. All. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c3/TVCCremain.jpg/320...

[3] Chinese reticence and/or censorship makes available data uncertain

https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-41479620 "People who repeatedly view terrorist content online will face up to 15 years in prison, the home secretary has told the Conservative Party conference. " The chinese tory party of course.

On Wed, 26 Sep 2018 08:53:56 +0100 Peter Fairbrother <peter@tsto.co.uk> wrote:

...

Now this does look like a fucking "major conflagration" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hSPFL2Zlpg

No. It certainly doesn't look structurally significant.

OK - The building is engulfed in flames but you don't call that a 'major conflagration'.

It looks spectacular, but if that was the worst of it I'd take it off my list of structurally significant fires.

Yeah it just 'looks' spectacular. But it is just 'looks'. Illusion.

By far the most spectacular part was the when the bamboo scaffolding

Where's your source for that? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beijing_Television_Cultural_Center_fire No mention of any bamboo there...Is wikimierda also censored by the chinese commies? You can look at different videos and see the flames coming out of the windows. Where's the scaffolding?

BTW the explosions are bamboo scaffolding -

It was new year and there was a lot of fireworks, including the fireworks that started the fire.

the air in the closed bamboo segments gets hot and expands, then the bamboo gives way explosively.

Eagerly waiting for the evidence that there was a bamboo scaffolding. Funnily enough I harvested a bunch of bamboo last week. I might try to cause some sections of it to 'explode'...

I wasn't sure that the Beijing TV fire counts

Of course it doesn't count for your propaganda =) Massive fire - no structural damage. Exactly the kind of thing you want to ignore.

The nearby Mandarin Oriental hotel which was set on fire by the Beijing TV station may have been worthy of inclusion too, or perhaps instead of - some of the "Beijing TV fire" videos are actually of the nearby hotel, not Beijing TV - but I couldn't be bothered sorting it out.

I'm not completely sure but it seems to be the same building. The hotel in the "CCTV". http://www.thebeijinger.com/blog/2014/02/09/five-years-ago-today-cctv-hotel-...

On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 11:14:29 +0100 Peter Fairbrother <peter@tsto.co.uk> wrote:

On 26/09/18 22:24, juan wrote:

...

On Wed, 26 Sep 2018 08:53:56 +0100 Peter Fairbrother <peter@tsto.co.uk> wrote:

...

...

Now this does look like a fucking "major conflagration" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hSPFL2Zlpg

No. It certainly doesn't look structurally significant.

OK - The building is engulfed in flames but you don't call that a 'major conflagration'.

Not as in the video, especially as I thought it was scaffolding which was burning.

The videos show the whole building in fire but that's not a 'major conflagration. And you mention the *non existing* scaffolding yet again? Why?

Even so, it's only the outside of the building which is burning,

Is it? If there was no scaffolding, then what is burning?

it isn't particularly destructive as yet.

[.]

...

Where's the scaffolding?

Mea culpa, I was confusing it with Shanghai 2010.

In that case the scaffolding caught fire first, but then the building burned as well So that may be antoher example of fire not leading to 10-seconds, total collapse.

In the video it was most probably cladding not scaffolding burning. It was still outside the main structure. Not structurally threatening.

cladding? Made of what?

The point of my note on Beijing TVCC was that I don't know the actual extent of the fire.

But you claim to know the extent of the fires in the WTC?

I believe that is because of Chinese reticence and the lingering censorship.

dude - cut the bullshit - you live in a fucking, fascist, surveillance police state. You are a subject of the fucking english monarchy, ex fucking british empire.

In Beijing TVCC I haven't seen evidence of a raging uncontrolled fire in the center of the building

you didn't seen any evidence of 'raging uncontrolled fire' in the 'center' of the WTC buildings either, so...

I am still not sure Beijing TVCC counts. Take a look at this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ybvp6KoVH_E

Yes much of the outside burned - but did the inside?

you tell me - for a few seconds he zooms in, and the stupid camera manages to focus and damage to the facade can be seen.

Also, is that very large core steel, or is it concrete? I have seen some concrete lower parts shown elsewhere ... hmmm...

A bit of research later, the Beijing TVCC entry should read:

Beijing TV Cultural Center 2009 rc/steel

My apologies, it isn't a steel-framed building after all.

where is the source for it being concrete? (or steel for that matter)

-- Peter Fairbrother

Peter Fairbrother <peter@tsto.co.uk> wrote:

"WTC was an urban renewal project, built on the cheap to substandard requirements - the Port Authority could and did overrule the NYC buildings code whenever it wanted to save money. It wasn't meant to be the jewel in the NYC skyline.

Structurally, it was a piece of crap. Tinsel with rocks." < Yup. Everyone knew it at the time it was being built too. It's shoddy construction was being reported in the NY media. Rr -------- Original message --------From: Peter Fairbrother <peter@tsto.co.uk> Date: 9/29/18 2:56 AM (GMT-08:00) To: cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org Subject: Re: latest false flag attack? On 28/09/18 23:48, juan wrote:

On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 11:14:29 +0100 Peter Fairbrother <peter@tsto.co.uk> wrote:

...

In the video it was most probably cladding not scaffolding burning. It was still outside the main structure. Not structurally threatening.

cladding? Made of what?

Polystyrene foam. [3] cf Grenfell tower.

you didn't seen any evidence of 'raging uncontrolled fire' in the 'center' of the WTC buildings either, so...

oh, but I did. I didn't see the fire itself of course, but I saw plenty evidence of it. Certainly enough to consider the fire structurally threatening.

where is the source for it being concrete? (or steel for that matter)

Beijing TVCC was widely reported as being steel, but according to the architects that's wrong. https://www.thebeijinger.com/blog/2010/08/12/demolition-work-commences-charr... I was going to suggest that it's confusion between the n-shaped tower and the hotel (finally sorted that out, the complex contains a n-shaped tower and a mostly-rectangular hotel with sloping lower parts - the hotel burned, the main n-shaped block didn't), but the  n-shaped tower is also composite with steel sections covered in reinforced concrete. [2] Also if you look close at the wreckage you can see the concrete core. Been browsing found this: Before 9/11 45% of buildings over 150m (about 50 stories) were built of steel. Since 9/11 it's less than 5%. [1] Out of the 100 tallest buildings built since 9/11, only 2 are steel. It seems people who build tall buildings seem to think that steel buildings, especially new-style steel buildings, aren't worth the risk. WTC was an urban renewal project, built on the cheap to substandard requirements - the Port Authority could and did overrule the NYC buildings code whenever it wanted to save money. It wasn't meant to be the jewel in the NYC skyline. Structurally, it was a piece of crap. Tinsel with rocks. -- Peter Fairbrother [3] page 665 https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjj8sDC9d_dAhXwN-wKHSVUCg4QFjABegQIBhAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sciencedirect.com%2Fscience%2Farticle%2Fpii%2FS1877705813012940%2Fpdf%3Fmd5%3D193624928cca30e231c433137829d6ae%26pid%3D1-s2.0-S1877705813012940-main.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2jPgkZvSjIvVz_QrMrp2QF [2]  page 45 image 17 https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=14&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwic_sfY7N_dAhVMBcAKHXDmAgIQFjANegQIARAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fadu.edu.uy%2Ftallerdanza%2Fcarp-2015%2Ffiles%2F2015%2F08%2FCCTV-arup-journal.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1RVd5TM7Xvfqds0kBuPY15 [1] http://www.skyscrapercenter.com/compare-data/submit?type%5B%5D=building&status%5B%5D=COM&base_region=0&base_country=0&base_city=0&base_height_range=3&base_company=All&base_min_year=0&base_max_year=2000&comp_region=0&comp_country=0&comp_city=0&comp_height_range=3&comp_company=All&comp_min_year=2000&comp_max_year=9999&output%5B%5D=material&dataSubmit=Show+Results

On 29/09/18 19:23, juan wrote:

OK Peter. Now if you don't mind tell me (or 'us') about your views on liberal anarchy?

Not relevant here, but fundamentally - old hippy, still. Not an anarchist, there are obvious individual and collective benefits to having some sort of state. Used to be a libertarian minimalist (that probably means something completely different to US persons; I mean wanting a minimal state, but neither US style left-wing nor right-wing libertarianism). Communism fails because it has no place for value; right-wing strong property anarchocapitalism fails because it has no heart. After that the main problem seems to be that a state is run by people, and power corrupts - or maybe they were corrupt anyway. I don't necessarily mean greed-led corruption, it takes many forms. Like Mother Theresa - a stone bitch. You have to suffer to get to heaven - not for me, or my God if I had one. Another problem is pigeon-holing - the state categorises people and treats everyone in those categories as the same, when they aren't the same. So we have to balance the benefits of having a state with the disbenefits of corruption, pigeon-holing, etc. In general it seems better to have a state, especially if it's the right state, or not too wrong - those benefits are powerful things. So nowadays I'd go with liberal, in the sense that the state should not stop people from doing things unless there is a very good reason to. But note, these categorising words mean very different things to US and UK people. Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness - Jefferson got that much right. A bit like Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Sadly, the pursuit of happiness doesn't seem to be an inalienable right any more. "Democracy is the worst type of state, apart from everything else we have tried." On one hand, Trump and Brexit - on the other, ?hope. On the gripping hand ... And I haven't touched on what to do when people's rights conflict with other people's rights .. or with the "rights" of the state, only properly there ain't no such thing; the state has no rights, only people can have rights. The people of a state can en masse have rights, but not the state itself - something which is too often forgotten by employees of the state. -- Peter Fairbrother

On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 07:40:52 +0100 Peter Fairbrother <peter@tsto.co.uk> wrote:

On 24/09/18 00:13, juan wrote:

...

especially dedicated to agent fairbrother, 'expert' on metals

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGYrFxOL0vY

One ought to learn to sort out the obviously bullshit.

Begins: "Never before or after 9/11 have steel framed buildings collapsed due to fire".

Unfortunately that is simply not true; nor relevant to what purports to be a comparison between WTC and Windsor Tower, as Windsor Tower was not steel-framed

oops - true. You must be happy you earned 1 debating point =) Still, speaking of obvious bullshit :

Put that another way - *it was rated so that it _would_ collapse after 3 (or so) hours of major conflagration*.

Did you show us the 'design docs' stating that 'WTC' would collapse after 3 hours? for reference : 1 of the towers lasted 56 minutes, the other one 1 hour 40 minutes and building 7 stood for ~7 hours. I guess "3" can mean anything then.

On 20/09/18 03:35, juan wrote:

so yes, a controlled demolition.

If you are talking about QTC1 and WTC2, while at first glance the collapses may look like explosive demolitions, if you look closely they are very different. (I think you mean explosive demolition, or perhaps building implosion - a controlled demolition is just a demolition which is done to a plan, manual demolitions are supposed to be controlled too. "Controlled Demolitions" are also a large firm) First, let's look at some real explosive demolitions of large-ish structures. There are many ways to do explosive demolitions and implosions, and they are often computer-modelled to a fare-thee-well these days, but here's a start. If you have a tallish large building and you want it to implode into it's own footprint, in the the modern classic implosion method, you start by weakening it with pneumatic hammers and chisels. In the actual explosion you might first cut up two sides, but leaving some horizontal strength so that as they collapse downwards they pull the other two sides inwards: then once those walls are in motion, cut the bottoms of them - but leaving the rest of them uncut so they have enough strength to lean inwards as a whole. In general, you leave some strength in the bits which are falling, so they can drag not-yet-falling bits with them. Another common technique is where a large structure is first weakened with high explosives and/or linear charges to cut some steel and concrete columns and beams; then a few milliseconds or seconds later low explosives are used to move the remaining structure away and to eg ensure the cut ends of the columns move in the direction you want them to. From outside you hear first the cutting charges, crack-crack-crack, then the shifting charges, boom-boom-boom. Though they tend to let them all off at once nowadays, which I think is a pity. The cutting charges can be distributed through the building, but mostly they are at the bottom - shifting charges are almost entirely at the bottom. There is a variation on this theme where the building is divided into two or three horizontal parts, and modern classic is used on each part. This is done for safety, the preweakening with chisels etc which is normally done being judged too dangerous (or too time-consuming). Also it can limit spread. One characteristic of the modern classic method is that the bottoms of the buildings are always cut, which means that the lower stories begin to fall at the same time as the upper stories. There are other methods, but the only one I know of where the bottom stories don't start to fall at the same time as the upper stories is what I might call the chop-it-in-half method. It tends to be used on 10-15 story buildings with one longer side. It does have a few advantages; it uses less explosives, it is quick and simple to set up, and it is fairly easy to ensure that most of the rubble falls to one side. You chop off 5 stories by blowing a vertical slice in one long side of the building 5 stories down from the top - this then collapses, and the top 5 stories fall as a lump to that side. You can do this twice in one go, so chopping off ten stories. You tend to be left with a pile of rubble that's five stories high, but that can be dealt with in non-explosive ways (and the rubble has to be dealt with anyway). So, what do we see in the WTC1-2 collapses? In WTC2 there are fires and damage about 20 stories down from the top. The fire seems to cover an entire floor. One corner of the building's shell is badly damaged. The top 20 stories tilt and drop a little, giving off dust/smoke, and then fall vertically down on through the remaining stories in a ball of dust or smoke. The bottom stories remain intact and in place until the falling top stories hit them. Some vertical core structure remains for a few seconds. (the dust and smoke as the top tilts is not the result of explosives, too slow, wrong velocity profile. It's just shake) In some videos we can see the dust and smoke coming out of the building in puffs, floor by floor, though it doesn't come out from all sides simultaneously. This may look superficially like the result of highly-timed [2] and controlled sequence of explosions, but it comes out too slowly to be the result of explosives and is almost certainly caused by the floors collapsing under the weight of the top 20 stories falling on them, pushing out the air which was in them, along with concrete dust, paper, etc into the ball of dust. (the concrete floors of the top 20 stories weighed 12,500 tons - each lower floor was rated for a static load of 1,300 tons, and would have had absolutely no chance whatsoever of stopping the moving weight from above) In WTC1 there is a fire and damage about ten stories down. The fire seems to cover more than one story. The top ten stories then twist slightly, and fall. The building collapses in a ball of dust and smoke, from the top downwards. It lasted longer than WTC2 probably because the weight above the fire was only about half the weight at WTC2. Again some core remains temporarily. So, none of the usual overall implosion or explosive demolition techniques were used on WTC. Having a shortish top part fall down onto a taller bottom part and then breaking it is occasionally used for chimneys or some brick-built structures, but not for large or steel framed buildings. There is no evidence from the videos of the use of explosives. Nor do we hear any detonations. So, if there were any explosives, where were they placed? How were they placed, it would take months with full access to prepare the WTC for demolition? What sort of explosives? When did they go off? What were they supposed to *do*? If a traditional demolition or implosion, they didn't work - there wasn't one. If they were supposed to weaken the lower part of the building, why? 12,500 tons moving vs 1,300 tons static, no chance whatsoever. No point. Any competent structural engineer would have told them that [1], and they would have needed one to successfully use any explosives. If they were supposed to weaken the floors which were on fire, well either they guessed which floors would be hit pretty accurately or they weakened maybe 20 floors in total. And again, to absolutely no point. The impact and fire would start the job. And gravity, mass and momentum would finish it. -- Peter Fairbrother [2] almost impossibly timed, each would have to be set off individually in individual sections, you would have to know which corner of the top lump was falling first, and it isn't a technique used in demolitions anyway. [1] It has been said that OBL hired an engineer before 9/11, who told him the towers would collapse if hit as they were.

Bits of the plane

Nope, only bits of the tower that fell hit it, according to summary reports. The plane and squirt wasn't quite on that trajectory either.

dead bodies hit building seven, causing massive and obvious damage

Nope, see above. Dead humans = massive and obvious damage? Nope. Suboptimized flailing skydivers hit around 120 mph tops with gravity assist. And bods slow horizontally to near zero within a few seconds from even high speed ejection from say rapid u disassociation of cabins attached to failed rocket ships... either direction, no more result than busted glass and deformed facade materials, awnings, car tops and the like. Now if those 767's were starships at relativistic speeds, and someone tried to DB Cooper out of one, there might be some appreciable energy involved there.

There are pics of what's OBVIOUSLY an engine shroud and turbine pieces. Did they pull them out of storage at area 51 and put them there? Asking for a dead friend. -------- Original message --------From: grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> Date: 9/18/18 11:36 PM (GMT-08:00) To: cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org Subject: Re: latest false flag attack?

Bits of the plane

Nope, only bits of the tower that fell hit it, according to summary reports. The plane and squirt wasn't quite on that trajectory either.

dead bodies hit building seven, causing massive and obvious damage

Nope, see above. Dead humans = massive and obvious damage? Nope. Suboptimized flailing skydivers hit around 120 mph tops with gravity assist. And bods slow horizontally to near zero within a few seconds from even high speed ejection from say rapid u disassociation of cabins attached to failed rocket ships... either direction, no more result than busted glass and deformed facade materials, awnings, car tops and the like. Now if those 767's were starships at relativistic speeds, and someone tried to DB Cooper out of one, there might be some appreciable energy involved there.

On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 13:19:47 +1000 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:

On 2018-09-18 07:56, juan wrote:

...

It doesnt' matter because you know, there was no "major conflagration"

Nuts.

yes, your pentagon fairy tale is. There was no major conflagration. There was a fire in a few floors and the black smoke indicated that they were low temperature fires. And no, less smoke doesn't necessarily imply more oxygen like Peter said. It's more sensible to assume that the fuel just burned at low temperature and less smoke simply meant less fuel burning...because, you know, it was consumed. Also, I'm still waiting for Peter to link the 'design documents" saying that the towers would collapse after "3 hours" of "fire".

On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 15:52:27 +1000 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:

...

...

On 2018-09-18 07:56, juan wrote:

...

It doesnt' matter because you know, there was no "major conflagration"

...

jamesd@echeque.com wrote:

...

Nuts.

On 2018-09-18 13:37, juan wrote:

...

yes, your pentagon fairy tale is.

The plane that flew into the pentagon was as visible as the spectacular conflagrations that destroyed the two towers.

Well, the 'spectacular conflagrations' were visibile because the fuel burnt OUTSIDE the buildings. At last you got something right. The rest of the fires were low temperature fires. Ask Peter.

It was seen going in, and small bits of it and its passengers were all over the Pentagon.

You vomited that lie in a previous message. I asked for proof. Still waiting so I ask again. Where's your evidence.

Small bits of its passengers are still embedded in the Pentagon here and there.

And you know that, how? Where's your evidence? You went there and took a look?

...

There was no major conflagration. There was a fire in a few floors and the black smoke indicated that they were low temperature fires.

The fire heated materials to yellow hot in daylight.

You mean that video that looks like thermite burning...?

The fire was hot enough for the glow to be clearly visible in daylight, which is the most intense fire you can get with jet fuel and ordinary combustion.

Have you ever tried to melt aluminium? (700C) Copper? (1070C)

A fire this hot is achievable, but hard to achieve, in an ordinary barbecue. Hard to achieve with wood, but if you throw kerosene, which is the same stuff as jet fuel, on the wood in the barbecue easy to achieve with wood.

Barbecues here use carbonized wood. The exact same carbonized wood that is used to melt steel in a furnace with forced air. Moral of the story? The fuel is mostly irrelevant, what matters is the oxygen supply and the way heat is lost - or kept inside a furnace. Second moral of the story? Furnaces need to be designed and operated - they are not magically created by a plane crash.

On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 23:58:51 -0700 Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:

On 09/17/2018 11:21 PM, juan wrote:

<SNIP>

...

Have you ever tried to melt aluminium? (700C) Copper? (1070C)

I have :) At times, I've disposed of HDDs by burning them. In a 25 liter steel drum, with holes punched around the bottom, for draft. I used dry oak, started with kerosene, and juiced occasionally with paraffin.

Everything but the steel parts burned. Including all the aluminum and copper. And that was without forced draft.

so you had to construct a furnace of sorts. It didn't have forced draft but it used convection. Did you use enough wood to fill the drum? The fuel / HD ratio was something like 20:1? More? Also, there's little copper in a HD except the pcb traces as far as I know? Anyway I take your comment as yet another example of the fact that heating metals is not easy.

I've also burned steel. But that took a methane-oxygen flame.

I've seen those used as a cheaper replacement for oxyacetylene torchs and they cut steel as if it were butter. BUT even using one of those, if you want to melt a sizable amount of material you need insulation i.e. a furnace.

And it was very dramatic. Even more so than magnesium. With lots of pops, and splattering molten steel.

<SNIP>

On 18/09/18 07:21, juan wrote:

The rest of the fires were low temperature fires. Ask Peter.

1st stage: After the fireball, the first flames were jet fuel burning, with a limited air supply, so the smoke was black (lots of unburned carbon). Flame temperature was probably about 600-700 C. Comparatively low temperature, but still plenty hot. It would have set everything which would burn in probably the entire floorspace on fire - I doubt any partition walls would have survived the impact and initial fuel/air fireball blast. 2nd stage: After the jet fuel burned away, the contents of the offices and the aircraft began burning. The smoke cleared a bit, there was proportionally more air in the fuel/air mix, and carbon started burning to CO2 rather than CO. Flame temperature around 900-1,000C. 3rd stage: Many of the windows were gone, and there was a wind of about 10-20mph. This made a through draft from the windward side of the buildings to the downwind sides. As the air passed through, it heated, and got lighter - the lighter air rushed out the downwind side, increasing the draft a little. In terms of the rate the fire was producing it (a bit over a gigawatt), the space was pretty well-insulated against loss of heat: partly by its shape, partly by the concrete floor and roof. The heat would build up rapidly. A prolonged fire with good insulation and draft can increase the flame temperature in the center to maybe 1,250C. [1] We know the fires hadn't run out of fuel when the buildings collapsed because we could see the flames inside the windward side - the place with the best air supply, and therefore the place which would run out of fuel first. -- Peter Fairbrother [1] Yes, that's hotter than you would get if both fuel and air started off at room temperature - but after the fire has burned for a while the fuel is already hot. Even hotter temperatures, enough to actually melt steel or even iron (steel melts at 1,370C, iron melts at 1,510C - almost all alloys work that way, the pure metal melts at a higher temperature than the alloy), are possible if the "hot blast" stage is reached. That's where the fuel is already hot, and the air is preheated by passing over hot things which aren't actually burning before it meets the fuel. Old fashioned blast furnaces and even-older-fashioned long kilns used to work that way. In a long kiln the idea is that you build a long insulated tunnel, usually about 60 to 120 feet long, often on a slight upwards slope, and fill it after 20 feet with green pottery. You then fill the space between 10 and 20 feet down the tunnel with hardwood logs (or coal if you can get it). You then burn straw, soft wood, wood chips, twigs, anything you can get your hands on, in the first ten feet. You replenish the straw as fast as you can, adding new material to the fire for maybe three days. This is b+*+y hard work, you can't leave it or the hardwood will burn or the tunnel will cool off. Then you add a last load of straw, partially close up the end, and leave it. The last load of straw burns, then the hard wood or coal - which has been turned to red hot charcoal by all the straw burning, but hopefully hasn't burned up itself yet - burns in hot air which has been preheated as it passed down the first ten hot feet of tunnel. Hot air plus hot charcoal fuel means very hot flames, which can reach over 1500C and heat the pottery in the kiln to over 1100C - temperatures you can't reach without the hardwood etc. But I don't think the hot blast/long kiln effect happened in WTC1/2, or at least not to any great extent.

Dude there's NO VIDEO of high enough resolution to distinguish water, jet fuel, or 'molten metal'. Give up. There IS NO FORENSIC EVIDENCE that proves ANY of the tripe middle class mericans who don't want to admit their lifestyle itself created people so disenfranchised by their nation's actions in the middle east et al to provide that lifestyle, that they needed no Osama... no overarching leader, but simply given a boxcutter and plane ticket, they'd go... Osama's big crime, as a CIA operative retired, was to publicly gloat and issue pronouncements about it. The principals of the US government at the time the 9-11 truther morons assign blame to were hiding in their mommy's closets as the attack was in progress. Rr -------- Original message --------From: grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> Date: 9/18/18 10:53 AM (GMT-08:00) To: cypherpunks@cpunks.org Subject: Re: latest false flag attack? On the 17th anno 9/11 <various> wrote:

temperatures

There were long threads posted here earlier with videos of molten metal pouring out the sides of the building, witnesses citing metal pooling / flowing in the basement, pictures and videos of glowing stuff that maybe shouldn't have been glowing at whatever times, explosions, chemistry and properties of the rubble, etc... lots of documentaries and independant reports and analysis... simple search... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTa_XL_k8fY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmuzyWC60eE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPu9IqBfMIw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgfvn4X-h00 Do your own research, figure it out, let people know. Sure the physics are there once things are triggered, but it's the nagging little unanswered bits of public and non top-secret / destroyed evidence and reports, the triggers, who knew what when, the redactions, etc... that will keep things going. And going for at least as long as JFK and other government conspiracy secrets plots and so on remain... MKULTRA, NSA surveillance, CIA torture and murder videos, quantum computing, Roswell, elections, alien signals, embarassing coverups, etc... all the big stuff. Anyway... It's not a leap to admit to yourselves that such important truths as these would be a lot easier to know study prevent and manage, even just to live with, without government secrets, destruction of same, and discredit / ruin / prison / death for disclosing them. Consider maybe "government", even its very existance, is the real problem in all these things, going back decades, pointless wars and secret fuckery, hundreds of years and more, in your name, from your wallet. Perhaps you should start doing something about that.

Thanks for this. I was a machinist but not a foundry worker and never knew the specifics. I WOULD add that that wind speed mentioned is SERIOUSLY underestimated. The WTC was at the absolutely windiest spot on Manhattan and even on a calm windless day at ground level the wind at the top of the building is probably higher than 20mph. Rr -------- Original message --------From: Peter Fairbrother <peter@tsto.co.uk> Date: 9/18/18 5:11 AM (GMT-08:00) To: cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org Subject: Re: latest false flag attack? On 18/09/18 07:21, juan wrote:

The rest of the fires were low temperature fires. Ask Peter.

1st stage: After the fireball, the first flames were jet fuel burning, with a limited air supply, so the smoke was black (lots of unburned carbon). Flame temperature was probably about 600-700 C. Comparatively low temperature, but still plenty hot. It would have set everything which would burn in probably the entire floorspace on fire - I doubt any partition walls would have survived the impact and initial fuel/air fireball blast. 2nd stage: After the jet fuel burned away, the contents of the offices and the aircraft began burning. The smoke cleared a bit, there was proportionally more air in the fuel/air mix, and carbon started burning to CO2 rather than CO. Flame temperature around 900-1,000C. 3rd stage: Many of the windows were gone, and there was a wind of about 10-20mph. This made a through draft from the windward side of the buildings to the downwind sides. As the air passed through, it heated, and got lighter - the lighter air rushed out the downwind side, increasing the draft a little. In terms of the rate the fire was producing it (a bit over a gigawatt), the space was pretty well-insulated against loss of heat: partly by its shape, partly by the concrete floor and roof. The heat would build up rapidly. A prolonged fire with good insulation and draft can increase the flame temperature in the center to maybe 1,250C. [1] We know the fires hadn't run out of fuel when the buildings collapsed because we could see the flames inside the windward side - the place with the best air supply, and therefore the place which would run out of fuel first. -- Peter Fairbrother [1] Yes, that's hotter than you would get if both fuel and air started off at room temperature - but after the fire has burned for a while the fuel is already hot. Even hotter temperatures, enough to actually melt steel or even iron (steel melts at 1,370C, iron melts at 1,510C  - almost all alloys work that way, the pure metal melts at a higher temperature than the alloy), are possible if the "hot blast" stage is reached. That's where the fuel is already hot, and the air is preheated by passing over hot things which aren't actually burning before it meets the fuel. Old fashioned blast furnaces and even-older-fashioned long kilns used to work that way. In a long kiln the idea is that you build a long insulated tunnel, usually about 60 to 120 feet long, often on a slight upwards slope, and fill it after 20 feet with green pottery. You then fill the space between 10 and 20 feet down the tunnel with hardwood logs (or coal if you can get it). You then burn straw, soft wood, wood chips, twigs, anything you can get your hands on, in the first ten feet. You replenish the straw as fast as you can, adding new material to the fire for maybe three days. This is b+*+y hard work, you can't leave it or the hardwood will burn or the tunnel will cool off. Then you add a last load of straw, partially close up the end, and leave it. The last load of straw burns, then the hard wood or coal - which has been turned to red hot charcoal by all the straw burning, but hopefully hasn't burned up itself yet - burns in hot air which has been preheated as it passed down the first ten hot feet of tunnel. Hot air plus hot charcoal fuel means very hot flames, which can reach over 1500C and heat the pottery in the kiln to over 1100C - temperatures you can't reach without the hardwood etc. But I don't think the hot blast/long kiln effect happened in WTC1/2, or at least not to any great extent.

On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 22:20:19 +0100 Peter Fairbrother <peter@tsto.co.uk> wrote:

WTC was rated for 3 hours major fire resistance.

Put that another way - *it was rated so that it _would_ collapse after 3 (or so) hours of major conflagration*.

It's in the design docs.

Where's your evidence for that claim Peter? WHERE are those 'design docs' ? Please QUOTE-LINK the pertinent section of the 'design docs' that say 'rated for 3 hours of fire"

On Sat, 22 Sep 2018 03:02:49 +0100 Peter Fairbrother <peter@tsto.co.uk> wrote:

On 21/09/18 20:00, juan wrote:

...

On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 22:20:19 +0100 Peter Fairbrother <peter@tsto.co.uk> wrote:

...

WTC was rated for 3 hours major fire resistance.

Put that another way - *it was rated so that it _would_ collapse after 3 (or so) hours of major conflagration*.

It's in the design docs.

Where's your evidence for that claim Peter? WHERE are those 'design docs' ?

Can't be bothered to look up any original references, and they need a lawyer to interpret anyway,

OK - So you don't have any reference for the claim and you admit that even if there was, it can mean anything, according to 'lawyers' . Thank you.

On Sun, 23 Sep 2018 11:33:55 +1000 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:

...

Peter Fairbrother <peter@tsto.co.uk> wrote:

...

...

...

WTC was rated for 3 hours major fire resistance.

On 2018-09-23 04:50, juan wrote:

...

OK - So you don't have any reference for the claim

I just gave you a reference to the claim.

No, you fucking didn't. Here's what your pal agent fairbigbrother wrote and you dishonestly ignored as usual :

Put that another way - *it was rated so that it _would_ collapse after 3 (or so) hours of major conflagration*

So where's the reference FOR THAT claim. Oh, I know what you both did, either on purpose or because of mental retardation. The 3 hr rating is for the *FIRE PROTECTION material* coating the columns, not the columns themselves, let alone the whole building, like peter wrongly assumes.

Nist cites pre 9/11 building codes and pre 9/11 work orders.

https://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610

"1.2.4 Fire Protection There were both passive and active fire protection systems ...sprayed fire-resistive material (SFRM) applied to the structural steel The instructions to the bidders for the WTC 7 job were to bid on a 3 h rating for the columns and a 2 h rating for the metal deck " all that talk is about how long the fire protection coating would last, not how long the fucking building would last.

If you say they are making stuff up post 9/11, it is your job to produce some inconsistent pre 9/11 building codes and pre 9/11 work orders.

You and peter are making stuff up or can't read. So again, where are the 'design docs' that state *it was rated so that it _would_ collapse after 3 (or so) hours of major conflagration* No retards or liars, it was rated so that after 3 hours the insulation would be damaged, NOT the columns.

On Sun, 23 Sep 2018 16:28:15 +1000 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:

...

...

On 2018-09-23 04:50, juan wrote:

...

OK - So you don't have any reference for the claim

I just gave you a reference to the claim.

No, you fucking didn't. Here's what your pal agent fairbigbrother wrote and you dishonestly ignored as usual :

The 3 hr rating is for the *FIRE PROTECTION material* coating the columns, not the columns themselves, let alone the whole building, like peter wrongly assumes.

What do you think the fire protection material is for?

If it rated for three hours, this implies that the columns will cease to be protected after three hours.

Actually, the 3 hours figure is according to some 'standard', some 'parameters', some 'temperatures' and bla bla bla - a set of conditions which you don't know if they existed. But obviously as the protection wears out the steel exposed to fire would get hotter. Duh. Now, WHERE THE FUCK is the source for this claim :

Put that another way - *it was rated so that it _would_ collapse after 3 (or so) hours of major conflagration*

HEY, can you READ? Where the FUCK is the source that says "structure will collapse after 3 hours of 'major' 'fire'"

That steel columns in tall buildings need a fire protection coating, need fire protection material implies, that if allowed to get too hot, the steel will soften, and the building will fall.

World Trade Center Building Seven fell in large part because fires raged uncontrolled for seven hours. Steel frame buildings just are not designed to handle really prolonged fires. This is a well known issue that people who build tall buildings talk about and design around all the time.

On Sun, 23 Sep 2018 21:13:36 +1000 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:

None of which changes the fact the building was designed to withstand three hours of uncontrolled fire

that is a fuckingly stupid lie that neither you nor agent fairbrother can provide a source for. By confusing the rating of the fire protection with some "time to collapse" of a whole building you should be regarded as semi literate at best. Or as fuckingly dishonest. last but not least, as can be inferred by the tons of smoke that came out of the building until the last minute, the fires were always lacking oxygen. What's more, even the fuel that burned outside the building in a fireball produced a good deal of smoke because, guess what, kerosene doesn't burn too well even in open air. That is why it's puverized in a jet engine before burining it.

not seven hours of uncontrolled fire,

'uncontrolled' fire means shit.

hence could be expected to collapse in much the way it did collapse.

On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 06:42:25 +1000 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:

On 2018-09-24 05:34, juan wrote:

...

On Sun, 23 Sep 2018 21:13:36 +1000 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:

...

None of which changes the fact the building was designed to withstand three hours of uncontrolled fire

that is a fuckingly stupid lie that neither you nor agent fairbrother can provide a source for.

Liar:

I have repeatedly provided the source, and here it is yet again.

https://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610

and I added the name of the chapter that paragraph comes from This chapter : 1.2.4 Fire Protection So again and again - and again. There's no source for this fuckingly stupid lie from fairbrother (and you)

Put that another way - *it was rated so that it _would_ collapse after 3 (or so) hours of major conflagration*.

because the rating of the fire protection is not the same thing as 'time to collapse'

...

By confusing the rating of the fire protection with some "time to

collapse" of a whole building you should be regarded as semi literate at best. Or as fuckingly dishonest.

If the columns holding up the building are only rated for three hours of exposure to fire,

LMAO!!! - And where did you get that from? - Oh you confused - again - the columns with their fire protection.

then some time not very long after three hours, they are going to stop holding up the building.

So is that why building 7 fell after 8 hours of fire? Because 3 == 8?

On 09/23/2018 05:47 PM, jamesd@echeque.com wrote:

...

On Sun, 23 Sep 2018 21:13:36 +1000 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:

...

None of which changes the fact the building was designed to withstand only three hours of uncontrolled fire

On 2018-09-24 05:34, juan wrote:

...

    that is a fuckingly stupid lie that neither you nor agent fairbrother can provide a source for.

You are lying about sources, as you lied about the fall of building seven.

Well, it's not usually fun to argue with Juan. But I doubt that he "lies", per se. He just has his own conception of reality, and won't accept other perspectives ;)

You lie about what everyone can see happened in 9/11

He is pushing a rather straight "truther" narrative here, I admit.

The political function of your lies is to provide cover for a government program of importing male military age Muslim rapeugees from subsaharan Africa, and dumping them on marginal Republican federal electorates in flyover country, while turning a blind eye to their rapes and to  the fact that nearly all of them are living on crime and welfare.

It's arguable that Juan is nether red nor blue, but rather hates both. I'm also nether red nor blue. But otherwise, we agree on little ;) <SNIP>

On 09/24/2018 11:58 AM, juan wrote:

On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 00:04:09 -0700 Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:

...

On 09/23/2018 05:47 PM, jamesd@echeque.com wrote:

...

...

On Sun, 23 Sep 2018 21:13:36 +1000 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:

...

None of which changes the fact the building was designed to withstand only three hours of uncontrolled fire

On 2018-09-24 05:34, juan wrote:

...

    that is a fuckingly stupid lie that neither you nor agent fairbrother can provide a source for.

You are lying about sources, as you lied about the fall of building seven.

Well, it's not usually fun to argue with Juan. But I doubt that he "lies", per se.

Did you see the pictures I posted? Who is 'lying' about building 7 'toppling like a tree' ?

Yes, I looked at all the pictures. And in my opinion, it's really hard to tell exactly what's happening. Also, as I've said, I don't really care. I strongly suspect that the US government was somehow actively involved. Or at least, that it was a rogue operation, involving such (maybe not really former) CIA assets as Usama bin Mohammed bin Awad bin Ladin and his associates. That is, it was fundamentally a false-flag attack. And if that's the case, it doesn't really matter what mix of planes, missiles and demolition charges ended up doing the damage. That's rather a distraction. What's interesting is who did it, and why.

On 09/24/2018 12:18 PM, juan wrote:

On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 00:04:09 -0700 Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:

...

He just has his own conception of reality, and won't accept other perspectives ;)

I let that pass the first time when you said

...

But Juan, you are so damn committed to being right.

But two times is enough =)

:)

Are you truly missng the fact that you accuse me of wanting to be right while you do the exact same thing?

Hey, we all get stuck in being right, at times. But I believe that my opinions are generally not dogmatic, and that I'm open to evidence and argument. And I do revise opinions when convinced by evidence and/or argument. Also, I generally don't profess opinions when unqualified. For example, the recent paper Nasr, Bahramali and Houmansadr (2018) DeepCorr: Strong Flow Correlation Attacks on Tor Using Deep Learning <https://arxiv.org/pdf/1808.07285.pdf> does decrease my confidence in Tor and VPN chains. But in my opinion, that's still the best existing approach for online anonymity. Except maybe for chained botnet proxies, but that's too morally iffy. So hey, please do call me out if I'm being dogmatic :)

Why on fucking earth should I 'accept' the 'perspective' of the likes of tazer, donald and agent fairbrother, who are not only promoting official propaganda, but pretending THEY are right?

I'm not arguing that you ought to accept them. Just that it might be useful to consider them, to see if there's anything sensible in them.

Do you really fail to see how ridiculous it is to point out that somebody is stubborn....while you STUBBORNLY have a different 'view' yourself?

If I did, I suppose that it would be. But even though I may at times be dogmatic and stubborn, it's still useful to raise the issue. Commonly, debates become acrimonious, positions harden, and participants seem to focus on winning. Rather than on revising their opinions, in light of evidence and argument. And rudeness makes it worse, because people tend to get triggered. Anyway, thanks for engaging :)

On 09/24/2018 03:49 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:

On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 02:48:44PM -0700, Mirimir wrote:

...

On 09/24/2018 12:18 PM, juan wrote:

...

On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 00:04:09 -0700 Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:

...

He just has his own conception of reality, and won't accept other perspectives ;)

I let that pass the first time when you said

...

But Juan, you are so damn committed to being right.

But two times is enough =)

:)

...

Are you truly missng the fact that you accuse me of wanting to be right while you do the exact same thing?

Hey, we all get stuck in being right, at times.

'Cept for me of coursh :D

That's my number #3 exceptional nature, right up there with #2 my stunningly world beating subtlety, and #1 my universe shaking humility.

“Such humility, he had to shrink the door!”

As they say, "Never kid a kidder." ;)

...

So hey, please do call me out if I'm being dogmatic :)

NOT. AT. ALL. Bring it on, and bring it big, I say! NEVER hold back from an opinion, especially wrong ones.

Hey, I'm not shy about sharing opinions. It's just that I'd rather be corrected -- and truly "right" -- than just force others to agree with me. Or perhaps rather, convince them that there's no point in discussing stuff with me ;)

...

...

Why on fucking earth should I 'accept' the 'perspective' of the likes of tazer, donald and agent fairbrother, who are not only promoting official propaganda, but pretending THEY are right?

O.M.G., that's hard to imagine, but hey, I -guess- you could start pretending you're wrong for the lulz?

I could be wrong, but I doubt that Juan is lulzing. He's just a very angry guy, I think. Or at least, very argumentative. You on the other hand, I never know for sure when you're kidding, or just kidding about kidding, with a wink (which I can't see) to let us know that it's all for the lulz. And you know, not that I'm a Nazi or whatever, but I am often greatly amused by your Daily Stormer etc posts :)

...

Commonly, debates become acrimonious, positions harden, and participants seem to focus on winning.

U must be readin a different list to the one I'm reading...

We just have different perspectives, I think.

...

Rather than on revising their opinions, in light of evidence and argument. And rudeness makes it worse, because people tend to get triggered.

It's often been said, we should all hop over to Juan's for a BBQ - his hovel simply -has- to be the safest safe space in the entire cotton wool duoverse.

Maybe so. But Mirimir doesn't do meatspace. Sad, but true.

On 09/24/2018 10:19 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:

On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 06:06:45PM -0700, Mirimir wrote:

...

And you know, not that I'm a Nazi or whatever,

Oh.

Dear me.

You said that word!

And claimed that you're "not" - wink wink, nudge, nudge.

So clean your mouth out Mirimir and repeate after me at least 100 times:

I am a full blooded free speech neon nazi. I am a full blooded free speech neon nazi. … … …

I suppose that I am a "free speech neon nazi" ;) Way back when, I was a good Pioneer. Then for a while, a dirty drug-dealing hippie drifter. For some years, an academic. And so on. But now, I'm just a guy who does whatever feels right, and he can get away with :) It's a hobby. <SNIP>

On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 06:06:45PM -0700, Mirimir wrote:

On 09/24/2018 03:49 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:

...

On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 02:48:44PM -0700, Mirimir wrote:

...

On 09/24/2018 12:18 PM, juan wrote:

...

On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 00:04:09 -0700 Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:

...

He just has his own conception of reality, and won't accept other perspectives ;)

I let that pass the first time when you said

...

But Juan, you are so damn committed to being right.

But two times is enough =)

:)

...

Are you truly missng the fact that you accuse me of wanting to be right while you do the exact same thing?

Hey, we all get stuck in being right, at times.

'Cept for me of coursh :D

That's my number #3 exceptional nature, right up there with #2 my stunningly world beating subtlety, and #1 my universe shaking humility.

“Such humility, he had to shrink the door!”

As they say, "Never kid a kidder." ;)

...

...

So hey, please do call me out if I'm being dogmatic :)

NOT. AT. ALL. Bring it on, and bring it big, I say! NEVER hold back from an opinion, especially wrong ones.

Hey, I'm not shy about sharing opinions.

It's just that I'd rather be corrected -- and truly "right" -- than just force others to agree with me. Or perhaps rather, convince them that there's no point in discussing stuff with me ;)

...

...

...

Why on fucking earth should I 'accept' the 'perspective' of the likes of tazer, donald and agent fairbrother, who are not only promoting official propaganda, but pretending THEY are right?

O.M.G., that's hard to imagine, but hey, I -guess- you could start pretending you're wrong for the lulz?

I could be wrong, but I doubt that Juan is lulzing. He's just a very angry guy, I think. Or at least, very argumentative.

“He's not teh Messiah, he's just a very naughty boy!” Looks to me like Juan is Jesus reincarnated, and trying to pass himself off (rather deceptively I might add) as "not" Jesus (hint hint, wink wink, nudge nudge). WELL! You won't get that one past -us- any more Juan now will you?

You on the other hand, I never know for sure when you're kidding, or just kidding about kidding, with a wink (which I can't see) to let us know that it's all for the lulz.

And you know, not that I'm a Nazi or whatever, but I am often greatly amused by your Daily Stormer etc posts :)

...

...

Commonly, debates become acrimonious, positions harden, and participants seem to focus on winning.

U must be readin a different list to the one I'm reading...

We just have different perspectives, I think.

How -dare- you have a different perspective to me - you will NOT take my safe space away from me! Memes or ELSE dude!!!¡¡‼‼§№∙∞π♯πµ¿¿

...

...

Rather than on revising their opinions, in light of evidence and argument. And rudeness makes it worse, because people tend to get triggered.

It's often been said, we should all hop over to Juan's for a BBQ - his hovel simply -has- to be the safest safe space in the entire cotton wool duoverse.

Maybe so. But Mirimir doesn't do meatspace. Sad, but true.

On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 14:48:44 -0700 Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:

Hey, we all get stuck in being right, at times. But I believe that my opinions are generally not dogmatic, and that I'm open to evidence and argument. And I do revise opinions when convinced by evidence and/or argument. Also, I generally don't profess opinions when unqualified.

for reference : dogma "an official system of principles or tenets " "a specific tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down, as by a church:" I'd argue that people promoting *official* views are dogmatic by definition. Like the people in this thread parroting official propaganda....or you resorting to official Tor talking points at times =)

For example, the recent paper Nasr, Bahramali and Houmansadr (2018) DeepCorr: Strong Flow Correlation Attacks on Tor Using Deep Learning <https://arxiv.org/pdf/1808.07285.pdf> does decrease my confidence in Tor and VPN chains. But in my opinion, that's still the best existing approach for online anonymity. Except maybe for chained botnet proxies, but that's too morally iffy.

Ah some deep bullshit, deep hype 'AI', which is all the rage now =) But consider this : that neural network stuff isn't exactly new. So it's quite possible that some bag of shit at the NSA thought about using it, for, uh, pattern recognition of traffic. And it's quite possible that they've been doing that for a while...

So hey, please do call me out if I'm being dogmatic :)

Well, for instance, your views regarding owners of 'hidden' services being caught beacuse of their own mistakes, BECAUSE the fucking state says so seem rather dogmatic. You are literally just repeating the *official* explanation. But anyway I don't think that calling people dogmatic adds much to the discussion because dogmatic in a more coloquial sense just means stubborn and arguing does require does degree of stubborness.

...

Why on fucking earth should I 'accept' the 'perspective' of the likes of tazer, donald and agent fairbrother, who are not only promoting official propaganda, but pretending THEY are right?

I'm not arguing that you ought to accept them. Just that it might be useful to consider them, to see if there's anything sensible in them.

Oh of course. I try to do that at least...

...

Do you really fail to see how ridiculous it is to point out that somebody is stubborn....while you STUBBORNLY have a different 'view' yourself?

If I did, I suppose that it would be. But even though I may at times be dogmatic and stubborn, it's still useful to raise the issue.

Commonly, debates become acrimonious, positions harden, and participants seem to focus on winning. Rather than on revising their opinions, in light of evidence and argument.

Well those two things, plus this one... "we all get stuck in being right" ...are closely related as far as I can see. The whole point of arguing is to find the truth. If the people arguing were not "stuck in being right" then they wouldn't be arguing. You won't be 'right' or find the truth unless that's what you want to do. And so, "focusing on winning" is just as relevant. You argue to prove that what you say is true or correct - that is, win the argument.. If you 'lose', then it's the other guy the one who found the correct answer. But either way, the objective is to 'win'.

And rudeness makes it worse, because people tend to get triggered.

It's not necessarily rudeness what 'triggers' people. For instance, the way james 'politely' repeats the same bullshit over and over does annoy me after a while. And yet he's not being technically rude. Just fuckingly dishonest...

Yes, I looked at all the pictures. And in my opinion, it's really hard to tell exactly what's happening.

At least it's clear that in the time span between the two frames I showed the building isn't "toppling like a tree". Here is the inkscape drawing I used for my pictures. You can check that the images come from the video, you can tweak my tracking, etc. https://anonfile.com/bbA7b5i1bc/wtc7_1_svg

Also, as I've said, I don't really care. I strongly suspect that the US government was somehow actively involved. Or at least, that it was a rogue operation, involving such (maybe not really former) CIA assets as Usama bin Mohammed bin Awad bin Ladin and his associates. That is, it was fundamentally a false-flag attack.

Fair enough.

And if that's the case, it doesn't really matter what mix of planes, missiles and demolition charges ended up doing the damage. That's rather a distraction. What's interesting is who did it, and why.

That's true as well. But the whole point of this discussion is to show that the official story is false and so other explanations are needed. If people believe the official story, i.e. dogma, that obviously excludes the possibility of the attacks being an inside job...

On 09/24/2018 09:17 PM, jamesd@echeque.com wrote:

On 2018-09-24 17:04, Mirimir wrote:

...

It's arguable that Juan is nether red nor blue, but rather hates both.

Right now Blue State Mueller (surrounded by democrats, FBI, and CIA) is going after Red State Trump (surrounded by republicans, Generals, and Military Intelligence)

I agree on the Mueller part. But Trump, I doubt that he's really Red State. He's pretty clearly a tool of the Russian Mafia. He presumably made connections in NYC and Atlantic City, back in the day. And he eventually came to depend on them for funding. Because he had shafted so many US lenders that nobody trusted him. But your Russian Mafia, they don't worry about trust ;) The Red State camp have never really accepted Trump. They accepted him at first only because he won the fucking election. But he's rewarded them in many ways, so they play along. But I bet that the NSA could blow him away, if they really wanted to. Except that it would likely really fuck shit up, so they're laying low.

Mueller has obvious links to 9/11 US Government misconduct. Trump does not.

I agree with you on that. But I suspect that Trump's game is orthogonal to the red-blue conflict.

Pretty sure that Juan is going to tell us Trump is on the side of those dirty rotten Zionists, and that Mueller is a Republican, even though he is surrounded by Democrats and carrying their water.

I guess that we'll find out ;)

And while those dirty rotten Zionists have no doubt done lots of bad things, right now they are not bombing marginal federal electorates in flyover country with black male military age Muslim rapeugees.

Is that really an issue in the US yet?

On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 14:17:40 +1000 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:

On 2018-09-24 17:04, Mirimir wrote:

...

It's arguable that Juan is nether red nor blue, but rather hates both.

Right now Blue State Mueller (surrounded by democrats, FBI, and CIA) is going after Red State Trump (surrounded by republicans, Generals, and Military Intelligence)

Mueller has obvious links to 9/11 US Government misconduct. Trump does not.

Pretty sure that Juan is going to tell us Trump is on the side of those dirty rotten Zionists,

Right, he is. Also, like any other president he's just a figurehead. Although personally the trumpo is a high ranking criminal with a 'net worth' of some thousands of millions. But his money doesn't seem to make much difference when it comes to being a 'democratic' monarch or president.

and that Mueller is a Republican, even though he is surrounded by Democrats and carrying their water.

I don't even know who the fuck mueller is. He's just another criminal bureaucrat. I don't know which one of the two factions of the One Amerikan Party he's supposed to belong to and I don't care because it is irrelevant.

And while those dirty rotten Zionists have no doubt done lots of bad things, right now they are not bombing marginal federal electorates in flyover country with black male military age Muslim rapeugees.

Bottom line: whatever red, blue, or shit-brown factions there are inside the US govt, they all act as one when it comes to further the interests of the Glorious US State. Also, I'd expect the US military to include a good dose of lefty 'progressives' who want to make the world safe for 'democracy', feminism, goldman sachs and the rest of 'progressive' americunt 'values'. So classifying military 'intelligence'(LMAO) as blue or red is flawed. Even if the classification had any actual meaning, which it doesn't anyway.

On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 07:16:59 +0100 Peter Fairbrother <peter@tsto.co.uk> wrote:

On 23/09/18 04:01, juan wrote:

...

[...] Here's what your pal agent fairbigbrother

Eric Blair sometimes called my Dad Fairbigbrother or Bigfairbrother (they were close friends). :)

Really?? I thought my pun was rather lame, but if Mr. Orwell himself used it...

I don't think Big Brother was named after him though.

...

wrote and you dishonestly ignored as usual :

...

Put that another way - *it was rated so that it _would_ collapse after 3 (or so) hours of major conflagration*

So where's the reference FOR THAT claim.

Actually, I wrote:

begin quote"

WTC was rated for 3 hours major fire resistance.

Put that another way - *it was rated so that it _would_ collapse after 3 (or so) hours of major conflagration*.

It's in the design docs.

"end quote.

Yes, I did quote those three sentences in a previous a message and then the middle entence alone in a couple of other messages.

Now examining the first part of that, I hope you aren't denying that the steel columns in WTC1+2 and WTC7 were rated for some degree of fire protection.

I would word that differently. The *insulation* for the columns (and other parts) was rated, not the columns. So, for the 4th time or so : There was a rating of 3 hours for the insulation under some 'standard' conditions. That doesn't translate at all to "WTC would collapse after 3 hours or so". The data from my previous message that you seem to have ignored. "1 of the towers lasted 56 minutes, the other one 1 hour 40 minutes and building 7 stood for ~7 hours " [stuff deleted]

Another thing you will find there is that the rating is for the resistance of the column and the fire protective material taken together, rather than for the fire protective material alone.

OK - where's the source for that.

Alternatively you can find the Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials here: https://www.astm.org/Standards/E119.htm

I saw that page. You have to pay to get the docs so not available, sorry.

That the steel columns in WTC1+2 and WTC7 were rated for 3 hours

So why is it that none of the buildings lasted 3 hours? It took a lot less for 2 of the buildings and it took a lot more for one of the buildings.

Now for the second part of what I said: it begins "Put that another way" - in other words the next part is my rewriting or conclusion, drawn from "that".

"*it was rated so that it _would_ collapse after 3 (or so) hours of major conflagration*" is a valid conclusion drawn from the 3 hour fire protection requirement,

No it isn't. And it just so happens that the both towers collapsed BEFORE 3 hours. And the other building collapsed 4 hours AFTER the 3 hours mark.

as the building would obviously collapse if the main columns failed; and it was presented as such.

The rating is a minimum rating, and the "(or so)" part was included to indicate that.

If I misled anyone into believing my conclusion was in the design docs by the positioning of third part, I apologise. "It's in the design docs" referred to the requirement, not my conclusion about it.

Good =) - At least we got that sorted out... So obviously the requirements for fireproofing were in the design docs.

In my defense, I thought that was obvious. I didn't believe anyone would think it referred to my conclusion (I didn't write the design docs after all) rather than the requirement.

Nor did I think anyone would seriously think the design docs would say "it _would_ collapse after 3 (or so) hours of major conflagration" ... I don't imagine anyone in their position would write that, even though it is true.

Is it?

-- Peter Fairbrother

On Wed, 26 Sep 2018 09:32:24 +0100 Peter Fairbrother <peter@tsto.co.uk> wrote:

...

...

Another thing you will find there is that the rating is for the resistance of the column and the fire protective material taken together, rather than for the fire protective material alone.

OK - where's the source for that.

https://codes.iccsafe.org/public/document/IBC2018

https://codes.iccsafe.org/public/document/IBC2018/chapter-7-fire-and-smoke-p... I don't see anything to back your claim there. This is the only related section I can find. "704.2Column protection. Where columns are required to have protection to achieve a fire-resistance rating, the entire column shall be provided individual encasement protection by protecting it on all sides for the full column height, including connections to other structural members, with materials having the required fire-resistance rating. Where the column extends through a ceiling, the encasement protection shall be continuous from the top of the foundation or floor/ceiling assembly below through the ceiling space to the top of the column."

-- Peter Fairbrother

-------- Original message --------From: juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> Date: 10/27/18 12:23 PM (GMT-08:00) To: cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org Subject: Re: latest false flag attack? >  well, I guess the latest false flag attack is : trumpo supporter sending 'pipe bombs' how fuckingly retarded can amaericans be? This seems like a new universal record. Not false flag... red herring. Diversion op.I think he was living in that van at shopping mall parking lots. I suppose he was building a brace of explosive devices on the foldout table next to the propane stove... ROTF Jajajajaja!. (and a hearty kkkkk for Cecilia) Speaking of explosive devices... seen a pic of the device and mailer? https://66.media.tumblr.com/5be62ea87ebb6d018b7c9375b03fc57c/tumblr_ph9vzxIJ... thing never left the post office it was dropped at.The van was new-looking as were the stickers. He was a nonpolitical felon who had threatened a bombing somewhere along the line in relation to some criminal act, or perhaps in a relationship spat, and they had his DNA. The perfect Patsy. Would be interesting to find out how this guy working at an AutoZone for a little over minimum wage found the money to buy the van or even make a down payment... considering he went bankrupt in 2012 and probably couldn't get any sort of loan.As far as Red Herring... diversion... What pray tell might they be diverting from?Maybe Donald Trump's longstanding relationship with the Khashoggi family?http://aiimgs.tumblr.com/post/179492700838  My theory on this? That Khashoggi was really spying for the saudis on the US nuke weapons pgm with tacit consent of certain aspects of the US govt, was outed, and unlike Pollard was snatched home before being busted. It took a few days to smooth some ruffled feathers at the DOJ and grab the script from the 60s vintage horror movie House on Haunted Hill. Pepe Escobar has noted the CIA KNEW he was going to be snatched and did nothing further validating my hypothesis. He was too high value to be disposable. He was one of the CIA operators responsible for AQ when the US was using them to run the Russians out of Afghanistan. The only possible reason they MIGHT have killed him... That he was killed as a mafia-style message to Donald Trump, a long time friend of the Khashoggis that he WAS NOT to fuck with the current state of US-Saudi relations in re Yemen, nuclear power tech, etc no matter what, or else. Trump understands Mafia Messages. He IS mafia. See: http://www.madcowprod.com/2016/03/09/donald-trump-palm-beach-homies/ which is well linked to high quality sources.Rr

Many Khashoggi's and Saud's... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khashoggi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_John_Philby https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Saud https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia-United_States_relations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia

for anyone interested, the page I pointed at previously contains links both to the official explanations for the fall of WTC7, which include many references to evidence, and public documents that clash with certain aspects of that explanation: http://www.consensus911.org/the-911-consensus-points/#WTC71 the especially interesting question about WTC7, which has been obscured here a bit, is not *that* it fell, but *how* it fell. (very quickly, near-symmetrically, into its own footprint, and in free fall for at least a brief period of time, which NIST first denied because of how unusual it would be, and then admitted, as the page above documents.) Unlike WTC1 and 2, which had central structures of various sorts and were tall, thin buildings, and in the official explanation had damage via burning debris of various sorts down those central structures that is said to partly account for a symmetrical collapse, WTC7 was shorter and wider, had no central structures, and had not even allegations of symmetrical damage of any sort. *some*--but not all--of the reasoning and facts provided by both James and Peter is not the same as that provided by NIST in its reviews. NIST and its engineers had to work very, very, very hard to find a way to mesh the available evidence with any structural analysis that could explain how--again, not *that*--it fell. here is a link to what I believe is the most recent article, peer-reviewed in a standard engineering journal (the house organ of the ASCE), by one of the senior NIST engineers with a very detailed explanation of how WTC7 fell. I am not an engineer, but only someone who reads things in as much detail as possible. I continue to be struck by the number of times models need to be adjusted in order to get anything like the collapse in its observed form to work out, the novel nature of the models, the amount of uncertainty that remains--and then, as the 9/11 Consensus Panel questions suggest, the amount of available evidence that has to be jettisoned or downplayed (or, in the skeptics' opinion, misrepresented) in order to get any model at all to work. This includes the official explanation of how damage to the top and side of the building could cause it to collapse into its own footprint, which is at the very least, not a behavior engineers expected, no matter how long it burned. McAllister et al, "Analysis of Structural Response of WTC 7 to Fire and\ Sequential Failures Leading to Collapse," Journal of Structural Engineering, 2012 http://booksc.org/book/40940290/b7468e - z

On Sun, 23 Sep 2018 16:44:38 +1000 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:

If you throw a rock at a glass window, it will shatter in a complicated

glass is an amorphous solid and brittle. That's why it shatters. Glass is AMORPHOUS - it doesn't have a regular structure. It is the opposite of a steel structure - a structure made of flexible metal. In other words james you are either an amazingly ignorant government agent or a lying piece of shit government agent.

On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 21:20:35 +1000 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:

On 2018-09-14 04:22, juan wrote:

...

1) there was no 'hijacked' commercial plane at the pentagon

So what happened to flight 77 and the people on board,

I don't know. Maybe there wasn't any such flight? How was OPERATION NORTHWOODS supposed to handle that part of the plan? What do you think, Steve Kinney?

and what was that commercial sized plane that flew over the road so low that it clipped the light poles?

Yeah, that's another thing. You are saying that a pilot with no actual experience flying that sort of plane was able to fly that close to the ground, and hit a the target? Seems like any very small error in the plane's altitude (meters...) would lead it to either crash on the the ground before hitting the target, or overfly the target.

https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_effects_arising_from_the_September_11_at... https://wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stock_market_crashes_and_bear_markets https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Stock_market_crash Pretty graphs of $Billions being made. Some say incentives. A prediction market in effect?