512 Architects & Engineering Professionals

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

Makes for good reason to keep coming back.

Ghana's not good enough by itself!

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

I would have voted if the it were a public poll...





More funny! Less filling...

 

[huskie]

Ghana's not good enough by itself!

Of course not.....we even have to import good help for the most part.

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

How's the chip board there...

 

[HeavyStick]

Light poles are designed to collapse and fold over on collision. It saves lives.

Yes, at the base. Not at the top.

 

[phrodeau]

Are you aware that neither United Airlines or American Airline reported the loss of an airframe on 9/11 ?

Are you aware that the animation which was based on Flight recorder and 84 RADES data which the FAA released via FOIA puts the alleged "flight 77" flight path north of the CITGO?

Well, there you are then. That conclusively proves that no plane crashed on 9/11/01.

So are all those "truther" eyewitnesses lying wankers or not?

 

[phrodeau]

Yes, at the base. Not at the top.

Top of a light pole? Right. And when someone sideswipes one, it's meant to lie down across the highway and become a speed bump. Is that what you think?

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

Let me see which variant we're dealing with.





Where the fuck is Barbara Olsen?

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

Top of a light pole? Right. And when someone sideswipes one, it's meant to lie down across the highway and become a speed bump. Is that what you think?

In this economy how fucking long do you think the sucker is gonna lay there...?



BACK OFF! This one's mine, I clipped it!

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

I'm not going to make accusations I can't prove.

But, why were 2-3 frames from the Pentagon tape edited out? Why were multiple surveillance tapes of the Pentagon confiscated and never made public? Not national security, not for the families, but the real reason? Maybe because the resolution of the camera was good enough to give a positive ID of the silhouette of something other than an aircraft. Why was there only a hole in the Pentagon and not a wing imprint similar to the Twin Towers? How come not ONE driver over the expressway that was near the wedge of the Pentagon see a plane fly over head. Even at 500+MPH if they couldn't see the aircraft, you would have heard it.

Why was the Pennsylvania crash site initially described as an aerial explosion and the field not disturbed as a traditional impact crash? Why wasn't there a convoy of ambulances and/or morgue vehicles leaving the site?

It's not the evidence that's present we should be concerned about, but the evidence that is missing.

The Twin Tower footage was replayed for weeks, unedited and from every possible angle, but the Pentagon footage was immediately hoarded and withheld. We witnessed two buildings collapse/implode/destroyed before our eyes live on TV, why limit the gore with no visible casualties?

Shit doesn't add up.

I'm not saying any of that did or didn't happen.

I'm asking what are they covering up? There was no need to fly planes into things to blame this on terrorists.

 

[Bad_Doggie]

http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2007/06/22/01625.html



9/11 Sicknesses consistent with environmental radiation contamination

by David Jones

A group of 9/11 responders has contracted blood cancers at an unusually young age, and top doctors suspect the disease was triggered by an unprecedented "synergistic mix" of toxins at the World Trade Center site. These growth of these cancers among Ground Zero workers, and others, are consistent with exposure to environmental radiation contamination associated with the destruction of the "9/11 targets".

The WTC Medical Monitoring Program is now studying a group of Ground Zero workers, including cops, construction workers and volunteers, suffering from cancers such as leukemia, lymphoma and multiple myeloma.

Hi Turd,
See you’ve been Googling and managed to find something else you don’t understand.

So I will attempt to address your core problem once again….your reading comprehension.
I have made bold the bits you have misunderstood.

environmental radiation contamination associated with the destruction

Gotta ask why do you think they used the word “destruction” as opposed to say “explosion of” or “detonation of” or” setting of” a nuclear device???

Look I’ll help ya out, The only "radiation" study I'm aware of is the Lawrence Berkeley one at Ground Zero, it's not done by the EPA, and it hardly lends itself to any radiation scares.

The reason we became interested in the subject of tritium at WTC was a possibility that
tritium RL devices could have been present and destroyed at WTC. Tritium emergency EXIT
signs are often used in public buildings. Taking into consideration 2 Twin Towers, 110 floors
each, and assuming 5 EXIT signs per floor, 10 Ci of 3H each, would result in a total of 1.1×104Ci.

The elevated levels identified in the study are minute, and easily attributable to mundane sources (Exit signs, glow-in-the-dark sights on law enforcement weapons from the WTC 6 armoury, some parts of the plane, etc). But that's tritium, not uranium (but the plane could also contain uranium but I would have to check).

Back ground radiation ground zero
http://www.wsmr.army.mil/wsmr.asp?pg=y&page=580

There is no mention of raised radiation levels at the Pentagon either.
http://www.epa.gov/wtc/pentagon-air-sampling.htm

There’s no evidence of large scale radioactive poisoning that would suggest a nuclear explosion. Sorry try again.

Here’s the full report by Dr Robin Herbert given to the United States House of Representatives. Notice now not once does he once report radio active poisoning of a type we would associate with the detonation of a nuclear device.
http://209.85.135.104/search?q=cache:wxpkFS4rwMkJ:maloney.house.gov/documents/911recovery/20060908_mtsinai_herbert.doc+Dr.+Robin+Herbert,+co-director+of+the+program+at+Mount+Sinai+Hospital.&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=uk

As for the cancers and there cause here’s some tips.
Asbestos
socyberty
http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cancernet/600321.html

Oh you do realise that to make a convincing argument for nukes you are required to source all of the things I set out, it’s the only way they could work.

At the moment you stand at zero.

Woof!

 

[phrodeau]

Heavystick is correct; Aircraft aluminum would have peeled away when striking those poles and even at 500+MPH, the flight path would have been affected by hitting a stationary object.

You're a fucking loon, phrodeau, like the rest of your kind.

There should've been aluminium sheets of plane all over the highway. There should've been big chunks of plane too.

This thing which hit the Pentagon, did it have wings?

No evidence of wing marks on the building, so it mustn't have.

But something sheared off the light poles, so it must have.

Or did the light poles knock off the wings before it hit the building? If so, it must have.

But there was no known wing debris - only light pole debris, so it mustn't have.

What's left for a possibility? A wingless missile hitting the Pentagon, and a series of cutter charges lopping off the light poles in sync with its deployment?

Yeah.

 

[Bad_Doggie]

That's because there's just too much stupidity from wankers such as you.

WTF is wrong with you fucking loonies?

You seem to have the same illness as LN. Unfortunately it seems to have taken her from us!!!

Simply repeating previously refuted allegations does not help your case.


Woof!

 

[Bad_Doggie]

This thing which hit the Pentagon, did it have wings?

No evidence of wing marks on the building, so it mustn't have.

But something sheared off the light poles, so it must have.

Or did the light poles knock off the wings before it hit the building? If so, it must have.

But there was no known wing debris - only light pole debris, so it mustn't have.

What's left for a possibility? A wingless missile hitting the Pentagon, and a series of cutter charges lopping off the light poles in sync with its deployment?

Yeah.

You're good, you're good.

Richard Gage has a vacancy open. You just have to proove you're good at selling tee-shirts and your in.

Woof!

 

[Tungwagger]

GWB, Cheney, Haliburton etc, need the same PR firm that Saddam had.


Just sayin'.....

For this size of a conspiracy to be pulled off, it would have required an enormous amount of manhours to accomplish.


And a willingness to keep it quiet. Even 7 years later.

And a willingness to see innocent people being killed, and the necessity of of a "need" to do so.

There's just too many "ifs" that are being postulated as "fact" on the side of the conspiracy theorists side.

Clinton couldn't keep quiet a blowjob, and only two knew of it when it happened.

And if Bush is such a genius mastermind to have pulled it off, then why didn't he just plant WMD's in Iraq? Because he's so diabolical?

 

[Bat_Guano]

Hi Turd,
See you’ve been Googling and managed to find something else you don’t understand.

So I will attempt to address your core problem once again….your reading comprehension.
I have made bold the bits you have misunderstood.

environmental radiation contamination associated with the destruction

Gotta ask why do you think they used the word “destruction” as opposed to say “explosion of” or “detonation of” or” setting of” a nuclear device???

Look I’ll help ya out, The only "radiation" study I'm aware of is the Lawrence Berkeley one at Ground Zero, it's not done by the EPA, and it hardly lends itself to any radiation scares.



The elevated levels identified in the study are minute, and easily attributable to mundane sources (Exit signs, glow-in-the-dark sights on law enforcement weapons from the WTC 6 armoury, some parts of the plane, etc). But that's tritium, not uranium (but the plane could also contain uranium but I would have to check).

Back ground radiation ground zero
http://www.wsmr.army.mil/wsmr.asp?pg=y&page=580

There is no mention of raised radiation levels at the Pentagon either.
http://www.epa.gov/wtc/pentagon-air-sampling.htm

There’s no evidence of large scale radioactive poisoning that would suggest a nuclear explosion. Sorry try again.

Here’s the full report by Dr Robin Herbert given to the United States House of Representatives. Notice now not once does he once report radio active poisoning of a type we would associate with the detonation of a nuclear device.
http://209.85.135.104/search?q=cache:wxpkFS4rwMkJ:maloney.house.gov/documents/911recovery/20060908_mtsinai_herbert.doc+Dr.+Robin+Herbert,+co-director+of+the+program+at+Mount+Sinai+Hospital.&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=uk

As for the cancers and there cause here’s some tips.
Asbestos
socyberty
http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cancernet/600321.html

Oh you do realise that to make a convincing argument for nukes you are required to source all of the things I set out, it’s the only way they could work.

At the moment you stand at zero.

Woof!

There you go again, using the word "nukes". So simplistic, much like your mind.

They found elevated levels of tritium in the sewer water that had been diluted with millions of gallons of water. So much for the exit sign or gun sight theory. Tritium levels from those would have been much lower given the Fire Dept. dumped millions of gallons of water for weeks on the rubble pile before the readings were taken. In fact, the entire cleanup was consistent with radiation contamination abatement.

Your reading comprehension is abyssmal. What "enviromental radiation" would there have been? Newsflash for you: "enviromental" radiation could have come from a source not originally there. Unless you think the WTC was made out of uranium, or exit signs caused all the RADIATION associated cancers.

http://www.wtcnuke.com/



There were devices in those buildings, planted there by terrorists. The terrorists probably planted fake "workers" in the towers during the power-down. The devices created enough heat and pressure to disintegrate steel and concrete and create molten metal RIVERS and intense heat pockets which lasted for months. MONTHS of fires and heat. The Pentagon fires were out within DAYS. Same plane hit with the same amount of fuel on board. How do you explain the difference?

In the documentary "Building the WTC" produced by the Port Authority, they stated 230,000 tons of steel were imported to build the towers. Not even close to that amount was taken out. Where did all the missing steel go? Oh, dust analysis from around lower Manhattan revealed all those 10's of thousands of tons of UL tested structural steel were VAPORIZED. The steel WAS the dust, along with other building materials.

Please explain what else EXCEPT "exotic demolition devices" could have caused all these anomalies. Unlike you, I am open to all theories to try and find the truth.

 

[Bat_Guano]

I wonder what the CDC says about "enviromental radiation contamination"?


"How Exposure or Contamination Can Happen

Radioactive materials could be released into the environment in the following ways:

A nuclear power plant accident
An atomic bomb explosion
An accidental release from a medical or industrial device
Nuclear weapons testing
An intentional release of radioactive material as an act of terrorism"



http://www.bt.cdc.gov/radiation/contamination.asp

 

[Colonel Hogan]

It's not the evidence that's present we should be concerned about, but the evidence that is missing.

And there you have it. The seminal statement that makes all things possible.

Thank you inspector, Clouseau.

http://dmm.broadchoice.com/custom/_2a2a/content/images/The-Pink-Panther--C11747759.jpeg

And just in case you need me to explain it to you, "evidence" that is missing or does not exist is not evidence. It's theory, conjecture, unanswered questions and, just possibly, outright bullshit. But it's NOT evidence.

Meanwhile, the evidence that does exist is of CRITICAL importance in trying to determine what actually happened. People truly interested in truth are not merely concerned about it. They are obsessed with it.

 

[Bat_Guano]

Meanwhile, the evidence that does exist is of CRITICAL importance in trying to determine what actually happened. People truly interested in truth are not merely concerned about it. They are obsessed with it.

Exactly why so many people want the secret evidence unsealed for public examination. And exactly why there are so many theories as to why is has been kept secret for so long. (The government doesn't want the public to find out what?)

I mean, they even made the original WTC blueprints top secret. (Until they were leaked).

 

[HeavyStick]

And just in case you need me to explain it to you, "evidence" that is missing or does not exist is not evidence. It's theory, conjecture, unanswered questions and, just possibly, outright bullshit. But it's NOT evidence.

The surveillance tapes taken from nearby gas stations and hotels with the Pentagon in the background is evidence. Since those tapes have not been released to the public, they are either missing or intentionally withheld. IS EVIDENCE

If the government is so hard pressed to "sell" the crash with computer simulations why not show the public the actual footage from multiple angles?

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Exactly why so many people want the secret evidence unsealed for public examination. And exactly why there are so many theories as to why is has been kept secret for so long. (The government doesn't want the public to find out what?)

I mean, they even made the original WTC blueprints top secret. (Until they were leaked).

And now that you've seen the original WTC blueprints, what did they tell you? Nothing, right?

In theory, I have no problem with anyone seeing any physical evidence that may be out there. Other than potential national security concerns that might not be immediately obvious to you or me, I have no idea why the government would feel the need to withhold anything. But the fact that it does is no proof of its involvement in a conspiracy.

My point is simply that most of what people think is significant evidence (explosions that people did or didn't hear, conclusions from architects and engineers about how buildings generally fall) simply isn't. Most of this is just taking amateurish potshots at the best possible conclusions from what we DO know.

Worse, most of these dream weavers are no better at answering their own illogical implications than those that supposedly are left unanswered by the conventional explanation of events. For example, any speculation that tends toward a conclusion that the Pentagon was not struck by a commercial airliner or that one did not also crash in the Pennsylvania countryside has to also produce a credible explanation for two missing commercial flights and all those on board.

That conversation never takes place because it is so much more fascinating to talk about the shape of impact craters and missing frames of security cam video.

Think it the fuck through, and quit acting like a dog barking at its own image in a mirror.

 

[Bat_Guano]

And now that you've seen the original WTC blueprints, what did they tell you? Nothing, right?

In theory, I have no problem with anyone seeing any physical evidence that may be out there. Other than potential national security concerns that might not be immediately obvious to you or me, I have no idea why the government would feel the need to withhold anything. But the fact that it does is no proof of its involvement in a conspiracy.

My point is simply that most of what people think is significant evidence (explosions that people did or didn't hear, conclusions from architects and engineers about how buildings generally fall) simply isn't. Most of this is just taking amateurish potshots at the best possible conclusions from what we DO know.

Worse, most of these dream weavers are no better at answering their own illogical implications than those that supposedly are left unanswered by the conventional explanation of events. For example, any speculation that tends toward a conclusion that the Pentagon was not struck by a commercial airliner or that one did not also crash in the Pennsylvania countryside has to also produce a credible explanation for two missing commercial flights and all those on board.

That conversation never takes place because it is so much more fascinating to talk about the shape of impact craters and missing frames of security cam video.

Think it the fuck through, and quit acting like a dog barking at its own image in a mirror.

The BP's differed with the FEMA and ASCE designs per the ways the floors were connected to the inner core and outer shell columns, from what I remember. The floors were of course designed to be redundant against building movements and oscillations caused by up to sustained hurricane-force winds.

The floors could withstand significant bending during extreme oscillation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiOAKLmnRqI

The only conspiracy is who gave bin Laden the technical capabilities.

There are only a few superpowers left with the abilties...

In other words, 9/11 was probably the first real strike in the coming energy wars.

 

[phrodeau]

I wonder what the CDC says about "enviromental radiation contamination"?


"How Exposure or Contamination Can Happen

Radioactive materials could be released into the environment in the following ways:

A nuclear power plant accident
An atomic bomb explosion
An accidental release from a medical or industrial device
Nuclear weapons testing
An intentional release of radioactive material as an act of terrorism"



http://www.bt.cdc.gov/radiation/contamination.asp

I wonder what the level of radiation was in the WTC area before 9/11.

That would be really important to find out, don't you think?

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

I see a book deal for Bugleosi (sp?)...






Tha Manson prosecutor, the guy who wrote "THE" work on the JFK-nuts...




OH! TURD! Byron?

 

[HeavyStick]

I wonder what the level of radiation was in the WTC area before 9/11.

Not a bad question actually, especially with all the pollutants in that area.