Post a New Topic
Original post made
on Jun 22, 2007
I met Natalie the night of Richard Gage's speech and I didn't know how she would tackle this particular subject matter in writing her article. It turned out to be very fair and accurate representation; an excellent article.
Thank you Natalie for being so open minded and visiting our club.
I appreciate your article and you are always welcome to come to our meetings and cover our speakers.
As an executive board member of the Tri-Valley Democratic Club I was disappointed to see our club host Richard Gage to speak about unfounded, alternative interpretations of Sept. 11th. Out of protest, I and other members did not attend. Though I support free speech, the Tri-Valley Democratic Club should not be used as a forum to advance crackpot theories accepted only by fringe groups and conspiracy theorists.
Instead, our club should have been addressing the issues of the day that concern everyone in the Tri-Valley, from Danville to Livermore: increasing access to health care; providing preschool education for all; making college affordable for tomorrow's leaders; and keeping Livermore's VA Hospital open to treat and care for our brave soldiers of today's war and wars past.
Being associated with 9/11 conspiracy theories damages the group's ability to tackle these more important issues.
This is exactly the problem with most generic liberals. They don't even LOOK at the evidence presented by the 9/11 truth movement. If you did attend Eric, then maybe you would have learned a thing or two. The evidence is there no matter how much you don't want it to be. The democrats can't tackle any of the real issues unless you hit the neo cons where it hurts the most. Once we expose the lies behind the event they use to advance everything on their agenda, then we can push for real issues to come to the table: health care, education, environment. NOT "the war on terror". Aren't you embarrassed by the Democratic congress's lack of leadership to stand up to the worst administration in history? 9/11 truth will END the war Eric. WAKE UP.
"Out of protest, I and other members did not attend. "
So basically you didn't even have the testicles to face something that possibly doesn't gel with your own beliefs. Instead you take the fearful road and opt out of a presentation that could have possibly enlightened you to new information.
it's very sad to me that democrats have become so spineless in the face of this administration. First most of them vote for the Iraq war and patriot act after 9/11 because of a knee jerk fear reaction. Then they back peddle and claimed they were given 'false information', then they rally around John Kerry, someone who was basically Bush light and voted for the Iraq war. Then When the 2004 elections are stolen the entire democratic base remains quiet. Now when they actually win the house and senate in 2006 they do absolutely nothing to change the course of the country, including taking impeachment off the table.
Fearful cowardly democrats like yourself sir is one of the main reasons our country is in the toilet right now.
I consider myself a liberal, but i am ashamed to label myself as a democrat because of how pathetically closed minded and group thinking the party has become.
I would debate you any time of the week sir on the importance of discussing 9/11 truth, and i am certain you would loose each and every single debate.
thanks for this article! Very fairly written. We need more fair reporters like you!
Wow, this was a great article and I wish I could have been there to see Richard Gage's presentation.
I don't consider myself a "conspiracy theorist", but I have to agree with Abby above: we need to get to the bottom of 9/11 and find out the truth if we are going to topple the neocon regime. Other issues like healthcare are of course important, but if we are truly being lied to about one of the worst days in US history, and our leadership may have let this happen on purpose or worse, made it happen, how can we possibly ignore it?
I'm pretty appauled that anyone would "protest" this appearance. This just shows a closed-mindedness that does not represent what the democratic party was built on.
I recommend that we listen to all sides of each debate.
Thanks to Natalie O'Neil for writing this article and bringing this important topic to the forefront.
Thanks for the balanced and fair treatment of the most critical issue of our time. Thanks also to Abby and George for giving eric a well sounded wake up call. His trite and trifling approach to politics - conformist 'politics as usual,' is exactly what is NOT needed now. These times demand courage to face the truth, fight the power, and end the horror of Fascism and War.
Great article! Thank you Natalie.
Unless you've been living under a rock (and maybe even if you have) its impossible to deny the scientific evidence that clearly shows that 911 was a controlled demolition.
Letters in protest of an accredited professional showing the scientific facts of the case are either politically minded or just plain ignorant. I'm sorry, the facts speak for themselves.
It seems like such a simple thing to witness an objective account of a public speaking engagement. After watching fellow 911 skeptics get trashed for so long, this article appears to me like a piece of gold laid upon my doorstep. Thank you Natalie O'Neill!
Eric, you didn't hear Richard Gage speak. It is both irrational and immoral for you to brand him as "crackpot" and "fringe" when you have no idea what you're talking about. What you are really saying is that you don't want to know. If you're the kind of leader you want trained in our schools, I fear for our future.
For those who did not attend Richard Gage's presentation or are otherwise not yet convinced I offer links to get you started in a world of discovery that will change your life. Before you copy and paste the links into your browser window, be sure you really want to know.
The Third Stage 23 minutes
WTC7: The Smoking Gun of 911 16 minutes
Flight 77: The Flight Data Recorder Investigation Files 54 min.
SPIN: The Art of Selling War 22 min 37 sec - May 16, 2007
More links to get you started:
Richard Gage's Website:
Website for Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth
Pilots for 9/11 Truth
Patriots Question 9/11
Veterans for 9/11 Truth
911blogger: The latest TRUTH about 911
When I first heard the controlled demolition theory I thought that it was pretty crack-pot and/or an intentional false lead to discredit those that have brought up other evidence.
See I was already convinced that Cheney and Co. had to at least have forewarning of the attacks and to at least partially helped foster there sucess. Today I don't know about the towers, but it is no part of my arguement as one can get too bogged down on this one even if Gage et al. are correct. There is enough other evidence out there that makes it abundantly clear that there has been a cover-up, and that the prime suspects of any investigation should be Cheney, Jerome Hauer, Paul Wolfowitz, Dave Frasca, etc.
So folks should keep in mind that there is much more to the story than any possible controlled demolition possibilities. Here is one link to folks who were laying out the case of it being an inside job way before the controlled demolition claims, and they for the most part are not buying the story:
THe section on "demolition theories" begins about a page down.
I also commend Natalie for the story,but I have to wonder if she got this part right:
"Structural steel melts at about 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit, while plane fuel only burns up to 1,600 degrees. Knowing this, there is no way the heat could have caused the immense building frame to collapse, Gage said. He then made several references to steel frame high rise fires that have burned for up to 17 hours without melting the building's frame"
I doubt that that is what Gage intended to communicate. Steel doesn't need to be melted in order for it to be seriously weakened. The question would be how structuraly weakened would of it likely been under those circumstances.
I, also an executive member of the board of the Tri Valley Democratic Club, was very enthused that our club took the initiative to present another side to a very contentious subject and host Richard Gage as a speaker. I applaud our President for aspiring to add some dimension to our roster of monthly speakers. As Democrats, by definition we are supposed to be critical thinkers, open-minded and progressive; the comments by another board member in our club are disappointing to say the least. I do not consider myself belonging to a "fringe group" nor to I subscribe to "crackpot" conspiracy theories. I have studied the evidence, done many hours of research on 9/11-subsequent cover-up and have come to the conclusion that there were many anomalies and irregularities pre/post 9/11, enough to warrant opening up a new investigation. I agree that our club should be a forum for the many domestic issues facing us, but can't there be room for alternative points of view on issues that impact not only ourselves, but the country and the world at large? Name-calling and similar rhetoric is counter-productive. I would have certainly hoped for more from a Democratic brother.
I'm a Licensed Professional Engineer experienced with structural steel; the primary thing that got my attention on day Zero was the impossibility of the towers' collapses from the plane crashes & fires. I assumed the truth would come out in an investigation. The fact that brought me to the truth was the stonewalling by the Bush administration against the formation of an investigative committee.
No matter what opinion any so-called experts hold, my belief is and has always been that those towers were rigged with explosives.
Thank you, Natalie....your article was like a breathe of fresh air. I hope that you continue reporting on this very important issue in a fair and objective manner. This is the essence of Truth..putting forth the information in order that people can make up their own minds.
As for Eric...refusing to attend a lecture given by an upstanding, rational professional is NOT an act of protest. It is an act of willful ignorance and cowardice.
As for the "more important" issues that he refers to... it is impossible to build a sturdy house when the foundation is crumbling and full of holes. ANY architect can tell you that.
Great comments . . . I like them as much as the article. I've felt alone for many years now. Glad to see some more citizens board the train!
Web Link (not affiliated with Alex Jones although great respect do I have for him)
There is nothing so patriotic as a fearless willingness to examine any evidence of 911 as a tool for preventing similar future terror
anainst innocent civilians .The official examination of 911 is a national embarassment , a subterfuge and an affront to decent americans everywhere.the official explainations defy logic and the physical evidence and it ignores or dismisses masses of of eye witness testemony
It is time for people to put their interest in the stockmarket or political party or religous or class loyalty aside and do whats right for america and whats right for the world.
"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance."
-- Albert Einstein
"Out of protest, I and other members did not attend." Yes, ignorance is truly bliss, but it is the root of all of our problems. As Plato proffered long ago, "The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men."
The questioning of authority by citizens is a fundamental component of democracy, however in America those who question authority are labeled "crackpot fringe theorists" and are to be ridiculed, then ignored. And people wonder how things could have ever gotten as bad as they are?! Now THAT is truly amazing!
List of "crackpot fringe theorists"
Ever wonder WHO exactly were the alleged 9/11 hijackers and what were they doing before 9/11? Since the FBI didn't seem very interested an investigative reporter took up the task and uncovered quite a lot of dirty laundry, all the stuff you never saw in the news:
There is MUCH more to 9/11 than people think, but the problem is, people aren't thinking. Time to start.
I just stumbled on this page from 911blogger.com and was interested to see that a local newspaper covered the topic. Congratulations to the reporter and editor for having printed such an article.
I commend Susan Martin for standing up for the group and denouncing Eric Swalwell's childish stance on hearing a scientific lecture. I really can't believe that an adult criticized his own group's decision to host this speaker through insults and ignorance.
While I know that this is a very painful topic to discuss and even more painful to accept, insulting someone else for forming a scientific hypothesis and then backing it up with a two-hour presentation based on mathematics and years of architectural experience isn't a fair way to deal with the topic. If this concept is too painful for you to discuss, Eric, then stay away until you’re ready to accept it. Don't embarrass yourself by calling a very well educated professional's hypothesis "unfounded" or "crackpot” – that approach only highlights your ignorance.
I do wish you strength as you go through the steps of discovery and acceptance of this horrible event.
Peace be unto you.
Natalie O'Neill, thanks for proving your journalistic integrity and for reporting the event as clearly and straightforward as possible without the typical name calling towards anyone who questions the mass murder of 9/11. Once we correct these henious acts and rid our government from these murderers we will be on course to restoring our news business to the business of news, and remove the publicity people from the news business and put them in their in their proper place (many of them in jail for aiding in the coverup). When we come correct, certainly you will quickly rise to the top. My family and I thank you from the bottom of our hearts.
One more thing... Regarding the jet fuel (kerosene) fires burning so hot, this is not what happened. The temperatures mentioned are only those achieved under IDEAL conditions, when the mix of fuel and air is such that combustion is maximized. Furthermore a very significant amount of fuel burned off in the huge initial fireballs.
What I have yet to see addressed sufficiently is the ventilation of heat from the broken windows and very large holes made by the aircraft. The morning of 9/11/01 was COOL and WINDY, briskly out of the north, and especially at an altitude of 1500 feet. All of the heat models I've seen do not include a ventilation factor, in other words, they assume all heat was retained inside the buildings. Take a look at this photo:
The smoke is blowing horizontally, barely rising in altitude. Hot air usually rises, except on 9/11/01 if we believe raging infernos brought down the buildings.
Natalie, you are a very rare credit to mainstream journalism. Thank you.
Ah, I see the kook contingent has arrived. Let's see, where to begin? First, nobody says the steel melted; that's a straw man that the crackpots love to haul out that's meaningless. Steel loses 90% of its strength at 1800 degrees, which means it can't stand up to gravity, especially when it's holding up 10-20 stories of building.
'"Is a mass of one kilogram, placed on top of a mass of five kilograms going to crush it? No," Gage said.'
That is so ridiculous that it concerns me he claims to be designing a high school gymnasium. "Placed on top"? Is he quite retarded? Try a little experiment, here. Place a cinder block on top of your head. Then drop it from, oh, about 12 feet onto your head. I'd say let us know what happens, but I don't think there's any real doubt you won't be around to do that, right?
It also concerns me that someone who claims to be a journalist cannot tell when they're being snowed. Just because you want it to be true, Natalie, doesn't mean that you should check your natural skepticism at the door.
As much as I cringe at the thought of rational minds closing out the logic that Richard Gage presents, the more horrific reality is the number of people who answer the questions of 9/11/01 and the scientific data for controlled demo with a ho-hum, "I knew something wasn't right with those buildings falling the way they did", but follow that up with "What'ya gonna do? Just as long as I get free health care, my social security checks, the stock market is advancing, I've got a job, gas is under $3, I can make my mortgage payments, etc." No one is asking themselves the most serious question, "Is it okay that to mass murder?" If this is true, your government is guilty of mass murder of almost 3,000 of our sisters and brothers, mother's and fathers. That IS evil. Why are we not in the streets demanding justice?
yo patrick, before you get too carried away, i suggest you listen to the testimonies from the FDNY, NYPD, and paramedics who heard explosions like a chain of black cats and saw flashes systematically firing at lower levels of the buildings. bombs went off in the basement before the first plane even hit. go youtube william rodriguez, employee of the WTC complex for 20 years. he was there when they went off. yo, and don't be so afraid of people thinking hard about this consequential event. we're just trying to make things better. maybe you're underestimating the potential.
I cannot believe the information passed off in this as correct but previously debunked by MIT engineers and a plethora of other, more credible scientists and industry professionals.
It's a shame there are so many weak minds that can be swayed by the conspiracy charlatans, but look at how many of them voted for John Kerry!
Patrick Curley states " Try a little experiment, here. Place a cinder block on top of your head. Then drop it from, oh, about 12 feet onto your head. I'd say let us know what happens, but I don't think there's any real doubt you won't be around to do that, right?"
Well, that takes care of the floors directly below the start of the collaspe, what about the other 90 or so floors. Remembering that each floor was built to support the floors above, meaning that each floor is STRONGER as the support demands increase, which is to say they get satronger as you go down, right? Now, look at the video, the building is being changed into DUST, dust does NOT weight as much as solid, so as the building comes down it confronts an very increasing resistence from stronger steel, with very DECREASING weight.
Or to use Patrick's cinder block model, it will certainly damage your head, same as the floors right below the collaspe floors, but to equal what happened that day, you would have to be on the shoulders of roughtly 90 other people, each one strong enough to support the total weight of the group above, there is no way that that single cinder block would topple the whole group. One, maybe two and then the collaspe STOPS.
Capt. Ralph Linderman of the St. Andrews Fire Department said the blaze was the hottest he could recall in three decades of firefighting. "That fire bent steel like a wet noodle," he said...
Charleston Fire Capt. Jake Jenkins said the firefighters were spread out in teams when the roof - a steel truss system - collapsed. Other crews fought to get inside the building and rescue the fallen, but the conditions were too bad, he said.
You can discuss building demolition forever, but at the heart of the 911 coup is "Angle is nest" — here's Webster G. Tarpley's take on it...
WT: Look, this is a forgotten clue of 9/11, which seems to me is the most important, because this is when the invisible government speaks. You may remember that at one point during the morning, 10:00 probably on 9/11, a death threat against Bush came into the Secret Service, saying, Angel is next. It essentially means, Air Force One will be shot down as the next step in these developments.
‘Angel is next.’ Implies the top-secret codename or codeword for the Presidential aircraft, Air Force One. I go into intelligence agency reports, now let me just make a parenthesis, (9/11 didn’t occur in a vacuum, it occurs in a world in which there are others watching. Who’s watching? Well, Russia’s watching, Israel’s watching very much, the French are watching, there’s Germans, Japan…), what I found is 3 separate reports, one is the Réseau Voltaire which is obviously benefiting from leaks from French intelligence. The Réseau Voltaire version, which came out September 20th (or) 25th, says that the ‘Angel is next.’ phone call came complete with top secret codeword, across a variety of agencies, suggesting that the people that were behind the attacks were a powerful faction inside the US intelligence community and government in general.
And that secondly, they had the nuclear launch codes in their possession. This report goes on to say that the Bush team thought during most of the day, that they were the target of a military coup. And it was only somehow later in the day that the situation was recomposed. Now what would it mean?
Essentially it means that the invisible government force behind 9/11 tells Bush that he must respond by stating that its Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, the Arabs, the Islamic world, and that what’s gonna happen is the invasion of Afghanistan, and above all the beginning of the ‘war of civilizations’ that Samuel Huntington writes about. An open-ended aggression of the United States against the Arab and Islamic world.
If not inclined to read Tarpley’s “911 Synthetic Terror - Made in USA,” here’s 5 minutes on the topic of the “Shadow Government,” of Iran-Contra vintage:
Tarpley’s lecture - long version here:
Tarpley is clearly the most incisive analyst on this issue. “911 Synthetic Terror - Made in USA” was at the top of the Amazon.com book sales rankings last fall. You don’t see interviews with him at Truthdigg, Democracy Now or Charlie Rose simply because his thesis, that false flag terrorism is at the heart of the strangelove neocons’ Global War of Terror, with 911 as the lynchpin to it all, is still the media “3rd Rail.” Anyone in the MSM discussing 911 seriously (i.e. beyond the coverup) is immediately fried and their funding is ended. And, in this way freedom of speech is silenced in our so-called democratic republic.
HAPPINESS IS AN INSIDE JOB
....If we as individuals are focused on our own happiness, does that become incongruent with wanting to live our lives like Jesus, Gandhi or Mother Teresa?
MBB: Once we understand that happiness is an inside job, that it is a spiritual quality, then focusing on (personal) happiness is not selfish, it’s not self aggrandizement. It is waking up to what’s in you and once you wake up to what’s in you, now you can be of service. You cannot give from an empty cup. If you are bitter, unhappy or depressed, then you have nothing to give to the world. But, if you have tapped into the source of that inner enthusiasm, that inner generosity, that inner light, that inner happiness….now you have something to give so that you can live the life that Jesus emulated.
AF: You are someone who is actively participating in having more peace in the world with anti-war demonstrations. How do you balance that with wanting to remain happy and peaceful within yourself?
MBB: First of all I don't participate in anti-war demonstrations, but I do participate in pro-peace and pro-love and pro-harmony programs, conferences, etc., because I don't believe in being anti anything. If you are "anti" something, you actually give more energy to that which you are against. So, I teach people to take a stand for something. When I think about the stands that I take, whether it's for peace or for every boy and girl to have enough to eat on the planet or for everyone to have proper medical care or shelter or access to education, I am actually describing a vision of what I saw is a world that works for everyone. The world changes as individuals are able to describe a vision and walk in that direction...."
While fair on the surface (which I very much appreciate)this article by Natalie O'Neill unfortunately contains numerous errors and misquotes. Please see the corrections below...
Richard Gage, AIA Architect
Architect says it's time to review scientific data on Sept. 11
by Natalie O'Neill
MISQUOTE: "You have to get under the infrastructure to bring a building like this down," he said.
(I did not say this - it was Peter Jennings from a video clip.)
MISQUOTE: "Structural steel melts at about 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit, while plane fuel only burns up to 1,600 degrees. Knowing this, there is no way the heat could have caused the immense building frame to collapse, Gage said. He then made several references to steel frame high rise fires that have burned for up to 17 hours without melting the building's frame.
(Structural steel softens to 1/2 its strength at about 1400 degrees and doesn't need to melt in order to collapse. Never-the-less NIST has no evidence of steel temperatures over 450f degrees - and the WTC Towers were over-designed to a factor of 5 in the core structure and 20x at the perimeter - and required much hotter temps to fail. The point about the steel melting temperature was in reference to the tons of molten metal found by the first responders "flowing like lava". NIST denies this because they can't account for it with the 1800f degree temperatures they say the fires reached. We're still missing 1,000 degrees! Where did the molten metal come from which was noted by the WTC Structural engineer, Leslie Robertson himself? For those who want to know - see our website www.AE911Truth.org for the chemical evidence of Thermate in the WTC steel and the dust.)
MISQUOTE: In addition, Gage showed that the towers hit the ground in around nine seconds - free fall speed.
(Free-fall speed is about 9 seconds. The towers completed their descent in about 15 seconds - still - far too fast for any gravitational collapse!)
MISQUOTE: "Gage provided up-close video footage of puffs of smoke - working from top floors down - coming from the rubble. This is direct evidence of explosives on each floor, he said.
(What I said was that they were "explosive ejections of pulverized building materials - from highly focused points at the middle of the building. (Not "coming from the rubble").
"Your eyes are not deceiving you," he told the audience after he showed the footage.
MISQUOTE: "One firefighter who cleaned up the rubble noted it didn't make sense that in a crushed office building the fire department would find no pieces of desks, chairs or keyboards - even on the bottom floors. The reason for this, Gage said, is because explosives pulverized everything."
(Explosives pulverized most of the 90,000 tons of concrete, filing cabinets, people, and building materials to gravel and fine dust - but not the structural steel and aluminum cladding. These materials were ejected OUTSIDE of the buildings' footprint - undermining completely the official theories of a gravitational collapse - or pancake theory. Where are the pancakes?
MISQUOTE: "The evidence Gage said he found most compelling is perhaps also the most disturbing. Centimeter-long fragments of bones were found on the tops of surrounding buildings, catapulted hundreds of meters. Parts of the building were also found up to 800 meters from the towers, suggesting a higher explosion force than what any plane could administer, he said."
(I quoted FEMA which maintained that the primary debris field was a 1200 ft diameter around the twin towers. Where did Natalie come up with 800 meters? (A much farther distance!) The bone fragments were found on top of the Deutsche Bank building which is not "hundreds of meters" away but a couple of hundred feet at most. Still - how can a gravitational collapse cause this?)
(The explosive force of the plane is irrelevant because that event occurred 1 to 2 hours prior to each tower's "collapse" onset. What is relevant is the tremendous explosive force of the demolition charges breaking all the windows within 400 feet and hurling 20 ton beams 500 feet laterally!)
Thank you Natalie for correcting the record!
Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
and the 107 Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth
Patrick, you must've failed science horribly.. and Eric, you need to open your mind.
Thank you Richard for all that you're doing. I'm an architect student myself (in the Netherlands) and I'm glad architects and engineers are standing up. Someone had to be the first.
I hope that your powerpoint presentations will be available on your website soon.
Thanks once again.
Just for the record: The molten metall item was brought up by the mainstream media- in fact it was the Bush near CNN journalist Garrick Utley who promoted fire infernos at 1.000° (of what?) and molten metal first, at around 3 am on 9/12, afterwards it was parroted by most of the media (USAToday, BBC and so on) The claim that conspiracy theorists brought up this issue is outright ridiculous. But that's the problem with the MSM. Later it was proven right, but than it has to be "forgotten", as it did not fit to the official explanation. As Richard has stated: They found lava pools of molten metal like a foundry.
People are out in the streets demanding more visibility and accountability regarding this issue. Just check out truthaction (dot) org
Do you know what scares me? It is the level of scientific ignorance and pseudo-scientific babbling that permeates the truthers arguments. The truther movement is a sad testimony to the nadir that science education has sunk to in this country. On the other hand, it’s rather amusing to read some of the ignorance that comes forth from the truther camp.
For instance, anyone who can not see the inherent absurdity of this statement: “Is a mass of one kilogram, placed on top of a mass of five kilograms going to crush it? No,” in the context of a building collapse is truly, truly a lost soul in the world of logic, math and science.
BTW, What were the airplanes made of again?
What was the building facade made of?
What is the melting point of aluminum again?
I'm baffled by reading a stupid argument like: “Is a mass of one kilogram, placed on top of a mass of five kilograms going to crush it? No." in this article.
Did Richard really use this?
This argument is beyond stupidity. It only serves to impress scientifically uneducated people who have no idea about Physics and Mechanical Engineering.
What baffles me even more is this: while Richard took the time to painstakingly outlining and correcting the errors Natalie made in her fine report (and these errors are very easy to make, if you are confronted the first time with all these overwhelming facts and figures Richard must have given in his presentation!) -- he did not correct this point. Therefor I must assume he said it and he meant it.
Richard, I'm totally impressed with all your arguments and with your line of reasoning. I'm 100% behind you regarding 9/11 Truth.
But please never again use this bogus argument. It is unscientific and stupid to put forward. Only an amateur would use it. And here's why:
* if I indeed put a mass of 1 kg on top of a mass of 5 kg, I could
argue that now also the bottom-most 1 kg piece carries 5 kg -- 5
times its own weight .
* if that is true (and it is!), then the bottom-most 0.5 kg piece
carries 5.5 kg -- 11 times its own weight.
* if that is true (and it is), then the bottom-most 0.01 kg piece
carries 5.99 kg -- 599 times its own weight.
* and so on, and so forth -- until nearly (!) indefinite iteration
Yet the bottom 0.0001 kg still do not give in to 59,999 times its own weight pushing down on it.
The reason is: it takes millions of times the weight of an atomic-size structure to crush its molecule or crystaline bindings if it is a stable steel or iron column.
Still -- the reason why the towers came down was _*not*_ jet crash + jetfuel explosion + jetfuel fire + office fires + limited softening of of some steel beams + gravity. You are absolutely right here, no doubt about it!
But your "1 kg on top of 5 kg" argument is not proofing your point. Retract it please! Your other arguments are much more solid.
Thanks for considering.
And thanks for your tireless work too! Thanks for showing the guts to stand up where your whole industry bows to the ruling czars. (And I hope one day to be able to attend you and one of your presentations in person).
"It is unscientific and stupid to put forward. "
Perhaps Mr. Gage should have used the term dropped instead of placed?
Something doesn't add up with 9/11 when sites like this come online:
100+ Senior Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials, 140+ Engineers and Architects 130+ Professors Question 9/11, 100+ 9/11 Survivors and Family Membersm, 70+ Entertainment and Media Professionals
More and more people are starting to wake up to what really happened on that fateful day.
Pilots for 9/11 Truth
Do The Orders Still Stand
Stop being told what to think, and start thinking for yourselves. After all, your mind is your most powerful resource.
@ Leonhard Euler:
* the airplanes are mainly made of aluminium, and basically, they are a "hollow shaft" (with two massive pieces of metal attached attached to their wings -- the engines).
* the building "facade" was made of massive steel beams, covered by a thin aluminium layer.
* the melting point of Aluminium is 933.5° K (or 660.34° Celsius, or 1220.63° Fahrenheit).
And, before you ask Leonhard: Aluminium is about half the specific weight of Iron.
What is your point, Leonhard?
Brady wrote: "Well, that takes care of the floors directly below the start of the collaspe, what about the other 90 or so floors. Remembering that each floor was built to support the floors above, meaning that each floor is STRONGER as the support demands increase, which is to say they get satronger as you go down, right?"
You really have no idea how the building was designed, do you?
Do you think that the individual floor slabs were capable of supporting the whole weight of the building above? Or is it possible, just possible, that the [b]columns[/b] supported the weight of the floors?
If, as NIST quite clearly demonstrated, the collapse initiation was the result of a column buckling failure, then don’t you think that the collapse propagation was the result of a buckling failure also?
well Curtis, if there were pools of molten metal as you claim, and if aluminum melts at temperatures lower than steel, then how do you know what type of metal the pools were?
It seems to me that pools of molten aluminum would form long before pools of molten steel.
I'm just asking some questions, that's all.
I'm confused about something here. I have seen the claim put forth that jet fuel can not burn hotter than a specific temperature, usually given as being lower than 1000° C. I know that there is a difference between heat and temperature, and that the maximum temperature that a combustion reaction can reach is related to its heat of combustion, not its adiabatic flame temperature.
Yet I see person after person making the claim that jet fuel can not produce a temperature in excess of some arbitrary and absurdly low number.
Can some one explain this to me?
If ANYONE is still believing the "Official Fairy Tale" at this point,
then they SERIOUSLY need to seek out professional help. The tooth fairy makes more sense than the "19 cavemen with boxcutters theory".
So, Diablo, do you think that all people of Arabic descent are "cavemen,” or just the 19 highjackers?
”He then made several references to steel frame high rise fires that have burned for up to 17 hours without melting the building's frame.”
Perhaps, as an architect, Mr. Gage could enlighten us on the similarities and differences between the designs of these buildings. Certainly he isn’t so naive to think that all buildings respond exactly the same to different fire scenarios.
Perhaps, as an architect, Mr. Gage could explain the role of fireproofing and how different building designs achieve the required fire ratings using different materials and construction techniques.
Do you know what scares me? It is the level of scientific ignorance and pseudo-scientific babbling that permeates the government's arguments in the NIST and FEMA reports, which set high standards for deception. The official reports of 9/11 are a sad testimony to the nadir that a small handful of corrupt government "scientists" and "engineers" with severe conflicts of interest have sunk to in this country. On the other hand, it’s rather amusing to read some of the ignorance that comes forth from the NIST report. Just do a YouTube or Google Video search for "NIST New Standards of Deception"
For instance, anyone who can not see the inherent absurdity of this statement: “Is a mass of one kilogram, placed on top of a mass of five kilograms going to crush it? No,” in the context of a building collapse is truly, truly a lost soul in the world of logic, math and science.
Google Video Search: NIST New Standards of Deception"
Do a Google search as well for the Web companion page to the video.
Why is it that so many people in the public simply ASSUME the governments' reports to be true, accurate, and unbiased science? Why do so many people assume the NIST 10,000+ page report to be good science, when almost none of these people have themselves read a SINGLE PAGE of the 10,000+ page report, and certainly fewer if anyone has read the whole report. Why do so many people give the government the benefit of any doubt, give them a free pass and assume their report is good science? For a critical analysis of the government's report, Google Video or You Tube: "NIST New Standard for Deception"
NIST: A New Standard For Deception by Kevin Ryan
Companion Web Page:
Mr. Richard Gage's presentation which has caused 90% of the engineers and architects who have seen it to sign their names in writing that they believe that the official story of how the buildings came down needs to be re-opened, with the need to investigate the possibility of explosive controlled demolition.
Part 3 (Questions and answers)
So, jj, instead of spamming the board, why don't you try to answer my questions above. No links, please, just write them out. Thanks.
Love the suggestion that we check out "waterboy" Kevin Ryan's new video. Ryan's got no experience in structural engineering, but he's going to correct the work of folks with PhDs and years of experience in the field? JJ, how many pages of NCStar-1 have you actually read? I'm going to guess you didn't even get through the NIST's WTC FAQ page.
Gage wrote: ”(Free-fall speed is about 9 seconds. The towers completed their descent in about 15 seconds - still - far too fast for any gravitational collapse!)”
I wonder if he can back that up with some mathematical calculations. No, then it’s just his opinion, then isn’t it.
Gage wrote: ”(What I said was that they were "explosive ejections of pulverized building materials - from highly focused points at the middle of the building. (Not "coming from the rubble").”
As an architect, Gage should be familiar with the design and layout of HVAC systems. I wonder if he knows where the return air plenums were located. Where the fan units were? Etc. What does he think happened to the air in the building when it collapsed?
Gage wrote: “(Explosives pulverized most of the 90,000 tons of concrete, filing cabinets, people, and building materials to gravel and fine dust - but not the structural steel and aluminum cladding. These materials were ejected OUTSIDE of the buildings' footprint - undermining completely the official theories of a gravitational collapse - or pancake theory. Where are the pancakes?”
Just how many tons of explosives are we talking about here? How come the sounds of the explosives are not audible on the tapes from the people / cameras closes to the collapse?
If Mr. Gage isn’t available to answer these questions, then maybe some one else can. How about you, jj?
No links please unless you are citing a source, excessive use of links are crutch for a lazy mind.
"If, as NIST quite clearly demonstrated, the collapse initiation was the result of a column buckling failure, then don’t you think that the collapse propagation was the result of a buckling failure also?"
NIST's collapse initiation scenario is a theory, nothing more. It has not been "clearly demonstrated" no matter how much you wish it to be so.
Let's put it this way Leonard and Patrick, no matter what technical explanation you justify it with, no collapse alone will produce the explosive events that were observed. I tell you this as a Licensed Civil Engineer who has studied steel collapses, but you don't need to be a structural engineer to realize this, a child could tell you as much from watching the videos. But as in the story "The Emperor's New Clothes," (by Hans Christian Andersen) a whole population can be (and many have been) duped into believing the lie because they so strongly doubt their own kind would be involved in this and would rather believe it was done by outsiders than confront the obvious.
Joseph, then perhaps you can explain the inward bowing of the exterior walls shortly before each tower collapsed.
Go for it.
BTW, Joey, feel free to try and answer any of my questions, if your capable of it.
Leonard drank the koolaid..
Do you mean like Rosie?
BEHAR: You do have that cult personality.
O’DONNELL: I do. Remember the Jim Jones thing? I’m five seconds away from drinking the Kool Aid singing, "Kumbaya," you know. Honestly, it’s like I have a little bit of that.
"Perhaps, as an architect, Mr. Gage could enlighten us on the similarities and differences between the designs of these buildings. Certainly he isn’t so naive to think that all buildings respond exactly the same to different fire scenarios.
Perhaps, as an architect, Mr. Gage could explain the role of fireproofing and how different building designs achieve the required fire ratings using different materials and construction techniques."
Perhaps he (or I) could, however, answering these questions will in no way explain why the twin towers and WTC7 behaved the way they did on 9/11.
Bowed columns do not lead to an explosive collapse. ESPECIALLY when they are part of a large structural steel space frame. Have you seen any calculations that show the amount of bowing that would be required to lead to buckling failure of the exterior columns? I haven't but observation tells me an airplane can blast through and the whole building stands steady, but a little bit of inward bowing and the whole thing shatters to dust?
There are questions NIST cannot answer and so they pretend the questions do not exist. For one example, satellites recorded exceptionally high temperatures for weeks after 9/11. NIST can't explain it so they pretend it didn't happen. That's all I need to know about their "science"
Richard Gage did not say that the steel would have had to be heated to melting point in order for the steel columns to collapse. He talked about the melting point of steel in reference to witness statements about melted steel in the rubble. Gage is fully aware that the steel loses strength at lower temperatures, but argues that nevertheless those temperatures were not reached, according to the government's report, and in any case would not account for the observed "collapse." This is a very serious misstatement of Gage's position and the newspaper should run a correction.
BTW, Joseph, as an engineer, you should know who I am. ;)
Tell me about the bowing, Joe. What did that do to the structure?
Bowed columns do not lead to an explosive collapse. ESPECIALLY when they are part of a large structural steel space frame.
Not even when it is the entire face of the building that was bowing inward?
Not even when the other faces had huge holes in them?
Not even when a number of floors were observed to be detached from the exterior walls? (hint)
What was the DCR for those remaining columns after the exterior walls started bowing in?
”Have you seen any calculations that show the amount of bowing that would be required to lead to buckling failure of the exterior columns? I haven't but observation tells me an airplane can blast through and the whole building stands steady, but a little bit of inward bowing and the whole thing shatters to dust?”
It’s funny you should say that. Way back in the 1800th century, I, Leonhard Euler (wink), developed a formula related to the concept of critical buckling force on a column.
I’m really surprised that as an engineer, you have never heard about it. It is the basis of modern skyscraper design.
So far, no one has provided any science to support the (erroneous) contention that jet fuel fires can not exceed 1000 C (or whatever arbitrary number the truther community is using these days)
I'm waiting. In you own words, please, only use links as citations for your data sources. Links are the excuse of a lazy mind.
”Perhaps he (or I) could, however, answering these questions will in no way explain why the twin towers and WTC7 behaved the way they did on 9/11.”
So, Joseph, are you saying that the condition of the fireproofing had no bearing on the collapses?
Please explain, in your expert opinion, why.
Dwight wrote: "nevertheless those temperatures were not reached, according to the government's report."
That is not quite true there, Dwight.
The evidence for the internal temperatures was inconclusive, at best. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absense.
Leonhard said: "then perhaps you can explain the inward bowing of the exterior walls shortly before each tower collapsed."
I'm not surprised one could possibly see "inward bowing of exterior walls" in the WTC bring-down. (I personally didn't see it, but I've also not seen the hi-res videos *you* have probably seen in your job...)
Watch any video showing the "classical" version of an 'official' controlled demolition (hint: search at videos.google.com or at youtube.com or at www.implosionworld.com): You'll see a lot of "inward bowing of exterior walls shortly before collapse"
Read any document about how controlled demolition is brought about: they'll explain to you that it is a chain of timed explosions [mostly moving from the bottom up], where they take out the center pillars of a building by a split second earlier to force the outer walls to be drawn to the inside [in order to make it come down into its own footprint as closely as possible]. Hence the word "implosion", despite of the use of "explosives", you see? The ground floor is taken out first, in order to make gravity cause the complete mass to move down; just before it hits the ground, they take out the second floor; and so on, and so forth....
I'll readily concede that WTC1 and WTC2 implosions didn't quite follow the "classical" setup. Here they employed a chain to explode each floor from the top [the hit spot of the planes] downward. After all, it shouldn't too closely resemble what people had seen on TV as "official" implosions before. After all, it should create the visual impression that the planes had something to do with it.
And if you look very closely (and possibly in slow motion), how the South Tower came down (the one with the big antenna), you'll not fail to notice that the antenna moved downward first. A clear indication that the building's core was moved out of the way first too. (And if you fail to notice that little detail, I recommend you go see a good optician immediately). The South Tower, BTW, was hit by the *second* plane, and the hit was not even staight into the center. It burned not as long as the North Tower. And yet it "came down" first...
WTC7, OTOH, looks *exactly* like a classical implosion.
The buckling is for real, as observed, but the outer perimeter columns of a building will buckle also if you take away the interconnected steel core columns by explosions.
But why did the NIST manipulated the sagging and find no evidence for their hypothesis in their real world testing, only in adjusted computer models? Why didn't they adress the "global collapse"? "Global collapse ensued" is a very vague explanation for the total destroying of this massive steel built buildings.
For beginners, you should read Kevin Ryans take on it:
And than google David Ray Griffin.
"It’s funny you should say that. Way back in the 1800th century, I, Leonhard Euler (wink), developed a formula related to the concept of critical buckling force on a column."
It's funny you should say that. Have you ever seen a column buckle? I have - guess what, it did not shatter into multiple pieces!
"So, Joseph, are you saying that the condition of the fireproofing had no bearing on the collapses?"
I'm saying the condition of the fireproofing had no bearing whatsoever on the collapse or destruction of the core columns below the point of airplane impact.
I'm also saying the condition of the fireproofing had no bearing on the laterally explosive nature of the collapses. I'm also saying the condition of the fireproofing had no bearing on the extreme high temperatures recorded on the site for weeks after 9/11.
As a leading mathematician of your time, I would expect you to have a little more respect for science by considering all of the observed data, rather than only those that support your conclusion.
So, Joseph, are you saying that the condition of the fireproofing had no bearing on the collapses? Please explain, in your expert opinion, why.
The purpose of fireproofing is to prevent heat absorption which can lead to local buckling. Local buckling (from fire or whatever) does not lead to global collapse. It's rather doubtful local buckling would lead to even partial collapse.
It amazes me how scientific minds fail to take into account ALL the available data to form a conclusion. Selective science is for suckers, shills, and scared sheep.
”I'm not surprised one could possibly see "inward bowing of exterior walls" in the WTC bring-down. (I personally didn't see it, but I've also not seen the hi-res videos *you* have probably seen in your job...)”
I’m not sure what you mean by that last part, but you can see pictures of the buckling in the NIST report and you can find copies all over the ‘net. Like here:
Watch any video showing the "classical" version of an 'official' controlled demolition (hint: search at videos.google.com or at youtube.com or at www.implosionworld.com): You'll see a lot of "inward bowing of exterior walls shortly before collapse"
No, I have not seen that, and I was privileged to actually witness a couple of building implosions back in the 90’s. But if that’s what you see, then so be it.
Read any document about how controlled demolition is brought about: they'll explain to you that it is a chain of timed explosions [mostly moving from the bottom up],
Shouldn’t that read always moving from the ground up?
I'll readily concede that WTC1 and WTC2 implosions didn't quite follow the "classical" setup. Here they employed a chain to explode each floor from the top [the hit spot of the planes] downward.
So, please, my reality challenged friend, explain to us just exactly how this was done? How were the explosives planted in the exact spot the planes hit? How did the explosives and the wiring survive the impact and fires? Life isn’t a Bruce Willis movie. Your scenario needs to be grounded in how things work in the real world.
”And if you look very closely (and possibly in slow motion), how the South Tower came down (the one with the big antenna), you'll not fail to notice that the antenna moved downward first.”
No, that is just a error in the perspective of the camera angle. Videos from the other angles don’t show this at all. Sorry.
BTW, was hit by the *second* plane, and the hit was not even staight into the center. It burned not as long as the North Tower. And yet it "came down" first...
The left wing and all that fuel inside would have impacted directly into the east side of the core.
WTC7, OTOH, looks *exactly* like a classical implosion.
Please explain to me what exactly what you think it should have looked like and why.
Joseph wrote: The purpose of fireproofing is to prevent heat absorption which can lead to local buckling. Local buckling (from fire or whatever) does not lead to global collapse. It's rather doubtful local buckling would lead to even partial collapse.
So the warehouse roof that collapsed and killed those 9 firefighters in SC the other day, was it local or global?
” It's funny you should say that. Have you ever seen a column buckle? I have - guess what, it did not shatter into multiple pieces!”
Did it form a plastic hinge?
”I'm saying the condition of the fireproofing had no bearing whatsoever on the collapse or destruction of the core columns below the point of airplane impact.”
Guess what, I agree with you there, below the point of the impact, it was all gravity, baby.
Once the fireproofing was knocked off the floor trusses, they began to heat up in the fires. Shortly after they began to heat up in the fires, the 1” diameter truss diagonals began to buckle and the bottom chords began the twist and fail. This allowed the floors to sag, The sagging floors pulled in at the interior walls. Once the interior walls started to pull in, Euler’s formula took over and the critical buckling load of the columns was reduced to below the loads actually on the columns. This was the point of no return. The bowing columns were no longer supporting their loads. The structure redistributed these loads to other columns, but many of those columns were already carrying extra loads due to the impact damage to the structure, so, they to began to fail. Once these columns began to fail, the loads were redistributed to other columns, until the structure could no longer support itself and the collapse initiated.
After that it was all gravity. Anyone that tells you different is an idiot or a liar.
A logical chain of events, well supported by empirical data and sound engineering principles.
your writng style gives you away. How many other handles are you using here? Please stick to one handle. Thanks.
right now I've not much time and better things to do than engage into a ping pong of arguments with you. It may be different for you, and you may have a free day to continue to so, but I'm sorry.
If our exchange made you interested in finding the true answers for your questions, I'm sure you'll do your own research. If you don't, these questions don't interest you so much after all, and you asked them just for engaging me in your play. Or you have your pre-cemented opinion already, and are not willing to question it....
Thanks for the debate so far.
Fair enough. We should let these people have their paper back.
"So the warehouse roof that collapsed and killed those 9 firefighters in SC the other day, was it local or global?"
Funny you yourself are now guilty of what you accused Richard Gage of doing. Perhaps, as a mathematician (or is it liar or idiot?), you could enlighten us on the similarities and differences between the designs of these buildings. Certainly you aren’t so naive to think that all buildings respond exactly the same to different fire scenarios, hmmm?
Your continued ignoring of the evidence shows you for what you really are, Euler. And no I am not posting under multiple names, sorry to burst your bubble.
Leonard Euhler......25 blog comments! Impressive for a weekday, when most people are at work...or is this what you do for a living?
Give it up- you are doing much more harm than "good".
Megan, why should I give up having fun poking holes in the theories of moonbats?
WOW Leonard, over 7 hours here (last post within the half hour and you are still going strong, I'm impressed. How much are you paid?
You said in response to my last post (over 7 hours ago);
"If, as NIST quite clearly demonstrated, the collapse initiation was the result of a column buckling failure, then don’t you think that the collapse propagation was the result of a buckling failure also?
Well, let's think about that for a moment. Before the planes hit, all three of the buildings stood stable, fully supporting the weight, right?
Then something happened to that equilibrium (plane crash and fire) and as a result, destabilized the support. According to your theory as supported by your understanding of the NIST report, the collapse initiation was the result of column buckling failure. So far we are all on the same page, well maybe, maybe not, but that's not the point. My question is simply, if the event that caused the collapse initiation (plane crash and fire) caused the collapse to begin at the crash site but that event did not happen on the floors above or below, how can you then use the same logic to prove the failure of ALL of the columns? What is the source of the energy to prove column failure due to buckling outside of the crash site?
More was spent investigating Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky then on the attacks of 9/11.
If these 9/11 truth debunkers are so sure that their story is rock solid, then they should be pushing for a new investigation as well...
Support the Jersey Girls and The widows who pushed for the original
9/11 commission. Watch the documentary "9/11 Press for Truth" which is based on the Jersey Girls and their push for a new investigation.
It can be seen here:
Leonard, who the hell has their whole workday to waste commenting every 5 minutes on this local newspaper article? it is so obvious that you have a hidden agenda. no one in their right mind would waste so much time on "moonbat theories" as you call them. Maybe you should make you shill ness a little less obvious.
Hmmmmmm, Leonard has gone silent. Guess we'll have to await him to clock in to another workday.
RE: So, Diablo, do you think that all people of Arabic descent are "cavemen,” or just the 19 highjackers?
Posted by Leonhard Euler, a resident of another community, 11 hours ago
++++++++++ he may be gone but this should not stand uncontested — black-ops patsies are more often than not "caveman" quality characters, regardless of their ethnicity — Oswald and McVeigh fit the profile perfectly, right along with Atta and crew — Able Danger patsies one and all, unwitting fools playing roles in terrorist drill, flipped live by a handful of moles inside. Look at the Tarpley lecture...it's all laid out — the controlled demolition business is just Silverstein's payoff for playing his role, but a role for which he should (and will one day) swing. The heart of the coup is "Angle is next."
Minor correction for the record:
It was Garrick Utley who was the first person on this planet who brought us the very official explanation unchanged to this day:
Listen to him beginning 15 minutes in this video.
1.500 degrees fire (C,F?) molten metal, pancaking.
And some engineer told him (them?) so. Who? This is a interesting question, as this news was fet to other newslets, too.
This is a dubious as the so called Harley Guy, who gave a similar explanation in an interview shortly after the towers collapse. "it came down mostly due to the structural failure because of the fires"
Interesting, that the official explanation was given so fast, and, according to the later studies, 100% correct. This is unbelievable, it looks like spripted news- as the BBC announcing of WTC7 fell 20 minutes too early. Besides the forgotton molten metal issue, that was downgraded over time, as scientists knew that the fires were very unlikely hotter then 1.000°C. For the masses the myth "hot fires, infernos" was born.
Yeah, I had a slow day yesterday. I had some time to kill.
Anyway, my point was made.
Real scientists and engineers don't fall for this controlled demolition crap.
It's a mug's game for paranoid losers.
Well, here are 125 architects and engineers would have some serious research on 9/11
And professional and ex-military pilots are here
Wake up and smell the thermite.
Hey Leonard, you did make a point, and it's that you're a clown of a shill/disinformant. The name calling as you were running for the exit was a dead giveaway, nice touch.
Dont worry though, there's plenty of video's at youtube for you to spread your lies on(and I'm sure you're over there right now doing just that).
The ad hominem attacks only reinforce the fact that you were unable to respond to my questions.
Your theories are full of holes, and when I point out the holes, you call me names.
Another interesting paper on this topic
For those who try to dismiss the glaring problems with the official myth of 9/11 . . . I have 4 answers:
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth
Pilots for 9/11 Truth
Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice
Read comments by 100 high level military and intelligence experts saying we've been lied to about 9/11. Many say outright 9/11 had to be an inside job.
Wow, does he have you pegged.
The Danville Weekly is to be commended for opening up the investigation into 9/11. I only hope that the Cheney machine won't make your paper or your employees suffer.
Reading this was a lot like watching a tennis match you already knew the outcome of, by I still found myself reading each and every post.
I think it's pretty plain and simple that what we've been told of what happened at the WTC Towers and the Pentagon represent a lot of misinformation and the hope was that we would all be so horrified by the aftermath that we would have never questioned the "logic" presented, no matter how flawed it was.
Steel columns are treated with a fireproofing agent to protect them against the types of heat that a structural fire is expected to generate until it can be contained, the time rating is expected to be in the order of 4-6 hours maximum and the heat is thought to come from the burning of interior construction materials and other materials typically found in office environments. They aren't treated to protect against the levels of heat that would occur in a jet fuel related fire, but as stated by many, the fuel only burned until it was gone, and much of it was gone in the explosion on impact.
The picture that still sticks out in my mind was from the Pentagon though, the one where you can clearly see a book laying open on a desk next to the area where a wall supposedly was taken out by the 747 that penetrated the shell. This was after the fire was put out, and following the "crash", yet the book was left open and undamaged on the surface of a desk, less than 3 feet from the gaping hole in the building.
I don't think any of the arguments about gravity or combustion of fuel and temperatures reached can explain this one. Paper goes up a lot sooner than 1400, 1700, or 2500 degrees.
There is the notion that democrats are revealing their "cowardice," fear and helplessness, in the face of what this republican administration has done to us all. I don't buy it. It's not democrats that are revealing themselves as spineless and cowardly, it's people. What George (in one of the posts to this site) has revealed, is that he has failed to appreciate that this cowardice, this fear of authority, this subservience to dictators and bullies, is the natural state of the human race; most people are this way. Courage and fearlessness, are not democratic or republican. A few individuals will have the guts to face up to the bullies of the world, and the rest of us are scared to death.
When I used to be under the influence,stoned,geeked and out there,I became very excited about the 9/11 stuff,particularly the notion that the buildings were blown up.It seemed obvious and provable.
Unfortunately the crowd that promoted the demolition idea was caught in so many lies and mistakes that it was painful to see that nonsense fold like a cheap tent,I felt raped.
Then I quit the rock/powder/pipe habit,became clear and went through an epiphany where I saw how ridiculous it was to think the buildings were demolished.
I say to you all:get over your self,quit drugs and learn to think again.Even though you've wasted many good years on balderdash you will have been toughened up and learned a valuable lesson,i.e.don't trust the type of clowns you've been trusting for so long.
I wish you well.
Don't miss out
on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.
A favorite restaurant closes its doors
By Tim Hunt | 4 comments | 2,419 views
Premarital and Couples: Here Be Dragons!
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,034 views
Home & Real Estate
Send News Tips
© 2020 DanvilleSanRamon.com
All rights reserved.