Confirmed: No Global Warming for 17 Years and 6 Months

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

Turn off the Alex Jones, buddy.

[LTS TRN 2]

No, there's no controversy, just a massive cover-up and lots of tired old stooges like yourself who would like to pretend the official story makes any sense at all. Zakheim and Pearle and Wolfowitz, and many other fanatical Israeli dual citizens are in fact the most heinous criminals of all time. Theirs is a crime of unprecedented scope guided by an amorality that is immeasurable. The damage they have caused is unfathomable and their proper punishment is indescribable. Ours is the duty to unmask the fraudulent scheme and provide some allowance of decency to the process of America's principles and that for which it stands.

[smackaholic]

....over the past twenty-five years it was he who arranged for Israel to receive squads of F-15' and F-16s and other classified U.S. army surplus at a fraction of their value?

you didn't really expect them to pay retail, did you?

[LTS TRN 2]

I don't begrudge anyone getting a bargain, but delivering the U.S. into a Permanent War so as to vindicate one's own fascistic apartheid state is entirely not kosher.

[Felix]

No, there's no controversy, just a massive cover-up and lots of tired old stooges like yourself who would like to pretend the official story makes any sense at all. Zakheim and Pearle and Wolfowitz, and many other fanatical Israeli dual citizens are in fact the most heinous criminals of all time. Theirs is a crime of unprecedented scope guided by an amorality that is immeasurable. The damage they have caused is unfathomable and their proper punishment is indescribable. Ours is the duty to unmask the fraudulent scheme and provide some allowance of decency to the process of America's principles and that for which it stands.

jeezus palamino....

[LTS TRN 2]

Really? And how is the Permanent War working out for you, pops? You think it's just an unfortunate natural result of a stupendously successful terrorist attack by 19 guys with box-cutters? You're the victim just as much as I--or the hundreds of thousands of Americans--and millions of Iraqis and so forth--whose lives have been ruined. What are you actually saying--besides celebrating your own robust ignorance?

[Y2K]

And what about the numerous reports from police and firefighters and civilians of hearing explosions coming from the basement of WTC7 prior to the collapse?

The basement is where the boiler rooms are. The boilers are supplied by several 4 inch natural gas lines. the building is completely compromised and on fire.

I know stuff like this...let that roll through your head.

[Roger_the_Shrubber]

LT,

The U.S. does not recognize dual citizenship.

I had 2 Canadians deported when I was P&P officer. :grin:

[Roger_the_Shrubber]

Y2K,

That's a lot of empty space to roll around in.

[LTS TRN 2]

LT,

The U.S. does not recognize dual citizenship.

I had 2 Canadians deported when I was P&P officer. :grin:

But there is the unique exception of U.S. Israeli dual citizenship. And it's not just Lou the butcher or Maury the dentist. Here's a ew folks who have been running the American government--both in office and behind the scenes--for a good while..

Michael Mukasey

Michael Chertoff

Richard Perle

Paul Wolfowitz

Douglas Feith

Lawrence (Larry) Franklin

Edward Luttwak

Henry Kissinger

Dov Zakheim

Kenneth Adelman

I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby

Robert Satloff

Elliott Abrams

Marc Grossman

Richard Haass

Robert Zoellick

Ari Fleischer

James Schlesinger

David Frum

Joshua Bolten

John Bolton

David Wurmser

Eliot Cohen

Mel Sembler


And lots more. get the picture? Look up any of these guy and you'll find someone in a key position of power. And they're all dual citizens. So..? Tha's cool with you?

[LTS TRN 2]

And what about the numerous reports from police and firefighters and civilians of hearing explosions coming from the basement of WTC7 prior to the collapse?

The basement is where the boiler rooms are. The boilers are supplied by several 4 inch natural gas lines. the building is completely compromised and on fire.

I know stuff like this...let that roll through your head.

There was no fire in the basement. Why would there be? And what was supposed to be burning for seven hours in the first place up above? desks and chairs? Carpet and various cable coatings? And this was supposed to heat dozens of massive steel beams to suddenly collapse at exactly the same time? And thus we had the miraculous and unique (according to the NIST report--which went unexamined or scrutinized) "spontaneous collapse" of the building?

Here's an MIT engineer completely taking the NIST report apart piece by piece. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8W-t57xnZg

Go ahead, let's hear some actual reply to that.

[Felix]

Here's an MIT engineer completely taking the NIST report apart piece by piece. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8W-t57xnZg

Go ahead, let's hear some actual reply to that.

well Jeff King is not "an MIT engineer" he possessed a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering from MIT, so he really had no expertise in STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING...he was neither professionally nor academically qualified to speak to the structural properties of concrete and steel.....and he quit the engineering profession to become a physician....he passed away in 2012

as to all of these people that reportedly heard bombs going off, go ahead and hook me up with all of these eyewitness accounts and lets see where that takes us.....

so other than that, I don't know what to tell you......

[LTS TRN 2]

Well his arguments are pretty clear--and unrefuted. The NIST report doesn't count as evidence since it wasn't scrutinized at all. The entire subject of WTC7 was omitted completely from the official 9/11 report.

Here's a basic guide to the multitude of witnesses and so forth
http://911proof.com/11.html

But really, how can you--or anyone--pretend that the clear videos of that 47-storey building just dropping at free-fall speed in perfect controlled demo fashion--from a fire--is somehow believable?

[poptart]

But really, how can you--or anyone--pretend that the clear videos of that 47-storey building just dropping at free-fall speed in perfect controlled demo fashion--from a fire--is somehow believable?

I have spent almost ZERO time reading (or listening to) the back-and-forth between "experts" on both sides of the building 7 issue.

Just looking at it myself, I assume the building was brought down on purpose.

[Y2K]

There was no fire in the basement. Why would there be?

The boilers and utilities are connected to the upper floors by what is called "chases". Each set of chases has a four hour fire protection. Once a chase is compromised it releases fresh oxygen to the fire and the flames and extreme heat will travel towards the source. there could have easily been a fire in the basement or enough heat to combust a large gas line. at that point you have a large explosion (remember san bruno?). could have easily been the final straw to a building already sitting on a decimated substructure. Remember that the underground slurry walls were ripped to shreds and had lost ground containment. The damage below the superstructures was so bad it all had to be completely removed and rebuilt for the new Tower and memorials to be built.
One way or the other that building was going to go down, if someone blew it up so what, it was going to be done anyway,

[Moving Sale]

One way or the other that building was going to go down, if someone blew it up so what, it was going to be done anyway,

[LTS TRN 2]

There was no fire in the basement. Why would there be?

The boilers and utilities are connected to the upper floors by what is called "chases". Each set of chases has a four hour fire protection. Once a chase is compromised it releases fresh oxygen to the fire and the flames and extreme heat will travel towards the source. there could have easily been a fire in the basement or enough heat to combust a large gas line. at that point you have a large explosion (remember san bruno?). could have easily been the final straw to a building already sitting on a decimated substructure. Remember that the underground slurry walls were ripped to shreds and had lost ground containment. The damage below the superstructures was so bad it all had to be completely removed and rebuilt for the new Tower and memorials to be built.
One way or the other that building was going to go down, if someone blew it up so what, it was going to be done anyway,

What an utter crock of shit! The notion of a "decimated substructure" is some kind of fairy tale. There was some falling debris on one side of the massive building--so what? The idea that this could cause such a massive fire as to compromise one--let alone dozens--of huge steel beams is impossible and ludicrous. What was supposedly burning? And how in any event could all of the support beams collapse at exactly the same time? And with Larry Silverstein admitting plainly that the building was "pulled" (not the contingent of firefighters , as has been pathetically suggested by his weasel lawyer) is what's known in a court of law as "evidence." This latter excuse--"well, it had to come down either way" is a putrid lie. How do you look in the mirror?

[LTS TRN 2]

What "beatdown"? You mean your dreary milksop acceptance of the official story--a ludicrous and unscrutinized white wash of the greatest crime of modern times? You should be ashamed of yourself for being such a lazy coward.

[smackaholic]

lets turd, I know this has been asked a million times before, but, could you please site me the documentation that 'splains exactly how it is that WTC type structures behave when fully gassed up widebody jets slam into them at 400 mph?

Of yeah, I forgot, there isn't any. Nothing even remotely close. When someone goes to the expense to carry out such experiments multiple times, perhaps they can then come up with models of how skyscrapers fall/don't fall.

Going on.....and on......and fukking on..... about what can or can't happen in such an event is, as Iron Mike would say, ludicrous.

[LTS TRN 2]

First, the WTC towers were specifically constructed to withstand an airliner impact. Second, the planes were not fully fueled, having flown a fair distance before the strike. And, moreover, the vast majority of the fuel burned up in the initial tremendous explosion. The idea that a fire could render the massive steel-framed tower into a free-falling controlled demolition within an hour is utterly preposterous. How can you accept the notion for a second?

[R-Jack]

How do you look in the mirror?

It's actually pretty easy to do. Have you tried without a dick in your mouth? That may be where you are getting tripped up.

[Atomic Punk]

First, the WTC towers were specifically constructed to withstand an airliner impact. Second, the planes were not fully fueled, having flown a fair distance before the strike. And, moreover, the vast majority of the fuel burned up in the initial tremendous explosion. The idea that a fire could render the massive steel-framed tower into a free-falling controlled demolition within an hour is utterly preposterous. How can you accept the notion for a second?

Of course, the 2 tower WTC buildings were designed in the 1960's.

Secondly, the heavy aircraft still had most of their fuel on board. When you fly to a long-distance destination, you have to plan for alternate suitable airports in case of bad weather or emergencies. That means you fly approaches with gear and flaps, etc. down while getting sequenced into the approach pattern. THAT burns up a lot of gas and certainly a flight crew has to be able to fly to minimums before aborting to a suitable alternate airport and do the same thing.

So save your gas theory as you don't know a damn thing about anything other than to log in here to be annoying. Props to you... shit troll.

[smackaholic]

First, the WTC towers were specifically constructed to withstand an airliner impact. Second, the planes were not fully fueled, having flown a fair distance before the strike. And, moreover, the vast majority of the fuel burned up in the initial tremendous explosion. The idea that a fire could render the massive steel-framed tower into a free-falling controlled demolition within an hour is utterly preposterous. How can you accept the notion for a second?

They were constructed to withstand a 707 lost in the fog, flying at a few knots over stall. No one could envision a larger fueled up plane hitting them at full speed.

They had flown a few hundred miles. The needle hadn't even moved off F yet.

You haven't a fukking clue what percentage of the fuel fuel exploded on impact. Jet fuel, pretty much diesel, is surprisingly enough, pretty damn hard to light on fire. It is not like gasoline.

[LTS TRN 2]

Well, most of it burned in the initial explosion, and as for the rest, so what? There's no way some buring fuel on floors and desks and walls, whatever, could generate the necessary heat to melt or weaken the vast steel structure of the building. And even if it did--on all three towers--there's no reasson whatsoever that the buildings would just collapse at once in pure free-fall controlled demolition. None. And the Popular Mechanics explanation is a total joke--and has been thoroughly debunked..here..check it out--and try to actually refute it.

http://www.ae911truth.org/home/676-debu ... anics.html

and,..http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/gopm/

The notion itself--on face value and after investigation--that those buildings could just fall like that because of fires is such a fucking insult to basic human intelligence that I seriously think you guys are some kind of sheep hybrid species or something. Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you?

[LTS TRN 2]

Who's to say the "ragheads" didn't do it? Well, how about Larry Silverstein? And as for the utterly nonsensical and cheap smear piece by Popular mechanics, well not only is this right here thoroughly debunked, but it's clear that you "acceptards" have nothing else upon which you're basing your lazy and cowardly head-in-the-sand denials of what was obviously an inside job. And yes, it was several years in the planning. There are hundreds, thousands of enginneers, pilots, architects and military officials who have called total bullshit on the official story. And while the popular Mechanics article claims to have a multitude of 'experts," we notice they don't actually provide any names or anything besides a few. Same with the so-called "witnesses" of a 757 hitting the pentagon. What the fuck?

[LTS TRN 2]

So what does your pentagon buddy say about Silverstein's baffling admission? And what do you say? Frankly, your attitude is so passive as to make a Buddhist blush. And remember, what you're calling "the government" is not what is meant by that general term. This was a coup by an unelected cabal. And if you want to examine the Supreme Court's judicial coup of '01, fine. But the towers collapsed in free-fall fashion fr no possible natural reason. The article thoroughly debunking the popular mechanics piece stands unrefuted.

[LTS TRN 2]

What's that supposed to mean? You offer the logic of a bratty child. The piece..right here..http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/gopm/..is published by actual experts with proper qualifications to discuss and analyze the Popular Mechanics piece. Actual architects and engineers who are not getting paid like some slimy shill (like the paid Climate Change deniers as well). And regardless of the voluminous evidence against the official story, there's the basic common sense to any sentient human brain. And that's the sheer impossibility of those three towers simply dropping in controlled demolition because of a fire. It's as though you scurry off to some other safe fetal position when faced with yet another clear presentation of evidence.

[Atomic Punk]

There are hundreds, thousands of enginneers, pilots, architects and military officials who have called total bullshit on the official story. Same with the so-called "witnesses" of a 757 hitting the pentagon. What the fuck?

What the fuck? Well, you are a "shit troll" trying to convince the non-trolls of your stupid conspiracy bullshit. Why do you keep doing it?

[Felix]

Well his arguments are pretty clear--and unrefuted.

every argument that guy makes has been discredited time and time again......once again, the guy was a physician that had no expertise in structural engineering

Here's a basic guide to the multitude of witnesses and so forth
http://911proof.com/11.html

don't hook me up to some conspiracy whack job page, I want specific names of people and the verbatim words of their interviews.....surely if this conspiracy is as wide spread as you'd have us all believe, there are first hand accounts from named sources (and no, NY firefighters) is not a NAMED source......

jeezus I can't believe you fucking morons are still arguing this shit......

[Jay in Phoenix]

First, the WTC towers were specifically constructed to withstand an airliner impact. Second, the planes were not fully fueled, having flown a fair distance before the strike. And, moreover, the vast majority of the fuel burned up in the initial tremendous explosion. The idea that a fire could render the massive steel-framed tower into a free-falling controlled demolition within an hour is utterly preposterous. How can you accept the notion for a second?

The towers were constructed to withstand an impact, this is true. The rest of your statement is utter nonsense.

The most consequential designs that were not included in the Twin Towers were sufficient fire-suppression systems and fireproofing. Even though the towers were built to withstand the impact of a jetliner, they were not designed to withstand and remain standing during a fire of such great magnitude. The jet-fuel fire caused by the impact was impossible to contain in the Twin Towers. The World Trade Center had not been designed to fight hydrocarbon fires of such magnitude and high temperature – up to 1500 degrees Celsius. The fire-suppression system consisted of water sprinklers that were useless because water, at this temperature, would vaporize almost instantly. Instead, these fires had to be fought with chemical foam, which the Towers lacked.

The fireproofing system in the Towers was also insufficient. First, the Towers were lightweight because of their extensive use of steel and were devoid of masonry or concrete which made them difficult to insulate from the fire. Second, a more sophisticated fireproofing system could have been incorporated during the building process. Most of the supports and trusses could have been coated with extra fire proofing material. Third, the World Trade Center incorporated a novel, yet very flammable, elevator system. The engineers worried that, without masonry, the conventional elevator shafts would buckle and collapse with the intense air pressure exerted by the high speed elevators. To solve this problem the engineers used a drywall/plaster system fixed to a reinforced steel core; this made the shafts more flexible though much more flammable.

Another design shortcoming that made the ensuing fire even more destructive was the use of weak floor trusses which spanned abnormally long distances. In the Twin Towers the steel trusses spanned nearly sixty feet without any support and were only four inches thick (Federal Emergency Management Agency 2002). The extremely high-temperature fire heated the relatively thin floor rapidly, making the floor almost flexible because it lost most of its rigidity and consequently buckled. Since the floor buckled, the extra support needed to come from the remaining exterior perimeter columns, but many had been destroyed by the planes’ initial impact. But those columns also depended on the core steel columns for support, but these columns were being subjected to extremely harsh conditions of the fire and were failing themselves. The exterior columns began to buckle onto the floor which buckled on the floor beneath and started a gigantic domino effect of the plunging stories. So, in effect, the fire caused all structural supports to weaken and fail within the Twin Towers.

Fire was the Achilles heel of the World Trade Center Twin Towers, for they did not have sufficient fireproofing nor fire-suppression systems. Designers of future skyscrapers may install retrofitted aqueous film-forming foam extinguishers, similar to those used for aviation fires, to enhance fire safety in future projects. In addition, new high rises may have plans that have more evacuation sites as well as possible external ways like giant escape tubes or parachutes. In the future, architects, engineers, designers, and builders will look to further the safety and security to all those in skyscrapers and learn from the events of September 11.

There's your answer LTS...you may give up now.

[Dinsdale]

The fire-suppression system consisted of water sprinklers that were useless because water, at this temperature, would vaporize almost instantly.

Not to fuel LTS' fire, but you should probably get on the phone and tell every single Fire Science professor in the world they're wrong.

And if I have to explain this, just back away now. Basic, basic shit.

[Jay in Phoenix]

Dins, if you're suggesting water doesn't vaporize, you would be incorrect.

Get to over 212 degrees F and it goes buh-bye.

Would you like to clarify this?

[Felix]

There's your answer LTS...you may give up now.

but but, there's a guy that knows a guy who once knew a welder that said he heard from some electrical engineer that talked to some people who knew some people that heard there were explosions coming from under the building.......checkmate

/s/
lts

[Dinsdale]

Dins, if you're suggesting water doesn't vaporize, you would be incorrect.

Get to over 212 degrees F and it goes buh-bye.

Would you like to clarify this?

Did you not catch the part where I suggested that if I needed to clarify this, you need to run away at a full sprint from any discussion of (FUCKING BASIC) fire science?

I'll help you out -- liquid water doesn't fight fires (does nothing for structural fires), water vapor does.

Again, the rest of your post was reasonable, except the mega-fail at fire science (which I'm far from an expert on, but I understand the stuff they teach in the first few minutes of class)..

[LTS TRN 2]

First of all, what was supposed to be burning so intensely? The remaining fuel? Really? And even though it doesn't burn nearly hot enough to melt or weaken steel, you're suggesting that it compromised the entire structure causing the entire building to just drop in perfect controlled demolition? What's next, your "scientific" explanation for the Easter Bunny?

Just because you roll out a childish smear, attempting to dismiss the actual engineers, architects and similar experts with a mere wave of your hand, doesn't mean you've refuted or addressed or even dared consider the mountain of evidence which renders the official story absurd.

On each issue you scurry like little mice away from the light, jumping to cling on some other niggling point--while desperately avoiding the glaring facts in your face.

Fact: No steel-framed building has ever collapsed due to a fire.

Fact: The official Popular Mechanics version to which you're all clinging completely omits the fact of the towers having a steel core--that would have remained standing if the outer trusses had 'pancaked' as suggested. They've just pretended they weren't there.

Here's some of that evidence which makes you all run and start quacking like little boys on the playground..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkMhiwlelPQ

And what..?...he's a total fake being paid to lie? Or...you're lying to yourself on a daily basis?

Wake the fuck up and stop being such bunch of pantywaist cowards.

[Jay in Phoenix]

Dins, thanks...I guess.

I know you clarified your point, but you didn't understand the reference I made. It was that sprinklers were/would be ineffective, so LTS talking about water was pointless.

That was directed at his inane comment. But you can keep piling on if it suits you.

[LTS TRN 2]

I wasn't talking about water at all. Rather, the obvious lack of any practical reason for the three towers to just drop in perfect free-fall controlled demolition. The black smoke from the north tower--just before it dropped--clearly indicates an oxygen-starved low-heat fire. But...what was supposed to be burning in the first place? Carpets? Desks? What was supposed to be burning so hot?

Now Jay, examine the clear report offered by the engineer with a PhD from MIT in engineering and consider his clear refutation of the absurd official story. If you can offer some refutation of him, bring it. If not, stop quibbling like a petty little bitch.

[Moving Sale]

Dins, thanks...I guess.

I know you clarified your point, but you didn't understand the reference I made. It was that sprinklers were/would be ineffective, so LTS talking about water was pointless.s

But they would not be ineffective for the reason you stated. As dims has pointed out, the fire triangle on the front cover of your fire101 book should have told you that. Do you have a scientifically valid reason why water (vapor) from sprinklers would not put out the fire?

[LTS TRN 2]

Look, pops, I know you can play some guitar--but you can't actually play over changes. And so too this bleating insecurity that would leave you cleaving to some basic single chord of reassurance....holding on, droning on a basic dominant 7th...you know, the "official story" pumped into your passive lobes. But..it's time to wake up and actually start thinking, playing over real harmonic movement, realizing that cowardly silence is not music.

[matteric]

What part of "The City" do you live in... nicky ?