VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: [1], 2, 3, 4 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 23:52:12 05/10/02 Fri
Author: Jerry Russell, Ph.D.
Subject: Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC

Rense.com


Proof Of Controlled
Demolition At The WTC
By Jerry Russell, Ph.D.
www.regena.com
5-1-2
(The Author Has A Master's Degree In 'Engineering' From Stanford University, and a Ph.D. in Psychology from the University of Oregon)

Steel frame towers are built very strongly. They need to withstand the pressure of gale-force winds, the violent rocking motion of earthquakes, and the ravages of time. For this reason, they are almost impossible to destroy. Airplane strikes 'do not' destroy skyscrapers. A bomber strike to the Empire State Building during World War II 'did not' harm that building. The World Trade Center towers were designed to 'survive' a strike by a Boeing 707. The 767 is more massive, so the building was stressed near its design limits. But if a failure had occurred at that moment, it would have been at the point of highest levered stress, near the base of the tower, and the tower would have fallen over like a giant tree in a forest windstorm. That, of course, did not happen. "Fires do not destroy skyscrapers. Never in the history of steel frame structures has a single one been destroyed by fire". How to destroy a skyscraper. So, how do you destroy a skyscraper? Suppose you need the vacant land to build another one, for example. A nuclear bomb is very effective, but it can be difficult to get permits from the city. An early invention was the wrecking ball. A huge lump of steel and lead is swung from a massive chain at high speed. With the benefit of momentum, it is able to bend or break a few girders at a time. But it would be a hopeless task to destroy a tower the size of the World Trade Center, using a wrecking ball. The most effective, cleanest, safest way to destroy a skyscraper is known as controlled demolition. The trick is to distribute explosives at key points throughout the structure. The explosives are detonated simultaneously, destroying the integrity of the steel frame at key points, such that no part of the building is supported against the force of gravity. The entire mass is pulled swiftly to earth, where gravity does the work of pounding the structure into tiny fragments of steel and concrete. The gravitational potential energy of the structure is converted smoothly and uniformly into kinetic energy, and then is available very efficiently to pulverize the fragments of the building as they impact against the unyielding earth. Controlled demolitions have a striking and characteristic appearance of smooth, flowing collapse. As your eyes will tell you, the World Trade Center collapses looked like controlled demolitions. Here's the proof. The proof. According to the law of gravity, it is possible to calculate the time it takes for an object to fall a given distance. The equation is H=(1/2)at2, where H is the height, a is the acceleration of gravity (10 meters per second squared) and t is time in seconds. Plug in the height of the building at 1350 feet (411 meters) and we get 9 seconds. That is just about the length of time it took for the very top of the World Trade Center to fall to the street below. According to all reports, the whole thing was over in just about ten seconds. It is as if the entire building were falling straight down through thin air. As if the entire solid structure below, the strong part which had not been burned or sliced or harmed in any significant way, just disappeared into nothingness. Yet this (within a small tolerance) is what we would expect to find if there had been a controlled demolition, because the explosions below really do leave the upper stories completely unsupported. Like the Road Runner after he runs off the edge of the cliff, the entire building pauses a moment, then goes straight down. Any kind of viscous process or friction process should have slowed the whole thing down. Like dropping a lead ball into a vat of molasses, or dropping a feather into the air, gravitational acceleration cannot achieve its full effect if it is fighting any opposing force. In the case of the World Trade Center, the intact building below should have at least braked the fall of the upper stories. This did not happen. There was no measurable friction at all. This proves controlled demolition. We have been lied to. We have been lied to about this, at multiple levels. The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel. In point of fact, most of the fuel in the jets was contained in their wing tanks. The thin aluminum of the tanks was pierced or stripped as the airplanes penetrated the walls of the towers, and the result was the huge fireball which was seen on national TV, where most of this fuel was burned. A hot, vigorous fire would have blown out many windows in the building and would have burned a red or white color. This was not what happened. The fire in the World Trade Center was an ordinary smoldering office fire. But let's suppose that the fire was hot enough to melt steel. What would have happened in that case? Before it breaks, hot steel begins to bend. This redistributes the forces in the structure and puts elastic stress on those parts that are still cool. The process is asymmetric, so that the structure should visibly bend before breaking. But of course, no steel skyscraper has even bent over in a fire. Let's suppose the structure were sufficiently weakened that it did fail catastrophically near the point of the airplane strike. In this case, the intact structure below would exert an upward force on the base of the upper story portion of the building (the part that has been broken loose), while any asymmetry would allow the force of gravity to work uninhibited on the tip of the skyscraper. Thus, the top section of the skyscraper would tip and fall sideways. If it did not tip, it would have ground straight down through the building below. The gravitational potential energy of the upper stories would be coupled into the frame below, beginning to destroy it. The frame below would deflect elastically, absorbing energy in the process of deflecting. At weak points, the metal structure would break, but the elastic energy absorbed into the entire frame would not be available to do more destruction. Instead, it would be dissipated in vibration, acoustic noise and heat. Eventually this process would grind to a halt, because the gravitational potential energy of a skyscraper is nowhere near sufficient to destroy its own frame. If the World Trade Center towers had been built entirely out of concrete, they might have stood for awhile before toppling in the wind. But in that case, if they had collapsed straight downwards, the energy required to pulverize the concrete would have slowed the downward progress of the upward stories. The gravitational potential energy of the World Trade Center was barely sufficient to convert its concrete into powder, and for that to happen in an accidental collapse would have been impossible, but would have taken a lot longer than 10 seconds in any case. How it was done. The World Trade Center was leased by Westfield America and Larry Silverstein, on April 26th, 2001. Zim Israeli Shipping moved out of the buildings around that time. With a certain amount of shuffling of tenants from floor to floor, it should have been easy (with all the commotion and noise of remodeling) to plant explosives on several floors; enough for at least a sloppy kind of controlled demolition. There was more "magic" at work on 9/11, to produce the effects that were seen on the TeeVee. The events of 9/11, summarized. Taken all together, the evidence suggests very strongly that the attacks of 9/11 were fake terror, and quite possibly were a collaborative venture of the Israeli and US governments. Student pilots from Saudi Arabia and other Arab nations were enrolled in flight schools in Venice, Florida and other locations. The flight school in Venice is linked to CIA drug running operations, according to one researcher. A recently leaked document from the US Drug Enforcement Agency indicates that a number of Israeli intelligence operatives describing themselves as art students took up residences in close physical proximity to the Arabs as they moved about the country. The Arab flight students boarded the flights on 9/11. Did they intend to hijack the airliners, and if so, for what purpose? Had the Israelis played in any way the role of agent provocateur in organizing whatever was planned? It seems reasonable to conjecture that the goals of these Arabs were opposed in some way to some US Middle Eastern policy. It would be very interesting to question the Israelis regarding their knowledge of the Arab flight students. At any rate, if the Arab flight students had been ordinary hijackers, they might have taken the controls of the airplane, but their plot should have quickly been foiled for two reasons. First of all, the Boeing 757 and 767 aircraft are probably equipped with remote-controlled flight computers for purposes of hijack recovery. This was stated by a British intelligence operative and was also suggested by a former German secretary of defense. The technology needed for such systems is well known, and its utility is obvious. If these systems had been operative on 9/11, then they should have been used to take control from the hijackers. Secondly, the US air force has standard operating procedure to send jet to intercept hijacked aircraft within minutes after they are reported. These fighters may be armed and are certainly very maneuverable, and an airliner cannot hope to match them. For these reasons, the Arab hijackers' mission should have been an ignominious failure. These measures (as well as pre-9/11 airport security measures) have been effective enough that hijacking has rarely been a problem for many years now. But on 9/11, the remote control systems were not used to bring the planes home, nor did fighters scramble to escort. Instead, the airplanes executed highly skilled aerobatic maneuvers (well beyond any known educational background of the Arab student pilots) and crashed into the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon. If the remote controls were used, who was operating them? The World Trade Center towers are 'designed to withstand aircraft impact, which they did for about an hour'. Then they collapsed directly to the ground, with remarkably little collateral damage to surrounding buildings, in a manner strikingly resembling the appearance of controlled demolitions. The US government claims that fire was responsible for the collapse, and this is certainly possible, but many reports have overstated the likely heat of the fire and the amount of fuel from the airplanes which was not consumed in the fireballs outside the towers. If explosives had been planted in the World Trade Center towers, they could have been used to trigger the collapse of the towers. Building 7 was destroyed later in the afternoon. It was never hit by any airplane, so there is no known reason (besides explosives) for it to have collapsed into rubble. However, a cloud of dust was seen in the area of building 7 immediately before the collapse of the south tower, which has not been explained. While the whole attack was going on (a period well over an hour) George W. Bush sat in a classroom and listened to a story about goats, and the US military did not respond to the first three attacks. A fourth flight was also "hijacked" that day, but it was apparently struck down by some sort of missile or bomb before crashing in Pennsylvania. Within hours, a massive media campaign to blame the attacks on Arabs and specifically on Osama Bin Laden was begun, and this campaign has continued to the present day. Our traditional American form of government, unfortunately, may not survive -- the Patriot Act appears poised to supersede the Bill of Rights. Given the many uncertainties about these events, it certainly seems that there should be more questions, more investigations, and more thoughtfulness about the responsibilities of the various parties involved. A little bit of logic will reveal that the Arabs alone could not have been solely responsible for the entire chain of events. It is equally unlikely that the Israelis could have pulled it off alone. Yet instead the US government is gathering up support for war against Middle Eastern nations, a tragic response to the enigmatic events of that day.


Email This Article





MainPage
http://www.rense.com









The latest way to pay is at our fingertips
Saturday, April 27, 2002
By JANE HADLEY
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER CONSUMER AFFAIRS REPORTER
Shoppers headed for the West Seattle Thriftway Wednesday can leave their credit cards, debit cards and checks at home. They just need to make sure to bring their index fingers.
The supermarket will be the first in Washington and one of the first in the nation to use a biometrics system -- finger scanning -- to tie consumers to their credit cards, electronic benefit cards and checking accounts, says the maker of the system, Indivos of Oakland, Calif.
"The main thing is, it's fast, it's easy, and it's secure," says Paul Kapioski, West Seattle Thriftway owner.
Consumers enroll in the system by putting their index finger on an image reader, which runs digital information for 13 points on the finger through a formula, and stores the encrypted information on Indivos servers. Consumers register whichever cards or accounts they want associated with their finger scan.
"It takes about one minute to enroll," Kapioski said. Enrollment begins Wednesday and is strictly voluntary, he emphasized. Wary customers still will be able to pay the old-fashioned way if they want.
Once enrolled, consumers won't need to hassle with their wallets or purses. Instead, they'll just pass their fingers over the image reader.
For those whose payment is tied to their checking account or debit card, that's it. Customers who want their credit card billed still will have to sign a receipt.
The main advantage of the new system, Kapioski said, is the security. People no longer have to worry that their cards will be lost or stolen and then used to run up hefty charges. Stores and credit card issuers will likewise avoid the losses associated with identity theft.
"If we can come up with a payment method where there's no opportunity for fraud, then the fees come down," Kapioski said.
He first saw the Indivos system at a technology show in San Diego in January and expressed interest to Doug Mills of Associated Grocers. Mills agreed that Kapioski's store, at Southwest Morgan Street and California Avenue Southwest, could be the first Thriftway to try it.
Employees underwent 15 or 20 minutes of training in the system this week.
"They're excited about it," Kapioski said.
Kapioski said he's put about four months into studying the system to remove any doubts, and he claims "it's foolproof."
If other stores adopt the Indivos system, consumers would not need to re-enroll, because their finger scans and accounts would already be in Indivos' servers, said Jim Nickerson, a company spokesman.
McDonald's has done a limited pilot of the system in California.
"They love it because it takes the cash out of the hands of 18-year-old clerks," Nickerson said.
Nickerson expects a flurry of announcements in coming weeks of major chains adopting the system. Indivos' main competitor, Biometric Access Corp. of Round Rock, Texas, rolled out a pilot test of its biometric system in some Kroger grocery stores in Texas about two weeks ago.
Indivos has sued Biometric Access for patent infringement.
Kapioski said his store will not have to pay for installing the image readers, but will pay a per-transaction fee to Indivos.
Because Indivos makes its money per transaction, it is focused on getting its system into stores that have many small transactions, Kapioski said.
"They say they don't own Manhattan," he said. "They own the bridges to Manhattan."






'Living in a police state'



By JOHN WISELY and STEPHEN W. HUBER, Of The Oakland Press April 24, 2002




April 24, 2002The state Legislature has given police power to search your home without telling you why.
Two new laws, which took effect Monday as part of anti-terror efforts, also shield from public scrutiny the reasons for police searches.Defense lawyers and civil libertarians are outraged at the laws, which make search warrants and supporting documents such as affidavits non-public records."If you think the police did secretive work before, just wait," defense attorney William Cataldo said. "It gives more power to the ignorant and more power to those who would take your rights."Defense lawyer Walter Piszczatowski said: "This is nuts, this is beyond nuts. "What happened to the Fourth Amendment? We're living in a police state."That means the public, the press, and in some cases even the person accused of the crime, can't know why the police entered a home without permission.Under previous laws, the records were public, unless a judge ordered them sealed for a specific reason. In federal courts, that remains the case. But now, search warrants in state courts are automatically closed to public view."I think this is absolutely unconstitutional," said Dawn Phillips, a First Amendment lawyer with the Michigan Press Association. "We objected to it at the time. This thing passed like greased lightning."The House portion of the bill passed unanimously and the Senate version passed 27-8. The chief sponsor of the bill in the state senate was Shirley Johnson (R-Royal Oak) while Bill Bullard (R-Highland Township) was a cosponsor. In the state House, Nancy Cassis (R-Novi) was among 20 sponsors.The American Civil Liberties Union also objected to the law's change. ACLU spokeswoman Wendy Wagenheim said the group is reviewing the law.Law enforcement supported the changes. Oakland County Prosecutor David Gorcyca said the laws protect victims, witnesses and confidential informants.Gorcyca said the procedure for obtaining a search warrant didn't change, nor did the rights of the defendant to challenge a bad warrant or the ill-gotten gains of an illegal search."When affidavits are filed, previously they divulged a large portion of the investigation and where it was heading and that could hamper the investigation and the direction of the investigation," Gorcyca said."It doesn't mean you can circumvent the judicial process. All we're doing is suppressing the contents of the affidavit. It does prevent the public and the media from obtaining information during the investigation but it doesn't prevent the defendant and the defense attorney from challenging the search warrant."Gorcyca cited drug conspiracy cases as those where witnesses are frequently in danger unless their identity is kept private during the investigation."In the drug world, witnesses are fearful all the time," he said. "Those are reluctant witnesses who are afraid to come forward and testify. In those cases, fear and intimidation is real. That's why grand juries are so vital. And this provides the same secrecy as a grand jury and does not impugn anyone's rights."Civil libertarians say those goals can be met with a much narrower approach, like the one used in federal court."A judicial finding needs to be made on a case-by-case basis," said David Moran, a constitutional law professor at Wayne State University in Detroit. When police are investigating a crime and they believe evidence is stored in someone's home, car or other private place, they must submit a sworn affidavit to the court spelling out their case.A judge reviews the document, then decides if there is enough evidence to search without the owner's permission.The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires "probable cause" to issue a warrant and notes they must be written "particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized." The changes are contained in two new laws - public acts 112 and 128. State Court administrator John Ferry Jr. spelled out the changes to courts across the state in a memo last Friday. Public act 112 makes "all search warrants, affidavits and tabulations in any court file or record retention system nonpublic," according to Ferry's memo.The memo goes on to say that public act 128 "provides for suppression of a search warrant affidavit upon a showing that it is necessary to protect an ongoing investigation or the privacy or the safety of a victim or witness."When contacted Tuesday for clarification on the memo, a spokeswoman for the state court administrator's office declined comment. Marcia McBrien said the laws could appear before the Supreme Court for interpretation and it would be improper for her to offer one in advance.The new laws could also create headaches for court recordkeepers. In many courts, search warrants are filed along with the case file. It's unclear how clerks will keep the two separate.The new law also affects the rights of people who are searched. According to a analysis of the law done in the House of Representatives, the state Court of Appeals ruled that affidavits be given along with a warrant at the time of a search.The new law changes that."An officer executing a search is not required to give a copy of the affidavit to the person or leave a copy at the place from which the property was taken," according to Ferry's memo.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is
distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and
educational purposes only. For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
Bush in Bed with Homosexuals
By Chuck Baldwin
April 23, 2002


By now, we have a clear record on the Bush administration in regard to
homosexuality. The record reveals that President Bush is more than
sympathetic to the homosexual agenda. One could even argue that Bush has
become (or always was) a proud promoter of that agenda. Here is the record;
you judge for yourself.

1. Candidate George W. Bush appointed four openly homosexual, gay-rights
advocates to his presidential campaign steering committee. According to the
homosexual group, Log Cabin Republicans, "scores" of Bush state steering
committee members and campaign volunteers were homosexuals.

2. Perhaps this explains why hundreds of homosexuals gathered in Washington,
D.C., last weekend to "celebrate the achievements and leadership of George
W. Bush." It also helps to explain why Rich Tafel, executive director of Log
Cabin Republicans, said, "We want the country to know that we are behind our
president and administration."

3. On Dec. 21, 2001, President Bush signed a historic bill, which "for the
first time allows the District of Columbia government to fund a program that
will give domestic partners of city employees access to health benefits."
Remember, Bush insisted that openly homosexual Congressman Jim Kolbe of
Arizona be given a prominent speaking role at the Republican National
Convention. It was Kolbe who introduced the amendment lifting the ban on
gay partner benefits in D.C.

4. Bush named Scot Evertz, a prominent homosexual activist, to head the
White House AIDS office even though he had absolutely no experience dealing
with public health issues.

5. Bush appointed another homosexual activist, Donald Cappoccia, to the U.S.
Commission on Fine Arts.

6. Bush appointed openly homosexual, Michael Guest, as Ambassador to
Romania. Since then, Bush has decided to leave in place a Clinton policy
that calls for supporting the "unmarried partners" of U.S. Foreign Service
workers. This allows Guest's live-in lover to live in the U.S. Embassy in
Bucharest and allows him to join Guest at official embassy functions.

7. Bush presided over the appointment of homosexual activist, Stephen
Herbits, to oversee the choice of civilian personnel at the Pentagon.

8. Bush has not reversed a single pro-homosexual policy instituted by former
president Bill Clinton. Not even one!

9. The Bush administration posted a job for what is called a "gay and
lesbian program specialist" at the Department of Agriculture.

10. Bush appointed the ardently pro-homosexual Governor of Massachussetts,
Paul Cellucci, as U.S. Ambassador to Canada.

11. Bush appointed Lewis Eisenberg to become the new GOP chief fundraiser.
Eisenberg has a long history of supporting pro-homosexual and pro-abortion
candidates.

12. Just yesterday, The Washington Times reported, "The Bush administration
has joined European delegates to an upcoming U.N. summit on children in
moving to recognize families 'in various forms,' including unmarried
cohabiting couples and homosexual partners."

Concerned Women for America is so concerned that it recently released a
statement saying, "President George Bush is just another Bill Clinton on the
homosexual-rights issue." Perhaps Log Cabin spokesman, Rich Tafel, best
summarized the situation. He said, "He [Bush] has a vision of a different
Republican Party." If homosexual activists such as Tafel can see the real
George W. Bush, why cannot Christian conservatives?

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.