Well with all those piñatas, fireworks and straw sombreros laying around, you gotta figure the place would go up in flames at some point!
Statistics: Posted by geiginni_Archive — Wed Aug 20, 2008 9:17 pm
]]>
My argument is irrefutable. If you do not agree, then you are an idiot.
Statistics: Posted by happyandbored_Archive — Wed Aug 20, 2008 9:04 pm
]]>
Rick Reuben wrote:
[CTRL-C] [CTRL-V]Rick Reuben wrote:Here's a photo of a controlled demolition, featuring demolition squibs firing in numerous places, off center, even before any pancaking has resulted:
[INSULT]But
[CTRL-C] [CTRL-V]Gramsci, you dope, why are there are all these photos of demolition squibs ejecting from known controlled demolitions, before any pancaking, if the cause is pancaking??? Your 'explanation' for these squibs is good comedy. Your faith in these liars is bottomless. No one is more faithful than you ( or more terrified of peer pressure...)
Squibs appear, no pancaking:
Not
[CTRL-C] [CTRL-V]WTC:
[CTRL-C] [CTRL-V]WTC:
[SARCASM]WTC:
Pop, pop, pop go the squibs.
Statistics: Posted by happyandbored_Archive — Wed Aug 20, 2008 9:03 pm
]]>
[INSULT]Rick Reuben wrote:If NIST told Gramsci that the fires were hotter than the sun's core, Gramsci would accept it without blinking an eye. NIST's own reports never show temps hotter than 800 celsius around any core column.Gramsci wrote: NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.
[CTRL-C] [CTRL-V]Face it, you dunce. Skyscrapers are built out of steel because fire doesn't bring them down.
People standing right in the impact zone of WTC1:
[CTRL-C] [CTRL-V]
[UNPLEASANT SMUGNESS]
How about those white-hot flames??
Statistics: Posted by happyandbored_Archive — Wed Aug 20, 2008 8:56 pm
]]>
[INSULT]Rick Reuben wrote:gramsci wrote: no one apart from 9-11 cranks proposed the steel melted...
Something melted in those towers...what do you think it was,
[CTRL-C] [CTRL-V]meathead? Cough drops from someone's desk?
[CTRL-C] [CTRL-V]
Statistics: Posted by happyandbored_Archive — Wed Aug 20, 2008 8:55 pm
]]>
You're an idiot.
CTRL-C
CTRL-V
You're an idiot.
CTRL-C
CTRL-V
You're an idiot.
CTRL-C
CTRL-V
You're an idiot.
CTRL-C
CTRL-V
You're an idiot.
CTRL-C
CTRL-V
You're an idiot.
CTRL-C
CTRL-V
You're an idiot.
CTRL-C
CTRL-V
You're an idiot.
CTRL-C
CTRL-V
You're an idiot.
Since there are thousands of websites covering all sides of the argument to varying degrees of complexity, it is safe to assume that somewhere out there is a professional opinion somewhere on the internet which is opposed to and slightly more convincing than your current favourite. Simply imagine I've gone to the great lengths required to find it.
My argument is irrefutable. If you do not agree, then you are an idiot.
Statistics: Posted by happyandbored_Archive — Wed Aug 20, 2008 6:40 pm
]]>
Rick Reuben wrote:( Of course, to illustrate this hypothesis, first Gramsci would need a video of a steel skyscraper 'collapsing' from fire, and since the only three examples of such videos were all made on 9/11/01, that limits the selection. )
)"Melted" Steel"
Claim: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "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." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."
FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength — and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."
"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.
But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.
"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."
So Tom, it looks like your "melted steel" story only works as a strawman, as no one apart from 9-11 cranks proposed the steel melted...
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster
4. Weren't the puffs of smoke that were seen, as the collapse of each WTC tower starts, evidence of controlled demolition explosions?
No. As stated in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, the falling mass of the building compressed the air ahead of it—much like the action of a piston—forcing smoke and debris out the windows as the stories below failed sequentially.
These puffs were observed at many locations as the towers collapsed. In all cases, they had the appearance of jets of gas being pushed from the building through windows or between columns on the mechanical floors. Such jets are expected since the air inside the building is compressed as the tower falls and must flow somewhere as the pressure builds. It is significant that similar “puffs” were observed numerous times on the fire floors in both towers prior to their collapses, perhaps due to falling walls or portions of a floor. Puffs from WTC 1 were even observed when WTC 2 was struck by the aircraft. These observations confirm that even minor overpressures were transmitted through the towers and forced smoke and debris from the building.
Tom, you are just going have to face up to the fact that you are deluded. However, along with your insecurity regarding the possible use of holograms to fake the plane impacts and your conclusion that one possible theory of elite control is by a group of Demon/Human hybrids, I'll leave it up to you if you think you aren't loosing it.
How about from now on you keep your 9-11 foil-hat shite in one of the 9-11 foil-hat threads you started?
Statistics: Posted by Gramsci_Archive — Wed Aug 20, 2008 2:46 pm
]]>
Considering how dry and arid the climate of Mexico is then we can safely assume it is very combustible. Compare to the ice plains of Greenland in this respect.
Do we have any Geographers on EA to verify?
Statistics: Posted by chairman_hall_Archive — Wed Aug 20, 2008 3:38 am
]]>
Rick Reuben wrote:
Man, look at those squibs. Dead center. That's professional demolition work.
Wow. Gramsci can use Google. Wonder why he keeps missing this?Gramsci wrote: The Economist's Country Briefing on Mexico
Man, look at those squibs. Dead center. That's professional demolition work.
Puffs Of Dust
Claim: As each tower collapsed, clearly visible puffs of dust and debris were ejected from the sides of the buildings. An advertisement in The New York Times for the book Painful Questions: An Analysis Of The September 11th Attack made this claim: "The concrete clouds shooting out of the buildings are not possible from a mere collapse. They do occur from explosions." Numerous conspiracy theorists cite Van Romero, an explosives expert and vice president of the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, who was quoted on 9/11 by the Albuquerque Journal as saying "there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse." The article continues, "Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures."
FACT: Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report.
Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air — along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse — was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."
Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."
Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years."
Statistics: Posted by Gramsci_Archive — Wed Aug 20, 2008 1:23 am
]]>
Graham Hick wrote:When I read the title of this thread I thought it had something to do with the Minutemen. Boy was I wrong.
Yeah, I thought it said Econolinecrash.
Statistics: Posted by cesb_Archive — Wed Aug 20, 2008 12:18 am
]]>
]]>
happyandbored wrote:
That's not a squib. That's an umbrella.
Rick Reuben wrote:Wow. Gramsci can use Google. Wonder why he keeps missing this?Gramsci wrote: The Economist's Country Briefing on Mexico
Man, look at those squibs. Dead center. That's professional demolition work.
That's not a squib. That's an umbrella.
Excellent work, happyandbored.
Statistics: Posted by cesb_Archive — Tue Aug 19, 2008 11:09 pm
]]>
Rick Reuben wrote:
Man, look at those squibs. Dead center. That's professional demolition work.
Wow. Gramsci can use Google. Wonder why he keeps missing this?Gramsci wrote: The Economist's Country Briefing on Mexico
Man, look at those squibs. Dead center. That's professional demolition work.
That's not a squib. That's an umbrella.
Statistics: Posted by happyandbored_Archive — Tue Aug 19, 2008 9:49 pm
]]>
http://www.economist.com/countries/Mexico/
Outlook for 2008-09
Eighteen months into his six-year term, the president, Felipe Calderon, has just a small window of opportunity to advance a controversial energy reform before attention focuses on the 2009 mid-term election.
A high level of violence stemming from organised crime represents a serious challenge to Mexico's deficient security forces. Mr Calderon's authority will be partly dependent on his ability to achieve improvements in this area.
Rising oil revenue will facilitate a countercyclical increase in expenditure in 2008 without jeopardising the fiscal balance. However, energy reform to raise oil output will be needed to contain contingent liabilities in the longer term.
With the US in recession in the first half of 2008 under the Economist Intelligence Unit's central forecast, we expect GDP growth in Mexico to slow to 2.3% in 2008 before recovering slightly to 2.5% in 2009.
We now expect inflation to end 2008 at 4.8%, significantly higher than the 4% target ceiling. Our projection of a decline to 4% at end-2009 is vulnerable to a risk of wider contamination from food and producer price pressures.
The trade deficit will widen further in 2008-09 despite historically high oil prices, as a contraction in US import volumes hits export earnings.
Looks like business as usual Tom.
But as you once said on these boards, you can just keep slinging shit around and maybe, just maybe, you actually might be right about something... probably most likely on averages...
What next Tom, going to mention that there are problems with violence in the Favelas of Sao Paulo...?
Genius.
Statistics: Posted by Gramsci_Archive — Tue Aug 19, 2008 2:45 pm
]]>
Rick Reuben wrote:
It's not confused, dopey. It's a post that points at warning signs of growing instability in Mexico. As in: Combustibility. Get it? Probably not.
losthighway wrote:This thread starts with four different issues all confused.
It's not confused, dopey. It's a post that points at warning signs of growing instability in Mexico. As in: Combustibility. Get it? Probably not.
It would seem that those "warning signs" could pretty much apply to any time period in Mexico over the past 100 or so years.
Mexico is a developing country with major problems compounded by a dominant and bullying northern neighbour , surprise, surprise.
Tom you are incredible, I suggest you start traveling, have you even even left Chicago?
Statistics: Posted by Gramsci_Archive — Tue Aug 19, 2008 2:01 am
]]>