GazeboflossUK

Tower block fire aids 9/11 debate BBC News A high-rise block in Glasgow has been set alight in an attempt to understand how blazes affect buildings and ensure future safety in emergencies. Jose Torero, professor of fire safety engineering at the University of Edinburgh, conducted the experiment on a 24-storey tower block in Dalmarnock. He also hopes it will shed light on why the Twin Towers collapsed on 9/11. Prof Torero said he believed the World Trade Centre in New York should have "withstood burnout" after it was hit. The collapse of the towers in September 2001, after they were hit by hijacked aircraft, resulted in the deaths of almost 2,800 workers and 350 firefighters and emergency workers. Prof Torero said: "It didn't even cross my mind the buildings would collapse. "From my perspective, those buildings were designed to last structurally for between three to four hours, enough time to get everyone out who had survived. The experiment took place in a block of flats on Millerfield Place and Allan Street. In one room, more than nine miles of cable and sensors were installed. He said: "The concept is that if we can get an accurate idea of what's happening inside the building I can lead people to safety and minimise the growth of the fire." A BBC Horizon programme, to be broadcast in the next few months, is looking at Prof Torero's experiment. This isn't in any way like what happened on 9/11 but I thought it was worth a post.

America predicted to attack Iran & Syria in October: Gul RAWALPINDI: The former chief of ISI, Maj. Gen ® Hameed Gul has "predicted" that America would definitely attack Iran and Syria simultaneously in October. He was talking after attending the Hamdard Majlis Shoora, Tuesday evening. He also condemned the lackluster and weak reaction of Pakistan and Islamic bloc about Israel’s attack of Lebanon. Analyzing the current war scenario he observed that war has both political and strategic factors and despite "using" Israel, America has lost the war in Lebanon, where masses have united against the recent Israeli onslaught, and would have been more formidable if the generals of Saddam had not sold out to American dollars. He analyzed that Israel would soon be "forced" to stop its land strikes but would continue its horrific and heinous air strikes against Lebanon, converting it to ruins. He also "predicted" that after Iran and Syria, Saudi Arabia would also meet the same fate, followed by Pakistan. http://www.onlinenews.com.pk/details.php?id=100487

It sure does.

You guys are sick. And Green Eyes......You say "finally someone with EYES!!".....Even after you said that people needed to live there to know what's really going on.....why are posts so perfect?......by what you have said previously he shouldn't know whether that news is correct or not. Which it isn't.

No, no....look.....I meant that the fires were NO WHERE NEAR enough to cause the towers to crumble all the way to the floor in the absolutely ridiculous way that they did. Yes I did post the article by the company that certified the steel componets used in the constuction of the World Trade Center towers and he said that the jet fuel used actaully can ONLY burn at those temperatures.....obviously other things in there were burning, papers and desks...etc. (Also 'thermate' was used in the charges to slice through the steel, making it fall.) And the theory about the pressure causing the collapse is a lie too. The pressure then is said to cause the "pan-cake" effect where each floor is hit by the floor above and causes the fall.....BUT the pan-cake theory would have caused the buildings to fall down a heck of a lot slower.....not at almost scientific 'Free Fall' speeds. Yes, this demolition wasn't really a "controlled" demolition as such (like build 7 was).....the towers had to be destroyed in such a way to help hide most of the explosive charges going off......you can still see alot of them.....but I think it would have been even harder to sell the story of the planes causing the collapse to the public if it had of fell like Building 7, down on it's own footprint. There would have been too much exposure to all of the demo charges. And your right....US military and planning isn't quite as great as it thinks it is - this wasn't the best inside job, far from it.....that's why we caught them out.

NORAD Tapes Only Intensify Implausibility Of 9/11 Official Story "These guys are smart," statement completely inconsistent with flight instructors description of hijacker's skills Paul Joseph Watson | August 2 2006 Newly released portions of NORAD tapes from 9/11 featured in a Vanity Fair article do little to answer skeptic's questions about the impotence of U.S. air defenses on 9/11 and if anything only increase focus on the incompatibility of the official version of events with what is actually known to have taken place on that day. It is clear that the exercises revolving around hijacked airliners scheduled for that morning created so much noise in the system that controllers could not pinpoint the positions of any of the real airliners to orchestrate any kind of intercept. Errant 'ghost' aircraft such as 'Delta 89' and American Airlines 11 which controllers weren't aware had already crashed into the World Trade Center north tower continually confuse NORAD officials and at one point after Flight 77 has hit the Pentagon, they even intercept their own aircraft. Several exchanges between NORAD personnel outline the confusion that the drills caused and delayed the response of air defense procedures. 08:37:52 BOSTON CENTER: Hi. Boston Center T.M.U. [Traffic Management Unit], we have a problem here. We have a hijacked aircraft headed towards New York, and we need you guys to, we need someone to scramble some F-16s or something up there, help us out. POWELL: Is this real-world or exercise? BOSTON CENTER: No, this is not an exercise, not a test. 8:37:56 WATSON: What? DOOLEY: Whoa! WATSON: What was that? ROUNTREE: Is that real-world? DOOLEY: Real-world hijack. WATSON: Cool! "When they told me there was a hijack, my first reaction was 'Somebody started the exercise early,'" said mission-crew commander Major Kevin Nasypany. The exercise of running numerous war games where planes would be mock-hijacked and crashed into high-profile targets is dismissed as a coincidence by the writer Michael Bronner, with no discussion of the astronomical improbability of the two scenarios colliding, in alliance with similar same target, same time drills which took place during the London bombings. The tapes betray the fact that NORAD's attention to the fact that Flight 77 was heading towards Washington are virtually non-existent as they struggle to gain authorization to shoot down stray aircraft. Despite the lies of Cheney in his subsequent TV interviews and statements given under oath to the 9/11 Commission, those shoot down orders never arrived, even after United 93 had crashed in Pennsylvania. While NORAD struggled to comprehend what exactly was heading towards Washington, in Dick Cheney's PEOC bunker things were apparently a lot clearer. The testimony of Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta is brought under more scrutiny by the NORAD tapes. How could Cheney know exactly what was heading for Washington and give clear orders for its path to remain clear, while the very people mandated to defend the skies of America scrambled desperately to make sense of the chaos and get fighters in the positions they needed to be? "During the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President, "The plane is 50 miles out." "The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to "the plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the Vice President, "Do the orders still stand?" "And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?" Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta's testimony to the 9/11 Commission, May 23, 2003. The impotence of NORAD in only having access to four fighters to cover the entire eastern seaboard of the US contradicts the fact that 35 USAF bases alone were within range of the hijacked flights but were never called upon or given as an option. The quick response by NORAD to the golfer Payne Stewart's off-course aircraft in 1999 is often cited as contradicting with procedure on 9/11. In addition, there were 67 occasions where fighters were scrambled to intercept errant aircraft in the 9 month period before 9/11. Other segments of the tapes only raise more questions and do not provide any answers to long-standing mysteries. - How did the admittedly incompetent pilot hijackers turn off the transponders of all the aircraft? A procedure, according to professionals that we have talked to, is often beyond the capability of even the most experienced commercial pilots? - In one portion of the tapes, NORAD personnel are heard to marvel at the excellence of the hijacker's strategy. 9:23:15 ANDERSON: They're probably not squawking anything [broadcasting a beacon code] anyway. I mean, obviously these guys are in the cockpit. NASYPANY: These guys are smart. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yeah, they knew exactly what they wanted to do. These guys are smart? Contrast this statement with those of the flight instructors when describing the skills of the alleged hijackers. Mohammed Atta: "His attention span was zero." Khalid Al-Mihdhar: "We didn't kick him out, but he didn't live up to our standards." Marwan Al-Shehhi: “He was dropped because of his limited English and incompetence at the controls.” Salem Al-Hazmi: "We advised him to quit after two lessons.” Do the descriptions afforded to these men square with the chaos that their skills in evading detection brought to the NORAD control room? Or were the planes being controlled by some other means than morons who could barely get single engine Cessna's off the ground - but who apparently ran the world's most sophisticated air defense ragged for hours? Does the panic that envelops the NORAD control room and the fear that new reports of hijacked planes will never end, coupled with speculation that anything (the White House and the Statue of Liberty are mentioned) could be a target, corroborate with the actions of President Bush's security detail? Reports of numerous stray aircraft, bombs on planes, and truck bombs at the Pentagon fly and yet President Bush sits calmly in a Florida classroom apparently safe in the knowledge that he is not a target. Why wasn't the President hurried into the nearest underground bunker as soon as Card told him "America is under attack," unless Bush's people were confident of the exact targets beforehand, and that Bush himself wasn't one of them? The writer of the Vanity Fair piece has taken the NORAD tapes on their own and attempted to forward them as proof that the official version of events is largely accurate, minus the proven lies about the non-authorization of shoot downs. The problem is that the behavior of the errant planes, when overlaid with the activities of Cheney and Bush, standard intercept operating procedure (minus the intentional confusion of an untold number of blips from the NORAD drills) and the incompetent hijackers, simply does not corroborate. Furthermore, the tape portions amount to a total of no more than 20 minutes of hand-picked cmmunications and it is admitted that the discussions of the higher brass are not recorded due to secrecy. Nothing is mentioned of the six tapes of air traffic control communications with the hijacked airliners that were deliberately destroyed by FAA managers. The purpose of the Vanity Fair and a similar Washington Post article is to whitewash the entire affair and blame 9/11 on the incompetence of NORAD. The NORAD tapes, far from dissolving so-called "conspiracy theories," only serve to support the weight of evidence that points directly towards a deliberate plan on September 11, 2001 to make the air defenses of the United States impotent and to enable the planes to find their targets.

Hmmm, good point too.... They've got us by the jaffers alright......screwed either way.

Again......calling me silly......trying to discredit the info by saying "And you honestly think an aeroplane that crashes is only give of 250c heat"......which you know FINE WELL that I know that the fire would be higher in temperature...but still not enough to destroy every inch down to the floor. Plus, I NEVER SAID THAT ABOUT THE PLANES NOT BRINGING IT DOWN, THE PEOPLE WHO BUILT AND CHECKED THE BUILDINGS SAID THIS!!! Whatever you say against it is a proven lie.....trust me. ....and you actually told me to "get a life" and not to watch "silly TV progrmmes" didn't you???.........pathetic. We'll see how silly it all is 'pal'.

Good point. I believe the whole top end of government should go. They can not be trusted and are proven liars. I mean, how have we allowed them to get away with murder for this long? I often think about that. They never answer a question properly and the public have got used to this.....how? These are the people who have a MASSIVE effect on our lives and we have become so sedated as a nation that we allow it?? Just lie their way out of it, most of the time they just answer it with either another question or give an answer to a question that was never asked. They mention the word "terrorism" and people go "Phew, it's ok.....terrorism is bad....so they can say/do what they like......just save me from the nasty muslim terrorists!!" It's a sick joke....isn't it? Absolute scum.

I mean, you always say things like "I'll go with the experts on this" but really, your "experts" are just on the government pay-roll.... Look, the "WTC Construction and Project Manager" discusses the fact that the WTC towers were designed to take multiple hits from airliners and not collapse, comparing it to poking a pencil through fly netting, DeMartini was adament that the towers would not collapse. DeMartini died in the towers on 9/11, this interview clip was taken from video shot in January 2001. WATCH the WTC Construction and Project Manager talk about it here As well as this... Here is someone else who you can't say doesn't know what he's talking about... WTC Construction Certifiers Say Towers Should Have Easily Withstood Jet Fuel Temperatures Kevin Ryan/Underwriters Laboratories | November 12 2004 The following letter was sent today by Kevin Ryan of Underwriters Laboratories to Frank Gayle of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Underwriters Laboratories is the company that certified the steel componets used in the constuction of the World Trade Center towers. The information in this letter is of great importance. Dr. Gayle, Having recently reviewed your team's report of 10/19/04, I felt the need to contact you directly. As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year, I learned that they did not agree on the essential aspects of the story, except for one thing - that the samples we certified met all requirements. They suggested we all be patient and understand that UL was working with your team, and that tests would continue through this year. I'm aware of UL's attempts to help, including performing tests on models of the floor assemblies. But the results of these tests appear to indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel. There continues to be a number of "experts" making public claims about how the WTC buildings fell. One such person, Dr. Hyman Brown from the WTC construction crew, claims that the buildings collapsed due to fires at 2000F melting the steel (1). He states "What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuel…burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor area melts." Additionally, the newspaper that quotes him says "Just-released preliminary findings from a National Institute of Standards and Technology study of the World Trade Center collapse support Brown’s theory." We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all. The results of your recently published metallurgical tests seem to clear things up (3), and support your team's August 2003 update as detailed by the Associated Press (4), in which you were ready to "rule out weak steel as a contributing factor in the collapse." The evaluation of paint deformation and spheroidization seem very straightforward, and you noted that the samples available were adequate for the investigation. Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation. However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings, as it suggests that these low temperatures caused exposed bits of the building’s steel core to "soften and buckle." (5) Additionally this summary states that the perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make clear that "most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250C." To soften steel for the purposes of forging, normally temperatures need to be above1100C (6). However, this new summary report suggests that much lower temperatures were be able to not only soften the steel in a matter of minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse. This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I’m sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans. Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around 250C suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure. That suggestion should be of great concern to my company. There is no question that the events of 9/11 are the emotional driving force behind the War on Terror. And the issue of the WTC collapse is at the crux of the story of 9/11. My feeling is that your metallurgical tests are at the crux of the crux of the crux. Either you can make sense of what really happened to those buildings, and communicate this quickly, or we all face the same destruction and despair that come from global decisions based on disinformation and “chatter”. Thanks for your efforts to determine what happened on that day. You may know that there are a number of other current and former government employees that have risked a great deal to help us to know the truth. I've copied one of these people on this message as a sign of respect and support. I believe your work could also be a nucleus of fact around which the truth, and thereby global peace and justice, can grow again. Please do what you can to quickly eliminate the confusion regarding the ability of jet fuel fires to soften or melt structural steel. 1. http://www.boulderweekly.com/archive/102104/coverstory.html 2. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 61st edition, pg D-187 3. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P3MechanicalandMetAnalysisofSteel.pdf 4. http://www.voicesofsept11.org/archive/911ic/082703.php 5. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTACWTCStatusFINAL101904WEB2.pdf (pg 11) 6. http://www.forging.org/FIERF/pdf/ffaaMacSleyne.pdf Kevin Ryan Site Manager Environmental Health Laboratories A Division of Underwriters Laboratories

When The Explosives Were Placed: WTC South Tower Upper Floors Closed on 9/8 & 9/9 San Francisco Indymedia | April 23 2004 Many people have theorized the World Trade Center was wired with explosives, causing the unprecedented collapse following the impacts of two jumbo jets. In fact, NYC firefighters remarked that day that it seemed like bombs were going off in the buildings, just prior to the tower's collapse. One glaring question remains unanswered: exactly how and when could such a monumental undertaking be accomplished. Read on for the answer... Feedback from the Progressive Review's Undernews for April 22, 2004. WE RECEIVED THE FOLLOWING from someone who worked for Fiduciary Trust on the 90th, 94-97th floors of the South Tower: "On the weekend of 9/8,9/9 there was a 'power down' condition in WTC tower 2, the south tower. This power down condition meant there was no electrical supply for approx 36 hrs from floor 50 up. I am aware of this situation since I work in IT and had to work with many others that weekend to ensure that all systems were cleanly shutdown beforehand ... and then brought back up afterwards. The reason given by the WTC for the power down was that cabling in the tower was being upgraded ... "Of course without power there were no security cameras, no security locks on doors and many, many 'engineers' coming in and out of the tower. I was at home on the morning of 9/11 on the shore of Jersey City, right opposite the Towers, and watching events unfold I was convinced immediately that something was happening related to the weekend work."

Yeah, I know.

Hey, I've mentioned my feelings on the Pentagon evidence many times.....and yes....I changed my view on it because some other, more logical evidence came to be....that's the way it goes. I'M NARROW MINDED???!!!???!!!! GOD , I know it's complex and I've read into EVERY single detail for the past 5 years. Unlike you who seems to be making these arguements based on a couple of google searches and copying/pasting some links. I've covered EVERY detail and I now know exactly what I'm talking about. When I post info it's because I have investigated it fully and believe it to be right.

He does get involved. Anyway.....you would vote for Chris Martin. (!!) Jesus.

I can't believe I converse with such people for extensive periods.

We've seen all this man. It's THOSE theories which have been proved wrong....lol.... Apart from the Pentagon issue.....which is still a gray area......More lke a Global Hawk plane hit it.

When I say corporate 'globalisation' I mean a group of companies/organistions/banks, who are actually bigger than and in control of governments, creating these problems, illegally taking over countries based on lies and stealing their resources to make even more money so that they can turn our lives into an Orwellian nightmare.

Haha.....I know and I even post ANTI-MYSPACE blogs.....lol. For the Record, I had a myspace before he bought it.

No, no no....you dont get it. (Been around since 1851?? you think 'how old' it is means anything??) I listen to the guys who run the sites everyday.....they mention that they are not in agreement with what real 'terrorist groups' are doing and that they never like most of the Iranian polices for example.......BUT....."The other side" as you call it, is a view point from the side of the Globalist nuts who created the problems in the first place....... Anyway....I try to promote the truth. That's the bottom line. I'm a very careful and intelligent person. Ok, you can believe what you want.......and I'll sure as hell do the same. Good luck with that.

From Radiohead.com "ive had enough of this our government sitting on the fence with the US while world war 3 appears to be breaking out in Lebanon and Northern Israel. we must throw Tony Blair our of office NOW. he does not represent the views of the british people. he does not represent the views of his foreign office and officials. he does not even represent the views of those in his cabinet. he cares far too much about his relationship with Bush, and Murdoch. this man is not fit to be our prime minister. its a nice sunny day. come on lets do it. you know it makes sense. a vote of no confidence. or something. anything.." Thom Damn right.

Haha, people will read Reuters and think it's more reliable, you got that right. It's unfortunate, I know. It's that 'stuck in the middle' bullshit that allows these criminals get away with it......you can't see that. Anyway, you obviously haven't read enough to know that the sources I use ARE anti Hezbollah and are anti Terrorism.......but are trying to make light of the fact that we are being lied to in respect to HOW and WHY these things are created. Honestly......DO NOT DISMISS the info I post and from the websites I use.