When did they wire the WTC?

[The Gentleman Scamp]

I personally believe that the thermate detanators were probably placed over the building during the evacuations and power-downs in the lead up to 9/11, then again the detonators themselves needed to be ohm checked for resistance and checked for continuity. This would have taken quite a bit of time to ensure all explosives were going to detonate properly instead of squib. So perhaps to think that they placed explosives all around the core in the months leading up to 9/11 without anyone getting wiser is ridiculous, maybe it isn't so ridiculous to believe they were implanted when the buildings were constructed - they did find that one floor had detonators or explosive go bad and they had to cut concrete to get to it, the concrete was being drilled on August 29th a Merkin pal who worked there tells me.

He like myself initially believed what the government/media has been spoon feeding us and he got quite angry at the notion that it could be an inside job. I totally understand this and would be the same if I was the average American - the anger comes from nothing but primal fear that such a crime could be committed by those who are supposed to be taking care of us but have in fact been dumbing us down all these years. I guess it's that fear that makes one avoid or skim the evidence... I did for a while but I have seen as much as YouTube has to offer and although some of the conspiracy theories are desperate and far fetched, for example the new world order/lizards and aliens - jeez, actually the nuts and bolts are obvious which is why close to 50% of Merkins are starting to make their own mind up and come to the sinister conclusion.

The media have moulded us into believing what is 'normal' to such a degree that beyond comprehension seems impossible to those who have allowed the media to build a wall around them. Some of us consider it important to get over this wall and look in from the outside, wake up and smell the catfood whereas others can only handle life in the safety zone, even if they have the slightest inkling it's fake - the truth is just too frightening.

This is why the word conspiracy theory exists - it has a stigma attached to it that discredits the subject and therefore leaves it open to mockery and criticism, but it is just a couplet word, that's all it is, a word with a stigma that favors the bad guys very well indeed, oh yes - it works very well in their favor.

When you boil it down to the basics, of what we really are when you remove electricity, clothes and TV dinners - is it really that surprising that the attacks were deliberate in order to make more money = power??? Of course it isn't, but who wants to go there??? The prospect of us semi civilized beasts (which is all we are) being without any electricity whatsoever, ever again is such a frightening thought most of us don't go there either.

But if I may see both sides, I do wonder why all the evidence and info is available on YouTube - I mean surely the powers that be control the internet too right?

Then again, maybe they're so powerful they just don't give a shit, could we really do anything other than hold signs and shout in crowds? They are living the life of riley, why would they give a shit, the Truth 9/11 movement are probably a minor annoyance, like a mosquito or ants on a kitchen floor.

Power is more addictive than any drug, and those who have it will do anything to keep it.

[jandajoy]

So where did you copy/paste this from?

[jandajoy]

On what time scale? As I mentioned in my posting, the Earth is still precessing, and this precession doesn't seem to be growing at an alarming rate. In fact, it can't grow in the absence of external torques because the moment of inertia about an equatorial axis is slightly less (0.33%) than that about the polar axis, so for a constant angular momentum the equatorial axis rotation has a higher kinetic energy. The system can't decay into a higher energy state. That said, the precession exists for precisely the reason that the moments of inertia are different. The closer the moments of inertia, the lower the precession frequency. The system doesn't really compare with a top, as the precession behaviour is markedly different for a top. In that case, the precession is accompanied by a nutation, due to the external force acting on the top. The wider and wider circles are lower energy configurations, a result of friction in the bearing and with the surrounding air. A planet won't do this if it is oblate and rotating about an axis close to the symmetry axis. >Anyway, a system precessing in such a way has no geosynchronous orbit >around it at all, unless (for an instant!) the precession and rotation >rates match. And _this_ is only possible if the planet is extremely >nonspherical in shape, which kinda moots the whole discussion wrt Earth >and that TNG planet. > I'm not disagreeing with this. I should mention that it isn't possible for the precession and rotation frequencies to be equal, except in the degenerate case, since the ratio of frequencies is equal to (I1 - I3) / I1. In that expression, I1 is the equatorial moment, and I3 the polar moment. Anyway, in my original posting I was merely pointing out that a rigid body in the absence of external torques need not have pure rotations about a single axis.

[The Gentleman Scamp]

Below is the only copy and paste - the rest has been in my head a while now... Above is god knows what, can you delete it?

the detonators themselves needed to be ohm checked for resistance and checked for continuity.

[jandajoy]

We're still clearly talking about different things. I am talking about a rigid body in free space, under the influence of no external torques, while you're talking about a spinning top which is fixed at a point, under the influence of an external gravitational field. >If you perturb the top a little bit, you create a precession, or "wobble." >This is _not_ a second axis of rotation, but rather a single axis of >rotation which is moving under the influence of a torque, caused by >unbalanced centrifugal forces. > While I agree that, strictly speaking, a precession does not indicate a second rotational axis, that's not really what we're talking about here. This thread (or at least the part of it to which I've been responding) is concerned with the question: is it possible for a rigid body rotating in free space, in the absence of external torques, to rotate in a way other than a pure rotation at constant angular velocity about a fixed body axis? I claim that it is possible. >In fact, this is a "restoring" torque, >meaning that it pushes the top back toward its original axis, and shrinks >along with the perturbation angle, going exactly to zero once the top has >been righted again. Thus, the precession is dynamically unstable and >quickly damps out. > This, I disagree with. The motion of a heavy symmetrical top fixed at a point does not damp out precession or nutation perturbations. To do so it would have to shed angular momentum preferentially about some axis. Consider that at first I have a symmetric top spinning uniformly about a vertical axis, with no other components to the motion. I walk up to it and give it a slight push at the top, so that the axis is no longer vertical. I have just applied a force with a non-zero perpendicular displacement from the pivot. That means I have applied a torque. That torque was applied for a non-zero time interval, and its time integral gives the change in angular momentum about a horizontal axis. So, the top now has a component of angular momentum about a horizontal axis. There's no escaping that conclusion. In order for it to "damp out" this motion it would have to transfer that angular momentum to something else. Where does it go??? >However, in weightless, vacuum conditions, the tumbling will continue >forever, along a single axis. Again, the precession is short-lived. > No, it is not. All right, here are the equations of motion, I1=I2, the moment of inertia about an equatorial axis, and I3 is the moment of inertia about the polar axis. I1 d/dt(w_x) = (I1 - I3) w_z w_y I1 d/dt(w_y) = -(I1 - I3) w_z w_x I3 d/dt(w_z) = 0 These equations describe the _force-free_ motion of a rigid body with cylindrical symmetry. Where's the damping? You can eliminate w_x or w_y in the first two equations, and you get, for instance: d/dt (d/dt ( w_x )) = - ((I1 - I3) w_z / I1)^2 w_x where w_z is constant. That's a simple harmonic oscillator, no damping. The direction of the vector omega revolves about the z-axis. From the perspective of a fixed observer on the surface of the object, the rotational pole follows a path of constant latitude about the axis of mean rotation. As I mentioned before, on the Earth that path is about five metres south of the North Pole, and completes a revolution about the North Pole about once a year, and so the correction is fairly unimportant. >It is still quite meaningless to speak of a planet, or any other solid >object, having two axes of rotation. > As I said before, I'm not talking about having two axes of rotation, I'm talking about motion which isn't simple rotation about a body-fixed axis. On the Earth is would be possible to put a spacecraft into geostationary orbit over a point up to five metres North or South of the equator, on at least one day of the year. Clearly this is not an exciting refinement on orbital positioning, but it is *possible*. -- Christopher Neufeld - B.Sc., M.Sc., A.B.D. Looking for a job in Ottawa Home page: http://caliban.physics.utoronto.ca/neufeld/Intro.html "Don't edit reality for the sake of simplicity" neufeld[at]physics.utoronto.ca

[jandajoy]

Below is the only copy and paste - the rest has been in my head a while now.

What do you know about explosives?

[The Gentleman Scamp]

In what context?

I've done my own research, I am also aware that they can lie dormant for years - ask any one-legged Cambodian.

[Boon Mee]

I personally believe that the thermate detanators were probably placed over the building during the evacuations...

And I personally believe you've been smoking too much of that Khoen Kan Krippler, Scamp. Where did you rip that piece of conspiracy garbage from, eh?

[The Gentleman Scamp]

Jandajoy, what is the purpose of your posting copy and pastes of shite? Is it your way of alluding that I've just done the same? I've already told you what was pasted and what is my own words. Please stop filling what is a perfectly reasonable post with rubbish. It takes one hell of a gutless yellow chicken turd to mock those who think for themselves without sitting through at least two hours of documentary/evidence and doing a little research.

[The Gentleman Scamp]

I'm open to discussion/debate here, i'll give it until the end of the page before trying it in another forum if nobody thinks this is a valid subject.

[Chairman Mao]

When did they wire the WTC?

It's better to ask questions to people who might possibly know the answer.

Doing otherwise is just, well, kinda dumb.

Unless you believe a member of TD was on the team of detonator planters?

[Chairman Mao]

I'm open to discussion/debate here, i'll give it until the end of the page before trying it in another forum if nobody thinks this is a valid subject.

Sweet.

Ciao.

[The Gentleman Scamp]

When did they wire the WTC?

It's better to ask questions to people who might possibly know the answer.

Doing otherwise is just, well, kinda dumb.

Unless you believe a member of TD was on the team of detonator planters?

I'm posing a question.

[Sir Burr]

I'm sure CMn will be along any minute now............

[The Gentleman Scamp]

Here's a copy and paste for you.

BUSH: "terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America. These acts shattered steel, but they cannot dent the steel of American resolve. America was targeted for attack because we are the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world and no none will keep that light from shining."

The outrageous insult to your intelligence is right there in front of your face and is repeated to this very day. "We were attacked because we are so incredibly free, the Government will keep you safe." When the fact is thousands were murdered on 9/11 because of actions of our Government wether you believe 9/11 was an inside job or not. Terrorists target America because of the actions of the Governments foreign policy and support of Israel not because you are free, and to even have to point this out, shows how pathetic the lies, and media that support them have become.

And from that moment on it was set in stone. Not another peep about how the buildings came down or why we were attacked. Planes hitting the buildings caused them to collapse and we were attacked due to our freedom.

[Boon Mee]

I'm sure CMn will be along any minute now............

Naw...he's too busy still searching for the software program to boost his repo!

[Chairman Mao]

Did aeroplanes crash into them, or was that part of the hoax?

[Chairman Mao]

Here's a copy and paste for you.

Planes hitting the buildings caused them to collapse...

A commercial airliner flying into (and not back out of) a building could cause it to collapse!! This blokes a fuckin nutjob!

Where do they get these notions from.

[The Gentleman Scamp]

No planes flew into WTC7.

I could go on and on but unless you've been open minded enough to have a look at some of the investigations out there on the net than it's not worth my while to type any more than I already have.

[Boon Mee]

No planes flew into WTC7.

I could go on and on but unless you've been open minded enough to have a look at some of the investigations out there on the net than it's not worth my while to type any more than I already have.

Excellent!

Have a nice day...

[The Gentleman Scamp]

You lot are a sad bunch, it's your reaction to valid questions like mine on other 911 topics that lead me to investigate the 'conspiracy theories' in the first place - I was initially on 'your side' until I realized that most of the childish comments, anger and ignorance was in the 'There's nothing at all suspicious about 911' camp.

[Chairman Mao]

Please continue.

Just remember, asking questions isn't actually presenting facts.

Instead of asking questions, show us the facts that prove your theory is correct.

it's your reaction to valid questions like mine

How is your question valid? It cannot possibly be answered by anyone other than those who you say did it. So really, your question is nothing but a pile of garbage.


Please continue.

[Gerbil]

If I was building a skyscraper, I'd wire the explosives in as it was built. That way, when you're done with it in 50 - 100 years time, you just press the big red button in the basement. Got to be cheaper than adding them afterwards. I see no drawbacks to this.

[Boon Mee]

You lot are a sad bunch, it's your reaction to valid questions like mine on other 911 topics that lead me to investigate the 'conspiracy theories' in the first place - I was initially on 'your side' until I realized that most of the childish comments, anger and ignorance was in the 'There's nothing at all suspicious about 911' camp.

Scamp...do yourself a favor and read the Popular Mechanic's issue of a few years back where it is unequivically proven there wern't no conspiracy. Them towers fell just like it's been reported...

[The Gentleman Scamp]

show us the facts that prove your theory is correct.

I've already said I was posing a question, I can't prove the theory (not my own) is correct just as you can't. What is everybody's problem with 9/11?

I'm aware that stupid and ignorant people will always outnumber free thinkers - do you dispute this?