Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...

[Len Colby]

Jack,

You are down to zero qualified experts who you can cite who back your theory. The only person with a remotely applicable degree on the site you cited is David Heller. He has an MA from the S. F. Institute of Architecture The school is unaccredited, meaning its graduates cannot apply for professional licensing, it does not offer the kind of classes that would qualify him to speak authoritatively [more on that below]

He displays his ignorance in his article. [ http://www.garlicandgrass.org/issue6/Dave_Heller.cfm ]

He said for example, "The official story maintains that fires weakened the buildings. Jet fuel supposedly burned so hot it began to melt the steel columns supporting the towers. But steel-framed skyscrapers have never collapsed from fire, since they're built from steel that doesn't melt below 2750 degrees Fahrenheit. No fuel, not even jet fuel, which is really just refined kerosene, will burn hotter than 1500 degrees Fahrenheit."

He shows here that he did not even study the official account he is supposedly debunking. The FEMA/NIST/ASCE report says that the steel was weakened not melted. According to the Popular Mechanics article "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."

The FEMA report says that air in the towers reached 1000 C which is 1832 F this doesn't mean that the fire burned that hot but even Heller admits it should have reached 1500 F so the steel would have been reduced to 10 - 50 % of it's strength.

If Heller actually had any background in structural engineering [which a real architect would] he should have know that steel would be severely weakened at 1500 F and weakens long before it melts. If he had actually read the report he would know that it never maintains the steel melted.

Out of ignorance or an intention to deceive he wrote "no building prior to 9-11, in the 100-plus year history of steel frame buildings, had ever collapsed from fire" the WTC buildings didn't of course collapse from fire alone WTCs 1 & 2 obviously had there structural integrity greatly damaged by the impact of the planes and WTC was damaged by falling debris.

Another sentence demonstrates his ignorance "I noticed that this plane, United Airlines Flight 175, which weighed over 160,000 pounds and was traveling at 350 mph, did not even visibly move the building when it slammed into it. How, I wondered, could a building that did not visibly move from a heavy high speed projectile collapse at near freefall speed less than an hour later?"

Why would he expect the tower which was several magnitudes of of weight heavier than the plane be expected to "visibly move" when hit by it? What does it not moving have to do with the tower collapsing. The tower collapsed because of the structural damage cause by the plane striking it and the weakening of the steel from the fire.

So Jack try again find me one qualified expert who studied the FEMA report and agrees with your theories. Doesn't your inability to do so raise any questions in your mind? Don't forget that the ASCE the American Society of Civil Engineers was party to and endorsed the report. If its conclusions were so totally wrong one would expect dozens or hundreds if not thousands of civil and structural engineers and acredited architects to be questioning it's conclusions. You have yet to cite a single solitary one.

Back to the subject of Heller's school

The main thrust of the "San Francisco Architectural Institutes's program is "natural architecture". "The school is open to all" you don't even need to have gone to college to get into it's masters degree program. Most of the classes are taught by it director and most of the others by a SFIA graduate. Only a handful of classes are tought per period. Payment is by credit card on a course by course basis. It sounds like a PC eco-friendly diploma mill to me.

I looked through it's course catalogue an saw no evidence that any classes teaching the science end of architecture are taught there. Heller the CTists only expert it seems has no academic training that would qualify him as an expert.

For example in Summer 2005 the classes offered were

VECTORWORKS COMPUTER-AIDED

DESIGN AND DRAFTING

E-95

INTERN STUDY FOR AN

ECO DESIGN CASE STUDY

.

E-85

BECOMING AN ECOLOGICAL

DESIGN PROFESSIONAL

E-100

"EVERYTHING ECO" WORKSHOPS

E-100-1

Materials & Methods

E-100-2

Energy & Environment

C-10

SKETCHUP:

3-D MODELING

THE EASY WAY

SELF-PACED STUDY

D-14

COMMUNICATING YOUR DESIGNS:

PERSPECTIVE DRAWING & MEDIA

__ C-11

Winter 2005

• Ancient Egypt

• Buddhist Architecture

• Green Walls -- Hands-On Workshop

• Sketch Perspective Drawing and Rendering -- Hands-On Studio

• Understanding Working Drawings

http://www.sfia.net/Courses.asp

[Guest Stephen Turner]

He saw in IN THE LIMO on the way to the school, on a CCTV hookup, which

MEANS THAT THE EVENT WAS COVERTLY TELECAST BY INTELLIGENCE

AGENCIES!

Or he had satellite TV in the limo and was watching CNN. Can you prove he didn't? You're assigning a motive based on a single word. Sounds more like you want there to be something sinister behind the statement so you grasp at any straws you can. Doesn't surprise me from what else I know abut you though.

And again, he never said he saw the impact, he said he saw it had happened. It doesn't even have to be a misspeak. People talk like that all the time and others know what they mean. And I'm done with this now. You want there to be something sinister and therefore won't look at it objectively. It is no use to argue with someone like that.

YE Gods matthew, how many more times, he claimed that he saw it happen live,in real time, on a television set in the hallway of the school, just prior to entering the classroom. Can we at least agree on that, and that this version of events is, for whatever reason, impossible? Steve.

[Steve Ulman]

YE Gods Matthew, how many more times, he claimed that he saw it happen live,in real time, on a television set in the hallway of the school, just prior to entering the classroom. Can we at least agree on that, and that this version of events is, for whatever reason, impossible? Steve.

No we can't agree that he said he saw it in real time. You didn't answer my questions earlier - did I experience the two events I noted in real time or not?

You are attempting to dissect a statement to find hidden meaning from a man notorious for mangling the English language. He simply is not a good extemporaneous speaker. It is probably the main reason that many think of him as stupid.

Edited October 19, 2005 by Steve Ulman

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Dec 4th 2001, Bush, " I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw the aeroplane hit the tower, the TV was obviously on, and I thought well, there's one terrible pilot."

Jan 5th 2002, Bush, " First of all when we walked into the classroom I had seen this plane fly into the FIRST biulding, there was a TV set on"

Just what is it about the above you dont understand? GWB is either lying or telling the truth, there is no middle ground

point one, "I was sitting out side the classroom" Wrong, at the time of the first strike bush was in the limo, still on his way to the school.

Point two, " I saw the aeroplane hit the tower"Lying or telling the truth?

Point three, "The Tv was obviously on" Firstly there was no TV, and secondly it could not have been showing what Bush describes.

Now you can not explain these two statements by saying, " the guys a clutz, he's always screwing up the English language"there are no verbal screwups in either statement, its quite simple, he is either lying or he's telling the truth. Steve.

[Matthew Lewis]

Fine, I said I wouldn't do this but you obviously can't grasp this. If I say

I saw that the airplane hit the tower.

I saw the airplane had hit the tower. and

I saw the airplane hit the tower.

What exactly am I trying to say? Two of them are easier to undertand than the third but the third is ambiguous. It can have two meanings. It is hard to understand sometime but people talk like that all the time. If you haven't noticed it then you must live in a college english department because it happens.

As for point one, was he sitting in the limo? Was he outside the classroom? Technically he is correct. As he said it well afterward he may have trouble remembering exactly what or how it happened. I know I have trouble remembering exact details days later and I'm sure you do as well.

Point three. He had a tv in the limo. I doubt he goes anywhere without it on a major news channel. Maybe he meant that one. Maybe he didn't. Also almost every school in the nation has tvs in every room. Can you say none of them in the building were on?

The biggest thing is here you are trying to assume that he spoke perfectly when he clearly does not often if at all. Spend some time in Texas and you'll see just how some people speak. It will be very similar.

Secondly, you have you made your conclusion and are trying to fit the evidence to it. That is not objective. I have not made a conclusion. I can accept that his words can go either way. Maybe he meant it one way, maybe he meant it the other. Maybe he's really some criminal mastermind and said it exactly the way he did to be ambiguous. I don't really care and I don't know and never will. If you do then you must be psychic and I'll have to ask you what my favorite number is. Tell me that and I will believe everything you're trying to say. Until then, the only thing that can be inferred from his statements is "he just don't speak good."

I am done now. There is nothing more to say on this subject.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Just one little point Matthew, because as I suspected this has become a pointless exercise in semantics, It matters not one jot whether the TV was on or not, it doesn't matter If he was surrounded by a thousand televisions,because Not one of them would have shown what GWB describes seeing, the FIRST plane striking the tower, the only footage of this was the "Firemans video"which came to light the next day. oh and BTW, you only make the phrase "I saw the plane strike the first tower" ambigous by removing it from its contextual setting, the full sentance, any way i'm going to get into my limo, at the same time as standing in a classroom, and drive the heck out off here. Say goodnight to the folks gracie...........................

[John Dolva]

I think one reason I've found this a bit puzzling is because I would number the building of a pair that is closest to me 'the first' building and here would assume that he meant what he saw in the cnn broadcast? A plane did strike the first building, as far as I understand it was the second plane that did that?

[Guest Stephen Turner]

John, and this really is my last post on this, Bush couldn't have seen the second strike in real time a he describes, he was listing to the children read when this occured..Steve.

[Len Colby]

Steve T, Steve U, Matthew, John, Jack and others,

I was hoping to keep this thread on the question of the 9/11 CTists inabilitity to cite ONE single solitary civil or structural engineer or certified architect who disagrees with the findings of FEMA/NIST and the American Society of Civil Engineers.

I have started a new thread on the subject of what Bush did and saw on the morning of 9/11. Please continue the debate what Bush did or didn't see and what he said there [pretty please]

I replied to Steve T. there

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=0&gopid=42535&

Len

Edited October 19, 2005 by Len Colby

[Len Colby]

I started this thread because question arose about what Bush did or didn't see on TV the morning of 9/11 on another thread that I started. That discussion I fear will distract from the point of that thread

The subject of the other thread is whether Jack White or any other CTs can name a civil engineer or architect who backs their contention than the WTC collapsed due to demolition job.

So far the only one Jack White could cite is " architect" David Heller. Unfortunately for Jack. The school is an unaccredited diploma mill [ http://www.sfia.net/FAQ.asp ] . In other words Heller can't legally work as an architect. The school doesn't offer courses in civil/structural engineering which would qualify him to speak with authority. Heller displays his ignorance in his article. See the other thread for more details.

See below the main messages from the other thread concerning what Bush saw and said. Again for more see the original thread at the link below.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5153

I just have one thing to say about number 4

Bush said "I saw a plane hit the tower".

There have been websites devoted to Bush's verbal errors and misspeakings. Yet he is supposed to have said this exactly correct? What if just one word were added?

I saw (that) a plane hit the tower.

Completely changes the meaning doesn't it?

Can you say definitively that he meant exactly what you think he meant?

Matthew, there's no debate about what GWB said, it is a matter of public record. He said loud and clear on TWO occasions that he saw the first plane strike the tower, to claim any thing else is semantics. He further claimed to have witnessed this phenomonia on a television at the school,whats wrong with this statement?

1, There was no TV set in the area he claimed to have seen it.

2,The first strike was not broadcast live, for obvious reasons.

3, He can not be refering to the second strike,as he was in the classroom listening to the children read when that occured.

Make of it what you will, but he was not misquoted, or taken out of context.Steve.

Len, thank you for your post, some good points, I shall respond shortly.

Steve, because he claimed to have seen it happen on a TV when he entered the school. And thought "Gee there's a bad pilot" perhaps I need to post his actual words so you can see for yourself. regards Steve.

He saw in IN THE LIMO on the way to the school, on a CCTV hookup, which

MEANS THAT THE EVENT WAS COVERTLY TELECAST BY INTELLIGENCE

AGENCIES!

Jack

Dec 4th 2001, Bush, " I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw the aeroplane hit the tower, the TV was obviously on, and I thought well, there's one terrible pilot."

Jan 5th 2002, Bush, " First of all when we walked into the classroom I had seen this plane fly into the FIRST biulding, there was a TV set on"

Just what is it about the above you dont understand? GWB is either lying or telling the truth, there is no middle ground

point one, "I was sitting out side the classroom" Wrong, at the time of the first strike bush was in the limo, still on his way to the school.

Point two, " I saw the aeroplane hit the tower"Lying or telling the truth?

Point three, "The Tv was obviously on" Firstly there was no TV, and secondly it could not have been showing what Bush describes.

Now you can not explain these two statements by saying, " the guys a clutz, he's always screwing up the English language"there are no verbal screwups in either statement, its quite simple, he is either lying or he's telling the truth. Steve.

My reply to Steve's 2nd [and last post] above.

Dec 4th 2001, Bush, " I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw the aeroplane hit the tower, the TV was obviously on, and I thought well, there's one terrible pilot."

Jan 5th 2002, Bush, " First of all when we walked into the classroom I had seen this plane fly into the FIRST biulding, there was a TV set on"

Just what is it about the above you dont understand? GWB is either lying or telling the truth, there is no middle ground

There are two possible scenarios.

1] Bush saw the plane hit the second tower as described in the school.

2] Bush saw the plane hit the first tower secretly filmed and transmitted in his car.

His statements on both occasions aren't a perfect match either situation, so he definitely misspoke both times.

If we accept the first scenario he saw the plane hit the 2nd tower but thought it was a replay of the first. Actually his Dec. 4 statement fits this scenario but not the 2nd because presumably he would have figured out by 4 months after the fact that what he had seen was the 2nd tower being hit. There are 2 possible explanations 1) possibly he hadn't 2) he recounting what had happened as he perceived it at the time.

If you want to believe the 2nd scenario, you should ask yourself 1] why would they go to the risk of secretly filming and transmitting the first strike? What would be gained?

IIRC Transmitting to satellites requires relatively large antenas which are hard to hide someone filming and transmitting could be noticed -Why take the risk?

I don't think they could have sure a hacker or foreign intelligence agency or domestic intelligence agents not in on it would have picked up the signal being uploaded to the satellite or downloaded to the car. -Why take the risk?

Another consideration is that if Bush had been "in" on the attacks and had seen the secret transmission he would have been acutely aware that he could never say publicly what he ha seen. He would have been much more careful about what he said.

Of course be could be making the whole thing up and didn't see either tower being hit or saw the 2nd tower being hit in the school and knew it was the 2nd tower. But what would be the point and what would it prove? Bush is a lying sack of xxxx. I take that for granted - he lied about Iraqi and various other points. Would it indicate he knew what was going to happen that morning? I don't think so.

point one, "I was sitting out side the classroom" Wrong, at the time of the first strike bush was in the limo, still on his way to the school.

Explained - Possibly he saw the 2nd tower being hit and thought it was the first

Point two, " I saw the aeroplane hit the tower"Lying or telling the truth?

see above

Point three, "The Tv was obviously on" Firstly there was no TV, and secondly it could not have been showing what Bush describes.

How can you be sure there was no TV in the school? How do you know for sure he was in the classroom when the 2nd plane struck? - even the CT cites I looked at can't positively place him in the classroom before 9:03

My take on 9/11 is that America was taken by surprise, The Bush administration missed many warning signs and there is a strong possibility it could have been prevented had they not been so disinterested in terrorism.

Is it possible that they knew what was going to happen but did nothing to prevent it ala Pearl Harbor CTs? Maybe but unlikely. Did the Bush administration plan the whole thing? Possible but even less likely. I have yet to see any credible evidence to support either theory.

Was WTC a demolition job? Was the Pentagon hit by a missile? These theories are absurd. The inability of Jack White and other proponents of this theory to be able to find ONE single solitary civil or structural engineer or certified architect who disagrees with the findings of FEMA and the American Society of Civil Engineers should make that abundantly clear

[Len Colby]

Jack,

I'm still waiting for you to cite a single qualified expert [i.e. civil/structural engineer or LISENCED architect] who says that the WTC collapse was a demolition job. If the FEMA/Am. Soc. of Civil Engineers report is so wrong one would expect there to be large number of them to be raising questions but you can't find one. You inability to get expert backing puts your 'theories' in the same league as 'creation science' and 'Holocaust denial'

Also you have yet to defend your dismissal of the Popular Mechanics article.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/de...html?page=4&c=y

See posts 13 & 14 on pg 1 and 29 on pg. 2

Why don't we throw the Pentagon into the mix too. Got anyone with the requisite technical background who says the hole is too small to have been mave by a [iIRC] 757?

Len

Edited October 20, 2005 by Len Colby

[Steve Ulman]

Len -

Thanks for starting this thread - I was feeling bad about hijacking the other one.

Now -

Does anyone have any evidence that covert video was taken of the first plane hitting WTC-1 besides quoting President Bush.

Any Evidence!

I'd even be willing to look at wacko CT sites at this point.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Len, first sorry for posting off topic on your original thread,I will see if John Simpkin cant redirect any off topic replies here.

Now what time did GWB enter the classroom...

From "Timeline of 9-11" © Paul Thompson.

8-55,-9-00am, "As Bush arrives at the Booker School he is briefly told of the 1st WTC crash, Condie Rice later claims he says, How terrible, it sounds like a terrible accident,keep me informed." according to this evidence he did not witness the first crash, but was informed about it prior to entering the School(although other tales of when Bush was first informed abound)

9-03, According to Sarasota County Sheriff, Bill Balkwill,JUST AFTER BUSH ENTERS THE CLASSROOM, a Marine responsible for carrying Bush's phone asks "can you get me to a TV, somethings happening" Three S/S agents, a SWAT member, the Marine, and Balkwill,TURN ON THE TV IN A NEARBY FRONT OFFICE, just as flight 175 crashes into the WTC.

9-06, Bush's chief of staff, Andrew Card enters the classroom and whispers in his ear, "A second plane hit the other tower America is under attack Sir,ABC news reporter Anne Compton marks the time as "By my watch 9-07am".

New York Times 9-06, Telegraph, 9-05, Albaquerque Tribune, 9-07. Flight 175 had impacted with the WTC South tower at 9-03.

If Bush as has been suggested witnessed the second strike( on a non existant TV) why did Card need to tell him about it, surly his memory isn't that bad?Also as he was told about the first strike prior to entering the school, when he witnessed the second strike wouldn't he have realised for himself that this was more than a terrible accident.

IMHO, we are left with two possibilities 1, Bush was lying about the whole incident, or 2, to use his own terminology he is truth-telling.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

WAS AMERICA TAKEN BY SURPRISE.

From a series of articles in The London Times, April 2002.

As early as 1995 the US had information relating to plans to launch air attacks on the WTC,- information that was repeatedly confirmed by the American intellegence community, all the way up to, and including year 2001. Yet these agencies apparantly neglected to do anything to prevent, or prepare for these attacks, indeed all such possible measures were cut short, such was the case with ongoing investigations by FBI agents attempting to confirm the impending 11th Sept terrorist attacks, whose leads were severed by FBI command without explanation, a situation maintained with the complicity of the Attorney General, a presidential appointee. The US Governments leading law enforcement agency, it appears, deliberately ignored its own findings, and further blocked them from being publicised.

Indeed, numerous warnings were recieved about the impending attack, not just from its own intellegence services,but from 21 other countries including Israel, the UK, Australia, Saudi Arabia, Canada, France, Germany etc. It appears that pertinent CIA intellegence assessments were not passed on to the Cabinet in violation of manditory procedures, or they were, and the warnings were deliberately ignored by the nations top decision makers. So was the procedure violated by the Intellegence community? Ask yourself this question,As any violation of mandatory procedure would leave the blame for any terrorist attacks on the shoulders of high level elements of the US Military Intellegence community, why, and for what purpose, if any, would they withhold this information from their own Government?

[Len Colby]

Steve,

It is quite possible that Bush lied, I wouldn't put that past him. This is not evidence that he had any foreknowledge of or planned 9/11.

Do you have a link back to the article you quoted? Did the original article have links back to the publications it cited? I believe you, but in the case of the article I'd like to check. My experience with Fetzer has taught me always to check that a cited source said what it was purported to have said.

My rationalisation of Bush's comments are as follows 1] he probably heard about the 1st strike in his limo, 2] he saw the 2nd plane hit live when he got to the school and thought it was a replay, 3] Andy Card came in and told Bush that "America is under attack" that both towers had been struck by 2 different planes.

His first comment doesn't contradict this scenario, his 2nd one does but I already explained that.

If it can be documented that be was in the classroom before 9:03 then yes it would be undeniable that he lied. But we already know he is a xxxx, it wouldn't be evidence of a conspiracy. If indeed it could be proven he was in the classroom at the time of the 2nd strike it's strange that none of his aides caught it and corrected him or if they did that he repeated the same lie a few months later.