Jack White Posted September 23, 2007 Author Share Posted September 23, 2007 "Falling debris" from the towers collapsing could not and would not have created that massive deep hole beneath WTC 6 , or the subsequent hot spot .. Why not? Do you think that building was designed to hold a couple thousand extra tons dropped onto the roof? Neither would "falling debris" have caused the massive explosion heard by all of the employees of WTC 6 , who were all evacuated before the south tower imploded . Please provide some evidence of this made up claim. Actual 6 was destroyed by a direct energy weapon....the direct energy of fallling steel and concrete! There was NO FALLING CONCRETE. It all rose into the air as pyroclastic dust particles. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 None? Really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 (edited) Also, add pyroclastic to the list of words Jack doesn't understand. Edited September 23, 2007 by Kevin M. West Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hogan Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 (edited) During the midst of a campaign promoting his (and Thomas Kean's) book Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission, Lee Hamilton was interviewed by CBC's Evan Solomon. Solomon focused on some of the conspiratorial aspects and allegations concerning 9/11 and the Commission's report. It was a remarkable and revealing interview in my opinion. A few of Hamilton's comments excerpted: __________________ When you conduct a major investigation, you cannot possibly answer every question, you just do the best you can. But for every question you leave unanswered, you create an opening to a conspiracy theory, and a good many of them have popped up here. The only thing I ask in the future is that the conspiracy theory people do not apply a double standard. That is to say, they want us to make an airtight case for any assertion we make. On the other hand, when they make an assertion they do it often on very flimsy evidence. But conspirators are always going to exist in this country. Tom Kean and I got a flavour of this everytime we'd walk through an audience - they would hand us notes, hand us papers, hand us books, hand us tapes, telling us to investigate this, that or the other. You cannot possibly answer all these questions, you just do the best you can. __________________ Many families supported the report - very strongly - and have been instrumental in helping us on the implementation stage. A lot of the people that have doubts about the report - not all of them - are strongly anti-Bush, for a variety of reasons. Many of them are just anti-government, in other words, they don't believe anything the government says. All I ask of these people is: give me your evidence. If you thought George Bush or Lee Hamilton or Tom Kean blew up those buildings, let’s see the evidence. __________________ Now, with regard to Building 7, we believe that it was the aftershocks of these two huge buildings in the very near vicinity collapsing. And in the Building 7 case, we think that it was a case of flames setting off a fuel container, which started the fire in Building 7, and that was our theory on Building 7. Now we’re not the experts on this, we talked to the engineers and the architects about this at some length, and that's the conclusion we reached. __________________ You can’t answer every question when you conduct an investigation. Look, you've to got to remember that on this day, chaos and confusion were the mark, and peoples’ overwhelming concern was to try to save as many lives as possible, not to explain why a particular building collapsed. So it’s not unusual to me that we, and the Commission - and anybody else, for that matter - cannot answer every question. I go back to what I say earlier: whenever you conduct an investigation, you cannot answer every question. __________________ Well, at the top of my list (of unanswered questions) happens to be a personal one, and that is, I could never figure out why these 19 fellas did what they did. We looked into their backgrounds. In one or two cases, they were apparently happy, well-adjusted, not particularly religious - in one case quite well-to-do, had a girlfriend. We just couldn’t figure out why he did it. I still don’t know. And I think one of the great unanswered questions - a good topic for investigative reporters - would be: why did these 19 do what they did? We speculated in the report about why the enemy hates us, but we simply weren’t able to answer the questions about the 19. __________________ Well, disturbing that, at this particular time, (After the President left the school and got to Air Force One) the Commander in Chief lost communications with the White House, and with his chief aides there, right in the middle of a crisis - that's very disturbing. I hope that’s been corrected, I’ve been told that it has been. But the fact of the matter is, if you look at 9/11, all the way through, FAA communications, NORAD communications, White House communications, there was just a lot of confusion, and a lot of gaps. ___________________ Look, you’ve obviously gone through the report with a fine-toothed comb, you're raising a lot of questions - I can do the same thing...all I want from you is evidence. You’re just citing a lot of things, without any evidence to back them up, as far as I can see. ___________________ I cannot answer every question with regard to 9/11. I can answer a good many of them, but I can't answer them all.... Well, you apparently do, (want me to answer them all) because you have asked me questions of enormous detail from a great variety of sources. You want me to answer them all - I can’t do it (laughs) ___________________ I don’t believe for a minute that we got everything right. We wrote a first draft of history. We wrote it under a lot of time pressure, and we sorted through the evidence as best we could. Now, it would be really rather remarkable if we got everything right. So far, of the things that have been brought up challenging the report, to my knowledge, we have more credibility than the challenger. But I would not for a moment want to suggest that that’s always true, either in the past or in the future. People will be investigating 9/11 for the next hundred years in this country, and they’re going to find out some things that we missed here. So I don’t automatically reject all the evidence you cite. It may be we missed it, it may be we ignored it when we shouldn’t have - I don’t think we did, but it's possible. ___________________ (Why Hamilton said the Commission was "set up to fail.") Well, for a number of reasons: Tom Kean and I were substitutes - Henry Kissinger and George Mitchell were the first choices; we got started late; we had a very short time frame - indeed, we had to get it extended; we did not have enough money - 3 million dollars to conduct an extensive investigation. We needed more, we got more, but it took us a while to get it. We had a lot of skeptics out there, who really did not want the Commission formed. Politicians don’t like somebody looking back to see if they made a mistake. The Commission had to report right, just a few days before the Democratic National Convention met, in other words, right in the middle of a political campaign. We had a lot of people strongly opposed to what we did. We had a lot of trouble getting access to documents and to people. We knew the history of commissions; the history of commissions were they.. nobody paid much attention to 'em. So there were all kinds of reasons we thought we were set up to fail. We decided that if we were going to have any success, we had to have a unanimous report, otherwise the Commission report would simply be filed. _____________________ Well, I think you’re right. They (FAA and NORAD) gave us inaccurate information. We asked for a lot of material and a lot of documentation. They did not supply it all. They gave us a few things. We sent some staff into their headquarters. We identified a lot more documents and tapes, they eventually gave them to us, we had to issue a subpoena to get them. Eventually they told us we had the story right, they had it wrong, it took a while to get to that point, but we eventually got here. Did they lie to us or was it inadvertent? We are not a law enforcement agency, we did not have that kind of authority, going back to the mandate again. All of us had our suspicions here, but we simply did not have the staff and we were right up against the deadline when this came out, that we didn’t have the time to say that these officials had willfully and intentionally lied. So we punted - and we said, 'we can’t do this, we don’t have the statutory authority, we don’t have the staff', we don’t have the time'. We will tell the story as we understood it - they did mislead us. Was it wilful? We don’t know. We'll turn it over to the authorities, and that's what we did. ____________________ I think people do not sufficiently understand how complicated conducting a major investigation is, and how difficult it is, in an event of this kind, to chase down every answer to every question, and... Look, I can go before any audience in America today and I can raise so many questions about 9/11 - raise questions, not answer questions, raise questions - about the investigation. And everbody in the audience will walk out saying 'the government misled us or lied to us.' It’s a very easy thing to do! I can raise questions about our own report!....Well, I know there were a lot of questions that we could not answer, with regard to FAA and NORAD and White House activity, and a lot of other things, we just can’t answer 'em. ____________________ Full interview: http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/911hamilton.html Edited September 23, 2007 by Michael Hogan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted September 23, 2007 Author Share Posted September 23, 2007 Also, add pyroclastic to the list of words Jack doesn't understand. Huh? I have read extensively about PYROCLASTIC DUST CLOUDS of pulverized concrete (on the internet). They are caused by heat (pyro) from explosives which causes the concrete to become clastic (broken into fine particles). What is seen in photos of the WTC collapse are dustclouds typical of controlled demolition where explosives are used. Such dustclouds have a scientific name: PRYOCLASTIC DUST CLOUDS. A building falling WITHOUT explosives does not form such clouds, but falls IN RECOGNIZABLE PIECES. The HEAT of an explosive source turns EVERYTHING subjected to the explosive heat into pyroclastic particles. This observation has led experienced pros to say the towers were destroyed by explosives. Kerosene fires burn things, but do not turn things to dust. PYROCLASTIC is not a word I made up. It is used by scientists who have written about the WTC dustclouds. By all means give us your definition of pyroclastic. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 "Falling debris" from the towers collapsing could not and would not have created that massive deep hole beneath WTC 6 , or the subsequent hot spot .. Why not? Do you think that building was designed to hold a couple thousand extra tons dropped onto the roof? Neither would "falling debris" have caused the massive explosion heard by all of the employees of WTC 6 , who were all evacuated before the south tower imploded . Please provide some evidence of this made up claim. Actual 6 was destroyed by a direct energy weapon....the direct energy of fallling steel and concrete! There was NO FALLING CONCRETE. It all rose into the air as pyroclastic dust particles. Jack Bullship! ALL the concrete was turned into dust? ALL of it? None made to to the bottom? Big statement Jack. No way in heck you can back this one up. LOL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 Also, add pyroclastic to the list of words Jack doesn't understand. Huh? I have read extensively about PYROCLASTIC DUST CLOUDS of pulverized concrete (on the internet). They are caused by heat (pyro) from explosives which causes the concrete to become clastic (broken into fine particles). What is seen in photos of the WTC collapse are dustclouds typical of controlled demolition where explosives are used. Such dustclouds have a scientific name: PRYOCLASTIC DUST CLOUDS. A building falling WITHOUT explosives does not form such clouds, but falls IN RECOGNIZABLE PIECES. The HEAT of an explosive source turns EVERYTHING subjected to the explosive heat into pyroclastic particles. This observation has led experienced pros to say the towers were destroyed by explosives. Kerosene fires burn things, but do not turn things to dust. PYROCLASTIC is not a word I made up. It is used by scientists who have written about the WTC dustclouds. By all means give us your definition of pyroclastic. Jack I think you have a typo there, you said scientists when you meant conspiracy theorists. I know you didn't make up the word, you're just misusing it. A pyroclastic cloud is composed of pulverized ROCK (not concrete and drywall) and superheated gasses. If that dust cloud was pyroclastic, every person on the ground would have been cooked alive, every surrounding building would have been set ablaze, and there would have been no survivors in the stairwell of WTC2. In reality, that dust cloud was not hot, and was simply the result of the pulverization of drywall, glass, and concrete in the towers as they fell mixed with the huge volume of air displaced. The dust generated in a CD is not the result of explosives. In CD, they don't powder the building, they cut columns. The dust is generated by the gravitational collapse that ensues after the explosives remove the supports. Seriously, go talk to a demo expert, they don't just blow up buildings, their goal is to let gravity do most of the work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted September 23, 2007 Author Share Posted September 23, 2007 Also, add pyroclastic to the list of words Jack doesn't understand. Huh? I have read extensively about PYROCLASTIC DUST CLOUDS of pulverized concrete (on the internet). They are caused by heat (pyro) from explosives which causes the concrete to become clastic (broken into fine particles). What is seen in photos of the WTC collapse are dustclouds typical of controlled demolition where explosives are used. Such dustclouds have a scientific name: PRYOCLASTIC DUST CLOUDS. A building falling WITHOUT explosives does not form such clouds, but falls IN RECOGNIZABLE PIECES. The HEAT of an explosive source turns EVERYTHING subjected to the explosive heat into pyroclastic particles. This observation has led experienced pros to say the towers were destroyed by explosives. Kerosene fires burn things, but do not turn things to dust. PYROCLASTIC is not a word I made up. It is used by scientists who have written about the WTC dustclouds. By all means give us your definition of pyroclastic. Jack I think you have a typo there, you said scientists when you meant conspiracy theorists. I know you didn't make up the word, you're just misusing it. A pyroclastic cloud is composed of pulverized ROCK (not concrete and drywall) and superheated gasses. If that dust cloud was pyroclastic, every person on the ground would have been cooked alive, every surrounding building would have been set ablaze, and there would have been no survivors in the stairwell of WTC2. In reality, that dust cloud was not hot, and was simply the result of the pulverization of drywall, glass, and concrete in the towers as they fell mixed with the huge volume of air displaced. The dust generated in a CD is not the result of explosives. In CD, they don't powder the building, they cut columns. The dust is generated by the gravitational collapse that ensues after the explosives remove the supports. Seriously, go talk to a demo expert, they don't just blow up buildings, their goal is to let gravity do most of the work. Your knowledge of PYROCLASTIC IS SORELY LACKING. It is not solely a geological term. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted September 23, 2007 Author Share Posted September 23, 2007 "Falling debris" from the towers collapsing could not and would not have created that massive deep hole beneath WTC 6 , or the subsequent hot spot .. Why not? Do you think that building was designed to hold a couple thousand extra tons dropped onto the roof? Neither would "falling debris" have caused the massive explosion heard by all of the employees of WTC 6 , who were all evacuated before the south tower imploded . Please provide some evidence of this made up claim. Actual 6 was destroyed by a direct energy weapon....the direct energy of fallling steel and concrete! There was NO FALLING CONCRETE. It all rose into the air as pyroclastic dust particles. Jack Bullship! ALL the concrete was turned into dust? ALL of it? None made to to the bottom? Big statement Jack. No way in heck you can back this one up. LOL! I suggest that Mr. Bullshipper read the work of Dr. Jeffrey King, an MIT graduate, who has perhaps the best analysis of the WTC dustclouds. He has numerous photo essay analyses at his website: http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb...home.html-.html Be sure to click on ALL the articles indexed on the lefthand side of the homepage. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 Your knowledge of PYROCLASTIC IS SORELY LACKING. It is not solely a geological term.Jack Can you cite a single example of it being used by anyone outside of geology (other than CT's talking about WTC). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 "Falling debris" from the towers collapsing could not and would not have created that massive deep hole beneath WTC 6 , or the subsequent hot spot .. Why not? Do you think that building was designed to hold a couple thousand extra tons dropped onto the roof? Neither would "falling debris" have caused the massive explosion heard by all of the employees of WTC 6 , who were all evacuated before the south tower imploded . Please provide some evidence of this made up claim. Actual 6 was destroyed by a direct energy weapon....the direct energy of fallling steel and concrete! There was NO FALLING CONCRETE. It all rose into the air as pyroclastic dust particles. Jack Bullship! ALL the concrete was turned into dust? ALL of it? None made to to the bottom? Big statement Jack. No way in heck you can back this one up. LOL! I suggest that Mr. Bullshipper read the work of Dr. Jeffrey King, an MIT graduate, who has perhaps the best analysis of the WTC dustclouds. He has numerous photo essay analyses at his website: http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb...home.html-.html Be sure to click on ALL the articles indexed on the lefthand side of the homepage. Jack Been there, done that not interested in doing it again. Fact remains White, that you simply cannot support your statement. TRY AGAIN NEXT TIME. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 Your knowledge of PYROCLASTIC IS SORELY LACKING. It is not solely a geological term.Jack Can you cite a single example of it being used by anyone outside of geology (other than CT's talking about WTC). How about this one Kevin, from the urban dictionary, fits well with the crap that White peddles... A Pyroclastic Cloud is a term borrowed from volcanoes. It is also used to refer to a restroom occurence, most applicable for men. This would be when you are in need of performing a bowel movement, and it is urgent for one reason or another (this usually happens on a hot day), and you rush to the restroom, and to save time you pull down your shorts while you are bending to sit down, your nose travells directly through the plume of groinal sweat odors released from your underwear. Bill: Hey Jim, I just ran to pinch of a load and got stuck in the pyroclastic cloud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 "Falling debris" from the towers collapsing could not and would not have created that massive deep hole beneath WTC 6 , or the subsequent hot spot .. Why not? Do you think that building was designed to hold a couple thousand extra tons dropped onto the roof? Neither would "falling debris" have caused the massive explosion heard by all of the employees of WTC 6 , who were all evacuated before the south tower imploded . Please provide some evidence of this made up claim. Actual 6 was destroyed by a direct energy weapon....the direct energy of fallling steel and concrete! There was NO FALLING CONCRETE. It all rose into the air as pyroclastic dust particles. Jack Bullship! ALL the concrete was turned into dust? ALL of it? None made to to the bottom? Big statement Jack. No way in heck you can back this one up. LOL! I suggest that Mr. Bullshipper read the work of Dr. Jeffrey King, an MIT graduate, who has perhaps the best analysis of the WTC dustclouds. He has numerous photo essay analyses at his website: http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb...home.html-.html Be sure to click on ALL the articles indexed on the lefthand side of the homepage. Jack Once again Jack is being intentionally deceptive unless his memory is failing him. Jeffrey King as has already been pointed out to him is Dr. King as in MD he has been a rural general practicioner for about 30 years. He has no advanced degres in science but rathe BS's in electrical engineering and biology which he got in the early 70's. He is not anymore qualified to analyze dust clouds than anybody on this board. Funny that Jack would bring up the pyroclastic cloud issue because it was 1st proposed by Jim Hofman who says the the "energy beams destroyed the WTC and WTC 6 was blown up theories are complete bull$#!t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 Bullship! ALL the concrete was turned into dust? ALL of it? None made to to the bottom? Big statement Jack. No way in heck you can back this one up. LOL! Even Dr. Steve Jones says that BS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 What are pyroclastic flows? Pyroclastic flows are high-density mixtures of hot, dry rock fragments and hot gases that move away from the vent that erupted them at high speeds. They may result from the explosive eruption of molten or solid rock fragments, or both. They may also result from the nonexplosive eruption of lava when parts of dome or a thick lava flow collapses down a steep slope. Most pyroclastic flows consist of two parts: a basal flow of coarse fragments that moves along the ground, and a turbulent cloud of ash that rises above the basal flow. Ash may fall from this cloud over a wide area downwind from the pyroclastic flow. http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/PF/pcflows.html What are pyroclastic flows? The basis of the term comes from "pyro" which means fire, and "clast" which refers to broken pieces of rock. Therefore, pyroclastic is a term used for broken pieces of rock associated with volcanic eruptions. It is a general term which covers a variety of sizes, ranging from ash to boulders. Pyroclastic flows are also referred to as pyroclastic clouds, and as "nuee ardentes" - a French term which means "glowing cloud." THEY ARE HOT AND FAST, MOVING AT SPEEDS UP TO SEVERAL HUNDRED MILES PER HOUR AND AT TEMPERATURES OF SEVERAL HUNDRED DEGREES CELSIUS. There's a pretty good chance that you couldn't outrun one of these events, which is one of the reasons why most people try to stay out of their way. http://jersey.uoregon.edu/~mstrick/AskGeoM...eoQuerry33.html Tephra often mixes with gases from the eruption to form a dense, super-heated, high-speed cloud called a Pyroclastic Cloud. A Pyroclastic Cloud hit the Caribbean in 1902 (Mt. Pelee) in which 30,000 people were instantly smothered or burned to death by the cloud! http://www.chilton.k12.wi.us/staff/johnsonk/ch14notes.htm I wonder if Jack can find any references to pyroclastic clouds from scientists referring to anything other than volcanic events. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now