destruction

Dr. Moron, you have been...

I think the miami police should know about him. First he threatens to find me and knock out my teeth, now he wants to threaten my life simply because I politically disagree with him. If this isn't an attempt to violate civil rights (squelch freedom of speech) then civil rights has no meaning. It's just him moronically defending the criminal acts of Bush by either comteplating, conspiring or performing a criminal act. In this case performing a criminal act by threatening to kill anyone who disagrees with him. His gun pose is not only paramount, it is testimony to the fact. Dr Moron is a criminal and should not be allowed to own guns.

Dr Moron.... You should not post pictures of yourself in photobucket. I found one of you there... You should never ask your daughter to put makeup on your face for you.... Seek a professional makeup artist for help next time. Fag....

Nice piece... I have a better use for your piece of shit gun.... KILL YOURSELF WITH IT!

I strongly suspect that "igloo" is one or more of the following: 1) A young boy fooling around on the Internet. 2) A paid troll, given license to say anything at all. 3) A guy with real sexual-identity problems. 4) A mentally disturbed individual. 5) A former abused child, firing back at the world. 6) An inbred child whose parents are really his aunt and uncle. 7) Someone whose wife (his cousin) left him for another guy (his brother who is currently in Iraq). 8) A guy whose girlfriend (sister) told him he didn't have it. 9) An alcoholic. 10) A crackhead. 11) A career criminal. 12) Never made it past the 8th grade. 13) Doesn't read anything else except for literature from the NRA, the KKK, Hitler Youth and the Christian Coalition. 14) Lives in a trailer park. 15) Owns illegal assult weapons. 16) Drives an SUV with 40 inch wheels and a gun rack so he can look tough. 17) An naiive dunce who watches Fox News and the 700 club because his cable or satellite company only provides two channels. 18) Masturbates to Bush whenever his face is shown on Fox News because Porno Magazine centerfolds don't get it up for him. 19) Plays with Barbie and Bratz dolls and pretends they are dressing him in girls' clothes when he puts them on himself (along with makeup and prefume) bringing us back to #3 (sexual identity problems).

Dear Friends, As most of you have probably heard, I was arrested before the State of the Union Address tonight. I am speechless with fury at what happened and with grief over what we have lost in our country. There have been lies from the police and distortions by the press. (Shocker) So this is what really happened: This afternoon at the People's State of the Union Address in DC where I was joined by Congresspersons Lynn Woolsey and John Conyers, Ann Wright, Malik Rahim and John Cavanagh. Lynn brought me a ticket to the State of the Union Address. At that time, I was wearing the shirt that said: 2,245 Dead. How many more? After the PSOTU press conference, I was having second thoughts about going to the SOTU at the Capitol. I didn't feel comfortable going. I knew George Bush would say things that would hurt me and anger me and I knew that I couldn't disrupt the address because Lynn had given me the ticket and I didn't want to be disruptive out of respect for her. I, in fact, had given the ticket to John Bruhns who is in Iraq Veterans Against the War. However, Lynn's office had already called the media and everyone knew I was going to be there so I sucked it up and went. I got the ticket back from John, and I met one of Congresswoman Barbara Lee's staffers in the Longworth Congressional Office building and we went to the Capitol via the underground tunnel. I went through security once, then had to use the rest room and went through security again. My ticket was in the 5th gallery, front row, fourth seat in. The person who in a few minutes was to arrest me, helped me to my seat. I had just sat down and I was warm from climbing 3 flights of stairs back up from the bathroom so I unzipped my jacket. I turned to the right to take my left arm out, when the same officer saw my shirt and yelled, "Protester." He then ran over to me, hauled me out of my seat and roughly (with my hands behind my back) shoved me up the stairs. I said something like, "I'm going, do you have to be so rough?" By the way, his name is Mike Weight. The officer ran with me to the elevators yelling at everyone to move out of the way. When we got to the elevators, he cuffed me and took me outside to await a squad car. On the way out, someone behind me said, "That's Cindy Sheehan." At which point the officer who arrested me said, "Take these steps slowly." I said, "You didn't care about being careful when you were dragging me up the other steps." He said, "That's because you were protesting." Wow, I get hauled out of the People's House because I was, "Protesting." I was never told that I couldn't wear that shirt into the Congress. I was never asked to take it off or zip my jacket back up. If I had been asked to do any of those things...I would have, and written about the suppression of my freedom of speech later. I was immediately, and roughly (I have the bruises and muscle spasms to prove it) hauled off and arrested for "unlawful conduct." After I had my personal items inventoried and my fingers printed, a nice Sgt. came in and looked at my shirt and said, "2,245, huh? I just got back from there." I told him that my son died there. That's when the enormity of my loss hit me. I have lost my son. I have lost my First Amendment rights. I have lost the country that I love. Where did America go? I started crying in pain. What did Casey die for? What did the 2,244 other brave young Americans die for? What are tens of thousands of them over there in harm's way for still? For this? I can't even wear a shirt that has the number of troops on it that George Bush and his arrogant and ignorant policies are responsible for killing. I wore the shirt to make a statement. The press knew I was going to be there and I thought every once in awhile they would show me and I would have the shirt on. I did not wear it to be disruptive, or I would have unzipped my jacket during George's speech. If I had any idea what happens to people who wear shirts that make the neocons uncomfortable...that I would be arrested...maybe I would have, but I didn't. There have already been many wild stories out there. I have some lawyers looking into filing a First Amendment lawsuit against the government for what happened tonight. I will file it. It is time to take our freedoms and our country back. I don't want to live in a country that prohibits any person, whether he/she has paid the ultimate price for that country, from wearing, saying, writing, or telephoning any negative statements about the government. That's why I am going to take my freedoms and liberties back. That's why I am not going to let Bushco take anything else away from me...or you. I am so appreciative of the couple of hundred protesters who came to the jail while I was locked up to show their support....we have so much potential for good...there is so much good in so many people. Four hours and 2 jails after I was arrested, I was let out. Again, I am so upset and sore it is hard to think straight. Keep up the struggle...I promise you I will too. Love and peace soon, Cindy

con·spir·a·cy Audio pronunciation of "conspiracy" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kn-spîr-s) n. pl. con·spir·a·cies 1. An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act. 2. A group of conspirators. 3. Law. An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action. 4. A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design: a conspiracy of wind and tide that devastated coastal areas. the·o·ry Audio pronunciation of "theory" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-r, thîr) n. pl. the·o·ries 1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. 2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory. 3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics. 4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory. 5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime. 6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

The anatomy of a Bush Bot. Massachusetts gay bar shooting suspect captured Sat Feb 4, 2006 11:08 PM ET LITTLE ROCK, Arkansas (Reuters) - The 18-year-old suspect in a bloody attack on three men in a Massachusetts gay bar was captured in Arkansas on Saturday after killing a police officer and a woman, police said. Jacob Robida was shot in the head and was in critical condition in a Springfield, Missouri, hospital after an exchange of gunfire with police, Massachusetts police said at a news conference. "He's in critical condition and it doesn't look very well for him right now," said Paul Walsh, district attorney in Bristol County, Massachusetts. The teenager became the target of a manhunt after he was accused of wounding three people with a gun and a hatchet in a New Bedford, Massachusetts, gay bar late on Wednesday. Robida faces about a dozen charges, including three counts of attempted murder and civil rights violations for the attack that stunned gays in the region and raised fears the assailant could strike again. Robida was pulled over for a routine traffic stop in Gassville in north-central Arkansas. He then shot and killed a police officer, according to police in New Bedford. Arkansas state troopers then pursued Robida for 16 miles to Norfork, Arkansas, before he crashed his car. Troopers saw Robida shoot an unidentified woman in his car, according to authorities. When they approached him a shootout began in which Robida was shot twice in the head, New Bedford police said. Three nights ago Robida walked into Puzzles Lounge in New Bedford, ordered two drinks and then went on a rampage after asking a bartender, "Is this a gay bar?" When told he was in a gay bar, Robida walked into a back area where several men played pool, reached into his coat and pulled out a hatchet, police said. He lunged at several men, striking two in the face with the hatchet before several of the bar's 18 patrons attempted to restrain him, police said. He then drew a gun and began firing, according to police and witnesses. Relief spread through New Bedford on Saturday evening on news Robida had been caught. But some patrons at the bar where Robida attacked were frightened some of his supporters might come back for them. "I'm just very happy this story has come to an end because the feeling around here was that Robida would not go down easy," said Robert Perry, one of the teenager's victims, his right eye badly bruised and his right cheek cut. A search of Robida's bedroom turned up neo-Nazi literature and posters slurring gays, Jews and blacks, Walsh told Reuters on Friday. "It is pressure off my chest but I am still remaining in fear. He has a circle of friends on the Web and they all support him," said Phillip Daggett, the bartender at Puzzles who witnessed the attack. (Reporting by Steve Barnes in Little Rock and David Ortiz in New Bedford) http://today.reuters.com/misc/PrinterFriendlyPopup.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=uri%3a2006-02-05T040756Z_01_N04260348_RTRUKOC_0_US-CRIME-MASSACHUSETTS-GAY.xml

Tuesday, January 31st, 2005 What Really Happened. ...a message from Cindy Sheehan Dear Friends, As most of you have probably heard, I was arrested before the State of the Union Address tonight. I am speechless with fury at what happened and with grief over what we have lost in our country. There have been lies from the police and distortions by the press. (Shocker) So this is what really happened: This afternoon at the People's State of the Union Address in DC where I was joined by Congresspersons Lynn Woolsey and John Conyers, Ann Wright, Malik Rahim and John Cavanagh. Lynn brought me a ticket to the State of the Union Address. At that time, I was wearing the shirt that said: 2,245 Dead. How many more? After the PSOTU press conference, I was having second thoughts about going to the SOTU at the Capitol. I didn't feel comfortable going. I knew George Bush would say things that would hurt me and anger me and I knew that I couldn't disrupt the address because Lynn had given me the ticket and I didn't want to be disruptive out of respect for her. I, in fact, had given the ticket to John Bruhns who is in Iraq Veterans Against the War. However, Lynn's office had already called the media and everyone knew I was going to be there so I sucked it up and went. I got the ticket back from John, and I met one of Congresswoman Barbara Lee's staffers in the Longworth Congressional Office building and we went to the Capitol via the underground tunnel. I went through security once, then had to use the rest room and went through security again. My ticket was in the 5th gallery, front row, fourth seat in. The person who in a few minutes was to arrest me, helped me to my seat. I had just sat down and I was warm from climbing 3 flights of stairs back up from the bathroom so I unzipped my jacket. I turned to the right to take my left arm out, when the same officer saw my shirt and yelled, "Protester." He then ran over to me, hauled me out of my seat and roughly (with my hands behind my back) shoved me up the stairs. I said something like, "I'm going, do you have to be so rough?" By the way, his name is Mike Weight. The officer ran with me to the elevators yelling at everyone to move out of the way. When we got to the elevators, he cuffed me and took me outside to await a squad car. On the way out, someone behind me said, "That's Cindy Sheehan." At which point the officer who arrested me said, "Take these steps slowly." I said, "You didn't care about being careful when you were dragging me up the other steps." He said, "That's because you were protesting." Wow, I get hauled out of the People's House because I was, "Protesting." I was never told that I couldn't wear that shirt into the Congress. I was never asked to take it off or zip my jacket back up. If I had been asked to do any of those things...I would have, and written about the suppression of my freedom of speech later. I was immediately, and roughly (I have the bruises and muscle spasms to prove it) hauled off and arrested for "unlawful conduct." After I had my personal items inventoried and my fingers printed, a nice Sgt. came in and looked at my shirt and said, "2,245, huh? I just got back from there." I told him that my son died there. That's when the enormity of my loss hit me. I have lost my son. I have lost my First Amendment rights. I have lost the country that I love. Where did America go? I started crying in pain. What did Casey die for? What did the 2,244 other brave young Americans die for? What are tens of thousands of them over there in harm's way for still? For this? I can't even wear a shirt that has the number of troops on it that George Bush and his arrogant and ignorant policies are responsible for killing. I wore the shirt to make a statement. The press knew I was going to be there and I thought every once in awhile they would show me and I would have the shirt on. I did not wear it to be disruptive, or I would have unzipped my jacket during George's speech. If I had any idea what happens to people who wear shirts that make the neocons uncomfortable...that I would be arrested...maybe I would have, but I didn't. There have already been many wild stories out there. I have some lawyers looking into filing a First Amendment lawsuit against the government for what happened tonight. I will file it. It is time to take our freedoms and our country back. I don't want to live in a country that prohibits any person, whether he/she has paid the ultimate price for that country, from wearing, saying, writing, or telephoning any negative statements about the government. That's why I am going to take my freedoms and liberties back. That's why I am not going to let Bushco take anything else away from me...or you. I am so appreciative of the couple of hundred protesters who came to the jail while I was locked up to show their support....we have so much potential for good...there is so much good in so many people. Four hours and 2 jails after I was arrested, I was let out. Again, I am so upset and sore it is hard to think straight. Keep up the struggle...I promise you I will too. Love and peace soon, Cindy Cindy Sheehan, Rep. John Conyers, Rep. Lynn Woolsey and Malik Rahim at the People's State of the Union. http://www.michaelmoore.com/mustread/index_594.html

Yes, it is coincidential. Not that I was ignoring you. I overlooked your last post. Good point.

hahahahahahahahahaha!!! I strongly suspect that "igloo" is one or more of the following: 1) A young boy fooling around on the Internet. 2) A paid troll, given license to say anything at all. 3) A guy with real sexual-identity problems. 4) A mentally disturbed individual. 5) A former abused child, firing back at the world. 6) Someone whose wife left him for another guy. 7) A guy whose girlfriend told him he didn't have it. 8) An alcoholic. 9) A crack addict. 10) A career criminal. 11) Never made it past the 6th grade. 12) An imbecile who doesn't read anything else except for literature from the NRA. 13) Lives in a trailer park. 14) Owns illegal assult rifles. 15) Drives an SUV with 40 inch wheels and a gun rack so he can look tough. 16) An naiive dunce who watches Fox News and the 700 club because his cable or satellite company only provides two channels.

http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002357.htm

And George W. Bush's Hatred of Both Freedom and the U.S. Constitution Let me be very clear, since the Mainstream Wingnut Media Spinners are already attempting to "Fair and Balance" (read: level an unlevel playing field) this one. Cindy Sheehan, who did... Let me be very clear, since the Mainstream Wingnut Media Spinners are already attempting to "Fair and Balance" (read: level an unlevel playing field) this one. Cindy Sheehan, who did not plan to, or even want to go to the State of the Union speech, was convinced to go. She wore the T-shirt she had been wearing all day long in support of our troops, including her own son who gave his life in service to this country while in Iraq. Sheehan's shirt said, "2,245 Dead — How Many More??" She was arrested for wearing the shirt, held for hours in detention, and claims to have been "roughed up" a bit in the process. We covered the entire process, minute-by-minute, as it shamefully unfolded last night. Later, during the speech -- after Sheehan had already been arrested -- the wife of a Republican Congressman from Florida, Bill Young, was politely asked to leave the chamber for wearing a T-shirt in support of our troops. Her shirt said "Support the Troops Defending Our Freedom." She was not arrested for wearing the shirt, she was not held for hours in detention, nor roughed up. She does not face any legal charges or legal fees in connection with the incident that we know about. And, as far as we know, did not also make the ultimate sacrifice of giving the life of her child for this country. Rep. Young reportedly decried, "Shame, shame," on the U.S. House Floor today for the treatment of his wife. His wife, who was not arrested as far as we know. While neither woman should have been arrested -- or even removed from the gallery (in our opinion) -- they were not treated equally. Whatever the "rules" are about such things in the U.S. Congress, they did not receive "equal treatment under the law". (A law, we might add, which would seem to be unconstitutional, according to this 1971 Supreme Court decision which ruled that wearing a "Fuck the Draft" T-shirt into a courthouse was Constitutionally protected free speech). Both T-shirts were in support of our troops. Both shirts made a political statement of sorts. One woman was arrested, the other was not. In fact, the other was not even asked to leave until after the speech had already started. After Sheehan had been arrested and after the authorities knew they had a politically sticky situation on their hands. All of which begs the question of whether Mrs. Young would have been asked to leave the chamber at all, had not Sheehan's arrest occurred previously. As to Sheehan's take on things, she wrote this morning about "What Really Happened" as she experienced it. She describes the fact that she didn't want to go to Bush's speech at all, since it would be so difficult for her to here, didn't wish to protest or be disruptive, but was convinced, in the end, to go anyway. You can read her entire description of events, but here's one notable passage: I was never told that I couldn't wear that shirt into the Congress. I was never asked to take it off or zip my jacket back up. If I had been asked to do any of those things...I would have, and written about the suppression of my freedom of speech later. I was immediately, and roughly (I have the bruises and muscle spasms to prove it) hauled off and arrested for "unlawful conduct." After I had my personal items inventoried and my fingers printed, a nice Sgt. came in and looked at my shirt and said, "2245, huh? I just got back from there." I told him that my son died there. That's when the enormity of my loss hit me. I have lost my son. I have lost my First Amendment rights. I have lost the country that I love. Where did America go? I started crying in pain. What did Casey die for? What did the 2244 other brave young Americans die for? What are tens of thousands of them over there in harm's way for still? For this? I can't even wear a shrit that has the number of troops on it that George Bush and his arrogant and ignorant policies are responsible for killing. I wore the shirt to make a statement. The press knew I was going to be there and I thought every once in awhile they would show me and I would have the shirt on. I did not wear it to be disruptive, or I would have unzipped my jacket during George's speech. If I had any idea what happens to people who wear shirts that make the neocons uncomfortable that I would be arrested...maybe I would have, but I didn't. All of that, even as Bush was saying at the exact same moment, as if he meant it, these words during his State of the Union Speech: "No one can deny the success of freedom, but some men rage and fight against it. ... We love our freedom, and we will fight to keep it." Cindy Sheehan understands what those words actually mean. She gave up the life of her son in supposed defense of that freedom. She is fighting for that freedom which George W. Bush doesn't have a clue about. And frankly, any American who doesn't stand with her in that particular fight, hasn't a clue of what America -- or the U.S. Constitution -- actually stands for. "Shame, shame," indeed. UPDATE: John Nichols in The Nation gets it right. He discusses the events that took place "Minutes before the President of the United States would tell the Congress how much he appreciates 'responsible criticism and counsel'" and points out that Mrs. Young admits to having "argued loudly with officers and called one of them 'an idiot'". But, of course, unlike Sheehan, who behaved politely throughout the proceedings according to all accounts... Mrs. Young was not handcuffed. She was not dragged from the Capitol. She was not arrested. She was not jailed. Sheehan, who caused no ruckus, was arrested not because she engaged in "unlawful conduct." Rather, by every evidence, she was arrested because of what her t-shirt said -- and, by extension, because of what she believes. ALSO... More on "Good SOTU Protests" versus "Bad SOTU Protests" here... FURTHER UPDATE: Capitol Cops admit they "Screwed up"! Charges to be dropped!

Calif postal killer may have shot neighbor, sixth worker dies - By TIM MOLLOY, Associated Press Writer Wednesday, February 1, 2006 (02-01) 14:30 PST GOLETA, Calif. (AP) -- Investigators tracking the path of an ex-postal worker who carried out a deadly assault on a mail-sorting facility believe a former neighbor found slain at a condominium may have been the first victim of the suicidal rampage, authorities said Wednesday. Authorities here and in New Mexico described past bizarre behavior by Jennifer Sanmarco, and an ex-colleague said she was prone to racist remarks, but her motive remained a mystery as the death of a woman wounded at the mail facility raised the number of slain postal workers to six. The neighbor would be Sanmarco's seventh victim. Postal employee Charlotte Colton, 44, of Santa Barbara, died Wednesday morning, said Teresa Rounds, spokeswoman for Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital. Colton was shot in the head Monday night as Sanmarco, 44, fired a handgun at workers in a parking lot and inside the Santa Barbara Processing and Distribution Center. Investigators said Sanmarco reloaded at least once and ended the carnage by killing herself. It was unclear where she obtained the 9 mm pistol, Santa Barbara County sheriff's Sgt. Erik Raney said. Sanmarco left no suicide note. However, acquaintances said Sanmarco sometimes talked to herself and spewed racist comments. In New Mexico, where she moved in 2004, she once tried to start a publication called "The Racist Press" but didn't qualify for a business license, authorities said. All of the dead were minorities, an acquaintance said. Sanmarco may have killed the former neighbor shortly before the 8:59 p.m. attack. A gunshot was reported at about 8:20 p.m. Monday at a Santa Barbara condominium complex where Sanmarco lived several years ago, Raney said. A woman identified by relatives as Beverly Graham, 54, was found dead in her condo Tuesday. She had been shot in the head. "We are investigating it as being the beginning of this rampage," Raney said. The two women used to argue because Sanmarco would sing loudly outside of her condo, said Eddie Blomfield, Graham's boyfriend. Graham's brother, Les Graham, said his sister had complained about a woman who "used to come out and rant and rave in front of her building." Sanmarco's reputation for bizarre behavior ended her postal career. She worked at the mail sorting plant for nearly six years but left in June 2003. She was granted early retirement on a medical disability because of psychological problems, the U.S. Postal Service said. "She went through all the requisite screenings. There were no prior indications" of problems, said Keith Blackman, a media consultant to the Postal Service. Sanmarco never threatened other employees and apparently the only concerns were for the woman's own safety, Blackman said. "She seemed to be having conversations and there wasn't anyone around her. She'd be just jabbering away," recalled former plant worker Jeff Tabala. "It was pretty unsettling." Tabala said that in 2003 he saw sheriff's deputies pull Sanmarco out from under a mail-sorting machine and wheel her away in handcuffs on a mail cart after a disturbance. She returned several months later but "people started coming to me and saying, 'she's acting erratically,"' Tabala said. "She was screaming, she was saying a lot of racist comments. It was pretty ugly." She seemed specifically hostile to Asians, he said. She was escorted out of the building by management and never returned, Tabala said. Tabala, who knew the victims, said three of the dead were black, one was Chinese-American, one was Hispanic and one was Filipino. In addition to Colton, the dead were Ze Fairchild, 37, and Maleka Higgins, 28, both of Santa Barbara; Nicola Grant, 42, and Guadalupe Swartz, 52, both of Lompoc; and Dexter Shannon, 57, of Oxnard. After moving to New Mexico, Sanmarco lived in an isolated desert home but had run-ins with local officials. "We weren't sure what she was going to do next," said Terri Gallegos, deputy clerk for the city of Milan. In 2004, she said, Sanmarco applied for a business license for a publication called "The Racist Press" that she said she planned to launch. Another time she said she wanted to register a cat food business. During one meeting, Gallegos said, Sanmarco carried on a conversation with herself "like she was arguing with someone but there was no one there." Last March, office workers called authorities after the woman made what Gallegos described as a rude allegation. Other times, Gallegos said, Sanmarco would come in and simply stare at one employee in particular. In June, police in nearby Grants, N.M., talked to her after someone at a gas station called to complain of nudity, Police Chief Marty Vigil said. Sanmarco was dressed when officers arrived. It was unclear when she returned to California. Tabala said Sanmarco was close with an employee at the Goleta mail facility, Kevin Whittemore, 53, who died Jan. 21 of an apparent heart attack. However, she was not among employees who attended a beach memorial service Saturday, Tabala said. ___ Associated Press Writers Christina Almeida in Los Angeles and Sue Major Holmes in Albuquerque, N.M., contributed to this story. URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2006/02/01/state/n110003S85.DTL

"It's just a goddammed piece of paper!"

Wow... You said a funny.

So he admits it. How nice.

Pissed off 'cos your bed bitch got caught lying and I shown the evidence to back it up?? Seriously. STFU. Crawl back up the hole where your mom shat you out.

Have you read any of the evidence? No. Jet fuel could not of brougth the twin towers down. You're a tard. This steel was strongest and highest grade construction grade steel keeping this tower up. What about all the people reporting "bombs inside the building"? I suppose they are just tards too. read the whole fucking thread, you cretin. and you have a lame avatar. Secondly... Grow the fuck up. Don't it just suck to get owned moron?

Wow, coming from the social assclown who posted an article suggesting the US should nuke Canada, it is not so surprising that all you can come up with is the usual vomit gusing from your rotted cunt. Perhaps you need a good "edit" on your existance. Do you have a bratz play group to attend little girl?

So according to you, the cub scouts were nazis too? Way to bash them asshat. Especially when you were one Nazi boy. You must have been the one who wore the dress.

http://www.911review.org/images/photorotor.jpg There is one photograph of the debris, from [WWW]FEMA 1 that may be useful. A rotor (high pressure stage) coming from an jet engine can be seen in left-hand side photo above . On the top left of the image, what seems to be the housing of this engine. On the right, the leg of somebody working on the site gives approximately the scale, of less than a meter in diameter. Jean-Pierre Desmoulins examines this photograph carefully, and notes that: * this is a high pressure rotor element of a jet engine; * the diameter of the housing is not much bigger than the diameter of this rotor, * most of the witnesses heard a sound that they describe as the sound of a military aircraft (highly pitched and strident), not the sound of an airliner. He concludes: * this piece and the streamlining behind don't come from the engine of an airliner, which has low pressure fans of much larger size than the high pressure rotors, so that the streamlines are much larger than the diameters of the high pressure rotors. * the engines of this plane had no low pressure fans: they are military engines, for which noise is not a problem. Jet airliner Airliner engine ^engine from a Britannia Airways Boeing 757 that crashed 14 September 1999 at Gerona, Spain. This aircraft (G-BYAG) had the same engine model as Flight 77 ( N644AA) - Rolls Royce RB211-535E4. Not only is the diameter of the Rolls Royce engine is much larger, the rotor configuration is totally different. This debris photograph of the engine rotor, if the evidence was not planted, is consistent with a small jet aircraft such as the Navy S-3B, the F-15, the F-16 or the F-18; definitely not from a Boeing 757-223. One witness that reported seeing a 8-10 seat passenger plane, others reported a small rear-engined jet, which would be consistent with the Navy T-39 Sabreliner. Here is a picture from the pentagon, before the wall collapses. http://members.visi.net/~gbraden/ar...11_pentagon.jpg You're telling me a 767 made that? Why doesn't the government release the videos? I mean, after all it's a 767 that hit it right? Why werent the cameras working on the inside of the Trade centers 911? Why were bombing sniffing dogs removed from the buildings days before 9/11? WHY DID TOWER 7 COLLAPSE? FEMA said that it was "unprobable that the diesel tanks had anything to do with the collapse of tower 7" Not to mention, Tower 7 makes it the THIRD TOWER IN HISTORY to collapse from fire. Also note that there was no airplane that crashed into tower 7, and there was minor damage to the outer surface of the building from falling debris. If the diesel tanks ignited, there sure would of been a huge fucking explosion thats for sure, one that we didn't see. Firemen reported "isolated pockets of fire" You can hear the radio tranmissions of various sites. And the gov't should release the vidoes, becuase they HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE? How about the fact that the plane bounced on the ground before hitting the pentagon. Well sure as hell the grass didn't show any scuff Pentagon after wall collapsed NOTE: perfect grass WHen airplanes hit the ground, they fuck it up. Also, If a 767 was flight 500 MPH over cars, jetwake would of been reported, but all that was heard were the "screaming of a missle" or the "high pitched noise of a jet airplane". For a building to collapse into its own footprint, the way WTC-7 did, ALL the load bearing members must fail at the exact same moment. This is acheived in controlled demolitions. # The fires in WTC 7 were not evenly distributed, so a perfect collapse was impossible. # Firemen anticipated the building's collapse (even though fire had never brought down a fire-protected steel building prior to 9/11). # Silverstein said of the building "the smartest thing to do is pull it." # WTC 7 subsequently collapsed perfectly into its footprint at freefall speed. # Molten steel and partially evaporated steel members were found in the debris. When you add to the above the fact that Madrid's Windsor Building remained standing after an 18+ hour 800°C fire.....C'mon. The fires in WTC 7 were supposedly started by the collapse of WTC 1 meaning there would have been no time the rig the building for demolition on 9/11, therefore this had to have been done whilst the building was still occupied prior to 9/11. You're fucking numb if you don't get anything out of this Perfect collapse "The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue."

Alt. | attempts | succsess| % 2000 4 3 75% 4000 4 1 25% 6000 12 2 17% 8000 12* 1 18% Phones that were used: C1 Motorola i95cl - Telus Mike Network - 800 Mhz IDEN C2 Motorola StarTac - Bell Mobility - 800 Mhz Analog C3 Audiovox 8300 - Telus PCS Network - 1.9 Ghz CDMA / 800 MHz C4 Nokia 6310i - Rogers AT&T - 1.9 Ghz GHz GSM. (Tri-Band - Has an 1.8 GHz and 900 Mhz GSM these are European frequencies) IDEN - Integrated Digital Enhanced Network CDMA - Code Division Multiple Access GSM - Global Systems for Mobile Communications http://www.911dossier.co.uk/hj08.html That's his succsess. all the reports i've heard are that the phonecalls that were made were from 15,000 FT plus. ALLEGED 9/11 HIJACKERS: UNITED AIRLINES Flight 175 Crashed into WTC 2 1. Marwan Al-Shehhi: Date of birth used: May 9, 1978. Possible residence: Hollywood, Fla. Believed to be a pilot. Aliases: Marwan Yusif Muhammad Rashid Al-Shehi; Marwan Yusif Muhammad Rashid Lakrab Al-Shihhi; Abu Abdullah. 2. Fayez Rashid Ahmed Hassan Al Qadi Banihammad: Possible residence: Delray Beach, Fla. Aliases: Fayez Ahmad; Banihammad Fayez Abu Dhabi Banihammad; Fayez Rashid Ahmed; Banihammad Fayez; Rasid Ahmed Hassen Alqadi; Abu Dhabi Banihammad Ahmed Fayez; Faez Ahmed. 3. Ahmed Alghamdi: Alias: Ahmed Salah Alghamdi 4. Hamza Alghamdi: Possible residence: Delray Beach, Fla. Aliases: Hamza Al-Ghamdi; Hamza Ghamdi; Hamzah Alghamdi; Hamza Alghamdi Saleh. The father of Alghamdi told Al Watan that the picture provided by the FBI was not that of his son. "It has no resemblance to him at all," he said. [ Washington Post] 5. Mohand Alshehri: Possible residence: Delray Beach, Fla. Aliases: Mohammed Alshehhi; Mohamd Alshehri; Mohald Alshehri. ALIVE Saudi Embassy has named Alshehri as a victim of mistaken identity [ CNN] According to The Orlando Sentinel, the Saudi Arabian embassy confirmed that four of the five mentioned by Al-Faisal - Saeed Alghamdi, Mohand Alshehri, Abdulaziz Alomari and Salem Alhazmi - are not dead and had nothing to do with the heinous terror attacks in New York and Washington. [American Free Press] Flight 175 passenger manifest See also: Flight 175's Precision Strike on WTC 2At Least 7 of the 9/11 Hijackers are Still Alive

Note the several "squibs" projecting out. http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/squibs_and_streamers.mov More squibs. http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/n_tower_1st24.mpg Unfortunately, all of the debris from the collapses at ground zero was quickly removed, destroyed and shipped off to places like China and Korea before forensic examination could be performed. Firefighter Mag Raps 9/11 Probe,By JOE CALDERONE Daily News Chief of Investigations, Friday, January 04, 2002 A respected firefighting trade magazine with ties to the city Fire Department is calling for a "full-throttle, fully resourced" investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center. A signed editorial in the January issue of Fire Engineering magazine says the current investigation is "a half-baked farce." The piece by Bill Manning, editor of the 125-year-old monthly that frequently publishes technical studies of major fires, also says the steel from the site should be preserved so investigators can examine what caused the collapse. "Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the Happy Land social club fire? ... That's what they're doing at the World Trade Center," the editorial says. "The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately..." ...A growing number of fire protection engineers have theorized that "the structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers," the editorial stated. www.cam.net.uk/home/Nimmann/peace/explosions.htm The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) report into collapse of the WTC towers, estimates that about 3,500 gallons of jet fuel burnt within each of the towers. Imagine that this entire quantity of jet fuel was injected into just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with perfect efficency, that no hot gases left this floor, that no heat escaped this floor by conduction and that the steel and concrete had an unlimited amount of time to absorb all the heat. With these ideal assumptions we calculate the maximum temperature that this one floor could have reached. "The Boeing 767 is capable of carrying up to 23,980 gallons of fuel and it is estimated that, at the time of impact, each aircraft had approximately 10,000 gallons of unused fuel on board (compiled from Government sources)." Quote from the FEMA report into the collapse of WTC's One and Two (Chapter Two). Since the aircraft were only flying from Boston to Los Angeles, they would have been nowhere near fully fueled on takeoff (the aircraft have a maximum range of 7,600 miles). They would have carried just enough fuel for the trip together with some safety factor. Remember, that carrying excess fuel means higher fuel bills and less paying passengers. The aircraft would have also burnt some fuel between Boston and New York. "If one assumes that approximately 3,000 gallons of fuel were consumed in the initial fireballs, then the remainder either escaped the impact floors in the manners described above or was consumed by the fire on the impact floors. If half flowed away, then 3,500 gallons remained on the impact floors to be consumed in the fires that followed." Quote from the FEMA report into the collapse of WTC's One and Two (Chapter Two). What we propose to do, is pretend that the entire 3,500 gallons of jet fuel was confined to just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with the perfect quantity of oxygen, that no hot gases left this floor and that no heat escaped this floor by conduction. With these ideal assumptions (none of which were meet in reality) we will calculate the maximum temperature that this one floor could have reached. Of course, on that day, the real temperature rise of any floor due to the burning jet fuel, would have been considerably lower than the rise that we calculate, but this estimate will enable us to demonstrate that the "official" explanation is a lie. Note that a gallon of jet fuel weighs about 3.1 kilograms, hence 3,500 gallons weighs 3,500 x 3.1 = 10,850 kgs. Jet fuel is a colorless, combustible, straight run petroleum distillate liquid. Its principal uses are as an ingredient in lamp oils, charcoal starter fluids, jet engine fuels and insecticides. It is also know as, fuel oil #1, kerosene, range oil, coal oil and aviation fuel. It is comprised of hydrocarbons with a carbon range of C9 - C17. The hydrocarbons are mainly alkanes CnH2n+2, with n ranging from 9 to 17. It has a flash point within the range 42° C - 72° C (110° F - 162° F). And an ignition temperature of 210° C (410° F). Depending on the supply of oxygen, jet fuel burns by one of three chemical reactions: (1) CnH2n+2 + (3n+1)/2 O2 => n CO2 + (n + 1) H2O (2) CnH2n+2 + (2n+1)/2 O2 => n CO + (n + 1) H2O (3) CnH2n+2 + (n+1)/2 O2 => n C + (n + 1) H2O Reaction (1) occurs when jet fuel is well mixed with air before being burnt, as for example, in jet engines. Reactions (2) and (3) occur when a pool of jet fuel burns. When reaction (3) occurs the carbon formed shows up as soot in the flame. This makes the smoke very dark. In the aircraft crashes at the World Trade Center, the impact (with the aircraft going from 500 or 600 mph to zero) would have throughly mixed the fuel that entered the building with the limited amount of air available within. In fact, it is likely that all the fuel was turned into a flammable mist. However, for sake of argument we will assume that 3,500 gallons of the jet fuel did in fact form a pool fire. This means that it burnt according to reactions (2) and (3). Also note that the flammable mist would have burnt according to reactions (2) and (3), as the quantity of oxygen within the building was quite limited. Since we do not know the exact quantities of oxygen available to the fire, we will assume that the combustion was perfectly efficient, that is, that the entire quantity of jet fuel burnt via reaction (1), even though we know that this was not so. This generous assumption will give a temperature that we know will be higher than the actual temperature of the fire attributable to the jet fuel. We need to know that the (net) calorific value of jet fuel when burnt via reaction (1) is 42-44 MJ/kg. The calorific value of a fuel is the amount of energy released when the fuel is burnt. We will use the higher value of 44 MJ/kg as this will lead to a higher maximum temperature than the lower value of 42 (and we wish to continue being outrageously generous in our assumptions). For a cleaner presentation and simpler calculations we will also assume that our hydrocarbons are of the form CnH2n. The dropping of the 2 hydrogen atoms does not make much difference to the final result and the interested reader can easily recalculate the figures for a slightly more accurate result. So we are now assuming the equation: (4) CnH2n + 3n/2 O2 => n CO2 + n H2O However, this model, does not take into account that the reaction is proceeding in air, which is only partly oxygen. Dry air is 79% nitrogen and 21% oxygen (by volume). Normal air has a moisture content from 0 to 4%. We will include the water vapor and the other minor atmospheric gases with the nitrogen. So the ratio of the main atmospheric gases, oxygen and nitrogen, is 1 : 3.76. In molar terms: Air = O2 + 3.76 N2. Because oxygen comes mixed with nitrogen, we have to include it in the equations. Even though it does not react, it is "along for the ride" and will absorb heat, affecting the overall heat balance. Thus we need to use the equation: (5) CnH2n + 3n/2(O2 + 3.76 N2) => n CO2 + n H2O + 5.64n N2 From this equation we see that the molar ratio of CnH2n to that of the products is: CnH2n : CO2 : H2O : N2= 1 : n : n : 5.64n moles = 14n : 44n : 18n : 28 x 5.64n kgs = 1 : 3.14286 : 1.28571 : 11.28 kgs = 31,000 : 97,429 : 39,857 : 349,680 kgs In the conversion of moles to kilograms we have assumed the atomic weights of hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen and oxygen are 1, 12, 14 and 16 respectively. Now each of the towers contained 96,000 (short) tons of steel. That is an average of 96,000/117 = 820 tons per floor. Lets suppose that the bottom floors contained roughly twice the amount of steel of the upper floors (since the lower floors had to carry more weight). So we estimate that the lower floors contained about 1,100 tons of steel and the upper floors about 550 tons = 550 x 907.2 which is about 500,000 kgs. We will assume that the floors hit by the aircraft contained the lower estimate of 500,000 kgs of steel. This generously underestimates the quantity of steel in these floors, and once again leads to a higher estimate of the maximum temperature. Each story had a floor slab and a ceiling slab. These slabs were 207 feet wide, 207 feet deep and 4 (in parts 5) inches thick and were constructed from lightweight concrete. So each slab contained 207 x 207 x 1/3 = 14,283 cubic feet of concrete. Now a cubic foot of lightweight concrete weighs about 50kg, hence each slab weighed 714,150 which is about 700,000 kgs. Together, the floor and ceiling slabs weighed some 1,400,000 kgs. So, now we take all the ingredients and estimate a maximum temperature to which they could have been heated by 3,500 gallons of jet fuel. We will call this maximum temperature T. Since the calorific value of jet fuel is 44 MJ/kg. We know that 3,500 gallons = 31,000 kgs of jet fuel will release 10,850 x 44,000,000 = 477,400,000,000 Joules of energy. This is the total quantity of energy available to heat the ingredients to the temperature T. But what is the temperature T? To find out, we first have to calculate the amount of energy absorbed by each of the ingredients. That is, we need to calculate the energy needed to raise: 39,857 kilograms of water vapor to the temperature T° C, 97,429 kilograms of carbon dioxide to the temperature T° C, 349,680 kilograms of nitrogen to the temperature T° C, 500,000 kilograms of steel to the temperature T° C, 1,400,000 kilograms of concrete to the temperature T° C. To calculate the energy needed to heat the above quantities, we need their specific heats. The specific heat of a substance is the amount of energy needed to raise one kilogram of the substance by one degree centigrade. Substance Specific Heat [J/kg*C] Nitrogen 1,038 Water Vapor 1,690 Carbon Dioxide 845 Lightweight Concrete 800 Steel 450 Substituting these values into the above, we obtain: 39,857 x 1,690 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the water vapor from 25° to T° C, 97,429 x 845 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the carbon dioxide from 25° to T° C, 349,680 x 1,038 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the nitrogen from 25° to T° C, 500,000 x 450 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the steel from 25° to T° C, 1,400,000 x 800 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the concrete from 25° to T° C. The assumption that the specific heats are constant over the temperature range 25° - T° C, is a good approximation if T turns out to be relatively small (as it does). For larger values of T this assumption once again leads to a higher maximum temperature (as the specific heat for these substances increases with temperature). We have assumed the initial temperature of the surroundings to be 25° C. The quantity, (T - 25)° C, is the temperature rise. So the amount of energy needed to raise one floor to the temperature T° C is = (39,857 x 1,690 + 97,429 x 845 + 349,680 x 1,038 + 500,000 x 450 + 1,400,000 x 800) x (T - 25) = (67,358,330 + 82,327,505 + 362,967,840 + 225,000,000 + 1,120,000,000) x (T - 25) Joules = 1,857,653,675 x (T - 25) Joules. Since the amount of energy available to heat this floor is 477,400,000,000 Joules, we have that 1,857,653,675 x (T - 25) = 477,400,000,000 1,857,653,675 x T - 46,441,341,875 = 477,400,000,000 Therefore T = (477,400,000,000 + 46,441,341,875)/1,857,653,675 = 282° C (540° F). So, the jet fuel could (at the very most) have only added T - 25 = 282 - 25 = 257° C (495° F) to the temperature of the typical office fire that developed. Remember, this figure is a huge over-estimate, as (among other things) it assumes that the steel and concrete had an unlimited amount of time to absorb the heat, whereas in reality, the jet fuel fire was all over in one or two minutes, and the energy not absorbed by the concrete and steel within this brief period (that is, almost all of it) would have been vented to the outside world. "The time to consume the jet fuel can be reasonably computed. At the upper bound, if one assumes that all 10,000 gallons of fuel were evenly spread across a single building floor, it would form a pool that would be consumed by fire in less than 5 minutes" Quote from the FEMA report into the collapse of WTC's One and Two (Chapter Two). Here are statements from three eye-witnesses that provide evidence that the heating due to the jet fuel was indeed minimal. Donovan Cowan was in an open elevator at the 78th floor sky-lobby (one of the impact floors of the South Tower) when the first aircraft hit. He has been quoted as saying: "We went into the elevator. As soon as I hit the button, that's when there was a big boom. We both got knocked down. I remember feeling this intense heat. The doors were still open. The heat lasted for maybe 15 to 20 seconds I guess. Then it stopped." Stanley Praimnath was on the 81st floor of the South Tower: "The plane impacts. I try to get up and then I realize that I'm covered up to my shoulder in debris. And when I'm digging through under all this rubble, I can see the bottom wing starting to burn, and that wing is wedged 20 feet in my office doorway." Ling Young was in her 78th floor office: "Only in my area were people alive, and the people alive were from my office. I figured that out later because I sat around in there for 10 or 15 minutes. That's how I got so burned." Neither Stanley Praimnath nor Donovan Cowan nor Ling Young were cooked by the jet fuel fire. All three survived. Summarizing: We have assumed that the entire 3,500 gallons of jet fuel was confined to just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with perfect efficency, that no hot gases left this floor, that no heat escaped this floor by conduction and that the steel and concrete had an unlimited amount of time to absorb all the heat. Then it is impossible that the jet fuel, by itself, raised the temperature of this floor more than 257° C (495° F). Now this temperature is nowhere near high enough to even begin explaining the World Trade Center Tower collapse. It is not even close to the first critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F) where steel loses about half its strength and it is nowhere near the quotes of 1500° C that we constantly read about in our lying media. "In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900° C (1,500-1,700° F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments." Quote from the FEMA report (Appendix A). Recalling that the North Tower suffered no major structural damage from the intense office fire of February 23, 1975, we can conclude that the ensuing office fires of September 11, 2001, also did little extra damage to the towers. Conclusion: The jet fuel fires played almost no role in the collapse of the World Trade Center. The melting point of steel is 1,538 degrees Celsius, equal to 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit, although it will weaken and buckle at somewhat lower temperatures. But the absolute maximum that can be achieved with hydrocarbons, such as the kerosene-like mixture used for jet fuel is 825 degrees Celsius or 1517 Fahrenheit – unless the mixture is pressurized or pre-heated through the admixture of fuel and air, which in this case it could not be. Diffuse flames burn at a lower temperature, and fires fed by inadequate oxygen are cooler still. The best estimate is that the fires in the towers were burning at a temperature substantially less than 800 Celsius. The collapse of the towers through the effects of the fires is thus a physical impossibility. Here what i'm suggesting, overall. WTC 1, 2, and all the others - Set with explosives. What type? i don't know. The pentagon - I don't know, possibly a drone, or some type of experimental aircraft and some other explosives Flight 93 - Shot down. Even before all the ideas of the conspiracey theory. THink about it. It's a lot more comforting to think that the passengers in flight 93 took over the plane and crashed it themselves, then say - US Gov't shooting it down for security reasons. Thats extremely plausible even outside the non-official conspiracey theory. All the other airlines - Operatives either actually took over the plane, possibly we worked in cohersion with some fundementalists, Possibly some type of ghost pilot system was enabled. Who knows. Possibly there were no people on board those planes, ever. In the early 1970's the World Trade Center's chief structural engineer, Leslie Robertson, calculated the effect of the impact of a Boeing 707 with the World Trade Center towers. His results were reported in the New York Times where it was claimed that Robertson's study proved the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 moving at 600 miles an hour. Little did he know that decades later, two aircraft, almost identical to the Boeing 707, would impact the towers. The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 707-320B is 336,000 pounds. The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 767-200ER is 395,000 pounds. The wingspan of a Boeing 707 is 146 feet. The wingspan of a Boeing 767 is 156 feet. The length of a Boeing 707 is 153 feet. The length of a Boeing 767 is 159 feet. The Boeing 707 could carry 23,000 gallons of fuel. The Boeing 767 could carry 23,980 gallons of fuel. the cruise speed of a Boeing 707 is 607 mph = 890 ft/s, The cruise speed of a Boeing 767 is 530 mph = 777 ft/s. So, the Boeing 707 and 767 are very similar aircraft, with the main differences being that the 767 is slightly heavier and more fuel-efficient, and the 707 is faster. PostPosted: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:44 am Post subject: COMMENTS ON THE WORLD TRADE CENTER DEMOLITION. Reply with quote THE WORLD TRADE CENTER DEMOLITION. On the 11th September, 2001, three steel framed skyscrapers, World Trade Center One, World Trade Center Two and World Trade Center Seven, collapsed entirely. Other than structures bought down in controlled demolitions, these three buildings are the only steel framed skyscrapers, in the entire history of high rise buildings, to have suffered total collapse. World Trade Centers 3, 4, 5 and 6 also suffered significant damage, but none of these suffered the total collapse seen in World Trade Centers 1, 2 and 7 (in fact, these other buildings showed amazing survivability given that they were repeatedly hit by hundreds of tons of pieces of World Trade Centers 1 and 2, which on impact were traveling at well over 100 miles per hour). On the 23rd July, 2001, just seven weeks previous, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey signed a deal with a consortium led by Larry Silverstein for a 99 year lease of the World Trade Center complex. The leased buildings included WTCs One, Two, Four, Five and 400,000 square feet of retail space. The Marriott Hotel (WTC 3), U.S. Customs building (WTC 6) and Silverstein's own 47-story office building (WTC 7) were already under lease. Silverstein is seeking $7.2 billion from insurers for the destruction of the center. One would estimate that the chances of the insurers paying out anything at all, are close to zero. It should be emphasized that World Trade Center Seven suffered total collapse. World Trade Center Seven was neither hit by an aircraft nor by falling debris from the twin towers. If the claim that it was destroyed by fire were true (it is not) then it would be the only steel framed skyscraper ever to have collapsed exclusively due to fire. Although the WTC Seven collapse warrants the writing of a book, we will deal only with the collapses of WTCs One and Two. THE WTC WAS DESIGNED TO SURVIVE THE IMPACT OF A BOEING 767. Fact. The twin towers were designed to withstand a collision with a Boeing 707. In the early 1970's the World Trade Center's chief structural engineer, Leslie Robertson, calculated the effect of the impact of a Boeing 707 with the World Trade Center towers. His results were reported in the New York Times where it was claimed that Robertson's study proved the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 moving at 600 miles an hour. Little did he know that decades later, two aircraft, almost identical to the Boeing 707, would impact the towers. The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 707-320B is 336,000 pounds. The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 767-200ER is 395,000 pounds. The wingspan of a Boeing 707 is 146 feet. The wingspan of a Boeing 767 is 156 feet. The length of a Boeing 707 is 153 feet. The length of a Boeing 767 is 159 feet. The Boeing 707 could carry 23,000 gallons of fuel. The Boeing 767 could carry 23,980 gallons of fuel. However, the actual aircraft involved in the World Trade Center impacts were only flying from Boston to Los Angeles, and consequently, would have been nowhere near fully fueled on takeoff (the Boeing 767 has a maximum range of 7,600 miles (12,220 km)). The aircraft would have carried just enough fuel for the trip together with some safety factor. Remember, that carrying excess fuel means higher fuel bills and less paying passengers. The aircraft would have also burnt some fuel between Boston and New York. Government sources estimate that each of the Boeing 767's had approximately 10,000 gallons of unused fuel on board at the times of impact. To give you some idea how much jet fuel this is, an 11 foot by 11 foot by 11 foot tank contains 10,000 gallons (1 US gallon = 0.13368 cubic feet). So a novel way of destroying high-rise buildings is to load an 11 foot by 11 foot by 11 foot glass tank of jet fuel into a Ryder truck, drive it into the ground floor lobby, break the glass, set light to the fuel and walk away, the high-rise should collapse in about an hour (after all, 12,000 gallons of diesel was all it took to bring down WTC 7). Look mom, no explosives needed. Since, the Boeing 767 is much more fuel-efficient than the 707, a Boeing 707 traveling the same route would carry significantly more fuel and would therefore be a much greater danger from the perspective of a jet fuel fire. Thus the quantity of fuel that burnt on September 11 would have been envisaged by those who designed the towers. In fact, the towers were designed to survive much more serious fires than those of September 11. Over the years, a number of other high-rise buildings have suffered significantly more serious fires, but none have collapsed (not one). Before September 11, no steel framed skyscraper had ever collapsed due to fire. However, on September 11, it is claimed that three steel framed skyscrapers collapsed mainly, or totally, due to fire. See this article for proof that the jet fuel fires can be ruled out as the cause of the World Trade Center collapses. The cruise speed of a Boeing 707 is 607 mph = 890 ft/s, The cruise speed of a Boeing 767 is 530 mph = 777 ft/s. So, the Boeing 707 and 767 are very similar aircraft, with the main differences being that the 767 is slightly heavier and more fuel-efficient, and the 707 is faster. The thrust to weight ratio for a Boeing 707 is 4 x 18,000/336,000 = 0.214286. The thrust to weight ratio for a Boeing 767 is 2 x 31,500/395,000 = 0.159494. Since the Boeing 707 had a higher thrust to weight ratio, it would be traveling faster on take-off and on landing. And, since the Boeing 707 would have started from a faster cruise speed, it would be traveling faster in a dive. So in all the likely variations of an accidental impact with the WTC, the Boeing 707 would be traveling faster. In terms of impact damage, this higher speed would more than compensate for the slightly lower weight of the Boeing 707. To illustrate this point we calculate the energy that the planes would impart to the towers in any accidental collision at their cruise speed. The kinetic energy released by the impact of a Boeing 707 at cruise speed is = 0.5 x 336,000 x (890)^2/32.174 = 4.136 billion ft lbs force (5,607,720 Kilojoules). The kinetic energy released by the impact of a Boeing 767 at cruise speed is = 0.5 x 395,000 x (777)^2/32.174 = 3.706 billion ft lbs force (5,024,650 Kilojoules). However, the actual aircraft involved in the World Trade Center impacts were only flying from Boston to Los Angeles, and consequently, would have been nowhere near fully fueled on takeoff (the Boeing 767 has a maximum range of 7,600 miles (12,220 km)). The aircraft would have carried just enough fuel for the trip together with some safety factor. Remember, that carrying excess fuel means higher fuel bills and less paying passengers. The aircraft would have also burnt some fuel between Boston and New York. The official theory that was adopted by FEMA is the truss theory. That Jet fuel weakened and deformed the Towers, causing a catastrophic chain of events, leading to their collapse. Also, if you think about it, the towers lasted a relatively short time before they fell. Only one hour. Picture of the contruction of the WTC Towers In 1975 a WTC fire on six floors for three hours. Building still stood A B-52 Bomber Hit the Empire state building sometime between 1930-1950 (Not sure) and it still stood. Although, I must mention, B-52's are much lighter than the planes that hit the WTC. Fire, Venezualas tallest building, 17 hours Quote: Massive Blaze Destroys Madrid High-Rise LA Times Feb.14 2005 Firefighters struggled for nearly 24 hours before controlling one of Madrid's worst blazes, which reduced a 32-story office building to a blackened hulk of twisted wreckage. Thick smoke and temperatures up to nearly 1,500 degrees Fahrenheit prevented firefighters from entering the Windsor building until late Sunday. “Amazing, incredible pick your word. For the third time today, it’s reminiscent of those pictures we’ve all seen too much on television before, where a building was deliberately destroyed by well placed dynamite to knock it down.” - CBS News anchor Dan Rather commenting on the collapse of Building 7 - September 11, 2001 at approx 5:30pm EST. The fire, which slightly injured seven people, erupted Saturday night. Though badly damaged, the tower didn't collapse.