Politics

Red Leg said:
They are then incorporated into training companies within active battalions on the front so that they are not thrown immediately into combat.
Click to expand...
This is similar to policies at least at the company level in USMC in 1967-68. A report indicated that a significant portion of casualties occurred with Marines who had less than 30 days in country or had less than 30 days before rotation out. So "new guys" and short-timers were assigned to "lower risk" activities. Although the rockets, mortars and satchel charges fell on all without regard for time in country.
 
steve white said:
Fox reported a poll listing Crockett ahead of Cornyn in the Senate race in Texas...I fear the uninformed younger vote in days to come.
Click to expand...
The Repubs better pour some more money into that race, to expose the "Mouth from the South" for what she really is.
Way too many low information voters that would vote for a Ham sandwich because it has a (D) next to the name
 
steve white said:
Fox reported a poll listing Crockett ahead of Cornyn in the Senate race in Texas...I fear the uninformed younger vote in days to come.
Click to expand...
Sure, if you only poll in the the Metro areas. But Cornyn is not going to make it out the R primary. Unfortunately, that F**cker Beto is talking about running again and also the former mayor of San Antonio
 
Red Leg said:
The aircraft was declared operational in 1983 and Clancy's book "Red Storm Rising" which debuted the F-19 with all the attributes of the F-117 was published in 1986. He had excellent contacts throughout DOD. DOD acknowledged the program in 1988, but virtually nothing was known publicly about it until the Gulf War in 1990.

I consider the conspiracy nuts pandering 911 nonsense as some of the worst of the worst. Patriotic servicemen have no problem protecting the military and intelligence secrets of this country. But hiding the participation of hundreds - perhaps thousands of co-conspirators in something like a 911 or the Apollo landings are the realm of absolute fantasy.
Click to expand...


I object to galvanizing a debate and using the most extreme examples of conspiracies as justification to not ask questions in general.

For 9/11, the most troubling issue is related to World Trade Center Tower 7. Its type rating as a building worldwide never resulted in a total collapse under fire in the manner that occurred in NY. The TV footage of the owner stating "they" made the decision to "pull it" is legitimate film. The inconsistencies in who ordered FDNY to exit the relatively small fire because it was going to go down is extremely odd, particularly because that type of building never collapsed in that timeframe due to fire previously. Does that mean its space lasers, a jewish cabal, or al queada that caused it? Absolutely not. It's a confidence-reducing incongruent chapter in the 9/11 account.

As to the F-117, its a conspiracy of sorts, but a benign one that was general misdirection to protect the development of a superior technology. It is no different than the SR71 or the B-2. I believe all were developed by Skunk Works and required utmost, as to be expected confidentiality.

Commingling the two is incongruent, the former is a problematic and unsatisfactory official account, the other is classified R&D of an aircraft as business as usual within the remit of the project.
 
Last edited:
rookhawk said:
I object to galvanizing a debate and using the most extreme examples of conspiracies as justification to not ask questions in general.

For 9/11, the most troubling issue is related to World Trade Center Tower 7. Its type rating as a building worldwide never resulted in a total collapse under fire in the manner that occurred in NY. The TV footage of the owner stating "they" made the decision to "pull it" is legitimate film. The inconsistencies in who ordered FDNY to exit the relatively small fire because it was going to go down is extremely odd, particularly because that type of building never collapsed in that timeframe due to fire previously. Does that mean its space lasers, a jewish cabal, or al queada that caused it? Absolutely not. It's a confidence-reducing incongruent chapter in the 9/11 account.

As to the F-117, its a conspiracy of sorts, but a benign one that was general misdirection to protect the development of a superior technology. It is no different than the SR71 or the B-2. I believe all were developed by Skunk Works and required utmost, as to be expected confidentiality.

Commingling the two is incongruent, the former is a problematic and unsatisfactory official account, the other is classified R&D of an aircraft as business as usual within the remit of the project.
Click to expand...
As I say, I find the whole fantasy dialogue around 911 to be absolutely loathsome. It is particularly frustrating when otherwise intelligent people, often with business acumen and education, pander it while ignoring extensive investigations that have been done on the subject. Those very transparent investigations address the very issues proffered as some sort of ignored or overlooked evidence.

I would strongly suggest you actually read the NIST Final Report on WTC 7 dated 2008. You can find it at this link. https://www.nist.gov/publications/final-report-collapse-world-trade-center-building-7-federal-building-and-fire-safety[]
Over 200 experts were involved in the NIST investigation which was conducted over six years, using extensive modeling, forensic analysis, and interviews. The WTC 7 portion took approximately three of those years. After actually reading it some years ago, I find nothing "confidence reducing" in that analysis.

What is compelling to me is the weight the fabulists give to the reported "pull it" order when standard operations for most fire departments, to include NYFD, use the term or its longer form "pull operations" to abandon an effort on a structure. The call was apparently made by FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro, who was in charge of operations. Nigro has stated he made the call to evacuate the area around WTC 7 due to its imminent collapse risk, based on reports from engineers and firefighters. Conspiracy dead enders seem all to eager to grasp the order as "evidence" the building was secretly demolished rather than be bothered with the real facts in the NIST report.

I can also recommend a Popular Mechanics article and investigation updated in 2024 "Debunking 911 Myths." You can find it at this link. https://www.popularmechanics.com/mi...6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/)

Also. the BBC did some fairly extensive research into 911 conspiracy industry on the twentieth anniversary of 911. You can find that at this link. https://www.bbc.com/news/58468926[](https://www.bbc.com/news/58469600)

I would offer a final bit of engineering trivia that has occurred since 911 - the Plasco building fire in Tehran in 2017. Its construction was not unlike WTC 7. It collapsed due to fire.

 
Red Leg said:
As I say, I find the whole fantasy dialogue around 911 to be absolutely loathsome. It is particularly frustrating when otherwise intelligent people, often with business acumen and education, pander it while ignoring extensive investigations that have been done on the subject. Those very transparent investigations address the very issues proffered as some sort of ignored or overlooked evidence.

I would strongly suggest you actually read the NIST Final Report on WTC 7 dated 2008. You can find it at this link. https://www.nist.gov/publications/final-report-collapse-world-trade-center-building-7-federal-building-and-fire-safety[]
Over 200 experts were involved in the NIST investigation which was conducted over six years, using extensive modeling, forensic analysis, and interviews. The WTC 7 portion took approximately three of those years. After actually reading it some years ago, I find nothing "confidence reducing" in that analysis.

What is compelling to me is the weight the fabulists give to the reported "pull it" order when standard operations for most fire departments, to include NYFD, use the term or its longer form "pull operations" to abandon an effort on a structure. The call was apparently made by FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro, who was in charge of operations. Nigro has stated he made the call to evacuate the area around WTC 7 due to its imminent collapse risk, based on reports from engineers and firefighters. Conspiracy dead enders seem all to eager to grasp the order as "evidence" the building was secretly demolished rather than be bothered with the real facts in the NIST report.

I can also recommend a Popular Mechanics article and investigation updated in 2024 "Debunking 911 Myths." You can find it at this link. https://www.popularmechanics.com/mi...6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/)

Also. the BBC did some fairly extensive research into 911 conspiracy industry on the twentieth anniversary of 911. You can find that at this link. https://www.bbc.com/news/58468926[](https://www.bbc.com/news/58469600)

I would offer a final bit of engineering trivia that has occurred since 911 - the Plasco building fire in Tehran in 2017. Its construction was not unlike WTC 7. It collapsed due to fire.

Click to expand...
And, the WTC was not just any fire--the perpetrators had fully fueled jets for cross country travel, which added a lot of BTUs to the collapse equation.
 
Red Leg said:
As I say, I find the whole fantasy dialogue around 911 to be absolutely loathsome. It is particularly frustrating when otherwise intelligent people, often with business acumen and education, pander it while ignoring extensive investigations that have been done on the subject. Those very transparent investigations address the very issues proffered as some sort of ignored or overlooked evidence.

I would strongly suggest you actually read the NIST Final Report on WTC 7 dated 2008. You can find it at this link. https://www.nist.gov/publications/final-report-collapse-world-trade-center-building-7-federal-building-and-fire-safety[]
Over 200 experts were involved in the NIST investigation which was conducted over six years, using extensive modeling, forensic analysis, and interviews. The WTC 7 portion took approximately three of those years. After actually reading it some years ago, I find nothing "confidence reducing" in that analysis.

What is compelling to me is the weight the fabulists give to the reported "pull it" order when standard operations for most fire departments, to include NYFD, use the term or its longer form "pull operations" to abandon an effort on a structure. The call was apparently made by FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro, who was in charge of operations. Nigro has stated he made the call to evacuate the area around WTC 7 due to its imminent collapse risk, based on reports from engineers and firefighters. Conspiracy dead enders seem all to eager to grasp the order as "evidence" the building was secretly demolished rather than be bothered with the real facts in the NIST report.

I can also recommend a Popular Mechanics article and investigation updated in 2024 "Debunking 911 Myths." You can find it at this link. https://www.popularmechanics.com/mi...6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/)

Also. the BBC did some fairly extensive research into 911 conspiracy industry on the twentieth anniversary of 911. You can find that at this link. https://www.bbc.com/news/58468926[](https://www.bbc.com/news/58469600)

I would offer a final bit of engineering trivia that has occurred since 911 - the Plasco building fire in Tehran in 2017. Its construction was not unlike WTC 7. It collapsed due to fire.

Click to expand...

internationalfireandsafetyjournal.com

Did World Trade Center Building 7 really collapse due to an office fuel load fire?

Did the World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7) really completely collapse in freefall, symmetrically into its own footprint – in seven seconds – due to an
internationalfireandsafetyjournal.com internationalfireandsafetyjournal.com
 
Brent in Az said:
Ryan Routh, the failed Trump assassin who hid on the outskirts of the golf course to ambush Trump, has decided to dismiss court appointed lawyers, and represent himself in federal court.

I'm sure that will end well.
Click to expand...
It really will not make a difference, the outcome will be the same.
 
Brent in Az said:
Ryan Routh, the failed Trump assassin who hid on the outskirts of the golf course to ambush Trump, has decided to dismiss court appointed lawyers, and represent himself in federal court.

I'm sure that will end well.
Click to expand...

wesheltonj said:
It really will not make a difference, the outcome will be the same.
Click to expand...
It will provide some cheap entertainment if they allow cameras in the courtroom
 
rookhawk said:
internationalfireandsafetyjournal.com

Did World Trade Center Building 7 really collapse due to an office fuel load fire?

Did the World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7) really completely collapse in freefall, symmetrically into its own footprint – in seven seconds – due to an
internationalfireandsafetyjournal.com internationalfireandsafetyjournal.com
Click to expand...
I assume you must have not actually read the final NIST report? Sadly, few people who are 911 truthers have. It really does represent the only peer reviewed generally accepted explanation of the event. If you have not, how do you evaluate claims like those in this article?

Raul A. Angelo is indeed an experienced fire fighter. I salute his service. However, he has never been educated as a structural engineer. I know a lot about the employment of ground support fires - don't ask me how to build an A-10 or why one fell out of the sky - ask an aeronautical engineer. Moreover, Mr. Angelo has never faced a fire like the World Trade Center. With that foundation, he is using that limited experience to challenge peer reviewed models used by the NIST in reaching its conclusions. I know it doesn't matter to the breathless keyboarders conjuring up fantasies about 911, but the American Society of Civil Engineers fully supports the NIST's conclusions.

If I may offer two expert opinions of my own, both Zdeněk Bažant (Northwestern University) and Thomas Eagar (MIT) have both endorsed the NIST 2008 conclusions.

Look, I don't know about you, but I spent a career evaluating information and bios. This guy is interesting, he knows something about fires, but he knows very little to substantiate the conclusions he is drawing. Of course that doesn't bother the fabulists. One would hope critical thinkers would not be so easily persuaded.
 
rookhawk said:
internationalfireandsafetyjournal.com

Did World Trade Center Building 7 really collapse due to an office fuel load fire?

Did the World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7) really completely collapse in freefall, symmetrically into its own footprint – in seven seconds – due to an
internationalfireandsafetyjournal.com internationalfireandsafetyjournal.com
Click to expand...
I also asked Grok to evaluate his assertions. I don't claim that AI "knows" any more than any other investigator but it can clear some of the fog.

Below are specific examples from Raul A. Angulo’s October 2024 article in the International Fire & Safety Journal where he questions the official narrative of the World Trade Center 7 (WTC 7) collapse, along with counterarguments to address his claims. These examples focus on his key points that align with 9/11 conspiracy theories about WTC 7.
  1. Claim: The Collapse Speed and Symmetry Suggest Controlled Demolition
    • Angulo’s Argument: Angulo states that WTC 7, a 47-story steel-framed high-rise, collapsed in approximately seven seconds with “perfect symmetry,” resembling a controlled demolition. He argues that an office fuel load fire could not cause such a rapid, uniform collapse, drawing on his 38 years of firefighting experience to assert that fire-induced collapses are typically partial and asymmetrical.
    • Specific Quote: “When I watched the video of WTC 7’s collapse, it was clear to me it did not look like any fire-induced collapse I had ever seen… The building came down in a perfectly symmetrical manner in about seven seconds.”
    • Counterargument:
      • The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 2008 report explains that WTC 7’s collapse was not as uniform as claimed. The collapse occurred in three stages over 5.4 seconds: an initial slow phase (0–1.75 seconds), a near-free-fall phase (1.75–4 seconds), and a final slower phase (4–5.4 seconds). This is slower than the 3.9 seconds expected for true free fall, contradicting controlled demolition claims.
      • Video evidence shows the collapse began with the east penthouse, followed by the rest of the structure, indicating an internal failure of a critical column (Column 79) rather than a simultaneous demolition. The symmetry is explained by the building’s design, with long, unsupported floor spans that allowed progressive collapse once key supports failed.
      • Controlled demolitions require loud explosions and visible flashes, none of which were reported by firefighters, seismographs, or videos. NIST’s models, validated by structural engineers, show that fire-induced thermal expansion caused the failure, consistent with the observed collapse.
  2. Claim: NIST’s Inconsistent Reporting on Shear Studs Undermines Credibility
    • Angulo’s Argument: Angulo highlights a discrepancy in NIST’s reports about shear studs on WTC 7’s girders. He notes that NIST’s 2004 and 2005 interim reports confirmed the presence of shear studs on a critical girder connecting Column 79, but the 2008 final report claimed there were no shear studs, which was central to NIST’s explanation of the collapse. Angulo suggests this change was made to fit NIST’s fire-induced collapse theory, calling it a significant inconsistency.
    • Specific Quote: “The absence of shear studs in the 2008 report was critical to NIST’s theory, but earlier reports confirmed their presence. This discrepancy raises serious questions about the integrity of the investigation.”
    • Counterargument:
      • NIST addressed this in its 2008 report and subsequent FAQs. The interim reports (2004, 2005) used preliminary structural data, but by 2008, NIST obtained detailed construction drawings from the Port Authority and Frankel Steel, confirming that the critical girder between Columns 79 and 44 lacked shear studs due to specific design choices. This was not a contradiction but a refinement based on better evidence.
      • The absence of shear studs allowed the girder to expand freely under fire-induced heat (up to 600°C), pushing it off its seat and triggering the collapse of Column 79. Even if shear studs were present, NIST’s models showed that thermal expansion would still cause failure, as the studs would shear under the forces involved.
      • Angulo’s claim ignores NIST’s transparent documentation of the data update and the peer-reviewed validation of its models by the American Society of Civil Engineers and other experts.
  3. Claim: Fire Temperatures Were Insufficient to Cause Structural Failure
    • Angulo’s Argument: Angulo argues that the fires in WTC 7, fueled by office furnishings, could not have reached temperatures high enough to cause the steel structure to fail. He claims that steel requires temperatures around 1,510°C to melt, and office fires typically burn at lower temperatures, insufficient to collapse a steel-framed building.
    • Specific Quote: “Steel doesn’t melt at the temperatures of an office fire… I’ve fought fires in high-rises, and I’ve never seen a building come down like WTC 7.”
    • Counterargument:
      • NIST’s report clarifies that the collapse was not due to steel melting but to thermal weakening. Steel loses significant strength at 600°C, well within the range of office fires (up to 1,100°C). WTC 7’s fires, fueled by office contents and ignited by debris from WTC 1, burned uncontrolled for seven hours, with temperatures in some areas reaching 1,000°C.
      • NIST’s simulations showed that thermal expansion of floor beams and girders, not melting, caused the critical failure. The beams expanded up to 6 inches, pushing the girder off its seat and destabilizing Column 79, leading to a progressive collapse.
      • Angulo’s firefighting experience is valuable, but his claim misrepresents the mechanism of collapse. Other fire-induced collapses, like the Plasco Building in Tehran (2017), demonstrate that steel-framed buildings can fail under prolonged fire exposure, supporting NIST’s findings.
  4. Claim: Eyewitness Reports of Explosions Support Demolition
    • Angulo’s Argument: Angulo references firefighter and eyewitness reports of explosions in WTC 7, suggesting these could indicate explosives used in a controlled demolition. He argues that such sounds are inconsistent with a fire-induced collapse and align with demolition techniques.
    • Specific Quote: “Multiple firefighters reported hearing explosions in WTC 7 before it collapsed, which is not typical of a fire but consistent with controlled demolition.”
    • Counterargument:
      • Eyewitness reports of “explosions” are common in large fires due to secondary effects like electrical transformers blowing, gas lines rupturing, or debris impacts. On 9/11, WTC 7 was heavily damaged by falling debris from WTC 1, which could have caused such noises.
      • NIST reviewed audio and video evidence and found no acoustic or seismic signatures of large explosions, which would be unmistakable in a controlled demolition (e.g., loud bangs at 130–140 decibels). Firefighter accounts, such as those from FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro, describe creaking and leaning, consistent with structural failure, not explosives.
      • Angulo selectively cites reports without addressing NIST’s comprehensive analysis, which found no evidence of explosive residue or blast patterns in the debris.
Why These Examples Fuel Conspiracy TheoriesAngulo’s arguments resonate with the 9/11 Truth Movement because they leverage his firefighting credentials to question technical details, creating an appearance of insider skepticism. His focus on NIST’s shear stud discrepancy and explosion reports echoes long-standing conspiracy claims, such as those by Richard Gage and Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. However, his arguments cherry-pick data, ignore NIST’s detailed explanations, and lack support from the structural engineering community.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

... and 1114 more.
Total: 299,875 (members: 1,164, guests: 298,711)

Forum statistics

Threads
62,028
Messages
1,361,383
Members
117,889
Latest member
Rogeraduch
 

 

 

Proudly sponsored by

Latest posts

Latest profile posts

THAT'S AFRICA SAFARI
THAT'S AFRICA SAFARI wrote on tommy1005's profile.
Happy birthday Tommy1005 we hope the year ahead is filled with alot of hunting!
•••
THAT'S AFRICA SAFARI
THAT'S AFRICA SAFARI wrote on KENDOG's profile.
Happy Birthday Kendog!
We hope the year ahead is filled with alot of hunting!
•••
THAT'S AFRICA SAFARI
THAT'S AFRICA SAFARI wrote on chris338's profile.
Happy birthday! May the year ahead be filled with alot of hunting!
•••
THAT'S AFRICA SAFARI
THAT'S AFRICA SAFARI
Hemmingway "Out of Africa" dinner for our clients

We love going the extra mile for our clients. The best feeling in the world is our clients going "Wow! this is amazing thank you"
Having had a successful hunt, having happy clients leave camp. There is nothing better.
Knowing that they will return again next year as a friend.
•••
PerH
PerH
•••

Share this page

 
Top