Gaff's book?

[SPfloppy]

Somebody made reference to "Gaff's book" recently. Did he write a book? If so what is it called?

[W*GS]

Check out the bargain bin at your local secondhand bookstore. Can also be used as bird cage liner.

[Bob]

In all fairness, dispite my ideological differences, I think its pretty cool that he was able to see a big project like that through....

[SPfloppy]

^I'm sure it would, I am just looking for the title. I'm not a fan of his. i am just curious

[SPfloppy]

In all fairness, dispite my ideological differences, I think its pretty cool that he was able to see a big project like that through....


What is it called?

[W*GS]

What is it called?

"How to Make Money from Terrorist Acts that Murder Thousands".

[SPfloppy]

^Thanx. Mods if ya want you can close this one.

[DenverBrit]

"How to Make Money from Terrorist Acts that Murder Thousands".

That's harsh.

http://paulmcmahon.tv/buttons/bloodsucking_leeches.gif

[SoCalBronco]

"How to Make Money from Terrorist Acts that Murder Thousands".

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/attachment.php?attachmentid=23552&stc=1&d=1235861071

[DenverBrit]

Gaffney explained.


http://hfleechoil.com/images/lintah.jpg

[SoCalBronco]

Hey Gaff, I heard that a pipe bomb exploded at a nightclub in the middle east, again.

Why don't you go check your PayPal account. I bet the balance is higher, now.

[TheDave]

"How to Make Money from Terrorist Acts that Murder Thousands".

I've managed to break my addiction this this forum... But I miss posts like this.

[SPfloppy]

So I am guessing that W*AGS was screwing with me? And is that a pic of gaff above? Man if so that is exactly how I had pictured him. Errie...

[Rohirrim]

I've managed to break my addiction this this forum... But I miss posts like this.

Chickened out, eh?

Here's an excellent critique of Gaff's book on Amazon written by some guy named "Wayne" from Belfast, Northern Ireland:

What a great niche market. Last 9-11 book I read (and sorry , I don't have the title, but I've got a review of it in here somewhere) was by some British academic and associate of Noam Chomsky's. He writes that during the Clinton (!) administration plans were made with Russia (!), India (!), Saudi Arabia (!) and Iran (!!!) to topple the Taliban government. The plans were inherited by Bush and the invasion was set to go in late 2001 (!). In the same book the author states that the US invaded Afghanistan to gain pipeline routes that would avoid Iran (?). So the Iranians were going to help us screw themselves is the only conclusion I can reach. A conscientious reading of books like that one, and this one above, reveals scores of equally weird contradictions that most readers seem to prefer to ignore.

Books like this really make me wonder who, in fact, is being misled, or who dearly wants to be misled. Every "Truther" I've ever met was fully convinced the government was some vast evil conspiracy well before they cracked open their first 9-11 conspiracy book. It seems like these people are not looking for any particular truth, they're looking for confirmation of something they already believed in. There are plenty of legitimate questions to ask about 9-11, but going in with one's mind already made up is hardly the way to get answers. In fact that's a guaranteed way to miss important details.

My guess is that since Washington was under attack this big plane was circling the White House to maybe (just one speculation) line-of-sight upload everything imaginable from the White House computers, just in case the White House (or D.C.) got trashed and Presidential operations needed to be relocated. If people really want to believe that during a "conspiracy" like this the conspirators would be flying their gigantic, frightfully obvious, command and control center at low level over the White House, in plain view of everyone, well... even Evil Conspirators aren't that stupid (although it sure makes a lot of people feel good to think they're smarter than the Evil Conspirators--which might be the deep dark "truth" behind all this).

The whole Truther movement, with its complete ignorance of real world procedures, its comic book logic, and its jaw-dropping refusal to master basics like the critical differences between steel-frame and steel-core constructed buildings (or grasp the idiocy of notions like "faster than free-fall"), makes me wonder if Michael Moore wasn't actually dead-on when he claimed that Americans were the stupidest people in the world.

Five Stars for this book because, hey, maybe it's better that fans of stuff like this be kept out from underfoot, chasing will-o-the-wisps, witches, and hobgoblins. Again, there are plenty of problems with 9-11, plenty of mysteries, plenty of unanswered questions, but nobody's ever going to get to any truth reading books like this. (Ha!) Honestly, I really don't think too many people are very concerned about the truth here anyway.

I can't wait to read the comments on this, but my general response would be "physicians heal thyselves." Truthers have a lot of questions they need to direct at themselves. Why, for example, would a professor of engineering at Brigham Young go far out of his way to confuse steel frame and steel core contruction? To this day, no steel frame structure has ever collapsed due to fire, because the towers (and building 7) WEREN'T steel frame buildings. Why send Bush to Florida when, if the attacks were completely under the control of the conspirators, there would have been no risk to the President (and no risk of suspicion, and possibly even greater sympathy) if he'd been kept in DC? People, really try thinking outside the box here, I mean if you can, or want to.

[mhgaffney]

Nice work, Ro. You selected a review by a guy who from his comments obviously never read my book.

Curious -- this reviewer gave me five stars (the max). What sort of clown would trash a book he never read -- then give it five stars?

Maybe a disinfo specialist?

We have thousands of people who do this kind of "work" for a living -- full time -- working for the CIA, DIA, NSA etc etc. They have budgets in the tens of billions. We on the other hand have only our integrity -- our powers of discrimination -- and our genuine desire to learn the truth.

What do you have?

[mhgaffney]

Floppy,

You can learn more about my books at my two web sites.

www.the911mysteryplane.com

www.gnosticsecrets.com

[SoCalBronco]

Ahahaha....Gaff talking about "integrity". The same Gaff whose PayPal account increases everytime there's a tragedy in the Middle East. The same Gaff who professes to care only about social justice and truth and not money when writing his books, yet knows the PRECISE ranking of his book (#15) on Amazon's best seller list for 9/11 volumes.

This is right up there with Bob giving dating and relationship advice.

[Rohirrim]

Nice work, Ro. You selected a review by a guy who from his comments obviously never read my book.

Curious -- this reviewer gave me five stars (the max). What sort of clown would trash a book he never read -- then give it five stars?

Maybe a disinfo specialist?

We have thousands of people who do this kind of "work" for a living -- full time -- working for the CIA, DIA, NSA etc etc. They have budgets in the tens of billions. We on the other hand have only our integrity -- our powers of discrimination -- and our genuine desire to learn the truth.

What do you have?

So, anybody who agrees with you has seen the light, and anybody who disagrees with you is a "disinfo specialist?" That pretty much covers all the bases.

I got the distinct impression that he actually did read your book. He makes various references to the contents. In fact, he brought up an interesting point. He agreed that a fire has never brought down a steel frame building, but the three buildings that fell on 911 were "steel core" buildings.

[mhgaffney]

So, anybody who agrees with you has seen the light, and anybody who disagrees with you is a "disinfo specialist?" That pretty much covers all the bases.

I got the distinct impression that he actually did read your book. He makes various references to the contents. In fact, he brought up an interesting point. He agreed that a fire has never brought down a steel frame building, but the three buildings that fell on 911 were "steel core" buildings.

How would you know this? Did YOU read my book? Of course not.

What a clown you are.

I'm still waiting for you and Beerslugger to read NIST's fire simulation study, which contradicts NIST's own conclusions that the WTC fires burned hot enough to cause massive steel beams to fail.

The fire simulation study showed that the fires in the core of the WTC were cool. Why? Obviously, because as NIST admits, the fuels in the core were "negligible."

Even a grade school kid could look at the computer print outs and reach the correct conclusion -- that NIST lied about the cause of the collapse.

No fuel means no inferno. And this is supported by the eyewitnesses who were in the core and survived to tell about it.

Here's the link to the NIST fire study -- not that you'll look at it.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-5Draft.pdf

[mhgaffney]

So Cal Bronco,

FYI my paypal account has less than one dollar in it.

MHG

[Rohirrim]

How would you know this? Did YOU read my book? Of course not.

What a clown you are.

I'm still waiting for you and Beerslugger to read NIST's fire simulation study, which contradicts NIST's own conclusions that the WTC fires burned hot enough to cause massive steel beams to fail.

The fire simulation study showed that the fires in the core of the WTC were cool. Why? Obviously, because as NIST admits, the fuels in the core were "negligible."

Even a grade school kid could look at the computer print outs and reach the correct conclusion -- that NIST lied about the cause of the collapse.

No fuel means no inferno. And this is supported by the eyewitnesses who were in the core and survived to tell about it.

Here's the link to the NIST fire study -- not that you'll look at it.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-5Draft.pdf

Your basic premise, that the WTC was rigged with explosives by some enormous conspiracy in conjunction with hijacked planes being flown into them - for cover!? - is completely ludicrous, and borderline insane. Why would I read your book?

[tnedator]

^I'm sure it would, I am just looking for the title. I'm not a fan of his. i am just curious

The title:

Van Jones is my hero: How George Bush blew up the World Trade Center and murdered 3,000 Americans.

[W*GS]

Calling gaff-o a leech is an insult to leeches. They have valid medical uses, among other things. The only use gaff-o has is as a punching bag.

[DenverBrit]

So Cal Bronco,

FYI my paypal account has less than one dollar in it.

MHG


You're not just a leech, you're a failed leech. You must be proud.

[SPfloppy]

Holy crap. I didn't mean to start a fire in here.

Gaff-thanx for the link as someone who believes that 911 was nothing but a terrorist attack, I would be remiss if I didn't at least read input from the truthers if for no other reason than a good Laugh. Don't take that personal pal, I watched show on National Geographic today and I had heard you wrote something so I figured I'd at least look it up. Good for you for putting in hard work and research for a book. But again I my views are opposite your. cheers I'll check into this thanx for the link

[SPfloppy]

Damn! I tried the links but I am at work and the good ole "websense" filters blocked me. I'll tab this and come back to it when I get home in a few days

[mhgaffney]

Your basic premise, that the WTC was rigged with explosives by some enormous conspiracy in conjunction with hijacked planes being flown into them - for cover!? - is completely ludicrous, and borderline insane. Why would I read your book?

It was not a premise. It was a conclusion based on two years of research.

BTW, I never asked you to read my book.

No -- I asked you to read NIST's fire simulation study. Even a blockhead like you ought to be able to discern that something is rotten in Denmark -- if you saw the computer print outs.

But you are such a candy-ass that you won't go there.

Face it -- you never did a lick of honest research in your entire life. You're just another drive by shooter. A zero.

MHG

[tnedator]

It was not a premise. It was a conclusion based on two years of research.

BTW, I never asked you to read my book.

No -- I asked you to read NIST's fire simulation study. Even a blockhead like you ought to be able to discern that something is rotten in Denmark -- if you saw the computer print outs.

But you are such a candy-ass that you won't go there.

Face it -- you never did a lick of honest research in your entire life. You're just another drive by shooter. A zero.

MHG

On the bright side, he supported Van Jones position as Green Jobs Czar, and he is a truther like you. So, in a sense he has given you a back door endorsement.

[W*GS]

It was not a premise. It was a conclusion based on two years of research.

Bullpucky.

You decided, probably on 9/11 itself, that the WTC was destroyed by preplanted explosives, and then cherry-picked the data provided by the real investigators, and twisted it to "support" your pre-ordained conclusion.

You didn't do any research other than finding a few snippets, here and there, that you interpret to "support" your sick, twisted, bizarre, ****ed-up worldview.

You're a sad, pathetic joke, gaff-o.

[SoCalBronco]

Bullpucky.

You decided, probably on 9/11 itself, that the WTC was destroyed by preplanted explosives, and then cherry-picked the data provided by the real investigators, and twisted it to "support" your pre-ordained conclusion.

You didn't do any research other than finding a few snippets, here and there, that you interpret to "support" your sick, twisted, bizarre, ****ed-up worldview.

You're a sad, pathetic joke, gaff-o.

He also got his ass handed to him on a silver platter by Mark Roberts.

[mhgaffney]

Mark Roberts? You must be kidding.

Like -- you - Roberts never read my critique of the NIST Report.

Even Lonebolt admitted that Roberts' attack on me was dubious.

Of course it was. It was based on zip. Like your post.

[SPfloppy]

Man Gaff I didn't mean to start another flame up

[mhgaffney]

You get into 9/11 stuff and you can't avoid it.

Not a problem. I'm used to it.

[W*GS]

gaff-o is delusional - he thinks he's the ****in' Messiah.

[Rohirrim]

It was not a premise. It was a conclusion based on two years of research.

BTW, I never asked you to read my book.

No -- I asked you to read NIST's fire simulation study. Even a blockhead like you ought to be able to discern that something is rotten in Denmark -- if you saw the computer print outs.

But you are such a candy-ass that you won't go there.

Face it -- you never did a lick of honest research in your entire life. You're just another drive by shooter. A zero.

MHG

Occam's Razor: The simplest explanation is usually the closest to the truth.

When competing hypotheses are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selection of the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities while still sufficiently answering the question.

You can call me all the names you wish. I don't care. Your solution to this phenomenon contains more assumptions and entities than you could fit in a circus tent. In other words, it is lunacy.

[mhgaffney]

gaff-o is delusional - he thinks he's the ****in' Messiah.

Me delusional?

No. You're the one who claimed that the huge smoke plumes from the WTC means there had to be an inferno. NOT TRUE!

And you claim to be a scientist?

Anyone who has seen how much smoke a small amount of burning plastic can produce knows this is false reasoning. You don't have to be a scientist to grok on this.

There were tens of thousands of computers in the WTC -- and large amounts of vinyl, plastic, and synthetic materials, all made from petroleum. Set even some of that on fire and you get a lot of smoke -- but not much in the way of fire.

large plumes of smoke do not equal an inferno.

Put THAT in your pipe and smoke it.
MHG

[watermock]

I smoked some plsstic thinking it was crack.

Just sayin'

[SoCalBronco]

So I am guessing that W*AGS was screwing with me? And is that a pic of gaff above? Man if so that is exactly how I had pictured him. Errie...

Here is a picture of the cover of Gaff's book:

http://img190.imageshack.us/img190/796/51d4tvrqvtlss500.jpg

And here's a special message from Gaff to you:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/phyXPdnnMVk&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/phyXPdnnMVk&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


(Hat tip to TDmvp for this :) ).

[W*GS]

gaff-o still thinks that huge plumes of smoke means no fires.

'Nuff said.

[alkemical]

"How to Make Money from Terrorist Acts that Murder Thousands".

Do charities and gov't also count in this?

[mhgaffney]

Occam's Razor: The simplest explanation is usually the closest to the truth.

When competing hypotheses are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selection of the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities while still sufficiently answering the question.

You can call me all the names you wish. I don't care. Your solution to this phenomenon contains more assumptions and entities than you could fit in a circus tent. In other words, it is lunacy.

You will be surprised to hear that I agree with you about Occam's Razor. The simplest theory is often the best.

What you fail to understand, however, is that from the standpoint of science and structural engineering the simplest explanation for the WTC collapse is the use of explosives.

You have not thought it through -- or you would know this.

The NIST theory of the collapse cannot withstand closer scrutiny. The idea that the towers collapsed through the path of greatest resistance violates the laws of physics.

Building collapses always happen through the path of least resistance -- not greatest.

The idea that ALL of the columns failed at precisely the same moment also violates the laws of physics. Honest collapses are always random and haphazard -- not orderly and global.

The only thing that can do this is timed explosive charges.

[mhgaffney]

gaff-o still thinks that huge plumes of smoke means no fires.

'Nuff said.

You stupid moron.

Leave it to this clown to always screw it up.

I did NOT say no fires -- I said relatively small but smoky fires. This is what we all saw and what was filmed on 9/11.

The intense fires were limited in extent -- to a few floors and a few parts of the WTC.

[W*GS]

What you fail to understand, however, is that from the standpoint of science and structural engineering the simplest explanation for the WTC collapse is the use of explosives.

Wrong.

You know neither science nor structural engineering, so have no credibility in either.

[mhgaffney]

W*gs,

Have you reviewed the fire simulation study conducted by NIST?

I challenge you to lift your lazy finger to the keyboard and download this 238 page report. Go look at the computer print outs -- which show that the core of the WTC remained cool during the fires.

You call yourself a scientist? Do you ever do honest research? Here's a chance to prove to people on this board that you are more than just a pathological cynic:

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-5Draft.pdf

[mhgaffney]

NIST's theory of the collapse of WTC 7 requires an entirely new phenomenon -- never seen before in the history of high rise steel construction.

We are supposed to believe that huge steel columns failed at a temperature of a mere 500+ degrees F -- a temperature only slightly higher than the ignition temperature of paper --

The huge steel horizontal columns - we are told -- popped loose all their rivets -- separating from the vertical columns, triggering a global collapse at free fall speed.

Not one horizontal column failed in this way. ALL had to fail at this low temperature at exactly the same instant.

The theory is absurd and clearly violates the laws of physics -- and also Occam's Razor

As Carl Sagan said "Extraordinary theories require extraordinary evidence." So where is the evidence? Answer: It's non existent.

[Rohirrim]

You will be surprised to hear that I agree with you about Occam's Razor. The simplest theory is often the best.

What you fail to understand, however, is that from the standpoint of science and structural engineering the simplest explanation for the WTC collapse is the use of explosives.

You have not thought it through -- or you would know this.

The NIST theory of the collapse cannot withstand closer scrutiny. The idea that the towers collapsed through the path of greatest resistance violates the laws of physics.

Building collapses always happen through the path of least resistance -- not greatest.

The idea that ALL of the columns failed at precisely the same moment also violates the laws of physics. Honest collapses are always random and haphazard -- not orderly and global.

The only thing that can do this is timed explosive charges.

But Occam's Razor would demand that the planes were the causation of the collapse. Removing the planes from the equation is a total violation the primary concept.

[W*GS]

I did NOT say no fires -- I said relatively small but smoky fires. This is what we all saw and what was filmed on 9/11.

The intense fires were limited in extent -- to a few floors and a few parts of the WTC.

You do realize that each floor of each tower was an acre in area, don't you?

[W*GS]

Go look at the computer print outs -- which show that the core of the WTC remained cool during the fires.

Define "cool".

[mhgaffney]

But Occam's Razor would demand that the planes were the causation of the collapse. Removing the planes from the equation is a total violation the primary concept.

You overlook the fact that no plane hit WTC 7. There was no impact and no jet fuel. Yet the building fell in 6-7 seconds. At virtual free fall speed.

Every steel beam in WTC 7 was insulated to protect from fire. So with no impact there was no disturbance of the insulation. 100% of the insulation was in place.

[NUB]

The one thing that always gets me is that they found one of the hijacker's passports in the street a day or so afterward. Ostensibly, I cannot think out a way inwhich a small notebook of papers can survive something like that.

[mhgaffney]

Here is NIST's official press release in August 2008 -- when the official report for building seven was finally released.

I have bolded the key passages. NIST even created a new phrase "progressive collapse," which was totally unknown in steel frame design.

You will notice that NIST concedes the steel beams never lost their strength. NIST's collapse mechanism depends on a new phenomenon -- thermal expansion -- never seen before. NIST never explains how the failure of the first horizontal column caused the near instantaneous failure of every other column in the tower. We have ti take this on faith.

This report was so transparently phony it should have prompted a tsunami of outrage from the scientific community.

MHG

NIST WTC 7 Investigation Finds Building Fires Caused Collapse

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc082108.html

August 21, 2008

GAITHERSBURG, Md.—The fall of the 47-story World Trade Center building 7 (WTC 7) in New York City late in the afternoon of Sept. 11, 2001, was primarily due to fires, the Commerce Department’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) announced today following an extensive, three-year scientific and technical building and fire safety investigation. This was the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building, the agency stated as it released for public comment its WTC investigation report and 13 recommendations for improving building and fire safety.

“Our study found that the fires in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings, caused an extraordinary event,” said NIST WTC Lead Investigator Shyam Sunder. “Heating of floor beams and girders caused a critical support column to fail, initiating a fire-induced progressive collapse that brought the building down.”

“Video and photographic evidence combined with detailed computer simulations show that neither explosives nor fuel oil fires played a role in the collapse of WTC 7,” Sunder said. The NIST investigation team also determined that other elements of the building’s construction—namely trusses, girders and cantilever overhangs that were used to transfer loads from the building superstructure to the columns of the electric substation (over which WTC 7 was constructed) and foundation below—did not play a significant role in the collapse.

According to the report, a key factor leading to the eventual collapse of WTC 7 was thermal expansion of long-span floor systems at temperatures “hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in current practice for fire resistance ratings." WTC 7 used a structural system design in widespread use.

Citing its one new recommendation (the other 12 are reiterated from the previously completed investigation of the World Trade Center towers, WTC 1 and 2), the NIST investigation team said that “while the partial or total collapse of a tall building due to fires is a rare event, we strongly urge building owners, operators and designers to evaluate buildings to ensure the adequate fire performance of the structural system. Of particular concern are the effects of thermal expansion in buildings with one or more of the following features: long-span floor systems, connections not designed for thermal effects, asymmetric floor framing and/or composite floor systems.” Engineers, the team said, should be able to design cost-effective fixes to address any areas of concern identified by such evaluations.

The investigators also reported that if the city water main had not been cut by the collapse of World Trade Center towers 1 and 2 (WTC 1 and WTC 2), operating sprinklers in WTC 7 would likely have prevented its collapse. “Nevertheless,” Sunder said, “we recommend that building standards and codes be strengthened beyond their current intent to achieve life safety by preventing structural collapse even during severe fires like this one, when sprinklers do not function, do not exist or are overwhelmed by fire.”

Sunder identified several existing, emerging or even anticipated capabilities that could have helped prevent WTC 7’s collapse. He cautioned that the degree to which these capabilities improve performance remains to be evaluated. Possible options for developing cost-effective fixes include:

More robust connections and framing systems to better resist effects of thermal expansion on the structural system.

Structural systems expressly designed to prevent progressive collapse, which is the spread of local damage from a single initiating event, from element to element, eventually resulting in the collapse of an entire structure or a disproportionately large part of it. Current model building codes do not require that buildings be designed to resist progressive collapse.

Better thermal insulation (i.e., reduced conductivity and/or increased thickness) to limit heating of structural steel and to minimize both thermal expansion and weakening effects. Insulation has been used to protect steel strength, but it could be used to maintain a lower temperature in the steel framing to limit thermal expansion.

Improved compartmentation in tenant areas to limit the spread of fires.

Thermally resistant window assemblies to limit breakage, reduce air supply and retard fire growth.

The 12 recommendations reiterated from the WTC towers investigation address several areas, including specific improvements to building standards, codes and practices; changes to, or the establishment of, evacuation and emergency response procedures; and research and other appropriate actions needed to help prevent future building failures.

Determining the probable collapse sequence for WTC 7, NIST found that the impact of debris from the collapse of WTC 1 ignited fires on at least 10 floors of WTC 7, and the fires burned out of control on six lower floors. The heat from these uncontrolled fires caused thermal expansion of the steel beams on the lower floors of the east side of WTC 7, damaging the floor framing on multiple floors. Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical interior column that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building. The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the fifth floor. Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of the critical column. This collapse of floors left the critical column unsupported over nine stories.

“When this critical column buckled due to lack of floor supports, it was the first domino in the chain,” Sunder explained. “What followed in rapid succession was a progression of structural failures. Failure first occurred all the way to the roof line—involving all three interior columns on the most eastern side of the building. Then, progressing from east to west across WTC 7, all of the columns in the core of the building failed. Finally, the entire façade collapsed.”

[W*GS]

gaff-o is probably stroking 'em off as he posts here.

[Rohirrim]

But Occam's Razor would demand that the planes were the causation of the collapse. Removing the planes from the equation is a total violation the primary concept.

You overlook the fact that no plane hit WTC 7. There was no impact and no jet fuel. Yet the building fell in 6-7 seconds. At virtual free fall speed.

Every steel beam in WTC 7 was insulated to protect from fire. So with no impact there was no disturbance of the insulation. 100% of the insulation was in place.

So you agree that the planes were the determining factor in the fall of the towers?

[tnedator]

So you agree that the planes were the determining factor in the fall of the towers?

This is the part I don't get. You give this guy **** for his stance on the 9/11 attacks, but you support Jone's view, which is essentially the same. ???

[Rohirrim]

This is the part I don't get. You give this guy **** for his stance on the 9/11 attacks, but you support Jone's view, which is essentially the same. ???

From what I understand, Jones signed a petition to open an investigation into what happened on 911. I don't see that as a disqualifying action for somebody to fill a role as the president's Green Jobs advisor. Sorry.

Also, I don't think we have the whole story on what happened on that day. I would really like the government to come clean on how the hijackings were allowed to happen. There were massive failures of intelligence. Instead of heads rolling for allowing the worst attack on American soil in history, Bush gives Tenet the Medal of Freedom. WTF? I just think Gaff's take, and most truthers' takes about explosives, and massive conspiracies, and thermite, and mini nukes, and whatnot, are completely ludicrous. Did the Bush cabal use 911 to manipulate this country into fulfilling the neocon agenda for an Iraq invasion? Yep.

[alkemical]

Ro~,

That's always been my premise as well after doing enough research. When it came to 9/11 - the axiom "Nothing is true, everything is permitted" came into play.

The only thing i knew is that it happened, and people capitalized on it.

[DenverBrit]

The one thing that always gets me is that they found one of the hijacker's passports in the street a day or so afterward. Ostensibly, I cannot think out a way inwhich a small notebook of papers can survive something like that.

The TV station that reported finding the hijacker's passport, quickly recanted when it was discovered to be just a passport and nothing more, and not belonging to a hijacker.

But the legend lives on in the minds of the Troofers, who despite the evidence, keep the story alive.

Edit:
The report I remembered was that Atta's passport had been found. It wasn't.
There was a passport found, but there were also seat cushions from the plane as well as documents littering the streets.
The troofer claim that a passport couldn't survive and therefore had to be planted is nonsense.
Anyone watching 911 will recall the sheer quantity of paper falling from the Towers for a long time before the collapse.
Single sheets of paper made it safely to the ground so a passport shouldn't be a surprise.

[Rohirrim]

Ro~,

That's always been my premise as well after doing enough research. When it came to 9/11 - the axiom "Nothing is true, everything is permitted" came into play.

The only thing i knew is that it happened, and people capitalized on it.

I think the commission was one big CYA for everybody in Washington.

[DenverBrit]

This report was so transparently phony it should have prompted a tsunami of outrage from the scientific community.
MHG


The only 'phony' is you!!

As a transparent charlatan, you shouldn't pounding your chest about a subject that you're not remotely qualified to critique.
It seems that the scientific community...ie, those who ARE qualified....accept the report's findings and don't share your loony theories.....well, except those who are Troofers.

But you, our resident poet, organic gardener and pompous ass, want to point out the flaws.

Yet you're unable to grasp something simple, such as the difference between 'heat' and 'temperature.'

Clown!! :clown:

[24champ]

http://www.jewishbastard.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/a9-sexy-jewish-girls.jpg

[tnedator]

From what I understand, Jones signed a petition to open an investigation into what happened on 911. I don't see that as a disqualifying action for somebody to fill a role as the president's Green Jobs advisor. Sorry.

Also, I don't think we have the whole story on what happened on that day. I would really like the government to come clean on how the hijackings were allowed to happen. There were massive failures of intelligence. Instead of heads rolling for allowing the worst attack on American soil in history, Bush gives Tenet the Medal of Freedom. WTF? I just think Gaff's take, and most truthers' takes about explosives, and massive conspiracies, and thermite, and mini nukes, and whatnot, are completely ludicrous. Did the Bush cabal use 911 to manipulate this country into fulfilling the neocon agenda for an Iraq invasion? Yep.

Jones' petition wasn't just an investigation in general, it was far more specific.

"We have assembled 100 notable Americans and 40 family members of those who died to sign this 9/11 Statement, which calls for immediate public attention to unanswered questions that suggest that people within the current administration may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war.

Jones' name appears among the names of "100 prominent Americans" who endorsed this vile conspiracy manifesto. Others included actor Ed Asner, comic Janeane Garofalo, former Rep. Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2009/09/04/2009-09-04_obamas_911_problem.html#ixzz0QYSXvEPh

You clearly have a double standard at play.

[24champ]

http://images.askmen.com/galleries/model/cindy-margolis/pictures/cindy-margolis-picture-9.jpg

Another hot jew...

[mhgaffney]

The TV station that reported finding the hijacker's passport, quickly recanted when it was discovered to be just a passport and nothing more, and not belonging to a hijacker.

But the legend lives on in the minds of the Troofers, who despite the evidence, keep the story alive.

I can't speak to the specific TV report you mention -- but it is a fact that fragile evidence -- reportedly belonging to the alleged hi-jackers - was found at EACH crash site.

At the WTC, the Pentagon, and at Shanksville. All three.

1. A fragment of a passport was found at the WTC

2. A fragment of a driver's license was found at the Pentagon site.

3. A copy of the famous letter found in Atta's luggage was also found at the 093 crash scene.

This convenient discovery of exceedingly fragile evidence implicating the hijackers smacks of planted evidence.

You trash the 9/11 truth movement -- but remain ignorant of the facts, yourself. How pathetic.

[mhgaffney]

[QUOTE=mhgaffney;2545602]

So you agree that the planes were the determining factor in the fall of the towers?

According to John Skilling, the structural engineer who designed the WTC, the towers were built to survive an impact -- indeed, multiple impacts -- by a Boeing 707.

A Boeing 707 was slightly smaller than a Boeing 767 -- but had a higher cruising speed -hence had MORE kinetic energy than a 767

The WTC easily survived the impacts by the planes. In fact, NIST acknowledged this in its 2005 report. According to NIST, the crucial factor was the loss of insulation during the impacts -- assumed by NIST to be 100% -- which - we are told - exposed the steel columns to the fire.

The total loss of insulation was therefor of crucial importance.

Problem is, NIST contradicts itself. Elsewhere in its report it admits that considerably less than 100% of the insulation was lost. Such a conclusion is self -evident, given that the impact zone was limited in extent. Even if you assume that 100% of the insulation in the impact zone was lost -- mpst of the steel columns elsewhere retained their insulation.

This makes it impossible for these columns to lose their strength in 1-2 hours. This is a no brainer. It means that NIST lied to us.

[W*GS]

gaff-o has a vested interest in maintaining the troofer bull****.

Otherwise, if it goes away, he doesn't make money.

Face it, gaff-o - you're a moneygrubbing scumsucking mother****er.

[SoCalBronco]

I love how Gaff acts like some sort of general scholar peering out from an ivory tower on all of us peasants....when in reality, he's nothing but a pseudo-intellectual, who has no real knowledge of any of the specific scientific disciplines that would be required to intelligently opine on these subjects.

Gaff is merely a freelance writer. He holds no degrees or certifications in mathematics, physics, chemistry, metallurgy, engineering, calorimetry or any of the other relevant disciplines, here. He's simply a largely uneducated writer who likes running his mouth. He's got nothing more than a jock degree (Physical Science) from CSU. What a joke. He hasn't been published in any reputable publication or treatise. Rather, its only the far leftist newsletters and such that eat up his ****.

Personally....I found it rather amusing that time when W*GS asked Gaff to actually do a specific scientific equation in response to his argument about the supposed interchangeability of heat and temperature. Well.....we're still waiting for the equation and explanation to be done.

Come on, Gaff. Show us that you're the badass you claim to be. Do the equation that W*GS asked for. Surely, if your alleged familiarity with the highly complex subaspects of the various sciences at play is to be believed, you should have no problem with this.

Sack up, Gaff.

Otherwise, STFU, STFD and GTFO.

[24champ]

Otherwise, STFU, STFD and GTFO.

Or he can GFHJ (Go **** a hot Jew)

Like this one...


http://topnews.in/files/Katie-Price-Jordan_1.jpg

[W*GS]

Basically, gaff-o hasn't a ****in' clue. He doesn't know ****, but passes judgment anyway.

[24champ]

Basically, gaff-o hasn't a ****in' clue. He doesn't know ****, but passes judgment anyway.

I'm tellin ya he needs to GFHJ...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v492/MacGuffin3/rachelstevens.jpg

[SoCalBronco]

I dunno Gaff.....I think 24champ's argument is quite well reasoned.

Even the most cursory analysis clearly shows that the GFHJ approach would appear to be qualitatively superior to say....getting a handjob from Paul Craig Roberts (which is probably your preferred alternative)...not that there's anything wrong with that. I've also reviewed the NIST report and it confirms the superiority of 24's GFHJ approach.

BTW...how's that equation (about heat and temperature that W*GS asked you about) coming along?

[mhgaffney]

sigh...

You guys are a broken record. You just keep playing the same old tune.

You can't handle the facts or the message so...

you attack the messenger.

This story is as old as the hills.

But it's never been about MHGaffney.

It's about YOU -- who are living in deep denial.

It is YOUR problem -- so you better deal with it.

MHG

[24champ]

I dunno Gaff.....I think 24champ's argument is quite well reasoned.

Even the most cursory analysis clearly shows that the GFHJ approach would appear to be qualitatively superior to say....getting a handjob from Paul Craig Roberts (which is probably your preferred alternative)...not that there's anything wrong with that. I've also reviewed the NIST report and it confirms the superiority of 24's GFHJ approach.

BTW...how's that equation (about heat and temperature that W*GS asked you about) coming along?

I am writing a book titled "Guide to GFHJ", so hurry up and pre-order the book.

But wait, that's not all! I'll throw in this shirt with the book.

http://rlv.zcache.com/i_love_jewish_girls_tshirt-p235536210148774943q6v8_400.jpg


All profits go to the Mossad.;D

[SoCalBronco]

sigh...

You guys are a broken record. You just keep playing the same old tune.

You can't handle the facts or the message so...

you attack the messenger.

This story is as old as the hills.

But it's never been about MHGaffney.

It's about YOU -- who are living in deep denial.

It is YOUR problem -- so you better deal with it.

MHG

Facts?

Gaff...you haven't rebutted the points, above. You are simply not qualified to make these grand, sweeping statements about the intracacies of the NIST report and the scientific issues at play. I know you like to fancy yourself as some kind of all knowing scholar or prominent academic. You like to pump up your self worth by pretending that you are some kind of white shoed, bow tied professor from Harvard University when in actuality you're resume is painfully inadequate. You're just a pompous, puffed up freelance writer in a cottage somewhere in eastern Oregon. Get over yourself. You're just a ****ing writer. Period.

Do you have a bachelors or doctoral degree in mathematics? No.
Do you have a bachelors or doctoral degree in chemistry? No.
Do you have a bachelors or doctoral degree in metallurgy? No.
Do you have a bachelors or doctoral degree in physics? No.
Do you have a bachelors or doctoral degree in structural engineering? No.
Do you have a bachelors or doctoral degree in calorimetry? No.
Isn't it true that the only degree that you have is simply an undergraduate degree in "Physical Science" (ie a jock major)? Yes
Isn't it true that you have never published any kind of SCIENTIFIC papers in a recognized academic journal of science or technology concerning an issue relevant to the NIST findings in any of the above named disciplines? Yes
Isn't it true that you lack any certifications of any kind in the above named disciplines? Yes
Isn't it true that W*GS asked you to do a simple equation to prove or disprove your theory that heat and temperature were basically interchangeable and you've avoided providing a substantive response to him? Yes
Isn't it true that you've never taken a single class in aeronautics? Yes

But it's nonetheless your position that you are somehow qualified as an EXPERT to make conclusions regarding the voluminous research and technical scientific evidence contained in the NIST report?

This is the problem with you, Gaff. You are simply flat out UNQUALIFIED to be making these assertions left and right.

[mhgaffney]

So Cal,

I haven't avoided anything. The questions W*gs raised about NIST's fire simulation study are in the NIST report. I gave the link. If he had read the report he would know the answers. Is it my job to do his homework? No.

FYI, I have a BS degree in physical science from Colorado State University, which means physics, chemistry, biology etc. It is a premed degree -- not as you say a jock degree.

I never claimed to be a pilot. When necessary, I have consulted with others who have the requisite training/skills in those areas.

If I act like I know something about 9/11, it's because I spent two years researching the issues. That's full time.

At some point in the process of digging through the 9/11 Commission Report, the NIST Report, and the 2002 Joint Inquiry Report -- and other evidence -- I realized that the official story about 9/11 was a pack of lies.

There are so many holes in the story -- it's hard to know where to begin listing them.

I've posted some of what I consider to be major problems on this board, in the hope of stimulating debate and discussion.

I have learned that you clowns are not interested in a real debate. You have not done any research at all -- aside from citing the same old debunker web site.

The debunker site W*gs favored made claims about WTC 7 that even NIST rejected in its final 2008 report. Instead of staying current -- you clowns just keep repeating the same old same old.

Beerslugger was another example.

So here's a question for you: Why are you so gullible? You were lied to about the Iraq War, just as you are being lied to about the financial and economic mess. For example, the official unemployment figure of -- what is it? around 9% -- is a joke. The actual figure is 15-18% -- about twice what they are claiming.

So where's your skepticism? You should be questioning EVERYTHING the US government is telling you. Yet, you seem to think I'm the problem.

This is laughable -- or would be -- if we were not in such dire straits. (I suggest you bone up on chaos theory.)

I've stated -- it has never been about MHGaffney. Toodles.

[Rohirrim]

The NIST says the floors of WTC 7 "cascaded" down. Is cascade the same as pancake? You betcha. ;D

[alkemical]

I dunno, i'd rather have pancakes than cascade.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

It's amusing to watch the usual cast of right-wing pinheads complain about always having to hear about Mark's books - only to start threads about Mark's books!

Must be sheer torture to have such an irresistible compulsion to keep looking at something you claim to find so repugnant.

But I guess it's precisely this pathological level of ambivalence that makes Republicans the party of gay-hating gays they are.

[DenverBrit]

It's amusing to watch the usual cast of right-wing pinheads complain about always having to hear about Mark's books - only to start threads about Mark's books!

Must be sheer torture to have such an irresistible compulsion to keep looking at something you claim to find so repugnant.

But I guess it's precisely this pathological level of ambivalence that makes Republicans the party of gay-hating gays they are.

One doesn't need to be a Republican to see the bullsh*t that Gaffney promotes for a buck at the expense of those who lost family members on 911.

And Gaffney being gay has nothing to do with anything.

Being a leech does.

[SPfloppy]

It's amusing to watch the usual cast of right-wing pinheads complain about always having to hear about Mark's books - only to start threads about Mark's books!

Must be sheer torture to have such an irresistible compulsion to keep looking at something you claim to find so repugnant.

But I guess it's precisely this pathological level of ambivalence that makes Republicans the party of gay-hating gays they are.

Hey genius, I started this and if you'd go back and read what I posted you'd learn that I wanted info about the book. Not to trash him. Keep your finger pointing aimed at the guys who tore him up not me. If I read this and hate it than I may come back and tear into him as well but for now I just started this for info

[W*GS]

I haven't avoided anything. The questions W*gs raised about NIST's fire simulation study are in the NIST report. I gave the link. If he had read the report he would know the answers. Is it my job to do his homework? No.

What homework?

You're several questions in the hole - from myself and others. You can answer them and demonstrate you're not just an ignorant asshole, or you can choose to remain silent, and thus prove that you are.

<crickets chirping>

[W*GS]

LABF, you'd be best off leaving gaff-o in his little world all by his lonesome.

[Rohirrim]

Gaff, you claimed that WTC7 was not fully involved in flame. And yet the fire chief stated that at least six floors were fully engulfed, they had no access to water, so they pulled back all their people and equipment and let it burn. He also stated that debris, including beams, had fallen from the towers and pierced WTC7 in numerous places plus there was damage to the lower floors from the collapse of WTC1. The building burned for a total of 7hours before collapsing.

Here's the letter from the fire chief who was in charge of WTC7 at the time:

Regarding WTC 7: The long-awaited US Government NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) report on the collapse of WTC 7 is due to be published at the end of this year (although it has been delayed already a few times [ adding fuel to the conspiracy theorists fires!]). That report should explain the cause and mechanics of the collapse in great detail. Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff).
The reasons are as follows:

1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.
2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.
3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.
4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.

For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.

Regards, Dan Nigro
Chief of Department FDNY (retired)

I can't think of a single reason not to believe this guy. Can you?

[Dukes]

It's amusing to watch the usual cast of right-wing pinheads complain about always having to hear about Mark's books - only to start threads about Mark's books!

Must be sheer torture to have such an irresistible compulsion to keep looking at something you claim to find so repugnant.

But I guess it's precisely this pathological level of ambivalence that makes Republicans the party of gay-hating gays they are.

Sounds simular to your infactuation with Bush.

[W*GS]

I can't think of a single reason not to believe this guy. Can you?

We could present gaff-o with the facts until the universe dies, and he wouldn't believe any of them.

He's immune to reason. He's insane.

[alkemical]

https://www.911twenty.com/flare/next

here buy some coins!

http://www.nationalcollectorsmint.com/product2.jsp?path=-1|1699&id=4689

[mhgaffney]

There's an old adage that goes something like this:

First they ignore you...

Then they laugh at you...

Then they attack you...

Then they REALLY attack you, call you every name under the sun...

Then they join you...

Eventually -- no one can remember a time when he supported slavery, or did not support female suffrage, civil rights, Social Security, and apple pie.

This is how society progresses. Even after the important changes people live in denial. But the important thing is that the positive changes do occur.

What is unfortunate is that they don't happen sooner.

[mhgaffney]

Gaff, you claimed that WTC7 was not fully involved in flame. And yet the fire chief stated that at least six floors were fully engulfed, they had no access to water, so they pulled back all their people and equipment and let it burn. He also stated that debris, including beams, had fallen from the towers and pierced WTC7 in numerous places plus there was damage to the lower floors from the collapse of WTC1. The building burned for a total of 7hours before collapsing.

Here's the letter from the fire chief who was in charge of WTC7 at the time:

Regarding WTC 7: The long-awaited US Government NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) report on the collapse of WTC 7 is due to be published at the end of this year (although it has been delayed already a few times [ adding fuel to the conspiracy theorists fires!]). That report should explain the cause and mechanics of the collapse in great detail. Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff).
The reasons are as follows:

1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.
2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.
3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.
4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.

For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.

Regards, Dan Nigro
Chief of Department FDNY (retired)

I can't think of a single reason not to believe this guy. Can you?


I can think of at least 118 reasons not to believe him: The 118 members of New York's finest who reported hearing, feeling and seeing explosions. These reports by trained professionals should have prompted forensic studies for residues of explosives in the WTC dust.

Yet -- FEMA and NIST refused to do them.

No such studies were done until a team of independent scientists led by Dr Steven Jones did them -- at their own expense. Nor has anyone refuted the evidence they presented in three scientific papers published last spring.

[SoCalBronco]

One doesn't need to be a Republican to see the bullsh*t that Gaffney promotes for a buck at the expense of those who lost family members on 911.

And Gaffney being gay has nothing to do with anything.

Being a leech does.

:strong:

[mhgaffney]

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe

Go here for more details

http://www.911blogger.com/node/19761

[watermock]

https://www.911twenty.com/flare/next

Wow .99 silver clad proof!

What an investment!

only 25 bucks.

[mhgaffney]

The traces of unexploded thermitic material found in the WTC dust is definitive evidence that the WTC was demolished.

This issue deserves its own thread -- see the new thread WHY THE WTC DUST MATTERS