Originally posted by metamars
Foxx:
Howdy. I see your friend Schneibster is back. I was hoping rather than you spending massive amounts of time rehashing previous posts, you might devote some of your energies to finding out more about explosives. In particular, I'm interested in knowing: tada...tada...
<br>I thought Schneibster was your friend !!! ... 
I am learning to control my urges to respond to 'trolls', because it only encourages their behaviour.
Please don't ask me to start investigating explosives. I am definately no explosives expert. Perhaps we need to look for an explosives expert who can give us a handle on all the specifics of such.
I think jaydeehess (er...the YID... I mean Yesitdid) put forth some calculations at Pravda related to TNT and calculations he had done regarding this explosive and came up with some exhorbitant figure of the amount of such 'explosives' to perform the job.
Perhaps he can post them again, (although I don't see how that is relevant)... unless we Knew that TNT was used.
I wasn't in on 'the operation' (believe me) so... personally I have no idea what was used to create the effects...
although we know that there was NOT enough PE / KE contained in the building to produce the observable effects.
I'm afraid I can't say one way or another what produced the physics anomaly.
If it can't be explained by natural means... the only other option I see is supernatural means !
If someone doesn't explain these physics anomalies pretty quick, I'm afraid I will have to begin to believe in ...
magic !!!
Foxx
11th November 2005 - 05:09 AM
QUOTE (zoktoberfest+Nov 11 2005, 02:22 AM) Your either with the terrorist or your with us. The ultimate global dichotomy courtesy of mil/spec GPS controlled planes. I wonder when the over-ride kicked in. I'm sure that C-130 that was hanging around, right in the middle of everything was the air-born control center of 911. The hijackers must have tripped out when the plane began to fly itself. Precision impact was needed not amateur mayhem. If you knew exactly the rate, mass and impact point, you could calculate the period of the wave transversing down the building immediately after the event.--- During the very convenient security stand-down at the WTC, personal carrying faux control panels, junction boxes and conduit sections that come from nowhere and go to nowhere, enter the building at say 2:00am. The gifts they bear are self programming trojan horses disguised to perfection to appear as if they were always their. they enter stair wells and utility areas, consult placement maps layed out by others who were there a few days ago, pull off self adhesive backing and position. Repeat and move to the next level. Inside these devices are batteries, a sensor, a processor, a relay, blasting trigger and explosives. The units are placed in horizontal arrays awaiting there sequential vertical programming from the ultra low frequency wave they are tuned to respond to. When they receive it they go into active delay mode. You can't have the buildings fall down right after impact. You have to savour the moment. Every person with access to a T.V. has to get a full dosage. Since there are those pesky technical people out their, the official failure mechanisms need sufficient time to run their course. Each horizontal array is counting down the same unit of time from the moment it read the impact wave. When it hits zero the processor triggers the relay, dumping current from the primary batteries to the trigger cap..... D-day (demolition day) Floor after floor after floor and down comes the building. So please don't tell me there's no way they could have done it. If I can think along these lines and I'm an idiot can you imagine there capabilities. Heh hehehe... nice, Zoktoberfest
Schneibster
11th November 2005 - 05:58 AM
No response, I see. Guess you don't care who knows you're lying.
Guest
11th November 2005 - 06:53 AM
To All turkeys,
This post together with the other clones of 911 have lost the primary objective of scientific discoveries. It is now an IDOL contest on whose topic get the most hits.
To those who chose to rehash the rubbish and cook it over and over and over again, my suggeation is that you should either go for a holiday or see a shrink.
You essentially insult the intelligence of other serious users who wants to learn more about science.
As a suggestion to the administrator, I guess you could open another category and call it "Pseudoscience or Turkey Theories". You can shift all related 911 thread into this category.
I guess that makes me a turkey as well for looking and writing on this thread that has been so ridiculously trivialised.
From another turkey.
metamars
11th November 2005 - 07:01 AM
OMG, another Conspiracy Theorist! Don't these people have anything better to do?!!! Steven Jones' paper is at http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.htmlfrom http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635160132,00.html Steven E. Jones, Brigham Young Physics professor, Thinks Bombs, Not Planes, Toppled WTCY. professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC By Elaine Jarvik Deseret Morning News The physics of 9/11 — including how fast and symmetrically one of the World Trade Center buildings fell — prove that official explanations of the collapses are wrong, says a Brigham Young University physics professor. In fact, it's likely that there were "pre-positioned explosives" in all three buildings at ground zero, says Steven E. Jones. In a paper posted online Tuesday and accepted for peer-reviewed publication next year, Jones adds his voice to those of previous skeptics, including the authors of the Web site www.wtc7.net, whose research Jones quotes. Jones' article can be found at www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html. Image Stuart Johnson, Deseret Morning News "It is quite plausible that explosives were pre-planted in all three (WTC) buildings," BYU physics professor Steven E. Jones says. Jones, who conducts research in fusion and solar energy at BYU, is calling for an independent, international scientific investigation "guided not by politicized notions and constraints but rather by observations and calculations. "It is quite plausible that explosives were pre-planted in all three buildings and set off after the two plane crashes — which were actually a diversion tactic," he writes. "Muslims are (probably) not to blame for bringing down the WTC buildings after all," Jones writes. As for speculation about who might have planted the explosives, Jones said, "I don't usually go there. There's no point in doing that until we do the scientific investigation." Previous investigations, including those of FEMA, the 9/11 Commission and NIST (the National Institutes of Standards and Technology), ignore the physics and chemistry of what happened on Sept. 11, 2001, to the Twin Towers and the 47-story building known as WTC 7, he says. The official explanation — that fires caused structural damage that caused the buildings to collapse — can't be backed up by either testing or history, he says. Jones acknowledges that there have been "junk science" conspiracy theories about what happened on 9/11, but "the explosive demolition hypothesis better satisfies tests of repeatability and parsimony and therefore is not 'junk science.' " In a 9,000-word article that Jones says will be published in the book "The Hidden History of 9/11," by Elsevier, Jones offers these arguments: • The three buildings collapsed nearly symmetrically, falling down into their footprints, a phenomenon associated with "controlled demolition" — and even then it's very difficult, he says. "Why would terrorists undertake straight-down collapses of WTC-7 and the Towers when 'toppling over' falls would require much less work and would do much more damage in downtown Manhattan?" Jones asks. "And where would they obtain the necessary skills and access to the buildings for a symmetrical implosion anyway? The 'symmetry data' emphasized here, along with other data, provide strong evidence for an 'inside' job." • No steel-frame building, before or after the WTC buildings, has ever collapsed due to fire. But explosives can effectively sever steel columns, he says. • WTC 7, which was not hit by hijacked planes, collapsed in 6.6 seconds, just .6 of a second longer than it would take an object dropped from the roof to hit the ground. "Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum, one of the foundational laws of physics?" he asks. "That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors — and intact steel support columns — the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass. . . . How do the upper floors fall so quickly, then, and still conserve momentum in the collapsing buildings?" The paradox, he says, "is easily resolved by the explosive demolition hypothesis, whereby explosives quickly removed lower-floor material, including steel support columns, and allow near free-fall-speed collapses." These observations were not analyzed by FEMA, NIST nor the 9/11 Commission, he says. • With non-explosive-caused collapse there would typically be a piling up of shattering concrete. But most of the material in the towers was converted to flour-like powder while the buildings were falling, he says. "How can we understand this strange behavior, without explosives? Remarkable, amazing — and demanding scrutiny since the U.S. government-funded reports failed to analyze this phenomenon." • Horizontal puffs of smoke, known as squibs, were observed proceeding up the side the building, a phenomenon common when pre-positioned explosives are used to demolish buildings, he says. • Steel supports were "partly evaporated," but it would require temperatures near 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit to evaporate steel — and neither office materials nor diesel fuel can generate temperatures that hot. Fires caused by jet fuel from the hijacked planes lasted at most a few minutes, and office material fires would burn out within about 20 minutes in any given location, he says. • Molten metal found in the debris of the World Trade Center may have been the result of a high-temperature reaction of a commonly used explosive such as thermite, he says. Buildings not felled by explosives "have insufficient directed energy to result in melting of large quantities of metal," Jones says. • Multiple loud explosions in rapid sequence were reported by numerous observers in and near the towers, and these explosions occurred far below the region where the planes struck, he says. Jones says he became interested in the physics of the WTC collapse after attending a talk last spring given by a woman who had had a near-death experience. The woman mentioned in passing that "if you think the World Trade Center buildings came down just due to fire, you have a lot of surprises ahead of you," Jones remembers, at which point "everyone around me started applauding." Following several months of study, he presented his findings at a talk at BYU in September. Jones says he would like the government to release 6,899 photographs and 6,977 segments of video footage for "independent scrutiny." He would also like to analyze a small sample of the molten metal found at Ground Zero.
Foxx
11th November 2005 - 07:27 AM
| QUOTE | Originally quoted by metamars
Jones says he would like the government to release 6,899 photographs and 6,977 segments of video footage for "independent scrutiny." He would also like to analyze a small sample of the molten metal found at Ground Zero.
<br>Why doesn't NIST document these publicly somewhere? If anyone knows where I can find them please let me know,
Question to the naysayers... WHY do we NOT have access to these public records?
metamars
11th November 2005 - 07:34 AM
| QUOTE | Question to the naysayers... WHY do we NOT have access to these public records?
<br>Foxx, you're a silly goose! These need to be protected for National Security reasons! There's a War on Terror going on, and we don't want to give ANY clues to Al Queda.
They got lucky on 911 - let's not make it so that they can do this again without Lady Luck.
metamars
11th November 2005 - 07:41 AM
I found the following from Professor Steven E. Jones' paper quite entertaining: (emphasis mine) | QUOTE |
The NIST report makes for interesting reading. The less severe cases based on empirical data were discarded because they did not result in building collapse. But ‘we must save the hypothesis,’ so more severe cases were tried and the simulations tweaked, as we read in the NIST report:
The more severe case (which became Case B for WTC 1 and Case D for WTC 2) was used for the global analysis of each tower. Complete sets of simulations were then performed for Cases B and D. To the extent that the simulations deviated from the photographic evidence or eyewitness reports [e.g., complete collapse occurred], the investigators adjusted the input, but only within the range of physical reality. Thus, for instance,…the pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the sagging floors were adjusted... (NIST, 2005, p. 142; emphasis added.)
The primary role of the floors in the collapse of the towers was to provide inward pull forces that induced inward bowing of perimeter columns. (NIST, 2005, p. 180; emphasis added.)
How fun to tweak the model like that, until the building collapses -- until one gets the desired result. But the end result of such tweaked computer hypotheticals is not compelling, sorry gentlemen. Notice that the “the pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the sagging floors were adjusted” (NIST, 2005, p. 142; emphasis added) to get the perimeter columns to yield sufficiently – one suspects these were “adjusted” by hand quite a bit -- even though the UK experts complained that “the core columns cannot pull the exterior [i.e., perimeter] columns in via the floor.” (Lane and Lamont, 2005; emphasis added.)
<br>
Foxx
11th November 2005 - 08:36 AM
QUOTE (metamars+Nov 11 2005, 07:41 AM) I found the following from Professor Steven E. Jones' paper quite entertaining: (emphasis mine) QUOTE
The NIST report makes for interesting reading. The less severe cases based on empirical data were discarded because they did not result in building collapse. But ‘we must save the hypothesis,’ so more severe cases were tried and the simulations tweaked, as we read in the NIST report:
The more severe case (which became Case B for WTC 1 and Case D for WTC 2) was used for the global analysis of each tower. Complete sets of simulations were then performed for Cases B and D. To the extent that the simulations deviated from the photographic evidence or eyewitness reports [e.g., complete collapse occurred], the investigators adjusted the input, but only within the range of physical reality. Thus, for instance,…the pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the sagging floors were adjusted... (NIST, 2005, p. 142; emphasis added.)
The primary role of the floors in the collapse of the towers was to provide inward pull forces that induced inward bowing of perimeter columns. (NIST, 2005, p. 180; emphasis added.)
How fun to tweak the model like that, until the building collapses -- until one gets the desired result. But the end result of such tweaked computer hypotheticals is not compelling, sorry gentlemen. Notice that the “the pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the sagging floors were adjusted” (NIST, 2005, p. 142; emphasis added) to get the perimeter columns to yield sufficiently – one suspects these were “adjusted” by hand quite a bit -- even though the UK experts complained that “the core columns cannot pull the exterior [i.e., perimeter] columns in via the floor.” (Lane and Lamont, 2005; emphasis added.)
I don't suppose we will see any attempt to address the above (rationally and scientifically). As it can't be done 'rationally & scientifically'... I expect to see some more sophistry arise. It should be 'interesting' to hear the responses... or... maybe they will just ignore it, and try to change the focus? ya think?
metamars
11th November 2005 - 09:19 AM
| QUOTE | I don't suppose we will see any attempt to address the above (rationally and scientifically).
<br>On this forum? I don't think we should flatter ourselves unduly, and think that the answer to your question, in this case, matters all that much. 
The interesting question is, will there now be a serious investigation by Ph.D. scientists and engineers into the collapses?
Unfortunately, if you want some insight into the most likely answer, you can check out the thread I began at metaresearch.org, regarding "denial or ignorance amongst NASA scientists"
http://metaresearch.org/msgboard/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=674
also, check out many of van Flandern's posts where he gets into the sociology of scientists.
It won't give you a warm, fuzzy feeling, but we can always hope for the best. For one thing, 911 put the country on a heightened, militaristic path, which is proving to be disastrous, as seen in the Iraq fiasco, as well as the known fact that that stupid invasion increased the number of real Muslim terrorists in the world, and severely degraded both the national security, and the prestige of the US.
There is a lot at stake here, and sometimes in dire conditions, real leaders come to the fore and even non-leaders grow a spine.
Schneibster
11th November 2005 - 10:52 AM
You do realize that a lack of response is a tacit admission that you're lying, don't you?
Not that anyone with a brain didn't already know.
Stallion4
11th November 2005 - 11:12 AM
From the Desert Morning News QUOTE Thursday, November 10, 2005
Y. professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC
By Elaine Jarvik
Deseret Morning News (Photo) Stuart Johnson, Deseret Morning News"It is quite plausible that explosives were pre-planted in all three
(WTC) buildings," BYU physics professor Steven E. Jones says. The physics of 9/11 — including how fast and symmetrically one of the World Trade Center buildings fell — prove that official explanations of the collapses are wrong, says a Brigham Young University physics professor. In fact, it's likely that there were "pre-positioned explosives" in all three buildings at ground zero, says Steven E. Jones. In a paper posted online Tuesday and accepted for peer-reviewed publication next year, Jones adds his voice to those of previous skeptics, including the authors of the Web site www.wtc7.net, whose research Jones quotes. Jones' article can be found at www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html. "It is quite plausible that explosives were pre-planted in all three (WTC) buildings," BYU physics professor Steven E. Jones says. Jones, who conducts research in fusion and solar energy at BYU, is calling for an independent, international scientific investigation "guided not by politicized notions and constraints but rather by observations and calculations. "It is quite plausible that explosives were pre-planted in all three buildings and set off after the two plane crashes — which were actually a diversion tactic," he writes. "Muslims are (probably) not to blame for bringing down the WTC buildings after all," Jones writes. As for speculation about who might have planted the explosives, Jones said, "I don't usually go there. There's no point in doing that until we do the scientific investigation." Previous investigations, including those of FEMA, the 9/11 Commission and NIST (the National Institutes of Standards and Technology), ignore the physics and chemistry of what happened on Sept. 11, 2001, to the Twin Towers and the 47-story building known as WTC 7, he says. The official explanation — that fires caused structural damage that caused the buildings to collapse — can't be backed up by either testing or history, he says. Jones acknowledges that there have been "junk science" conspiracy theories about what happened on 9/11, but "the explosive demolition hypothesis better satisfies tests of repeatability and parsimony and therefore is not 'junk science.' " In a 9,000-word article that Jones says will be published in the book "The Hidden History of 9/11," by Elsevier, Jones offers these arguments: • The three buildings collapsed nearly symmetrically, falling down into their footprints, a phenomenon associated with "controlled demolition" — and even then it's very difficult, he says. "Why would terrorists undertake straight-down collapses of WTC-7 and the Towers when 'toppling over' falls would require much less work and would do much more damage in downtown Manhattan?" Jones asks. "And where would they obtain the necessary skills and access to the buildings for a symmetrical implosion anyway? The 'symmetry data' emphasized here, along with other data, provide strong evidence for an 'inside' job." • No steel-frame building, before or after the WTC buildings, has ever collapsed due to fire. But explosives can effectively sever steel columns, he says. • WTC 7, which was not hit by hijacked planes, collapsed in 6.6 seconds, just .6 of a second longer than it would take an object dropped from the roof to hit the ground. "Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum, one of the foundational laws of physics?" he asks. "That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors — and intact steel support columns — the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass. . . . How do the upper floors fall so quickly, then, and still conserve momentum in the collapsing buildings?" The paradox, he says, "is easily resolved by the explosive demolition hypothesis, whereby explosives quickly removed lower-floor material, including steel support columns, and allow near free-fall-speed collapses." These observations were not analyzed by FEMA, NIST nor the 9/11 Commission, he says. • With non-explosive-caused collapse there would typically be a piling up of shattering concrete. But most of the material in the towers was converted to flour-like powder while the buildings were falling, he says. "How can we understand this strange behavior, without explosives? Remarkable, amazing — and demanding scrutiny since the U.S. government-funded reports failed to analyze this phenomenon." • Horizontal puffs of smoke, known as squibs, were observed proceeding up the side the building, a phenomenon common when pre-positioned explosives are used to demolish buildings, he says. • Steel supports were "partly evaporated," but it would require temperatures near 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit to evaporate steel — and neither office materials nor diesel fuel can generate temperatures that hot. Fires caused by jet fuel from the hijacked planes lasted at most a few minutes, and office material fires would burn out within about 20 minutes in any given location, he says. • Molten metal found in the debris of the World Trade Center may have been the result of a high-temperature reaction of a commonly used explosive such as thermite, he says. Buildings not felled by explosives "have insufficient directed energy to result in melting of large quantities of metal," Jones says. • Multiple loud explosions in rapid sequence were reported by numerous observers in and near the towers, and these explosions occurred far below the region where the planes struck, he says. Jones says he became interested in the physics of the WTC collapse after attending a talk last spring given by a woman who had had a near-death experience. The woman mentioned in passing that "if you think the World Trade Center buildings came down just due to fire, you have a lot of surprises ahead of you," Jones remembers, at which point "everyone around me started applauding." Following several months of study, he presented his findings at a talk at BYU in September. Jones says he would like the government to release 6,899 photographs and 6,977 segments of video footage for "independent scrutiny." He would also like to analyze a small sample of the molten metal found at Ground Zero. © 2005 Deseret News Publishing Company Link to article: http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635160132,00.html <br>Thanks to DZ over at 911Blogger.com for the heads up on this: http://www.911blogger.com/2005/11/steven-e...ng-physics.htmlAnd just to put things in perspective: QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | Thursday, November 10, 2005
Y. professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC
By Elaine Jarvik
Deseret Morning News
(Photo) Stuart Johnson, Deseret Morning News
"It is quite plausible that explosives were pre-planted in all three
(WTC) buildings," BYU physics professor Steven E. Jones says.
The physics of 9/11 — including how fast and symmetrically one of the World Trade Center buildings fell — prove that official explanations of the collapses are wrong, says a Brigham Young University physics professor.
In fact, it's likely that there were "pre-positioned explosives" in all three buildings at ground zero, says Steven E. Jones.
In a paper posted online Tuesday and accepted for peer-reviewed publication next year, Jones adds his voice to those of previous skeptics, including the authors of the Web site www.wtc7.net, whose research Jones quotes. Jones' article can be found at www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html.
"It is quite plausible that explosives were pre-planted in all three (WTC) buildings," BYU physics professor Steven E. Jones says.
Jones, who conducts research in fusion and solar energy at BYU, is calling for an independent, international scientific investigation "guided not by politicized notions and constraints but rather by observations and calculations.
"It is quite plausible that explosives were pre-planted in all three buildings and set off after the two plane crashes — which were actually a diversion tactic," he writes. "Muslims are (probably) not to blame for bringing down the WTC buildings after all," Jones writes.
As for speculation about who might have planted the explosives, Jones said, "I don't usually go there. There's no point in doing that until we do the scientific investigation."
Previous investigations, including those of FEMA, the 9/11 Commission and NIST (the National Institutes of Standards and Technology), ignore the physics and chemistry of what happened on Sept. 11, 2001, to the Twin Towers and the 47-story building known as WTC 7, he says. The official explanation — that fires caused structural damage that caused the buildings to collapse — can't be backed up by either testing or history, he says.
Jones acknowledges that there have been "junk science" conspiracy theories about what happened on 9/11, but "the explosive demolition hypothesis better satisfies tests of repeatability and parsimony and therefore is not 'junk science.' "
In a 9,000-word article that Jones says will be published in the book "The Hidden History of 9/11," by Elsevier, Jones offers these arguments:
• The three buildings collapsed nearly symmetrically, falling down into their footprints, a phenomenon associated with "controlled demolition" — and even then it's very difficult, he says. "Why would terrorists undertake straight-down collapses of WTC-7 and the Towers when 'toppling over' falls would require much less work and would do much more damage in downtown Manhattan?" Jones asks. "And where would they obtain the necessary skills and access to the buildings for a symmetrical implosion anyway? The 'symmetry data' emphasized here, along with other data, provide strong evidence for an 'inside' job."
• No steel-frame building, before or after the WTC buildings, has ever collapsed due to fire. But explosives can effectively sever steel columns, he says.
• WTC 7, which was not hit by hijacked planes, collapsed in 6.6 seconds, just .6 of a second longer than it would take an object dropped from the roof to hit the ground. "Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum, one of the foundational laws of physics?" he asks. "That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors — and intact steel support columns — the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass. . . . How do the upper floors fall so quickly, then, and still conserve momentum in the collapsing buildings?" The paradox, he says, "is easily resolved by the explosive demolition hypothesis, whereby explosives quickly removed lower-floor material, including steel support columns, and allow near free-fall-speed collapses." These observations were not analyzed by FEMA, NIST nor the 9/11 Commission, he says.
• With non-explosive-caused collapse there would typically be a piling up of shattering concrete. But most of the material in the towers was converted to flour-like powder while the buildings were falling, he says. "How can we understand this strange behavior, without explosives? Remarkable, amazing — and demanding scrutiny since the U.S. government-funded reports failed to analyze this phenomenon."
• Horizontal puffs of smoke, known as squibs, were observed proceeding up the side the building, a phenomenon common when pre-positioned explosives are used to demolish buildings, he says.
• Steel supports were "partly evaporated," but it would require temperatures near 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit to evaporate steel — and neither office materials nor diesel fuel can generate temperatures that hot. Fires caused by jet fuel from the hijacked planes lasted at most a few minutes, and office material fires would burn out within about 20 minutes in any given location, he says.
• Molten metal found in the debris of the World Trade Center may have been the result of a high-temperature reaction of a commonly used explosive such as thermite, he says. Buildings not felled by explosives "have insufficient directed energy to result in melting of large quantities of metal," Jones says.
• Multiple loud explosions in rapid sequence were reported by numerous observers in and near the towers, and these explosions occurred far below the region where the planes struck, he says.
Jones says he became interested in the physics of the WTC collapse after attending a talk last spring given by a woman who had had a near-death experience. The woman mentioned in passing that "if you think the World Trade Center buildings came down just due to fire, you have a lot of surprises ahead of you," Jones remembers, at which point "everyone around me started applauding."
Following several months of study, he presented his findings at a talk at BYU in September.
Jones says he would like the government to release 6,899 photographs and 6,977 segments of video footage for "independent scrutiny." He would also like to analyze a small sample of the molten metal found at Ground Zero.
© 2005 Deseret News Publishing Company
Link to article:
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635160132,00.html
<br>Thanks to DZ over at 911Blogger.com for the heads up on this:
http://www.911blogger.com/2005/11/steven-e...ng-physics.html
And just to put things in perspective:
- Dedicated to those that lost their lives in the attacks on September 11, 2001 -
Powerhouse Collection of 9-11 Controlled Demolition Quotes
(compiled by Stallion4, 11-9-05)
- From THE NEW YORK TIMES:
Assistant Fire Commissioner: "I thought . . . before . . . No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. . . . I . . . saw a flash flash flash . . . [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they . . . blow up a building. . . ?”
Source:
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...ory_Stephen.txt
- NYC firefighter: “It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit. . . [W]e originally had thought there was like an internal detonation, explosives, because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down.”
Link to quote:
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...chia_Edward.txt
- From The San Francisco Chronicle / SFGate.com:
Captain of Emergency Medical Services: "somewhere around the middle of the world trade center there was this orange and red flash coming out ... initially it was just one flash then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode ... and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides ... as far as could see these popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger going both up and down and then all around the building"
Link to quote:
http://sfgate.com/gate/pictures/2005/09/10...rin_deshore.pdf
- "When we got to about 50 feet from the South Tower, we heard the most eerie sound that you would ever hear. A high-pitched noise and a popping noise made everyone stop. We all looked up. At the point, it all let go...
...There was an explosion and the whole top leaned toward us and started coming down. I stood there for a second in total awe, and then said, "What the F###?" I honestly thought it was Hollywood."
- Eye-witness Jeff Birnbaum, president of Broadway Electrical Supply Co., New York
Link to quote:
http://september11.ceenews.com/ar/electric...trical_supplys/
- Member of the FDNY:
"We were trying to get some of the people out, but then there was secondary explosions and then subsequent collapses."
Video: http://www.911blimp.net/videos/FDNY-explosions.mov
- Firefighter:
"As we were getting our gear on and making our way to the stairway, there was a heavy duty explosion."
Video: http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/heavy.duty.explosion.wmv
- Firemen recall "detonations" in South Tower:
fireman2: We made it outside, we made it about a block.
fireman1: We made it at least 2 blocks.
fireman2: 2 blocks.
fireman1: and we started runnin'
fireman2: poch-poch-poch-poch-poch-poch-poch
fireman1: Floor by floor it started poppin' out ..
fireman2: It was as if as if they had detonated, det..
fireman1: yea detonated yea
fireman2: as if they had planned to take down a building,
boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom ...
fireman1: All the way down, I was watchin it, and runnin'
Video: http://911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos...n_firehouse.mpg
- September 12, 2001, New York City, People.com
Louie Cacchioli, 51, is a firefighter assigned to Engine 47 in Harlem.
We were the first ones in the second tower after the plane struck. I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there was bombs set in the building....
Link to article:
http://prisonplanet.com/louie_cacchioli.htm
- NBC Reporter, Pat Dawson:
[Albert Turi the Chief of Safety for the New York Fire Department] received word of the possibility of a secondary device, that is another bomb going off. He tried to get his men out as quickly as he could, but he said there was another explosion which took place, and then an hour after the first hit, the first crash that took place, he said there was another explosion that took place in one of the towers here, so obviously according to his theory he thinks that there were actually devices that were planted in the building. One of the secondary devices he thinks that took place after the initial impact he thinks may have been on the plane that crashed into one of the towers. The second device, he thinks, he speculates, was probably planted in the building.“
Video: http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.reporter.1.wmv
- MSNBC Reporter, Rick Sanchez:
"Police have found what they believe to be a suspicious device and they fear that it may lead to another explosion...I spoke with some police officials moments ago, Chris, and they told me they have reason to believe that one of the explosion at the WTC besides the ones made with the planes, may have been caused by a van that was parked on the building that may have had an explosive device in it."
Video: http://www.terrorize.dk/911/comments/911.w....explosives.wmv
- War Corespondent, Jack Kelley:
"Apparently what appears to happen was that at the same time two planes hit the building that there... that the FBI most likely thinks that there was a car or truck packed with explosives underneath the buildings which also exploded at the same time..."
Video: http://www.terrorize.dk/911/comments/911.w....jack.kelley.rm
- MSNBC Reporter, Ann Thompson:
"At 10:30 I tried to leave the building, but as I got outside I heard a second explosion and another rumble and more smoke and more dust. I ran inside the building and the chandelier shook and again black smoke filled the air. Within another five minutes we were covered again with more soot and more dust. And then a fire marshal came in and said we had to leave, because if there was a third explosion this building might not last.."
Video: http://www.terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.....explosions.wmv
- Street Reporter:
"45 minutes into the taping we were doing, there was an explosion. It was way up where the fire was and the whole building at that point bellied out in flames and everybody ran."
Video: http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.reporter.2.wmv
- Witness / 9-11 survivor:
"I was about five blocks away when I heard explosions... three thuds and turned around to see the building that we just got out of... tip over and fall in on itself."
Video: http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.witness.1.wmv
- Witness / 9-11 survivor:
"...and then all of a sudden it started like... it sounded like gunfire... you know, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang and then all of a sudden three big explosions."
Video: http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.witness.2.wmv
- Terror in the City, September 12 , 2001, Notes from Robert Ivy, FAIA Editor-in-chief
...we felt a rumble like faraway thunder and turned. The impossible was happening. The south tower of the World Trade Center shook, and in what resembled an elemental act, fell to earth in a mighty shout. The entire dissolution, the changeover from solid elements to ash, took only seconds, and it was gone...
Link to article:
http://www.archrecord.com/news/fromTheFiel.../0109terror.asp
- An Eye-Witness Account of the World Trade Center Attacks
from Neil deGrasse Tyson
The following is the text from an email Neil deGrasse Tyson sent to his family and friends on 12 September 2001. Neil witnessed the attacks on the twin towers from his apartment only six blocks from the World Trade Center. He is Director of the Hayden Planetarium of the American Museum of Natural History, which is located in New York City. Neil also serves as The Planetary Society's Vice President...
From: Neil deGrasse Tyson
Sent: 10AM, Wednesday, 12 September 2001
Subject: The Horror, The Horror
...4) As more and more and more and more and more emergency vehicles descended on the World Trade Center, I hear a second explosion in WTC 2, then a loud, low-frequency rumble that precipitates the unthinkable -- a collapse of all the floors above the point of explosion. First the top surface, containing the helipad, tips sideways in full view. Then the upper floors fall straight down in a demolition-style implosion, taking all lower floors with it, even those below the point of the explosion...
...6) I decide it's time to get my daughter, who was taken by the parents of a friend of hers to a small office building, six blocks farther from the WTC than my apartment. As I dress for survival: boots, flashlight, wet towels, swimming goggles, bicycle helmet, gloves, I hear another explosion followed by a now all-too familiar rumble that signaled the collapse of WTC 1, the first of the two towers to have been hit. I saw the iconic antenna on this building descend straight down in an implosion twinning the first...
Link to Neil deGrasse Tyson's email:
http://www.planetary.org/html/society/advi...t11account.html
- Tuesday, 11 September, 2001, Eyewitnesses tell of horror, BBC News
"...I saw everything from my balcony in Soho. The first plane tried to veer off the tower but slammed straight into it, followed by the second plane," Nadine Keller of New York City wrote in an e-mail to BBC News Online.
"There was smoke everywhere. I heard the bomb and saw both buildings crumble like biscuits," Ms Keller said.
The BBC received more than 1,300 e-mails from witnesses and other concerned readers within the first few hours after the attack.
Link to article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1537500.stm
- 9/11 Survivor Describes Multiple Explosions
"There were explosions going off everywhere. I was convinced that there were bombs planted all over the place and someone was sitting at a control panel pushing detonator buttons. I was afraid to go down Church Street toward Broadway, but I had to do it. I ended up on Vesey Street. There was another explosion. And another. I didn't know where to run."
Source: "Teresa Veliz: A Prayer to Die Quickly and Painlessly," in September 11: An Oral History by Dean E. Murphy (Doubleday, 2002), pp 9-15. http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/veliz-bombs.htm
- 9/11 hero, William Rodriguez, who was the last person out of the north tower, states that there was a massive explosion in the North Tower BEFORE the plane hit:
"When I heard the sound of the explosion, the floor beneath my feet vibrated, the walls started cracking and it everything started shaking
"Seconds after the first massive explosion below in the basement still rattled the floor, I hear another explosion from way above... Although I was unaware at the time, this was the airplane hitting the tower, it occurred moments after the first explosion.
"I know there were explosives placed below the trade center.
"I have tried to tell my story to everybody, but nobody wants to listen. It is very strange what is going on here in supposedly the most democratic country in the world. In my home country of Puerto Rico and all the other Latin American countries, I have been allowed to tell my story uncensored. But here, I can’t even say a word.
"I met with the 9/11 Commission behind closed doors and they essentially discounted everything I said regarding the use of explosives to bring down the north tower.
"And I contacted NIST previously four times without a response. Finally, this week I asked them before they came up with their conclusion that jet fuel brought down the towers, if they ever considered my statements or the statements of any of the other survivors who heard the explosions. They just stared at me with blank faces and didn’t have any answers."
Link to quotes:
http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/artic...18131/28031.htm
“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 5:20pm EST.
Video: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/w..._demolition.mpg
- Excerpt from a radio interview with Indira Singh, ground zero rescue worker and 9/11 whistleblower. She says that she and others were told to move away from Building 7, by persons that she thought were members of the FDNY, because they were "going to have to bring it down":
Radio host Bonnie Falkner: How long did you work as an emergency medical technician and exactly what is it that you were doing (at ground zero)?
Indira Singh: ...when I got there we were setting up triage sites (at ground zero), close, very close to the area. The triage site that I was setting up was behind, well, to the east of Building 7 where Building 7 came down...
...we were setting up triages as close to the pile as possible… so what we were doing was setting up different kinds of stations… IV stations, cardiac stations, wound stations, burn stations ...just trying to have an organized space. What happened with that particular triage site is that pretty soon afternoon, after mid-day on 9/11 we had to evacuate that because they told us Building 7 was coming down... I do believe that they brought Building 7 down... By noon or one o'clock they told us we had to move from that triage site up to Pace University a little further away because Building 7 was going to come down or being brought down.
Bonnie Falkner: Did they actually use the word "brought" down and who was it that was telling you this?
Indira Singh: The fire department... the fire department and they did use the word "we're going to have to bring it down."
The entire interview can be listened to at the link below. The excerpts from above can be found approximately 10 minutes into the interview.
Guns & Butter Radio interview w/ Indira Singh hosted by Bonnie Falkner - April 27th 2005:
http://tinyurl.com/7dww8
- "I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."
- World Trade Center lease holder, Larry Silverstein, commenting on the demolition of Building 7 in the PBS documentary "America Rebuilds", which aired in September of 2002
Video: http://www.911blogger.com/files/video/wtc7_pbs.WMV
Audio: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/PULLIT.mp3
In the same documentary, America Rebuilds, a clean up worker at ground zero uses the term "pull" when preparing for the controlled demolition of Building 6:
"... we're getting ready to pull building six."
Audio: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/pull-it2.mp3
- "If you've seen many of the managed demolitions where they implode a building and they cause it to essentially to fall vertically because they cause all of the vertical columns to fail simultaneously, that's exactly what it looked like and that's what happened"
- Matthys Levy, Structural Engineer and co author of Why buildings Fall Down
Video: http://www.freepressinternational.com/discovery.html
- The fact that WTC-7 fell down symmetrically, onto its own footprint very neatly, even though fires were just observed on one side of the building. A symmetrical collapse, as observed, requires the simultaneous "pulling" of support beams. By my count, there were 24 core columns and 57 perimeter columns in WTC-7. Heat transport considerations for steel beams heated by fire suggest that failure of even a few columns at the same time is very small. Adding in the Second Law of Thermodynamics ("law of increasing entropy") leads to the conclusion that the likelihood of near-symmetrical collapse of the building due to fires (the "government" theory) -- requiring as it does near-simultaneous failure of many support columns -- is infinitesimal. Yet near-symmetrical collapse of WTC-7 was observed.
"I have performed other analyses regarding the WTC collapses on 9-11-01 which may be of interest --let me know if you're interested. The matter is highly interesting to me as a physicist -- and as a citizen of the United States. I conclude that the evidence for pre-positioned explosives in WTC 7 (also in towers 1 and 2) is truly compelling."
- Steven E. Jones, Professor of Physics/BYU, in an email sent to his colleagues concerning the World Trade Center collapses
- Why WTC Steel Towers Collapsed at One Blow
September 20, 2001
english.people.com.cn
Professor Shi Yongjiu, director of civil engineering department of Qinghua University and an expert on steel structure, guesses that the lower part of the WTC twin towers may got seriously damaged.
According to steel structure's mechanical nature, the towers shouldn't collapse as late as an hour later after the planes slammed into. What's more, it should be in a way to topple over gradually instead of crashing down as seen in videotapes. It looks more like a directional blast in doing the job of destruction, so he feels that huge damages must have been done at the lower part of the towers.
Link to article:
http://english.people.com.cn/english/20010...0920_80655.html
- Explosives Planted in Towers, New Mexico Tech Expert Says
Albuquerque Journal, September, 2001
"My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the
airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some
explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the
towers to collapse
"It would be difficult for
something from the plane to trigger an event like that
"It could have been a relatively small
amount of explosives placed in strategic points
- Van Romero, Vice President for Research and Economic Development at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology and a major authority on the effects of explosions on buildings (Romero has since retracted his statement, saying "Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail.").
Original Link to quote
http://www.abqjournal.com/aqvan09-11-01.htm
Archived link of Romero's quote:
http://www.world-action.co.uk/explosives.html
New Mexico Tech Explosives Expert 'Flip-Flops' On WTC Controlled Demo Theory; Refuses To Explain Why
http://news.baou.com/main.php?action=recent&rid=20284
- Related 9-11 Controlled Demolition Articles:
Taking a Closer Look: Hard Science and the Collapse of the World Trade Center
by David Heller
BS: Physics Bard College
MA: S. F. Inst. Architecture
Architect and Builder
http://www.garlicandgrass.org/issue6/Dave_Heller.cfm
Another 9/11 Smoking Gun
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/...moking-gun.html
Below the Belt
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/10/below-belt.html
- Building Demolition Videos:
* J.L. Hudson Department Store - Detroit, Michigan
http://www.controlled-demolition.com/image...nt/jlhudson.mpg
* Seattle Kingdome
http://www.controlled-demolition.com/image...nt/kingdome.mpg
* Various building demolitions
http://www.implosionworld.com/cinema.htm
- Secret Evil of 9-11
20 minute (12mb) video combining music, videos of the collapses, interview clips and minimalist on-screen text to create a very effective introduction to the many oddities of the events of 9-11.
Video: http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/vid...Evil-of-911.wmv
- The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions
Professor David Ray Griffin's 9-11 talk at the University of Wisconsin (April, 2005)
Aired on C-SPAN 2's BookTV
Description: David Ray Griffin takes a critical look at the official 9/11 Commission Report. Professor Griffin argues that "omissions and distortions" in the report amount to a cover-up by government officials and says that the available evidence suggests that the Bush administration was complicit in the 9/11 attacks.
Professor Griffin covers topics he says have been inadequately answered by the commission. These include questions surrounding the attack on the Pentagon, the way in which the World Trade Center towers collapsed, and the behavior of President Bush and his Secret Service detail following notification that a second plane had hit the WTC. The talk was hosted by the Muslim- Jewish- Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth (www.mujca.com) and took place at the University of Wisconsin in Madison. Includes Q&A.
Author Bio: David Ray Griffin is professor emeritus at the Claremont School of Theology, where he taught for over 30 years (retiring in 2004). He has authored or edited over two dozen books, including "God and Religion in the Postmodern World," "Religion and Scientific Naturalism," and "The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11."
Video: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8765.htm
Play in remote player: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/v...son_full_25.wmv
- A few 9-11 Related Websites
http://www.911blogger.com/
http://www.911busters.com/
http://911research.wtc7.net/
http://www.911citizenswatch.org/
frater plecticus
11th November 2005 - 01:34 PM
REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMAN CURT WELDON INTERVIEW. IS HE PART OF THE ANTI-AMERICAN CONSPIRACY TOO? QUOTE Lou Dobbs (CNN) -- Excerpted from rushed transcript of 11/9 broadcast [snip] Lou, this is a cover-up. It's not a third-rate political burglary. It's a cover-up of information on the largest attack in the history of the country. [snip] And just within two hours Lou, today, I got 100 signatures. One hundred signatures from Republicans and Democrats across the country. Liberals and conservatives to Secretary Rumsfeld demanding that we allow these Able Danger military officers to testify in an open hearing. The American people need to know the facts. They need to know the truth. Three thousand people were killed, 17 sailors were killed in the U.S.S Cole. The 9/11 commission did not do its job. It's time to get the facts out to the American people. [snip] DOBBS: Just ahead here, Able Danger -- Congressman Curt Weldon has some startling new information about which he says a cover-up of massive proportions is lurking. He's our guest. And then, why Arnold Schwarzenegger's bitter disappointment should have Democrats jumping for joy. Are they? Two leading political strategists are my guests next. Stay with us. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) DOBBS: New charges tonight. Charges of a massive cover-up by members of our defense intelligence community. Congressman Curt Weldon today called for a criminal investigation into what he says, is the most important story of our lifetime. Weldon says the army's intelligence unit known as Able Danger, identified the ringleaders of the 9/11 attacks more than a year before September 11, but those warnings were ignored by the Pentagon. Weldon says the defense intelligence agency is now trying to smear the reputation of Able Danger member Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Shaffer, for speaking out about the scandal. In addition to identifying the ringleaders of the 9/11 attacks, Congressman Weldon says Able Danger warned defense officials about terrorist activity in the Port of Aden in Yemen, two weeks before that bombing of the U.S. the bombs of the U.S.S. Cole in 2000. He also blasted the 9/11 Commission, calling them a disappointment and a failure for not including that information about Able Danger in its final report. I talked with 9/11 commission member and former senator Slade Gorton three weeks ago. And I ask him why Able Danger was omitted from the commission's report. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SLADE GORTON, FORMER 9/11 COMMISSIONER: Well, Able Danger worked out very interesting. It didn't identify Mohammed Atta a year beforehand. Unfortunately, no one identified Mohammed Atta beforehand. Able Danger was simply irrelevant to our report and still is. (END VIDEO CLIP) DOBBS: Congressman Weldon now joining me from Washington, in an exclusive interview. Congressman, it is good to see you. Simply irrelevant how Slade Gorton describes Able Danger, what's your reaction? REP. CURT WELDON ®, ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE: Unbelievable. Slade Gorton has never talked to any principle involved with Able Danger. And how he can go off and profess to know something about something that he's never talked to anyone about, is beyond me. Slade Gorton is into what the 9/11 commission is doing, Lou. It's called c, y, a. Cover their butts, pretend it didn't happen. How can you say something is historically insignificant that Louis Freeh just two weeks ago on national TV said Able Danger information was the kind of intelligence that could have prevented the hijackings. That's Louis Freeh saying that two weeks ago. Able Danger was briefed to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in January of 2001. How could you call that historically insignificant? Lou, this is a cover-up. It's not a third-rate political burglary. It's a cover-up of information on the largest attack in the history of the country. DOBBS: Congressman, you are calling for a criminal investigation. Obviously, you're not going to receive a great deal of cooperation from the leadership, the Republican leadership in the House or the Senate. You're a Republican, what kind of reaction are you getting as you go one on one with your fellow Congressman? WELDON: Lou, the members of Congress want the facts to come out, both parties. I did a briefing this afternoon for members of Congress, we had dozens of their members and their staff show up. And just within two hours Lou, today, I got 100 signatures. One hundred signatures from Republicans and Democrats across the country. Liberals and conservatives to Secretary Rumsfeld demanding that we allow these Able Danger military officers to testify in an open hearing. The American people need to know the facts. They need to know the truth. Three thousand people were killed, 17 sailors were killed in the U.S.S Cole. The 9/11 commission did not do its job. It's time to get the facts out to the American people. DOBBS: Let me quote Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Congressman. When asked about Able Danger, Donald Rumsfeld said, quote, it's such an interesting story. Of course, it's something that occurred well before this administration came in. Back in the '90s, as I understand it, and it's an interesting story. What's your response? WELDON: Well, Donald Rumsfeld would not have been given the detailed information about Able Danger because it ended at the end of 2000, before he came into office. However, Lou, we have to understand. There were people within the Pentagon who stayed in place from the 1999/2000 period into 2001. In fact, they're still there today. They have a vested interest in not having the story be told because some of them are going to be embarrassed because the American people will see we failed them in 1999 and 2000. We failed them in 2001. We had information we should have acted upon. It was denied from being transferred to the FBI and as Louis Freeh said just two weeks ago, could have allowed us to stop the hijackings from having ever occurred. DOBBS: Louis Freeh, the former FBI director. At this point, Congressman, where does the investigation go from here? The people that are most critical to establishing what the unit, Able Danger knew, and was capable of disseminating, relevant to 9/11, have been gagged by the Pentagon and cannot speak. What do you do now? WELDON: Well, we have a DOD, inspector general investigation that actually commenced today. I met for an hour and a half with four of their top leaders. They were requested by three separate members of Congress, one senator and two House members. They have commenced an internal investigation of the Defense Intelligence Agency. In addition to that, I talked to the head of the General Accounting Office and I have asked him to look at a criminal investigation of what happened, and a deliberate attempt to cover-up information. The person who debriefed Scott Philpott, Lou, was a guy named Dieter Snell. Dieter Snell worked for Jamie Gorelick. We have to know whether or not there was a deliberate attempt by Dieter Snell not to have the 9/11 commission members know the full details of what Able Danger was doing. I can't answer that question. An investigation needs to take place. DOBBS: And Scott Philpott, of course, one of those who has been gagged by the Pentagon in this case. Congressman Curt Weldon, we thank you very much. WELDON: My pleasure, Lou. http://curtweldon.house.gov/News/DocumentS...ocumentID=36857
.dread.
11th November 2005 - 03:40 PM
QUOTE (a_ht+Oct 13 2005, 07:46 PM) QUOTE (A_ht+) All I hear from you guys is that "If one cares to read ALL the previous post it is UNDENIABLE that its a hoax"...
thats just dodging Sechalkjds's post. He shows pretty clearly how wrong you guys are. So far, no one has replied to is post. All I read is about my crappy post, yet nothing about scehsalhsdls. <br> <br>Here's a conspiracy...................................."A_ht" = "Schneibster" = "Engineer" Proof of similarities........ All 3 type the same way All 3 keep repeating their hopeless pathetic arguements All 3 are addicted to the art of bullshitting All 3 probably use many ip changers and anonymous proxies All 3 are sack-sucking shills All 3 annoys me All 3 needs to go shoot themselves kthnxbai.  ______________________________________________________ I am teh master admin of teh master site ... CSAB
metamars
11th November 2005 - 05:35 PM
Observations + speculation:
Another aspect of the collapses that I consider mysterious:
If one takes an 'explosives-only' approach to the demolition, the squibs still strike me as mysterious. The reason is that some squibs appear far, far below the collapse zone. Squib ejecta clearly contain powder. OK, so that can be taken as evidence of an explosion at that floor, but the question is : why blow up that floor so soon? The whole point of a top down series of explosions is to create an illusion of a gravity driven collapse. So, if that is your goal, you only want the floors exploded one at a time.
OTOH, if there is an 'X-Files' type device 'cooking' the interior of the building in the same fashion as the mysterious surviving spire is getting "powderized"/"cooked", the pressure resulting from the resulting gasses might have been enough to blow out a window or two, away from the collapse zone.
So, the way that the collapse might have gone down is that the insides were "cooked" X-Files style, and when a certain degree of softening occured, then the floors were blown with an absolutely minimal amount of explosives. I suspect that steel is much harder to turn into powder than non-steel, so perhaps the non-steel components of each floor were already partly powder, whilst the steel was merely softened.
If this is the case, it's possible that firemen inside the building who were speaking on the radio started screaming say a minute before the collapses ensued. Or perhaps they reported some unusual physiological phenomena. I don't know of any such reports, but really haven't looked into this. When was the last radio communication in each tower, ito delta time from when the collapse began and ito when the collapse should have reached them? In a gravity driven collapse, of course, we would not expect any firement to die until the buildings squashed them.... In an 'explosives-only' collapse, we would not expect and firement to get killed until the floor they were on got hit by an explosion on that floor or, say, an adjacent floor.
In the 'cook first', then explode scenario, the firemen would get killed before any explosions.
I have assumed that one cannot focus the hypothesized X-Files device too precisely, (at least in the case where the target is a skyscraper) e.g., by a floor at a time. Recall that the powderization of the surviving spire was global, not top to bottom.
An obvious problem with this speculation is that, if the insides of the towers are getting "cooked", then this should also have cooked bombs and detonation devices. One would have to harden these so that they would still work. Also, away from the impact zone, the buldings appeared perfectly straight. Can one control an X-Files device so precisely as to weaken steel but not so much that there is a visible sag?
stallion4
11th November 2005 - 05:38 PM
BYU Forms New Theory About 9/11 Attacks http://kutv.com/topstories/local_story_314234334.html© MMV, CBS Broadcasting This story has  FYI: The prof. is on a nationally syndicated radio show RIGHT NOW! Here's a free link to listen: Courtesy of the Revere Radio Network: http://rs4.radiostreamer.com:8380/listen.pls(Winamp required) If anyone wants to call the show they can. Tune in to get the numbers when the phone lines are up.
Schneibster
11th November 2005 - 06:44 PM
All that's needed are simple, easy answers to simple, easy physics questions- the "Basic Physics" of the title of the thread. Avoiding it, attempting to smear people, ignoring it, lying about it, etc., will not make it go away. Anyone who wants can read the material on page 13, page 14, and page 26, and anyone with a knowledge of "Basic Physics" who does so will have no further questions. The fact that not one of the questions asked has been answered by the proponents of the demolition fantasy says all that needs be said. The rest is window dressing and lies.
metamars
11th November 2005 - 06:47 PM
| QUOTE | BYU Forms New Theory About 9/11 Attacks
<br>Emphasis mine. Not just a theory, but a NEW theory.
Ha ha ha.
Guest_yesitdid
11th November 2005 - 07:21 PM
QUOTE (.dread.+Nov 11 2005, 03:40 PM) QUOTE (a_ht+Oct 13 2005, 07:46 PM) QUOTE (A_ht+) All I hear from you guys is that "If one cares to read ALL the previous post it is UNDENIABLE that its a hoax"...
thats just dodging Sechalkjds's post. He shows pretty clearly how wrong you guys are. So far, no one has replied to is post. All I read is about my crappy post, yet nothing about scehsalhsdls. <br> <br>Here's a conspiracy...................................."A_ht" = "Schneibster" = "Engineer" Proof of similarities........ All 3 type the same way All 3 keep repeating their hopeless pathetic arguements All 3 are addicted to the art of bullshitting All 3 probably use many ip changers and anonymous proxies All 3 are sack-sucking shills All 3 annoys me All 3 needs to go shoot themselves kthnxbai. ______________________________________________________ I am teh master admin of teh master site ... CSAB What a wonderful and enlightening post. A fine example of the non-believers in the official theory of the events of 9/11.
yesitdid
11th November 2005 - 08:11 PM
You wanted the calcs of explosive equivalentFoxx.
Please note(since you have already made the mistake) that this is the explosive equivalent that I have calculated. I do not suggest that it was TNT, only that this is the amount of explosive power required by Hoffman's calcs. I include the amount of C4 (91% RDX) that would be the same amount of explosive power, for comparison. I have shown the most relevant parts in red in this post. Since this was from another forum I have changed a few things(removed another poster's name for instance.). The calculations remain the same.
| QUOTE | Hoffman does his calculations and comes up with an energy availability that is, in his calculations, only one-tenth that required to do what was shown to happen(in his view of what happened).
OK, so then if there was only one tenth the energy required due to gravity AND the other 90% of the energy came from explosives then what are the calculations on the amount of explosives required to contribute 9 times as much energy than was available due to gravitational potential.
Hoffman states that 4 x 10^11 joules of energy would be available due to gravity. 9 times that is 36 x 10^11 joules.
....... TNT produces 4.18 x 10^6 joules/Kg therefore it would require the equivalent to 861,244 kilograms(1,894,737 pounds) of TNT in addition to the gravity energy in order to do what Hoffman states happened.
Now C4 which is 18% more powerful that TNT would of course use less(C4 is 91% RDX) so that would be the equivalent of 1,605,709 pounds of C4(802 tons)
The premise is then that more than one million pounds of explosives were surreptitiously installed in the steel and concrete of the WTC towers prior to 9/11. That detonators and control devices were attached to the explosives as well. That these explosives were somehow protected from prior discovery, and premature destruction or detonation due to the plane impacts and subsequent fires, and that they all functioned perfectly on 9/11/01.
It is no wonder that Hoffman does not do these calculations and include it in his conclusions. Any scientific theory must be falsifiable. that is that it should stand up to other approaches to the same question. If Hoffman's calculations are correct then 1.6 million pounds of C4 or other explosives equivalent are required. However, such an amount being used brings up too many hard questions for Hoffman, or those who follow his lead, to bother with this is ignored.
.
<br>It was suggested that a mini-nuke could supply the equivalent power but the more concentrated you make the explosive release the less chance you have of that energy going into pulverization of the material , you would require this to be spread throughout the building. (If you wish to crush a car and drop a large 60 ton mass on it that would do the trick, but if you put that 60 tons in a 1 foot diameter cylinder and drop it on end on the car, you only crush a 1 foot diameter portion of the car.)
A 0.75 kiloton mini-nuke would also have been very noticeable in many ways.
There may be other explosives between TNT and nuclear bombs. I give the example of C4(91%RDX).
metamars, explosives do not give off a great deal of heat. They do get quite hot but the amount of heat is not great(if you have a degree in physics you will know the difference). It is not the heat output that cuts steel but rather the rapid expansion of gases. This is not the case for incendiaries such as thermite, they do create a lot of heat(thus the name , incendiary) but are slow burning(relatively) and do have to melt their way through.
yesitdid
11th November 2005 - 08:15 PM
QUOTE (Guest_yesitdid+Nov 10 2005, 10:30 PM) Morgan Reynolds Ph.D.
Ph.D. in economics that is, does not seem to have looked at the NIST report in which photos clearly show the floors sagging. Are there any Ph.D.'s in engineering who subscribe to this? What is the general consensus amoung structural engineers on this subject?
I don't have time to get into it today and my work sched is busy for a while but I will try to get back to this soon.
F.P. you might try going through some of the NIST reports yourself and see if M.R. has anything else wrong. Actually since Reynolds says nothing new and I don't have time to go through his statement point by point I will not be getting to it anytime soon.
yesitdid
11th November 2005 - 08:18 PM
QUOTE (Foxx+Nov 11 2005, 07:27 AM) | QUOTE | Originally quoted by metamars
Jones says he would like the government to release 6,899 photographs and 6,977 segments of video footage for "independent scrutiny." He would also like to analyze a small sample of the molten metal found at Ground Zero.
<br>Why doesn't NIST document these publicly somewhere? If anyone knows where I can find them please let me know,
Question to the naysayers... WHY do we NOT have access to these public records? Who says they are public?
They are photos and videos that were taken by private citizens and enterprises.
metamars
11th November 2005 - 08:19 PM
| QUOTE | There may be other explosives between TNT and nuclear bombs. I give the example of C4(91%RDX).
<br>If you could do the legwork to answer some of my questions re explosives, explosions, etc. I'd appreciate. I myself don't believe explosives were the sole demoltion agent used.
Certainly, the mysterious spire disintegration show no signs of being exploded.
yesitdid
11th November 2005 - 08:38 PM
QUOTE (metamars+Nov 11 2005, 05:35 PM) Observations + speculation:
Another aspect of the collapses that I consider mysterious:
If one takes an 'explosives-only' approach to the demolition, the squibs still strike me as mysterious. The reason is that some squibs appear far, far below the collapse zone. Squib ejecta clearly contain powder. OK, so that can be taken as evidence of an explosion at that floor, but the question is : why blow up that floor so soon? The whole point of a top down series of explosions is to create an illusion of a gravity driven collapse. So, if that is your goal, you only want the floors exploded one at a time.
OTOH, if there is an 'X-Files' type device 'cooking' the interior of the building in the same fashion as the mysterious surviving spire is getting "powderized"/"cooked", the pressure resulting from the resulting gasses might have been enough to blow out a window or two, away from the collapse zone.
So, the way that the collapse might have gone down is that the insides were "cooked" X-Files style, and when a certain degree of softening occured, then the floors were blown with an absolutely minimal amount of explosives. I suspect that steel is much harder to turn into powder than non-steel, so perhaps the non-steel components of each floor were already partly powder, whilst the steel was merely softened.
If this is the case, it's possible that firemen inside the building who were speaking on the radio started screaming say a minute before the collapses ensued. Or perhaps they reported some unusual physiological phenomena. I don't know of any such reports, but really haven't looked into this. When was the last radio communication in each tower, ito delta time from when the collapse began and ito when the collapse should have reached them? In a gravity driven collapse, of course, we would not expect any firement to die until the buildings squashed them.... In an 'explosives-only' collapse, we would not expect and firement to get killed until the floor they were on got hit by an explosion on that floor or, say, an adjacent floor.
In the 'cook first', then explode scenario, the firemen would get killed before any explosions.
I have assumed that one cannot focus the hypothesized X-Files device too precisely, (at least in the case where the target is a skyscraper) e.g., by a floor at a time. Recall that the powderization of the surviving spire was global, not top to bottom.
An obvious problem with this speculation is that, if the insides of the towers are getting "cooked", then this should also have cooked bombs and detonation devices. One would have to harden these so that they would still work. Also, away from the impact zone, the buldings appeared perfectly straight. Can one control an X-Files device so precisely as to weaken steel but not so much that there is a visible sag? Well Foxx, you state you may have to start believeing in magic but metamars has beaten you there it seems. Oh, he won't call it magic but any sufficiently advanced technology is indistiquishable from magic ( thank you Dr.Clark) so an "X-files" weapons is magic.
yesitdid
11th November 2005 - 10:59 PM
QUOTE (metamars+Nov 11 2005, 09:19 AM) | QUOTE | I don't suppose we will see any attempt to address the above (rationally and scientifically).
<br>On this forum? I don't think we should flatter ourselves unduly, and think that the answer to your question, in this case, matters all that much.
The interesting question is, will there now be a serious investigation by Ph.D. scientists and engineers into the collapses?
Another physics personality with no experience in materials or structural engineering saying the same ol', same ol'.
So far not many structural engineers coming around to state the same though.
In fact if there were something sinister about this I would have expected quite a hew and cry from many structural engineers. 
So to answer meta's question; "will there now be a serious investigation by Ph.D. scientists and engineers into the collapses?". The answer is probably not since the engineering community is by and large satisfied with the FEMA/NIST/Bazant-Zhou etc., reports.
Now before anyone goes off and states that this is because their funding in gov't contracts would be threatened one should note that physicists, as a group, rely more on gov't funding than engineers, as a group.
manifespo
11th November 2005 - 11:03 PM
The beauty about the Internet is that when your wrong, it's in text for anyone to read.
Hey Folks, Manifespo here. I shall again dismantle yesitdid's feeble straw man factoids. I'm sorry you have to be the victim here, yesitdid, but you really need to learn to think critically before rambling to no effect.
It was suggested that a mini-nuke could supply the equivalent power but the more concentrated you make the explosive release the less chance you have of that energy going into pulverization of the material , you would require this to be spread throughout the building. As in a directed yield weapon? We had the Davy Crockett 1 kiloton mini nuke in the 1950s!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett...clear_device%29 If you wish to crush a car and drop a large 60 ton mass on it that would do the trick So? but if you put that 60 tons in a 1 foot diameter cylinder and drop it on end on the car, you only crush a 1 foot diameter portion of the car.) No ones saying there was ONLY ONE extra source of energy, just that directed yield mini nuclear explosives would account for much of the evidence.A 0.75 kiloton mini-nuke would also have been very noticeable in many ways. No, I think you were the only ones noticing the pools of molten metal and melted cars.There may be other explosives between TNT and nuclear bombs. Well, someone had to get between them before they started a bar brawl.I give the example of C4(91%RDX). Do you want Wikipedia to give you a cooke, too?metamars, explosives do not give off a great deal of heat. Are you from the planet of cold rocket fuel? They do get quite hot Oh my bad, you were joking above when you said, "metamars, explosives do not give off a great deal of heat." but the amount of heat is not great I'm getting a little confused, here. Yesiam. Yes. I Am. (if you have a degree in physics you will know the difference). I sure am glad to know that ( I hope my mech eng. degree counts:) ). I'm curious, what do you know a degree in faith healing? It is not the heat output that cuts steel but rather the rapid expansion of gases. Aren't they HOT gases? How are you separating gas and heat...the gas particles create the heat!This is not the case for incendiaries such as thermite, they do create a lot of heat(thus the name , incendiary) Agreed. but are slow burning(relatively) and do have to melt their way through. You started off "proving" nuclear weapons weren't used. You ended up knocking down the thermite straw man. Note you might be better off with a coherent argument. Then people might start taking you seriously.
Manifespo out, 10-4
Hands flag to striker, Foxx, metamars, and the wise fratty latin man
Schneibster
12th November 2005 - 12:37 AM
QUOTE (Foxx+) The FACT that the buildings fell at near the rate of free-fall is indisputable |
Lie number one. Looking at the videos, I can see that the column sections reach the ground before the collapse reaches the ground. This alone is enough to put the lie to this "fact." Would you care to discuss whether the column sections are in free-fall or not, considering they're falling through the air unsupported? Perhaps you think little evil gnomes employed by teh conspiracy are pushing them so they'll fall faster. This will do; examine frames 203, 211, and 219. Note the debris- IN FREE FALL- at the bottom of the pictures. Note that the top of the building is still collapsing, and is nowhere near those pieces of debris. They are fifteen or twenty stories ahead of the collapse, and it is certain that they will hit the ground first. These three pictures ALONE, with NO OTHER EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER, prove INCONTROVERTIBLY that Foxx is lying. The buildings did NOT fall at a rate "near the rate of free-fall," and that is that.
Schneibster
12th November 2005 - 12:46 AM
Another pair of photos make the same point for the North tower: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/p...s/wtc1nenw.htmlNote in both pictures the large section of perimeter column segments that is easily twenty stories below the collapse zone. If the building collapsed at "a rate near free-fall" how did that bunch of perimeter column segments get twenty-plus stories further down than the collapse zone? Musta been the gnomes again.
.dread.
12th November 2005 - 01:34 AM
Hey you, A_ht aka "shneibster", "engineer", "solidspin", "self-sucking dickeater", "tranny surprise"..........let's see if a highly moronic sack-sucking shill like you can answer these: #1) Explain why WTC 7 collapsed despite not being hit by a plane. Please also explain why the Empire State building was hit by a plane in the 1940's, yet it did not collapse. #2) Please explain why the WTC 7 was a building that housed the former OEC (Operations for Emergency Management) office seen here:  Then explain why that office was moved to Pier 92 (seen below) on Sept. 12 via a 32-hour construction marathon just in time and ready before Friday Sept. 14:  Read more here: - http://www.nyc.gov/html/oem/html/other/sub...esponse_p2.html#3) Why was Operation Tripod II (a bio-terror exercise conducted by FEMA) planned on September 10 to 12, 2001 in New York? Why did the 9/11 commission later remove the accidental slipped testimony made by that idiot known as Rudy Guiliani (for which he accidentally mentioned the operation in his testimony below): "... the reason Pier 92 was selected as a command center was because on the next day, on September 12, Pier 92 was going to have a drill, it had hundreds of people here, from FEMA, from the Federal Government, from the State, from the State Emergency Management Office, and they were getting ready for a drill for biochemical attack.
So that was gonna be the place they were going to have the drill. The equipments was already there, so we were able to establish a command center there, within three days, that was two and a half to three times bigger than the command center that we had lost at 7 World Trade Center. And it was from there that the rest of the search and rescue effort was completed. #4) Why did the "Pancake Theory" never exist prior to 9/11? Why do you continue to proliferate such pseudoscience all over the net, knowing very well that everyone can see right through your bullshit? #5) Why did Warren Buffet (a very rich dipshit) conduct a "last annual golf charity event" at the U.S. Strategic Command headquarters located at Offutt Air Force Base in Omaha on 9/11? Why did Bush arrive at that base later on that same day? Why was Ann Tatlock, the CEO of Fiduciary Trust Co. International (who BTW, has a main office in the WTC south tower, and of which was directly hit by the plane), attending this "charity" event on 9/11? - http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2001/1015/070_print.html#6) Why did you admit earlier in this thread that you are a paid shill for NIST, yet you continue to spew bullshit information to the public? #7) Why do you continue to use multiple identities and pseudonyms in this forum? Why don't you just stick to one username? Or are you a helpless victim of multiple personality disorder? Why haven't you removed your middle finger from your crack yet? And please, don't start sucking on your fingers right after you have removed them, for fuq's sake. #8) Explain to us why that zionist shithead known as Larry Silverstein, who had signed a 99-year lease on the WTC just several weeks before 9/11 establish a terrorist insurance policy (worth $ 3.5 billion each for 2 separate attacks) before the attacks: - http://globalfire.tv/nj/03en/jews/wtc-silverstein.htm- http://www.forbes.com/2003/07/21/cx_da_0721topnews.html#9) Have you ever heard of the PNAC (Project for a New American Century)? Or are you too stupid to figure out that PNAC is the aggressive political think tank for 21st century Manifest Destiny? Read up on American history first before you decide to devote your sorry excuse of a human being self to government-corrupted institutions. #10) Why were there thermite-like hot spots in the collapse site that lasted for months? Why were the radiation levels from ground zero at an all time high for several months following 9/11? #11) Why did the construction of the Pentagon Headquarters start on Sept. 11, 1941? Are you overwhelmingly idiotic to believe that that date was merely a coincidence? Has your addiction to giving head fucked up your sense of logical judgement so bad that you can no longer think clearly? #12) Why do unattractive lonely swallowers like you still work for your pathetic U.S. government when it has been known to collaborate on state treason projects such as Operation Northwoods? -- http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf#13) Why does your pathetic U.S. government say that they had no foreknowledge of the attacks and any such contingencies of that magnitude, when they knew about...... Project Bojinka- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Bojinka (see more at - http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/18/inv....g.philippines/).....when on October 24-26 of 2000, they conducted Pentagon MASCAL - http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/Contingency_Planning.html.....when on July 1-4 of 2001, they conducted Amalgam Virgo 01 - http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/linksc...malgumVirgo.pdfMore reports on U.S. foreknowledge ---> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/20/...ain522682.shtml#14) Why on 1977, George Bush received $50,000 for his oil start up company, Arbusto Energy, from a fellow National Guard pilot Maj. James Bath who funneled money for one of Osama Bin Laden's brothers..... - http://www.americanfreepress.net/10_07_01/...eorge_w__b.html#15) Explain this you ball-licking faggot .......... On the cover of FEMA's August 1997 "Emergency Response to Terrorism" self-study course booklet is a picture of the WTC with a gun scope's cross-hairs aimed at the one of the towers:  #16) Why don't you stop sucking your own stick for once and confess like this ex-shill for a change - http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4471354You idiotic shills really have no clue how aware the entire worldwide-web community is about your sad existence. Click on the small sample of worldwide sites below: - http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread.php3?threadid=146052- http://wagnews.blogspot.com/2005/08/cias-internet-fakes.html- http://www.breakfornews.com/TheCIAInternetFakes.htmCowards like you shouldn't be allowed to live. You can do humanity a favor and go hang yourself immediately. __________________________________________________________ I am teh master admin of teh master site .... CSAB
metamars
12th November 2005 - 02:46 AM
| QUOTE | Another physics personality with no experience in materials or structural engineering saying the same ol', same ol'.
So far not many structural engineers coming around to state the same though.
In fact if there were something sinister about this I would have expected quite a hew and cry from many structural engineers.
<br>I readily confess I know basically nothing about structural engineering, but I've certainly grasped the point that a mundane explanation of collapse (ignoring dust clouds, copious sub 100 micron dust, loss of angular momentum of the top of the South Tower, etc) is basically an engineering probem, not a physics problem.
Or, to put it another way, no how, no way, would I ever get inside a skyscraper designed by a physicist ignorant of engineering. I'll stick with the engineers on that score, thank you very much.
However, it's not really known, is it, how many certified structural engineers, who have a thorough grasp of the NIST report give it any credence? Furthermore, the NIST report does not pursue the question of local collapse -> global collapse, but takes it as a given. Therefore, even if a survey is taken of structural engineers, the survey cannot include, as a question, "do you have essentially complete confidence in NIST's account of how a local collapse turned into a global collapse?" as NIST did not provide such an account. Thus, we would have to content ourselves with a survey question of structural engineer's intuition, which ain't all that scientific, now is it?
If you would like to conduct even such a limited survey, though, have at it. You can post the results here. I would be interested in reading it.
As for some other "dumb physicists" (not that I would dignify myself with the term physicist - I merely have a bachelor's degree in physics and math, and have never used my physics professionally) who think the hypothesis that the towers collapsed due to bombs deserves serious study, note that their numbers may be increasing in the very near future:
(emphasis mine)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu...2&mesg_id=56388
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | Another physics personality with no experience in materials or structural engineering saying the same ol', same ol'.
So far not many structural engineers coming around to state the same though.
In fact if there were something sinister about this I would have expected quite a hew and cry from many structural engineers.
<br>I readily confess I know basically nothing about structural engineering, but I've certainly grasped the point that a mundane explanation of collapse (ignoring dust clouds, copious sub 100 micron dust, loss of angular momentum of the top of the South Tower, etc) is basically an engineering probem, not a physics problem.
Or, to put it another way, no how, no way, would I ever get inside a skyscraper designed by a physicist ignorant of engineering. I'll stick with the engineers on that score, thank you very much.
However, it's not really known, is it, how many certified structural engineers, who have a thorough grasp of the NIST report give it any credence? Furthermore, the NIST report does not pursue the question of local collapse -> global collapse, but takes it as a given. Therefore, even if a survey is taken of structural engineers, the survey cannot include, as a question, "do you have essentially complete confidence in NIST's account of how a local collapse turned into a global collapse?" as NIST did not provide such an account. Thus, we would have to content ourselves with a survey question of structural engineer's intuition, which ain't all that scientific, now is it?
If you would like to conduct even such a limited survey, though, have at it. You can post the results here. I would be interested in reading it.
As for some other "dumb physicists" (not that I would dignify myself with the term physicist - I merely have a bachelor's degree in physics and math, and have never used my physics professionally) who think the hypothesis that the towers collapsed due to bombs deserves serious study, note that their numbers may be increasing in the very near future:
(emphasis mine)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu...2&mesg_id=56388
\Yes, I did present a seminar on the puzzling collapse of WTC-7 and other 9-11 anomalies, on 9-22-05. Sorry I don't have time to post very often, but this from an email I sent out to colleagues on 9-23-5:
Approximately 50 were in attendance, with representatives from the following Brigham Young University and UVSC (Utah Valley St. College) departments:
Physics, Civil Eng., Mechanical Eng., EE, Geology, Psychology, Mathematics. There were several I did not recognize, so other departments were probably represented also. I’ve had particularly encouraging comments from four Physics Profs. and a Math Prof especially, and one of the psychology profs., himself an active democrat...
As you can imagine, there was considerable hostility especially at first. A lot of questions – which I fielded throughout the presentation.
The EE Prof. emailed me before the seminar that this was all “conspiracy theory” and “claptrap.” However, he did – to his credit – look at the website referenced in a previous email, which is Jim Hoffman’s site. <http://911research.wtc7.net/sitemap.html >
During the seminar, it was clear he -- and many others -- were coming around. He admitted that the collapse of WTC 7 was VERY strange, very hard to explain as due to fires. And he’s reading up on all this now.
We started just after 3 pm and had to quit at 4:55 pm as there was a class coming in at 5 pm. One or two left at about 4 pm, when I had covered most of the WTC7 material, but I was pleased that most of the group stayed and we carried on for NEARLY TWO HOURS. Many favorable comments were received afterwards and this morning. People were impressed by the DATA and my critiques of the FEMA and NIST and 9-11 Commission reports.
The most “hostile” was a geology professor. He raised the point that “the Twin Towers were a special case since hit by jets.” Fortunately, I had previously shown a slide discussing “Pathological Science” – and this business of “special case” is one of the red flags for bad science. (I’m well known around here for being among the first, if not the first, to debunk claims of Pons and Fleischmann in 1989.) And he had to admit that WTC7 was NOT hit by a plane.
The approach I took was that we need to have data released (not destroyed, as were most of the steel beams) – and an independent investigation conducted. This was the approach also encouraged by Prof. Weyland – thanks, Jack – it worked extremely well. My goal was clear, and all except one (the geology prof.) agreed with my conclusion that data held by NIST, etc. should be released – and an independent investigation conducted. And several in the group are now doing some investigation on their own – climbing the learning curve.
The next day <9-23-05>, this geology Prof. told me privately that he hoped I could get the information for further investigation. I’m particularly after a sample of the molten metal found in the basement of WTC7 (also in the basements of the Towers).
The tilting of the South Tower was also intriguing to many, squibs from the North Tower less so – but I spent most of the time on WTC 7. Also, the letter of Kevin Ryan carried weight evidently, along with protests about the destruction of the steel beams. My slides on Pathological Science were very useful in countering claims of the "official" theory.
That’s it for now.
Oh, you’ll notice in my talk an appeal to the Book of Mormon – which speaks over and over about “secret combinations”, “secret plans”, “secret societies” in the “last days.” This provided a means to overcome the barrier of “conspiracy theory nonsense” with this group. Won’t work for everyone, but this really is something we Mormons believe in and watch for….
Best Regards,
Steven E. Jones
<br>
It seems that the more one knows about the collapses, the more likely it is that one doubts the official story.....
Finally, even if a more complete analysis by NIST passed muster via independent construction engineers, a NIST model which tried to model some of the other observations certainly wouldn't.
I have mentioned these in other posts, but I don't think I mentioned the symmetry of the collapse. But this is exactly one of the problems discussed by Young.
For a good laugh, I would just LOVE to see NIST model the collapsing spire.... Tell me your opinion please. If NIST did model the collapsing spire, what would the construction engineering community think of it?
Foxx
12th November 2005 - 05:22 AM
QUOTE (Foxx+) The FACT that the buildings fell at near the rate of free-fall is indisputable <br> | QUOTE | Originally posted by Schneibster
Lie number one. Looking at the videos, I can see that the column sections reach the ground before the collapse reaches the ground. This alone is enough to put the lie to this "fact." Would you care to discuss whether the column sections are in free-fall or not, considering they're falling through the air unsupported? Perhaps you think little evil gnomes employed by teh conspiracy are pushing them so they'll fall faster.
This will do; examine frames 203, 211, and 219. Note the debris- IN FREE FALL- at the bottom of the pictures. Note that the top of the building is still collapsing, and is nowhere near those pieces of debris. They are fifteen or twenty stories ahead of the collapse, and it is certain that they will hit the ground first. These three pictures ALONE, with NO OTHER EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER, prove INCONTROVERTIBLY that Foxx is lying. The buildings did NOT fall at a rate "near the rate of free-fall," and that is that.
<br>*****************
Sigh...
In contravention to my own advice to NOT feed the trolls...
Schneibster, my dear friend... you accuse me of 'Lies' ???
Please correct me if my understanding of a 'lie' is NOT... 'a fallacious statement'?
At the risk of encouraging you to engage in discussion...
Where do you find a 'lie' in my above quoted statement?
Did I not state NEAR the rate of free-fall? Is near the rate of 'free-fall' the same as the rate of 'free-fall'?
We all recognize that those massive chunks of steel debris which were ejected laterally from the normal progessive collapse route, suffered no resistance from anything apart from thin air. That debris was unquestionably falling at free-fall rates.
I think it is obvious to all that such debris would fall much faster than debris which faced direct resistance from columns which were designed to support at least 5 times the weight of the mass (which they had supported for over 30 years).
I guess the technical question is...
although we KNOW that a mass facing resistance will fall 'slower' than a mass facing NO resistance, how much should we expect that difference in fall-rate to be?
I believe this 'difference' needs to be quantified. Although I readily admit that I can't mathematically quantify the 'speed differences' we should expect to see, I think this should be a pretty easy calculation to make for someone who has relevant knowledge. Can you?
Regardless of all the above... what is this 'lie' you keep referring to? I am talking about near free-fall rates, and you point out an object that is falling milliseconds faster than impeded 'free-fall'.
We are all aware that if debris is ejected laterally outside of the path of resistance, it will fall 'faster' than debris & rubble falling through the path of resistance.
What is the mystery here?
Where is my 'lie'?
The following animation is based upon the basic physics of resistance, As can be seen any falling body will fall at free-fall rates if unimpeded. However, upon contact with any resisting force the body will be slowed somewhat.
Enjoy...
http://www.yeeguy.com/freefall/
metamars
12th November 2005 - 08:57 AM
| QUOTE | Where do you find a 'lie' in my above quoted statement?
Did I not state NEAR the rate of free-fall? Is near the rate of 'free-fall' the same as the rate of 'free-fall'?
<br>The term "near" is not precise, which is part of the reason I never paid much attention to such arguments.
I also believe it's "near free fall speed", (even now that I know it's at least 50% greater than free fall speed), because that's still awfully fast for such a huge building.
However, many people who have stated that the speed of collapse is "near free fall speed" in one breath, were saying in the next breath "8.4 seconds" or "8.8 seconds". These are clearly false.
I'm not sure whether or not you used these numbers, but it might be a good idea to state whether you have or not, and if so, to simply admit that you were mistaken. Being mistaken is not the same as a lie, of course.
I myself have used such numbers, at least in conversation, never having examined them closely until recently. I was not lying, but I was clearly mistaken.
The imprecision of the word "near" isl part of the reason why I didn't pay much attention to the free fall comparison argument. Nobody knows, a priori, that a 9 second collapse (or even a 12 or 16 second collapse) is so near the true speed of free fall that the FEMA version must be a Fairy Tale (from this consideration alone), because nobody (AFAIK) studied what that means ito column strength and how long it would take to collapse columns.
frater plecticus
12th November 2005 - 01:36 PM
Foxx
12th November 2005 - 06:17 PM
Thanks for your observations metamars. I agree that the term "near" free-fall speeds is not precise. As I have seen numerous times quoted by various people I also do not attempt to quantify the actual time they took to fall, apart from stating that it was close to the speed of free-fall. Far too close (in my opinion) to be considered as a result of overloading of structural steel columns causing them to bend / buckle to the point of failure. Cold steel, such as in the fire-unaffected portions of the lower section of the building, cannot fail catastophically as fast as occured, even if it was twice or three times the rate of 'free-fall speeds'. To think that they can; completely ignores the built-in resistance such increasingly larger structural members would posess.
Of course I cannot actually quantify the speed that it may have been possible to fall in a gravity driven collapse, however I have yet to see anyone quantify those numbers in order to 'prove' the official story either.
My opinion is that even allowing 20 seconds for the drop... and considering the number of floors to be 100 (for the sake of easy calculations), this would mean that each floor (ALL of the columns on each floor) completely failed or lost all structural rigidity in a period of 1/5th of a second. My opinion is that such a failure rate is impossible. It takes well over an hour in sustained high heat conditions to buckle steel columns. To suggest that cold steel can buckle and fail in 1/5th of a second is (in my opinion) an absurdity.
I would agree that I cannot 'prove' that the speed of this failure rate is too fast, but then neither have I seen anyone 'prove' that this speed of failure rate is quite acceptable in a gravity driven collapse either. In other words, until such time as the numbers involved are quantified, one can only lean on personal intuition as to whether or not such speed of failure rate is possible.
As I have not stated a rate of speed of the collapse, I don't think the statement that...
| QUOTE | "Did I not state NEAR the rate of free-fall? Is near the rate of 'free-fall' {speed} the same as the rate of 'free-fall' {speed}?
<br>... is 'mistaken' any more than I believe it was a 'lie'.
Schneibster is actually the one who is Lying, when he implies I "lied". However that is what trolls do in trying to attract a response - state egregious errors in order to provoke some kind of 'heated' response. Having shown he is wrong (again), I don't expect to see any retraction from him on his error. That is not in the nature of trolls, and opposes their purpose for stating the outlandish to begin with.
Nevertheless, believe me when I say I won't be losing any sleep over his statements.
yesitdid
12th November 2005 - 06:50 PM
manifespo, the amount of heat (kilocalories) produced by any conventional explosive is not that great but the temperature of the reaction is fairly high. They simply produce that amount of heat very quickly. Gee, I would think you knew this.
Now as for the mini-nuke. What is the speed of propagation of the blast from such a device buddy? Was this observed at the WTC? You call thermite a straw man! I mention thermite because it was a pet hypothesis of another here. If you discount the use of thermite , fine!
Stallion4
12th November 2005 - 07:40 PM
QUOTE Mike Malloy Discusses BYU Prof., Steven Jones
November 12, 2005
By Stallion4Air America Radio host, Mike Malloy, discussed on his show last night the recent news of BYU Professor of Physics, Steven E. Jones' professional opinion that "pre-positioned explosives" brought down three World Trade Center buildings on 9-11. On Thursday, November 10, Salt Lake City's Deseret Morning News wrote:
[Prof. Jones] is calling for an independent, international scientific investigation "guided not by politicized notions and constraints but rather by observations and calculations.
"It is quite plausible that explosives were pre-planted in all three buildings and set off after the two plane crashes — which were actually a diversion tactic," he writes. "Muslims are (probably) not to blame for bringing down the WTC buildings after all," Jones writes.
As for speculation about who might have planted the explosives, Jones said, "I don't usually go there. There's no point in doing that until we do the scientific investigation."
Salt Lake City's CBS afilliate, KUTV, also ran a story on Thursday about Prof. Jones titled "Collapse or Implosion: BYU Professor Has Theory About 9/11 Attacks." Here is an excerpt from that broadcast: Reporter, Brian Mullahy:...We saw the planes hit, the explosions and fire so hot, fortress towers could not stand. Steven Jones says not so fast.
Prof. Steven Jones: They're sticking with this one hypothesis. Its almost like they have blinders on 'its got to be fires and damage.'
Reporter, Brian Mullahy: Jones is a 20-year physics professor at BYU, who's penned an academic paper raising another hypothesis - explosives may have been pre-positioned in the buildings.
Prof. Steven Jones: Notice how it's straight down (Jones says referring to the fall of Building 7).
Reporter, Brian Mullahy: Especially intriguing to Jones, (the destruction of) World Trade Center 7, damaged and ablaze from tower debris but never hit by a plane.
Prof. Steven Jones: Symmetrically now, it doesn't topple over, as you might expect, from what we call the second law of thermodynamics. It comes straight down. This is the goal of prepositioned explosives in a controlled demolition. The CBS KUTV news piece can be viewed in its entirety by clicking here: http://kutv.com/topstories/local_story_314234334.htmlCopy and Paste the link below into your browser to download and listen to Mike Malloy's show from Friday night:
The Mike Malloy Show, November 11, 2005 (31MB download)http://www.whiterosesociety.org/content/ma...11-11-2005).mp3
Schneibster
12th November 2005 - 08:39 PM
Foxx, the lie is, QUOTE (Foxx+) The FACT that the buildings fell at near the rate of free-fall is indisputable |
(Underline emphasis mine). It is, in fact, not only not indisputable, but it is incorrect, and deliberately misleading at best and more likely deliberately dishonest, in my estimation, based on your track record so far. I have told you repeatedly that the buildings did not fall at anything like free-fall speeds, and proven it THREE DIFFERENT WAYS. Two of them involved the use of math, so you were able to squirm and lie your way out of it; but NO ONE can look at those pictures and deny the fact that the collapse zone is fully twenty stories above the falling debris. So this time, there's nowhere to hide. Your LIES (because that's what deliberately misleading or deliberately dishonest statements are called in the English language) are exposed for anyone who cares to look and think about what they are seeing for a few seconds.
I pointed out precisely where you lied, and stated explicitly and in exhaustive detail precisely why it was a LIE and not a "misstatement." Anyone who wants to see it can find it on page 14 of this very thread. I'm pointing it out here again. The plain and simple fact of the matter is that if you come across something that conflicts with your viewpoint, you will LIE to deny it; nothing further is necessary for the objective observer to make damning conclusions as to your character.
There was in fact more than sufficient time, from the beginning of the collapse to the end, for an object falling in free-fall to have fallen TWICE THE HEIGHT of the towers. This is not "near," and it is not "a few milliseconds." The evidence is staring you in the face, and you refuse to acknowledge it. If that's not lying, what is it? Are you insane, and therefore denying reality? Because that's the only other explanation.
metamars
12th November 2005 - 09:49 PM
| QUOTE | The FACT that the buildings fell at near the rate of free-fall is indisputable
(Underline emphasis mine). It is, in fact, not only not indisputable, but it is incorrect, and deliberately misleading at best
<br>If you have a sports car that goes at 100 mph, and I have a Chevy that goes at 50 mph, nobody will claim that my Chevy goes "nearly" as fast as your sports car.
But if you live in my apartment complex, give me a call, and say that you will be there in 1 minute, if you show up in 90 seconds or 2 minutes, most people would say that you arrived in nearly the time that you said you would.
Further, if you live on my floor, call and say you will be there in 8 seconds, and show up in 12 or 16, if you told most of your friends that you did not arrive in near the time you said you would, even your own friends would look at you like you were crazy (or so I believe)
If anybody is interested, there is something called "fuzzy logic" which get into topics like this.
In the context of collapsing towers, the 'nearness of near' depends on one's expectations. Somebody who believes whole heartedly in demolition will be struck by the extreme rapidity of the fall. And somebody who doesn't, won't.
Furthermore, the shorter the time periods involved, the more likely most people's subjective notion of "near" (in time) are likely to allow variations in delta percent time to still be considered 'near'
A physicist tends to think more precisely, especially since he/she has to work problems with relevant time periods that are imperceptibly short.
Most people aren't physicists, trained to think this way. Foxx is no exception. Thus, calling him a liar for describing things the way most people probably would, seems unjustified.
I think it would be fair to say somebody, even a layman, is lying if they claim a collapse time of 8.4 seconds, their error is pointed out to them, they understand their error, and go on claiming an 8.4 second collapse time.
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | The FACT that the buildings fell at near the rate of free-fall is indisputable
(Underline emphasis mine). It is, in fact, not only not indisputable, but it is incorrect, and deliberately misleading at best
<br>If you have a sports car that goes at 100 mph, and I have a Chevy that goes at 50 mph, nobody will claim that my Chevy goes "nearly" as fast as your sports car.
But if you live in my apartment complex, give me a call, and say that you will be there in 1 minute, if you show up in 90 seconds or 2 minutes, most people would say that you arrived in nearly the time that you said you would.
Further, if you live on my floor, call and say you will be there in 8 seconds, and show up in 12 or 16, if you told most of your friends that you did not arrive in near the time you said you would, even your own friends would look at you like you were crazy (or so I believe)
If anybody is interested, there is something called "fuzzy logic" which get into topics like this.
In the context of collapsing towers, the 'nearness of near' depends on one's expectations. Somebody who believes whole heartedly in demolition will be struck by the extreme rapidity of the fall. And somebody who doesn't, won't.
Furthermore, the shorter the time periods involved, the more likely most people's subjective notion of "near" (in time) are likely to allow variations in delta percent time to still be considered 'near'
A physicist tends to think more precisely, especially since he/she has to work problems with relevant time periods that are imperceptibly short.
Most people aren't physicists, trained to think this way. Foxx is no exception. Thus, calling him a liar for describing things the way most people probably would, seems unjustified.
I think it would be fair to say somebody, even a layman, is lying if they claim a collapse time of 8.4 seconds, their error is pointed out to them, they understand their error, and go on claiming an 8.4 second collapse time.
This is not "near," and it is not "a few milliseconds."
<br>Has Foxx made a claim that the collapse occured within a few milliseconds of free fall time, or not? You are using quotation marks.....
.dread.
12th November 2005 - 11:57 PM
QUOTE (Shneibster aka "A_ht" aka "the highly moronic dipshit"+) The plain and simple fact of the matter is that if you come across something that conflicts with your viewpoint, you will LIE to deny it; nothing further is necessary for the objective observer to make damning conclusions as to your character. The evidence is staring you in the face, and you refuse to acknowledge it. If that's not lying, what is it? Are you insane, and therefore denying reality? Because that's the only other explanation. <br>Shame isn't it? That sorry fucks like you continue to make hypocritical statements and cannot seem to evolve beyond your lack of humanity. That you blatantly lie for your shitty government because they can pay you and threaten you. You are a coward and a shill and we all know it. Partitions of shits like you honestly think that none of us can notice that the buildings are obviously falling very fast and in a uniformed manner? Near free fall or not, those buildings should not have collapsed, PERIOD. The fuel spread wasn't severe enough so as to equally disperse to every major steel component in each tower. Thomas Eagar is a paid shill (a dufus, a dildo swallower -- just like you). Fuq him. I'm sure you'd love to. Look at the black smoke you fagface. Any retard can understand that black smoke is a sign of fire incidents that aren't very hot. Yet, you fail to comply to this fact. What does that make you then? That makes you less than a retard doesn't it? Yeah fuq you too. You still didn't answer these situations you shithead giver........#1) Why did the WTC 7 collapse in the same rapid and uniformed manner as the Twin Towers, despite not being hit by a mutherfucking plane? Why didn't the Empire State Building not collapse, despite being hit by a bomber in the 1940's? #2) Why did the "Pancake Theory" never exist prior to 9/11? Why do you continue to insult our intelligence by thinking that we would actually believe such pseudoscience? #3) Why did you admit earlier in this thread (when you were using your 'A_ht' username) that you are a paid shill for NIST, yet you are now posing as "Shneibster"? You really think that we have forgotten about your pathetic confession? #4) What makes asswipes like you think that the rest of the world should trust your traitor government when it has planned such state treason projects such as Operation Northwoods in the past? -- http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf#5) Why are you so stupid to support an official story which claims that the U.S. government had no foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks when it has in fact... ...known about Project Bojinka: - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Bojinka - http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/18/inv....g.philippines/...conducted Pentagon MASCAL on Oct.24-26, 2000:- http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/Contingency_Planning.html...conducted Amalgam Virgo 01 on July 1-4 of 2001:- http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/linksc...malgumVirgo.pdf...had a picture of the WTC with a gun scope's cross-hairs aimed at the one of the towers in its August 1997 "Emergency Response to Terrorism" self-study course FEMA booklet:#6) Don't forget that a sack-sucking shill like you still needs to defend why the WTC 7 was a building that housed the former OEC (Operations for Emergency Management) office seen here... ...and then explain why that office was moved to Pier 92 (seen below) on Sept. 12 via a 32-hour construction marathon just in time and ready before Friday Sept. 14: Source: http://www.nyc.gov/html/oem/html/other/sub...esponse_p2.html#6) Furthermore, a fag-poking shill like you needs to defend as to why Operation Tripod II (a bio-terror exercise conducted by FEMA) was planned on September 10 to 12, 2001 in New York. Additionally, why did the 9/11 commission later remove that cum-drinking luciferian Rudy Guiliani's slipped testimony in which he accidentally mentioned the following: "... the reason Pier 92 was selected as a command center was because on the next day, on September 12, Pier 92 was going to have a drill, it had hundreds of people here, from FEMA, from the Federal Government, from the State, from the State Emergency Management Office, and they were getting ready for a drill for biochemical attack.
So that was gonna be the place they were going to have the drill. The equipments was already there, so we were able to establish a command center there, within three days, that was two and a half to three times bigger than the command center that we had lost at 7 World Trade Center. And it was from there that the rest of the search and rescue effort was completed. #7) Let's see if you can defend this....why did that billionaire thief Warren Buffet conduct a "last annual golf charity event" at the U.S. Strategic Command headquarters located at Offutt Air Force Base in Omaha on 9/11? Why did your satanic president arrive at that base later on that same day? Why did that piece of *** tranny bitch Ann Tatlock, the CEO of Fiduciary Trust Co. International have a WTC south tower office that was the direct target of one of the planes? Why didn't that piece of tranny die? Why did that piece of tranny take a drive to Warren Buffet's "charity" event on 9/11? - http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2001/1015/070_print.html#8) Why would you want us to believe your traitor government when we all know that Larry Silverstein (one of many traitors you can't stop giving head to), signed a 99-year lease on the WTC just several weeks before 9/11 and then at the same time establish a terrorist insurance policy (worth $ 3.5 billion each for 2 separate attacks) before the attacks: - http://globalfire.tv/nj/03en/jews/wtc-silverstein.htm- http://www.forbes.com/2003/07/21/cx_da_0721topnews.html#9) Why was this innocent woman Edna Cintron (photo below) still alive and unhurt by the "overwhelming fuel spread" that your pseudoscience traitor professor and ball-licker Thomas Eagar claims as the direct cause for the Twin Towers' collapses:  Everyone with half a brain would still be able to figure out that there was no "overwhelming fuel spread". Otherwise Edna Cintron wouldn't be standing here:  Liars like you make me sick. You continue to defend lies. Lies that caused innocent people to fall to their demise. Yet you pose as characters around the worldwide internet saying that independent thinkers like us have no right to exercise our anti-government sentiments because we are "disrespecting" the troops? Stop blowing yourself already. You even have the nerve to pose as online characters that had very so often said that they had known "lost loved ones" in the attacks so as to make us believe that you fuckers are more affected by this tragedy than us; that you intend to have us believe that we are nothing but outsiders and "crackpots". You use the victims of the tragedy as a cloak for your governmental propaganda so that you can hope to gain an advantage in such 9/11 debates found in many public venues. Cowards like you serve your traitor government because they threaten you and pay you to say lies. You're no hero. You dishonor your soldiers -- soldiers who continue to die because they have been conditioned to believe in patriotism. Yet their deaths are only in vain, for they have no clue that the patriotism in which they continue to die for is nothing but a political tool that has been used as an exterior poster for a covert and sinister political agenda. This isn't just about physics anymore and who is an "expert" or not. This is about finding out the truth -- for the sake of all who have died and for the sake of humanity. But your self-serving traitor government and all its global associates disagree. They treat life like a corporate game in which human beings are nothing but statistics. They consider you a statistic as well, although knowing this, you still drink them. You also continue to suppress your conscience without any remorse for your actions. Someday your deceptions will catch up to you. I don't know when, and I don't know how, but you're going to get what you deserve. You and all your cowardly treasonists. Go burn in hell mutherfucker. __________________________________________________________ I am teh master admin of teh master site .... CSAB
frater plecticus
13th November 2005 - 12:51 AM
Regardless of the name-calling and nit-picking........... 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. QUOTE Mass murder, torture, and a military strategy founded on unmitigated cruelty and horror – that's what this war is about. Its symbol is Lynndie England wielding a leash. Insofar as it is based on any philosophical worldview, I would look for the clue to this not in The Federalist Papers, but in the works of the Marquis de Sade. We are inflicting pain and raining clouds of death on a society, not to achieve any goal, but, I would argue, purely for the perverted pleasure of exhibiting our power. Paul Wolfowitz famously argued in favor of attacking Iraq in the wake of 9/11 because "it's doable." We can, therefore we will – what would be quickly diagnosed as sociopathic behavior in an individual is the same mindset that dominates our top policymakers. This is a policy, not of "liberation," but of domination – and the main threat to liberty and peace on earth. <a href='http://antiwar.org/justin/?articleid=7993' target='_blank' rel='nofollow'>their terrorism and ours QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | Mass murder, torture, and a military strategy founded on unmitigated cruelty and horror – that's what this war is about. Its symbol is Lynndie England wielding a leash. Insofar as it is based on any philosophical worldview, I would look for the clue to this not in The Federalist Papers, but in the works of the Marquis de Sade. We are inflicting pain and raining clouds of death on a society, not to achieve any goal, but, I would argue, purely for the perverted pleasure of exhibiting our power.
Paul Wolfowitz famously argued in favor of attacking Iraq in the wake of 9/11 because "it's doable." We can, therefore we will – what would be quickly diagnosed as sociopathic behavior in an individual is the same mindset that dominates our top policymakers. This is a policy, not of "liberation," but of domination – and the main threat to liberty and peace on earth.
<a href='http://antiwar.org/justin/?articleid=7993' target='_blank' rel='nofollow'>their terrorism and ours
Hammer to the Slammer: Curtains for the GOPMOB?
September 30, 2005-Venice, FL. by Daniel Hopsicker
The investigation into the 4-year old murder of Sun Cruz Casino boat founder Konstantinos ‘Gus’ Boulis in Fort Lauderdale has begun to reveal hidden connections between Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s gargantuan fund-raising machine, essential to victory in the past two Presidential elections, and a cast of underworld characters not previously thought of as exemplifying what have come to be known as “Republican family values.” The indictment of three men Tuesday in the Boulis "hit" exposes an unholy alliance in Florida between the national Republican party and the Mob, details of which were first reported in the MadCowMorningNews three months ago (“The Secret World of Jack Abramoff: Terrorists, Torpedoes and Republican ‘Muscle’”). More indictments are expected soon.The trail of suspicion leads directly to Abramoff’s doorstep: the three names already released clearly implicate Adam Kidan, the Casino line’s erstwhile President, in the crime, who wrote checks—duh-uh!—for over $250,000 to one of the indicted men, Gambino goombah Anthony “Big Tony”' Moscatiello, 67, of Howard Beach, N.Y, for no easily discernible reason.
(cont….)
http://madcowprod.com/09302005.html
1: http://tinyurl.com/durs8
THE LEGAL TEAM
The DeLay legal fund has paid lawyers $836,113 in five years. Until last summer, the only firm on the payroll was Bracewell & Patterson.
Bracewell & Patterson* – The firm is involved in defense against a Democratic racketeering suit. Partner Ed Bethune, an ex-FBI agent and former House member from Arkansas, handles House ethics investigations, as he did for former Speaker Newt Gingrich. Fees: $655,222.
William A. White – He represents Mr. DeLay in Austin on issues involving Texans for a Republican Majority, the subject of a Travis County grand jury investigation. Fees: $100,000.
Cooper & Kirk – Partner Charles Cooper, a Reagan Justice Department official and former law clerk to Chief Justice William Rehnquist, handled a matter that DeLay aides say is closed and about which they offer no additional information. Fees: $24,389.
McDermott, Will & Emery – Partner Bobby Burchfield handles inquiries about Mr. DeLay's relationship with lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who reportedly paid for some of Mr. DeLay's overseas travel, which would violate House rules. The Justice Department and a Senate committee are investigating whether Mr. Abramoff bilked Indian casino clients. Fees: $56,502.
* Recently renamed Bracewell & Giuliani
2. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5081101108.html
http://tinyurl.com/dat3r
(3) The Texas law firm Bracewell Giuliani has Bechtel as a major client, Bechtel is also in the London Underground.
http://www.bechtel.com/Briefs/1104/Underground.htm
Giuliani To Be Partner in Texas Lawfirm
The New York Times March 30th 2005
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/30/nyregion/30rudy.html
Bechtel as client:
http://www.mysanantonio.com/business/stori....18d8f17e5.html
More on Abramoff
http://www.madcowprod.com/06282005.html
Was Abramoff linked to terrorists?
http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2005/08/was...terrorists.html
The founder of SunCruz Casinos
http://www.saintpetersburgtimes.com/News/0...hick_file.shtml
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5081101108.html
For years, nobody on Washington's K Street corridor was closer to DeLay than Abramoff. They were an unlikely duo. DeLay, a conservative Christian, and Abramoff, an Orthodox Jew, traveled the world together and golfed the finest courses. Abramoff raised hundreds of thousands for DeLay's political causes and hired DeLay's aides, or kicked them business, when they left his employ. But now DeLay, too, has problems—in part because of overseas trips allegedly paid for by Abramoff's clients.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7446492/site/newsweek/
and for more evidence of the small world these military/Homeland Security Terrorists inhabit see: Bernard B. Kerik ( Former -Giuliani Partners)+ GEN Kevin Byrnes, USA
(former)Commander, United States Army Training and Doctrine Command
http://www.milcom.org/2003/speakers.htm
<br>| QUOTE | A very telling Quote "This company wasn't profitable until 9/11. It required a real threat for people to invest in these systems."
Verint
http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_2939484
(Excerpts)
In the London Underground, video surveillance proved effective in identifying suspects later captured in connection with the July 21 attempted bombings. The London Underground has been a client of Verint's since last fall, but company officials would not say whether Verint's technology was used in the bombing probe. Verint's customer list also includes the New Jersey Turnpike; Washington Dulles International Airport; Portland, Ore., light rail; Montreal Metro; and Copenhagen, Denmark.
Roden wouldn't comment last week on the status or progress of deployment of the Verint system in the London Underground. The rail line was still a new client as of July 7, when four blasts, three in the underground and one on a bus, killed more than 50 people, including the bombers.
"Verint is a leader in this industry," said Alan Weinfeld, a senior analyst with Kaufman Brothers L.P., a Manhattan investment bank that specializes in technology and communications industries. "This company wasn't profitable until 9/11. It required a real threat for people to invest in these systems."
Please refer back to Giuliani and Verint:
http://www.canadianinfosecsummit.com/secur...t/speakers.html
http://globalresearch.ca.myforums.net/viewtopic.php?p=10851
Related:
http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Number=293888968
Schneibster
13th November 2005 - 01:37 AM
It's not name-calling, nor is it nit-picking. It's perfectly straightforward: I proved TWICE using the "Basic Physics" of the title of this thread that neither of the towers fell at anywhere near free-fall speed, and Foxx lied about it. Plain and simple, present in black and white. "Name-calling" implies that what is said is not true; in fact, it IS true. "Nit-picking" implies that the point is insignificant compared to the overall considerations; in fact, this point is NOT insignificant. If what Foxx said was true, there would be serious questions about how the towers fell; it is not, and there are not.
It's worth noting that "somewhat lower temperatures" are LESS THAN HALF the temperature it melts at. I'm getting tired of people not quantifying what they say. Why don't you discuss the variation of Young's modulus for steel with temperature. It has in fact lost more than half its elasticity at half its melting temperature; and a loss of half its elasticity has a correspondingly greater effect on its strength. Care to discuss how strength varies with elasticity?
Then there's the fact that you don't know the difference between heat and temperature. If you want "Basic Physics," THERE is some basic physics for you. The temperature of a fire does not determine the temperature of material exposed to the fire.
What you are doing steers perilously close to the same sort of deliberate misrepresentation (otherwise known as lying) as Foxx is engaged in. I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that ALL conspiracy theorists will lie to protect their fantasies.
frater plecticus
13th November 2005 - 02:02 AM
Yeah, the 3000 dead in New York, the yellowcake story, Condi´s mushroom cloud speech, 100 000 dead in Iraq, Libby´s and Abramoff´s criminal charges are conspiracies to protect my fantasies.
Is that quantitative enough for you ?
..........or are my points insignificant ?
CHUCKLES
13th November 2005 - 02:18 AM
hoooeee! how right you are schneibster!!! just like religious idiots do when there fantasy meets reality and they can't cope without lying to themselves and their group-wan....er...groupthink buddies!!! hahahaha what a riot!!! they think no-one will have the guts to call them on their lies because they will rant and rave and accuse tehm of being part of the "conspiracy"!!! what pathetic characters!!!! they belong in the 'religion' thread!!hahahahaha with their other fantasising groupies hahahahaha. MOVE EM TO A CONSPIRACY OR RELIGION THREAD someone!!!!come on do it and put them outta their misery hahahahaha. what a riot!
either that or they are making MONEY out of pushing the 9/11conspiracy 'drug' to idiot 'users' who fall for it and play into their greedy hands!!! Wake up morons, the people behind these threads are playing you for suckers pretending to give a fig for victims and their families, when all they're doin is exploiting them for gain in money and power over idiots like you gullible sods!!!!too bad for you hahahahaha but even worse for the victims they are cynically using to make their dishonest dough.....boooooo hisssss to all you cretins and opportunists (just like those hurricane Katrina opportunists who wangled money out of honest folk wanting to help THOSE victims being exploited in the same way as these b*stards are doing with the 9/11 victims...boooo hisssss!!!!
frater plecticus
13th November 2005 - 02:32 AM
QUOTE A little bird has chirped in my ear, telling me to look closer at the possible connection between shady Republican money-man Jack Abramoff and the 9/11 terrorists. Uncharacteristically cryptic, the bird said no more.
I knew about the Associated Press story (referenced in an earlier piece) which reported that Atta and company had hopped aboard a SunCruz casino ship on September 5, 2001. Abramoff owned SunCruz. He acquired the company under circumstances many consider strange -- so strange as to have resulted in his recent indictment. So strange as to involve the murder of the former owner, Konstantinos "Gus" Boulis.
The feds had long suspected that SunCruz ships have been used for money laundering, and perhaps even drug importation. The ships are beyond all regulation -- nothing stops criminals for operating them.
Al Qaida operatives have made many a strange visit to casinos -- visits that most investigators feel had more to do with criminal activity than with gambling.
So what further information was the little bird referencing? I suspect the answer has much to do with courageous FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, who is legally restricted from revealing in public all that she found out during her stint as a translator.
Here is a snip from an Edmonds interview conducted last January:
You get to a point where it gets very complex, where you have money laundering activities, drug related activities, and terrorist support activities converging at certain points and becoming one. In certain points - and they (the intelligence community) are separating those portions from just the terrorist activities. And, as I said, they are citing "foreign relations" which is not the case, because we are not talking about only governmental levels. And I keep underlining semi-legit organizations and following the money. When you do that the picture gets grim. It gets really ugly.... I can tell that once, and if, and when this issue gets to be, under real terms, investigated, you will be seeing certain people that we know from this country standing trial; and they will be prosecuted criminally.
Elsewhere she has hinted that the true tale of the terrorists related to intelligence-gathering activities by semi-legitimate organizations. "When you have activities involving a lot of money, you have people from different nations involved.... It can be categorized under organized crime, but in a very large scale."
"You have [a] network of people who obtain certain information and they take it out and sell it to... whomever would be the highest bidder. Then you have people who would be bringing into the country narcotics from the East, and their connections. [It] is only then that you really see the big picture."
"And you see certain semi-legitimate organizations that may very well have a legit front, but with very criminal illegitimate activities --who start coming at you from these investigations."
Of course, we have Sibel Edmond's open letter to Thomas Kean, Chairman of the National Committee on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States:
To this date the public has not been told of intentional blocking of intelligence, and has not been told that certain information, despite its direct links, impacts and ties to terrorist related activities, is not given to or shared with Counterterrorism units, their investigations, and countering terrorism related activities. This was the case prior to 9/11, and remains in effect after 9/11. If Counterintelligence receives information that contains money laundering, illegal arms sale, and illegal drug activities, directly linked to terrorist activities; and if that information involves certain nations, certain semi-legit organizations, and ties to certain lucrative or political relations in this country, then, that information is not shared with Counterterrorism, regardless of the possible severe consequences. In certain cases, frustrated FBI agents cited 'direct pressure by the State Department,' and in other cases 'sensitive diplomatic relations' is cited.
(Emphasis added.)
All of which brings us to the question: Was Mohammed Atta involved in drugs or money laundering? Al Qaida did make its home in a country whose only real exportable crop was the poppy flower.
Was SunCruz involved in drugs or money laundering? Federal investigators have looked into that very possibility. Gus Boulis cannot testify -- but we an be certain that Abramoff and Kidon wanted his ships very badly. For some reason.
Why have investigators gone to such lengths to hide the fact that Mohammed Atta entered this country before June 2000? Why was the DIA team which had uncovered his activities, and had placed his picture on an Al Qaida flow chart, told by higher-ups to ignore him, and even to cover his image with tape?
.dread.
13th November 2005 - 03:09 AM
Hey "A_HT" aka "Shneibster", go get a reality check by doing a google image search on "controlled demolition". You will notice that the majority of the pictures depict 9/11 related images. You know what that means? It means that the general public consensus around the internet continue to grow in suspicion about the collapses. Your attempts of being a shill is ineffective. It is obsolete, it is done. It is a non-factor. Always has been, always will be. No matter how many times you repeat your worthless pseudoscientific arguements all over the internet, you aren't fooling many. Soon, more people will continue to turn away from mainstream news and depend on alternative media instead. Your government isn't invulnerable, remember that. They won't be able to hide forever. And when the time comes when they are caught (and it will happen eventually), you too (if you do not change now) will have to suffer the consequences as well. Have you forgotten as to what happens to world leaders when their very own people eventually found out about their government's crimes against humanity? Do you seriously want to fuq with this......    The decision is your's. You can either choose to change directions now or eventually fall forever with your treasonist global elites. Have some dignity as a human being for a change. I'm done with your chickenshit pathetic existence. ___________________________________________________________ "Moral cowardice that keeps us from speaking our minds is as dangerous to this country as irresponsible talk. The right way is not always the popular and easy way. Standing for right when it is unpopular is a true test of moral character." -- Margaret Chase Smith
Foxx
13th November 2005 - 03:41 AM
Some believe that NIST is a respected objective investigative entity. I have no doubt myself that the majority of compartmentalized engineers from many disciplines who have contributed to the NIST reports are talented, competent, and honest people. Unfortunately, those who have ultimate charge over such powerful agencies, are not always so honest. Here is direct evidence of NIST lies. NIST Caught Trying to Bury EvidenceNIST claims in it's NISTNCSTAR 1-3 report ( page xliv ) http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/NIST_1_3_008.htmlthat... E.6 Structural Steel in WTC...| QUOTE | No steel was recovered from WTC 7
<br>Folks, we KNOW that this is a bold-faced LIE. They are exposed in this 'cover-up' by other federal documents which flatly state that WTC 7 steel was in fact collected...
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | No steel was recovered from WTC 7
<br>Folks, we KNOW that this is a bold-faced LIE. They are exposed in this 'cover-up' by other federal documents which flatly state that WTC 7 steel was in fact collected...
WTC steel data collection efforts were undertaken by the Building Performance Study (BPS) Team and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY) to identify significant steel pieces from WTC 1, 2, 5, and 7 for further study
Page D1 - FEMA
http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-r.../WTC_apndxD.pdf
| QUOTE | Two structural steel members with unusual erosion patterns were observed in the WTC debris field. The first appeared to be from WTC 7 and the second from either WTC 1 or WTC 2. Samples were taken from these beams and labelled Sample 1 and sample 2, respectively. A mettallurgical examination was conducted.
C.2 Sample 1 (from WTC 7)
Several regions in the section of the beam shown in Figures C-1 and C-2 were examined to determine microstructural changes that occured in the A36 structural steel as a result of the events of September 11, 2001, and the subsequent fires. Although the exact location of this beam in the building was not known, the severe erosion found in several beams warranted further consideration.
FEMA Metallurgical Report
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf
The following article appears in the journal JOM, 53 (12) (2001), pp. 18......
An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7
J.R. Barnett, R.R. Biederman, and R.D. Sisson, Jr.
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | Two structural steel members with unusual erosion patterns were observed in the WTC debris field. The first appeared to be from WTC 7 and the second from either WTC 1 or WTC 2. Samples were taken from these beams and labelled Sample 1 and sample 2, respectively. A mettallurgical examination was conducted.
C.2 Sample 1 (from WTC 7)
Several regions in the section of the beam shown in Figures C-1 and C-2 were examined to determine microstructural changes that occured in the A36 structural steel as a result of the events of September 11, 2001, and the subsequent fires. Although the exact location of this beam in the building was not known, the severe erosion found in several beams warranted further consideration.
FEMA Metallurgical Report
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf
The following article appears in the journal JOM, 53 (12) (2001), pp. 18......
An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7
J.R. Barnett, R.R. Biederman, and R.D. Sisson, Jr.
A section of an A36 wide flange beam retrieved from the collapsed World Trade Center Building 7 was examined to determine changes in the steel microstructure as a result of the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001. This building was not one of the original buildings attacked but it indirectly suffered severe damage and eventually collapsed. While the exact location of this beam could not be determined, the unexpected erosion of the steel found in this beam warranted a study of microstructural changes that occurred in this steel. Examination of other sections in this beam is underway.
<a href='http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html' target='_blank' rel='nofollow'>http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/...erman-0112.html
The FEMA report calls for further metallurgic investigations, and Barnett, Biederman and Sisson hope that WPI will obtain NIST funding and access to more samples...
http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/20...ring/steel.html
Did Barnett and Biederman recieve this further funding and additional samples? NO! NIST denied their application.
Now, it has become abundantly clear that they are trying to 'bury this evidence' from WTC 7.
First, in denying further study... and secondly, by attempting to rewrite history, by claiming now that 'no steel was recovered from WTC 7'.
Foxx
13th November 2005 - 04:53 AM
Regarding Building Collapses Caused by FiresI think the following bears repeating.... QUOTE Originally posted by TurboniumThere has been no response to this point I made earlier from the NIST report http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3Cchaps.pdf which is found on page 235 of the pdf file. It states (I underlined some of the text for emphasis)...... "From the limited number of recovered structural steel elements, no conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were severe enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel structure" This is one of the most important summary findings in the report. No evidence was found in the metallurgical analysis of the steel for fire causing the collapses. ApolloH pg 68 *************** They specifically looked for steel samples from the cores of the towers that had been exposed to fire. From the NIST report.... http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-r.../WTC_apndxD.pdfAppendix D (pages 2, 3 of pdf file) Specifically, the engineers looked for the following types of steel members: Exterior column trees and interior core columns from WTC 1 and WTC 2 that were exposed to fire and/or impacted by the aircraft. Exterior column trees and interior core columns from WTC 1 and WTC 2 that were above the impact zone. Badly burnt pieces from WTC 7. From the draft summary (underline mine).... http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-3ExecutiveSummary.pdf (page 3 of pdf file) "A number of structural pieces were recovered from locations in or near the impact- and fire-damaged regions of the towers, including four perimeter panels directly hit by the airplane and three core columns located within these areas. The three core columns purposely recovered from the impact and fire-damaged regions did not reach temperatures even up to 250C (as mentioned before). They did not procure or rejected any steel samples that were not relevant for analysis due to lack of impact or fire damage. That is also significant in that this represented the vast majority of all the steel they rummaged through at the debris sites. But all of this steel was not catalogued in any way. If it had all been identified as "undamaged by fire or impact", the percentage of total steel identified would be much greater than the specifically damaged 1/4 to 1/2% they analysed. How much of the core (and total) steel did they reject or not even procure because it was not impact or fire-damaged? 20%? 40%? 80%? They deemed this steel as insignificant for their analysis, but did not identify and include it in a database for the WTC steel. But since it was all sifted through, it could have been tagged and catalogued as such. The towers had 400,000 tons of steel. And, "more than 350,000 tons of steel have been extracted from Ground Zero and barged or trucked to salvage yards where it is cut up for recycling." (from NIST report Appendix D, page 1 of pdf file - 1st link above) So they were able to sift through over 80% of the steel at the yards, found four core columns worthy of analysis, three of them from the impact / fire areas, and none of them exposed to fires of 250C. So again, NIST summarizes.... http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3Cchaps.pdf (page 235 of pdf file) "From the limited number of recovered structural steel elements, no conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were severe enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel structure" In light of the fact over 80% of the steel was available for inspection, and was nearly all rejected for analysis, they could have stated... "Over 80% of the total steel was sifted through, and of the 1/4 to 1/2% deemed worthy of recovering, no conclusive evidence was found that pre-collapse fires were severe enough...." I think that inspecting over 80% of the steel makes it more like "no evidence was found" than "no conclusive evidence was found" ApolloH pg 69 More factual evidence from NIST that clearly demonstrates that their own investigation did NOT find forensic evidence to support their position that 'fire caused steel failures'
metamars
13th November 2005 - 05:25 PM
Note to 911 Activists
It's my impression that there are far more laymen on this board (or is it, perhaps, just this thread?) than there are people with a physics background.
Of these, it seems there's a large number of 911 activists.
My advise to these people is: don't waste the opportunity that the Steven Jones paper represents. Please consider printing it out, printing out Hoffman's dust cloud/energetics paper, and printing out the Desert News article on Jones, making copies, and personally going to the nearest college and asking professors in the physics, chemistry, civil engineering, material sciences and applied mathematics* departments to take a look and to give you their opinion on whether or not Jones' call for investigation into the bomb hypothesis is justified. (May not be a bad idea to print out Jones' resume, either.) Most professors have office hours (perhaps 5 per week), which are often posted on their doors. You should normally be able to find this out from the department secretaries, also. You should be respectful of their time, ask for only 5 minutes of it to explain your business, and then ask them if it would be OK if you followed it up in, say, a week or two.
The Hoffman paper is particularly easy, and particularly damning to the official theories, so I would point out that Jones took a lot of hints from Hoffman. The Hoffman paper has been (no doubt in part justifiably) criticized as insufficient, due to the fact that it ignores hydrodynamics.
Well, at your local physics department, there are guys who teach hydrodynamics. They may have an afternoon free to at least assess what developing a model, ala Hoffman, but with hydrodynamics incorporated, would cost. If the cost is a week of theirs and a single graduate students' time, then we may get an invaluable addition to the technical analyses (which is sadly lacking, even outside of FEMA and NIST) of the WTC collapses.
This would be a positive way to channel passions aroused over the perceived treasonous activies of 911. Just spewing hateful accusations won't achieve anything positive, and, in my view, makes things worse.
* Quite often, the Applied Mathematics people are subsumed under the plain, old math department. You will have to dig deeper to see who studies engineering and physics type problems. Things like number theory, topolgy, abstract algebra, etc. have nothing to do (normally) with the sorts of issues presented by the WTC collapse. It may be best just to ask a member of the department who to talk to.
Foxx
13th November 2005 - 06:31 PM
Regarding the time of free-fall. My guess is that due to friction & resistance even a known controlled demolition will not fall at 'free-fall speed', however it will be close. How close? We don't know until such time as someone quantifies the numbers of how much slower than actual free-fall a controlled demo falls at. Turbonium posted a nice gif on the WTC 7 thread of a controlled demo, however given the non streaming animation the numbers could not be determined from a 'video' like this...  Nevertheless, if someone were to take a good video of a known demolition collapse, and calculate the percentage slow-down from actual free-fall speed, this should allow us to determine whether the time of a known demolition would fall faster or slower or about the same speed as the WTC ??? Any thoughts on this?
yesitdid
13th November 2005 - 06:56 PM
Interesting picture showing inward bowing perimeter columns. Didn't Reynolds say they were outward bowing?
Ruckus
13th November 2005 - 08:01 PM
My post is of scattered, broken thought segments that I feel about this topic. So if it is hard to make sense of I apologize, it brings up mixed emotions.
Honestly...
Who cares?
For once I believe the how is not so important as the why.
Science answers how, philosophy answers why.
With this in mind, who cares how the buildings came down? No matter how much science you use to make for a better building, people will find ways to do their will if their will is to demolish the building.
Answering how the building came down doesn't really give a lead as to who was responsible. Please, bombs and airplanes and terroism is an equal opportunity employer. So I don't want to hear that if we find all the elements responsible we can trace it back to a said group of people. That's just asinine. It may be the nature of science, but science isn't right or wrong. It's an interpretation of the evidence at hand.
No amount of technology, or intelligence can defeat terrorism. Get over it.
The Saudia Arabians control OPEC, we have great relations with the Saudias. The Saudi people; on the other hand, could care less about Americans.
Funny.. It was Saudia Arabian visas found. Though we blame Osama and arrest Saddam.
It's a joke and one that cost us thousands of American lives. Now we are having to consider switching to a different fuel economy anyway.
My mother used to say this, "My what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive."
September 11th and George W. Bush make me not proud to be an American. I'm ashamed, and embarrassed.
You know... Truman dropped two atomic bombs for less...
Unfortunatley everyone and their mom has nukes now... Thus we have M.A.D treaty.
Mutually Assured Detruction - M . A . D
We launch our nukes more than likely the target will launch their nukes, then someone else launches nukes.. We all suffer, we all lose.
If I were intelligent, alien life. I would stay FAR away from Earth and make it a point that Earth had no clue that my species existed.
zoktoberfest
13th November 2005 - 09:03 PM
Warning: This is a tweaked post that appeared earlier in the thread. If you thought it sucked and/or inappropriate then, it's worse now.
You're either with us or you're with the terrorists. The ultimate global dichotomy, courtesy of mil/spec GPS controlled planes and our new pal- "Nuke Lite".---- I'm sure that C-130 that was hanging around, right in the middle of everything was the air-born control center of 911. The hijackers must have tripped out when the plane began to fly itself. Precision impact was needed, not amateur mayhem. By knowing the exact impact point, you could calculate the period of the wave traversing down the buildings immediately after the event.--- During the very convenient security stand-down at the WTC, two crews entered the building in the after hours. The labour and technically intensive, subterranean detail and the swift of foot, production oriented, above ground detail. The former wore protective clothing, used hand trucks and forklifts to transport cylindrical objects, calibration equipment and heavy strapping hardware. The latter carried faux control panels, junction boxes and conduit sections that came from nowhere and went to nowhere. The gifts they bore were trojan horses, disguised to perfection to appear as if they were always their. They entered stair wells and utility areas, consulted placement maps laid out by demolition experts who were there a few days before. After removing the self adhesive backing, they place and repeat. When the level installation is complete, they resupply and move to next. The small number of large units and the large number of small units await their sequential vertical programming from the ultra low frequency wave they are tuned to respond to.
When they receive it, they go into active delay mode. You can't have the buildings fall down right after impact. You have to savour the moment. Every viewing person on earth, must witness the birth of the (not so new) New World Order. Since there are those pesky technical people out there, the "Official" failure mechanisms need sufficient time to run their course. Each horizontal array is counting down the same unit of time from the moment it read the impact wave. The "nuke-lites" in the basement have a second or two less to count down. When the timing sequence ends, ground zero begins. D-day (demolition day). First the legs are cut out. Then a plasma blasts ascends up through the elevator shafts and melts the center column and plumes out the top. Yes, the spire did disintegrate. It melted. Then to help out gravity, inter-level resistance was reduced. Floor after floor after floor and down comes the building. The presence of molten metal and high radiation counts weeks after the event- the impossible rate of collapse into its' own footprint- the excessive particulate plumage at the beginning of the collapse... SEALS THE DEAL. Guilty on all counts of unspeakable crimes and treason against the American people, on American soil, in order to subvert the constitution (patriot act) and install a 21st century Fascist Empirical Regime. May God- or whatever spiritual energy is out there- help us all.
This post and others like it, represents pure speculation on my part. They are a conglomeration of theories I've encountered in my pursuit of the truth behind the events. They emerge out of the following mind set: IF some organization were intent on doing such a horrible thing; and they had unlimited access to state-of-the-art technology, then how would they do it? and what could there motives have been? Ultimately, I have no conclusive idea of what happened on 911. The fact however, that our government is perpetually stuck in a feed back loop of "corporate-- military--country club" self interests, while buildings fell and a city drowned, does little to dispel my deep seated foreboding of the bush dynasty.
frater plecticus
13th November 2005 - 09:23 PM
Foxx
13th November 2005 - 11:35 PM
| QUOTE | Originally posted by Yesitdid
Interesting picture showing inward bowing perimeter columns. Didn't Reynolds say they were outward bowing?
<br>The 'inward bowing of the columns in this picture are from the plane impact not from the heat of fires...
Beyond that... Reynolds analysis should not be taken as gospel anyway, because it contains many errors. Here is a critique by Hoffman...
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/reynolds/index.html
Schneibster
14th November 2005 - 04:55 AM
QUOTE (frater plecticus+) Yeah, the 3000 dead in New York, the yellowcake story, Condi´s mushroom cloud speech, 100 000 dead in Iraq, Libby´s and Abramoff´s criminal charges are conspiracies to protect my fantasies.
Is that quantitative enough for you ?
..........or are my points insignificant ? |
No, they most certainly are not, and if there is any justice, then the fact that Shrub lied to the Congress and to the country to get the US into a war in Iraq will turn out to be cause for impeachment; considering we've had two presidents impeached merely because one party had sufficient power to do so, as opposed to only one who didn't stick around long enough to be impeached who had actually done something significant that couldn't have waited until after the end of his term, I'd have to say I've rarely seen a case as good for impeachment for malfeasance.
By the way, you kind of missed mentioning that one. In case you didn't notice. It's sort of important to pay attention occasionally to what's really going on.
And, just for grins, what precisely does any of this have to do with whether the twin towers fell on their own or not on 9/11? Or had you forgotten the subject at hand already? Perhaps you should take another bong hit.
yesitdid
14th November 2005 - 05:40 AM
QUOTE (Foxx+Nov 13 2005, 11:35 PM) | QUOTE | Originally posted by Yesitdid
Interesting picture showing inward bowing perimeter columns. Didn't Reynolds say they were outward bowing?
<br>The 'inward bowing of the columns in this picture are from the plane impact not from the heat of fires...
Beyond that... Reynolds analysis should not be taken as gospel anyway, because it contains many errors. Here is a critique by Hoffman...
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/reynolds/index.html Uh, yeah, and Reynolds claims the outward bowing columns were supposed to be due to aircraft impact. Obviously fire induced visoplastic buckling or buckling due to unequal redistribution of loads could cause buckling in any direction in an unrestrained column. In the case of the perimeter columns though they have no restraint only on one side, the outer side, and would be more likely to bend in that direction.
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | Originally posted by Yesitdid
Interesting picture showing inward bowing perimeter columns. Didn't Reynolds say they were outward bowing?
<br>The 'inward bowing of the columns in this picture are from the plane impact not from the heat of fires...
Beyond that... Reynolds analysis should not be taken as gospel anyway, because it contains many errors. Here is a critique by Hoffman...
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/reynolds/index.html Uh, yeah, and Reynolds claims the outward bowing columns were supposed to be due to aircraft impact. Obviously fire induced visoplastic buckling or buckling due to unequal redistribution of loads could cause buckling in any direction in an unrestrained column. In the case of the perimeter columns though they have no restraint only on one side, the outer side, and would be more likely to bend in that direction.
Reynolds analysis should not be taken as gospel anyway, because it contains many errors
Glad to see you acknowledge that Dr. Reynolds is wrong.
Schneibster
14th November 2005 - 07:09 AM
QUOTE (.dread.+) Hey "A_HT" aka "Shneibster", go get a reality check by doing a google image search on "controlled demolition". You will notice that the majority of the pictures depict 9/11 related images. You know what that means? It means that the general public consensus around the internet continue to grow in suspicion about the collapses. Your attempts of being a shill is ineffective. It is obsolete, it is done. It is a non-factor. Always has been, always will be. |
First, a_ht is not me; so it looks like you have screwed that one up. I don't use sock puppets; I have no problem expressing myself, and sufficient confidence in myself not to need a Greek chorus to applaud myself in order to pump up my self esteem. You might poke around this board for some of my other posts if you have any questions; in fact, you might actually learn something about optics or relativity if you do. I would suggest that your constant suspicion about others using sock puppets indicates your nature; but anyone with enough brains to come in out of the rain already figured that one out a long time ago. Second, if you think that the popularity of a stupid idea is any indication of its worth, I can see how you got confused in the first place. In fact, it is no indication of its worth, and further, a great deal of the buzz is caused by the efforts of several individuals of less than entirely upright morals to sell more of their books and "private website subscriptions" and so forth. Pardon me while I lump Alex and Rush into the same basket; they were "fellow travellers" while Clinton was President. You'll excuse me if I mention that I don't think either one has changed his stripes. Third, considering that these individuals exist, I think there are real, significant, financial reasons to suspect that you are in fact the shill, taking advantage of people who don't know enough not to believe something that is being told to them for no better purpose than to make money off them. This racket is absolutely the most disgusting thing I have ever seen in my life; making money off people by pretending to be "anti-establishment," when money itself is the very heart of the establishment. Preying on the credulous. QUOTE (.dread.+) No matter how many times you repeat your worthless pseudoscientific arguements all over the internet |
Here's the problem; there's no "pseudoscience" about it. You can look at the picture for yourself; what do you see? I see a whole bunch of falling debris twenty stories below the place where the collapse is happening, and the building is only half-collapsed. Hey, it's only a 110-story building; that falling stuff is a sixth of the way farther down the building. A sixth of the total height of one of the tallest buildings in the world is not a little bit; it's a hell of a lot. It's a couple hundred feet, in fact. Look at the picture for yourself. It's all right there. There's no arguing with it; there are hundreds of such pictures on the internet, and they are all the same. Period. There's not a single jot of science, pseudo or any other type, involved; look for yourself. It's right there. You can't deny it. You can't hide from it. It won't go away. It will always have been so, and there is no need to explain it; it's self explanatory. The building took a lot longer to fall than objects from the building that were in free-fall right next to it in the same picture. Period. QUOTE (.dread.+) Your government isn't invulnerable, remember that. |
I hope not; it is in fact my fervent hope that the pResident of my country will be impeached for what he has done. Specifically, for lying to Congress in order to get permission to engage in an invasion of Iraq. QUOTE (.dread.+) They won't be able to hide forever. And when the time comes when they are caught (and it will happen eventually), you too (if you do not change now) will have to suffer the consequences as well. |
I think you need to see a psychiatrist. QUOTE (.dread.+) Have you forgotten as to what happens to world leaders when their very own people eventually found out about their government's crimes against humanity? Do you seriously want to fuq with this...... |
Well, here in the US, we have a history of finding out about people high in the government who are engaged in malfeasance and doing something about it... perhaps not all the time, but pretty regularly. And I'm hoping that's what will happen in this case. In any case, you're not going to impeach a President on the basis of a 9/11 conspiracy; I think it's a much better bet to get him for something everybody knows he did, rather than something that cannot be legally proven to have occurred, and that in fact as far as I can tell actually did not occur. But that's just me. QUOTE (.dread.+) The decision is your's. You can either choose to change directions now or eventually fall forever with your treasonist global elites. Have some dignity as a human being for a change. I'm done with your chickenshit pathetic existence. |
Actually, I'd have to say that using sock puppets and accusing other people of doing so is pretty chickenshit as far as I'm concerned; but again, that's just me. You're welcome to do whatever you want.
On the other hand, I have absolutely no intention of changing direction unless presented with evidence that is reliable that causes me to conclude I should. Your vague threats, particularly considering the incorrect assumptions that appear to underlie them, are neither compelling nor of any particular concern to me. My opinion is that you are mentally unbalanced, and should seek the attention of a qualified psychiatric professional as soon as practical.
Finally, I have no problem speaking my mind; in fact, you might (if you can pull your head out of your ***-umptions long enough to see it) even notice me doing so RIGHT *** NOW.
CHUCKLES
14th November 2005 - 08:17 AM
HEY SCHNEIBSTER----NO FAIR!!!YOU BEAT ME TO IT!!!
I WANTED A PIECE O THAT SICKO NECROPHILIAC WHO THINKS THAT GRUESOME PICTURES ARE A TURN-ON. WHOOOEEE....JUST GIVE HIM A CYNICAL CONSPIRACY THEORY AND PICTURES OF DEAD PEOPLE AND HIS GOT HIS SICKO 'HIT'----MAN----SICK-OOOO!!! HEY .DREAD, IS THIS A PHYSICS THREAD OR A SICKOS THREAD....MAKE UP YOUR MIND IF YOU GOT ONE!!!!WHOOOEEE!!!!YOU MUST BE A BARREL OF LAUGHS DURING GROUPWA..ER..GROUPTHINK SESSIONS WITH FOXXY AND CO!!!WHOOOEEE WHAT A 'PICTURE' THAT'D MAKE!!!WORTH MONEY!!!YOU CAN SELL THAT PICTURE ON EBAY AND MAKE REAL DOUGH!!!!HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
frater plecticus
14th November 2005 - 08:50 AM
QUOTE And, just for grins, what precisely does any of this have to do with whether the twin towers fell on their own or not on 9/11? Or had you forgotten the subject at hand already? <br>Hey Scneibster, I thought I´d give the physics experts a bit of context surrounding the wtc strikes. We don´t live in a vacuum, after all. Everything is indeed connected. The catalyst for the "GWOT", starting in Afghanistan and the subsequent "occupation/liberation" of Iraq was none other than 9-11. QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | And, just for grins, what precisely does any of this have to do with whether the twin towers fell on their own or not on 9/11? Or had you forgotten the subject at hand already?
<br>Hey Scneibster, I thought I´d give the physics experts a bit of context surrounding the wtc strikes. We don´t live in a vacuum, after all.
Everything is indeed connected.
The catalyst for the "GWOT", starting in Afghanistan and the subsequent "occupation/liberation" of Iraq was none other than 9-11.
A flight attendant on American Flight 11, Amy Sweeney, had the presence of mind to call her office as the plane was hijacked and give them the seat numbers of the hijackers.
“That was the first piece of hard evidence," says Mueller.
<br>| QUOTE | She says they are all of Middle Eastern descent
<br>This, physically dubious phone call combined with the indestructible passport and the flight manuals, slide rules, religious audio tapes and Korans (etc.) (all found in the first 36 hours) and presented as conclusive proof of Arabic Terrorists been the crux of the argument for the "quantum leap" in US foreign policy and the adoption of a "first-strike" doctrine, in contempt of international law and the Magna Carta.
In conclusion, We Do Not Know The Actual Sponsorship of 9/11. There is no proof, physical, theoretical, logistical or otherwise that Bin-Laden/Al-Queda was/is responsible for 9-11.
Likewise, the triple building collapse without explosives (contradicting many first-hand witness accounts and photographic evidence) is only conclusive in its inconclusiveness.
Maybe we should ask ourselves, what else (besides the plane impacts and subsequent fires) could have brought the buildings down, regardless of the Geo-political consequences of the debate. How would you have done 9-11? etc. Explosives ? Nuclear ? Bombs in planes?
The Nuremberg Charter 1945
Since 1946 every human being has a legal duty to break national laws and disobey their Government to prevent it from waging a war of aggression. Although a person may not harm or kill another, we are all legally obliged by the Nuremberg law to take non-violent direct action to stop our government from starting a war.
On Sept 1st 2001, British citizens became criminally responsible in law for the actions of their government. By introducing the crime of ‘conduct ancillary to genocide’ and defining ancillary conduct as ‘aiding, abetting, counseling, procuring, inciting, attempting, conspiring, assisting or concealing the commission of an offense’.
Parliament made sure that anyone with even a minor role in the commission of such heinous crimes can be held to account in court as a principal offender.
This means that not only is it the world’s most serious crime for Tony Blair and Britain’s political, civil and military leaders to plan and authorize war against Iraq, but it is a serious crime for British citizens to support such a war.
It is a criminal offense under Section 52 of the International Criminal Court Act for armed forces personnel to follow the illegal orders of their officers; for Police to refuse to investigate or prosecute these crimes; for manufacturers to supply weapons and armaments; for journalists to write and editors to publish pro-war articles; for Inland Revenue officials to demand tax from taxpayers; and it is even a serious crime for taxpayers to pay tax to a Government that is using it for the criminal purposes of waging war or committing genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes.
The only circumstance where it is legal for a government or an individual citizen to take up arms and fight is where a country has suffered an armed attack, an invasion or an occupation, and the purpose of fighting is self-defense and the ejection of enemy forces.
When the people of America and Britain come to understand the law they will realize that the only people who are operating legally in relation to the war with Iraq are those Iraqi freedom fighters who are attempting to eject Coalition of the Killing forces from their country.
Is Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald "joining the dots from iraq to 911 ?"
Isn't it interesting that *** Cheney said Iraq and 9/11 were not connected back in '01?
"Russert: Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqi's to this operation?
Cheney: No."
Why was Rumsfeld targeting Iraq so early on? Does the group PNAC come to mind? There are great clips from Bush and Cheney trying to link Iraq with 9/11. Remember those pesky polls (that the White House now down plays) that showed 45% of Americans thought Saddam was personally involved in 9/11? Do you think Judy Miller had anything to do with that also? The White House sent a letter to Congress telling lawmakers that force was authorized against those that "aided in the 9/11 attacks."
Video-WMP
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Hardball-...eport-11-12.wmv
Video-QT
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Hardball-WHIG-Sh.mov
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | She says they are all of Middle Eastern descent
<br>This, physically dubious phone call combined with the indestructible passport and the flight manuals, slide rules, religious audio tapes and Korans (etc.) (all found in the first 36 hours) and presented as conclusive proof of Arabic Terrorists been the crux of the argument for the "quantum leap" in US foreign policy and the adoption of a "first-strike" doctrine, in contempt of international law and the Magna Carta.
In conclusion, We Do Not Know The Actual Sponsorship of 9/11. There is no proof, physical, theoretical, logistical or otherwise that Bin-Laden/Al-Queda was/is responsible for 9-11.
Likewise, the triple building collapse without explosives (contradicting many first-hand witness accounts and photographic evidence) is only conclusive in its inconclusiveness.
Maybe we should ask ourselves, what else (besides the plane impacts and subsequent fires) could have brought the buildings down, regardless of the Geo-political consequences of the debate. How would you have done 9-11? etc. Explosives ? Nuclear ? Bombs in planes?
The Nuremberg Charter 1945
Since 1946 every human being has a legal duty to break national laws and disobey their Government to prevent it from waging a war of aggression. Although a person may not harm or kill another, we are all legally obliged by the Nuremberg law to take non-violent direct action to stop our government from starting a war.
On Sept 1st 2001, British citizens became criminally responsible in law for the actions of their government. By introducing the crime of ‘conduct ancillary to genocide’ and defining ancillary conduct as ‘aiding, abetting, counseling, procuring, inciting, attempting, conspiring, assisting or concealing the commission of an offense’.
Parliament made sure that anyone with even a minor role in the commission of such heinous crimes can be held to account in court as a principal offender.
This means that not only is it the world’s most serious crime for Tony Blair and Britain’s political, civil and military leaders to plan and authorize war against Iraq, but it is a serious crime for British citizens to support such a war.
It is a criminal offense under Section 52 of the International Criminal Court Act for armed forces personnel to follow the illegal orders of their officers; for Police to refuse to investigate or prosecute these crimes; for manufacturers to supply weapons and armaments; for journalists to write and editors to publish pro-war articles; for Inland Revenue officials to demand tax from taxpayers; and it is even a serious crime for taxpayers to pay tax to a Government that is using it for the criminal purposes of waging war or committing genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes.
The only circumstance where it is legal for a government or an individual citizen to take up arms and fight is where a country has suffered an armed attack, an invasion or an occupation, and the purpose of fighting is self-defense and the ejection of enemy forces.
When the people of America and Britain come to understand the law they will realize that the only people who are operating legally in relation to the war with Iraq are those Iraqi freedom fighters who are attempting to eject Coalition of the Killing forces from their country.
Is Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald "joining the dots from iraq to 911 ?"
Isn't it interesting that *** Cheney said Iraq and 9/11 were not connected back in '01?
"Russert: Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqi's to this operation?
Cheney: No."
Why was Rumsfeld targeting Iraq so early on? Does the group PNAC come to mind? There are great clips from Bush and Cheney trying to link Iraq with 9/11. Remember those pesky polls (that the White House now down plays) that showed 45% of Americans thought Saddam was personally involved in 9/11? Do you think Judy Miller had anything to do with that also? The White House sent a letter to Congress telling lawmakers that force was authorized against those that "aided in the 9/11 attacks."
Video-WMP
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Hardball-...eport-11-12.wmv
Video-QT
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Hardball-WHIG-Sh.mov
On September 10, 2001, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld held a press conference to disclose that over $2,000,000,000,000 in Pentagon funds could not be accounted for. Rumsfeld stated: "According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions."
Such a disclosure normally would have sparked a huge scandal. However, the commencement of the attack on New York City and Washington in the morning would assure that the story remained buried. To the trillions already missing from the coffers, an obedient Congress terrorized by anthrax attacks would add billions more in appropriations to fight the "War on Terror."
The Controller of the Pentagon at the time of the attack was Dov Zakheim, who was appointed in May of 2001. Before becoming the Pentagon's money-manager, he was an executive at System Planning Corporation, a defense contractor specializing in electronic warfare technologies including remote-controlled aircraft systems. 2-3 Zakheim is a member of the Project for a New American Century and participated in the creation of its 2000 position paper Rebuilding America's Defenses which called for "a New Pearl Harbor." http://tinyurl.com/74ax4
Foxx
14th November 2005 - 12:40 PM
| QUOTE | Originally posted by Yesitdid
Glad to see you acknowledge that Dr. Reynolds is wrong.
<br>Just another example of erroneous rhetorics. Just because a person may be wrong in 10 to 20% of their statements doesn't mean they are WRONG. It only means they are 'wrong' in their erroneous statements. The rest which they state (and is true) is not automatically dismissed as wrong simply because some other parts of their statements are wrong.
frater plecticus
14th November 2005 - 01:10 PM
WTC STRIKE + PENTAGON + WTC COLLAPSE in FULL SCREEN HI-RES MPG2 (DVD) FORMAT These clips were captured from a mini-dv (via betacam) tape given to me on 12th september 2001 via a national spanish tv station. If you have problems viewing the footage (converted with quicktime pro), please goto http://www.videolan.org/vlc/to download the free player Sound clips Aftermath sound download (48khz) 3.5mb aiff http://plectic.com/wtc/aftermath.aifBuilding collapse download (48khz) 1.79mb aiff http://plectic.com/wtc/building%20collapse.aifPentagon sound download (48khz) 3.5mb aiff http://plectic.com/wtc/pentagon.aifwtc7 sound download (48khz) 2.41mb aiff http://plectic.com/wtc/wtc%207.aif Video clips Aftermath video download (m2v) 13.7mb mpg2 http://plectic.com/wtc/aftermath.m2vBuilding collapse video download (m2v) 6.9mb mpg2 http://plectic.com/wtc/building%20collapse.m2vPentagon video download (m2v) 7.9mb mpg2 http://plectic.com/wtc/pentagon.m2vwtc7 video download (m2v) 9.3mb mpg2 http://plectic.com/wtc/wtc%207.m2v
frater plecticus
14th November 2005 - 01:37 PM
quote chuckles
| QUOTE | but even worse for the victims they are cynically using to make their dishonest dough.....boooooo hisssss to all you cretins and opportunists (just like those hurricane Katrina opportunists who wangled money out of honest folk wanting to help THOSE victims being exploited in the same way as these b*stards are doing with the 9/11 victims...boooo hisssss!!!!
<br>
Hey, I think you were right chuckles..
They say that patriotism is the last refuge to which a scoundrel clings.
Steal a little and they throw you in jail, steal a lot and they make you king. - Bob Dylan
metamars
14th November 2005 - 03:32 PM
| QUOTE | We don´t live in a vacuum, after all.
<br>Pun intended?
metamars
14th November 2005 - 03:49 PM
Physics Professor Steven Jones of BYU - Recent Interview Professor Jones recently came out for an inter nation investigation into 911 building collapses, calling explosives a better hypothesis, and implying (IMO) that the NIST report was fraudulent http://www.911blogger.com/files/audio/AlexStephen.mp3Thanks to 911blogger.com for the heads up. Here is an article re Jones: Y. professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC(http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635160132,00.html)
Guest_SteveA
14th November 2005 - 04:30 PM
Why are all posts/inquiries regarding the collapse of WTC 7 completely ignored? Does anyone have a (reasonable) explanation of the WTC 7 collapse?
Foxx
14th November 2005 - 04:43 PM
WTC 7 is an open & shut case of Implosive demolition. Everyone knows it, it's just that some hide from the truth of this.
The Towers on the other hand were not IMPLOSIVE demolitions, but rather Explosive demolitions (which makes those situations a little more difficult to understand and explain).
metamars
14th November 2005 - 05:14 PM
| QUOTE | Does anyone have a (reasonable) explanation of the WTC 7 collapse?
<br>I do. Demolition. The collapse of WTC7 was so near perfect symmetry, that a non-demoliton collapse scenario is so implausible as to not be worth my time.
Non-demolition collapses of WTC 1&2 are not implausible, on their face, so they are worth arguing about. Virtually everybody accepted a Fairy Tale version of their collapse, at first, including Hoffman, Steven Jones, and myself.
Schneibster
14th November 2005 - 05:34 PM
QUOTE (Foxx+) Just another example of erroneous rhetorics. Just because a person may be wrong in 10 to 20% of their statements doesn't mean they are WRONG. It only means they are 'wrong' in their erroneous statements. The rest which they state (and is true) is not automatically dismissed as wrong simply because some other parts of their statements are wrong. |
Again, Faux shows his scintillating wit. Ummm, Faux, old man, if the rest of what he concludes is based on what's wrong, then it doesn't matter how good his reasoning is. It's one of those, you know, reasoning things that you find it so difficult to cope with.
Foxx
14th November 2005 - 05:58 PM
QUOTE (Schneibster+Nov 14 2005, 05:34 PM) QUOTE (Foxx+) Just another example of erroneous rhetorics. Just because a person may be wrong in 10 to 20% of their statements doesn't mean they are WRONG. It only means they are 'wrong' in their erroneous statements. The rest which they state (and is true) is not automatically dismissed as wrong simply because some other parts of their statements are wrong. |
Again, Faux shows his scintillating wit. Ummm, Faux, old man, if the rest of what he concludes is based on what's wrong, then it doesn't matter how good his reasoning is. It's one of those, you know, reasoning things that you find it so difficult to cope with. Simply more sophistry from the peanut gallery of those who live in denial. The 'right' portions of his essay were not 'based upon', and had nothing to do with his erroneous statements.
Guest_SteveA
14th November 2005 - 06:30 PM
OK, I'll try again Schniebster... Do YOU have an explanation of the WTC 7 Collapse??? Hmmmm....I didn't think so...
brian
14th November 2005 - 06:33 PM
Professor Jones paper is a major breakthrough for the September 11 truth movement.
It moves it decisively on from the first stage of Schoepenhouer's dictum -
"All truth goes through three stages. First it is ridiculed.
Then it is violently opposed.
Finally, it is accepted as self-evident."
Not only does Jones' paper profer convincing scientific analysis showing the NIST report fundamentally flawed it demonstrates this by use of the NIST reports own internal statements that it was admitted it could not provide an analysis of the collapse using the data at hand.
The obfuscators stuck in the first stage of Schoepenhouer's dictum now make themselves the object of ridicule, there is now no legitimate excuse to prevent an INDEPENDANT investigation.
Thanks to metamars Foxx frater et al for your input and advice it has been just the ticket and a special thanks to Andrew Johnson for starting the thread.
Self evident here we come.
metamars
14th November 2005 - 06:43 PM
| QUOTE | The 'right' portions of his essay were not 'based upon', and had nothing to do with his erroneous statements.
<br>AFAIK, in mathematics, all proofs are considered of the "chain-of-logic" type, and if any link in the chain is shown to have an error, the "proof" is a non-proof, and must either be discarded or amended.
Physics is different. It is far more messy. Cumulative arguments are accepted as significant*, though the constituents of the cumulative arguments should, of course, be accepted. But there is often a redundancy in complex models/theories such that if one of the arguments (say, a given experiment) is considered invalid, tossing that argument/experiment away does not necessarily invalidate the entire theory.
Theoretical constructs in physics are continually created, amended, and tossed aside. This is actually good and bad. It is mostly good, I'm sure, but there are strong reasons (IMO) to believe a lot of junk science is continually produced, because of a need to protect "established truth", as well as financial/career concerns. The main mechanism of this junk-model-accretion-physics is very reminiscent of Ptolemy's Epicycles, but actually worse. And that is because physicists with worthy ideas and even contrary experimental data can (and are) ignored. Apparently, lots of them.
See www.metaresearch.org , especially the comments of van Flandern, for more insights into the problems with "scientific truth" in the physics community.
BTW, Steven Jones remarked, in his interview with Alex Jones, about "pathological science", so he has thought about similar issues, before. If anybody can find a list of characteristics of "pathological science", as per Jones, please post.
* Indeed, it is good scientific method not to accept experimental results as valid unless they are reproducible (assuming they are not one-off events, of course, and in this case, such an experiment/observation is likely to be ignored). Independent confirmation of even essentially the same experiment is also a cumulative process.
SteveA
14th November 2005 - 06:48 PM
obfuscators...ha, ha. He said obfuscators......
Just an attempt at humor.. trying to lighten the mood...
Schneibster
14th November 2005 - 07:00 PM
QUOTE (SteveA+) OK, I'll try again Schniebster... Do YOU have an explanation of the WTC 7 Collapse??? |
You mean other than the 20-story hole in the side facing the WTC towers?
SteveA
14th November 2005 - 07:08 PM
Yes, other than that... It is readily apparent that this was a VERY symetrical collapse. How does a "20-story hole in the side facing the WTC towers" cause the building to fall ALMOST NEARLY PERFECTLY straight down? Shouldn't it canter towards the side of the damage? (Rhetorical question; no need to answer that..) But, I would appreciate a VALID naswer to the first question.
SteveA
14th November 2005 - 07:11 PM
QUOTE (SteveA+Nov 14 2005, 07:08 PM) Yes, other than that... It is readily apparent that this was a VERY symetrical collapse. How does a "20-story hole in the side facing the WTC towers" cause the building to fall ALMOST NEARLY PERFECTLY straight down? Shouldn't it canter towards the side of the damage? (Rhetorical question; no need to answer that..) But, I would appreciate a VALID naswer to the first question. naswer=answer...(pardon the dyslexia)
Schneibster
14th November 2005 - 07:39 PM
Considering the videos are from the side facing away from the towers, and the damage is on the side facing toward them, are you sure it was symmetrical in all four directions? And if there was a 20-story hole in the side facing the towers, with fires burning at several locations inside it, as described by several firemen who were on the scene at the time, how much structural damage do you think that could do?
Remember that this building was cantilevered. Cantilevers are strong, but their inherent problem is that they are not durable in the face of severe structural damage.
I have searched for a view of that side of the building post-tower-collapse and not found one; the only such view I have found preceded the collapse of 1 WTC, although 2 WTC had probably already collapsed at the time the photo was taken. So it would seem that the only evidence we have is that of the testimony of the firemen. The view in the NIST report, IIRC, shows severe damage to the southwest corner, but shows the west face and the north face. I have seen several views of the north face, west face, and east face, post 1 WTC collapse, and it is clear that several tower perimeter column sections from 1 WTC struck 7 WTC during the collapse of 1 WTC, but there is no picture I have seen of the south face after the collapse of 1 WTC. If you have one, I'd be very interested in seeing it.
It was the judgement of a highly experienced fireman on scene that the building was unstable due to the combination of structural damage and fires, and once he had determined that the building had been evacuated prior to the collapse of 1 WTC, he ordered that no other firefighters enter the building, despite their desire to do so (because that's what firefighters do, is fight fires). Other witnesses describe him doing precisely that, and giving exactly that reason, and in their judgement he was correct to do so.
I initially found the fact that SEC records of the investigation of Citibank were destroyed in the collapse of 7 WTC rather compelling, motive-wise. However, the physical and testimentary evidence is pretty clear: 7 WTC was struck and severely damaged by multiple several-hundred-ton perimeter column segments from the collapse of 1 WTC, moving at over a hundred miles an hour.
SteveA
14th November 2005 - 07:57 PM
First, thanks for your straight-forward reply. There are several other camera angles of the collapse at What really happened. Although I don't know the exact orientation, these videos represent several distinct camera angles. In all cases, the collapse seems to be almost vertical. Engineering and physics aside, that this collapse was the result of damage to one side of the structure flys in the face of common sense. You have not convinced me here; and I'm sure that I have changed no one's mind. I just find this collapse to be IN-credible, based on what we have been told officially. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." someone
Schneibster
14th November 2005 - 08:36 PM
But for a cantilever to fail does not require the cutting of nearly as many supports; and the building's construction was cantilevered.
When my picture of the building did not include a 20-story hole in the south face, I was extremely skeptical of the scenarios presented both in several structural engineers' analyses and in NISTs. But when I discovered the testimony of the firemen, it clearly indicated the presence of this 20-story hole in the south face. I'll point out that that's nearly half the height of the building, and it implies further, and severe, structural damage inside. Once the cantilever is compromised, it can fail in the way observed.
A great deal of the problem with all of this is the lack of evidence; even an examination of the steel might not reveal precisely how the building fell. It is significant that the penthouse disappeared before the rest of the collapse started; you can see that in several of the videos. It indicates internal failures of the cantilevered members prior to the initiation of the global collapse, which is precisely what one would expect either in the "official" scenario or in a demolition scenario; they are not differentiable on that basis, unfortunately. But I have to point out that no one could have predicted or engineered the impact of multiple multi-hundred-ton perimeter column sections; and the damage they caused is, IMO, sufficient to account for the collapse without invoking demolition.
I have always felt and continue to feel that the motive for demolition of 7 WTC is far, far stronger than it is for either of the towers; their collapse made little difference in the likely response, whereas evidence of massive financial wrongdoing was destroyed in the collapse of 7 WTC. But motive alone is not sufficient; and the necessity for means beyond the expected is compromised by the perimeter column impacts, the evidence for which is that 20-story hole. I really would like to see a picture of the south face of the building with that hole in it, or with it absent and giving the lie to the firemen's accounts. But I have searched far and wide, and not one photo exists as far as I have seen.
In regard to my response, you were not insulting, and I am not by nature impolite.
Foxx
14th November 2005 - 08:45 PM
RE: Morgan Reynolds
The 'errors' I referred to in Reynolds essay have nothing to do with the WTC 'collapses', I was referring to errors regarding the Pentagon, Flight 93, and his statements regarding no plane parts were found at the WTC site (implying that no planes had crashed into the towers), as well as his erroneous figure for the collapse time.
These have nothing whatsoever to do with his convictions on the demolitions regarding the towers, and do not affect that part of his thesis.
The only part of his demolition discussion which was blantantly in error was his repetition of a near free-fall speed of 10 seconds, which we all pretty much agree can not be considered accurate.
These things do not diminish the truths he presents that:
- the majority of concrete as well as other non-steel contents of the buildings were pulverized.
- the horizontal ejection of material from the very beginning of the collapses
- the collapses were 'total' leaving none of the massive central core structure intact
- the steel sections came down in convenient lengths, and there is no evidence to show buckling or softening in these fallen sections due to fire stress
- photos and videos show demolition waves (confluent rows of explosive force) symmetrically exploding from all four sides of the buildings as the destruction moved down the towers.
- evidence of secondary explosions far below the collapsing 'floors'
- testimony of substantially large numbers of witnesses who spoke of explosions
- the production of molten steel at the base of the structures and anomalous underground fires which burned for months.
None of the above can be explained by gravity-driven collapse...
but also... the fact that Reynolds drifts off into unrelated peripherals such as 'no-plane theories' does not affect the above list at all (IMO)... any more than Hufschmids theory that the Apollo moon-landings were faked, changes his analysis of the WTC collapses. They are totally separate issues not dependant on each other in any way.
Foxx
14th November 2005 - 08:58 PM
| QUOTE | by Scneibster
7 WTC was struck and severely damaged by multiple several-hundred-ton perimeter column segments from the collapse of 1 WTC, moving at over a hundred miles an hour.
<br>So you say (with no evidence)... however even if you believe that there was a 20 story hole (which would have shown up in the NIST picture of the corner damage), and even if you should fantasize that this would not produce an asymmetrical fall in that direction... which we know didn't happen from looking at overhead views...
Such a hole never caused the Bankers Trust to collapse???
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/AFC01untitled1.html
Schneibster
14th November 2005 - 09:45 PM
QUOTE (Foxx+) The only part of his demolition discussion which was blantantly in error was his repetition of a near free-fall speed of 10 seconds, which we all pretty much agree can not be considered accurate. |
I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Do you mean that they obviously didn't fall in ten seconds, or that 10 seconds is obviously not the time to free-fall from the height of the towers? The first is obviously true from the videos. The second is pedantically true, since the free-fall time from 417m is 9.23s, not 10s, but if you're saying that 9.23s is not free-fall time from 417m, then I have to disagree with you strongly; this is a matter of physical law. In regard to every other item you cited, with one exception, explanations for each and every one have been presented here that are consistent with physical law and inconsistent with your "seat of the pants" guesstimate that they couldn't have happened that way. The one exception is your statement: QUOTE (Foxx+) the horizontal ejection of material from the very beginning of the collapses |
which is inaccurate; the video record does not bear you out. The horizontal ejections didn't begin until well after the collapse was underway in either tower. The videos have been linked multiple times, and they are very clear on this matter.
Of course, I expect you'll just lie again, or provide photos of the collapse taken at points well after the beginning of collapse and misinterpret them, or quibble about "how near" the horizontal ejections were to the "beginning." But no one who looks at the videos can mistake what happened. Meanwhile, you have not a single leg to stand on, again.
Schneibster
14th November 2005 - 10:42 PM
QUOTE (Foxx+) QUOTE by Scneibster
7 WTC was struck and severely damaged by multiple several-hundred-ton perimeter column segments from the collapse of 1 WTC, moving at over a hundred miles an hour. <br>So you say (with no evidence) Oops, you must have missed this: "We have guys trying to make their way up into the pile, and they’re telling us that 7 is going to fall down – and that was one of the directions from the command post, to make sure we clear the collapse zone from 7 and this is a 600-foot-tall building, so we had to clear a 600-foot radius from that building." At first, the witness says he doesn't think it's going to fall down, but this testimony shows that reports from firefighters who had been into the building are that they think it's in danger, and the estimate of the scene commander is that it will fall down. And this: "...but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors... Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away? Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there." Here's a picture of this bulge:  The description above shows that surveying equipment- a transit- was used on the building and found sufficient deformation to indicate imminent collapse. And, most conclusively, this: "So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good... Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight... forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped." QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | by Scneibster
7 WTC was struck and severely damaged by multiple several-hundred-ton perimeter column segments from the collapse of 1 WTC, moving at over a hundred miles an hour.
<br>So you say (with no evidence) |
Oops, you must have missed this: "We have guys trying to make their way up into the pile, and they’re telling us that 7 is going to fall down – and that was one of the directions from the command post, to make sure we clear the collapse zone from 7 and this is a 600-foot-tall building, so we had to clear a 600-foot radius from that building." At first, the witness says he doesn't think it's going to fall down, but this testimony shows that reports from firefighters who had been into the building are that they think it's in danger, and the estimate of the scene commander is that it will fall down. And this: "...but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors... Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away? Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there." Here's a picture of this bulge: The description above shows that surveying equipment- a transit- was used on the building and found sufficient deformation to indicate imminent collapse. And, most conclusively, this: "So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good... Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight... forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped." however even if you believe that there was a 20 story hole (which would have shown up in the NIST picture of the corner damage), and even if you should fantasize that this would not produce an asymmetrical fall in that direction... which we know didn't happen from looking at overhead views... Such a hole never caused the Bankers Trust to collapse??? |
Well, there's the evidence. If you look closely at the part of the southwest corner visible in the photo in the NIST report, the one taken looking at the west face with the southwest corner on the right, you can see the bulge there, too, although it isn't as prominent.
Now, the point you're ignoring here is that this was a cantilevered building. And that doesn't fall the same way as a traditionally constructed building; so pictures of other buildings with damage, or other buildings being demolished, are meaningless unless they are of cantilevered buildings.
And again, you still haven't got a single leg to stand on, and you still don't know any basic physics.
frater plecticus
14th November 2005 - 11:00 PM
Schneibster
14th November 2005 - 11:12 PM
Oh, and by the way, I was inaccurate in a statement I made earlier. The column sections weighed on average 23 tons each, not hundreds of tons; but multiple sections hung together, as we can see from videos and photos of the collapse. Their maximum velocity was 90.4m/s, which is 200 mph, so that was accurate. That gives each individual three-story three-column segment a kinetic energy of 188MJ; about as much energy as ninety pounds of exploding TNT. It's about the same amount of energy as you would get from a hundred cars going a hundred miles an hour crashing into the building simultaneously.
Foxx
14th November 2005 - 11:38 PM
| QUOTE | Originally posted by Schneibster
Well, there's the evidence. If you look closely at the part of the southwest corner visible in the photo in the NIST report, the one taken looking at the west face with the southwest corner on the right, you can see the bulge there, too, although it isn't as prominent.
<br>Hang on for a moment while I put on my tin-foil hat with special magic rose colored glasses.
I guess if you keep repeating to yourself over & over, "I see a bulge !" after a while you will see a 'face on mars', or some other stretch of the imagination.
I see no 'bulge' you are referring to. But I suppose I am 'lying' again.
my thoughts are, that is a pretty subjective picture, open to ones own imagination and interpretation, (or maybe I'm just blind).
I'll leave it to others to decide for themselves if they see this 'bulge'. The picture is actually of the southwest corner damage. I always find it odd when official CT's pick out pictures or text from Hoffmans site, whilst ignoring all else on the page... just a demonstration of their 'cherry-picking' abilities, I guess.
Here's another pic of this damage... I won't bother to ask if you see this 'bulge' here also...
What strikes me the most about this damage is that if such damage was contributory to the collapse, it would certainly lead to asymmetric collapsing. Official conspiracy believers also seem to put great weight on the cantilevered nature of the WTC7 design, which I find quite odd because a cantilevered design is far more susceptible to asymmetric collapse than a standard non-cantilevered design.
Go figure.
I see the Schneibster is avoiding any comment on the fact that NIST is lying about the forensic evidence of steel recovered from WTC 7.
Schneibster
14th November 2005 - 11:46 PM
In the center of the area inside the red square, at the top; the edge of the building bulges out. Lower down, it bulges in. Put a ruler on it; it's right there in front of you. There's nothing to question, nothing to doubt, nothing to discuss. It's right there, and (as usual) you are denying the evidence everyone else can see. How else do you suggest I describe it but as "lying?"
Foxx
14th November 2005 - 11:47 PM
QUOTE (Schneibster+Nov 14 2005, 11:12 PM) Oh, and by the way, I was inaccurate in a statement I made earlier. The column sections weighed on average 23 tons each, not hundreds of tons; but multiple sections hung together, as we can see from videos and photos of the collapse. Their maximum velocity was 90.4m/s, which is 200 mph, so that was accurate. That gives each individual three-story three-column segment a kinetic energy of 188MJ; about as much energy as ninety pounds of exploding TNT. It's about the same amount of energy as you would get from a hundred cars going a hundred miles an hour crashing into the building simultaneously. Yeah... and still the Bankers Trust stood. Not only did it stand, but it arrested the dynamic energy contained in the multi tree section which was hurtling down with this energy, and this energy was not sufficient to collapse the entire building to the ground. It wasn't even enough energy to collapse the last few 'spindly' cross beams on the BT. Amazing when you think about it! http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/AFC01_002.html
Foxx
14th November 2005 - 11:52 PM
QUOTE (Schneibster+Nov 14 2005, 11:46 PM) In the center of the area inside the red square, at the top; the edge of the building bulges out. Lower down, it bulges in. Put a ruler on it; it's right there in front of you. There's nothing to question, nothing to doubt, nothing to discuss. It's right there, and (as usual) you are denying the evidence everyone else can see. How else do you suggest I describe it but as "lying?" I see. And I guess you believe it is scientific to put a ruler on the convex surface of a computer monitor and make qualified and accurate decisions based on what you 'see' there. Just out of curiosity, do you hang out at Phil Jayhans 'Pod' site much?
frater plecticus
15th November 2005 - 12:19 AM
Schneibster, what is your current hypothesis for the WTC 7 collapse ? Building:7 World Trade Center http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/11/04/inv....ork.cia.office/QUOTE " Central Intelligence Agency's clandestine New York station was destroyed in Sept 11 attack on World Trade Center, seriously disrupting US intelligence operations; station was in 7 World Trade Center, one of smaller office towers destroyed in aftermath of collapse of twin towers; all CIA employees at site were safely evacuated; agency immediately dispatched special team to scour rubble in search of secret documents and intelligence reports stored in station" <a href='http://query.nytimes.com/search/abstract?res=F00711F63C5D0C778CDDA80994D9404482' target='_blank' rel='nofollow'>http://query.nytimes.com/search/abstract?r...DA80994D9404482 New York Times, November 29, 2001 THE SITE Engineers Suspect Diesel Fuel in Collapse of 7 World Trade Center By JAMES GLANZ QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | " Central Intelligence Agency's clandestine New York station was destroyed in Sept 11 attack on World Trade Center, seriously disrupting US intelligence operations; station was in 7 World Trade Center, one of smaller office towers destroyed in aftermath of collapse of twin towers; all CIA employees at site were safely evacuated; agency immediately dispatched special team to scour rubble in search of secret documents and intelligence reports stored in station"
<a href='http://query.nytimes.com/search/abstract?res=F00711F63C5D0C778CDDA80994D9404482' target='_blank' rel='nofollow'>http://query.nytimes.com/search/abstract?r...DA80994D9404482
New York Times, November 29, 2001
THE SITE
Engineers Suspect Diesel Fuel in Collapse of 7 World Trade Center
By JAMES GLANZ
Almost lost in the chaos of the collapse of the World Trade Center is a mystery that under normal circumstances would probably have captured the attention of the city and the world. That mystery is the collapse of a nearby 47-story, two-million-square-foot building seven hours after flaming debris from the towers rained down on it, igniting what became an out-of-control fire.
Engineers and other experts, who quickly came to understand how hurtling airplanes and burning jet fuel had helped bring down the main towers, were for weeks still stunned by what had happened to 7 World Trade Center. That building had housed, among other things, the mayor's emergency command bunker. It tumbled to its knees shortly after 5:20 on the ugly evening of Sept. 11.
The building had suffered mightily from the fire that raged in it, and it had been wounded by the flying beams falling off the towers. But experts said no building like it, a modern, steel-reinforced high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire, and engineers have been trying to figure out exactly what happened and whether they should be worried about other buildings like it around the country.
As engineers and scientists struggle to explain the collapse of 7 World Trade Center, they have begun considering whether a type of fuel that was inside the building all along created intensely hot fires like those in the towers: diesel fuel, thousands of gallons of it, intended to run electricity generators in a power failure.
One tank holding 6,000 gallons of fuel was in the building to provide power to the command bunker on the 23rd floor. Another set of four tanks holding as much as 36,000 gallons were just below ground on the building's southwest side for generators that served some of the other tenants.
Engineers and other experts have already uncovered evidence at the collapse site suggesting that some type of fuel played a significant role in the building's demise, but they expect to spend months piecing together the picture of what remains a disturbing puzzle.
"Even though Building 7 didn't get much attention in the media immediately, within the structural engineering community, it's considered to be much more important to understand," said William F. Baker, a partner in charge of structural engineering at the architectural firm Skidmore, Owings & Merrill. "They say, `We know what happened at 1 and 2, but why did 7 come down?' "
Engineers said that here and across the country, diesel-powered generators are used in buildings like hospitals and trading houses, where avoiding power outages is crucial. Partly for that reason, Jonathan Barnett said, a definitive answer to the question of what happened in 7 World Trade Center is perhaps the most important question facing investigators.
"It's just like when you investigate a plane crash," said Dr. Barnett, a professor of fire protection engineering at the Worcester Polytechnic Institute. "If we find a weakness in the building or a deficiency in the building that causes that collapse, we then want to find that weakness in other buildings and fix it."
In many ways, 7 World Trade Center, built and owned by Silverstein Properties, was structurally similar to its towering cousins across Vesey Street to the south. The weight of the building was supported by a relatively tight cluster of steel columns around the center of each floor and a palisade of columns around the outside, in the building's facade.
Sprayed on the steel, almost like imitation snow in holiday decorations, was a layer of fireproofing material, generally less than an inch thick. Although the fireproofing was intended to withstand ordinary fires for at least two hours, experts said buildings the size of 7 World Trade Center that are treated with such coatings have never collapsed in a fire of any duration.
Most of three other buildings in the complex, 4, 5 and 6 World Trade, stood despite suffering damage of all kinds, including fire.
Still, experts concede, in a hellish day, 7 World Trade might have sustained structural injuries never envisioned in fire codes. That day began with flaming pieces of steel and aluminum and, horribly, human bodies raining around the building.
With the collapse of both towers by 10:30 a.m., larger pieces of the twin towers had smashed parts of 7 World Trade and set whole clusters of floors ablaze. An hour later, the Fire Department was forced to abandon its last efforts to save the building as it burned like a giant torch. It fell in the late afternoon, hampering rescue efforts and hurling its beams into the ground like red-hot spears.
Within the building, the diesel tanks were surrounded by fireproofed enclosures. But some experts said that like the jet fuel in the twin towers, the diesel fuel could have played a role in the collapse of 7 World Trade.
"If the enclosures were damaged, then yes, this would be enough fuel to explain why the building collapsed," Dr. Barnett said.
Dr. Barnett and Mr. Baker are part of an assessment team organized by the American Society of Civil Engineers and the Federal Emergency Management Agency to examine the performance of several buildings during the attacks. If further studies of the debris confirm the findings of extremely high temperature, Dr. Barnett said, "the smoking gun would be the fuel."
Others experts agreed that the diesel fuel could have speeded the collapse, but said the building might have met the same fate simply because of how long it burned.
"The fuel absolutely could be a factor," said Silvian Marcus, executive vice president for the Cantor Seinuk Group and a structural engineer involved in the original design of the building, which was completed in 1987. But he added, "The tanks may have accelerated the collapse, but did not cause the collapse."
Because of those doubts, engineers hold open the possibility that the collapse had other explanations, like damage caused by falling debris or another source of heat.
The fuel tanks were not the only highly flammable materials in the building. But while some engineers have speculated that a high-pressure gas main ruptured and caught fire, there was none in the area, said David Davidowitz, vice president of gas engineering at Consolidated Edison. The building was served only by a four-inch, low-pressure line for the building's cafeteria, Mr. Davidowitz said.
The mayor's command bunker, built in 1998, included electrical generators on the seventh floor, where there was a small fuel tank, said Jerome M. Hauer, director of the mayor's Office of Emergency Management from 1996 to 2000. That tank was fed by a tank containing thousands of gallons of diesel fuel on a lower floor, he said.
Francis E. McCarton, a spokesman for the emergency management office, confirmed that assessment. "We did have a diesel tank in the facility," he said. "Yes, it was used for our generating system."
The manager of the building when it collapsed, Walter Weems, said the larger tank sat on a steel-and-concrete pedestal on the second floor and held 6,000 gallons of diesel fuel. He said an even larger cache, four tanks containing a total of 36,000 gallons of diesel fuel, sat just below ground level in the loading dock near the southwest corner of the building.
"I'm sure that with enough heat it would have burned," Mr. Hauer said of the diesel. "The question is whether the collapse caused the tank to rupture, or whether the material hitting the building caused the tank to rupture and enhance the fire."
Falling debris also caused major structural damage to the building, which soon began burning on multiple floors, said Francis X. Gribbon, a spokesman for the Fire Department. By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from it for safety reasons.
A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said.
"Any structure anywhere in the world, if you put it in these conditions, it will not stand," Mr. Marcus said. "The buildings are not designed to be a torch."
<br> 7 World Trade Center:
Secret Service, New York Electronics Crimes Taskforce
Television documentary
http://www.g4tv.com/mediaplayer/videostrea...0402a_165_0.asf
http://www.g4tv.com/techtvvault/features/2...et_Service.html
The Secret Service New York Field Office was located in 7 World Trade Center, which, along with Towers 1 and 2, collapsed following the terrorist attacks. One employee, Master Special Officer Craig Miller, died during the rescue efforts. Miller was temporarily assigned to New York in preparation for the United Nations General Assembly. Following the attacks, Secret Service employees were some of the first to respond with first aid trauma kits. Special agents assisted local fire and police rescue in establishing triage areas and helping evacuate people from the Towers.
http://www.secretservice.gov/press/pub1202.pdf
The resolution honoring the Secret Service notes the “extraordinary performance and commitment to service during and immediately following the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001" of the men and women of that agency. It notes that “the United States Secret Service New York field office located in 7 World Trade Center was destroyed on September 11, 2001, as a result of terrorist attacks”; agents “throughout the day of the attacks and subsequent days...continually and knowingly placed themselves in exceptional danger in their efforts to save life”; and “in selfless dedication to others, Master Special Officer Craig Miller was lost in the collapse of the World Trade Center.”
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ok05_...oms_honors.html
The Secret Service maintained a large field office inside the World Trade Centre, and initially many agents were thought to have been killed.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...6%2Fwbush16.xml
Image: http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/craig-miller-photo-01.jpg
Arlington Cemetary Website: Craig Miller
http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/craig-miller.htm
The Achilles' heel of the present administration.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%...pse%20Final.pdf
| QUOTE | SEISMIC EVIDENCE
The seismic effects of the collapse of the towers were observed and measured by
Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory just up the Hudson River in
Palisades, New York. Here seismographs recorded two spikes reflecting two shock waves
in the earth on the morning of 9/11. The crucial fact is that these two spikes came just
before the collapse of the towers began. Specifically, Columbia scientists at the facility
registered a tremor of 2.1 on the Richter scale at 9:59:04 EDT, just before the beginning
of the collapse of the South Tower, and a 2.3 shock just as the North Tower began to
come down at 10:28:31 EDT. Both tremors were recorded before the vast majority of the
mass of the buildings hit the ground. Although they were not of earthquake proportions,
these were considerable shocks, about twenty times more potent than any previously
measured shock wave generated by a falling building. The 1993 WTC truck bomb had
produced no seismic effects at all – it had failed to register. At 5:20 local time on the
afternoon of 9/11, there was also a 0.6 tremor from the collapse of WTC 7, also at the
beginning, rather than the end, of this building’s collapse. Dr. Arthur Lerner-Lam, the
director of the Columbia Center for Hazards and Risk Research, commented that “during
the collapse, most of the energy of the falling debris was absorbed by the towers and
neighboring structures, converting them into rubble and dust or causing other damage –
but not causing significant ground shaking.” But Lerner-Lam declined to draw any
conclusions from the glaring anomaly represented by his data, which the 9/11
commission has also avoided. (Marrs 39 ff.)
After most of the pile was removed, experts found that there were pools of what appeared
to have been molten metal which had congealed on foundations of the buildings many
levels underground. Some steel appeared to have partially melted, other steel had
undergone alternations to its crystalline structure, and still other steel was full of holes,
like a Swiss cheese.
<br>Richard Sheirer is a Senior Vice President at Giuliani Partners and is
New York City’s former Commissioner of Emergency Management.
In February of 2000, he was named Director of the Mayor's Office of
Emergency Management where he was also responsible for the construction
of Bunker wtc 7, supervised by Jerome Hauer...
Emergency Medical Service response on September 11
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | SEISMIC EVIDENCE
The seismic effects of the collapse of the towers were observed and measured by
Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory just up the Hudson River in
Palisades, New York. Here seismographs recorded two spikes reflecting two shock waves
in the earth on the morning of 9/11. The crucial fact is that these two spikes came just
before the collapse of the towers began. Specifically, Columbia scientists at the facility
registered a tremor of 2.1 on the Richter scale at 9:59:04 EDT, just before the beginning
of the collapse of the South Tower, and a 2.3 shock just as the North Tower began to
come down at 10:28:31 EDT. Both tremors were recorded before the vast majority of the
mass of the buildings hit the ground. Although they were not of earthquake proportions,
these were considerable shocks, about twenty times more potent than any previously
measured shock wave generated by a falling building. The 1993 WTC truck bomb had
produced no seismic effects at all – it had failed to register. At 5:20 local time on the
afternoon of 9/11, there was also a 0.6 tremor from the collapse of WTC 7, also at the
beginning, rather than the end, of this building’s collapse. Dr. Arthur Lerner-Lam, the
director of the Columbia Center for Hazards and Risk Research, commented that “during
the collapse, most of the energy of the falling debris was absorbed by the towers and
neighboring structures, converting them into rubble and dust or causing other damage –
but not causing significant ground shaking.” But Lerner-Lam declined to draw any
conclusions from the glaring anomaly represented by his data, which the 9/11
commission has also avoided. (Marrs 39 ff.)
After most of the pile was removed, experts found that there were pools of what appeared
to have been molten metal which had congealed on foundations of the buildings many
levels underground. Some steel appeared to have partially melted, other steel had
undergone alternations to its crystalline structure, and still other steel was full of holes,
like a Swiss cheese.
<br>Richard Sheirer is a Senior Vice President at Giuliani Partners and is
New York City’s former Commissioner of Emergency Management.
In February of 2000, he was named Director of the Mayor's Office of
Emergency Management where he was also responsible for the construction
of Bunker wtc 7, supervised by Jerome Hauer...
Emergency Medical Service response on September 11
Chief of Planning (Car 4P) established a WTC 7 Division at around 9:30 am By ...
of Emergency Management (OEM) offices at WTC 7. ...
<a href='http://www.nyc.gov/html/fdny/pdf/mck_report/ems_response.pdf' target='_blank' rel='nofollow'>http://www.nyc.gov/html/fdny/pdf/mck_report/ems_response.pdf
Observations, Findings, and Recommendations
| QUOTE |
8.2.8 Appendix C: Limited Metallurgical Examination
Two structural steel samples from the WTC site were observed to have unusual erosion patterns. One sample is believed to be from WTC 7 and the other from either WTC 1 or WTC 2.
8.2.8.1 Observations and Findings
a. The thinning of the steel occurred by high temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation.
b. Heating of the steel into a hot corrosive environment approaching 1,000 °C (1,800 °F) results in the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen, and sulfur that liquefied the steel.
c. The sulfidation attack of steel grain boundaries accelerated the corrosion and erosion of the steel.
d. The high concentration of sulfides in the grain boundaries of the corroded regions of the steel occurred due to copper diffusing from the high-strength low-alloy (HSLA) steel combining with iron and sulfur, making both discrete and continuous sulfides in the steel grain boundaries.
8.2.8.2 Recommendations
The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 constitute an unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this was the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires.
http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_ch8.pdf
Schneibster
15th November 2005 - 01:23 AM
QUOTE (Foxx+) What strikes me the most about this damage is that if such damage was contributory to the collapse, it would certainly lead to asymmetric collapsing. |
How do you know? This IS a physics site, after all- perhaps you'd care to share your calculations with us. Oh, yeah, that's right, you think ALGEBRA is "convoluted." Basically, you couldn't figure your way out of a paper bag, and here you are offering your expertise on structural engineering. Well, I think I'll just take that with a grain of salt, thanks. QUOTE (Foxx+) Official conspiracy believers also seem to put great weight on the cantilevered nature of the WTC7 design, which I find quite odd because a cantilevered design is far more susceptible to asymmetric collapse than a standard non-cantilevered design. |
Which shows precisely how much you know about structural engineering. The cantilevers are the LEAST likely point of failure; and in fact, they didn't fail; their pivot points failed. That's how cantilevers are designed. QUOTE (Foxx+) I see the Schneibster is avoiding any comment on the fact that NIST is lying about the forensic evidence of steel recovered from WTC 7. |
Ummmm, in case you didn't notice, the evidence is of microstructural changes in the steel. This doesn't happen under the influence of explosives; it happens under the influence of heat possibly combined with pressure. Then there's the fact that your post quotes a version of the interim report from Jan '03, when the report from June '04 is available and has been for quite some time (a year and four months, perhaps? Silly me). You might try this one which says, "No structural elements have been positively identified from WTC 7." Obviously, that is within the purview of the team making this report; they're not responsible for you being stupid enough to think that they are aware of every team out there investigating this dog's breakfast, by some sort of osmosis or omniscience or something. If you're that stupid, you probably shouldn't be posting on the Internet.
Schneibster
15th November 2005 - 01:27 AM
QUOTE (Faux+) I see. And I guess you believe it is scientific to put a ruler on the convex surface of a computer monitor and make qualified and accurate decisions based on what you 'see' there. |
Actually, I used a piece of paper as a straightedge. It's a pretty simple procedure; but I'm not surprised it's beyond your l33t sk1ll2.
Were you born this stupid, or did you have to practice?
Schneibster
15th November 2005 - 01:32 AM
QUOTE (Faux+) Yeah... and still the Bankers Trust stood. |
Were you too stupid to read my response to that idiotic assertion, or did you not actually read my post? I'm not going to post it twice. Asked and answered. Move along, nothing to see here.
frater plecticus
15th November 2005 - 01:39 AM
Schneibster, you are wrong about the lack of wtc 7 steel samples. It´s on the official record.
| QUOTE | 8.2.8 Appendix C: Limited Metallurgical Examination
Two structural steel samples from the WTC site were observed to have unusual erosion patterns. One sample is believed to be from WTC 7 and the other from either WTC 1 or WTC 2
<a href='http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_ch8.pdf' target='_blank' rel='nofollow'>http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_ch8.pdf
chapter 8
Schneibster
15th November 2005 - 02:08 AM
QUOTE (frater plecticus+) Schneibster, what is your current hypothesis for the WTC 7 collapse ? |
Haven't got one; I'll try to develop it below. What I do have is a lot of evidence that a lot of people are ignoring or glossing over, combined with a bunch of old links to outdated information that has been superceded by later analysis and is now being trumpeted as "da gummint lying." Does the government lie? D**n straight they do- Shrub lied to Congress, and then got on TV and told the same lies to the rest of us, too, in order to start a war. Tricky Dicky sure did lie- "I am not a crook" my a**. But if you're going to criticize an ongoing research effort, DON'T post old versions of it, and DON'T call interim conclusions that are clearly identified as hypotheses "lies."
Stick to the facts; that's the only way you'll get anywhere. Make sure you are competent to analyze the math, and that you understand the engineering principles involved. If you don't, and you ask politely, you'll get a polite explanation. If you want to see how it's done, you might try my ongoing thread on polarization with hexa. Hexa observes that what s/he's seeing and what I'm saying seem different- but never calls me a liar. S/he is polite and points out the discrepancies and asks for an explanation. I happily provide one. If you don't understand where I got a particular equation, or how I made a step from one form to another, ask. I'll happily explain. DON'T call me a liar, and DON'T make nasty comments about me being a "shill" of some sort; I'm unlikely to be polite after that. Considering that the majority of people on this site probably understand what I'm talking about, and why I did the equations the way I did, and where I got them from, basically all that's going to do is make you look like an idiot, like Faux.
I tell you this because you appear to be genuinely curious; and you are being relatively polite. I choose to respond in kind.
The evidence is:
1. There was massive damage to 7 WTC from flying perimeter columns. This was considerably in excess of the damage done to Banker's trust, and apparently penetrated to the second row of interior load-bearing columns from the South face, compromising at least four columns in the first row and at least two in the second. This conclusion is based on multiple pieces of testimentary evidence, some of which I have provided links to here. There is, unfortunately, no accompanying photographic evidence, partly because the entire South face was covered with smoke from the time it was damaged (the fall of 1 WTC) to the time that the building collapsed, and partly because the only realistic vantage point would have been right in the middle of the pile of 1 WTC rubble.
2. The collapse of 7 WTC began inside the building. This is based on the fact that the East penthouse was the first thing to go, followed by the West penthouse and the curtain wall between them; finally, after all that, the global collapse began. But the interior of the building by that time was no longer a load-bearing structure. Finally, examining aerial views of the building after the collapse, we find perimeter sections on top of the pile of debris, indicating that all of the interior had already fallen.
3. The collapse of 7 WTC started with a vertical failure on the East side of the building, most likely in column 79, next most likely in column 80. The supporting evidence for this is the breaking windows in a line running up the North face to the East penthouse, followed by the East penthouse developing a kink in its roof directly over the line of breaking windows, and not coincidentally directly over column 79 and very close to column 80.
4. This vertical failure caused the east side of the building's interior to collapse due to diaphragm failures (diaphragms are floors, which transfer some of the stress on the perimeter columns to interior columns) in the structures that were no longer supported by the column that had broken and initiated the vertical failure. This is evident from the fact that the sky is visible in the upper story windows below the East penthouse after its collapse.
5. This interior collapse caused a horizontal progressive failure across the area between floors 5 and 7, of the horizontal trusses that distributed weight from the upper building columns to the original ground-level columns that were put in with the Con Ed power station. These horizontal trusses were deformed and pulled down by the local collapse on the East side. I have no direct evidence to support this assertion, but the subsequent events almost require it; please read on.
6. This horizontal progressive failure caused a corresponding interior progressive collapse that proceeded up the building to the roof and caused the disappearance of the West penthouse and the curtain wall. The evidence for this is the disappearance of those structures, and the subsequent view of the sky through the top windows on the West side.
7. During this horizontal progressive failure, an enormous load was placed on the balance ends of the North side cantilevers; this load was transferred by the cantilevering beams and the weight of the North facade to the pivot beams, which were columns on the North side of the building inset about 9 feet into the building. When the full load came on these pivot beams, they failed. I also have no supporting evidence for this assertion; and again, the subsequent events almost require it.
8. Now the North perimeter begins to fall, with a "kink" near the damage caused by the original failure on the East side near column 79. It is falling because the pivots below its cantilevered support have failed. It falls 5 to 7 floors. The supporting evidence is on video; the building appears to "fall into the ground," indicating that there is no interior structure any more, and that the bottom level has failed.
9. The North perimeter strikes the ground, sending a wave of systematic breakage up the facade which reaches the top slightly before it hits the ground. There is no interior of the building, because it has all already collapsed. The evidence again is on video.
How's that work for you?
Edited to add: You will note that I have not proposed a failure mechanism for column 79 (or 80, whichever). I don't know enough to do that, and I suspect no one ever will; although if they can show that the crystalline structure of a piece of steel from 7 WTC was altered by high temperatures, considering the inferno that raged on the 12 floor, I'd say we'll know as much as we ever will. Hint: how does Young's modulus of steel vary with temperature, and how does that affect the yield strength of the steel? At what temperature would the yield strength be below the stress a column is under, if the diaphragm supports for the column had been damaged by flying debris from the 1 WTC collapse? How many floors would have to no longer be supporting that column at the likely temperatures of the fire before it would fail? That's how to do this. I'll leave it to the experts; I'll look their figures over when they're done. The half-baked version is available on NIST's site.
Schneibster
15th November 2005 - 02:10 AM
QUOTE (frater plecticus+) Schneibster, you are wrong about the lack of wtc 7 steel samples. It´s on the official record. |
Wrong precisely how? How is what you posted in disagreement with anything that I said?
Foxx
15th November 2005 - 05:02 AM
frater plecticus said - "Schneibster, you are wrong about the lack of wtc 7 steel samples. It´s on the official record."
schneibster replies -- "Wrong precisely how? How is what you posted in disagreement with anything that I said?
Well, this is what you posted...
| QUOTE | by Schneibster
You might try this one which says, "No structural elements have been positively identified from WTC 7." Obviously, that is within the purview of the team making this report; they're not responsible for you being stupid enough to think that they are aware of every team out there investigating this dog's breakfast, by some sort of osmosis or omniscience or something. If you're that stupid, you probably shouldn't be posting on the Internet.
<br>We are well aware what NIST is saying... "no steel was recovered from WTC 7". This flies in the face of numerous government and official sources who report steel samples were collected from WTC 7 and saved for further study.
Here's one example of these documents posted by frater plecticus...
8.2.8 Appendix C: Limited Metallurgical Examination
Two structural steel samples from the WTC site were observed to have unusual erosion patterns. One sample is believed to be from WTC 7 and the other from either WTC 1 or WTC 2
http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_ch8.pdf
chapter 8
I listed numerous other references in my post "NIST Caught Trying to Bury Evidence".
I can't tell you the real reason behind their lying about this (although I have my suspicions)... 
however, it is fact that they are lying, and therefore must have some purpose in lying about the fact that wtc 7 steel was recovered for study, and are now trying to 'bury' this forensic evidence.
manifespo
15th November 2005 - 05:44 AM
Michael Moore owns thousands of Halliburton shares- he is a corporate shill!
Professor Jones was on the Situation Room with Tucker Carlson on MSNBC at around 11:30 PM tonight.
Tucker Carlson wouldn't show the clip of WTC7 collapsing even though Proessor Jones had emailed him THE video of the collapse.
Someone work on getting a transcript of the interview- I felt Prof. Jones nailed it.
Tucker apologized after the commercial break for the Twin Towers segment.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
