9/11: An Urban Legend
Thundercat Stevens
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
> You will find all the information you should need at
> http://wtc.nist.gov/
>
> You will ignore it, of course, because it does not say what you wish it
> said - but that is your choice. I have been jumping through your
> hoops, and those of other PCTs, for a long time, and I have no
> intention of wasting any more time on your fatuous delusions.
>
>
Funny, that doesn't at all explain how a giant building can collapse
completely in 10 seconds...
; )
--
Pretty Good Pimp
EagleEye
EagleEye
> nuts why, if it's *Just ImPOSSible* for the towers to have fallen so
> quickly if we go with NIST's analysis (the people with the information),
> it IS possible for the towers to have fallen at this speed if we go with
> the 'deliberate demolition' theory.
Because NIST never once makes ANY mention of the actual duration of the
collapse itself, anywhere in it's entire report. In fact, it offers
zero explanation for that actual occurance of the global collapse
itself except to say "pancake collapse" which, once *initiated* was
both automatic and inevtiable without every saying why and how this is
so, particularly in 10-12 seconds, through this, which means that there
was NO RESISTENCE encountered at all.
http://data.greatbuildings.com/gbc/images/cid_wtc_mya_WTC_const.3.jpg
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html
PD
As a physicist, I can assure you that the last website in particular is
about a boneheaded an analysis of the collapse of a structure as one
can make.
PD
jmfb...@aol.com
"EagleEye" <jne...@globalmanagement.ca> wrote:
>> Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we're never told by the conspiracy
>> nuts why, if it's *Just ImPOSSible* for the towers to have fallen so
>> quickly if we go with NIST's analysis (the people with the information),
>> it IS possible for the towers to have fallen at this speed if we go with
>> the 'deliberate demolition' theory.
>
>Because NIST never once makes ANY mention of the actual duration of the
>collapse itself, anywhere in it's entire report. In fact, it offers
>zero explanation for that actual occurance of the global collapse
>itself except to say "pancake collapse" which, once *initiated* was
>both automatic and inevtiable without every saying why and how this is
>so, particularly in 10-12 seconds, through this, which means that there
>was NO RESISTENCE encountered at all.
[astounded emoticon here] Somebody who has no common sense.
Do you also believe that an avalanche can be stopped?
Have you ever driven a boat? Have you ever wondered why
an automobile doesn't stop a train immediately?
/BAH
Robert J. Kolker
>
> Funny, that doesn't at all explain how a giant building can collapse
> completely in 10 seconds...
It took several minutes for the support girders to soften and weaken
from the burning jet fuel.
Bob Kolker
jmfb...@aol.com
Is it boneheaded enough so it could become a "what's wrong with
this picture?" physics lab?
/BAH
jmfb...@aol.com
It was longer than a few minutes. Didn't it take about 30 minutes?
I don't remember the time stamps.
/BAH
Robert J. Kolker
>
> It was longer than a few minutes. Didn't it take about 30 minutes?
> I don't remember the time stamps.
Whatever. In any case it did not happen instantenously, as though
explosive charges were set offr.
Bob Kolker
Vandar
>>Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we're never told by the conspiracy
>>nuts why, if it's *Just ImPOSSible* for the towers to have fallen so
>>quickly if we go with NIST's analysis (the people with the information),
>>it IS possible for the towers to have fallen at this speed if we go with
>>the 'deliberate demolition' theory.
>
>
> Because NIST never once makes ANY mention of the actual duration of the
> collapse itself, anywhere in it's entire report.
Do you know what the purpose of the NIST investigation was?
Thundercat Stevens
news:Xns9717898C34F89...@213.123.26.234:
> Thundercat Stevens <KILLFIL...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Funny, that doesn't at all explain how a giant building can collapse
>> completely in 10 seconds...
>
> No-one has yet satisfactorily explained how it couldn't.
It's called 'resistance'.
> It's just
> one more assertion we have to accept because the conspiracy types say
> it's so.
So, you have a paper ready, refuting the work done by the BYU physics
professor?
No?
> For that matter, given that all the footage that is offered as 'proof'
> of this shows the tower disappearing downwards into a cloud of dust,
> we've only rough guesses to tell us that it took ten seconds in any
> case.
How long do you maintain it took to collapse?
Are FEMA, NIST, etc. wrong on that point, as well?
> Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we're never told by the
> conspiracy nuts why, if it's *Just ImPOSSible* for the towers to have
> fallen so quickly if we go with NIST's analysis (the people with the
> information), it IS possible for the towers to have fallen at this
> speed if we go with the 'deliberate demolition' theory.
You're playing with a half a deck, guy.
Thundercat Stevens
news:Xns971794ECCBB76...@213.123.26.234:
> "EagleEye" <jne...@globalmanagement.ca> wrote:
>
>> Because NIST never once makes ANY mention of the actual duration of
>> the collapse itself, anywhere in it's entire report.
>
> And to you, this is evidence of foul play. Because to you, EVERYTHING
> is evidence of foul play.
>
> To me, however, and I would presume for most other people, it is
> simply an indication of the fact that NIST did not see any anomalies
> in the way the buildings fell. Now quite obviously they were wrong,
> because amateur sleuths on the Internet with a few too many X-Files
> under their belts are by definition more suited to carrying out
> complex investigations than NIST are. That said, though, I think I'll
> continue to be a government shill and go with the people who actually
> have the information, rather than wishful thinking and guesswork.
I love watching you flakes squirm.
Thundercat Stevens
news:1132757372.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
As a physicist, perhaps you could give us your take on the BYU professor's
analysis?
Thundercat Stevens
news:dm1vd7$8qk...@s1217.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com:
And you think your simple-minded reasoning has any bearing on this
discussion?
Thundercat Stevens
news:bh09o1p32269ckrqu...@4ax.com:
> On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 13:30:20 +0000 (UTC), Midjis
> <midwi...@hotmail.co.uk> typed furiously:
>
>>Thundercat Stevens <KILLFIL...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Funny, that doesn't at all explain how a giant building can collapse
>>> completely in 10 seconds...
>>
>>No-one has yet satisfactorily explained how it couldn't. It's just
>>one more assertion we have to accept because the conspiracy types say
>>it's so.
>>
>>For that matter, given that all the footage that is offered as 'proof'
>>of this shows the tower disappearing downwards into a cloud of dust,
>>we've only rough guesses to tell us that it took ten seconds in any
>>case.
>>
>>Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we're never told by the
>>conspiracy nuts why, if it's *Just ImPOSSible* for the towers to have
>>fallen so quickly if we go with NIST's analysis (the people with the
>>information), it IS possible for the towers to have fallen at this
>>speed if we go with the 'deliberate demolition' theory.
>
> And of course we would have to ignore the potential energy contained
> in the many tons of the upper floors as they dropped. Even a drop of
> an inch would be quite destructive on the floors below.
And would add time to the collapse...
Doh!
Thundercat Stevens
@individual.net:
Bob, you make no sense whatsoever.
Thundercat Stevens
news:Xns9717AD8DAA329...@213.123.26.234:
> "Robert J. Kolker" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> Ah, but that'll be because they were special secret magic
> delayed-action explosive charges that exploded really slowly. And
> they were painted to look like innocent American Airlines explosives.
> And when they went off they launched extra-powerful secret missiles
> from special secret pods that looked just like blurry shadows in a
> photograph. And you could actually see George Bush's face in the
> special secret smoke. He was cackling, and if you look closely at his
> mouth - in the smoke - you can lip-read, and discover that it's saying
> "I made this". Just like the annoying kid at the end of... Wait for
> it... The X-Files! You got it! So we've all come full circle.
>
> We're all going round and round in special secret circles. Magic.
>
So, the 9/11 conspiracy people have science on their side. The rest of you
have gibberish.
Nice.
age...@justicespammail.com
<KILLFIL...@yahoo.com> wrote:
But this does:
http://electron9.phys.utk.edu/phys135d/modules/m4/2ndLaw.htm
The force of gravity
Assume you are standing on a 20m high platform with a ball in your
outstretched hand. At t = 0 you let go of the ball and it starts
falling towards the ground below. At t = 0 the ball has zero
velocity. At some later time, but before it hits the ground, its
velocity is in the downward direction. Its speed is increasing as it
falls. The ball is accelerating. Why is a falling ball accelerating?
Which force is acting on it?
The force of gravity is acting on the falling ball. On the surface of
the earth, the direction of this force is always downward, towards the
ground. It pulls on all objects with mass.
As the object gains speed, other forces also act on it. The force of
friction on a moving object is always directed opposite to the
object's velocity. It always tries to slow down the object. The
magnitude of this force depends on the shape of the object, its speed,
and the medium in which it is moving. For many smooth, dense objects
the magnitude of the frictional force at low speeds in air is very
small compared to the gravitational force and we can safely neglect
it.
Assume we are dropping two smooth, spherical objects of different
masses, such as a bowling ball and a marble, at the same time. If the
force of gravity acting on the two objects had the same magnitude,
then the bowling ball would accelerate less and gain less speed in the
same amount of time. The marble would hit the floor first. In an
experiment, however, the two objects hit the floor at the same time.
They gain the same speed in the same time. This mean that the force
of gravity acting on the bowling ball must have a greater magnitude
than the force of gravity acting on the marble. The force of gravity
acting on an object must be proportional to the mass of the object.
We write
Fg = mg.
We also have Fg = ma from Newton's second law, so g = a. The
proportional constant g is called the acceleration due to gravity. On
the surface of the earth g = 9.8m/s2 and its direction is downward.
The force of gravity acting on an object is called its weight.
On the surface of the earth all objects experience the same
acceleration due to gravity in the downward direction, regardless of
their mass. The acceleration due to frictional forces is always in
the direction opposite the object's velocity, and differs from object
to object. However, when we are justified to neglect friction, then
we can say that all dropped objects accelerate at the same rate.
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/mmedia/newtlaws/efar.html
So in conclusion, the elephant falls faster than the feather because
it never reaches a terminal velocity; it continues to accelerate as it
falls (accumulating more and more air resistance), approaching a
terminal velocity yet never reaches it. On the other hand, the feather
quickly reaches a terminal velocity. Not requiring much air resistance
before it ceases its acceleration, the feather obtains the state of
terminal velocity in an early stage of its fall. The small terminal
velocity of the feather means that the remainder of its fall will
occur with a small terminal velocity.
age...@justicespammail.com
<jne...@globalmanagement.ca> wrote:
>> Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we're never told by the conspiracy
>> nuts why, if it's *Just ImPOSSible* for the towers to have fallen so
>> quickly if we go with NIST's analysis (the people with the information),
>> it IS possible for the towers to have fallen at this speed if we go with
>> the 'deliberate demolition' theory.
>
>Because NIST never once makes ANY mention of the actual duration of the
>collapse itself, anywhere in it's entire report. In fact, it offers
>zero explanation for that actual occurance of the global collapse
>itself except to say "pancake collapse" which, once *initiated* was
>both automatic and inevtiable without every saying why and how this is
>so, particularly in 10-12 seconds, through this, which means that there
>was NO RESISTENCE encountered at all.
http://electron9.phys.utk.edu/phys135d/modules/m4/2ndLaw.htm
EagleEye
listing to. the whole thing.
Aeronautical engineer on Pentagon strike
Tue., November 22, 2005
Nila Sagadevan
jfa...@earthlink.net
Please! Stop the torture. I can't squirm any more. I admit it.
It was the Illuninati and Jewish bankers...and the Trilateral
Commission...the Skull and Bones. But now that I've
blown their cover they are comin' after me ( Picture Elisha
Cook jr). Soon they will be comng after you. You know
too much. Run for your life!
jfa...@earthlink.net
Thundercat Stevens wrote:
> jmfb...@aol.com wrote in
> news:dm1vd7$8qk...@s1217.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com:
>
> > In article <1132753390.9...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > "EagleEye" <jne...@globalmanagement.ca> wrote:
> >>> conspiracy nuts why, if it's *Just ImPOSSible* for the towers to
> >>> have fallen so quickly if we go with NIST's analysis (the people
> >>> at this speed if we go with the 'deliberate demolition' theory.
> >>
> >>Because NIST never once makes ANY mention of the actual duration of
> >>the collapse itself, anywhere in it's entire report. In fact, it
> >>collapse itself except to say "pancake collapse" which, once
> >>*initiated* was both automatic and inevtiable without every saying why
> >>and how this is so, particularly in 10-12 seconds, through this, which
> >>means that there was NO RESISTENCE encountered at all.
> >
> > [astounded emoticon here] Somebody who has no common sense.
> > Do you also believe that an avalanche can be stopped?
> > Have you ever driven a boat? Have you ever wondered why
> > an automobile doesn't stop a train immediately?
> >
> > /BAH
>
> And you think your simple-minded reasoning has any bearing on this
> discussion?
"Simple-minded reasoning" is what is known as a "question-
begging epithet" (see: Munson, Ronald. The Way of Words.
1st ed., Atlanta: Houghton Mifflin, 1976. p. 283) Is your
position exempt from logic?
jfa...@earthlink.net
Thundercat Stevens wrote:
> Midjis <midwi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in
> news:Xns9717AD8DAA329...@213.123.26.234:
>
> > "Robert J. Kolker" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >
> >> jmfb...@aol.com wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> I don't remember the time stamps.
> >>
> >> Whatever. In any case it did not happen instantenously, as though
> >> explosive charges were set offr.
> >
> > delayed-action explosive charges that exploded really slowly. And
> > they were painted to look like innocent American Airlines explosives.
> > And when they went off they launched extra-powerful secret missiles
> > photograph. And you could actually see George Bush's face in the
> > special secret smoke. He was cackling, and if you look closely at his
> > mouth - in the smoke - you can lip-read, and discover that it's saying
> > "I made this". Just like the annoying kid at the end of... Wait for
> > it... The X-Files! You got it! So we've all come full circle.
> >
> > We're all going round and round in special secret circles. Magic.
> >
>
> So, the 9/11 conspiracy people have science on their side.
All I've seen on your side is assertions. What does the National
Academy of Sciences say? Got a quote? Incredulity isn't
argument. It is simply appealing to your own ignorance.
> The rest of you have gibberish.
When will you start backing up all these assertions and
accusations of yours?
jfa...@earthlink.net
Do you have a text document with a verifiable reference?
BTW do you know what the ad verecundiam fallacy is? i
jmfb...@aol.com
<SNORT> Honey, I can't make it any simpler. I asked you questions;
I didn't try to reason with you. Now answer the questions.
/BAH
Thundercat Stevens
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>
> somebigguy wrote:
>> Shifting the burden of proof?
>
> Yes, shifting the burden of proof. You think it is up
> to the skeptics of your alternative view to convince
> you. Sorry, you are the one challenging the status
> quo. That means you got the burden of proof.
>
>> Like I said, the government does not get
>> a free pass.
>
> Like _you_ said? Well, I didn't know _you_ said it. In
> that case I'm sure the government will give this
> proclamation of yours all the attention it merits.
>
>> Collapses like we saw on 9/11 have never occurred in
>> history for any reason other than explosives and demolition.
>
> Or jets flying into them. You forgot about that.
Exactly like WTC 7 didn't have?
>> History
>> does not support the official story.
>
> Sez you. Incredulity isn't an argument. Saying "I don't
> see how..." is just appealing to your lack of
> understanding.
>
>> The government does not get a free pass,
>
> Say it one more time and it becomes true.
>
>> they can't just say something
>> and make it true,
>
> But you can, huh.
>
>> they have a burden of proof that such a collapse is
>> possible.
>
> No, they have the status quo, the default. If you do
> nothing that is how it will remain. Thus, if you
> want change you have the burden of proof, the
> burden of persuasion. If you do not wish to support
> that burden, fine. Nothing will change. They don't
> have to prove anything to you.
>
> You are the one making the extraordinary claim.
>
>>Until then, it is just a theory, and you must admit that.
>
> That you use the phrase "just a theory" shows you don't
> know what a theory is.
>
> "'Science' is the systematic study of the natural (observable)
> world. The Scientific Method involves collection of data
> by observation and experiment, and the formulation and
> testing of explanations (hypotheses) against these same
> data. When a collection of hypotheses is both explanatory
> and validated by the available data, it is elevated to the
> status of 'theory.'"
>
> "Theory" doesn't mean "hunch," or "educated guess." Not
> in science it doesn't.
>
> You may wish to reflect on the fact that you didn't
> know this.
I love the people who wave "science" around, and ignore this:
The views in this paper are the sole responsibility of the author (not
Brigham Young University).
DRAFT 2.4
Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?
By Steven E. Jones
Department of Physics and Astronomy
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84604
ABSTRACT
In writing this paper, I call for a serious investigation of the
hypothesis that WTC 7 and the Twin Towers were brought down, not just by
damage and fires, but through the use of pre-positioned explosives. I
consider the official FEMA, NIST, and 9-11 Commission reports that fires
plus damage alone caused complete collapses of all three buildings. And
I present evidence for the explosive-demolition hypothesis, which is
suggested by the available data, testable and falsifiable, and yet has
not been analyzed in any of the reports funded by the US government.
Let’s start with the collapse of the 47-story WTC 7, which was never hit
by a jet. I ask you to take a minute to look at the collapse of this
building as a basis for discussion.
WTC 7: 47 - Story, steel-frame building..
WTC 7 on afternoon of 9-11-01. WTC 7 is the tall
sky-scraper in the back-ground, right. Seen from WTC 1 area.
WTC 7 collapsed completely, onto its own footprint
Now that you have seen the still photographs, it is important to the
discussion which follows for you to observe video clips of the collapse
of this building, so go to:
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html Click on the three
photos at the top of this web-site page in order to see the videos of the
collapse of WTC 7. It helps to have sound.
Then consider a video close-up of the same building (SW corner) as its
demise begins:
http://st12.startlogic.com/
~xenonpup/Flashes/squibs_along_southwest_corner.htm
What did you observe?
Symmetry: did the building collapse straight down (nearly symmetrically)
– or did it topple over?
Speed: How fast did the building fall? (Students and I measure less
than 6.6 seconds; time it!)
Smoke/debris-jets: Did you observe puffs of smoke/debris coming out of
the building? Please note for yourself the sequence and fast timing of
observed puffs or “squibs.” Note that reference to web pages is used in
this paper due largely to the importance of viewing motion picture clips,
thus enhancing consideration of the laws of motion and physics generally.
High-quality photographs showing details of the collapses of WTC 7 and
the WTC Towers can be found in books (Hufschmid, 2002; Paul and Hoffman,
2004), magazines (Hoffman, 2005; Baker, 2005) and at
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/collapses.html.
My reasons for advancing the explosive-demolition hypothesis while
challenging the “official” fire-caused collapse hypothesis are these:
1. As you observed, WTC 7 collapsed rapidly and symmetrically -- even
though fires were randomly scattered in the building. WTC 7 fell about
seven hours after the Towers collapsed, even though no major persistent
fires were visible. There were twenty-four huge steel support columns
inside WTC 7 as well as huge trusses, arranged asymmetrically, along with
approximately 57 perimeter columns. (FEMA, 2002, chapter 5.) A
symmetrical collapse, as observed, evidently requires the simultaneous
“pulling” of most or all of the support columns. The Second Law of
Thermodynamics implies that the likelihood of complete and symmetrical
collapse due to random fires as in the “official” theory is small, since
asymmetrical failure is so much more likely. On the other hand, a major
goal of controlled demolition using explosives is the complete and
symmetrical collapse of buildings.
Concluding remarks in the FEMA report on the WTC 7 collapse lend support
to my arguments:
The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to
collapse [“official theory”] remain unknown at this time. Although the
total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the
best hypothesis [fire/damage-caused collapse] has only a low probability
of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed
to resolve this issue. (FEMA, 2002, chapter 5; emphasis added.)
That is precisely my point: further investigation and analyses are
needed, including consideration of the controlled-demolition hypothesis
which is neglected in all of the government reports (FEMA, NIST and 9-11
Commission reports). Note that the 9-11 Commission report does not even
mention the collapse of WTC 7 on 9-11-01. (Commission, 2004) This is a
striking omission of data highly relevant to the question of what really
happened on 9-11.
2. A New York Times article entitled “Engineers are baffled over the
collapse of 7 WTC; Steel members have been partly evaporated,” provides
relevant data.
Experts said no building like it [WTC7], a modern, steel-reinforced high-
rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire. (Glanz, 2001;
emphasis added.)
That’s correct – no such steel-beam building had ever before (or since)
completely collapsed due to fires! However, such complete, symmetrical
collapses in steel-frame buildings have indeed occurred many times before
-- all of them due to pre-positioned explosives in a procedure called
“implosion” or controlled demolition. What a surprise, then, for such an
occurrence in downtown Manhattan— three skyscrapers completely collapsed
on the same day, September 11, 2001.
Engineers have been trying to figure out exactly what happened and
whether they should be worried about other buildings like it around the
country… Most of the other buildings in the [area] stood despite
suffering damage of all kinds, including fire... ‘Fire and the structural
damage …would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to
have been partly evaporated’, Dr. [Jonathan] Barnett said. (Glanz, 2001;
emphasis added.)
The observed “partly evaporated” steel members is particularly upsetting
to the official theory, since fires involving paper, office materials,
even diesel fuel, cannot generate temperatures anywhere near the 5,000+
oF needed to “evaporate” steel. However, thermite, RDX and other
commonly-used explosives can readily slice through steel (thus cutting
the support columns simultaneously in an explosive demolition) and reach
the required temperatures. (It is possible that some other chemical
reactions were involved which might proceed at lesser temperatures.)
This mystery needs to be explored – but is not mentioned in the
“official” 9-11 Commission or NIST reports.
3. There are several published observations of molten metal in the
basements of all three buildings, WTC 1, 2 (“Twin Towers”) and 7. For
example, Dr. Keith Eaton toured Ground Zero and stated in The Structural
Engineer,
‘They showed us many fascinating slides’ [Eaton] continued, ‘ranging from
molten metal which was still red hot weeks after the event, to 4-inch
thick steel plates sheared and bent in the disaster’. (Structural
Engineer, September 3, 2002, p. 6; emphasis added.)
The observation of molten metal at Ground Zero was emphasized publicly by
Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for the design of
the World Trade Center Towers, who reported that “As of 21 days after the
attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running.”
(Williams, 2001, p. 3; emphasis added.)
Sarah Atlas was part of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and
Rescue and was one of the first on the scene at Ground Zero with her
canine partner Anna. She reported in Penn Arts and Sciences, summer
2002,
‘Nobody's going to be alive.' Fires burned and molten steel flowed in
the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet. (Penn, 2002; emphasis
added.)
Dr. Allison Geyh was one of a team of public health investigators from
Johns Hopkins who visited the WTC site after 9-11. She reported in the
Late Fall 2001 issue of Magazine of Johns Hopkins Public Health, "In some
pockets now being uncovered they are finding molten steel.” Further
information on the subject is available at
http://globalresearch.ca.myforums.net/viewtopic.php?p=11663.
Thus, molten metal was repeatedly observed and formally reported in the
rubble piles of the WTC Towers and WTC 7, metal that looked like molten
steel. However, scientific analysis, using for example X-ray
fluorescence, would be needed to ascertain the actual composition of the
molten metal.
I maintain that these published observations are consistent with the use
of the high-temperature thermite reaction, used to cut or demolish steel.
Thermite is a mixture of iron oxide and aluminum powder. The end
products of the thermite reaction are aluminum oxide and molten iron. So
the thermite reaction generates molten iron directly, and is hot enough
to melt and even evaporate steel which it contacts while reacting. Use
of sulfur in conjunction with the thermite should accelerate the
destructive effect on steel, and sulfidation of structural steel was
indeed observed in some of the few recovered members from the WTC rubble.
(See http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html.)
On the other hand, falling buildings (absent explosives) have
insufficient directed energy to result in melting of large quantities of
metal. The government reports admit that the building fires were
insufficient to melt steel beams -- then where did the molten metal come
from? Metals expert Dr. Frank Gayle (working with NIST) stated:
Your gut reaction would be the jet fuel is what made the fire so very
intense, a lot of people figured that's what melted the steel. Indeed it
did not, the steel did not melt. (Field, 2005; emphasis added.)
None of the official reports tackles this mystery. Yet this is evidently
a significant clue to what caused the Towers and WTC 7 to collapse. So I
would very much like to see an analysis of the elemental composition of
the metal, and could do this myself if a small sample were made available
according to scientific courtesy. Any reader who knows of chemical
analyses or even photographs of this molten metal found below the rubble
piles of WTC 1, 2 and 7 is invited to speak out and contact the author.
This could lead to an experiment crucis.
4. Horizontal puffs of smoke and debris are observed emerging from WTC-7
on upper floors, in regular sequence, just as the building starts to
collapse. (The reader may wish to view the close-up video clip again.)
The upper floors have not moved relative to one another yet, as one can
verify from the videos. In addition, the timing between the puffs is
less than 0.2 seconds so air-expulsion due to collapsing floors is
excluded. Free-fall time for a floor to fall down to the next floor is
significantly longer than 0.2 seconds: the equation for free fall, y = ½
gt2, yields a little over 0.6 seconds, as this is near the initiation of
the collapse.
However, the presence of such “squibs” proceeding up the side of the
building is common when pre-positioned explosives are used, as can be
observed at http://www.implosionworld.com/cinema.html. The same site
shows that rapid timing between explosive squibs is also common. (It is
instructive to view several of the implosion videos at this web site.)
Thus, squibs as observed during the collapse of WTC 7 going up the side
of the building in rapid sequence provide additional significant evidence
for the use of pre-placed explosives. Regarding this highly-secure
building, a NY Times article entitled “Secretive C.I.A. Site in New York
was Destroyed on Sept. 11,” provides an intriguing puzzle piece:
The C.I.A.'s undercover New York station was in the 47-story building at
7 World Trade Center… All of the agency's employees at the site were
safely evacuated… The intelligence agency's employees were able to watch
from their office windows while the twin towers burned just before they
evacuated their own building. (Risen, 2001)
5. The official FEMA 9-11 report admits a striking anomaly regarding the
North Tower collapse:
Review of videotape recordings of the collapse taken from various angles
indicates that the transmission tower on top of the structure began to
move downward and laterally slightly before movement was evident at the
exterior wall. This suggests that collapse began with one or more
failures in the central core area of the building. (FEMA, 2002, chapter
2; emphasis added.)
North Tower showing antenna (top) at beginning of
collapse.
Yes, we can see for ourselves that the antenna drops first from videos of
the North Tower collapse. (See
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/wtc1_close_frames.html;
also http://home.comcast.net/~skydrifter/collapse.htm.) A NY Times
article also notes this behavior:
The building stood for more than an hour and a half. Videos of the north
tower's collapse appear to show that its television antenna began to drop
a fraction of a second before the rest of the building. The observations
suggest that the building's steel core somehow gave way first… (Glanz and
Lipton, 2002; emphasis added)
But how? What caused the 47 enormous steel core columns of this building
(which supported the antenna) to give way nearly simultaneously? That
mystery was raised by the FEMA report (FEMA, 2002, chapter 2) and the New
York Times (Glanz and Lipton, 2002) yet not solved in any official report
(FEMA, 2002; Commission, 2004; NIST, 2005). The odd behavior was not
even mentioned in the final NIST report (NIST, 2005), but some of us have
not forgotten.
Could random fires burning office materials in the building account for a
near-simultaneous “pulling” of these core supports? Certainly such an
event would have exceedingly low probability. Again, use of pre-
positioned explosives to cut the core columns first (standard demolition
practice) provides a simple yet elegant explanation for the observation,
satisfying the “Occam’s razor” test (Jones, 2005).
6. Multiple loud explosions in rapid sequence were heard and reported by
numerous observers in and near the WTC Towers, consistent with explosive
demolition. Firemen and others described flashes and explosions in upper
floors near where the plane entered, and in lower floors of WTC 2 just
prior to its collapse, far below the region where the plane had struck
the tower (Dwyer, 2005). For instance, at the start of the collapse of
the South Tower a Fox News anchor reported:
There is an explosion at the base of the building… white smoke from the
bottom… something happened at the base of the building! Then another
explosion.” (De Grand Pre, 2002, emphasis added.)
Firefighter Edward Cachia independently reported:
[We] thought there was like an internal detonation, explosives, because
it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came
down…It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane
hit. (Dwyer, 2005; emphasis added.)
And assistant fire commissioner Stephen Gregory provides additional
insights:
When I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down,
before No. 2 came down, ..I saw low-level flashes. In my conversation
with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned
me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and
I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it
was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing,
things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like
the building came down.
Q. Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was?
A. No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they
demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls
down? That's what I thought I saw. And I didn't broach the topic to him,
but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm crazy, but I just wanted to
ask you because you were standing right next to me… He said did you see
any flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no,
I saw them, too. (Dwyer, 2005, Assistant Commissioner Stephen Gregory
FDNY WCT2 File No. 91 10008; emphasis added.)
It is highly unlikely that jet fuel was present to generate such
explosions especially on lower floors, and long after the planes hit the
buildings. Dr. Shyam Sunder, Lead Investigator for NIST stated: "The jet
fuel probably burned out in less than 10 minutes.” (Field, 2005) On the
other hand, pre-positioned explosives provide a plausible and simple
explanation for the observations, satisfying Occam’s razor (Jones, 2005).
Thus, it cannot be said that “no evidence” can be found for the use of
explosives. This serious matter needs to be treated as a plausible
scientific hypothesis and thoroughly investigated.
7. The horizontal ejection of steel beams for hundreds of feet and the
pulverization of concrete to flour-like powder, observed clearly in the
collapses of the WTC towers, provides further evidence for the use of
explosives – as well-explained in
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/towers/index.html. (See also, Griffin,
2004, chapter 2.)
North Tower during top-down collapse.
Notice mysterious squibs far below pulverization
region.
Unlike WTC7, the twin towers appear to have been exploded “top-down”
rather than proceeding from the bottom – which is unusual for controlled
demolition but clearly possible, depending on the order in which
explosives are detonated. That is, explosives may have been placed on
higher floors of the towers and exploded via radio signals so as to have
early explosions near the region where the plane entered the tower.
Certainly this hypothesis ought to be seriously considered in an
independent investigation using all available data.
8. I totally agree with the urgent yet reasoned assessment of expert
fire-protection engineers, as boldly editorialized in the journal Fire
Engineering:
Respected members of the fire protection engineering community are
beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating [result] has emerged: The
structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel
in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers.
Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official
investigation" blessed by FEMA… is a half-baked farce that may already
have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to
put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except for the
marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of
evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members-
described by one close source as a "tourist trip"-no one's checking the
evidence for anything.
Some citizens are taking to the streets to protest the investigation
sellout. Sally Regenhard, for one, wants to know why and how the
building fell as it did upon her unfortunate son Christian, an FDNY
probationary firefighter. And so do we.
Clearly, there are burning questions that need answers. Based on the
incident's magnitude alone, a full-throttle, fully resourced, forensic
investigation is imperative. More important, from a moral standpoint,
[are considerations] for the… present and future generations… (Manning,
2002; emphasis added).
9. The occurrence of nearly symmetrical, straight-down and complete
collapses of the WTC 7 and the Towers is particularly upsetting to the
“official” theory that random fires plus damage caused all these
collapses. Even with explosives, achieving such results requires a great
deal of pre-planning and expertise.
The main challenge in bringing a building down is controlling which way
it falls. Ideally, a blasting crew will be able to tumble the building
over on one side, into a parking lot or other open area. This sort of
blast is the easiest to execute [favored by the Law of Increasing
Entropy]. Tipping a building over is something like felling a tree. To
topple the building to the north, the blasters detonate explosives on the
north side of the building first…
Sometimes, though, a building is surrounded by structures that must be
preserved. In this case, the blasters proceed with a true implosion,
demolishing the building so that it collapses straight down into its own
footprint (the total area at the base of the building). This feat
requires such skill that only a handful of demolition companies in the
world will attempt it. [Again, consistent with the Second Law of
Thermodynamics.]
Blasters approach each project a little differently... [A good] option is
to detonate the columns at the center of the building before the other
columns so that the building's sides fall inward. (Harris, 2000; emphasis
added.)
Careful observation of the collapse of WTC 7 (video clips above)
demonstrates a downward “kink” near the center of the building first,
suggesting “pulling” of the support columns, then the building’s sides
pull inward such that the building “collapses straight down into its own
footprint” (Harris, 2000). FEMA admitted that WTC 7 collapsed onto a
well-confined footprint:
The collapse of WTC 7 had a small debris field as the facade was pulled
downward, suggesting an internal failure and implosion… The average
debris field radius was approximately 70 feet. (FEMA, 2002, chapter 5.)
Evidently we agree that this was a beautifully done implosion in the
collapse of WTC 7, and yet:
This feat requires such skill that only a handful of demolition companies
in the world will attempt it. (Harris, 2000; emphasis added.)
Consider: Why would terrorists undertake straight-down collapses of WTC7
and the Towers, when “toppling-over” falls would require much less work
and would do much more damage in downtown Manhattan? And where would
they obtain the necessary skills and access to the buildings for a
symmetrical implosion anyway? These questions suggest the need for
further investigation.
One of the people a thorough investigation should question would be
demolition expert Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc.
Speaking of the way the WTC buildings came down, he said in an interview:
“If I were to bring the towers down, I would put explosives in the
basement to get the weight of the building to help collapse the
structure.” (Bollyn, 2002; emphasis added.)
Just right – “explosives in the basement” agrees with eyewitness reports
of explosions down low in the buildings (point 6 above). Also, this
would be the way to effectively sever the support columns, consistent
with both the initial drop of the communication tower (WTC Tower 1) and
the “kink” in the middle of WTC 7 as its collapse began. Yes, and as
president of Controlled Demolition, Inc., Mr. Loizeaux would know the
“handful of demolition companies in the world [that] will attempt” a
symmetrical controlled demolition. (Harris, 2000) His company is
certainly one of these and was hired to do the rapid clean-up work
following the building collapses.
If you still haven’t looked at the rapid symmetrical collapse of WTC7 for
yourself, why not do so now? Watch for the initial “kink” or drop in the
middle, and for the “squibs” blowing in sequence up the side of the
building, and notice the symmetrical, straight-down collapse -- all so
common in controlled demolitions. See for yourself at:
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html. A great deal of
further information is presented from a serious scientific point-of-view
at this site (http://911research.wtc7.net/).
10. I presented my objections to the “official” theory at a seminar at
BYU on September 22, 2005, to about sixty people. I also showed evidence
and scientific arguments for the explosive demolition theory. In
attendance were faculty from Physics, Mechanical Engineering, Civil
Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Psychology, Geology, and Mathematics
– and perhaps other departments as I did not recognize all of the people
present. A local university and college were represented (BYU and Utah
Valley State College).
The discussion was vigorous and lasted nearly two hours. It ended only
when a university class needed the room. After presenting the material
summarized here, including actually looking at and discussing the
collapses of WTC 7 and the Towers, all except one attendee agreed (by
hand-vote) that further investigation of the WTC collapses was called
for. The next day, the dissenting professor said he had further thought
about it and now agreed that more investigation was needed. He joined
the others in hoping that the 6,899 photographs and 6,977 segments of
video footage held by NIST plus others held by the FBI would be released
for independent scrutiny; photos largely from private photographers
(NIST, 2005, p. 81). We call for the release of these data to a cross-
disciplinary, preferably international team of scientists and engineers.
11. One attendee to the BYU Seminar on 9-11 anomalies suggested I review
the paper by Bazant and Zhou, which I did. Quoting:
The 110-story towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand
as a whole the forces caused by a horizontal impact of a large commercial
aircraft. So why did a total collapse occur? (Bazant and Zhou, 2002, p.
2.)
Correct – jet collisions did not cause collapses – we can agree on that.
MIT’s Thomas Eager also concurs “because the number of columns lost on
the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining
columns in this highly redundant structure” (Eager and Musso, 2001).
We continue with Bazant & Zhou:
The conflagration, caused by the aircraft fuel spilled into the
structure, causes the steel of the columns to be exposed to sustained
temperatures apparently exceeding 800oC… (Bazant and Zhou, 2002, p. 2.)
But here we note from the recent NIST report that: “The initial jet fuel
fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes” and office material fires
would burn out within about 20 minutes in a given location. (NIST, 2005;
p. 179, emphasis added.) Certainly jet fuel burning was not enough to
raise steel to sustained temperatures above 800oC. But we continue:
Once more than half of the columns in the critical floor.. suffer
buckling (stage 3), the weight of the upper part of the structure above
this floor can no longer be supported, and so the upper part starts
falling down onto the lower part below…”(Bazant and Zhou, 2002, p. 2.)
Bazant & Zhou do not explain how “more than half of the columns in the
critical floor [can] suffer buckling” at the same time to precipitate the
complete and nearly symmetrical collapse observed. There were 47 huge
steel core columns in each Tower, and 24 such support columns in WTC 7
(NIST 2005; NISTb, 2005).
The WTC towers were solidly constructed with 47 steel core
columns and 240 perimeter steel beams. 287 steel-columns total.
Many doubt that random fires/damage could cause them to
collapse straight down (official theory), and suspect
explosives.
Steel-frame: Huge core (left), enormous Heat Sink. Notice workers
standing on floor pan which is
firmly attached to the interconnected
core columns.
They do NOT explain how steel-column temperatures above 800oC were
achieved near-simultaneously due to burning office materials. NIST notes
that office materials in an area burn for about 15-20 minutes, then are
consumed away (NIST, 2005, pp. 117, 179). This is evidently not long
enough to raise steel column temperatures above 800oC as required in the
Bazant & Zhou model, given the enormous heat sinks of the structures.
And to have three buildings completely collapse due to this unlikely
mechanism on the same day strains credulity. Moreover, the Final NIST
report on the Towers admits:
Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only
three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above
250ºC… Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to
make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC. ...
Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence
that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC. (NIST,
2005, pp. 176-177; emphasis added.)
As for WTC 7, Bazant & Zhou say little but mention in a separate
“addendum” that burning natural gas might have been a source of the
needed heat (Bazant and Zhou, March 2002, p. 370). The FEMA report
(FEMA, 2002) addresses this issue:
Early news reports had indicated that a high pressure, 24-inch gas main
was located in the vicinity of the building [WTC 7]; however, this proved
not to be true." (FEMA, 2002, chapter 5; emphasis added)
12. I have read through the hundreds of pages of the Final NIST report
on the collapses of the WTC Towers. (NIST, 2005) It is interesting to
note that NIST “decoupled” and delayed their final report on WTC 7, which
is overdue as of this writing (NIST, 2005; NISTb, 2005) I agree with
some of the NIST report; for example:
Both WTC 1 and WTC 2 were stable after the aircraft impact, standing for
102 min and 56 min, respectively. The global analyses with structural
impact damage showed that both towers had considerable reserve capacity.
This was confirmed by analysis of the post-impact vibration of WTC 2…
where the damaged tower oscillated at a period nearly equal to the first
mode period calculated for the undamaged structure. (NIST, 2005, p. 144;
emphasis added.)
At any given location, the duration of [air, not steel] temperatures near
1,000oC was about 15 min to 20 min. The rest of the time, the calculated
temperatures were near 500oC or below.” (NIST, 2005, p. 127, emphasis
added.)
NIST contracted with Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. to conduct tests to
obtain information on the fire endurance of trusses like those in the WTC
towers… All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for
approximately 2 hours without collapsing.” (NIST, 2005, p. 140, emphasis
added.)
However, I along with others challenge NIST’s collapse theory. NIST
maintains that all three building collapses were fire-initiated despite
the observations above, particularly the fact that fire endurance tests
with actual models did not result in collapse. In a paper by fire-
engineering experts in the UK, we find:
The basis of NIST’s collapse theory is… column behaviour in fire...
However, we believe that a considerable difference in downward displace
between the [47] core and [240] perimeter columns, much greater than the
300 mm proposed, is required for the collapse theory to hold true… [Our]
lower reliance on passive fire protection is in contrast to the NIST work
where the amount of fire protection on the truss elements is believed to
be a significant factor in defining the time to collapse… The [proposed
effect] is swamped by thermal expansion … Thermal expansion and the
response of the whole frame to this effect has NOT been described as yet
[by NIST]. (Lane and Lamont, 2005.)
I agree with these pointed objections, particularly that the “response of
the whole frame” of each building should be considered, especially heat
transport to the whole frame from localized fires, and that the “core
columns cannot pull the exterior columns in via the floor.” (Lane and
Lamont, 2005)
The computerized models of the Towers in the NIST study, which
incorporate many features of the buildings and the fires on 9-11-01, are
less than convincing. The Final report states:
The Investigation Team then defined three cases for each building by
combining the middle, less severe, and more severe values of the
influential variables. Upon a preliminary examination of the middle
cases, it became clear that the towers would likely remain standing. The
less severe cases were discarded after the aircraft impact results were
compared to observed events. The middle cases (which became Case A for
WTC 1 and Case C for WTC 2) were discarded after the structural response
analysis of major subsystems were compared to observed events. (NIST,
2005, p. 142; emphasis added.)
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 also agree with Kevin Ryan’s objections regarding the NIST study.
Kevin Ryan, at the time a manager at Underwriters Laboratories (UL),
makes a point of the non-collapse of actual WTC-based models in his
letter to Frank Gayle of NIST:
As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel
components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting
information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last
year… they suggested we all be patient and understand that UL was working
with your team… I'm aware of UL's attempts to help, including performing
tests on models of the floor assemblies. But the results of these tests…
indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal
stress caused by… burning [jet fuel, paper, etc.]. (Ryan, 2004)
That models of WTC trusses at Underwriter Laboratories (UL) subjected to
fires did NOT fail is also admitted in the final NIST report:
NIST contracted with Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. to conduct tests to
obtain information on the fire endurance of trusses like those in the WTC
towers…. All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for
approximately 2 hours without collapsing… The Investigation Team was
cautious about using these results directly in the formulation of
collapse hypotheses. In addition to the scaling issues raised by the test
results, the fires in the towers on September 11, and the resulting
exposure of the floor systems, were substantially different from the
conditions in the test furnaces. Nonetheless, the [empirical test]
results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining
a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of
time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on
September 11. (NIST, 2005, p. 141; emphasis added.)
So how does the NIST team justify the WTC collapses, when actual models
fail to collapse and there are zero examples of fire-caused high-rise
collapses? Easy, NIST concocted computer-generated hypotheticals for
very “severe” cases, called cases B and D (NIST, 2005, pp. 124-138). Of
course, the details are rather hidden to us. And they omit consideration
of the complete, rapid and symmetrical nature of the collapses.
Indeed, NIST makes the startling admission in a footnote on page 80 of
their Final Report:
The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the
instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower.
For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the "probable
collapse sequence," although it does not actually include the structural
behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were
reached...(NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 12; emphasis added.)
Again, on page 142, NIST admits that their computer simulation only
proceeds until the building is “poised for collapse”, thus ignoring any
data from that time on.
The results were a simulation of the structural deterioration of each
tower from the time of aircraft impact to the time at which the building
became unstable, i.e., was poised for collapse. ...(NIST, 2005, p. 142;
emphasis added.)
What about the subsequent complete, rapid and symmetrical collapse of the
buildings? What about the observed squibs? What about the antenna
dropping first in the North Tower? What about the molten metal observed
in the basement areas in large pools in both Towers and WTC 7 as well?
Never mind all that: NIST did not discuss at all any data after the
buildings were “poised for collapse.” Well, some of us want to look at
ALL the data, without computer simulations that are “adjusted,” perhaps
to make them fit the desired outcome.
13. Kevin Ryan, the whistleblower from Underwriters Laboratories, did
his own statistical analysis in a recent letter regarding the NIST
report, arguing that probabilities of collapse-initiation needed to be
calculated (Ryan, 2005). NIST nowhere provides such a likelihood
analysis for their non-explosive collapse model. Ryan’s analysis is that
the probability that fires and damage (the “official theory”) could cause
the Towers complete collapse is less than one in a trillion, and the
probability is much less still when the complete collapse of WTC7 is
included (Ryan, 2005). Nor does NIST (or FEMA or the 9-11 Commission)
even mention the molten metals found in the basements of all three
buildings (WTC 1, 2 and 7).
So where does that leave us? I strongly agree with Kevin Ryan,
This [“official”] story just does not add up…. That fact should be of
great concern to all Americans…. There is no question that the events of
9/11 are the emotional driving force behind the War on Terror. And the
issue of the WTC collapse is at the crux of the story of 9/11. (Ryan,
2004; emphasis added.)
14. The NIST team fairly admits that their report “does not actually
include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for
collapse initiation were reached.” (NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 1; emphasis
added.) Quite a confession, since much of the external evidence for
explosive demolition typically comes after collapse initiation, as seen
in cases of acknowledged controlled demolition. (Harris, 2000.)
The rapid fall of the Towers and WTC7 has been analyzed by several
engineers/scientists
(http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/proofs/speed.html; Griffin,
2004, chapter 2). The roof of WTC 7 (students and I are observing the
southwest corner) falls to earth in less than 6.6 seconds, while an
object dropped from the roof would hit the ground in 6.0 seconds. This
follows from t = (2H/g)1/2. Likewise, the Towers fall very rapidly to
the ground, with the upper part falling nearly as rapidly as ejected
debris which provide free-fall references
(http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/proofs/speed.html; Griffin,
2004, chapter 2). Where is the delay that must be expected due to
conservation of momentum – one of the foundational Laws of Physics? That
is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors – and intact steel
support columns – the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted
mass. If the central support columns remained standing, then the
effective resistive mass would be less, but this is not the case –
somehow the enormous support columns failed/disintegrated along with the
falling floor pans.
How do the upper floors fall so quickly, then, and still conserve
momentum in the collapsing buildings? The contradiction is ignored by
FEMA, NIST and 9-11 Commission reports where conservation of momentum and
the fall times were not analyzed. The paradox is easily resolved by the
explosive demolition hypothesis, whereby explosives quickly remove lower-
floor material including steel support columns and allow near free-fall-
speed collapses (Harris, 2000).
And these explosives also readily account for the turning of the falling
Towers to fine dust as the collapse ensues. Rather than a piling up with
shattering of concrete as we might expect from non-explosive-caused
progressive collapse (“official theory”), we find that most of the Towers
material (concrete, carpet, steel, etc.) is converted to flour-like
powder WHILE the buildings are falling. The Towers’ collapses are not a
typical implosions, but quite possibly series of “shock-and-awe”
explosions – at least the evidence points strongly in this direction.
The hypothesis ought to be explored further.
Those who wish to preserve as inviolate fundamental physical laws may
wish to take a closer look. Consider the collapse of the South WTC Tower
on 9-11:
http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/south_tower_collapse.
mpeg
Top ~ 34 floors of South Tower topple over.
What happens to the block and its angular momentum?
We observe that approximately 34 upper floors begin to rotate as a block,
to the south and east. They begin to topple over, as favored by the
Second Law of Thermodynamics. The torque due to gravity on this block is
enormous, as is its angular momentum. But then – and this I’m still
puzzling over – this block turned mostly to powder in mid-air! How can we
understand this strange behavior, without explosives? Remarkable,
amazing – and demanding scrutiny since the US government-funded reports
failed to analyze this phenomenon. But, of course, the Final NIST 9-11
report “does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower
after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached.” (NIST, 2005,
p. 80, fn. 1; emphasis added.)
Indeed, if we seek the truth of the matter, we must NOT ignore the data
to be observed during the actual collapses of the towers, as the NIST
team admits they did. But why did they do such a non-scientific
procedure as to ignore highly-relevant data? The business smacks of
political constraints on what was supposed to be an “open and thorough”
investigation. (See Mooney, 2005.)
So I with others call for an open and thorough investigation. I hope the
international community will rise to the challenge. The field is wide
open for considering the alternative hypothesis outlined here, due to its
neglect by studies funded by the US government.
15. Finally, and by way of review, we consider the variations and
inconsistencies in the fire/damaged-caused collapse models with time.
The earliest model, promoted by various media sources, was that the fires
in the towers were sufficiently hot to actually melt the steel in the
buildings, thus causing their collapse. For example, Chris Wise in a BBC
piece spouted out false notions with great gusto
“It was the fire that killed the buildings. There’s nothing on earth
that could survive those temperatures with that amount of fuel burning…
The columns would have melted, the floors would have melted and
eventually they would have collapsed one on top of the other.” (quoted
in Paul and Hoffman, 2004, p. 25)
But as we have seen from later serious studies, the jet fuel burned out
within minutes following impact. Recall the statement of expert Dr.
Gayle refuting the notion that fires in the WTC buildings were
sufficiently hot to melt the steel supports:
Your gut reaction would be the jet fuel is what made the fire so very
intense, a lot of people figured that's what melted the steel. Indeed it
did not, the steel did not melt. (Field, 2005; emphasis added)
Then we have the model of Bazant and Zhou, which requires the majority
of the 47 huge steel columns on a floor of each Tower to reach sustained
temperatures of 800oC in order to buckle (not melt) – at the same time.
But as we’ve seen, such temperatures are very difficult to reach while
burning office materials, in these connected steel structures where the
heat is wicked away by heat transport. (Paul and Hoffman, 2004, p. 26)
And then to reach the 800oC at the same time, well, no, this scenario is
far too improbable.
So that approach was abandoned by FEMA in the next effort (FEMA, 2002).
The FEMA team largely adopted the theory of Dr. Thomas Eager (Eager and
Musso, 2001), which was also presented in the NOVA presentation “Why the
Towers Fell” (NOVA, 2002). Instead of having the columns fail
simultaneously, FEMA has floor pans in the Towers warp due to fires, and
the floor connections to the vertical beams break, and these floor pans
then fall down onto the floor pans below, initiating “progressive
collapse” or pancaking of one floor pan on another. Very simple. But
not so fast – what happens to the enormous core columns to which the
floors were firmly attached? Why don’t these remain standing like a
spindle with the floor pans falling down around them, since the
connections are presumed to have broken away? This interconnected steel
core is founded on bedrock (Manhattan schist). FEMA does not totally
ignore the core:
As the floors collapsed, this left tall freestanding portions of the
exterior wall and possibly central core columns. As the unsupported
height of these freestanding exterior wall elements increased [no mention
of the huge central core anymore!], they buckled at the bolted column
splice connections and also collapsed.” (FEMA. 2002; emphasis added)
This approach finally fails to account for the observed collapse of the
47 interconnected core columns which are massive and designed to bear the
weight of the buildings, and it has the striking weakness of requiring
the connections of the floor pans to the vertical columns to break, both
at the core and at the perimeter columns, more or less simultaneously.
That didn’t work out, so NIST goes back to the drawing board.
They require that the connections of the floor pans to vertical columns
do NOT fail (contrary to FEMA’s model), but rather that the floor pans
“pull” with enormous force, sufficient to cause the perimeter columns to
significantly pull in, leading to final failure (contrary to objections
of ARUP Fire experts, discussed above). Also, NIST constructs a computer
model -- but realistic cases do not actually lead to building collapse.
So they “adjust” inputs until the model finally shows collapse initiation
for the most severe cases. The details of these “adjustments” are
hidden from us, in their computerized hypotheticals, but “the hypothesis
is saved.” NIST also has Underwriters Laboratories construct models of
the WTC trusses, but the models withstand all fires in tests and do NOT
collapse. (See above for details.)
We are left without a compelling fire/damage model, unless
one blindly accepts the NIST computer simulation while ignoring the model
fire-tests, which I’m not willing to do. And none of the “official”
models outlined above accounts for what happens to the buildings AFTER
the building is “poised for collapse” (NIST, 2005, p. 142) – namely the
rapid and symmetrical and complete (no tall-standing central core)
collapses. Reports of explosions, heard and seen, are not discussed.
And they ignore the squibs seen ejected from floors far from where the
jets hit – particularly seen in WTC 7 (where no jet hit at all).
Finally, what about that molten metal under the rubble piles of all three
WTC skyscrapers?
Remarkably, the explosive demolition hypothesis accounts for
all the available data rather easily. The core columns on lower floors
are cut using explosives, near-simultaneously, along with explosives
detonated up higher so that gravity acting on now-unsupported floors
helps bring down the buildings quickly. The collapses are thus
symmetrical, rapid and complete, with accompanying squibs -- really very
standard stuff for demolition experts. Thermite (whose end product is
molten iron) used on some of the steel beams readily accounts for the
molten metal which then pooled beneath the rubble piles.
I believe this is a straightforward hypothesis, much more probable than
the official hypothesis. It deserves scientific scrutiny, beyond what I
have been able to outline in this treatise.
CONCLUSIONS
I have called attention to glaring inadequacies in the “final” reports
funded by the US government and shown evidences for a likely alternative
hypothesis. In particular, the official theory lacks repeatability in
that no actual models or buildings (before or since 9-11-01) have been
observed to completely collapse due to the proposed fire-based
mechanisms. On the other hand, dozens of buildings have been completely
and symmetrically demolished through the use of pre-positioned
explosives. The “explosive demolition” hypothesis better satisfies tests
of repeatability and parsimony and therefore is not “junk science.” It
ought to be seriously, scientifically investigated and debated.
A truly independent, international panel would consider all viable
hypotheses, including the pre-positioned-explosives theory, guided not by
politicized notions and constraints, but rather by observations and
calculations, to reach a scientific conclusion. Questioning (preferably
under oath) of officials who approved the rapid removal and destruction
of the WTC steel beams and columns before they could be properly analyzed
– and others as outlined above – should proceed in the United States.
None of the government-funded studies have provided serious analyses of
the explosive demolition hypothesis at all. Until the above steps are
taken, the case for accusing ill-trained Muslims of causing all the
destruction on 9-11-01 is far from compelling. It just does not add up.
And that fact should be of great concern to Americans. (Ryan, 2004).
Clearly, we must find out what really caused the WTC skyscrapers to
collapse as they did.
To this end, NIST must release the 6,899 photographs and over 300 hours
of video recordings – acquired mostly by private parties – which it
admits to holding (NIST, 2005, p. 81). In particular, photos and
analyses of the molten metal (probably not molten steel) observed in the
basements of both Towers and WTC7 need to be brought forth to the
international community of scientists and engineers immediately.
Therefore, along with others, I call for the release of these and all
relevant data for scrutiny by a cross-disciplinary, international team of
researchers. The explosive-demolition hypothesis will be considered:
all options will be on the table.
AFTERWARD
In writing this paper, I call for a serious investigation of the
hypothesis that WTC7 and the Twin Towers were brought down, not just by
damage and fires, but through the carefully planned use of explosives. I
have presented ample evidence for the explosive-demolition hypothesis,
which is testable and falsifiable and yet has not been seriously
considered in any of the studies funded by the US government.
At the same time, I acknowledge that other notions have sprung up in the
near vacuum of official consideration of this very plausible hypothesis.
These notions must be subjected to careful scrutiny. I by no means
endorse all such ideas. For example, the video “In Plane Site” promotes
the theory that a “pod” holds a missile under the wing of the 757 which
hit WTC 2 (see Hoffman, 2005; Chertoff, 2005). Careful inspection of the
undercarriage of a standard 757 leads to the explanation that the so-
called “pod” was merely a reflection from the bulged undercarriage
(Hoffman, 2005; Chertoff, 2005). I find that the “pod theory” is very
weak and distracts from central issues.
Again, there is a notion that something other than Boeing jetliners hit
the WTC Towers (see Hoffman, 2005; Chertoff, 2005). Scrutiny of
photographs and videos provides compelling evidence that jets did in fact
hit these buildings (Hoffman, 2005; Chertoff, 2005). A March 2005
article in Popular Mechanics focuses on poorly-supported claims and
proceeds to ridicule the whole “9-11 truth movement” (Chertoff, 2005).
Serious replies to this article have already been written (Hoffman, 2005;
Baker, 2005; serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/reply_to_popular_mechanics.htm).
Those espousing weak or untestable claims should realize that they may be
damaging the effort to achieve a rational debate of important issues by
poisoning the process with “junk science”. Likewise, the notion that the
“explosive demolition” hypothesis should not be debated since it would
imply a “conspiracy theory” departs from good science as well as from
numerous historical precedents of empirical conspiracies (Jones, 2005).
Scientific inquiry is not or should not be dictated by politics (Mooney,
2005).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I gratefully acknowledge comments and contributions by Jim Hoffman and
Jeff Strahl, and Professors Jack Weyland, David Ray Griffin, Bryan
Peterson, Paul Zarembka and Derrick Grimmer.
REFERENCES
Baker, Jeremy (2005). “Contrary to Popular (Mechanics’) Belief,” Global
Outlook, Issue 10, p. 14 (Spring-Summer 2005).
Bazant, Z. P. and Zhou, Y. (2002). “Why Did the World Trade Center
Collapse? Simple Analysis,” J. Eng. Mech. 128:2, January 2002.
Bazant, Z. P. and Zhou, Y. (March 2002). “Addendum to ‘Why Did the World
Trade Center Collapse? Simple Analysis,” J. Eng. Mech. 128:369, March
2002.
Bollyn, Christopher (2002). “New seismic data refutes official
explanation,” American Free Press, September 3, 2002, available at:
http://www.americanfreepress.net/09_03_02/NEW_SEISMIC_/new_seismic_.html.
Chertoff, B., et al. (2005). “9/11: Debunking the Myths,” Popular
Mechanics, March 2005.
Commission (2004). The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States,
Authorized Edition, New York: W.W. Norton.
De Grand Pre, Donn (2002). “Many Questions Still Remain About Trade
Center Attack,” American Free Press, February 3, 2002, available at:
http://www.americanfreepress.net/02_03_
02/Trade_Center_Attack/trade_center_attack.html
Dwyer, James (2005). “City to Release Thousands of Oral Histories of
9/11 Today,” New York Times, August 12, 2005, with quotes of
eyewitnesses available in New York Times archives at
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812
_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_01.html and
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812
_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html.
Eager, T. W. and Musso, C. (2001). “Why Did the World Trade Center
Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation”, Journal of the
Minerals, Metals and Materials Society, 53/12:8-11 (2001).
FEMA (2005). “World Trade Center Building Performance Study,” released
May 2002, available at: http://www.fema.gov/library/wtcstudy.shtm.
Field, Andy (2004). “A Look Inside a Radical New Theory of the WTC
Collapse,” Fire/Rescue News, February 7, 2004. Available at
http://cms.firehouse.com/content/article/article.jsp?sectionId=46&id=
25807
Glanz, James (2001). “Engineers are baffled over the collapse of 7 WTC;
Steel members have been partly evaporated,” New York Times, November 29.
2001.
Glanz, James, and Lipton, Eric (2002). “Towers Withstood Impact, but Fell
to Fire, Report Says,” Fri March 29, 2002, New York Times.
Griffin, David Ray (2004). The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions
about the Bush Administration and 9/11, Northampton, Massachusetts:
Interlink.
Griffin, David Ray (2005). The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and
Distortions, Northampton, Massachusetts: Interlink.
Harris, Tom (2000). “How Building Implosions Work,” available at:
http://science.howstuffworks.com/building-implosion.htm, ca. 2000.
Hoffman, James (2005). “Popular Mechanics' Assault on 9/11 Truth,”
Global Outlook, Issue 10, p. 21 (Spring-Summer 2005).
Hufschmid, Eric (2002). Painful Questions: An Analysis of the September
11th Attack, Goleta, California: Endpoint Software.
Jones, S. E. (2005). “The Official 9-11 Story as ‘Bad Science’,” Paper
in preparation.
Lane, B., and Lamont, S. (2005). “Arup Fire’s presentation regarding
tall buildings and the events of 9/11,” ARUP Fire, April 2005. Available
at: http://www.arup.com/DOWNLOADBANK/download353.pdf
Manning, William (2002). “Selling out the investigation,” Editorial,
Fire Engineering, January 2002
Mooney, Chris (2005). The Republican War on Science, New York, NY:
Basic Books.
NIST (2005). http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1Draft.pdf (“Final
Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the
World Trade Center Towers (Draft)”), Sept.-Oct. 2005.
NISTb (2005). http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%
20Collapse%20Final.pdf%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf (Part IIC – WTC
7 Collapse, preliminary), 2005.
NOVA (2002). "Why the Towers Fell," originally broadcast Tuesday, April
30, 2002; see http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/.
Paul, Don, and Hoffman, Jim (2004). Waking Up From Our Nightmare : The
9/11/01 Crimes in New York City, San Francisco:
Irresistible/Revolutionary.
Penn Arts and Sciences (2002). Penn Arts and Sciences, summer 2002 ,
available at
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/sasalum/newsltr/summer2002/k911.html.
Risen, James (2001). “Secretive CIA Site in New York Was Destroyed on
Sept. 11,” New York Times, November 4, 2001.
Ryan, Kevin (2004). Letter to Frank Gayle, available at
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041112144051451
Ryan, Kevin (2005). “A Call for a Personal Decision,” Global Outlook,
Issue 10, p. 96 (Spring-Summer 2005).
Williams, James (2001). “WTC a structural success,” SEAU NEWS; The
Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah, October 2001,
p. 1,3.
Fair Use Notice
This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making
such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of
criminal justice, human rights, political, economic, democratic,
scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a
'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section
107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section
107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who
have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for
research and educational purposes. For more information see:
www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted
material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair
use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
--
Thanks for Nothing, Amerikkka
Thundercat Stevens
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
It's always nice when you kooks have no argument, and are reduced to
absurdisms.
Thundercat Stevens
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Please tell us how avalanches, boats and trains matter in the context of
this discussion?
Do they also make resistance magically disappear?
Thundercat Stevens
@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Then you're not looking very hard.
> What does the National
> Academy of Sciences say? Got a quote? Incredulity isn't
> argument. It is simply appealing to your own ignorance.
How does NAS matter?
>> The rest of you have gibberish.
>
> When will you start backing up all these assertions and
> accusations of yours?
When will any of you cowards address this?
DRAFT 2.4
By Steven E. Jones
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84604
ABSTRACT
http://st12.startlogic.com/
~xenonpup/Flashes/squibs_along_southwest_corner.htm
What did you observe?
CONCLUSIONS
AFTERWARD
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
REFERENCES
Fair Use Notice
Thundercat Stevens
@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
> EagleEye wrote:
>> Regarding the Pentagon Strike, this is most definitely well worth
>> listing to. the whole thing.
>>
>> Aeronautical engineer on Pentagon strike
>>
>> Tue., November 22, 2005
>>
>> Nila Sagadevan
>>
>> http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Greg/0511/20051 122_Tue_Greg.m3u
>
> Do you have a text document with a verifiable reference?
Do you have a brain in your head?
> BTW do you know what the ad verecundiam fallacy is? i
Smells like sophistry.
Thundercat Stevens
news:Xns9718745ACA68A...@213.123.26.234:
> Thundercat Stevens <KILLFIL...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> I love watching you flakes squirm.
>
> I'm sure you do. It's much simpler for you than having to come up
> with a half-convincing bit of 'evidence', isn't it?
I guess as long as you're too pussy to address this paper, point by
point, directly...
DRAFT 2.4
By Steven E. Jones
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84604
ABSTRACT
http://st12.startlogic.com/
~xenonpup/Flashes/squibs_along_southwest_corner.htm
What did you observe?
CONCLUSIONS
AFTERWARD
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
REFERENCES
Fair Use Notice
Thundercat Stevens
news:Xns971876D81886C...@213.123.26.234:
> Thundercat Stevens <KILLFIL...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> So, the 9/11 conspiracy people have science on their side. The rest
>> of you have gibberish.
>
> Science? I've seen rubbish about missile pods based on a shadow on a
> photograph. I've seen rubbish about demolition charges - required
> despite the aforementioned missiles. I've seen utter nonsense about
> KC-767s full of fuel being painted up to look like airliners and
> substituted for the real ones which were 'disappeared' - oh, but they
> 'forgot' to paint fake windows on the sides of the aircraft. And
> incidentally, burning fuel couldn't POSSIBLY have caused the damage -
> unless it was fuel from a secret fuel tanker, of course. I've seen
> baseless claims about how the towers 'couldn't possibly' have fallen
> into their own footprints, so it must have been a controlled
> demolition. I've seen an insistence that WTC7 couldn't POSSIBLY have
> been damaged by debris and concussion of two 400-metre towers
> collapsing *right next to it*. That those towers couldn't POSSIBLY
> have collapsed in the time it apparently took (despite disappearing
> into dust clouds halfway down) - oh, but they could if it was a
> controlled demolition. I've seen PCTs repeatedly posting words
> similar to "I've just noticed", and adding an extra bit of nonsense
> they've invented from some image or piece of footage. And so on.
So you're big on nutty kook stuff, and weak on actual science, eh?
> If you're so big on science, then by all means, present some. I
> haven't seen any yet.
And you'll ignore it further?
> The sad part is, as I've often said, that people like you provide an
> effective smokescreen for the administration, in that those who
> question government responses to intelligence and to the atrocity
> itself can be lumped in with you as nutters. In effect, you're far
> more the shill than those who challenge you. You just don't realise
> it.
Keep squirming...
Thundercat Stevens
news:Xns9718778DB7B14...@213.123.26.234:
> Thundercat Stevens <KILLFIL...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> It took several minutes for the support girders to soften and weaken
>>> from the burning jet fuel.
>>>
>>> Bob Kolker
>>
>> Bob, you make no sense whatsoever.
>
>
> And that's 'science' is it? "You make no sense." That's a refutation?
> WHY does he make no sense? Cite your references. Explain your
> reasonining.
He's saying the ten minutes of jet fuel weakened the entire building's
supports, and then it collapsed an hour later?
What part of it makes sense, to you?
Thundercat Stevens
news:Xns97187826D8042...@213.123.26.234:
> Thundercat Stevens <KILLFIL...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> [astounded emoticon here] Somebody who has no common sense.
>>> Do you also believe that an avalanche can be stopped?
>>> Have you ever driven a boat? Have you ever wondered why
>>> an automobile doesn't stop a train immediately?
>>>
>>> /BAH
>>
>> And you think your simple-minded reasoning has any bearing on this
>> discussion?
>
> Do you think that sort of thing's going to fool anyone?
The boat, the avalanche, or the train?
Thundercat Stevens
news:Xns971879105F9B7...@213.123.26.234:
> Thundercat Stevens <KILLFIL...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> And of course we would have to ignore the potential energy contained
>>> in the many tons of the upper floors as they dropped. Even a drop of
>>> an inch would be quite destructive on the floors below.
>>
>> And would add time to the collapse...
>>
>> Doh!
>
> Yes, but you still haven't provided data on exactly how long the
> collapse took. All you've presented so far - or at least all I've
> seen - has been the opinion of PCTs clutching stopwatches and trying
> to see through a thick cloud of dust.
>
> The simple fact the entire world watched that part of the collapse
> that was visible, and SAW each floor collapsing you dismiss as
> irrelevant.
>
> Finally, and most critically with relation to your claims, you haven't
> yet explained how a collapse that you deem a physical impossibility
> can have happened as a result of the detonation of explosives.
Still can't get your head around the notion of resistance, can you?
Thundercat Stevens
news:Xns97187A9C768CA...@213.123.26.234:
> Thundercat Stevens <KILLFIL...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> No-one has yet satisfactorily explained how it couldn't.
>>
>> It's called 'resistance'.
>
> Resistance which for some reason would not be a factor in a controlled
> demolition?
Resistance is what is removed with explosives. Do try and follow along.
>>> It's just
>>> one more assertion we have to accept because the conspiracy types say
>>> it's so.
>>
>> So, you have a paper ready, refuting the work done by the BYU physics
>> professor?
>>
>> No?
>
> Your 'paper' makes claims, but does not answer questions. Just like
> PCTs in general.
So, you can't refute a word of it, in other words?
What 'claims' does it make? Are any of them incorrect?
>> How long do you maintain it took to collapse?
>
> That is the point. I maintain that the buildings disappeared into
their
> own dust clouds halfway down. And unlike PCTs, I do not have x-ray
> vision. Nor, I would wager, do NIST, FEMA, etc. It is YOUR claim that
> the towers went from standing to flat in 10 seconds, and it is YOUR
> claim that it couldn't possibly have happened.
And you're too dim to extrapolate the second half of the collapse based
on the first? Did the resistance change halfway down?
And WTC 7 was engulfed in a cloud of dust?
> However the fact remains that, as I've said elsewhere, the entire world
> watched those towers collapse. We saw the unsupported upper portions
> crush the weakened floors below, which in turn crushed the weakened
> floors below them. We watched this happen - and yet you argue it
cannot
> have happened.
I'm arguing that the building didn't collapse?
> There is no reason to believe that once the towers DID
> fall out of sight, they were not descending a hell of a lot faster - in
> accordance with physics, considering the domino effect of the stress
> wave which by then must have been reverberating up and down what was
> left of the structure.
So, no resistance at all, then?
> Yet you say it cannot possibly have happened - Unless it was all set
off
> by demo charges, of course. In which case physics can take a running
> jump, apparently.
Why are you scared to address the physics professor's paper directly?
>> You're playing with a half a deck, guy.
>
> Yes indeed. I'm afraid my 'Gullible Fruitcake Arcana' got lost along
> the way somewhere.
Perhaps it's up your ass?
Thundercat Stevens
@s766.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com:
Why don't you get back to the WTC collapses? Your train, boat, avalanche
distraction is worthless, at best.
Thundercat Stevens
news:Xns9718B25232CA4...@213.123.26.234:
> Thundercat Stevens <KILLFIL...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> The views in this paper are the sole responsibility of the author (not
>> Brigham Young University).
>
> Noted. And noteworthy.
>
>
>> DRAFT 2.4
>
> Also noted.
>
>
>> Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?
>
> Difficult one to start with, then.
>
>
>> Let’s start with the collapse of the 47-story WTC 7, which was never
>> hit by a jet. I ask you to take a minute to look at the collapse of
>> this building as a basis for discussion.
>
> Done.
>
>
>> Now that you have seen the still photographs, it is important to the
>> discussion which follows for you to observe video clips of the
>> collapse of this building, so go to:
>>
>> http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html
>
> A know conspiracy site. Nevertheless: done.
A video is a video, is it not?
>> What did you observe?
>>
>> Symmetry: did the building collapse straight down (nearly
>> symmetrically) – or did it topple over?
>
> Straight down. Really the only way it could have fallen.
Except for the top, which was tilting hard to one side, eh?
>> Speed: How fast did the building fall? (Students and I measure less
>> than 6.6 seconds; time it!)
>
> My timings would be imprecise based on this footage.
So, you can't rufute the timing, but offer none of your own observations?
>> Smoke/debris-jets: Did you observe puffs of smoke/debris coming out
>> of the building? Please note for yourself the sequence and fast
>> timing of observed puffs or “squibs.”
>
> Please note the predecided assertion that these are 'squibs'.
And what do you maintain these puffs are?
> A rational consideration of these puffs of smoke would consider the
> probability that the collapse was not as perfectly symmetrical as the
> PCTs make out, and that what is seen here is the result of structural
> stress fractures as the walls shear.
So you're just making things up to account for them? They appeared well
below the collapse.
> As always with PCT 'evidence', the footage is too short and too blurred
> to provide conclusive information.
Of course. But they are good enough to support the government's theory,
somehow?
>> 1. As you observed, WTC 7 collapsed rapidly and symmetrically -- even
>> though fires were randomly scattered in the building. WTC 7 fell
>> Concluding remarks in the FEMA report on the WTC 7 collapse lend
>> support to my arguments:
>>
>> The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building
>> to collapse [“official theory”] remain unknown at this time. Although
>> the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential
>> energy, the best hypothesis [fire/damage-caused collapse] has only a
>> low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and
>> analyses are needed to resolve this issue. (FEMA, 2002, chapter 5;
>> emphasis added.)
>
> So in other words, with all the data to hand they can't answer all the
> questions. With a couple of conspiracy sites and some 'enhanced'
> images, you know all there is to know.
Their own theory has a "low probability of occurance". Do you really
think they'd say "explosives"?
Is "ad hominem" a strong argument, where you come from?
>> 2. A New York Times article entitled “Engineers are baffled over the
>> collapse of 7 WTC; Steel members have been partly evaporated,”
>> provides relevant data.
>>
>> Experts said no building like it [WTC7], a modern, steel-reinforced
>> high- rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire.
>> (Glanz, 2001; emphasis added.)
>
> Had any building like it just had two 400-metre-tall tower blocks
> collapse right next to it? I wonder...
It wasn't "right next to". Are you lying, or just stupid?
It WAS right next to WTC 6. Which didn't collapse.
Doh!
>> Engineers have been trying to figure out exactly what happened
>
> But why? All they need do is ask you. You can already answer all
their
> questions.
Why are you referring to me as if I was the author of the paper?
You haven't answered any questions thus far, have you?
>> The observed “partly evaporated” steel members is particularly
>> upsetting to the official theory, since fires involving paper, office
>> materials, even diesel fuel, cannot generate temperatures anywhere
>> near the 5,000+ oF needed to “evaporate” steel.
>
> Which contradicts directly the PCT notion that the 'airliners' were
> actually KC-767s full of fuel. Make your collective minds up.
Were they "full of fuel"? Cite?
How did the fuel "evaporate" steel, again?
>> On the other hand, falling buildings (absent explosives) have
>> insufficient directed energy to result in melting of large quantities
>> of metal.
>
> No doubt. But I note the careful omission of the full circumstances
> here.
Such as?
>> Your gut reaction would be the jet fuel is what made the fire so very
>> intense, a lot of people figured that's what melted the steel. Indeed
>> it did not, the steel did not melt.
>
> Ah? So your previous claims are irrelevant, since you now argue that
> the molten metal found was NOT the steel supports you claim could not
> have been melted by the fires.
You're not even sure whom you're talking to...
Me, or the author?
And what exactly are you trying to say, anyway?
>> 4. Horizontal puffs of smoke and debris are observed emerging from
>> WTC-7 on upper floors, in regular sequence, just as the building
>> starts to collapse. (The reader may wish to view the close-up video
>> clip again.) The upper floors have not moved relative to one another
>> yet, as one can verify from the videos.
>
> One can in fact verify relatively little from the videos since, as
> mentioned, they are consistently of extremely poor quality.
Weasel words...
> However, it IS worth pointing out that a demo team wishing to bring
down
> a building symmetrically would set charges all around the building.
Why
> then did charges only go off up one side?
Is that what happened?
Says who?
>> However, the presence of such “squibs” proceeding up the side
>
> Again, the implied conclusion that these ARE squibs. Nothing like an
> objective summary, is there? Or should I say "is it"?
And what are you saying these mysterious puffs are, again?
>> The C.I.A.'s undercover New York station was in the 47-story building
>> at 7 World Trade Center… All of the agency's employees at the site
>> were safely evacuated… The intelligence agency's employees were able
>> to watch from their office windows while the twin towers burned just
>> before they evacuated their own building. (Risen, 2001)
>
> Ah - so it was all a cunning plan to dispose of a single CIA office?
What a foolish and simple-minded thought. Your claim, not his or mine...
>> 5. The official FEMA 9-11 report admits a striking anomaly regarding
>> the North Tower collapse:
>>
>> Review of videotape recordings of the collapse taken from various
>> angles indicates that the transmission tower on top of the structure
>> began to move downward and laterally slightly before movement was
>> evident at the exterior wall. This suggests that collapse began with
>> one or more failures in the central core area of the building. (FEMA,
>> 2002, chapter 2; emphasis added.)
>
> And why is that an anomaly? Even a brief perusal of the NIST stress
> analyses shows the walls sagged inwards prior to the collapse, which is
> consistent with the idea that the central core of the building had
> weakened already.
You don't seem to be very familiar with the methodology NIST used in
tweaking their data to match their theory.
>> But how? What caused the 47 enormous steel core columns of this
>> building (which supported the antenna) to give way nearly
>> simultaneously?
>
> Intense heat and concussive shock? Obviously a complete impossibility.
What intense heat, you gimp?
It wasn't there in WTC 1. According to NIST.
>> Could random fires burning office materials in the building account
>> for a near-simultaneous “pulling” of these core supports? Certainly
>> such an event would have exceedingly low probability.
>
> And why's that? Can we have a validation of this assertion, or are we
> simply expected to accept it blindly?
>
>
> Again, use of
>> pre- positioned explosives to cut the core columns first (standard
>> demolition practice) provides a simple yet elegant explanation for the
>> observation, satisfying the “Occam’s razor” test (Jones, 2005).
>
> Ah - Occam's Famous Razor, yes...
>
> 1. Terrorists flew hijacked airliners into two buildings, which then
> collapsed.
Although there is no evidence to support this conclusion...
> 2. The US Government, keen to manufacture a reason to initiate
> aggressive operations in the Middle East, executed a top-secret plan to
> wire demolition charges around and through three tower blocks and set
> them off at the same time that Government agents impacted specially-
> manufactured KC-767 tankers painted up as airliners, fitted with covert
> missile launch tubes and filled with jet fuel, into the towers, and
have
Covert missile launch tubes?
Where did you pull that one out of your ass?
> since then been co-ordinating the largest conspiracy the world has ever
> seen, involving CIA, FBI, NIST, FEMA, WTC security and workers, Boeing
> executive and engineering and manufacturing staff, the army and the air
> force, New York citizens, fire and medical services and police, and me.
More unsupported silliness from you.
> I don't really think this guy has any justification for invoking
Occam's
> Razor.
And no one has explained why the three towers collapsed.
Have they?
>> 6. Multiple loud explosions in rapid sequence were heard and reported
>> by numerous observers in and near the WTC Towers, consistent with
>> explosive demolition. Firemen and others described flashes and
>> explosions in upper floors near where the plane entered
>
> Do you know, I BET they did. Astonishing to think that firemen (and
> others) in a building that had just had large aircraft run into it at
> full throttle would see flashes and explosions... Surely that MUST be
> evidence of a controlled demolition.
Are you saying it is evidence of no controlled demolition?
> Frankly I can't be bothered to go through 1,500 lines of tired
> gobbledegook like this 'paper'.
Of course you can't. Peer-reviewed, supported by more than 60 academics.
It must be nonsense. Some guy on Usenet said so.
> I said right at the beginning that I'd
> long ago drawn the conclusion that there was no point in arguing with
> PCTs - it's the same as trying to argue with any religious fanatic. M.
> Meyssan has a great deal to answer for.
Here's another thing you can't disprove:
http://www.bedoper.com/pentagon/asce
Nice try at another ad hom, by the way.
> But the refutations are all out there for those willing to look. But
by
> definition a PCT isn't going to be willing to look, and even if somehow
> forced, would simply ascribe the whole thing to their beloved shills.
And where are these refutations, again?
> The problem is that using reason to persuade PCTs is a little like
using
> cotton wool to fight a fire: it just simply isn't the right tool for
the
> job. The fact that there is no right tool for this particular job is
> just unfortunate.
>
> However, I maintain that if anyone is assisting the Government in
> distracting people from their abject incompetence in dealing with the
> entire incident, it is the PCTs.
Of course.
Thundercat Stevens
news:Xns9718B27AFD76E...@213.123.26.234:
> Thundercat Stevens <KILLFIL...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>> And you think your simple-minded reasoning has any bearing on this
>>>> discussion?
>>>
>>> Do you think that sort of thing's going to fool anyone?
>>
>> The boat, the avalanche, or the train?
>
> Do you think that responding in this way is going to divert anyone
> from the fact that you haven't addressed the point made?
And what ill-defined point is that, again?
; )
Thundercat Stevens
news:Xns9718B2A16F42D...@213.123.26.234:
> Thundercat Stevens <KILLFIL...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Still can't get your head around the notion of resistance, can you?
>
> And you, apparently, still can't get your head around providing an
> honest answer to an honest question.
>
What question was that?
Thundercat Stevens
news:Xns9718B4005E16D...@213.123.26.234:
> Thundercat Stevens <KILLFIL...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> Resistance which for some reason would not be a factor in a
>>> controlled demolition?
>>
>> Resistance is what is removed with explosives. Do try and follow
>> along.
>
> Go on: Explain the science for us shills.
Explain the science of controlled demolition?
Are you saying there is no such thing?
>> So, you can't refute a word of it, in other words?
>>
>> What 'claims' does it make? Are any of them incorrect?
>
> See my response to your posting of it.
>
> Flashes and explosions, deary me...
Yes. Flashes and explosions are evidence of a lack of explosives, eh?
>> And you're too dim to extrapolate the second half of the collapse
>> based on the first? Did the resistance change halfway down?
>
> I don't know. Did it? Is it 'too dim' to assume that the second half
> of the collapse was the same as the first? Or is it more dim to make
> assumptions based on something you can't see? You're the one waving
> 'resistance' around here. I'm asking you: how can you know how long it
> took the collapse to complete, if you cannot see through the dust
> clouds?
The dust clouds that didn't surround WTC 7?
What caused those clouds, by the way?
; )
Their very existence, barring the use of explosives, would constitute
evidence of resistance. Which clearly wasn't present, given the rate at
which the towers fell.
> This is, of course, before we address the fact that, accepting your
> argument, the entire TV-watching world watched the impossible happen
> right before its eyes.
Circular logic, eh?
>> And WTC 7 was engulfed in a cloud of dust?
>
> Kindly put that goalpost back where you found it. On this point we are
> discussing WTC1 and 2. WTC7 is addressed in your famous paper.
Painted yourself into a corner, eh?
; )
Spankard.
>> I'm arguing that the building didn't collapse?
>
> You're arguing that it didn't collapse in a way that you've decided is
> impossible, despite the fact that much of the process was obscured and
> so we are unable to see exactly how it collapsed. And that's before we
> even consider whether your premises and your conclusion are correct.
We should all take your word for it. Not believe our own eyes.
Nice.
>>> There is no reason to believe that once the towers DID
>>> fall out of sight, they were not descending a hell of a lot faster -
>>> in accordance with physics, considering the domino effect of the
>>> stress wave which by then must have been reverberating up and down
>>> what was left of the structure.
>>
>> So, no resistance at all, then?
>
> You're the one arguing about resistance. I'm the one pointing out that
> you're basing claims on premises that you cannot verify.
Measure the rates of collapse, dickhead.
Prove him wrong.
; )
>> Why are you scared to address the physics professor's paper directly?
>
> See my response to your posting of it.
>
> Occam's Razor, indeed...
Dullard.
If NIST admits their theory has a low probability of being correct, then
it's not much of a theory, is it?
>>>> You're playing with a half a deck, guy.
>>>
>>> Yes indeed. I'm afraid my 'Gullible Fruitcake Arcana' got lost along
>>> the way somewhere.
>>
>> Perhaps it's up your ass?
>
> Perhaps so. Is that in your paper? Or is that a demonstration of how
> you mind REALLY works?
You still think it's my paper, you raging moron.
Thundercat Stevens
news:Xns9718B41BD112Z...@213.123.26.234:
> Thundercat Stevens <KILLFIL...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> When will any of you cowards address this?
>
> How many of us cowards would you like to have address it?
>
> And how many times do you think you need to post it?
>
It only took you, what, a week to begin to address it?
And 10 minutes to dismiss it out of hand?
; )
Thundercat Stevens
news:Xns9718B4678A34A...@213.123.26.234:
> Thundercat Stevens <KILLFIL...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> So you're big on nutty kook stuff
>
> I distrust it thoroughly.
Then why are you promoting "missiles", etc? They have no place in this
discussion
>>> If you're so big on science, then by all means, present some. I
>>> haven't seen any yet.
>>
>> And you'll ignore it further?
>
> See my response to your first posting of it.
I did. I'm less than impressed.
Thundercat Stevens
news:Xns9718B4AF0F7C2...@213.123.26.234:
> Thundercat Stevens <KILLFIL...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> BTW do you know what the ad verecundiam fallacy is? i
>>
>> Smells like sophistry.
>
> I take it that's a "no", is it? You can look it up. Here:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_verecundiam
>
It is not an "argument from authority", it is a scientific paper, supported
by more than 60 academics in various related fields. Soon to be published
for international peer review.
Dumbass.
Are you one of those "intelligent design" people?
; )
Thundercat Stevens
news:Xns9718B5BE31784...@213.123.26.234:
> Thundercat Stevens <KILLFIL...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> It took several minutes for the support girders to soften and
>>>>> weaken from the burning jet fuel.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bob Kolker
>>>>
>>>> Bob, you make no sense whatsoever.
>>>
>>>
>>> And that's 'science' is it? "You make no sense." That's a
>>> refutation? WHY does he make no sense? Cite your references.
>>> Explain your reasonining.
>>
>> He's saying the ten minutes of jet fuel weakened the entire
>> building's supports, and then it collapsed an hour later?
>>
>> What part of it makes sense, to you?
>
> You know when people used to make swords for warriors, right, they
> couldn't just heat up the metal, hammer it into shape, let it cool,
> and then send somebody into battle with it. It'd snap like a twig the
> first time the user blocked a strike with it. Why? Because the heat
> weakened the metal.
But that method, folding the metal over 1000s of times, created the
katana swords that were the strongest ever devised.
What's your point, again?
> In this case, it doesn't MATTER how long the fire burned for.
Oh, I see.
; )
> What
> matters is how much heat the supports endured in that time.
And how much heat was that?
; )
According to NIST, in the center of WTC 1, that heat was practically not
there at all.
DOH!
> If it was
> enough to weaken them then the structural integrity of the building
> would be compromised. Just because a support is strong enough to hold
> something at one moment does not mean it's going to hold it
> indefinitely.
If, if, if, eh?
You're saying the core of WTC 1 was compromised severely by heat. NIST
says you're wrong.
You want it both ways, don't you?
> Why am I still responding to this? You're never going to think about
> this objectively for one moment, much less come to see reason...
You really suck at this.
Thundercat Stevens
news:Xns9718B623DAA1B...@213.123.26.234:
> Thundercat Stevens <KILLFIL...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> Perhaps you are
>>> unaware of what a theory is.
>>
>> Perhaps you have some proof that explosive were not used on 9/11?
>
> Ah! Now we get to it. Suddenly it becomes OUR responsibility to prove
> that explosives WEREN'T used.
If you can. You can't, however.
> I suppose I shouldn't be surprised to see you fall back to this standard-
> issue fundamentalist/PCT tactic.
Best evidence indicates explosives were used.
You've yet to effectively address that argument.
Vandar
> Midjis <midwi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in
> news:Xns9718B4AF0F7C2...@213.123.26.234:
>
>
>>Thundercat Stevens <KILLFIL...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>BTW do you know what the ad verecundiam fallacy is? i
>>>
>>>Smells like sophistry.
>>
>>I take it that's a "no", is it? You can look it up. Here:
>>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_verecundiam
>>
>
>
> It is not an "argument from authority", it is a scientific paper, supported
> by more than 60 academics in various related fields.
And you believe him because...
> Soon to be published
> for international peer review.
That should be fun.
> Dumbass.
>
> Are you one of those "intelligent design" people?
Your little professor is.
http://www.physics.byu.edu/faculty/jones/rel491/handstext%20and%20figures.htm
Vandar
> Midjis <midwi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in
> news:Xns9718B623DAA1B...@213.123.26.234:
>
>
>>Thundercat Stevens <KILLFIL...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Perhaps you are
>>>>unaware of what a theory is.
>>>
>>>
>>>Perhaps you have some proof that explosive were not used on 9/11?
>>
>>Ah! Now we get to it. Suddenly it becomes OUR responsibility to prove
>>that explosives WEREN'T used.
>
>
> If you can. You can't, however.
Can you prove that it wasn't invisible unicorns that knocked the
buildings down?
Can you prove they weren't crushed under the weight of a supermassive
ethereal eggplant?
What about space/time travellers from the Neptar system on a mission for
The Great and Mighty Ghyrikn? Can you prove they didn't do it?
>>I suppose I shouldn't be surprised to see you fall back to this standard-
>>issue fundamentalist/PCT tactic.
>
>
> Best evidence indicates explosives were used.
Nope. THE evidence proves no explosives were used.
> You've yet to effectively address that argument.
You have yet to effectively support it.
Vandar
> It WAS right next to WTC 6. Which didn't collapse.
WTC 6 was crushed. It was listed as destroyed in the collapse.
Jay
"Vandar" <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:0Dohf.120$OO6...@news01.roc.ny...
Interesting Link. Thanks.
So are you saying that the son of god could not have visited the America's?
If so PROVE IT !
Happy Turkey Day !!
Goodness Godless
Goto Giggle!
"Thundercat Stevens" <KILLFIL...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9718676B8...@207.14.113.17...
> jfa...@earthlink.net wrote in news:1132814712.966759.122320
> @f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>
>>
>> somebigguy wrote:
>>> Shifting the burden of proof?
>>
>> Yes, shifting the burden of proof. You think it is up
>> to the skeptics of your alternative view to convince
>> you. Sorry, you are the one challenging the status
>> quo. That means you got the burden of proof.
>>
>>> Like I said, the government does not get
>>> a free pass.
>>
>> Like _you_ said? Well, I didn't know _you_ said it. In
>> that case I'm sure the government will give this
>> proclamation of yours all the attention it merits.
>>
>>> Collapses like we saw on 9/11 have never occurred in
>>> history for any reason other than explosives and demolition.
>>
>> Or jets flying into them. You forgot about that.
>
> Exactly like WTC 7 didn't have?
>
>
>>> History
>>> does not support the official story.
>>
>> Sez you. Incredulity isn't an argument. Saying "I don't
>> see how..." is just appealing to your lack of
>> understanding.
>>
>>> The government does not get a free pass,
>>
>> Say it one more time and it becomes true.
>>
>>> they can't just say something
>>> and make it true,
>>
>> But you can, huh.
>>
>>> they have a burden of proof that such a collapse is
>>> possible.
>>
>> No, they have the status quo, the default. If you do
>> nothing that is how it will remain. Thus, if you
>> want change you have the burden of proof, the
>> burden of persuasion. If you do not wish to support
>> that burden, fine. Nothing will change. They don't
>> have to prove anything to you.
>>
>> You are the one making the extraordinary claim.
>>
>>>Until then, it is just a theory, and you must admit that.
>>
>> That you use the phrase "just a theory" shows you don't
>> know what a theory is.
>>
>> "'Science' is the systematic study of the natural (observable)
>> world. The Scientific Method involves collection of data
>> by observation and experiment, and the formulation and
>> testing of explanations (hypotheses) against these same
>> data. When a collection of hypotheses is both explanatory
>> and validated by the available data, it is elevated to the
>> status of 'theory.'"
>>
>> "Theory" doesn't mean "hunch," or "educated guess." Not
>> in science it doesn't.
>>
>> You may wish to reflect on the fact that you didn't
>> know this.
>
> I love the people who wave "science" around, and ignore this:
>
>
>
>
> The views in this paper are the sole responsibility of the author (not
> Brigham Young University).
>
>
>
> DRAFT 2.4
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?
>
>
>
> By Steven E. Jones
>
> Department of Physics and Astronomy
>
> Brigham Young University
>
> Provo, UT 84604
>
>
>
>
>
> ABSTRACT
>
>
>
> In writing this paper, I call for a serious investigation of the
> hypothesis that WTC 7 and the Twin Towers were brought down, not just by
> damage and fires, but through the use of pre-positioned explosives. I
> consider the official FEMA, NIST, and 9-11 Commission reports that fires
> plus damage alone caused complete collapses of all three buildings. And
> I present evidence for the explosive-demolition hypothesis, which is
> suggested by the available data, testable and falsifiable, and yet has
> not been analyzed in any of the reports funded by the US government.
>
>
>
>
>
> Let's start with the collapse of the 47-story WTC 7, which was never hit
> by a jet. I ask you to take a minute to look at the collapse of this
> building as a basis for discussion.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> WTC 7: 47 - Story, steel-frame building..
>
>
>
>
> WTC 7 on afternoon of 9-11-01. WTC 7 is the tall
>
> sky-scraper in the back-ground, right. Seen from WTC 1 area.
>
>
>
>
>
> WTC 7 collapsed completely, onto its own footprint
>
>
>
>
>
> Now that you have seen the still photographs, it is important to the
> discussion which follows for you to observe video clips of the collapse
> of this building, so go to:
>
>
>
> http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html Click on the three
> photos at the top of this web-site page in order to see the videos of the
> collapse of WTC 7. It helps to have sound.
>
>
>
> Then consider a video close-up of the same building (SW corner) as its
> demise begins:
>
> http://st12.startlogic.com/
> ~xenonpup/Flashes/squibs_along_southwest_corner.htm
>
>
>
> What did you observe?
>
> Symmetry: did the building collapse straight down (nearly symmetrically)
> - or did it topple over?
>
> Speed: How fast did the building fall? (Students and I measure less
> than 6.6 seconds; time it!)
>
> Smoke/debris-jets: Did you observe puffs of smoke/debris coming out of
> the building? Please note for yourself the sequence and fast timing of
> observed puffs or "squibs." Note that reference to web pages is used in
> this paper due largely to the importance of viewing motion picture clips,
> thus enhancing consideration of the laws of motion and physics generally.
> High-quality photographs showing details of the collapses of WTC 7 and
> the WTC Towers can be found in books (Hufschmid, 2002; Paul and Hoffman,
> 2004), magazines (Hoffman, 2005; Baker, 2005) and at
> http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/collapses.html.
>
>
>
> My reasons for advancing the explosive-demolition hypothesis while
> challenging the "official" fire-caused collapse hypothesis are these:
>
>
>
> 1. As you observed, WTC 7 collapsed rapidly and symmetrically -- even
> though fires were randomly scattered in the building. WTC 7 fell about
> seven hours after the Towers collapsed, even though no major persistent
> fires were visible. There were twenty-four huge steel support columns
> inside WTC 7 as well as huge trusses, arranged asymmetrically, along with
> approximately 57 perimeter columns. (FEMA, 2002, chapter 5.) A
> symmetrical collapse, as observed, evidently requires the simultaneous
> "pulling" of most or all of the support columns. The Second Law of
> Thermodynamics implies that the likelihood of complete and symmetrical
> collapse due to random fires as in the "official" theory is small, since
> asymmetrical failure is so much more likely. On the other hand, a major
> goal of controlled demolition using explosives is the complete and
> symmetrical collapse of buildings.
>
>
>
> Concluding remarks in the FEMA report on the WTC 7 collapse lend support
> to my arguments:
>
>
>
> The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to
> collapse ["official theory"] remain unknown at this time. Although the
> total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the
> best hypothesis [fire/damage-caused collapse] has only a low probability
> of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed
> to resolve this issue. (FEMA, 2002, chapter 5; emphasis added.)
>
>
>
> That is precisely my point: further investigation and analyses are
> needed, including consideration of the controlled-demolition hypothesis
> which is neglected in all of the government reports (FEMA, NIST and 9-11
> Commission reports). Note that the 9-11 Commission report does not even
> mention the collapse of WTC 7 on 9-11-01. (Commission, 2004) This is a
> striking omission of data highly relevant to the question of what really
> happened on 9-11.
>
>
>
> 2. A New York Times article entitled "Engineers are baffled over the
> collapse of 7 WTC; Steel members have been partly evaporated," provides
> relevant data.
>
> Experts said no building like it [WTC7], a modern, steel-reinforced high-
> rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire. (Glanz, 2001;
> emphasis added.)
>
> That's correct - no such steel-beam building had ever before (or since)
> completely collapsed due to fires! However, such complete, symmetrical
> collapses in steel-frame buildings have indeed occurred many times before
> -- all of them due to pre-positioned explosives in a procedure called
> "implosion" or controlled demolition. What a surprise, then, for such an
> occurrence in downtown Manhattan- three skyscrapers completely collapsed
> on the same day, September 11, 2001.
>
>
>
> Engineers have been trying to figure out exactly what happened and
> whether they should be worried about other buildings like it around the
> country. Most of the other buildings in the [area] stood despite
> suffering damage of all kinds, including fire... 'Fire and the structural
> damage .would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to
> have been partly evaporated', Dr. [Jonathan] Barnett said. (Glanz, 2001;
> emphasis added.)
>
>
>
> The observed "partly evaporated" steel members is particularly upsetting
> to the official theory, since fires involving paper, office materials,
> even diesel fuel, cannot generate temperatures anywhere near the 5,000+
> oF needed to "evaporate" steel. However, thermite, RDX and other
> commonly-used explosives can readily slice through steel (thus cutting
> the support columns simultaneously in an explosive demolition) and reach
> the required temperatures. (It is possible that some other chemical
> reactions were involved which might proceed at lesser temperatures.)
> This mystery needs to be explored - but is not mentioned in the
> "official" 9-11 Commission or NIST reports.
>
>
>
> 3. There are several published observations of molten metal in the
> basements of all three buildings, WTC 1, 2 ("Twin Towers") and 7. For
> example, Dr. Keith Eaton toured Ground Zero and stated in The Structural
> Engineer,
>
> 'They showed us many fascinating slides' [Eaton] continued, 'ranging from
> molten metal which was still red hot weeks after the event, to 4-inch
> thick steel plates sheared and bent in the disaster'. (Structural
> Engineer, September 3, 2002, p. 6; emphasis added.)
>
>
>
> The observation of molten metal at Ground Zero was emphasized publicly by
> Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for the design of
> the World Trade Center Towers, who reported that "As of 21 days after the
> attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running."
> (Williams, 2001, p. 3; emphasis added.)
>
> Sarah Atlas was part of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and
> Rescue and was one of the first on the scene at Ground Zero with her
> canine partner Anna. She reported in Penn Arts and Sciences, summer
> 2002,
>
> 'Nobody's going to be alive.' Fires burned and molten steel flowed in
> the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet. (Penn, 2002; emphasis
> added.)
>
> Dr. Allison Geyh was one of a team of public health investigators from
> Johns Hopkins who visited the WTC site after 9-11. She reported in the
> Late Fall 2001 issue of Magazine of Johns Hopkins Public Health, "In some
> pockets now being uncovered they are finding molten steel." Further
> information on the subject is available at
> http://globalresearch.ca.myforums.net/viewtopic.php?p=11663.
>
>
>
> Thus, molten metal was repeatedly observed and formally reported in the
> rubble piles of the WTC Towers and WTC 7, metal that looked like molten
> steel. However, scientific analysis, using for example X-ray
> fluorescence, would be needed to ascertain the actual composition of the
> molten metal.
>
>
>
> I maintain that these published observations are consistent with the use
> of the high-temperature thermite reaction, used to cut or demolish steel.
> Thermite is a mixture of iron oxide and aluminum powder. The end
> products of the thermite reaction are aluminum oxide and molten iron. So
> the thermite reaction generates molten iron directly, and is hot enough
> to melt and even evaporate steel which it contacts while reacting. Use
> of sulfur in conjunction with the thermite should accelerate the
> destructive effect on steel, and sulfidation of structural steel was
> indeed observed in some of the few recovered members from the WTC rubble.
> (See http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html.)
> On the other hand, falling buildings (absent explosives) have
> insufficient directed energy to result in melting of large quantities of
> metal. The government reports admit that the building fires were
> insufficient to melt steel beams -- then where did the molten metal come
> from? Metals expert Dr. Frank Gayle (working with NIST) stated:
>
> Your gut reaction would be the jet fuel is what made the fire so very
> intense, a lot of people figured that's what melted the steel. Indeed it
> did not, the steel did not melt. (Field, 2005; emphasis added.)
>
> None of the official reports tackles this mystery. Yet this is evidently
> a significant clue to what caused the Towers and WTC 7 to collapse. So I
> would very much like to see an analysis of the elemental composition of
> the metal, and could do this myself if a small sample were made available
> according to scientific courtesy. Any reader who knows of chemical
> analyses or even photographs of this molten metal found below the rubble
> piles of WTC 1, 2 and 7 is invited to speak out and contact the author.
> This could lead to an experiment crucis.
>
>
>
> 4. Horizontal puffs of smoke and debris are observed emerging from WTC-7
> on upper floors, in regular sequence, just as the building starts to
> collapse. (The reader may wish to view the close-up video clip again.)
> The upper floors have not moved relative to one another yet, as one can
> verify from the videos. In addition, the timing between the puffs is
> less than 0.2 seconds so air-expulsion due to collapsing floors is
> excluded. Free-fall time for a floor to fall down to the next floor is
> significantly longer than 0.2 seconds: the equation for free fall, y = ½
> gt2, yields a little over 0.6 seconds, as this is near the initiation of
> the collapse.
>
>
>
> However, the presence of such "squibs" proceeding up the side of the
> building is common when pre-positioned explosives are used, as can be
> observed at http://www.implosionworld.com/cinema.html. The same site
> shows that rapid timing between explosive squibs is also common. (It is
> instructive to view several of the implosion videos at this web site.)
> Thus, squibs as observed during the collapse of WTC 7 going up the side
> of the building in rapid sequence provide additional significant evidence
> for the use of pre-placed explosives. Regarding this highly-secure
> building, a NY Times article entitled "Secretive C.I.A. Site in New York
> was Destroyed on Sept. 11," provides an intriguing puzzle piece:
>
>
>
> The C.I.A.'s undercover New York station was in the 47-story building at
> 7 World Trade Center. All of the agency's employees at the site were
> safely evacuated. The intelligence agency's employees were able to watch
> from their office windows while the twin towers burned just before they
> evacuated their own building. (Risen, 2001)
>
>
>
>
>
> 5. The official FEMA 9-11 report admits a striking anomaly regarding the
> North Tower collapse:
>
> Review of videotape recordings of the collapse taken from various angles
> indicates that the transmission tower on top of the structure began to
> move downward and laterally slightly before movement was evident at the
> exterior wall. This suggests that collapse began with one or more
> failures in the central core area of the building. (FEMA, 2002, chapter
> 2; emphasis added.)
>
>
>
> North Tower showing antenna (top) at beginning of
> collapse.
>
>
> Yes, we can see for ourselves that the antenna drops first from videos of
> the North Tower collapse. (See
> http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/wtc1_close_frames.html;
> also http://home.comcast.net/~skydrifter/collapse.htm.) A NY Times
> article also notes this behavior:
>
> The building stood for more than an hour and a half. Videos of the north
> tower's collapse appear to show that its television antenna began to drop
> a fraction of a second before the rest of the building. The observations
> suggest that the building's steel core somehow gave way first. (Glanz and
> Lipton, 2002; emphasis added)
>
>
>
> But how? What caused the 47 enormous steel core columns of this building
> (which supported the antenna) to give way nearly simultaneously? That
> mystery was raised by the FEMA report (FEMA, 2002, chapter 2) and the New
> York Times (Glanz and Lipton, 2002) yet not solved in any official report
> (FEMA, 2002; Commission, 2004; NIST, 2005). The odd behavior was not
> even mentioned in the final NIST report (NIST, 2005), but some of us have
> not forgotten.
>
>
>
> Could random fires burning office materials in the building account for a
> near-simultaneous "pulling" of these core supports? Certainly such an
> event would have exceedingly low probability. Again, use of pre-
> positioned explosives to cut the core columns first (standard demolition
> practice) provides a simple yet elegant explanation for the observation,
> satisfying the "Occam's razor" test (Jones, 2005).
>
>
>
> 6. Multiple loud explosions in rapid sequence were heard and reported by
> numerous observers in and near the WTC Towers, consistent with explosive
> demolition. Firemen and others described flashes and explosions in upper
> floors near where the plane entered, and in lower floors of WTC 2 just
> prior to its collapse, far below the region where the plane had struck
> the tower (Dwyer, 2005). For instance, at the start of the collapse of
> the South Tower a Fox News anchor reported:
>
> There is an explosion at the base of the building. white smoke from the
> bottom. something happened at the base of the building! Then another
> explosion." (De Grand Pre, 2002, emphasis added.)
>
>
>
> Firefighter Edward Cachia independently reported:
>
> [We] thought there was like an internal detonation, explosives, because
> it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came
> down.It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane
> hit. (Dwyer, 2005; emphasis added.)
>
> And assistant fire commissioner Stephen Gregory provides additional
> insights:
>
> When I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down,
> before No. 2 came down, ..I saw low-level flashes. In my conversation
> with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned
> me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and
> I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it
> was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing,
> things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like
> the building came down.
>
> Q. Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was?
>
> A. No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they
> demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls
> down? That's what I thought I saw. And I didn't broach the topic to him,
> but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm crazy, but I just wanted to
> ask you because you were standing right next to me. He said did you see
> any flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no,
> I saw them, too. (Dwyer, 2005, Assistant Commissioner Stephen Gregory
> FDNY WCT2 File No. 91 10008; emphasis added.)
>
>
>
> It is highly unlikely that jet fuel was present to generate such
> explosions especially on lower floors, and long after the planes hit the
> buildings. Dr. Shyam Sunder, Lead Investigator for NIST stated: "The jet
> fuel probably burned out in less than 10 minutes." (Field, 2005) On the
> other hand, pre-positioned explosives provide a plausible and simple
> explanation for the observations, satisfying Occam's razor (Jones, 2005).
> Thus, it cannot be said that "no evidence" can be found for the use of
> explosives. This serious matter needs to be treated as a plausible
> scientific hypothesis and thoroughly investigated.
>
>
>
> 7. The horizontal ejection of steel beams for hundreds of feet and the
> pulverization of concrete to flour-like powder, observed clearly in the
> collapses of the WTC towers, provides further evidence for the use of
> explosives - as well-explained in
> http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/towers/index.html. (See also, Griffin,
> 2004, chapter 2.)
>
>
>
> North Tower during top-down collapse.
>
> Notice mysterious squibs far below pulverization
> region.
>
>
> Unlike WTC7, the twin towers appear to have been exploded "top-down"
> rather than proceeding from the bottom - which is unusual for controlled
> demolition but clearly possible, depending on the order in which
> explosives are detonated. That is, explosives may have been placed on
> higher floors of the towers and exploded via radio signals so as to have
> early explosions near the region where the plane entered the tower.
> Certainly this hypothesis ought to be seriously considered in an
> independent investigation using all available data.
>
> 8. I totally agree with the urgent yet reasoned assessment of expert
> fire-protection engineers, as boldly editorialized in the journal Fire
> Engineering:
>
>
>
> Respected members of the fire protection engineering community are
> beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating [result] has emerged: The
> structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel
> in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers.
>
> Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official
> investigation" blessed by FEMA. is a half-baked farce that may already
> have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to
> put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except for the
> marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of
> evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members-
> described by one close source as a "tourist trip"-no one's checking the
> evidence for anything.
>
> Some citizens are taking to the streets to protest the investigation
> sellout. Sally Regenhard, for one, wants to know why and how the
> building fell as it did upon her unfortunate son Christian, an FDNY
> probationary firefighter. And so do we.
>
> Clearly, there are burning questions that need answers. Based on the
> incident's magnitude alone, a full-throttle, fully resourced, forensic
> investigation is imperative. More important, from a moral standpoint,
> [are considerations] for the. present and future generations. (Manning,
> 2002; emphasis added).
>
>
>
> 9. The occurrence of nearly symmetrical, straight-down and complete
> collapses of the WTC 7 and the Towers is particularly upsetting to the
> "official" theory that random fires plus damage caused all these
> collapses. Even with explosives, achieving such results requires a great
> deal of pre-planning and expertise.
>
>
>
> The main challenge in bringing a building down is controlling which way
> it falls. Ideally, a blasting crew will be able to tumble the building
> over on one side, into a parking lot or other open area. This sort of
> blast is the easiest to execute [favored by the Law of Increasing
> Entropy]. Tipping a building over is something like felling a tree. To
> topple the building to the north, the blasters detonate explosives on the
> north side of the building first.
>
>
>
> Sometimes, though, a building is surrounded by structures that must be
> preserved. In this case, the blasters proceed with a true implosion,
> demolishing the building so that it collapses straight down into its own
> footprint (the total area at the base of the building). This feat
> requires such skill that only a handful of demolition companies in the
> world will attempt it. [Again, consistent with the Second Law of
> Thermodynamics.]
>
> Blasters approach each project a little differently... [A good] option is
> to detonate the columns at the center of the building before the other
> columns so that the building's sides fall inward. (Harris, 2000; emphasis
> added.)
>
>
>
> Careful observation of the collapse of WTC 7 (video clips above)
> demonstrates a downward "kink" near the center of the building first,
> suggesting "pulling" of the support columns, then the building's sides
> pull inward such that the building "collapses straight down into its own
> footprint" (Harris, 2000). FEMA admitted that WTC 7 collapsed onto a
> well-confined footprint:
>
> The collapse of WTC 7 had a small debris field as the facade was pulled
> downward, suggesting an internal failure and implosion. The average
> debris field radius was approximately 70 feet. (FEMA, 2002, chapter 5.)
>
> Evidently we agree that this was a beautifully done implosion in the
> collapse of WTC 7, and yet:
>
> This feat requires such skill that only a handful of demolition companies
> in the world will attempt it. (Harris, 2000; emphasis added.)
>
> Consider: Why would terrorists undertake straight-down collapses of WTC7
> and the Towers, when "toppling-over" falls would require much less work
> and would do much more damage in downtown Manhattan? And where would
> they obtain the necessary skills and access to the buildings for a
> symmetrical implosion anyway? These questions suggest the need for
> further investigation.
>
> One of the people a thorough investigation should question would be
> demolition expert Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc.
> Speaking of the way the WTC buildings came down, he said in an interview:
> "If I were to bring the towers down, I would put explosives in the
> basement to get the weight of the building to help collapse the
> structure." (Bollyn, 2002; emphasis added.)
>
>
>
> Just right - "explosives in the basement" agrees with eyewitness reports
> of explosions down low in the buildings (point 6 above). Also, this
> would be the way to effectively sever the support columns, consistent
> with both the initial drop of the communication tower (WTC Tower 1) and
> the "kink" in the middle of WTC 7 as its collapse began. Yes, and as
> president of Controlled Demolition, Inc., Mr. Loizeaux would know the
> "handful of demolition companies in the world [that] will attempt" a
> symmetrical controlled demolition. (Harris, 2000) His company is
> certainly one of these and was hired to do the rapid clean-up work
> following the building collapses.
>
>
>
> If you still haven't looked at the rapid symmetrical collapse of WTC7 for
> yourself, why not do so now? Watch for the initial "kink" or drop in the
> middle, and for the "squibs" blowing in sequence up the side of the
> building, and notice the symmetrical, straight-down collapse -- all so
> common in controlled demolitions. See for yourself at:
> http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html. A great deal of
> further information is presented from a serious scientific point-of-view
> at this site (http://911research.wtc7.net/).
>
>
>
> 10. I presented my objections to the "official" theory at a seminar at
> BYU on September 22, 2005, to about sixty people. I also showed evidence
> and scientific arguments for the explosive demolition theory. In
> attendance were faculty from Physics, Mechanical Engineering, Civil
> Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Psychology, Geology, and Mathematics
> - and perhaps other departments as I did not recognize all of the people
> present. A local university and college were represented (BYU and Utah
> Valley State College).
>
>
>
> The discussion was vigorous and lasted nearly two hours. It ended only
> when a university class needed the room. After presenting the material
> summarized here, including actually looking at and discussing the
> collapses of WTC 7 and the Towers, all except one attendee agreed (by
> hand-vote) that further investigation of the WTC collapses was called
> for. The next day, the dissenting professor said he had further thought
> about it and now agreed that more investigation was needed. He joined
> the others in hoping that the 6,899 photographs and 6,977 segments of
> video footage held by NIST plus others held by the FBI would be released
> for independent scrutiny; photos largely from private photographers
> (NIST, 2005, p. 81). We call for the release of these data to a cross-
> disciplinary, preferably international team of scientists and engineers.
>
>
>
> 11. One attendee to the BYU Seminar on 9-11 anomalies suggested I review
> the paper by Bazant and Zhou, which I did. Quoting:
>
> The 110-story towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand
> as a whole the forces caused by a horizontal impact of a large commercial
> aircraft. So why did a total collapse occur? (Bazant and Zhou, 2002, p.
> 2.)
>
>
>
> Correct - jet collisions did not cause collapses - we can agree on that.
> MIT's Thomas Eager also concurs "because the number of columns lost on
> the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining
> columns in this highly redundant structure" (Eager and Musso, 2001).
>
>
>
> We continue with Bazant & Zhou:
>
> The conflagration, caused by the aircraft fuel spilled into the
> structure, causes the steel of the columns to be exposed to sustained
> temperatures apparently exceeding 800oC. (Bazant and Zhou, 2002, p. 2.)
>
>
>
> But here we note from the recent NIST report that: "The initial jet fuel
> fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes" and office material fires
> would burn out within about 20 minutes in a given location. (NIST, 2005;
> p. 179, emphasis added.) Certainly jet fuel burning was not enough to
> raise steel to sustained temperatures above 800oC. But we continue:
>
>
>
> Once more than half of the columns in the critical floor.. suffer
> buckling (stage 3), the weight of the upper part of the structure above
> this floor can no longer be supported, and so the upper part starts
> falling down onto the lower part below."(Bazant and Zhou, 2002, p. 2.)
>
>
>
> Bazant & Zhou do not explain how "more than half of the columns in the
> critical floor [can] suffer buckling" at the same time to precipitate the
> complete and nearly symmetrical collapse observed. There were 47 huge
> steel core columns in each Tower, and 24 such support columns in WTC 7
> (NIST 2005; NISTb, 2005).
>
>
>
> The WTC towers were solidly constructed with 47 steel core
>
> columns and 240 perimeter steel beams. 287 steel-columns total.
>
> Many doubt that random fires/damage could cause them to
>
> collapse straight down (official theory), and suspect
> explosives.
>
>
>
> Steel-frame: Huge core (left), enormous Heat Sink. Notice workers
> standing on floor pan which is
>
> firmly attached to the interconnected
> core columns.
>
>
>
>
>
> They do NOT explain how steel-column temperatures above 800oC were
> achieved near-simultaneously due to burning office materials. NIST notes
> that office materials in an area burn for about 15-20 minutes, then are
> consumed away (NIST, 2005, pp. 117, 179). This is evidently not long
> enough to raise steel column temperatures above 800oC as required in the
> Bazant & Zhou model, given the enormous heat sinks of the structures.
> And to have three buildings completely collapse due to this unlikely
> mechanism on the same day strains credulity. Moreover, the Final NIST
> report on the Towers admits:
>
> Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only
> three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above
> 250ºC. Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to
> make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC. ...
> Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence
> that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC. (NIST,
> 2005, pp. 176-177; emphasis added.)
>
>
>
> As for WTC 7, Bazant & Zhou say little but mention in a separate
> "addendum" that burning natural gas might have been a source of the
> needed heat (Bazant and Zhou, March 2002, p. 370). The FEMA report
> (FEMA, 2002) addresses this issue:
>
>
>
> Early news reports had indicated that a high pressure, 24-inch gas main
> was located in the vicinity of the building [WTC 7]; however, this proved
> not to be true." (FEMA, 2002, chapter 5; emphasis added)
>
>
>
> 12. I have read through the hundreds of pages of the Final NIST report
> on the collapses of the WTC Towers. (NIST, 2005) It is interesting to
> note that NIST "decoupled" and delayed their final report on WTC 7, which
> is overdue as of this writing (NIST, 2005; NISTb, 2005) I agree with
> some of the NIST report; for example:
>
> Both WTC 1 and WTC 2 were stable after the aircraft impact, standing for
> 102 min and 56 min, respectively. The global analyses with structural
> impact damage showed that both towers had considerable reserve capacity.
> This was confirmed by analysis of the post-impact vibration of WTC 2.
> where the damaged tower oscillated at a period nearly equal to the first
> mode period calculated for the undamaged structure. (NIST, 2005, p. 144;
> emphasis added.)
>
> At any given location, the duration of [air, not steel] temperatures near
> 1,000oC was about 15 min to 20 min. The rest of the time, the calculated
> temperatures were near 500oC or below." (NIST, 2005, p. 127, emphasis
> added.)
>
> NIST contracted with Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. to conduct tests to
> obtain information on the fire endurance of trusses like those in the WTC
> towers. All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for
> approximately 2 hours without collapsing." (NIST, 2005, p. 140, emphasis
> added.)
>
>
>
> However, I along with others challenge NIST's collapse theory. NIST
> maintains that all three building collapses were fire-initiated despite
> the observations above, particularly the fact that fire endurance tests
> with actual models did not result in collapse. In a paper by fire-
> engineering experts in the UK, we find:
>
> The basis of NIST's collapse theory is. column behaviour in fire...
> However, we believe that a considerable difference in downward displace
> between the [47] core and [240] perimeter columns, much greater than the
> 300 mm proposed, is required for the collapse theory to hold true. [Our]
> lower reliance on passive fire protection is in contrast to the NIST work
> where the amount of fire protection on the truss elements is believed to
> be a significant factor in defining the time to collapse. The [proposed
> effect] is swamped by thermal expansion . Thermal expansion and the
> response of the whole frame to this effect has NOT been described as yet
> [by NIST]. (Lane and Lamont, 2005.)
>
>
>
> I agree with these pointed objections, particularly that the "response of
> the whole frame" of each building should be considered, especially heat
> transport to the whole frame from localized fires, and that the "core
> columns cannot pull the exterior columns in via the floor." (Lane and
> Lamont, 2005)
>
> The computerized models of the Towers in the NIST study, which
> incorporate many features of the buildings and the fires on 9-11-01, are
> less than convincing. The Final report states:
>
> The Investigation Team then defined three cases for each building by
> combining the middle, less severe, and more severe values of the
> influential variables. Upon a preliminary examination of the middle
> cases, it became clear that the towers would likely remain standing. The
> less severe cases were discarded after the aircraft impact results were
> compared to observed events. The middle cases (which became Case A for
> WTC 1 and Case C for WTC 2) were discarded after the structural response
> analysis of major subsystems were compared to observed events. (NIST,
> 2005, p. 142; emphasis added.)
>
>
>
> 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 also agree with Kevin Ryan's objections regarding the NIST study.
> Kevin Ryan, at the time a manager at Underwriters Laboratories (UL),
> makes a point of the non-collapse of actual WTC-based models in his
> letter to Frank Gayle of NIST:
>
>
>
> As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel
> components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting
> information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last
> year. they suggested we all be patient and understand that UL was working
> with your team. I'm aware of UL's attempts to help, including performing
> tests on models of the floor assemblies. But the results of these tests.
> indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal
> stress caused by. burning [jet fuel, paper, etc.]. (Ryan, 2004)
>
>
>
> That models of WTC trusses at Underwriter Laboratories (UL) subjected to
> fires did NOT fail is also admitted in the final NIST report:
>
> NIST contracted with Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. to conduct tests to
> obtain information on the fire endurance of trusses like those in the WTC
> towers.. All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for
> approximately 2 hours without collapsing. The Investigation Team was
> cautious about using these results directly in the formulation of
> collapse hypotheses. In addition to the scaling issues raised by the test
> results, the fires in the towers on September 11, and the resulting
> exposure of the floor systems, were substantially different from the
> conditions in the test furnaces. Nonetheless, the [empirical test]
> results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining
> a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of
> time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on
> September 11. (NIST, 2005, p. 141; emphasis added.)
>
>
>
> So how does the NIST team justify the WTC collapses, when actual models
> fail to collapse and there are zero examples of fire-caused high-rise
> collapses? Easy, NIST concocted computer-generated hypotheticals for
> very "severe" cases, called cases B and D (NIST, 2005, pp. 124-138). Of
> course, the details are rather hidden to us. And they omit consideration
> of the complete, rapid and symmetrical nature of the collapses.
>
>
>
> Indeed, NIST makes the startling admission in a footnote on page 80 of
> their Final Report:
>
> The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the
> instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower.
> For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the "probable
> collapse sequence," although it does not actually include the structural
> behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were
> reached...(NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 12; emphasis added.)
>
> Again, on page 142, NIST admits that their computer simulation only
> proceeds until the building is "poised for collapse", thus ignoring any
> data from that time on.
>
> The results were a simulation of the structural deterioration of each
> tower from the time of aircraft impact to the time at which the building
> became unstable, i.e., was poised for collapse. ...(NIST, 2005, p. 142;
> emphasis added.)
>
>
>
>
>
> What about the subsequent complete, rapid and symmetrical collapse of the
> buildings? What about the observed squibs? What about the antenna
> dropping first in the North Tower? What about the molten metal observed
> in the basement areas in large pools in both Towers and WTC 7 as well?
> Never mind all that: NIST did not discuss at all any data after the
> buildings were "poised for collapse." Well, some of us want to look at
> ALL the data, without computer simulations that are "adjusted," perhaps
> to make them fit the desired outcome.
>
>
>
> 13. Kevin Ryan, the whistleblower from Underwriters Laboratories, did
> his own statistical analysis in a recent letter regarding the NIST
> report, arguing that probabilities of collapse-initiation needed to be
> calculated (Ryan, 2005). NIST nowhere provides such a likelihood
> analysis for their non-explosive collapse model. Ryan's analysis is that
> the probability that fires and damage (the "official theory") could cause
> the Towers complete collapse is less than one in a trillion, and the
> probability is much less still when the complete collapse of WTC7 is
> included (Ryan, 2005). Nor does NIST (or FEMA or the 9-11 Commission)
> even mention the molten metals found in the basements of all three
> buildings (WTC 1, 2 and 7).
>
>
>
> So where does that leave us? I strongly agree with Kevin Ryan,
>
> This ["official"] story just does not add up.. That fact should be of
> great concern to all Americans.. There is no question that the events of
> 9/11 are the emotional driving force behind the War on Terror. And the
> issue of the WTC collapse is at the crux of the story of 9/11. (Ryan,
> 2004; emphasis added.)
>
>
>
> 14. The NIST team fairly admits that their report "does not actually
> include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for
> collapse initiation were reached." (NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 1; emphasis
> added.) Quite a confession, since much of the external evidence for
> explosive demolition typically comes after collapse initiation, as seen
> in cases of acknowledged controlled demolition. (Harris, 2000.)
>
> The rapid fall of the Towers and WTC7 has been analyzed by several
> engineers/scientists
> (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/proofs/speed.html; Griffin,
> 2004, chapter 2). The roof of WTC 7 (students and I are observing the
> southwest corner) falls to earth in less than 6.6 seconds, while an
> object dropped from the roof would hit the ground in 6.0 seconds. This
> follows from t = (2H/g)1/2. Likewise, the Towers fall very rapidly to
> the ground, with the upper part falling nearly as rapidly as ejected
> debris which provide free-fall references
> (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/proofs/speed.html; Griffin,
> 2004, chapter 2). Where is the delay that must be expected due to
> conservation of momentum - one of the foundational Laws of Physics? That
> is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors - and intact steel
> support columns - the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted
> mass. If the central support columns remained standing, then the
> effective resistive mass would be less, but this is not the case -
> somehow the enormous support columns failed/disintegrated along with the
> falling floor pans.
>
>
>
> How do the upper floors fall so quickly, then, and still conserve
> momentum in the collapsing buildings? The contradiction is ignored by
> FEMA, NIST and 9-11 Commission reports where conservation of momentum and
> the fall times were not analyzed. The paradox is easily resolved by the
> explosive demolition hypothesis, whereby explosives quickly remove lower-
> floor material including steel support columns and allow near free-fall-
> speed collapses (Harris, 2000).
>
>
>
> And these explosives also readily account for the turning of the falling
> Towers to fine dust as the collapse ensues. Rather than a piling up with
> shattering of concrete as we might expect from non-explosive-caused
> progressive collapse ("official theory"), we find that most of the Towers
> material (concrete, carpet, steel, etc.) is converted to flour-like
> powder WHILE the buildings are falling. The Towers' collapses are not a
> typical implosions, but quite possibly series of "shock-and-awe"
> explosions - at least the evidence points strongly in this direction.
> The hypothesis ought to be explored further.
>
>
>
> Those who wish to preserve as inviolate fundamental physical laws may
> wish to take a closer look. Consider the collapse of the South WTC Tower
> on 9-11:
> http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/south_tower_collapse.
> mpeg
>
>
>
>
>
> Top ~ 34 floors of South Tower topple over.
>
> What happens to the block and its angular momentum?
>
>
>
> We observe that approximately 34 upper floors begin to rotate as a block,
> to the south and east. They begin to topple over, as favored by the
> Second Law of Thermodynamics. The torque due to gravity on this block is
> enormous, as is its angular momentum. But then - and this I'm still
> puzzling over - this block turned mostly to powder in mid-air! How can we
> understand this strange behavior, without explosives? Remarkable,
> amazing - and demanding scrutiny since the US government-funded reports
> failed to analyze this phenomenon. But, of course, the Final NIST 9-11
> report "does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower
> after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached." (NIST, 2005,
> p. 80, fn. 1; emphasis added.)
>
>
>
> Indeed, if we seek the truth of the matter, we must NOT ignore the data
> to be observed during the actual collapses of the towers, as the NIST
> team admits they did. But why did they do such a non-scientific
> procedure as to ignore highly-relevant data? The business smacks of
> political constraints on what was supposed to be an "open and thorough"
> investigation. (See Mooney, 2005.)
>
>
>
> So I with others call for an open and thorough investigation. I hope the
> international community will rise to the challenge. The field is wide
> open for considering the alternative hypothesis outlined here, due to its
> neglect by studies funded by the US government.
>
> 15. Finally, and by way of review, we consider the variations and
> inconsistencies in the fire/damaged-caused collapse models with time.
> The earliest model, promoted by various media sources, was that the fires
> in the towers were sufficiently hot to actually melt the steel in the
> buildings, thus causing their collapse. For example, Chris Wise in a BBC
> piece spouted out false notions with great gusto
>
> "It was the fire that killed the buildings. There's nothing on earth
> that could survive those temperatures with that amount of fuel burning.
> The columns would have melted, the floors would have melted and
> eventually they would have collapsed one on top of the other." (quoted
> in Paul and Hoffman, 2004, p. 25)
>
> But as we have seen from later serious studies, the jet fuel burned out
> within minutes following impact. Recall the statement of expert Dr.
> Gayle refuting the notion that fires in the WTC buildings were
> sufficiently hot to melt the steel supports:
>
> Your gut reaction would be the jet fuel is what made the fire so very
> intense, a lot of people figured that's what melted the steel. Indeed it
> did not, the steel did not melt. (Field, 2005; emphasis added)
>
> Then we have the model of Bazant and Zhou, which requires the majority
> of the 47 huge steel columns on a floor of each Tower to reach sustained
> temperatures of 800oC in order to buckle (not melt) - at the same time.
> But as we've seen, such temperatures are very difficult to reach while
> burning office materials, in these connected steel structures where the
> heat is wicked away by heat transport. (Paul and Hoffman, 2004, p. 26)
> And then to reach the 800oC at the same time, well, no, this scenario is
> far too improbable.
>
> So that approach was abandoned by FEMA in the next effort (FEMA, 2002).
> The FEMA team largely adopted the theory of Dr. Thomas Eager (Eager and
> Musso, 2001), which was also presented in the NOVA presentation "Why the
> Towers Fell" (NOVA, 2002). Instead of having the columns fail
> simultaneously, FEMA has floor pans in the Towers warp due to fires, and
> the floor connections to the vertical beams break, and these floor pans
> then fall down onto the floor pans below, initiating "progressive
> collapse" or pancaking of one floor pan on another. Very simple. But
> not so fast - what happens to the enormous core columns to which the
> floors were firmly attached? Why don't these remain standing like a
> spindle with the floor pans falling down around them, since the
> connections are presumed to have broken away? This interconnected steel
> core is founded on bedrock (Manhattan schist). FEMA does not totally
> ignore the core:
>
> As the floors collapsed, this left tall freestanding portions of the
> exterior wall and possibly central core columns. As the unsupported
> height of these freestanding exterior wall elements increased [no mention
> of the huge central core anymore!], they buckled at the bolted column
> splice connections and also collapsed." (FEMA. 2002; emphasis added)
>
> This approach finally fails to account for the observed collapse of the
> 47 interconnected core columns which are massive and designed to bear the
> weight of the buildings, and it has the striking weakness of requiring
> the connections of the floor pans to the vertical columns to break, both
> at the core and at the perimeter columns, more or less simultaneously.
>
> That didn't work out, so NIST goes back to the drawing board.
> They require that the connections of the floor pans to vertical columns
> do NOT fail (contrary to FEMA's model), but rather that the floor pans
> "pull" with enormous force, sufficient to cause the perimeter columns to
> significantly pull in, leading to final failure (contrary to objections
> of ARUP Fire experts, discussed above). Also, NIST constructs a computer
> model -- but realistic cases do not actually lead to building collapse.
> So they "adjust" inputs until the model finally shows collapse initiation
> for the most severe cases. The details of these "adjustments" are
> hidden from us, in their computerized hypotheticals, but "the hypothesis
> is saved." NIST also has Underwriters Laboratories construct models of
> the WTC trusses, but the models withstand all fires in tests and do NOT
> collapse. (See above for details.)
>
> We are left without a compelling fire/damage model, unless
> one blindly accepts the NIST computer simulation while ignoring the model
> fire-tests, which I'm not willing to do. And none of the "official"
> models outlined above accounts for what happens to the buildings AFTER
> the building is "poised for collapse" (NIST, 2005, p. 142) - namely the
> rapid and symmetrical and complete (no tall-standing central core)
> collapses. Reports of explosions, heard and seen, are not discussed.
> And they ignore the squibs seen ejected from floors far from where the
> jets hit - particularly seen in WTC 7 (where no jet hit at all).
> Finally, what about that molten metal under the rubble piles of all three
> WTC skyscrapers?
>
> Remarkably, the explosive demolition hypothesis accounts for
> all the available data rather easily. The core columns on lower floors
> are cut using explosives, near-simultaneously, along with explosives
> detonated up higher so that gravity acting on now-unsupported floors
> helps bring down the buildings quickly. The collapses are thus
> symmetrical, rapid and complete, with accompanying squibs -- really very
> standard stuff for demolition experts. Thermite (whose end product is
> molten iron) used on some of the steel beams readily accounts for the
> molten metal which then pooled beneath the rubble piles.
>
> I believe this is a straightforward hypothesis, much more probable than
> the official hypothesis. It deserves scientific scrutiny, beyond what I
> have been able to outline in this treatise.
>
>
>
>
>
> CONCLUSIONS
>
>
>
> I have called attention to glaring inadequacies in the "final" reports
> funded by the US government and shown evidences for a likely alternative
> hypothesis. In particular, the official theory lacks repeatability in
> that no actual models or buildings (before or since 9-11-01) have been
> observed to completely collapse due to the proposed fire-based
> mechanisms. On the other hand, dozens of buildings have been completely
> and symmetrically demolished through the use of pre-positioned
> explosives. The "explosive demolition" hypothesis better satisfies tests
> of repeatability and parsimony and therefore is not "junk science." It
> ought to be seriously, scientifically investigated and debated.
>
> A truly independent, international panel would consider all viable
> hypotheses, including the pre-positioned-explosives theory, guided not by
> politicized notions and constraints, but rather by observations and
> calculations, to reach a scientific conclusion. Questioning (preferably
> under oath) of officials who approved the rapid removal and destruction
> of the WTC steel beams and columns before they could be properly analyzed
> - and others as outlined above - should proceed in the United States.
>
>
>
> None of the government-funded studies have provided serious analyses of
> the explosive demolition hypothesis at all. Until the above steps are
> taken, the case for accusing ill-trained Muslims of causing all the
> destruction on 9-11-01 is far from compelling. It just does not add up.
>
>
>
> And that fact should be of great concern to Americans. (Ryan, 2004).
> Clearly, we must find out what really caused the WTC skyscrapers to
> collapse as they did.
>
> To this end, NIST must release the 6,899 photographs and over 300 hours
> of video recordings - acquired mostly by private parties - which it
> admits to holding (NIST, 2005, p. 81). In particular, photos and
> analyses of the molten metal (probably not molten steel) observed in the
> basements of both Towers and WTC7 need to be brought forth to the
> international community of scientists and engineers immediately.
> Therefore, along with others, I call for the release of these and all
> relevant data for scrutiny by a cross-disciplinary, international team of
> researchers. The explosive-demolition hypothesis will be considered:
> all options will be on the table.
>
>
>
> AFTERWARD
>
>
>
> In writing this paper, I call for a serious investigation of the
> hypothesis that WTC7 and the Twin Towers were brought down, not just by
> damage and fires, but through the carefully planned use of explosives. I
> have presented ample evidence for the explosive-demolition hypothesis,
> which is testable and falsifiable and yet has not been seriously
> considered in any of the studies funded by the US government.
>
> At the same time, I acknowledge that other notions have sprung up in the
> near vacuum of official consideration of this very plausible hypothesis.
> These notions must be subjected to careful scrutiny. I by no means
> endorse all such ideas. For example, the video "In Plane Site" promotes
> the theory that a "pod" holds a missile under the wing of the 757 which
> hit WTC 2 (see Hoffman, 2005; Chertoff, 2005). Careful inspection of the
> undercarriage of a standard 757 leads to the explanation that the so-
> called "pod" was merely a reflection from the bulged undercarriage
> (Hoffman, 2005; Chertoff, 2005). I find that the "pod theory" is very
> weak and distracts from central issues.
>
> Again, there is a notion that something other than Boeing jetliners hit
> the WTC Towers (see Hoffman, 2005; Chertoff, 2005). Scrutiny of
> photographs and videos provides compelling evidence that jets did in fact
> hit these buildings (Hoffman, 2005; Chertoff, 2005). A March 2005
> article in Popular Mechanics focuses on poorly-supported claims and
> proceeds to ridicule the whole "9-11 truth movement" (Chertoff, 2005).
> Serious replies to this article have already been written (Hoffman, 2005;
> Baker, 2005; serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/reply_to_popular_mechanics.htm).
>
>
>
> Those espousing weak or untestable claims should realize that they may be
> damaging the effort to achieve a rational debate of important issues by
> poisoning the process with "junk science". Likewise, the notion that the
> "explosive demolition" hypothesis should not be debated since it would
> imply a "conspiracy theory" departs from good science as well as from
> numerous historical precedents of empirical conspiracies (Jones, 2005).
> Scientific inquiry is not or should not be dictated by politics (Mooney,
> 2005).
>
>
>
>
>
> ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
>
>
>
> I gratefully acknowledge comments and contributions by Jim Hoffman and
> Jeff Strahl, and Professors Jack Weyland, David Ray Griffin, Bryan
> Peterson, Paul Zarembka and Derrick Grimmer.
>
>
>
> REFERENCES
>
>
>
> Baker, Jeremy (2005). "Contrary to Popular (Mechanics') Belief," Global
> Outlook, Issue 10, p. 14 (Spring-Summer 2005).
>
> Bazant, Z. P. and Zhou, Y. (2002). "Why Did the World Trade Center
> Collapse? Simple Analysis," J. Eng. Mech. 128:2, January 2002.
>
> Bazant, Z. P. and Zhou, Y. (March 2002). "Addendum to 'Why Did the World
> Trade Center Collapse? Simple Analysis," J. Eng. Mech. 128:369, March
> 2002.
>
> Bollyn, Christopher (2002). "New seismic data refutes official
> explanation," American Free Press, September 3, 2002, available at:
> http://www.americanfreepress.net/09_03_02/NEW_SEISMIC_/new_seismic_.html.
>
> Chertoff, B., et al. (2005). "9/11: Debunking the Myths," Popular
> Mechanics, March 2005.
>
> Commission (2004). The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the
> National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States,
> Authorized Edition, New York: W.W. Norton.
>
> De Grand Pre, Donn (2002). "Many Questions Still Remain About Trade
> Center Attack," American Free Press, February 3, 2002, available at:
> http://www.americanfreepress.net/02_03_
> 02/Trade_Center_Attack/trade_center_attack.html
>
> Dwyer, James (2005). "City to Release Thousands of Oral Histories of
> 9/11 Today," New York Times, August 12, 2005, with quotes of
> eyewitnesses available in New York Times archives at
> http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812
> _WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_01.html and
> http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812
> _WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html.
>
> Eager, T. W. and Musso, C. (2001). "Why Did the World Trade Center
> Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation", Journal of the
> Minerals, Metals and Materials Society, 53/12:8-11 (2001).
>
> FEMA (2005). "World Trade Center Building Performance Study," released
> May 2002, available at: http://www.fema.gov/library/wtcstudy.shtm.
>
> Field, Andy (2004). "A Look Inside a Radical New Theory of the WTC
> Collapse," Fire/Rescue News, February 7, 2004. Available at
> http://cms.firehouse.com/content/article/article.jsp?sectionId=46&id=
> 25807
>
> Glanz, James (2001). "Engineers are baffled over the collapse of 7 WTC;
> Steel members have been partly evaporated," New York Times, November 29.
> 2001.
>
> Glanz, James, and Lipton, Eric (2002). "Towers Withstood Impact, but Fell
> to Fire, Report Says," Fri March 29, 2002, New York Times.
>
> Griffin, David Ray (2004). The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions
> about the Bush Administration and 9/11, Northampton, Massachusetts:
> Interlink.
>
> Griffin, David Ray (2005). The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and
> Distortions, Northampton, Massachusetts: Interlink.
>
> Harris, Tom (2000). "How Building Implosions Work," available at:
> http://science.howstuffworks.com/building-implosion.htm, ca. 2000.
>
> Hoffman, James (2005). "Popular Mechanics' Assault on 9/11 Truth,"
> Global Outlook, Issue 10, p. 21 (Spring-Summer 2005).
>
> Hufschmid, Eric (2002). Painful Questions: An Analysis of the September
> 11th Attack, Goleta, California: Endpoint Software.
>
> Jones, S. E. (2005). "The Official 9-11 Story as 'Bad Science'," Paper
> in preparation.
>
> Lane, B., and Lamont, S. (2005). "Arup Fire's presentation regarding
> tall buildings and the events of 9/11," ARUP Fire, April 2005. Available
> at: http://www.arup.com/DOWNLOADBANK/download353.pdf
>
> Manning, William (2002). "Selling out the investigation," Editorial,
> Fire Engineering, January 2002
>
> Mooney, Chris (2005). The Republican War on Science, New York, NY:
> Basic Books.
>
> NIST (2005). http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1Draft.pdf ("Final
> Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the
> World Trade Center Towers (Draft)"), Sept.-Oct. 2005.
>
> NISTb (2005). http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%
> 20Collapse%20Final.pdf%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf (Part IIC - WTC
> 7 Collapse, preliminary), 2005.
>
>
>
> NOVA (2002). "Why the Towers Fell," originally broadcast Tuesday, April
> 30, 2002; see http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/.
>
> Paul, Don, and Hoffman, Jim (2004). Waking Up From Our Nightmare : The
> 9/11/01 Crimes in New York City, San Francisco:
> Irresistible/Revolutionary.
>
> Penn Arts and Sciences (2002). Penn Arts and Sciences, summer 2002 ,
> available at
> http://www.sas.upenn.edu/sasalum/newsltr/summer2002/k911.html.
>
> Risen, James (2001). "Secretive CIA Site in New York Was Destroyed on
> Sept. 11," New York Times, November 4, 2001.
>
> Ryan, Kevin (2004). Letter to Frank Gayle, available at
> http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041112144051451
>
> Ryan, Kevin (2005). "A Call for a Personal Decision," Global Outlook,
> Issue 10, p. 96 (Spring-Summer 2005).
>
> Williams, James (2001). "WTC a structural success," SEAU NEWS; The
> Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah, October 2001,
> p. 1,3.
>
>
> Fair Use Notice
>
> This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not
> always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making
> such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of
> criminal justice, human rights, political, economic, democratic,
> scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a
> 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section
> 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section
> 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who
> have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for
> research and educational purposes. For more information see:
> www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted
> material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair
> use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Thundercat Stevens
>
> "Vandar" <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Fxnhf.112$kV7...@news02.roc.ny...
>> Thundercat Stevens wrote:
>>
>>> lensm...@hotmail.com wrote in news:1132829560.132639.155920
>>> @z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
>>>
>>>
>>>>somebigguy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Shifting the burden of proof? Like I said, the government does not
>>>
>>> get
>>>
>>>>>a free pass. Collapses like we saw on 9/11 have never occurred in
>>>>>history for any reason other than explosives and demolition.
>>>>>History does not support the official story.
>>>>>
>>>>>The government does not get a free pass, they can't just say
>>>>>something and make it true, they have a burden of proof that such a
>>>>>collapse is possible. Until then, it is just a theory, and you
>>>>>must admit that.
>>>>
>>>>In history, all steel framed buildings were built with a large grid
>>>>of supporting girders. Said grid running through the entire
>>>>building. Thus, to bring the building down, you'd have to arrange
>>>>for the main load bearing girders to go all at once.
>>>>
>>>>I don't know about WTC7, but WTCs 1 & 2 were designed around a core
>>>>of support in the center of the building with the rest of the
>>>>support coming from the edges. (They even bragged about this being
>>>>to maximize floor space.) The core was damaged by the impacts of the
>>>>plane
>>>
>>>
>>> Really?
>>>
>>> NIST shows there wasn't even a fire at the core of WTC 1.
>>
>> So you now believe the NIST report is accurate, or do you just cite
>> the portions that you like?
It very accurately...fails to explain why the towers collapsed.
> So you now believe that the NIST report is inaccurate, or do you just
> cite the portions you like?
Don't expect him to think too much.
Thundercat Stevens
news:Xns9718F3676586B...@213.123.26.234:
> Thundercat Stevens <KILLFIL...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Dumbass.
>>
>> Are you one of those "intelligent design" people?
>
> Actually, this is quite ironic, since the last time I encountered
> belligerent insistence like yours, it was from an Intelligent Design
> advocate.
You've done a poor job thus far of refuting the physics paper.
Go figure.
Thundercat Stevens
news:Xns9718F341E43FZ...@213.123.26.234:
> Thundercat Stevens <KILLFIL...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>> http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html
>>>
>>> A know conspiracy site. Nevertheless: done.
>>
>>
>> A video is a video, is it not?
>
> It is - if an extremely poor quality one.
Is there a higher quality version available?
Why does it matter which site hosts it?
>>>> What did you observe?
>>>>
>>>> Symmetry: did the building collapse straight down (nearly
>>>> symmetrically) – or did it topple over?
>>>
>>> Straight down. Really the only way it could have fallen.
>>
>> Except for the top, which was tilting hard to one side, eh?
>
> The question was asked "did the building collapse straight down, or did
> it topple over". The answer is that it collapsed straight down.
Correct. Except for the top, which toppled to one side.
> Given that your argument so far for a controlled demolition has rested
> largely on the 'straightness' of the building as it fell, I would think
> twice before challenging that.
Did I challenge it? Or did I describe the situation more accurately than
you have?
>>>> Speed: How fast did the building fall? (Students and I measure
>>>> less than 6.6 seconds; time it!)
>>>
>>> My timings would be imprecise based on this footage.
>>
>> So, you can't rufute the timing, but offer none of your own
>> observations?
>
> I do not 'rufute' the timing.
Then what are you flapping about?
> I simply say that based on the video it
> is impossible to be precise.
What sort of margin of error are you suggesting?
> But in any case this is a digression from
> the primary point here, which is your claim that a fall in the time
> shown is apparently "impossible". A claim you, or Mr Jones, has yet to
> support convincingly.
If freefall from the top of WTC 7 is 6 seconds, and the building
collapsed in ~7 seconds, that strongly indicates a lack of resistance
below.
Forgetting, of course, that you have yet to produce a reason as to why
the building would have collapsed in the first place...
>>> Please note the predecided assertion that these are 'squibs'.
>>
>> And what do you maintain these puffs are?
>
> Read on BEFORE you ask the question.
Why can't you simply answer it?
>>> A rational consideration of these puffs of smoke would consider the
>>> probability that the collapse was not as perfectly symmetrical as the
>>> PCTs make out, and that what is seen here is the result of structural
>>> stress fractures as the walls shear.
>
> Note I do not 'maintain' this - it simply seems the most likely
> explanation, since the footage clearly shows (or at least as clearly as
> it shows anything) the shear involved, and the so-called 'squibs' occur
> up a likely stress line. I see no reason to believe they are anything
> other than the walls fracturing.
Except they occur far below the actual collapse. In other words, your
non-explanation makes no sense.
>> So you're just making things up to account for them? They appeared
>> well below the collapse.
>
> 'Below' the collapse? Or do you mean before? If you mean before, then
> even a casual glance at the footage will demonstrate that you are
wrong.
I say what I mean, fucky.
> The 'squibs' appear *as the building starts to collapse* - suggesting
> once again that they are stress fractures.
Are they above the collapse?
Or below the collapse?
How many floors, above or below, are they?
>>> So in other words, with all the data to hand they can't answer all
>>> the questions. With a couple of conspiracy sites and some 'enhanced'
>>> images, you know all there is to know.
>>
>> Their own theory has a "low probability of occurance". Do you really
>> think they'd say "explosives"?
>>
>> Is "ad hominem" a strong argument, where you come from?
>
> Ad hominem has nothing to do with it. It is a given that conspiracists
> will interpret information in a way that they see as supporting their
> position.
Which is exactly what you're doing. And exactly what NIST did.
Nice work!
> In this case, they have interpreted "low probability of
> occurrence" as meaning "impossible". Just because an incident takes
> even knowledgeable people by surprise does not mean that the incident
> cannot possibly have happened.
Yet they admit a fire-induced collapse is unlikely, at best. And here you
are, clinging to an unlikely explanation as gospel.
>>> Had any building like it just had two 400-metre-tall tower blocks
>>> collapse right next to it? I wonder...
>>
>> It wasn't "right next to". Are you lying, or just stupid?
>
> Neither. But I realise that other possibilites cannot occur to you,
> since you appear to have invested a great deal of emotion in this
> discussion.
You were either lying, or stupid. WTC 7 wasn't "right next to" the other
towers.
Weasel.
>> It WAS right next to WTC 6. Which didn't collapse.
>>
>> Doh!
>
> WTC-6, if you study the images available, is - or was - a very low,
wide
> building, as opposed to 7, which was considerably taller - certainly
one
> of the tallest buildings on that section of Vesey Street. The NY
> Telephone and Federal buildings flanking WTC-7, both listed as having
> suffered 'major damage' had considerably smaller profiles and therefore
> were less exposed overall. WTC-6 would have provided very little
> shielding for WTC-7 beyond it.
So the telco and federal buildings sustained more damage than WTC 7 as
well, but didn't collapse?
You don't have photographic evidence of any of this major. building-
collapsing damage, do you?
> Nevertheless, I believe, if memory serves, that WTC-6 was considered so
> in danger of collapse that it was indeed demolished after the incident
> in order to reduce overall danger at the site.
What else was there to do with the building?
Repair it?
It didn't collapse. It sustained far more damage than any other buildings
you could name.
But it didn't collapse.
>> Why are you referring to me as if I was the author of the paper?
>
> Because you endorse it and quote it. Therefore, the opinions put
> forward in the paper are yours, as well as Mr Jones's.
You might want to get straight just who is who, in your head.
>> You haven't answered any questions thus far, have you?
>
> One or two, I think. Not in a way likely to sway the mind of a
> conspiracist, to be sure - but then I had no expectation of that.
Your explanations thus far are laughable, at best.
>> Were they "full of fuel"? Cite?
>
> Ah-ah. Don't ask me to cite something I am not claiming. It is PCTs
> like you who have told me in the past that the aircraft were KC-767
> tankers painted to look like airliners and filled with fuel.
I made no such claim.
Keep squirming, weasel. There's no such thing as a "collective mind", you
context-snipping coward.
> As far as I am concerned they were airliners. There are enough people
> dead and enough aircraft 'missing' to make denying that rather
> ridiculous.
And who, dear asshole, is denying the presence of airliners?
How strong is your case, if you have to keep inventing things?
>> How did the fuel "evaporate" steel, again?
>
> I haven't a clue. As far as I am aware the problem with the collapsing
> buildings was that the supports were weakened and gave way, not that
> they were 'evaporated'.
Maybe you should read the paper you ran away from.
> But I am not a physicist, any more than you are, so I am forced to
defer
> to those who have knowledge of the subject. So far you have not
> convinced me that you fall into that category.
Heh. I gave you a paper written by a professor of physics, coward. You
snipped it and ran.
>>>> On the other hand, falling buildings (absent explosives) have
>>>> insufficient directed energy to result in melting of large
>>>> quantities of metal.
>>>
>>> No doubt. But I note the careful omission of the full circumstances
>>> here.
>>
>> Such as?
>
> Such as the reference to 'falling buildings (absent explosives)', but
> without reference to what was going on at the rest of the site.
> Discounting environmental conditions and external stresses seems
> unlikely to produce an accurate assessment.
So you think that somewhat damaged corner of WTC 7 would cause an
asymmetrical collapse at near freefall speeds?
; )
Why do you think that?
>>> Ah? So your previous claims are irrelevant, since you now argue that
>>> the molten metal found was NOT the steel supports you claim could not
>>> have been melted by the fires.
>>
>> You're not even sure whom you're talking to...
>>
>> Me, or the author?
>
> Both. Of course, the author is not here for me to speak to - unless it
> is actually you, of course - but as I explained above, I assume you
> agree with the conclusions reached in the paper and the reasoning used
> to reach them.
>
> I am perfectly aware of who I'm talking to.
Then why are you putting words in my mouth? I never "argue that
the molten metal found was NOT the steel supports you claim could not
have been melted by the fires."
But, do you think the steel supports were melted by fire?
>> And what exactly are you trying to say, anyway?
>
> That it is a staple argument of conspiracists that jet fuel cannot melt
> metal such as to reduce the supports to molten metal,
Are you saying it can?
> and that now you
> quote a paper saying that the molten metal did NOT come from the
> supports.
Cite?
>>>> 4. Horizontal puffs of smoke and debris are observed emerging from
>>>> WTC-7 on upper floors, in regular sequence, just as the building
>>>> starts to collapse. (The reader may wish to view the close-up video
>>>> clip again.) The upper floors have not moved relative to one
>>>> another yet, as one can verify from the videos.
>>>
>>> One can in fact verify relatively little from the videos since, as
>>> mentioned, they are consistently of extremely poor quality.
>>
>> Weasel words...
>
> Weasel video. The fact is that the footage is, as I said, of extremely
> poor quality - and yet, as with the famous 'missile pod' story, whole
> conspiracies are based on a shadow here and a blur there.
So the puffs of smoke which are clearly visible are artifacts of video?
Shadows? Blurs?
Weasel...
>>> However, it IS worth pointing out that a demo team wishing to bring
>> down
>>> a building symmetrically would set charges all around the building.
>> Why
>>> then did charges only go off up one side?
>>
>> Is that what happened?
Is that what happened?
>> Says who?
Says who?
> I'm sorry - we must have been looking at different videos. Evidently
> you have the 'proper' one.
And you must have x-ray vision, able to see the interior of the building,
on all sides at once.
Very impressive.
>>>> However, the presence of such “squibs” proceeding up the side
>>>
>>> Again, the implied conclusion that these ARE squibs. Nothing like an
>>> objective summary, is there? Or should I say "is it"?
>>
>>
>> And what are you saying these mysterious puffs are, again?
>
> I am not. I am saying what I consider them LIKELY to be.
Found any sort of support for your claim yet?
>>>> The C.I.A.'s undercover New York station was in the 47-story
>>>> building at 7 World Trade Center… All of the agency's employees at
>>>> the site were safely evacuated… The intelligence agency's employees
>>>> were able to watch from their office windows while the twin towers
>>>> burned just before they evacuated their own building. (Risen, 2001)
>>>
>>> Ah - so it was all a cunning plan to dispose of a single CIA office?
>>
>> What a foolish and simple-minded thought. Your claim, not his or
>> mine...
>
> What a foolish and simple-minded response. So, what, the fact that the
> CIA office was in the affected building was just thrown in as trivia?
There were a ton of federal agencies housed there. And Guliani's command
bunker. Thought by many to be the center of the entire operation.
Do you think it's just a meaningless coincidence that the only other
building that collapsed was a CIA office, among other things? And that
they rented from Larry Silverstein?
Oh, you do. Sorry.
>> You don't seem to be very familiar with the methodology NIST used in
>> tweaking their data to match their theory.
>
> Precisely my point: the data does not match your expectations, and we
> KNOW NIST must be shills, because they're pushing "the government
story"
> - therefore they have 'tweaked the data'.
By their own admission, moron.
> But not in an honest way,
> such as when conspiracists 'enhance' images, no - this is *dishonest*
> tweaking.
What "enhanced images" are you blathering about?
Did I "enhance" images?
Did the professor?
Did he even reference any "enhanced images"?
Like I said, I love it that your case is so strong you keep inventing
things.
; )
>>>> But how? What caused the 47 enormous steel core columns of this
>>>> building (which supported the antenna) to give way nearly
>>>> simultaneously?
>>>
>>> Intense heat and concussive shock? Obviously a complete
>>> impossibility.
>>
>> What intense heat, you gimp?
>
> Your anger, I presume, comes from a fervent belief that I am a
> government agent trying to pull the wool back over your eyes.
Presume in one hand, shit in the other.
> I wonder
> why, since if you are the one who knows the truth you should by
> definition have the advantage.
*What* intense heat, liar?
Can't answer the question, eh?
>> It wasn't there in WTC 1. According to NIST.
>
> Oh - so NOW we can believe what NIST have to say? Would you like to
> have your cake or eat it?
NIST only studied the buildings up to the point of collapse, anyway.
They're on your side. Yet you're contradicting them.
Are you wrong?
Are they?
Are you both wrong?
Again, what intense fires?
>>> Ah - Occam's Famous Razor, yes...
>>>
>>> 1. Terrorists flew hijacked airliners into two buildings, which then
>>> collapsed.
>>
>> Although there is no evidence to support this conclusion...
>
> ...that a PCT would be willing to consider...
Present it for our consideration.
Can you?
>>> 2. The US Government, keen to manufacture a reason to initiate
>>> aggressive operations in the Middle East, executed a top-secret plan
>>> to wire demolition charges around and through three tower blocks and
>>> set them off at the same time that Government agents impacted
>>> specially- manufactured KC-767 tankers painted up as airliners,
>>> fitted with covert missile launch tubes and filled with jet fuel,
>>> into the towers, and
>> have
>>
>> Covert missile launch tubes?
>>
>> Where did you pull that one out of your ass?
>
> Not MY ass. That one is an old saw from the PCT fantasy factory.
Check
> Google. Check the web. You will find it all over the place. The only
> hope is that, if you genuinely did not know about it (which I doubt),
it
> may be that is has been sufficiently discredited even amongst PCTs for
> them to have stopped trying to push it.
Please put your nutty missile theory back in your ass. No one in this
thread mentioned missiles. You desperate gimp.
> Try asking iceman, right here on this group. I'm sure I remember
> discussing it with him.
I'm sure you have. However, I'm not "Iceman", and I haven't mentioned any
silly missiles.
You desperate little weasel.
>>> since then been co-ordinating the largest conspiracy the world has
>>> ever seen, involving CIA, FBI, NIST, FEMA, WTC security and workers,
>>> Boeing executive and engineering and manufacturing staff, the army
>>> and the air force, New York citizens, fire and medical services and
>>> police, and me.
>>
>> More unsupported silliness from you.
>
> All claims I have heard from the very people whose viewpoint you appear
> to support.
You heard no such claim from me. You're a weak sophist.
> If it sounds silly, that's because it is. It's
> spectacularly silly. That's why it doesn't work.
I think you should stop trying to put words in my mouth. It only exposes
the weakness in your "argument".
>> And no one has explained why the three towers collapsed.
>>
>> Have they?
>
> Quite a few people. But no-one has said what you want to hear, which
is
> a different thing.
Who has explained it?
>> Are you saying it is evidence of no controlled demolition?
>
> No. Please try not to be deliberately dishonest.
There is no dishonesty in that question.
> I am saying that it
> is not evidence of a controlled demolition, not that it is evidence of
> no controlled demolition.
Ah, but it is evidence of a controlled demolition. Just like the clouds
of concrete, puffs of smoke, and rate of collapse.
It really doesn't matter if you agree or not.
>> Of course you can't. Peer-reviewed, supported by more than 60
>> academics. It must be nonsense. Some guy on Usenet said so.
>
> Since the academic who has advanced it is by far the minority opinion,
> my first question would be to ask whether he is really more likely than
> the others to be right. As has been mentioned on ARC recently, merely
> having qualifications does not make someone's opinions infallible. You
> may still wish to look up the argumentum ad verecundiam as mentioned
> elsewhere, if you have not already done so.
Ok, so you can't refute his paper, and quickly gave up trying. And you're
citing another "authority", NIST, even though you don't seem to
understand their claims.
Nice.
; )
Conditions for a legitimate argument from authority
Any argument should ideally be based solely on direct evidence, not on
the authority of the messenger. However, it is rarely possible in common
discourse to provide all the direct evidence, so an "appeal to
authority" is often used as a shortcut:
* The authority must have competence in an area, not just glamour,
prestige, rank or popularity. A sports or entertainment figure making
claims about foreign policy is an example of how this rule is frequently
violated.
* The judgment must be within the authority's field of competence.
Linus Pauling won a Nobel Prize for chemistry, then later made claims
that massive quantities of vitamin C would prevent cancer in humans. This
claim was in the field of medicine and thus outside his field of
competence.
* The authority must be interpreted correctly. This is particularly a
problem in religion; where the Koran, Bible, Torah, etc., can be
interpreted to mean whatever is wanted.
* Direct evidence must be available, at least in principle.
* The expert should be reasonably unbiased (not unduly influenced by
other factors, such as money, political considerations, or religious
beliefs). This is why appealing to one's own authority is always
illegitimate. The Pope claiming that the Sun revolved around the Earth
was an example of an authority making a false claim biased by their
religious beliefs.
* The judgment must be representative of expert opinions on the issue
(as opposed to an unrepresentative sample). Lawyers often find a non-
representative "expert" to offer a theory which is not generally
accepted, such as the Twinkie defense, in hopes of winning their case.
* A technique is needed to adjudicate disagreements among equally
qualified authorities. If scientific testing of the claim is not
possible, then the majority of expert opinions is sometimes used to
develop a consensus.
>> Nice try at another ad hom, by the way.
>
> It is a simple fact. You have your beliefs, you have drawn your
> conclusions, and you will not be swayed from them.
How does this not apply to you, genius?
> This is demonstrated
> by your attitude here, in that you have retreated into anger and
> abusiveness rather than consider the possibility that you may be wrong.
I'm still waiting for a shred of evidence that I am wrong.
>>> However, I maintain that if anyone is assisting the Government in
>>> distracting people from their abject incompetence in dealing with the
>>> entire incident, it is the PCTs.
>>
>> Of course.
>
> Of course.
Fuckhead.
Thundercat Stevens
news:Xns9718F3AB3BED0...@213.123.26.234:
> Vandar <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Your little professor is.
>> http://www.physics.byu.edu/faculty/jones/rel491/handstext%20and%20figu
>> r es.htm
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> - Behold My Hands: Evidence for
>
> Christ's Visit in Ancient America
>
> By Steven E. Jones
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
>
> Oh, right. Interesting. I hadn't seen that. Definitely an authority
> to be taken seriously, then, and clearly an expert in all fields.
Is he a physics professor, or a theologian?
Are you dismissing all Christians, then?
They all believe some pretty nutty stuff.
Thundercat Stevens
news:Xns9718F3CC4FDD5...@213.123.26.234:
> Thundercat Stevens <KILLFIL...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Then why are you promoting "missiles", etc? They have no place in this
>> discussion
>
> Again, you may wish to ask some of your fellow PCTs about this.
I'm asking you, dickhead. I don't know anyone who believes any "missiles at
the WTC" story.
You brought it up, you desperate little weasel.
>>> See my response to your first posting of it.
>>
>> I did. I'm less than impressed.
>
> You could not have been anything else.
Admission that you are singularly unimpressive noted.
Thundercat Stevens
news:Xns97198258AEZR...@213.123.26.234:
> Thundercat Stevens <KILLFIL...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> You know when people used to make swords for warriors, right, they
>>> couldn't just heat up the metal, hammer it into shape, let it cool,
>>> and then send somebody into battle with it. It'd snap like a twig
>>> the first time the user blocked a strike with it. Why? Because the
>>> heat weakened the metal.
>>
>> But that method, folding the metal over 1000s of times, created the
>> katana swords that were the strongest ever devised.
>>
>> What's your point, again?
>
> Precisely that. You have just made it for me. "Folding the metal
> over 1000s of times", coupled with regular heating and water- or
> earth-cooling, ALONG with air-cooling, made these the strongest swords
> ever devised. Take a mass of metal, heat it up, mold it into a blade,
> and let it cool, and it will be the weakest sword it is possible to
> make.
An interesting diversion into ancient sword-making techniques. Thanks. I
don't really need divergent side discussions, however.
Now apply your theory to the Madrid fire, or the Meridian Plaza fire.
; )
Thundercat Stevens
news:Xns971911BD9C2AZ...@213.123.26.234:
> Thundercat Stevens <KILLFIL...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> It only took you, what, a week to begin to address it?
>
> Ah? And is your argument now that I did not address it, or that I did
> not address it fast enough?
That you addressed it poorly, and then gave up and dismissed the entire
paper out of hand.
> Stop whining.
Clearly, your abusive posting indicates that you argument is less than
sound.
; )
>> And 10 minutes to dismiss it out of hand?
>
> It was all it was worth.
Spankard...
DRAFT 2.4
By Steven E. Jones
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84604
ABSTRACT
http://st12.startlogic.com/
~xenonpup/Flashes/squibs_along_southwest_corner.htm
What did you observe?
Symmetry: did the building collapse straight down (nearly symmetrically)
– or did it topple over?
Speed: How fast did the building fall? (Students and I measure less
than 6.6 seconds; time it!)
Smoke/debris-jets: Did you observe puffs of smoke/debris coming out of
That’s correct – no such steel-beam building had ever before (or since)
completely collapsed due to fires! However, such complete, symmetrical
collapses in steel-frame buildings have indeed occurred many times before
-- all of them due to pre-positioned explosives in a procedure called
“implosion” or controlled demolition. What a surprise, then, for such an
occurrence in downtown Manhattan— three skyscrapers completely collapsed
on the same day, September 11, 2001.
Engineers have been trying to figure out exactly what happened and
whether they should be worried about other buildings like it around the
country… Most of the other buildings in the [area] stood despite
suffering damage of all kinds, including fire... ‘Fire and the structural
damage …would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to
have been partly evaporated’, Dr. [Jonathan] Barnett said. (Glanz, 2001;
emphasis added.)
The observed “partly evaporated” steel members is particularly upsetting
to the official theory, since fires involving paper, office materials,
even diesel fuel, cannot generate temperatures anywhere near the 5,000+
oF needed to “evaporate” steel. However, thermite, RDX and other
commonly-used explosives can readily slice through steel (thus cutting
the support columns simultaneously in an explosive demolition) and reach
the required temperatures. (It is possible that some other chemical
reactions were involved which might proceed at lesser temperatures.)
This mystery needs to be explored – but is not mentioned in the
On the other hand, falling buildings (absent explosives) have
insufficient directed energy to result in melting of large quantities of
metal. The government reports admit that the building fires were
insufficient to melt steel beams -- then where did the molten metal come
from? Metals expert Dr. Frank Gayle (working with NIST) stated:
Your gut reaction would be the jet fuel is what made the fire so very
intense, a lot of people figured that's what melted the steel. Indeed it
did not, the steel did not melt. (Field, 2005; emphasis added.)
None of the official reports tackles this mystery. Yet this is evidently
a significant clue to what caused the Towers and WTC 7 to collapse. So I
would very much like to see an analysis of the elemental composition of
the metal, and could do this myself if a small sample were made available
according to scientific courtesy. Any reader who knows of chemical
analyses or even photographs of this molten metal found below the rubble
piles of WTC 1, 2 and 7 is invited to speak out and contact the author.
This could lead to an experiment crucis.
4. Horizontal puffs of smoke and debris are observed emerging from WTC-7
on upper floors, in regular sequence, just as the building starts to
collapse. (The reader may wish to view the close-up video clip again.)
The upper floors have not moved relative to one another yet, as one can
verify from the videos. In addition, the timing between the puffs is
less than 0.2 seconds so air-expulsion due to collapsing floors is
excluded. Free-fall time for a floor to fall down to the next floor is
significantly longer than 0.2 seconds: the equation for free fall, y = ½
gt2, yields a little over 0.6 seconds, as this is near the initiation of
the collapse.
However, the presence of such “squibs” proceeding up the side of the
building is common when pre-positioned explosives are used, as can be
observed at http://www.implosionworld.com/cinema.html. The same site
shows that rapid timing between explosive squibs is also common. (It is
instructive to view several of the implosion videos at this web site.)
Thus, squibs as observed during the collapse of WTC 7 going up the side
of the building in rapid sequence provide additional significant evidence
for the use of pre-placed explosives. Regarding this highly-secure
building, a NY Times article entitled “Secretive C.I.A. Site in New York
was Destroyed on Sept. 11,” provides an intriguing puzzle piece:
The C.I.A.'s undercover New York station was in the 47-story building at
7 World Trade Center… All of the agency's employees at the site were
safely evacuated… The intelligence agency's employees were able to watch
from their office windows while the twin towers burned just before they
evacuated their own building. (Risen, 2001)
5. The official FEMA 9-11 report admits a striking anomaly regarding the
North Tower collapse:
Review of videotape recordings of the collapse taken from various angles
indicates that the transmission tower on top of the structure began to
move downward and laterally slightly before movement was evident at the
exterior wall. This suggests that collapse began with one or more
failures in the central core area of the building. (FEMA, 2002, chapter
2; emphasis added.)
North Tower showing antenna (top) at beginning of
collapse.
Yes, we can see for ourselves that the antenna drops first from videos of
the North Tower collapse. (See
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/wtc1_close_frames.html;
also http://home.comcast.net/~skydrifter/collapse.htm.) A NY Times
article also notes this behavior:
The building stood for more than an hour and a half. Videos of the north
tower's collapse appear to show that its television antenna began to drop
a fraction of a second before the rest of the building. The observations
suggest that the building's steel core somehow gave way first… (Glanz and
Lipton, 2002; emphasis added)
But how? What caused the 47 enormous steel core columns of this building
(which supported the antenna) to give way nearly simultaneously? That
mystery was raised by the FEMA report (FEMA, 2002, chapter 2) and the New
York Times (Glanz and Lipton, 2002) yet not solved in any official report
(FEMA, 2002; Commission, 2004; NIST, 2005). The odd behavior was not
even mentioned in the final NIST report (NIST, 2005), but some of us have
not forgotten.
Could random fires burning office materials in the building account for a
near-simultaneous “pulling” of these core supports? Certainly such an
event would have exceedingly low probability. Again, use of pre-
positioned explosives to cut the core columns first (standard demolition
practice) provides a simple yet elegant explanation for the observation,
satisfying the “Occam’s razor” test (Jones, 2005).
6. Multiple loud explosions in rapid sequence were heard and reported by
numerous observers in and near the WTC Towers, consistent with explosive
demolition. Firemen and others described flashes and explosions in upper
floors near where the plane entered, and in lower floors of WTC 2 just
prior to its collapse, far below the region where the plane had struck
the tower (Dwyer, 2005). For instance, at the start of the collapse of
the South Tower a Fox News anchor reported:
There is an explosion at the base of the building… white smoke from the
bottom… something happened at the base of the building! Then another
explosion.” (De Grand Pre, 2002, emphasis added.)
Firefighter Edward Cachia independently reported:
[We] thought there was like an internal detonation, explosives, because
it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came
down…It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane
hit. (Dwyer, 2005; emphasis added.)
And assistant fire commissioner Stephen Gregory provides additional
insights:
When I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down,
before No. 2 came down, ..I saw low-level flashes. In my conversation
with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned
me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and
I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it
was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing,
things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like
the building came down.
Q. Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was?
A. No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they
demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls
down? That's what I thought I saw. And I didn't broach the topic to him,
but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm crazy, but I just wanted to
ask you because you were standing right next to me… He said did you see
any flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no,
I saw them, too. (Dwyer, 2005, Assistant Commissioner Stephen Gregory
FDNY WCT2 File No. 91 10008; emphasis added.)
It is highly unlikely that jet fuel was present to generate such
explosions especially on lower floors, and long after the planes hit the
buildings. Dr. Shyam Sunder, Lead Investigator for NIST stated: "The jet
fuel probably burned out in less than 10 minutes.” (Field, 2005) On the
other hand, pre-positioned explosives provide a plausible and simple
explanation for the observations, satisfying Occam’s razor (Jones, 2005).
Thus, it cannot be said that “no evidence” can be found for the use of
explosives. This serious matter needs to be treated as a plausible
scientific hypothesis and thoroughly investigated.
7. The horizontal ejection of steel beams for hundreds of feet and the
pulverization of concrete to flour-like powder, observed clearly in the
collapses of the WTC towers, provides further evidence for the use of
explosives – as well-explained in
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/towers/index.html. (See also, Griffin,
2004, chapter 2.)
North Tower during top-down collapse.
Notice mysterious squibs far below pulverization
region.
Unlike WTC7, the twin towers appear to have been exploded “top-down”
rather than proceeding from the bottom – which is unusual for controlled
demolition but clearly possible, depending on the order in which
explosives are detonated. That is, explosives may have been placed on
higher floors of the towers and exploded via radio signals so as to have
early explosions near the region where the plane entered the tower.
Certainly this hypothesis ought to be seriously considered in an
independent investigation using all available data.
8. I totally agree with the urgent yet reasoned assessment of expert
fire-protection engineers, as boldly editorialized in the journal Fire
Engineering:
Respected members of the fire protection engineering community are
beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating [result] has emerged: The
structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel
in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers.
Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official
investigation" blessed by FEMA… is a half-baked farce that may already
have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to
put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except for the
marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of
evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members-
described by one close source as a "tourist trip"-no one's checking the
evidence for anything.
Some citizens are taking to the streets to protest the investigation
sellout. Sally Regenhard, for one, wants to know why and how the
building fell as it did upon her unfortunate son Christian, an FDNY
probationary firefighter. And so do we.
Clearly, there are burning questions that need answers. Based on the
incident's magnitude alone, a full-throttle, fully resourced, forensic
investigation is imperative. More important, from a moral standpoint,
[are considerations] for the… present and future generations… (Manning,
2002; emphasis added).
9. The occurrence of nearly symmetrical, straight-down and complete
collapses of the WTC 7 and the Towers is particularly upsetting to the
“official” theory that random fires plus damage caused all these
collapses. Even with explosives, achieving such results requires a great
deal of pre-planning and expertise.
The main challenge in bringing a building down is controlling which way
it falls. Ideally, a blasting crew will be able to tumble the building
over on one side, into a parking lot or other open area. This sort of
blast is the easiest to execute [favored by the Law of Increasing
Entropy]. Tipping a building over is something like felling a tree. To
topple the building to the north, the blasters detonate explosives on the
north side of the building first…
Sometimes, though, a building is surrounded by structures that must be
preserved. In this case, the blasters proceed with a true implosion,
demolishing the building so that it collapses straight down into its own
footprint (the total area at the base of the building). This feat
requires such skill that only a handful of demolition companies in the
world will attempt it. [Again, consistent with the Second Law of
Thermodynamics.]
Blasters approach each project a little differently... [A good] option is
to detonate the columns at the center of the building before the other
columns so that the building's sides fall inward. (Harris, 2000; emphasis
added.)
Careful observation of the collapse of WTC 7 (video clips above)
demonstrates a downward “kink” near the center of the building first,
suggesting “pulling” of the support columns, then the building’s sides
pull inward such that the building “collapses straight down into its own
footprint” (Harris, 2000). FEMA admitted that WTC 7 collapsed onto a
well-confined footprint:
The collapse of WTC 7 had a small debris field as the facade was pulled
downward, suggesting an internal failure and implosion… The average
debris field radius was approximately 70 feet. (FEMA, 2002, chapter 5.)
Evidently we agree that this was a beautifully done implosion in the
collapse of WTC 7, and yet:
This feat requires such skill that only a handful of demolition companies
in the world will attempt it. (Harris, 2000; emphasis added.)
Consider: Why would terrorists undertake straight-down collapses of WTC7
and the Towers, when “toppling-over” falls would require much less work
and would do much more damage in downtown Manhattan? And where would
they obtain the necessary skills and access to the buildings for a
symmetrical implosion anyway? These questions suggest the need for
further investigation.
One of the people a thorough investigation should question would be
demolition expert Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc.
Speaking of the way the WTC buildings came down, he said in an interview:
“If I were to bring the towers down, I would put explosives in the
basement to get the weight of the building to help collapse the
structure.” (Bollyn, 2002; emphasis added.)
Just right – “explosives in the basement” agrees with eyewitness reports
of explosions down low in the buildings (point 6 above). Also, this
would be the way to effectively sever the support columns, consistent
with both the initial drop of the communication tower (WTC Tower 1) and
the “kink” in the middle of WTC 7 as its collapse began. Yes, and as
president of Controlled Demolition, Inc., Mr. Loizeaux would know the
“handful of demolition companies in the world [that] will attempt” a
symmetrical controlled demolition. (Harris, 2000) His company is
certainly one of these and was hired to do the rapid clean-up work
following the building collapses.
If you still haven’t looked at the rapid symmetrical collapse of WTC7 for
yourself, why not do so now? Watch for the initial “kink” or drop in the
middle, and for the “squibs” blowing in sequence up the side of the
building, and notice the symmetrical, straight-down collapse -- all so
common in controlled demolitions. See for yourself at:
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html. A great deal of
further information is presented from a serious scientific point-of-view
at this site (http://911research.wtc7.net/).
10. I presented my objections to the “official” theory at a seminar at
BYU on September 22, 2005, to about sixty people. I also showed evidence
and scientific arguments for the explosive demolition theory. In
attendance were faculty from Physics, Mechanical Engineering, Civil
Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Psychology, Geology, and Mathematics
– and perhaps other departments as I did not recognize all of the people
present. A local university and college were represented (BYU and Utah
Valley State College).
The discussion was vigorous and lasted nearly two hours. It ended only
when a university class needed the room. After presenting the material
summarized here, including actually looking at and discussing the
collapses of WTC 7 and the Towers, all except one attendee agreed (by
hand-vote) that further investigation of the WTC collapses was called
for. The next day, the dissenting professor said he had further thought
about it and now agreed that more investigation was needed. He joined
the others in hoping that the 6,899 photographs and 6,977 segments of
video footage held by NIST plus others held by the FBI would be released
for independent scrutiny; photos largely from private photographers
(NIST, 2005, p. 81). We call for the release of these data to a cross-
disciplinary, preferably international team of scientists and engineers.
11. One attendee to the BYU Seminar on 9-11 anomalies suggested I review
the paper by Bazant and Zhou, which I did. Quoting:
The 110-story towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand
as a whole the forces caused by a horizontal impact of a large commercial
aircraft. So why did a total collapse occur? (Bazant and Zhou, 2002, p.
2.)
Correct – jet collisions did not cause collapses – we can agree on that.
MIT’s Thomas Eager also concurs “because the number of columns lost on
the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining
columns in this highly redundant structure” (Eager and Musso, 2001).
We continue with Bazant & Zhou:
The conflagration, caused by the aircraft fuel spilled into the
structure, causes the steel of the columns to be exposed to sustained
temperatures apparently exceeding 800oC… (Bazant and Zhou, 2002, p. 2.)
But here we note from the recent NIST report that: “The initial jet fuel
fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes” and office material fires
would burn out within about 20 minutes in a given location. (NIST, 2005;
p. 179, emphasis added.) Certainly jet fuel burning was not enough to
raise steel to sustained temperatures above 800oC. But we continue:
Once more than half of the columns in the critical floor.. suffer
buckling (stage 3), the weight of the upper part of the structure above
this floor can no longer be supported, and so the upper part starts
falling down onto the lower part below…”(Bazant and Zhou, 2002, p. 2.)
250ºC… Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to
make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC. ...
Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence
that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC. (NIST,
2005, pp. 176-177; emphasis added.)
As for WTC 7, Bazant & Zhou say little but mention in a separate
“addendum” that burning natural gas might have been a source of the
needed heat (Bazant and Zhou, March 2002, p. 370). The FEMA report
(FEMA, 2002) addresses this issue:
Early news reports had indicated that a high pressure, 24-inch gas main
was located in the vicinity of the building [WTC 7]; however, this proved
not to be true." (FEMA, 2002, chapter 5; emphasis added)
12. I have read through the hundreds of pages of the Final NIST report
on the collapses of the WTC Towers. (NIST, 2005) It is interesting to
note that NIST “decoupled” and delayed their final report on WTC 7, which
is overdue as of this writing (NIST, 2005; NISTb, 2005) I agree with
some of the NIST report; for example:
Both WTC 1 and WTC 2 were stable after the aircraft impact, standing for
102 min and 56 min, respectively. The global analyses with structural
impact damage showed that both towers had considerable reserve capacity.
This was confirmed by analysis of the post-impact vibration of WTC 2…
where the damaged tower oscillated at a period nearly equal to the first
mode period calculated for the undamaged structure. (NIST, 2005, p. 144;
emphasis added.)
At any given location, the duration of [air, not steel] temperatures near
1,000oC was about 15 min to 20 min. The rest of the time, the calculated
temperatures were near 500oC or below.” (NIST, 2005, p. 127, emphasis
added.)
NIST contracted with Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. to conduct tests to
obtain information on the fire endurance of trusses like those in the WTC
towers… All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for
approximately 2 hours without collapsing.” (NIST, 2005, p. 140, emphasis
added.)
However, I along with others challenge NIST’s collapse theory. NIST
maintains that all three building collapses were fire-initiated despite
the observations above, particularly the fact that fire endurance tests
with actual models did not result in collapse. In a paper by fire-
engineering experts in the UK, we find:
The basis of NIST’s collapse theory is… column behaviour in fire...
However, we believe that a considerable difference in downward displace
between the [47] core and [240] perimeter columns, much greater than the
300 mm proposed, is required for the collapse theory to hold true… [Our]
lower reliance on passive fire protection is in contrast to the NIST work
where the amount of fire protection on the truss elements is believed to
be a significant factor in defining the time to collapse… The [proposed
effect] is swamped by thermal expansion … Thermal expansion and the
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 also agree with Kevin Ryan’s objections regarding the NIST study.
Kevin Ryan, at the time a manager at Underwriters Laboratories (UL),
makes a point of the non-collapse of actual WTC-based models in his
letter to Frank Gayle of NIST:
As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel
components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting
information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last
year… they suggested we all be patient and understand that UL was working
with your team… I'm aware of UL's attempts to help, including performing
tests on models of the floor assemblies. But the results of these tests…
indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal
stress caused by… burning [jet fuel, paper, etc.]. (Ryan, 2004)
That models of WTC trusses at Underwriter Laboratories (UL) subjected to
fires did NOT fail is also admitted in the final NIST report:
NIST contracted with Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. to conduct tests to
obtain information on the fire endurance of trusses like those in the WTC
towers…. All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for
approximately 2 hours without collapsing… The Investigation Team was
analysis for their non-explosive collapse model. Ryan’s analysis is that
the probability that fires and damage (the “official theory”) could cause
the Towers complete collapse is less than one in a trillion, and the
probability is much less still when the complete collapse of WTC7 is
included (Ryan, 2005). Nor does NIST (or FEMA or the 9-11 Commission)
even mention the molten metals found in the basements of all three
buildings (WTC 1, 2 and 7).
So where does that leave us? I strongly agree with Kevin Ryan,
This [“official”] story just does not add up…. That fact should be of
great concern to all Americans…. There is no question that the events of
9/11 are the emotional driving force behind the War on Terror. And the
issue of the WTC collapse is at the crux of the story of 9/11. (Ryan,
2004; emphasis added.)
14. The NIST team fairly admits that their report “does not actually
include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for
collapse initiation were reached.” (NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 1; emphasis
added.) Quite a confession, since much of the external evidence for
explosive demolition typically comes after collapse initiation, as seen
in cases of acknowledged controlled demolition. (Harris, 2000.)
The rapid fall of the Towers and WTC7 has been analyzed by several
engineers/scientists
(http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/proofs/speed.html; Griffin,
2004, chapter 2). The roof of WTC 7 (students and I are observing the
southwest corner) falls to earth in less than 6.6 seconds, while an
object dropped from the roof would hit the ground in 6.0 seconds. This
follows from t = (2H/g)1/2. Likewise, the Towers fall very rapidly to
the ground, with the upper part falling nearly as rapidly as ejected
debris which provide free-fall references
(http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/proofs/speed.html; Griffin,
2004, chapter 2). Where is the delay that must be expected due to
conservation of momentum – one of the foundational Laws of Physics? That
is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors – and intact steel
support columns – the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted
mass. If the central support columns remained standing, then the
effective resistive mass would be less, but this is not the case –
somehow the enormous support columns failed/disintegrated along with the
falling floor pans.
How do the upper floors fall so quickly, then, and still conserve
momentum in the collapsing buildings? The contradiction is ignored by
FEMA, NIST and 9-11 Commission reports where conservation of momentum and
the fall times were not analyzed. The paradox is easily resolved by the
explosive demolition hypothesis, whereby explosives quickly remove lower-
floor material including steel support columns and allow near free-fall-
speed collapses (Harris, 2000).
And these explosives also readily account for the turning of the falling
Towers to fine dust as the collapse ensues. Rather than a piling up with
shattering of concrete as we might expect from non-explosive-caused
progressive collapse (“official theory”), we find that most of the Towers
material (concrete, carpet, steel, etc.) is converted to flour-like
powder WHILE the buildings are falling. The Towers’ collapses are not a
typical implosions, but quite possibly series of “shock-and-awe”
explosions – at least the evidence points strongly in this direction.
The hypothesis ought to be explored further.
Those who wish to preserve as inviolate fundamental physical laws may
wish to take a closer look. Consider the collapse of the South WTC Tower
on 9-11:
http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/south_tower_collapse.
mpeg
Top ~ 34 floors of South Tower topple over.
What happens to the block and its angular momentum?
We observe that approximately 34 upper floors begin to rotate as a block,
to the south and east. They begin to topple over, as favored by the
Second Law of Thermodynamics. The torque due to gravity on this block is
enormous, as is its angular momentum. But then – and this I’m still
puzzling over – this block turned mostly to powder in mid-air! How can we
understand this strange behavior, without explosives? Remarkable,
amazing – and demanding scrutiny since the US government-funded reports
failed to analyze this phenomenon. But, of course, the Final NIST 9-11
report “does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower
after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached.” (NIST, 2005,
p. 80, fn. 1; emphasis added.)
Indeed, if we seek the truth of the matter, we must NOT ignore the data
to be observed during the actual collapses of the towers, as the NIST
team admits they did. But why did they do such a non-scientific
procedure as to ignore highly-relevant data? The business smacks of
political constraints on what was supposed to be an “open and thorough”
investigation. (See Mooney, 2005.)
So I with others call for an open and thorough investigation. I hope the
international community will rise to the challenge. The field is wide
open for considering the alternative hypothesis outlined here, due to its
neglect by studies funded by the US government.
15. Finally, and by way of review, we consider the variations and
inconsistencies in the fire/damaged-caused collapse models with time.
The earliest model, promoted by various media sources, was that the fires
in the towers were sufficiently hot to actually melt the steel in the
buildings, thus causing their collapse. For example, Chris Wise in a BBC
piece spouted out false notions with great gusto
“It was the fire that killed the buildings. There’s nothing on earth
that could survive those temperatures with that amount of fuel burning…
The columns would have melted, the floors would have melted and
eventually they would have collapsed one on top of the other.” (quoted
in Paul and Hoffman, 2004, p. 25)
But as we have seen from later serious studies, the jet fuel burned out
within minutes following impact. Recall the statement of expert Dr.
Gayle refuting the notion that fires in the WTC buildings were
sufficiently hot to melt the steel supports:
Your gut reaction would be the jet fuel is what made the fire so very
intense, a lot of people figured that's what melted the steel. Indeed it
did not, the steel did not melt. (Field, 2005; emphasis added)
Then we have the model of Bazant and Zhou, which requires the majority
of the 47 huge steel columns on a floor of each Tower to reach sustained
temperatures of 800oC in order to buckle (not melt) – at the same time.
But as we’ve seen, such temperatures are very difficult to reach while
burning office materials, in these connected steel structures where the
heat is wicked away by heat transport. (Paul and Hoffman, 2004, p. 26)
And then to reach the 800oC at the same time, well, no, this scenario is
far too improbable.
So that approach was abandoned by FEMA in the next effort (FEMA, 2002).
The FEMA team largely adopted the theory of Dr. Thomas Eager (Eager and
Musso, 2001), which was also presented in the NOVA presentation “Why the
Towers Fell” (NOVA, 2002). Instead of having the columns fail
simultaneously, FEMA has floor pans in the Towers warp due to fires, and
the floor connections to the vertical beams break, and these floor pans
then fall down onto the floor pans below, initiating “progressive
collapse” or pancaking of one floor pan on another. Very simple. But
not so fast – what happens to the enormous core columns to which the
the building is “poised for collapse” (NIST, 2005, p. 142) – namely the
rapid and symmetrical and complete (no tall-standing central core)
collapses. Reports of explosions, heard and seen, are not discussed.
And they ignore the squibs seen ejected from floors far from where the
jets hit – particularly seen in WTC 7 (where no jet hit at all).
CONCLUSIONS
– and others as outlined above – should proceed in the United States.
None of the government-funded studies have provided serious analyses of
the explosive demolition hypothesis at all. Until the above steps are
taken, the case for accusing ill-trained Muslims of causing all the
destruction on 9-11-01 is far from compelling. It just does not add up.
And that fact should be of great concern to Americans. (Ryan, 2004).
Clearly, we must find out what really caused the WTC skyscrapers to
collapse as they did.
To this end, NIST must release the 6,899 photographs and over 300 hours
of video recordings – acquired mostly by private parties – which it
AFTERWARD
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
REFERENCES
NISTb (2005). http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%
20Collapse%20Final.pdf%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf (Part IIC – WTC
7 Collapse, preliminary), 2005.
Fair Use Notice
Thundercat Stevens
news:Xns9719DC1745CZ...@213.123.26.234:
> Thundercat Stevens <KILLFIL...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> I suppose I shouldn't be surprised to see you fall back to this
>>> standard- issue fundamentalist/PCT tactic.
>>
>> Best evidence indicates explosives were used.
>>
>> You've yet to effectively address that argument.
>
> There is no serious evidence suggesting that explosives were used.
DRAFT 2.4
By Steven E. Jones
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84604
ABSTRACT
http://st12.startlogic.com/
~xenonpup/Flashes/squibs_along_southwest_corner.htm
What did you observe?
CONCLUSIONS
AFTERWARD
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
REFERENCES
Fair Use Notice
> There are only the claims of PCTs like you, and a paper written by
> someone who - I now find - also wrote a paper on Jesus Christ's visit
> to ancient America.
A weak ad hominem argument. Nice. ; )
> That is certainly the 'best' evidence in your eyes, because it says
> what you'd like it to say - but for most people 'best evidence'
> suggests 'most convincing evidence'.
And, as NIST said, their theory has, at best, a low probability of
occurance.
I guess it's enough to convince sheep such as yourself.
; )
Malto
>
>
> Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?
>
Because they flrw two fucking planes into them, you idiot.
Vandar
> Midjis <midwi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in
> news:Xns9718F3CC4FDD5...@213.123.26.234:
>
>
>>Thundercat Stevens <KILLFIL...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Then why are you promoting "missiles", etc? They have no place in this
>>>discussion
>>
>>Again, you may wish to ask some of your fellow PCTs about this.
>
>
> I'm asking you, dickhead. I don't know anyone who believes any "missiles at
> the WTC" story.
Vandar
Do you now believe that the NIST report is inaccurate, or do you just
cite the portions you like?
Is that question too difficult for you?
Thundercat Stevens
You're very informed, I can tell.
Malto
> " Malto" <.Malto@offski.commiee> wrote in news:dm5mu6$n01$0...@pita.alt.net:
>
> >
> > "Thundercat Stevens" <KILLFIL...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:Xns9718BDB94...@207.14.113.17...
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?
> >>
> >
> > Because they flrw two fucking planes into them, you idiot.
>
> You're very informed, I can tell.
Compared to you, even that idiot Bush is a genius.
Thundercat Stevens
news:dm5rvt$btt$0...@pita.alt.net:
Say, genius. Did a plane hit WTC 7?
No?
Interesting.
whofan
Well, parts of a plane most certainly hit WTC-7. As did two
110-story skyscrapers collapsing with the remnants of two
fully fueled 767's.
>
> Interesting.
>
Seeing that no one outside of those that live and work in NYC
had any clue that WTC-7 even existed before 9/11....why in the
world (according to your conspiracy theory) would the perpetrators
go through the effort of wiring up WTC-7 for controlled demolition?
The ONLY target in that area was the WTC towers.
BTW - according to your conspiracy theory, how many weeks, months,
years do you think it would have taken to strategically place the
explosives and wiring in the correct places in the buildings without
anybody noticing?
Malto
> " Malto" <.Malto@offski.commiee> wrote in
> news:dm5rvt$btt$0...@pita.alt.net:
>
> >
> > "Thundercat Stevens" <KILLFIL...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:Xns9718C5223...@207.14.113.17...
> >> " Malto" <.Malto@offski.commiee> wrote in
> >> news:dm5mu6$n01$0...@pita.alt.net:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > "Thundercat Stevens" <KILLFIL...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:Xns9718BDB94...@207.14.113.17...
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Because they flrw two fucking planes into them, you idiot.
> >>
> >> You're very informed, I can tell.
> >
> > Compared to you, even that idiot Bush is a genius.
>
> Say, genius. Did a plane hit WTC 7?
Fuck off, fruit loop.
Thundercat Stevens
i...@rcn.net:
> Thundercat Stevens wrote:
>
>> " Malto" <.Malto@offski.commiee> wrote in
>> news:dm5rvt$btt$0...@pita.alt.net:
>>
>>
>>>"Thundercat Stevens" <KILLFIL...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:Xns9718C5223...@207.14.113.17...
>>>
>>>>" Malto" <.Malto@offski.commiee> wrote in
>>>>news:dm5mu6$n01$0...@pita.alt.net:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Thundercat Stevens" <KILLFIL...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:Xns9718BDB94...@207.14.113.17...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Because they flrw two fucking planes into them, you idiot.
>>>>
>>>>You're very informed, I can tell.
>>>
>>>Compared to you, even that idiot Bush is a genius.
>>
>>
>> Say, genius. Did a plane hit WTC 7?
>>
>> No?
>
> Well, parts of a plane most certainly hit WTC-7.
Cite?
> As did two
> 110-story skyscrapers collapsing with the remnants of two
> fully fueled 767's.
So many errors in one statement...
>> Interesting.
>>
>
> Seeing that no one outside of those that live and work in NYC
> had any clue that WTC-7 even existed before 9/11....why in the
> world (according to your conspiracy theory) would the perpetrators
> go through the effort of wiring up WTC-7 for controlled demolition?
>
> The ONLY target in that area was the WTC towers.
>
> BTW - according to your conspiracy theory, how many weeks, months,
> years do you think it would have taken to strategically place the
> explosives and wiring in the correct places in the buildings without
> anybody noticing?
You have a simplistic view of events.
Thundercat Stevens
I appear to have struck a nerve.
That's, "No, no plane hit WTC 7".
Malto
Hardly.
Like I said, fuck off loon.
EagleEye
>
> Like I said, fuck off loon.
What are you, an unquestioning loyal rightard Bush republican
conservative who cannot fathom the possibility that you've been lied
to, making all those who do question based on scientific fact and
research and observation, loons? You think the official story is all
true? Who's the loon?
lensm...@hotmail.com
Were either of these buildings designed like the WTC with a central
core and the remaining stress distributed along the outer frame? If not
then it's hardly a fair comparison, is it?
lensm...@hotmail.com
No. Big chunks of a falling building did.
Thundercat Stevens
news:dm6ejq$pt2$1...@pita.alt.net:
Pobrecito! Ask mommy to give you some soup.
Thundercat Stevens
news:1132916220.3...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
> Did I say fire? I said impact.
The plane that hit the corner of the building damaged the core to the
degree that the building neatly collapsed?
Without a fire?
Got a cite?
>> > and the
>> > supports around the edges were weakened (_weakened_ NOT melted) by
>> > the subsequent fire. Since the buildings were not pushed past their
>> > center of gravity, once the collapse started, it went straight
>> > down. There's be no other direction for it to go.
>>
>> Except we all saw the top of one start to topple to the side.
>
> Until the weakened supports gave way. Then it was straight down. While
> it did "tilt," it didn't pass beyond its center of gravity and thus
> did not fall over, but fell straight down.
It did fall over, everyone saw it, it was filmed. It still somehow turned
to dust on the way down.
>> > You can see in the video, that the collapses started from the point
>> > of impact! So, not only do you have to have a clandestine group
>> > that was capable of moving through the WTC, cutting supports and
>> > wiring explosives without being detected. But these explosives have
>> > to have survived the impact of a couple of jet planes and the
>> > subsequent fires!
>>
>> What happened to resistance from the supports below?
>
> How many floors were there above the impact spot? How much did that
> part of the building weigh? Once that went, how much resistance could
> the lower floors have provided?
So you have no idea why there was no resistance.
>> > As far as WTC7 is concerned. I don't know for a fact if it was
>> > designed along the same lines as the Towers. What I do know is it
>> > was damaged by debris falling from one of the Towers and had fires
>> > running through it. The official statement is that the fires were
>> > then fed by a fuel line running through the building which was ment
>> > to feed generators.
>>
>> So there is no reason for WTC 7 to have collapsed.
>
> Of course there is. It was damaged by debris. There was fire fed from
> a fuel line, and the firefighters didn't have the time or manpower to
> work that fire and deal with the general disaster.
So it was a raging fire?
Got any photo evidence of this?
Why didn't much bigger building fires cause collapses?
The asymmetrical and rather insignificant damage caused the building to
implode?
>> > If the government did orchestrate 9/11, why bring down WTC7?
>> > There's no logical reason for it.
>>
>> You're very well-informed, I can tell.
>
> And you don't have an answer, that's obvious!
Of course I do. Why are you so ignorant on the subject?