# Scholars for 9/11 Truth



## Makalakumu (Feb 7, 2006)

I was poking around the internet, chasing around some rumors and I came across this site.  Very interesting stuff here.  Peer Review articles.  Groups of scientific professionals.  Rational, well supported arguments.  All of it attacking the official story put forward by the 9/11 commission report.  Poke around and report your thoughts...

Scholars for 9/11 Truth


----------



## Don Roley (Feb 7, 2006)

"Peer Reviewed"????? 

Take a careful look and you will see the same three names over and over again. Jones, Griffith and Fetzer.

I took a look at one of the articles trying to say that the WTC was brought down by pre-positioned charges. The author only seemed to have looked at some photos of the rubble and such to reach his conclusion.

Great, proffesional- looking lay out. But three guys with computers is not the standard I would go by. And pictures from the media are not the type of thing I would base an accusation like that off of .


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 7, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> "I took a look at one of the articles trying to say that the WTC was brought down by pre-positioned charges. The author only seemed to have looked at some photos of the rubble and such to reach his conclusion.


 
I just read the first peer reviewed paper.  It is far more extensive then that.  This is something I would suggest reading very carefully and not skimming.  I don't know what to think yet...


----------



## tshadowchaser (Feb 7, 2006)

I need to read this a lot more a few times befor I say much


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 7, 2006)

tshadowchaser said:
			
		

> I need to read this a lot more a few times befor I say much


 
This is the most extensive, well researched, well thought out site that I've seen on these matters.  The first article really made some good points.  These guys are pretty well prepared.


----------



## Don Roley (Feb 8, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> This is the most extensive, well researched, well thought out site that I've seen on these matters.



I don't see it that way. I have seen a lot of things like this in my years of dealing with fake ninja on the internet. If you really do not know the subject matter, it sounds great. But to those that know, the flaws are evident.

In this case, it is hard for those of us that are not experts in the field to even tell what they are saying. I have seen the most silly things said about Japan and ninjutsu that have been accepted. I see no reason to believe that it can't be the case here. So, why hasn't the experts that are obviously not biased chimed in yet?

Who has peer reviewed this and why is it just a few cranks on the internet? I saw that supposably a Professor Griffith backed up what the first article said, but the link it had did not lead to another site, but to the same site as these guys. And I could find no reference to him and his qualifications on the site.

The evidence they give is questionable at best and very meager. They reject the most obvious conclusions and deal with things that seem to make grassy knoll theories sound sane by comparison.

Of course, a lot of the technical stuff does go over my head- which is something I am used to ninjutsu frauds using as well. If you pile it on higher and deeper, a lot of people will take the hook.

Extra ordinary claims require extra ordinary proof. Not only do I not see anything that I myself can take as proof.

And of course, with all theories of a frame up, there is the question of how someone could pull off such a huge undertaking. To arrange for everything to happen in such a way that Al-Queda would be blamed would take thousand of people years of work. And yet there has been nothing to blow them out of the water? Take a look at the Watergate break in. A few guys on a crime that did not really harm too many inocents- only a politacl party. And yet within a few months someone was talking to the press. So, after all the people that would be needed to pull this off and have it on their consciousness for years, no one has had a case of guilt? Nothing fouled up to exposwe them? We are talking about a goverment that loses satelites because someone did not convert to metric correctly and we expect a frame up like this to go off without something being blown?

But the strength of conspiracy theorists is that they can point to the lack of evidence, or contradictory evidence as proof that there are people trying to cover something up.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 8, 2006)

I guess the one thing that stick in my head, Don, (and I have a scientific background) is the fact that steel girders were found that showed signs of vaporization.  The kind of temperature needed to vaporize steel cannot be generated in a hydrocarbon fire.  

4500 degrees F is the range needed to start this process.  Higher if one needs to do it faster.  This temperature range, between 5000 and 6000 degrees, *is as hot as the surface of the sun* and only a few specific chemical reactions can generate it.  One of them is a steel cutting explosive used to demolish buildings.

I think that it is good to be skeptical about these things, but to defer an argument because one does not understand the technical jargon isn't skepticism.  Ask some more questions.  Ask me.  I'm a teacher and I can probably help explain some stuff you might not understand.  

The bottom line is that the fact that steel was vaporized in the WTC superstructure casts some serious doubt on the hypothesis that the impact of the planes and the fire caused by paper and hydrocarbons caused the buildings to go down.

There must have been something else at work in order to vaporize steel.  What?


----------



## CanuckMA (Feb 8, 2006)

One of the most common fallacy used by the conspiracy nut bars is that the fires were not hot enough to melt steel. True. But the towers were stabilized by massive concrete slabs on the roof. The combination of the impact damage and the WEAKENING of the steel girders by the fire was enough to buckle the steel, causing the collapse. You do not need liquifying temperatures to soften a metal. Ever seen a blacksmith at work? The steel is not melted, just softened a bit. Enough to reshape it.


----------



## jdinca (Feb 8, 2006)

A steel girder will start to elongate at 1,000 degrees, well within the limits of a hydrocarbon fire. I'm thinking way back to basic fire chemistry but I think they fail between 1500-2000 degrees.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 8, 2006)

CanuckMA said:
			
		

> One of the most common fallacy used by the conspiracy nut bars...


 
Don't you think this is a bit perjorative?  Could it be possible that some people may have some legitimate questions regarding the events of 9/11?



			
				CanuckMA said:
			
		

> ...is that the fires were not hot enough to melt steel. True. But the towers were stabilized by massive concrete slabs on the roof. The combination of the impact damage and the WEAKENING of the steel girders by the fire was enough to buckle the steel, causing the collapse. You do not need liquifying temperatures to soften a metal. Ever seen a blacksmith at work? The steel is not melted, just softened a bit. Enough to reshape it.


 
This point is a commonly brought up in defense of the Official Story and it is extensively addressed in the research presented.

Here is an excerpt...



> Most defenders of the official theory, in fact, do not make this absurd claim. They say merely that the fire heated the steel up to the point where it lost so much of its strength that it buckled.[/SIZE][11] For example, Thomas Eagar, saying that steel loses 80 percent of its strength when it is heated to 1,300&#730;F, argues that this is what happened. But for even this claim to plausible, the fires would have still had to be pretty hot.
> 
> But they were not. Claims have been made, as we have seen, about the jet fuel. But much of it burned up very quickly in the enormous fireballs produced when the planes hit the buildings, and rest was gone within 10 minutes,[12] after which the flames died down. Photographs of the towers 15 minutes after they were struck show few flames and lots of black smoke, a sign that the fires were oxygen-starved. Thomas Eagar, recognizing this fact, says that the fires were &#8220;probably only about 1,200 or 1,300&#730;F&#8221; (Eagar, 2002).
> 
> ...


*


I think we can safely throw out the "steel was weakened by fire" hypothesis.[/SIZE]*​


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 8, 2006)

jdinca said:
			
		

> A steel girder will start to elongate at 1,000 degrees, well within the limits of a hydrocarbon fire. I'm thinking way back to basic fire chemistry but I think they fail between 1500-2000 degrees.


 
This point is also addressed in there research.  Here is an excerpt...



> Claims have been made, as we have seen, about the jet fuel. But much of it burned up very quickly in the enormous fireballs produced when the planes hit the buildings, and rest was gone within 10 minutes,[12] after which the flames died down. Photographs of the towers 15 minutes after they were struck show few flames and lots of black smoke, a sign that the fires were oxygen-starved. Thomas Eagar, recognizing this fact, says that the fires were probably only about 1,200 or 1,300&#730;F (Eagar, 2002).
> 
> There are reasons to believe, moreover, that the fires were not even that hot. As photographs show, the fires did not break windows or even spread much beyond their points of origin (Hufschmid, 2002, p. 40). This photographic evidence is supported by scientific studies carried out by NIST, which found that of the 16 perimeter columns examined, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250&#730;C [482&#730;F], and no evidence that any of the core columns had reached even those temperatures (2005, p. 88).​


 
I think it is instructive to remember that even if one were to put a fire to piece of steel, the metal takes a long time to absorb the heat.  This would explain why columns that were directly affected by the brief fire (the ones with hydrocarbon scoring) were only shown to have reached 482 degrees.  

Also, the hydrocarbon fire does nothing to explain the presence of vaporized steel...


----------



## jdinca (Feb 8, 2006)

I've been in a burn room where we generated 800 degrees at the ceiling from hay bales, just by letting the fire burn for 10 minutes. I also would go by the windows blowing out to determine the amount of heat generated. Those windows are impact resistant safety glass that's probably at least 1/2" thick. They'll hold the heat in quite a while before they fail. The building itself is Type I construction, basically a cement oven.

Does the report talk about the massive amount of energy disipation from a very large aircraft impacting the building at several hundred miles and hour? That alone would generate a great deal of heat and could account for vaporization at the moment of impact.

As for the color of the smoke, what was burning after the jet fuel was gone was not the building itself, it was the contents of the building and of the planes. There is now a tremendous amount of plastics(petroleum products) in interior furnishings these days. That was the source of the black smoke. Remember the burning jet fuel produced black smoke too. Had the fires been oxygen starved and in a smoldering phase, the smoke would have developed a yellowish gray or gray appearance, not thick and black.

These buildings are designed to prevent the spread of fire. Poke throughs are sealed, stairwells are isolated. Lapping up from the floor below through broken windows or the radiant heat from the fire below are the main ways a fire is going to spread in these types of buildings. I'm not surprised there wasn't a greater spread.

As for the use of explosives, they would have had to been placed at the level the planes impacted, since that's where the initial collapse took place. In addition, there would have been secondary explosions just before the buildings collapses. The amount of explosives required would have created a blast that would have been seen outside the buildings.

I'm going to keep my aluminum foil in the drawer on this one.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Feb 8, 2006)

Somehow "top secret" NSA spy programs get leaked but a huge operation with synchronized multiple airplane crashes along with pre-positioned explosives -not to mention the ammount of time and prep it takes to set something like that up-does not. Im not buying it. The X-files was canceled years ago.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 8, 2006)

jdinca said:
			
		

> I'm going to keep my aluminum foil in the drawer on this one.


 
I think alot of people will no matter how much research contaverts the official story.  The alternative is just too terrible.  

You make some valid points, however, it is good to remember that these buildings (and this is mentioned in the research) were over engineered to face fires that were much worse then then what occured.  They were also engineered to withstand aircraft impacts, hurricanes, earthquakes, and strikes from conventional weapons in times of war...

They were built to last as long as they could...forever in an idealistic sense.

Some things you might want to think about are the fact that only a small percentage of the beams were actually burned with the jet fuel fire.  These beams were tested and were shown to have risen to a temp of 481 degrees.  This is well below any threshold that would cause them to buckle.  It was also well below the threshold that would actually melt the beams.

However, both melted steel and vaporized steel were observed in the wreckage of the WTC.  Further, it was shown that the gravitational energy of the falling building and the friction that would have been generated would not be sufficiant to melt steel or vaporize it.  

Another thing to think about is the fact that WTC 7 fell from a low grade fire alone.  There was hardly any jet fuel and no airplane impact in that case.  No steel building has ever collapsed from fire alone in recorded history.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 8, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> Somehow "top secret" NSA spy programs get leaked but a huge operation with synchronized multiple airplane crashes along with pre-positioned explosives -not to mention the ammount of time and prep it takes to set something like that up-does not. Im not buying it. The X-files was canceled years ago.


 
I have no real idea what happened.  However, this research does poke huge holes in the official version of this story.  Anyone can see this...


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Feb 8, 2006)

Why didnt the government cover up the clean-up to cover their tracks if they are so efficient? Tin hat stuff I agree.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Feb 8, 2006)

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1

Read it.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 8, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1
> 
> Read it.


 
I did and so did the researchers on this site.  This article has been specifically refuted.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 8, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> Why didnt the government cover up the clean-up to cover their tracks if they are so efficient? Tin hat stuff I agree.


 
If you read the "removal of steel" section, it certainly looks like someone trying to cover tracks.  The rest of the stuff is also very interesting...

_



Removal of the Steel: For one thing, the steel from the buildings was quickly removed before it could be properly examined,[48] with virtually all of it being sold to scrap dealers, who put most of it on ships to Asia.[49] Generally, removing any evidence from the scene of a crime is a federal offense. But in this case, federal officials facilitated the removal.[50] 

This removal evoked protest. On Christmas day, 2001, the New York Times said: The decision to rapidly recycle the steel columns, beams and trusses from the WTC in the days immediately after 9/11 means definitive answers may never be known.[51] The next week, Fire Engineering magazinesaid: We are literally treating the steel removed from the site like garbage, not like crucial fire scene evidence (Brannigan, Corbett, and Dunn, 2002). . . . The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately (Manning, 2002). 

However, Mayor Bloomberg, defending the decision to dispose of the steel, said: "If you want to take a look at the construction methods and the design, that's in this day and age what computers do.[52] Just looking at a piece of metal generally doesn't tell you anything."[53] But that is not true. An examination of the steel could have revealed whether it had been cut by explosives. 

     This removal of an unprecedented amount of material from a crime scene suggests that an unprecedented crime was being covered up.[54]​​Evidence that this cover-up was continued by NIST is provided by its treatment of a provocative finding reported by FEMA, which was that some of the specimens of steel were rapidly corroded by sulfidation (FEMA 2002, Appendix C). This report is significant, because sulfidation is an effect of explosives. FEMA appropriately called for further investigation of this finding, which the New York Times called perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation (Killough-Miller, 2002). A closely related problem, expressed shortly after 9/11 by Dr. Jonathan Barnett, Professor of Fire Protection Engineering at Worcester Polytechnic Institute, is that [f]ire and the structural damage . . . would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated (Glanz, 2001). But the NIST report, in its section headed Learning from the Recovered Steel, fails even to mention either evaporation or sulfidation.[55] Why would the NIST scientists apparently share Mayor Bloombergs disdain for empirical studies of recovered steel? ​​ 
North Tower Antenna Drop: Another problem noted by FEMA is that videos show that, in the words of the FEMA Report, the transmission tower on top of the [north tower] 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, ch. 2).[56] This drop was also mentioned in a New York Times story by James Glanz and Eric Lipton, which said: 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). In the supposedly definitive NIST Report, however, we find no mention of this fact. This is another convenient omission, since the most plausible, and perhaps only possible, explanation would be that the core columns were cut by explosives---an explanation that would fit with the testimony of several witnesses. ​​ 
South Tower Tipping and Disintegration: If the north towers antenna drop was anomalous (from the perspective of the official theory), the south towers collapse contained an even stranger anomaly. The uppermost floors---above the level struck by the airplane---began tipping toward the corner most damaged by the impact. According to conservation-of-momentum laws, this block of approximately 34 floors should have fallen to the ground far outside the buildings footprint. However, observe Paul and Hoffman, as the top then began to fall, the rotation decelerated. Then it reversed direction [even though the] law of conservation of angular momentum states that a solid object in rotation will continue to rotate at the same speed unless acted on by a torque (Paul and Hoffman, 2004, p. 34). ​​And then, in the words of Steven Jones, a physics professor at BYU, this block turned mostly to powder in mid-air! This disintegration stopped the tipping and allowed the uppermost floors to fall straight down into, or at least close to, the buildings footprint. As Jones notes, this extremely strange behavior was one of many things that NIST was able to ignore by virtue of the fact that its analysis, in its own words, does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached (NIST 2005, p. 80, n. 12). This is convenient because it means that NIST did not have to answer Joness question: How can we understand this strange behavior, without explosives? (Jones, 2006). ​​This behavior is, however, not strange to experts in controlled demolition. Mark Loizeaux, the head of Controlled Demolition, Inc., has said: ​​*y differentially controlling the velocity of failure in different parts of the structure, you can make it walk, you can make it spin, you can make it dance . . . . We'll have structures start facing north and end up going to the north-west. (Else, 2004) *​*
​Once again, something that is inexplicable in terms of the official theory becomes a matter of course if the theory of controlled demolition is adopted. ​​*​*

WTC Security: The suggestion that explosives might have been used raises the question of how anyone wanting to place explosives in the towers could have gotten through the security checks. This question brings us to a possibly relevant fact about a company---now called Stratesec but then called Securacom---that was in charge of security for the World Trade Center. From 1993 to 2000, during which Securacom installed a new security system, Marvin Bush, the presidents brother, was one of the companys directors. And from 1999 until January of 2002, their cousin Wirt Walker III was the CEO (Burns, 2003).[57] One would think these facts should have made the evening news---or at least The 9/11 Commission Report.  ​​These facts, in any case, may be relevant to some reports given by people who had worked in the World Trade Center. Some of them reportedly said that although in the weeks before 9/11 there had been a security alert that mandated the use of bomb-sniffing dogs, that alert was lifted five days before 9/11 (Taylor and Gardiner, 2001). ​Also, a man named Scott Forbes, who worked for Fiduciary Trust---the company for which Kristen Breitweisers husband worked---has written: 

On the weekend of [September 8-9, 2001], there was a power down condition in . . . the south tower. This power down condition meant there was no electrical supply for approximately 36 hours from floor 50 up. . . . The reason given by the WTC for the power down was that cabling in the tower was being upgraded . . . . Of course without power there were no security cameras, no security locks on doors [while] many, many engineers [were] coming in and out of the tower.[58] 

Also, a man named Ben Fountain, who was a financial analyst with Firemans Fund in the south tower, was quoted in People Magazine as saying that during the weeks before 9/11, the towers were evacuated a number of times (People Magazine, 2001). 
​ 
Foreknowledge of the Collapse: One more possibly relevant fact is that then Mayor Rudy Giuliani, talking on ABC News about his temporary emergency command center at 75 Barkley Street, said: ​​We were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was gonna collapse, and it did collapse before we could get out of the building.[59]​​This is an amazing statement. Prior to 9/11, fire had never brought down a steel-frame high-rise. The firemen who reached the 78th floor of the south tower certainly did not believe it was going to collapse. Even the 9/11 Commission reported that to its knowledge, none of the [fire] chiefs present believed that a total collapse of either tower was possible (Kean and Hamilton, 2004, p. 302). So why would anyone have told Giuliani that at least one of the towers was about to collapse? ​​     The most reasonable answer, especially in light of the new evidence, is that someone knew that explosives had been set in the south tower and were about to be discharged. It is even possible that the explosives were going to be discharged earlier than originally planned because the fires in the south tower were dying down more quickly than expected, because so much of the planes jet fuel had burned up in the fireball outside the building.[60] This could explain why although the south tower was struck second, suffered less structural damage, and had smaller fires, it collapsed first---after only 56 minutes. That is, if the official story was going to be that the fire caused the collapse, the building had to be brought down before the fire went completely out.[61]​​     We now learn from the oral histories, moreover, that Giuliani is not the only one who was told that a collapse was coming. At least four of the testimonies indicate that shortly before the collapse of the south tower, the Office of Emergency Management (OEM) had predicted the collapse of at least one tower.[62] The director of OEM reported directly to Giuliani.[63] So although Giuliani said that he and others were told that the towers were going to collapse, it was his own people who were doing the telling. ​​
As New York Times reporter Jim Dwyer has pointed out, the 9/11 Commission had access to the oral histories.[64] It should have discussed these facts, but it did not. ​     The neglect of most of the relevant facts about the collapses, manifested by The 9/11 Commission Report, was continued by the NIST Report, which said, amazingly: ​​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. . . . [Our simulation treats only] the structural deterioration of each tower from the time of aircraft impact to the time at which the building . . . was poised for collapse (80n, 140). ​​Steven Jones comments, appropriately: ​​What about the subsequent complete, rapid and symmetrical collapse of the buildings? . . . What about the antenna dropping first in the North Tower? What about the molten metal observed in the basement areas . . . ? 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 to make them fit the desired outcome. (Jones, 2006​*

Click to expand...

_


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 8, 2006)

Snoop around in here.  This is an interesting series of photos.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Feb 8, 2006)

I find this site much more investigative and less kooky.

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/conspiracytheories/index.html


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 9, 2006)

It is entirely possible, if this research is genuinely uncovering something that happened, that a good number of the conspiracy theories we see on the net and in print, are actually part of a disinformation program.


----------



## dobermann (Feb 9, 2006)

has anyone seen a plane at the pentagon?

why did the pentagon airdefense (most effective in the world!!) not go off with an airliner coming at them?

for me, a conspiracy nut bar, 9/11 had nothing to do with osama at all.

think of a country close east that would gain something with this incidents. actually, none of the countrymen were hurt in the attacks at the WTC.

actually some CIA-paper exists where similar incidents were talked about. with help of some hollywoodguys too. it included intercepting airliners and exchange them.. its just to many "funny things" about it that would proof for me to be true!


----------



## FearlessFreep (Feb 9, 2006)

I think my Occam's Needle just went to the redline


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Feb 9, 2006)

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/09/272159.shtml#81907



> They also like to say that those towers collapsed due to explosives. An architect (who was in on the conspiracy, no doubt) who had experience with the WTCs said that the flaming fuel weakened the horizontal support trusses that were not fire-protected and all the weight of the vertical structures on the outer layer of the buildings started falling down.
> But what did he know.
> Also, the conspiranoids like to point to the impacts of the planes and how the explosions couldn't have looked like that. So there must've been heavy explosives involved.
> That's due, I think ,to what people's conception of what 'explosives' look like, which is based on what they've seen in Hollywood movies.
> ...


----------



## Don Roley (Feb 9, 2006)

FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> I think my Occam's Needle just went to the redline




Ditto. This is nutty even for the internet. We are supposed to just believe that a major magazine's article has been refuted? By who- a few guys on the internet perhaps? And if this whole thing turns out to be false, then later on people will just say that it was part of a disinformation program.

But some people will believe anything if it fits their hatred of certain groups.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 9, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> We are supposed to just believe that a major magazine's article has been refuted? By who- a few guys on the internet perhaps?


 
This article was refuted, not by a few chumps on the internet, but by professors in physics, engineering, architecture, science, etc...

This group is serious.  One of the members, James Fetzer is giving a pre-interview for Dateline NBC.  

You really have to read this arguments carefully and try to find the holes.  Be skeptical in the sense that you would let a theory stand on the merits of its evidence.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Feb 9, 2006)

James Fetzer - check his website http://www.assassinationscience.com/


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 9, 2006)

FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> James Fetzer - check his website http://www.assassinationscience.com/


 
Yes.  Take a long careful look at it.  That may require some time and reading.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 10, 2006)

After the 9/11 commission's report came out, the results of a certain Zogby poll showed that 68% of New Yorkers did not believe the official story of 9/11.  I struggled with this...why didn't they believe it?  

Then I came across the oral histories article on the site I posted above.  These are taped interviews of people who were directly involved with the WTC disaster and the revelations are explosive.  Literally.  Everyone heard and saw multiple explosions right before the towers fell.  In fact, they say they saw shockwaves traveling up the building like a wave perfectly timed with the sequence of the explosions.  

This information was just recently released.  The city of New York was sitting on it and would not let the tapes go public.  The New York Times and a coalition of the victims families took filed a FOIA and took the city to court.  They won the case and forced the city to release this material.  

I'm not wondering why two thirds of New Yorkers do not believe the official story anymore.  If that is what so many people saw, then its a perfectly understandable result.  BTW - none of the oral history material made it into the 9/11 Commissions report.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 10, 2006)

This thread is getting a lot hits, but not alot of chatter...

I just read Prof. Jones' powerpoint presenting some of his findings.  Here is the link to download it.  

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/files/Presentation.exe

One can also find this link on the initial site I posted.

The bottom line is that after viewing this link, you will have very serious questions about what really happened.  This is a professional presentation that is highly researched and technical.  It draws on comments from highly trained individuals and it examines the collapses in detail.  There is some other interesting material, but the science behind the collapses of the buildings is utterly convincing.  

Usually, when I check out various "conspiracy theories" I take them with a grain of salt.  This is different.  One can take a grain of salt or the whole shaker and it won't matter.  If you consider all of the evidence (not just the stuff you've been allowed to see up to this point) and you consider what the most highly educated people in the fields of engineering, physics, architecture, and other sciences are saying you will have serious questions...

...and one cannot help but contemplate the level of betrayal that is implied.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 10, 2006)

http://www.911podcasts.com/files/video/Steven_Jones-UVSC_February_1_2006/BYU_Professor_Steven_E_Jones-UVSC_February_1_2006_911_9-11_Lecture_WTC-7_911TruthSeekers.org.wmv

This is a video of Dr. Jones' presentation at BYU.  If you have a broadband connection check it out.  He has some good explanations for alot of the technical information...just in case the powerpoint above was going over your head.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Feb 10, 2006)

College professors implicating that the President is a mass murderer? Say it isnt so!


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 10, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> College professors implicating that the President is a mass murderer? Say it isnt so!


 
What do you think about the evidence presented?  No more ad hominem or a priori reasoning.  Just look at the facts presented and sincerely comment.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 10, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I guess the one thing that stick in my head, Don, (and I have a scientific background) is the fact that steel girders were found that showed signs of vaporization. The kind of temperature needed to vaporize steel cannot be generated in a hydrocarbon fire.
> 
> 4500 degrees F is the range needed to start this process. Higher if one needs to do it faster. This temperature range, between 5000 and 6000 degrees, *is as hot as the surface of the sun* and only a few specific chemical reactions can generate it. One of them is a steel cutting explosive used to demolish buildings.
> 
> ...


 Actually, 'steel cutting explosives' do not use high-heat to cut steel, by the way.

As for 'peer-reviewed' articles, the question becomes exactly what the peer group is.  Do they have their cell-mates at Bellview review for accuracy and pure imagination?


Here's an important question, upnorth, exactly what 'truths' are they trying to 'bring to light' about 9/11 on this website?  Is this just a sight for whatever wacko theory happens to be the subject of some some deranged fantasy?  Is there direction, or is it generally enough that it purports to prove that 'some aspect' of 9/11 was a 'lie'?  Perhaps your research could help you answer that question.  

From what i've read, it's obvious that the only necessary criteria is that it purport to 'prove' that some aspect of 9/11 was a 'lie'.  Once the 'peer review' process kicks in, then they're a go.  I find it humorous that it's required that one serious consider the meanderings of the obviously mentally ill in order to be considered 'open minded'.  



> These experts contend that books and articles by members and other associates have established that the World Trade Center was almost certainly brought down by controlled demolitions and that the available relevant evidence casts grave doubt on the government's official story about the attack on the Pentagon.


 Hehe.  "Yeah, the planes crashed in to it, man, but that's not what brought down...that's what 'THEY' want you to believe....man....it's, like....a conspiracy!"

Upnorth, you're an intelligent, rational person....why do you insist on giving credibility to this load of tripe?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 10, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> What do you think about the evidence presented? No more ad hominem or a priori reasoning. Just look at the facts presented and sincerely comment.


 It's tripe, veilled in technobable the professor hopes is too dense for the average person to see through.  He counts on the fact that some people want to 'look smart' by declaring the dense presentation 'utterly convincing'.  

See also you're attempt to declare anyone who disagrees with your (and the professors) conclusions as simply allowing the material to 'go over their head'.  Please, it's multiple logical fallacies rolled in to one, not the least which is the appeal to (alleged) authority.  'The professor is a renowned expert in <blank> (and hence far smarter and more educated than you) and this is his argument'.  

Don't fall victim to that trendiest of motives, upnorth, use the reasoning skills I know you have.

Of course, the big question is, if the 'Professor' and his 'peers' have such compelling evidence, and they are so 'convincing' why are the relegated to the nut-fringe of the internet, and not household names?      Oh yeah, I forgot, it's a 'Conspiracy'.  hehe.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 10, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Actually, 'steel cutting explosives' do not use high-heat to cut steel, by the way.


 
Technically, correct.  The high heat generates linear pressure...which actually cuts the steel.  Of course, the process of forcing steel generates alot of heat and then the chemical reaction itself generates alot of heat.  This is what melts and evaporates the steel.



> As for 'peer-reviewed' articles, the question becomes exactly what the peer group is. Do they have their cell-mates at Bellview review for accuracy and pure imagination?


 
You have to dig into this stuff in order to get to that.  Basically, experts in the feilds of physics, chemistry, engineering, and architecture have reviewed these articles.



> Here's an important question, upnorth, exactly what 'truths' are they trying to 'bring to light' about 9/11 on this website? Is this just a sight for whatever wacko theory happens to be the subject of some some deranged fantasy? Is there direction, or is it generally enough that it purports to prove that 'some aspect' of 9/11 was a 'lie'? Perhaps your research could help you answer that question.


 
As far as I understand from what I've read, the research is basically showing how the commonly accepted theory that fire brought down WTC 7 and fire and impact brought down WTC 1 and 2 cannot possibly be true.  Then, the research goes on to examine further evidence to support an alternate theory which proports that all three buildings were controlled implosions.  



> From what i've read, it's obvious that the only necessary criteria is that it purport to 'prove' that some aspect of 9/11 was a 'lie'. Once the 'peer review' process kicks in, then they're a go. I find it humorous that it's required that one serious consider the meanderings of the obviously mentally ill in order to be considered 'open minded'.


 
Its not just some aspect of the story...the entire thing has been taken to task.  The FEMA report and the NIST report have been neatly dismantled by this research.  And, further, experts in the fields that would know most about these events are agreeing with the results...the official story cannot be true.  



> Upnorth, you're an intelligent, rational person....why do you insist on giving credibility to this load of tripe?


 
I like delving into real conspiracy theories because its fun to laugh at real wackos.  This is different.  From the first article by Prof. Jones to his presentation and the rest of the subsequent articles, there is just too much here to ignore.  The scholarly level on this is high enough that the deans of various colleges of engineering are signing off so that their profs can start presenting this to students. 

Anyways, I've spent the last few days since I started this thread reading their articles.  They have powerful arguments.  

And I've been waiting for you to jump on this discussion actually.  It would be nice if you'd take some time and really dig into this material and provide a different point of view.  I think that even you might find a couple of surprising tidbits...


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 10, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Technically, correct. The high heat generates linear pressure...which actually cuts the steel. Of course, the process of forcing steel generates alot of heat and then the chemical reaction itself generates alot of heat. This is what melts and evaporates the steel.


 No, this is what 'can' melt steel.  This is not the ONLY thing that melts steel.  It's actually a relatively simple process to melt steel




			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> You have to dig into this stuff in order to get to that. Basically, experts in the feilds of physics, chemistry, engineering, and architecture have reviewed these articles.


 Translation: 'You're not privy to all the need-to-know information, man'.    Which 'experts' are those?  If they're such 'experts' why are they doing all their reviewing on hack-conspiracy theory sites?




			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> As far as I understand from what I've read, the research is basically showing how the commonly accepted theory that fire brought down WTC 7 and fire and impact brought down WTC 1 and 2 cannot possibly be true. Then, the research goes on to examine further evidence to support an alternate theory which proports that all three buildings were controlled implosions.


 Which completely bogus, that's the point.  They are merely 'ridiculing' the idea that 'planes' brought down the world-trade center....of course, ignoring the fact that two large jetliners DID, in fact, crash in to the two towers...an inconvenient 'factoid' that presents a bit of a credibility problem for them.  Of course, those PLANES were just a 'diversion' from the 'REAL' mechanism that brought down the WTC....man.  




			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Its not just some aspect of the story...the entire thing has been taken to task. The FEMA report and the NIST report have been neatly dismantled by this research. And, further, experts in the fields that would know most about these events are agreeing with the results...the official story cannot be true.


 It must give them great satisfaction to have 'dismantled' the FEMA and NIST reports....in their fantasies.  




			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I like delving into real conspiracy theories because its fun to laugh at real wackos. This is different. From the first article by Prof. Jones to his presentation and the rest of the subsequent articles, there is just too much here to ignore. The scholarly level on this is high enough that the deans of various colleges of engineering are signing off so that their profs can start presenting this to students.


 I question whether you're able to differentiate between wackos and REAL wackos.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Anyways, I've spent the last few days since I started this thread reading their articles. They have powerful arguments.


 I'm more fascinated in what makes otherwise normal people embrace conspiracy theories.  The psychological mechanisms, I mean.  



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> And I've been waiting for you to jump on this discussion actually. It would be nice if you'd take some time and really dig into this material and provide a different point of view. I think that even you might find a couple of surprising tidbits...


 I've come to a conclusion, upnorth, a lot of this is based on belief.  I'm a big X-files fan....because it's fantasy.  However, I realize that the real world doesn't work like it does in the fantasy world.  

The one advantage i've got on you, upnorth, is that I have conducted real world operations involving the coordination of dozens of people.   Murphy's law rules this universe.   Now, lets examine the complexity of the conspiracy theory you've seemed to have endorsed.  Someone let me know if i've missed something.

The President, as soon as he takes office (or is it the Jews) decide that we need to blow up the WTC, (Why? to make way for a big parking lot, who knows).  He also decides, what the heck, lets blow up the Pentagon, too.  So he sets special operatives in to motion to carry out this plan.  Why do they do it? I mean they are attacking their own country, killing thousands of Americans, for what?  Money? Who knows, doesn't matter. (if it's inconvenient, simply ignore it, we'll come up with a reason later).

So, hundreds of US operatives set in motion a plan to attack the US.

US operatives, posing as 'hi-jackers' hi-jack airliners, to crash in to the WTC and the Pentagon, but only as a diversion for the REAL attack....Alternative, they are radio controlled.

More US operatives plant explosives, under the noses of workers, in the WTC, in order to bring it down.

These explosives are designed to appear as if the buildings collapse near the spot where the planes are going to impact.

Now, the world trade center is down, the pentagon attacked,  now, lets frame Osama bin Laden.  What's more, nobody is going to EVER say anything about it.

How am I doing so far?  Who are the operatives?  I don't know, the same people that framed OJ and killed Kennedy.



Your problem is, that the technobabble isn't enough.  They declare it 'impossible' that the airliners brought the buildings down, and that makes it so, why?  Because they are convincing in their arguments?  And, as we all know, when reality contradicts the 'facts' of noted (self proclaimed) experts, it's the experts that MUST be right, right?  There are FAR more problems with their theory, that somehow 'convincing' you that the airliners, for some esoteric reason, couldn't produce the heat to melt the girders and reduce the structural integrity of the building....FAR MORE problems than that.  


You know what's so funny, though?  They can carry out a HUGE covert operation to commit the biggest mass-murder and terrorist attack in US history, pull it off in FRONT of the eyes of the ENTIRE world......BUT THEY CAN'T PLANT A LITTLE WMD IN IRAQ?!  Please.  Of the two, planting some fake evidence of WMD would seem a much simpler conspiracy.  But they didn't?  I mean, these men just committed mass-murder on an epic scale against their own people, surely they could plant some WMD in the middle of Iraq to make the invasion look good.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 10, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Of course, the big question is, if the 'Professor' and his 'peers' have such compelling evidence, and they are so 'convincing' why are the relegated to the nut-fringe of the internet, and not household names?


 
For one thing, this group formed on 12/15/2005.  It's new.  And I think you better take a second and a third look at that technobabble.  A couple of others were put off by it, but people like me who have training in this sort of stuff are taking second and third looks.  We have a couple of engineers on this board.  I hope they pipe in soon...


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 10, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I mean, these men just committed mass-murder on an epic scale against their own people, surely they could plant some WMD in the middle of Iraq to make the invasion look good.


OK, well, that's a pretty good point.  

Admittedly, I've found some of the pictures in the link I posted above to raise questions in my mind.  However, taken as a whole, the entire concept is for me, far too far fetched to believe.  Beyond that, the science is too technical for me.  However, one of the authors on the site does seem to be someone of significant repute.  Either way, I'm unable to make a responsible judgement.  So, I'll have to fold this hand.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 10, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> For one thing, this group formed on 12/15/2005. It's new. And I think you better take a second and a third look at that technobabble. A couple of others were put off by it, but people like me who have training in this sort of stuff are taking second and third looks. We have a couple of engineers on this board. I hope they pipe in soon...


 It's a new 'sight' with some pretty old conspiracy theorists.  Perhaps they believe they need to combine their resources, for added 'credibility'.  

Again, i'm not that impressed with their 'scientific' arguments.  What's more, it's not over my head.  I know BS whenever I smell it, and I can tell when someone is making material intentionally dense in order to give the appearance of evidence, when none exists.  I've worked around lawyers for years.  They like to bring in 'so-called experts' who make all sorts of extremely dense and technical arguments, full of sound and fury....signifying nothing.  

It's smoke and mirrors.  It's a magic trick, pure sleight of hand. Once you know how the tricks work, you never look at the magician and go 'Oooohhh, Ahhhhhhh!!!!!' again.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 10, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> No, this is what 'can' melt steel. This is not the ONLY thing that melts steel. It's actually a relatively simple process to melt steel


 
It is a relatively simple process to melt steel.  However, none of the physical processes offered in the official explanation can melt steel.  



> Translation: 'You're not privy to all the need-to-know information, man'. Which 'experts' are those? If they're such 'experts' why are they doing all their reviewing on hack-conspiracy theory sites?


 
Or it could be that I am urging you to read the articles and see what their peers have said...and then there is the fact that you could just click on the Who Are We link and get a list of the people who have join the group.  BTW - many people who have commented on the research are not part of this group.



> Which completely bogus, that's the point. They are merely 'ridiculing' the idea that 'planes' brought down the world-trade center....of course, ignoring the fact that two large jetliners DID, in fact, crash in to the two towers...an inconvenient 'factoid' that presents a bit of a credibility problem for them. Of course, those PLANES were just a 'diversion' from the 'REAL' mechanism that brought down the WTC....man.


 
There research clearly shows that the impact and the fires caused by the jet fuel COULD NOT have brought down WTC 1 and 2.  The fact that WTC 7 went down is even more incredulous.



> It must give them great satisfaction to have 'dismantled' the FEMA and NIST reports....in their fantasies.


 
Again, you need to dig into the research and take a look at what is actually being said.  I know that you haven't had enough time to thouroughly read this stuff yet.   



> I question whether you're able to differentiate between wackos and REAL wackos.


 
You and me both...  However, I think that I'm on the right track here...



> I'm more fascinated in what makes otherwise normal people embrace conspiracy theories. The psychological mechanisms, I mean.


 
Abductivism.



> The one advantage i've got on you, upnorth, is that I have conducted real world operations involving the coordination of dozens of people.


 
Hmmm...I actually think I could give you a run for your money on this...



> Murphy's law rules this universe. Now, lets examine the complexity of the conspiracy theory you've seemed to have endorsed. Someone let me know if i've missed something.
> 
> The President, as soon as he takes office (or is it the Jews) decide that we need to blow up the WTC, (Why? to make way for a big parking lot, who knows). He also decides, what the heck, lets blow up the Pentagon, too. So he sets special operatives in to motion to carry out this plan. Why do they do it? I mean they are attacking their own country, killing thousands of Americans, for what? Money? Who knows, doesn't matter. (if it's inconvenient, simply ignore it, we'll come up with a reason later).
> 
> ...


 
All of these questions are valid, but they are ancillary to the evidence presented.  The bottom line is that the official story does not add up.  It is physically impossible.  The question of what actually happened has not been answered.  Your series of questions assumes an answer to that question.  I'm not sure if I've (or the researchers) have moved that far yet.  

There are certainly alot of unknowns, but what we do know is enough for people to demand a second investigation...this time we need to take a look at ALL of the evidence.



> Your problem is, that the technobabble isn't enough. They declare it 'impossible' that the airliners brought the buildings down, and that makes it so, why? Because they are convincing in their arguments? And, as we all know, when reality contradicts the 'facts' of noted (self proclaimed) experts, it's the experts that MUST be right, right? There are FAR more problems with their theory, that somehow 'convincing' you that the airliners, for some esoteric reason, couldn't produce the heat to melt the girders and reduce the structural integrity of the building....FAR MORE problems than that.


 
The real problem is that the official version does not explain all of the data.  In fact, when one takes into account the entire data set, the real version does not just become improbable...it becomes impossible.  Other theories suddenly must be contemplated.  Including ones where the buildings were intentionally demolished.  I have no idea how this could have been accomplished, however, if one reads the oral histories that were just released via court order, one can start to see many opportunities for things to occur.



> You know what's so funny, though? They can carry out a HUGE covert operation to commit the biggest mass-murder and terrorist attack in US history, pull it off in FRONT of the eyes of the ENTIRE world......BUT THEY CAN'T PLANT A LITTLE WMD IN IRAQ?! Please. Of the two, planting some fake evidence of WMD would seem a much simpler conspiracy. But they didn't? I mean, these men just committed mass-murder on an epic scale against their own people, surely they could plant some WMD in the middle of Iraq to make the invasion look good.


 
I think that the people in PNAC honestly believed that they would find WMD somewhere in Iraq.  They made a bet that they thought was a slam dunk, but Saddam ****ed them all by actually doing what he was told by the UN.  One of the problems with these PNAC people is that they make a lot of a priori assumptions and they can't conceive that someone might actually do something different.  I'm sure that they are scratching their heads because a bunch of conservative, highly educated, professionals would take their lies to task.  It's kind of like that "we will be greeted as liberators," BS.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 10, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> It's a new 'sight' with some pretty old conspiracy theorists. Perhaps they believe they need to combine their resources, for added 'credibility'.
> 
> Again, i'm not that impressed with their 'scientific' arguments. What's more, it's not over my head. I know BS whenever I smell it, and I can tell when someone is making material intentionally dense in order to give the appearance of evidence, when none exists. I've worked around lawyers for years. They like to bring in 'so-called experts' who make all sorts of extremely dense and technical arguments, full of sound and fury....signifying nothing.
> 
> It's smoke and mirrors. It's a magic trick, pure sleight of hand. Once you know how the tricks work, you never look at the magician and go 'Oooohhh, Ahhhhhhh!!!!!' again.


 
The arguments are actually quite simple...


(1) The 9-11 Commission refused to examine the vast majority of evidence about 9/11, and even the former director of the FBI says there was a cover up by the 9/11 Commission 

(2) The tape of interviews of air traffic controllers on-duty on 9/11 was intentionally destroyed by crushing the cassette by hand, cutting the tape into little pieces, and then dropping the pieces in different trash cans around the building 

(3) Investigators for the Congressional Joint Inquiry discovered that an FBI informant had hosted and rented a room to two hijackers in 2000 and that, when the Inquiry sought to interview the informant, the FBI refused outright, and then hid him in an unknown location, and that a high-level FBI official stated these blocking maneuvers were undertaken under orders from the White House 

(4) A retired Air Force Colonel who flew over 100 combat missions and was the director of the Star Wars defense program under both Republican and Democratic administrations (and a member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth) recently said: 
"If our government had merely done nothing, and allowed normal procedures to happen on that morning of 9/11, the twin towers would still be standing, and thousands of dead Americans would still be alive. That is treason!"​
(5) Recently declassified documents show that in the 1960's, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan to blow up AMERICAN airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also committing terrorist murders against U.S. citizens on American soil, and then blaming it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba 

(6) The Secret Service, which is highly trained to whisk the president away from danger and to a secure location in the event of a threat, breached all standard procedures and allowed President Bush to remain at a highly-publicized location for 25 minutes after it was known that the nation was under attack 

(7) The U.S. defense agency responsible for protecting the U.S. had run drills for several years of planes being used as weapons against the World Trade Center and other U.S. high-profile buildings, and "numerous types of civilian and military aircraft were used as mock hijacked aircraft". In other words, drills using REAL AIRCRAFT simulating terrorist attacks crashing jets into buildings, including the twin towers, were run 

(8) The military had also conducted drills of planes crashing into the Pentagon 

(9) On the morning of 9/11, 5 war games and terror drills were being conducted by several U.S. defense agencies, including one "live fly" exercise using REAL planes. And the drills apparently included the injection of false "radar blips" onto the screens of air traffic controllers 

(10) The government was running a simulation of a plane crashing into a building on the morning of 9/11 

(11) While the government has consistently stated that it did not know where the aircraft were before they struck, the Secretary of Transportation testified before the 9/11 Commission that Vice President Cheney monitored flight 77 for many miles as it approached the Pentagon 

(12) A third world trade center building, called building 7, collapsed on the afternoon of 9/11, but was never hit by plane, fell at the same speed as if there were no floors or walls to cause resistance, contained only small fires before the collapse, and became the first steel-frame building in history to collapse due to fire alone 

(13) USA Today stated that the FBI believed that bombs in the buildings brought the buildings down 

(14) MSNBC stated that police officials believe "that one of the explosions at the world trade center . . . may have been caused by a van that was parked in the building that may have had some kind of explosive device in it, so their fear is that there may have been explosive devices planted either in the building or in the adjacent area" 

(15) The NY Fire Department Chief of Safety stated there were "bombs" and "secondary devices", which caused the explosions in the buildings 

(16) NYC firefighters who witnessed attacks stated that it looked like there were bombs in the buildings. A NYC firefighter stated "On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there was bombs set in the building" 

(17) The head of a national demolition association stated that the collapse of the towers looked like a "classic controlled demolition" 

(18) Eyewitnesses have testified that substantial explosions occurred well BELOW the area impacted by the planes, and -- according to some witnesses -- they occurred BEFORE the plane had even hit 

(19) A police officer testified that there were numerous, HUGE explosions at the top of one of the twin towers 15 minutes apart, before the tower collapsed 
 (20) Numerous, credible ex-government officials are warning that the U.S. government might very well attack its own people to justify a further clampdown on civil rights and to justify additional wars

The physical evidence is not that hard to understand.  All it takes is a careful read...


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 10, 2006)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> Beyond that, the science is too technical for me.


 
Realy?  How so?  I don't know if you have the capability or time, but you may want to download Prof. Jone's lecture with the link I provided.  It really goes a long way toward helping the layman understand some of the jargon.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 10, 2006)

The 9/11 report DOES NOT EVEN MENTION the collapse of WTC 7.  The CIA, the DoD, and the FBI all had high security offices in that building.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 11, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> It is a relatively simple process to melt steel. However, none of the physical processes offered in the official explanation can melt steel.


 It's not necessary to melt steel.  It IS necessary to weaken it enough, through heat, to cause the structural collapse of untold tons of building.




			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Or it could be that I am urging you to read the articles and see what their peers have said...and then there is the fact that you could just click on the Who Are We link and get a list of the people who have join the group. BTW - many people who have commented on the research are not part of this group.


 So we're simply appealing to the bandwagon? 




			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> There research clearly shows that the impact and the fires caused by the jet fuel COULD NOT have brought down WTC 1 and 2. The fact that WTC 7 went down is even more incredulous.


 There research doesn't clearly show any such thing.  All it shows is that they maintain it 'couldn't happen'.  That's far from proving anything other than they've construct a very intricate conspiracy, complete with pseudo-evidence.  I know many schizophrenics who do this all the time.  




			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Again, you need to dig into the research and take a look at what is actually being said. I know that you haven't had enough time to thouroughly read this stuff yet.


 I need to immerse myself in a paranoid delusion to fully understand it?  I don't think so.




			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> You and me both... However, I think that I'm on the right track here...


 If by 'right track' you mean a sure and straight path toward losing touch with reality.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





   Come on, up, I respect you, but when you start getting in to the conspiracy theories, I think you're getting a little soft.  It's ok, though, everybody needs a hobby.




			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Abductivism.


 Thank you, Steven E. Jones.   




			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Hmmm...I actually think I could give you a run for your money on this...


 I guess we'll see.  




			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> All of these questions are valid, but they are ancillary to the evidence presented. The bottom line is that the official story does not add up. It is physically impossible. The question of what actually happened has not been answered. Your series of questions assumes an answer to that question. I'm not sure if I've (or the researchers) have moved that far yet.


 There really isn't any evidence presented...there are crackpot theories, backed by other crackpot theorists.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> There are certainly alot of unknowns, but what we do know is enough for people to demand a second investigation...this time we need to take a look at ALL of the evidence.


 Demand all the investigations you want.  However, the fact that your 'group' has already concluded, in it's mind, what happened pretty much makes that futile.  There is no amount evidence that will disuade the 'true believer' who thinks it's a huge conspiracy.  This is more about belief than science anyway.  It's almost a religious crusade on the part of some people.  Your 'experts' remind me of those religious fanatics attempting to use 'science' to prove intelligent design.




			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The real problem is that the official version does not explain all of the data. In fact, when one takes into account the entire data set, the real version does not just become improbable...it becomes impossible. Other theories suddenly must be contemplated. Including ones where the buildings were intentionally demolished. I have no idea how this could have been accomplished, however, if one reads the oral histories that were just released via court order, one can start to see many opportunities for things to occur.


 Well, you got a problem there.  That the official version doesn't explain all the data is not the same as proclaiming that it's a 'Huge Neo-Con conspiracy'.  That's what your website is really about, not getting answers to unanswered questions.  That the collapse of those towers was a complex incident, to be studied for years, is without question.  That not having answers to every 'why?', however, is proof of a conspiracy theory, however, is just plain silly. 




			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I think that the people in PNAC honestly believed that they would find WMD somewhere in Iraq. They made a bet that they thought was a slam dunk, but Saddam ****ed them all by actually doing what he was told by the UN. One of the problems with these PNAC people is that they make a lot of a priori assumptions and they can't conceive that someone might actually do something different. I'm sure that they are scratching their heads because a bunch of conservative, highly educated, professionals would take their lies to task. It's kind of like that "we will be greeted as liberators," BS.


 Please.  It's getting really silly now, trying to explain why Bush DID plan 9/11, but DIDN'T plant WMD.  If Bush planted 9/11, you can darn sure better there'd have been WMD in Iraq.



It's all ludicrous.  The Bush administration has been embarassed by incident after incident, that could have been resolved by minor level conspiracies.  But you want to have us believe that they pulled off perhaps the greatest conspiracy of all times, without a hitch?  It not only defies reason, it defies reality. 

What's more, it's nothing new.  Holocaust denials, the Kennedy assassination, the moon landing.  For every big event, there's a small group of people who desire to create their own version of it, no matter how irrefuteable the evidence is.  Just replace 'Neo-Cons' with 'Illuminati' or 'ZOG' or some other such acronym of paranoia, and it's just another recycled conspiracy theory about 'They'. 

In fact, the MORE evidence, the stronger the motive to twist it, so that 'They' are the only ones that know 'The Truth'.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 11, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The 9/11 report DOES NOT EVEN MENTION the collapse of WTC 7. The CIA, the DoD, and the FBI all had high security offices in that building.


 So 'they' blew up 'their' own buildings?  Why blow up WTC 7 if they didn't have a plane to fly in to it?  Wouldn't 'They' know you'd be suspicious about why 'it' collapsed?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 11, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The arguments are actually quite simple...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 11, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> upnorthkyosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Don Roley (Feb 11, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> (16) NYC firefighters who witnessed attacks stated that it looked like there were bombs in the buildings. A NYC firefighter stated "On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there was bombs set in the building"



Ok, prove it.

I took this one example of several that you presented as "fact." Now I ask you, as the one who is trying to make the assertion, to prove it. The onus is on those that make the claims. There is no responsibility for others to disprove it.

I want you to take the time to prove the above statement. You want us to believe you? Then you best take the time to prove just one of many things you have presented as if it were fact.

I want to contact a NYC firefighter who will confirm that he said this. I want to make sure the story is not made up or a gross distortion of a statement. I want to make sure that there is not another very obvious explination. I want to determine with his employers that he is what he says and was in a position to say what he did with certainty.

What I _do not_ want is a reference to a web site. I want a real person that I can talk to.

I do not want a conspiracy theory as to why the proof of your conspiracy theory can't be presented.

And I do not want an excuse that you do not care enough about the matter to not go to the trouble of proving even a single thing you have presented as if it were fact. Certainly, not after the hundreds of posts you have made here trying to convince us of various conspiracy theories.

I have see comments about no one seeing a plane before it crashed into the Pentagon and statements about an air defence system there that I know are not true made without challenge. I am taking the time to challenge just one out of many comments made.

I am willing to write and call if this firefighter is found to determine if it is as said. In fact, I am toying with the idea of going to Pennselvania to a little get together in August and would be willing to extend my trip to the big apple if needed.

All I need is the name and contact info for the statement made in one little thing presented as if it were "fact."

I have seen you say that we would understand what you say if we did more research. I don't see why we should accept your version of events if you are not willing to present things in a verifiable and confirmable manner. If you are not willing to go the distance to prove even a _single little statement_ I do not see why anyone should take your word or version of events for anything.

So go ahead. Prove what you have said. 

I do not think you can do it. I doubt you will even try. I think that the best I can expect from you is a feeble excuse as to why you expect us to believe you but you have no responsibility to prove even a single statement you have made.

The onus is on you. Go ahead and back up what you say.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 11, 2006)

What you are asking me to do is repeat what has already been done.  I can track down one person and verify a statement that person made or I could take a look at others who have done the same thing, except that they have taken these statements in writing, on camera, and in many cases in front of a judge.  So, what is the point?

Maybe you'll take this as a feeble excuse.  However, I can think of a better use for my time.  I'm going to take this a step futher.  I'm going to find a list of ALL of the people who contributed opinions to the "oral histories" testimony that was recently released by the City of New York.  Then we can cross reference the people who made the statements with the videos of these people that are circulating on the internet.  

Don, I want you to think about this.  If any of this is even remotely true, then this research that I'm going to do is potentially very dangerous.  I will make some "list" somewhere because of this, guarenteed.  Yet, I'm willing to put it on the line because I think that there is something to this.  If I'm wrong, I'm just another fool among a sea of fools who waste their time on this stuff.  If I'm right...


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 11, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> What you are asking me to do is repeat what has already been done. I can track down one person and verify a statement that person made or I could take a look at others who have done the same thing, except that they have taken these statements in writing, on camera, and in many cases in front of a judge. So, what is the point?
> 
> Maybe you'll take this as a feeble excuse. However, I can think of a better use for my time. I'm going to take this a step futher. I'm going to find a list of ALL of the people who contributed opinions to the "oral histories" testimony that was recently released by the City of New York. Then we can cross reference the people who made the statements with the videos of these people that are circulating on the internet.
> 
> Don, I want you to think about this. If any of this is even remotely true, then this research that I'm going to do is potentially very dangerous. I will make some "list" somewhere because of this, guarenteed. Yet, I'm willing to put it on the line because I think that there is something to this. If I'm wrong, I'm just another fool among a sea of fools who waste their time on this stuff. If I'm right...


 
I guess the New York Times beat me too it.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_02.html

These words are from Captain Karen Deshore.  &#8220;Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building."

I'm still going to find a way that I can contribute...


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Feb 11, 2006)

I have been in situations where every person in a group who saw or heard something thought that something different happened. The fireman could have heard a girder snapping and thought it was a bomb. Other people probably thought they heard gunfire. I think SgtMac will agree that witness accounts are very inaccurate. Here you are saying they are but somehow if this were a death penalty case you would be saying otherwise. 

I also agree with SgtMac. The Pres. and the NeoCons can pull this off but cant silence Rove critics, cant plant WMD, cant make himself look better in the media? This is just like the moon landing, JFK assassination crap. Too much to swallow. If they were JUST saying that the hijackers were CIA agents MAYBE I would think something is fishy. This is just WAY to complicated to be pulled off without something going wrong, something being leaked or somebody tipping off the Democrats. Why do you like this type of stuff so much? This isnt the first theory like this you have mentioned here is it?


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 11, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> I have been in situations where every person in a group who saw or heard something thought that something different happened. The fireman could have heard a girder snapping and thought it was a bomb. Other people probably thought they heard gunfire. I think SgtMac will agree that witness accounts are very inaccurate.


 
I suppose it could happen that some may have seen something and misinterpreted it, but if you take a look at the testimony people scattered all over the scene in the building and out of it and watching from far away, were reporting what looked like explosions far beneath the actual fires moving up and down the buildings.  These explosions can actually be seen on video complete with squibs and flame trails.  The entire building was not on fire, so there must have been a secondary source for the squibs and the flames.  



> I also agree with SgtMac. The Pres. and the NeoCons can pull this off but cant silence Rove critics, cant plant WMD, cant make himself look better in the media? This is just like the moon landing, JFK assassination crap.
> 
> If they were JUST saying that the hijackers were CIA agents MAYBE I would think something is fishy. This is just WAY to complicated to be pulled off without something going wrong, something being leaked or somebody tipping off the Democrats.


 
The fact that this would be hard to pull off is no reason to ignore the evidence presented.  In order to get a real truthful accounting, you need to start there and work outward.  



> Why do you like this type of stuff so much? This isnt the first theory like this you have mentioned here is it.


 
I don't think this needs to be about me personally.  And, for the record, I don't like THIS STUFF at all.  I get a sick feeling when I read it.



> Too much to swallow.


 
This comment explains alot about your reaction and I can empathize.  I've been running this by others just to see what they think in my attempt to get as many POVs as possible and this reaction is common.  It really is too much to swallow...if this is even remotely true, 9/11 will be a day that lives in infamy for other reasons entirely.  It really would be another Reichstagg fire...


----------



## Don Roley (Feb 11, 2006)

Upnorthkyosa,
When you can find something that fills the requirement I laid out, I will be willing to listen. Not only did your source fail to mention anything about bombs being in the building, it actually weakens the case for them being there.

If you deal with explosives and building demolition, the explosive charges are set to go off _at the exact same instant._ They take out the support structures all at once and everything goes splat.

But when something collapses without being purposefully demolished, the weakest link in the support chain snaps first. When you are dealing with something with the mass of the WTC, these snaps can be rather large. Dare I say...._explosive._:wink2: The weight is then spread over the remaining methods of support and the second weakest link goes shortly after that and so on... As the weight is supported by less and less structure, the sequences get closer and closer together. The later snaps tend to be stronger than earlier ones as more pressure is put on them.

Since the quote talked about things going off in a sequence, it follows the way a building goes down due to structural collapse and not a planned explosive. Talk to an engineer with experience in taking down buildings and they will laugh at the idea of being able to control that many explosives in a sequence for something that size. Let us not even start to mention the problems of trying to get all those explosives in place without anyone noticing. When you blow a building, you drill holes and various other things that are hard to miss. Nobody seems to have noticed them setting up all these explosives in a very well traveled building.

So, as soon as you can find that fireman that said they thought there were bombs set in the buildings, I will be willing to listen. But as you can see, the quotes you give do not support the idea and it takes a more lot of space to explain why it is not true than for you to throw it out. I can hardly take the time to shoot down all the problems with everything you try to present to support your side.

So, get me that firefighter who said he thought there were bombs set in the building. Untill then, I will be waiting.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 11, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> When you can find something that fills the requirement I laid out, I will be willing to listen. Not only did your source fail to mention anything about bombs being in the building, it actually weakens the case for them being there.


 
There are other sources in who testified in the oral histories who witnessed the bombs going off in the buildings.



			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> If you deal with explosives and building demolition, the explosive charges are set to go off _at the exact same instant._ They take out the support structures all at once and everything goes splat.
> 
> But when something collapses without being purposefully demolished, the weakest link in the support chain snaps first. When you are dealing with something with the mass of the WTC, these snaps can be rather large. Dare I say...._explosive._:wink2: The weight is then spread over the remaining methods of support and the second weakest link goes shortly after that and so on... As the weight is supported by less and less structure, the sequences get closer and closer together. The later snaps tend to be stronger than earlier ones as more pressure is put on them.
> 
> Since the quote talked about things going off in a sequence, it follows the way a building goes down due to structural collapse and not a planned explosive. Talk to an engineer with experience in taking down buildings and they will laugh at the idea of being able to control that many explosives in a sequence for something that size. Let us not even start to mention the problems of trying to get all those explosives in place without anyone noticing. When you blow a building, you drill holes and various other things that are hard to miss. Nobody seems to have noticed them setting up all these explosives in a very well traveled building.



This really demonstrates that you don't know what you are talking about compared to these guys.  

There are building implosion experts who are part of the this group as well as structural engineers and civil engineers.  All of these people testify that sequenced charges like the ones witnessed are EXACTLY what it would take to bring the building down in a professional implosion.  The biggest hole in the official stories "pancake theory" as outlined by the NIST report and FEMA is the fact that these buildings fell at near free fall speed.  That is only accomplished in a professional building implosion and has never ever been witnessed in other circumstances.  

Two professional companies CEOs that specialize in implosing of large buildings have stated that the way WTC 1, 2, and 7 went down are exactly what one would see with their work.  See the research presented.



			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> So, as soon as you can find that fireman that said they thought there were bombs set in the buildings, I will be willing to listen. But as you can see, the quotes you give do not support the idea and it takes a more lot of space to explain why it is not true than for you to throw it out. I can hardly take the time to shoot down all the problems with everything you try to present to support your side.
> 
> So, get me that firefighter who said he thought there were bombs set in the building. Untill then, I will be waiting.


 
What is it really going to prove?  How is that going to be productive when its already been accomplished?  Why would this suddenly make me more credible?

You can talk about trying to shoot down my arguments, but they aren't mine at all.  I'm just giving little summaries of the research presented on this site.  If you want to try and "shoot down" their points go for it...thus far, you haven't even come close.  Sit down and do a little homework...


----------



## Don Roley (Feb 11, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> There are other sources in who testified in the oral histories who witnessed the bombs going off in the buildings.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I am going to cut you off right there. You can't get even the one source I asked for, but you want me to believe there are other. And then you use the 'appeal to authority' logical fallicy. I do not know that these guys know what they are talking about anymore than I know that there really was a guy who made the original quote. And even if they are, we don't know if they are correct.

You are telling us to think for ourselves and not accept the official version, and yet say we should shut up and accept what your "experts" say?

Discussion over as far as I am concerned until you get even that single source I was talking about. You can continue on with your agenda.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 11, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> I am going to cut you off right there.


 
That is kind of hard on an internet bb...



> You can't get even the one source I asked for, but you want me to believe there are other.


 
I called the New York Times today and I contacted a grad student, Mark Everett, who compiled and checked some of the material used.  If I said that it checked, why would you believe me?  There is no point in doing what you asked me to do, other then to run me around on some wild goose chase.  Instead, I've written a few letters, one to MN Senator Mark Dayton questioning him on some comments he made to the 9/11 commission, and one each to Dr. Fetzer and Dr. Jones to see if they have the paper print copies of some of the articles they site.  Often scholarly groups have packets of further research that one can order.  



> And then you use the 'appeal to authority' logical fallicy. I do not know that these guys know what they are talking about anymore than I know that there really was a guy who made the original quote. And even if they are, we don't know if they are correct.


 
If we are discussing a bit of research and I refer you back to the research in order to answer questions certain questions, that is not an appeal to authority.  I am merely pointing out that you are not on my level as far as the understanding of various peices.  When you are there, then we can actually discuss the details and then we can discuss how one can check some of these facts.  



> You are telling us to think for ourselves and not accept the official version, and yet say we should shut up and accept what your "experts" say?


 
If you would read the research, you would find that these people are not my experts.  They are _the_ experts in the fields.  And these people are saying that, "the reports are a half baked farce..."  That is very strong language for a professional journal...but it is there.  And you can see for yourself if you really want to...



> Discussion over as far as I am concerned until you get even that single source I was talking about. You can continue on with your agenda.


 
Actually, this part of the discussion was over when you dismissed everything as "technobabble" and refused to make any attempt to understand or read further.  You are asking questions that are answered in the research in ways that give you a clear path to check facts.  Until you do this, you will stumble in the dark.  And I will continue on with my agenda of trying to get to the bottom of this without your help.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Feb 11, 2006)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1540044.stm


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Feb 11, 2006)

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml


> However, as fire raged in the upper floors, the heat would have been gradually affecting the behaviour of the remaining material. As the planes had only recently taken off, the fire would have been initially fuelled by large volumes of jet fuel, which then ignited any combustible material in the building. While the fire would not have been hot enough to melt any of the steel, the strength of the steel drops markedly with prolonged exposure to fire, while the elastic modulus of the steel reduces (stiffness drops), increasing deflections.





> *The fire wasn't hot enough to melt the steel*
> There has never been a claim that the steel melted in the fire before the buildings collapsed, however the fire would have been very hot. Even though the steel didnt melt, the type of temperatures in the fire would have roughly halved its strength.
> 
> There would have been variations in the distribution of the temperature both in place in time. There are photos that show people in the areas opened up by the impact, so it obviously wasnt too hot when those photos were taken, but this is not to say that other parts of the building, further inside were not hotter. In addition, to make a reasonable conclusion from these photos, it would be important to know when they were taken. It might be possible that just after the impact the area wasnt very hot, but as the fire took hold the area got hotter.
> ...


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Feb 11, 2006)

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html



> Nearly every large building has a redundant design that allows for loss of one primary structural member, such as a column. However, when multiple members fail, the shifting loads eventually overstress the adjacent members and the collapse occurs like a row of dominoes falling down.
> 
> The perimeter tube design of the WTC was highly redundant. It survived the loss of several exterior columns due to aircraft impact, but the ensuing fire led to other steel failures. Many structural engineers believe that the weak points&#8212;the limiting factors on design allowables&#8212;were the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure (see Figure 5). With a 700 Pa floor design allowable, each floor should have been able to support approximately 1,300 t beyond its own weight. The total weight of each tower was about 500,000 t.
> 
> As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.1 It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Feb 11, 2006)

Its easy to find crap on the internet that backs up whatever side you take-so Im finding out-shall I continue?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 12, 2006)

So, upnorth, were there any witnesses recall seeing teams of 'workman' spending several days cutting through steel girders and concrete walls to plant explosives?  Of did the magic 'conspiracy fairies' just do it after dark? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Because that steel was inside concrete.  What's more, there was an awful lot of it, so there must of been a whole lot of concrete being cut in to, in order to plant the explosives or thermite, depending on which conspiracy non-sense is being thrown around.  

What's more, those 'explosives' went off on the same floors struck by the planes...i've seen the film over and over again, that's where the collapse begin.  That was some nice targeting on the part of the 'hijackers' to make sure to hit the floors with explosives.  


Also, I don't recall seeing any 'explosions'.  You said a 'fireman' saw explosions?  I thought the claim was that it was impossible for the jet fuel to melt steel.  Explosives don't melt steel, they cause damage by kinetic energy.  Thermite melts steel, and thermite isn't an explosive....it burns slowly.  In fact, that's been part of the alleged claim of some of the conspiracy nuts, that it must have been thermite.....yet, as thermite doesn't explode, what exactly did the fireman alleged see?  I'm a big confused.


What is clear is that the conspiracy wonks are spouting any statement they hear that doesn't make sense, whether it fits their theory or not, so as to throw enough crap in the air to make it look as if there is overwhelming evidence......of something.  Much of their 'evidence' is contradictory.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Feb 12, 2006)

When I was in BioInformatics (as a software developer, not a biochemist), the joke was that if you ask four BioChemists a question, you get five answers. Scientists simply don't always agree. Especially when you are looking for the causes of an event that was a) a singular event and b) not conducted under controlled circumstances.

However, it's one thing to have a difference of opinion on the interpretation of the data, and quite another to grow from that interpretation in a vast conspiracy accusation on what the data meanhs. This is why I invoked Occam's Razor, fwiw. It is also suspicious, from a scientific point of view, when one side as an a prior viewpoint that their interpretation of the data happens to line up with. This is why I pointed out the Doctor's web page of conspiracy advocay. Above and beyond that he is a Docor of Philosophy (Philosophy of Science) , not in any sort of hard physical science itself. He has a motivation for believing in and advocating an interpretation of data to fit a certain pattern of right-wing conspiracies. When his non-scientific world view (his view of life in general and politics in particuar) leads him to view certain data and evidence as having a root cause that happens to support that world view, his interpretation is suspect, when viewed against the opinions of many more who do not have a conspiracy driven agenda to support and who therefore view the meaning of the evidence as quite different

You know, what it reminds me most of is "Creation Scientists" who have a particular spiritual world view and therefore interpret evidence and data in a claimed "scientific" manner to support their world view, against the majority of scientits who don't have the same agenda and therefore view the data rather differently.

Anyway, what strikes about it all is that the implications of the conspiracy are really much farther reaching then are really being considered. For one thing, we have supposed accomplices of the supposed hi-jackers in jail because of evidence linking them to the supposed hijackers. If it all was just a conspiracy then an awful lot of evidence was planted or fabricated to implicate these men. Meaning one of two things, there were a *lot* of people involved, down to some pretty low level people, or the conspiracy was so tight as to fool a lot of people who were not involved but were part of investigating the causes. Both stretch reasonableness past the breaking point if you think about it.

However, deeper than that is that in order to pull off this level of deception, then planning and positioning and execution, planting of evidence for misdirection, etc...the conspiracy would've required planning that went back prior to Bush being in power,meaning that Bush is not the intigator but just another of the duped. Or in other words, this is not 'right-wing' conspiracy but a conspiracy far broader that trouches both parties. Which actually makes sense because if you look at a similar case, Timothy McVeigh and Oklahoma City, the same charges were made. Some demolitions experts claimed that this could not be the result of a single truck bomb but had to be the result of planted explosives on building columns. Except, that was under Clinton/Reno and to a much smaller scale, but very similar, if you take the conspiracy accusations seriously.

So, if you really believe that 9/11 was a setup by the government than to incorporate al the data, not just data from the events of that day but the implications of data for the investigation after the fact into leadup to the events, then the timeframe is too small to be merely a right-wing "neo-con" conspiracy but a conspiracy of 'someone' in the government whose reach spans political parties and whose existance spans administrations. Which is of course far more chilling than the belief that 911 was a neo-con plot to get us into Iraq in a war for oil.

Two things as an aside that come to my mind about that. One is that given the length and breadth of the conspiracy that in the end it supposedly left so much evidence that the events we saw were not what we really saw; a conspiracy so delicately precise and yet so sloppy... Also, if the motivation of the conspiracy was to get us into war in Iraq....the conspiracy which did *such* a good job of blaming it an Al Queda and Bin Laden did such a *bad* job of linking it to Iraq in any way.

In the world of bad movie watching we have a phrase called "IITS", or "It's In The Script", which means something that happens for no sensible reason within the context of the story, solely to advance the plot of the movie. One common usage of this is when normally bright, intelligent people do *really stupid* things that are out of character, or downright common sense, simply because the script needs them to so it can move on to the next plot point. If I was watching a movie based on the events from the point of view of the accused conspiracy, I would be thinking "how can people pull off such a wide-ranging and intricate conspiracy with such precision and yet be so inept at some *very key points* of what the conspiracy was to be about..I guess IITS"

Anyway, back on track. To take the conspiracy at face value and to take it seriously means to admit that the people behind the conspiracy are greater in scope than a given political affiliation. Which brings us back to religion again. The belief in an unseen power that manipulates events and people for some as yet unknown goal does indeed sound like a religion in many ways.I can believe in God and Angels and Demons at work in our world and you can believe in the Illuminati or some similar vague and hard to prove entity at work in the lives of people and events. Both of us can believe they are there, neither of us can really prove it, both of us think we see evidence of that existance in events around us, but both of us have arguments as to why the real, conclusive proof cannot be shown. I suppose in some small way it brings comfort in that life is not random but is the result of forces at work to be fought for or fought against, as the case may be.


So, in conclusion, you, upnothkyosa, asked for different point of views. At least be open minded enough to accept that others will have different points of view then yours, and not from an ability to understand the evidence ot unwillingness to accept the implications of a given interpretation of the evidence. I don't buy the proposed interpretation of events mostly on two grounds; Occam's Razor slahes through it like a knife-wielding bull in a silk shop, and that thepeople involved have a prior beliefs that support this interpretation of the events; meaning to me that if two people have two different opinions on the data, the one without the agenda in favor of a particular opinion tends to get my vote. That many who are conspiracy minded set end up having a faith in their conspiracy that reminds me much of a religion is just a ide curiosity of my own

Upnorthkyosa, I respect your opinions on martial arts a great deal, and while I often disagree with you on politics, I respect that you at least seem to be thoughtful and consistant in your view. On this issue, however, I think you've gone off the end

Take care,


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 12, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1540044.stm


 
Every point this article brings up has been refuted by the research.

1.  The fires were not even hot enough to weaken the steel beams.  The highest temperature measured on the beams affected by the fire was 481 degrees F.  

2.  Even if the beams were weakened, the rest of the structure could have withstood the strain.  This building was designed to take hits from multiple 707s and still stand according to the architects that built it.  They described the plane strikes on these buildings "like poking a hole through a screen door."

3.  The "pancake theory" of collapse violates the laws of physics.  If you were to create a hypothetical simulation on computer where all of the floors were suspended in air and then start the collapse with 30 floors of weight coming down, every single time the falling mass hit a floor, inertia alone, would slow the mass' acceleration.  The results of this simulation yeild a collapse time of 17 seconds.  The trade centers fell in 10.6 seconds.  This is almost freefall speed.  Not only is the intertia of the floors negated somehow, but all of the steel that should have supported it.  Even if this steel were somehow magically weakened (which we know it was not because the entire building was not on fire) then the time of this fall is absolutely impossible.

4.  The symmetrical implosion of all three buildings violates the laws of physics.  There would have been a greater resistence of this building falling in on itself then there would if it would have just collapsed asymetrically.  Falling objects that bounce off of stuff, take the path of least resistence according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics.  These buildings fell into the path of the most resistence.  This is physically impossible.

I could go on, but the research has already done this.  This article is only repeating the assertions of the FEMA and NIST reports and these all have been debunked.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 12, 2006)

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml

This article is only repeating the assertions put forth by NIST and FEMA which I have dealt with some of them above and the research put forth by the groups deals with far more detail and competency.  The interesting thing about this is that NIST could not get the model of the WTC to fall in order to support their theory.  So they switched to a computer simulation and altered a number of assumptions.  They will not release these simulations to the public.  To a scientist these simulations are tantamount to an experiment and for a scientist who wants to repeat this research in order to verify the findings, if they do not have this information, verification is impossible.  No one has been able to replicate the NIST findings thus far and there report has been cited by structural engineers and various journals as "political" in nature.

A couple of problems with article does not address...

1.  WTC 7 - there is absolutely no explanation as to why that building fell...as usual.
2.  Molten metal and evaporated steel were observed on the scene.  The fires and collapse could not have melted the metal or evaporated the steel.
3.  This report makes no mention of eyewitness reports of explosions or video evidence of these explosions.
4.  This report is based off of a computer simulation that no one is allowed to see.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 12, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> Its easy to find crap on the internet that backs up whatever side you take-so Im finding out-shall I continue?


 
Oh please, continue, but the stuff you will find will only be spitting out the unfounded assumptions of the NIST and FEMA reports.  There is absolutely no way that I or anyone else can double check that stuff without the computer simulations that they ran.  Why don't you spend your time more wisely and attempt to do something that will get those simulations out?


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 12, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> So, upnorth, were there any witnesses recall seeing teams of 'workman' spending several days cutting through steel girders and concrete walls to plant explosives? Of did the magic 'conspiracy fairies' just do it after dark?


 
The buildings were evacuated several times on the weekend of 9/8 and 9/9.  They were empty for a total of 36 hours.  They were also evacuated several times before this and engineers were observed going in carrying large items.



> Because that steel was inside concrete. What's more, there was an awful lot of it, so there must of been a whole lot of concrete being cut in to, in order to plant the explosives or thermite, depending on which conspiracy non-sense is being thrown around.
> 
> What's more, those 'explosives' went off on the same floors struck by the planes...i've seen the film over and over again, that's where the collapse begin. That was some nice targeting on the part of the 'hijackers' to make sure to hit the floors with explosives.


 
Explosions were observed going off far below the level of impact.  These explosions were observed the encircle the building and travel up and down its length.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 12, 2006)

FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> When I was in BioInformatics (as a software developer, not a biochemist), the joke was that if you ask four BioChemists a question, you get five answers. Scientists simply don't always agree. Especially when you are looking for the causes of an event that was a) a singular event and b) not conducted under controlled circumstances.
> 
> However, it's one thing to have a difference of opinion on the interpretation of the data, and quite another to grow from that interpretation in a vast conspiracy accusation on what the data meanhs. This is why I invoked Occam's Razor, fwiw. It is also suspicious, from a scientific point of view, when one side as an a prior viewpoint that their interpretation of the data happens to line up with. This is why I pointed out the Doctor's web page of conspiracy advocay. Above and beyond that he is a Docor of Philosophy (Philosophy of Science) , not in any sort of hard physical science itself. He has a motivation for believing in and advocating an interpretation of data to fit a certain pattern of right-wing conspiracies. When his non-scientific world view (his view of life in general and politics in particuar) leads him to view certain data and evidence as having a root cause that happens to support that world view, his interpretation is suspect, when viewed against the opinions of many more who do not have a conspiracy driven agenda to support and who therefore view the meaning of the evidence as quite different
> 
> ...


 
Thanks Jay.  

The only thing that I can say is that I'm not willing to accept the official story in the light of this evidence without some sort of verifiable, repeatable, scientific study that backs up there findings.  All of these, that I have seen thus far, have not been able to do this.  In fact, they show that the NIST findings could not have occured.  It only raises more questions and I'm not afraid to look for the answers.  I know it sounds crazy, but if you are interesting in actually look at this and are unwilling to take the assumptions at face value, then you will come up with the same stuff that I'm seeing.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Feb 12, 2006)

I dont mean to attack you, upnorth. You seem like a nice guy. But your profile says you are a science teacher?


----------



## FearlessFreep (Feb 12, 2006)

_The only thing that I can say is that I'm not willing to accept the official story in the light of this evidence without some sort of verifiable, repeatable, scientific study that backs up there findings. All of these, that I have seen thus far, have not been able to do this. In fact, they show that the NIST findings could not have occured. It only raises more questions and I'm not afraid to look for the answers. I know it sounds crazy, but if you are interesting in actually look at this and are unwilling to take the assumptions at face value, then you will come up with the same stuff that I'm seeing._

The problem, John is that 'this evidence' as such is being presented by people with an a prior world view (anti-neo-con, pro-conspiracy) that renders such 'evidence' highly suspect.  Forgive me for not jumping into a belief inthat evidence.  As I said, the parallels to Creation Scientists is kinda striking

"We believe this is what happend"
"It couldn't have happened like that because of A,B and C.  We think instead that *this* is what happened, which happens to fit out belief in [young earth creationism/neo-con-conspiracy]"
"No, A,B, and C can be explained through X,Y and Z"
"No, we refute that hrough D,E,and F"
"Nobody in the world believes D,E,F except you guys because it supports your theory.  We give up, you guys are loons and not worth the effort to correct or educate"
"We win!!!"

How many times have you seen an online debate between two people of two different views and one of them decides it's not worth the time and effort to continue the debate? It doesn't mean the other side has 'won', it just means one side has considered it not worth bothering and gone on with more important things in their life.  That's the same ting I see here.  One side comes up wioth a theory that fits what they already believe anyway, and a way of viewing the data to make it fit the theory, the other side refutes it once, the first side disputes the refutation, and the other side decides it's not worth the trouble to keep chasing this one around the mulberry bush. So the first side claims some sort of victory which isn't really, but since the other side gave up first, the first side can use theirlast word as 'proof'.

This is what is happening here.  The conspirists come up with a theory of what happened that goes counter to the official story, other people refute the conspirists theory, the conpirists explain away the refution and since no one comes through with a refutation of that explanation, the debate stops, not because the conspirists are 'right' but because it's not worth the continuing effort to try and deal with all the accusations

And you are taking the last part of the exchange as the 'proof' of the conspiracy and proof that the conspirists are correct, but I've seen enough of  these things come along to know that that's how it *always* happens, long after no one will listen to the conspirists except Art Bell (and I don't think he really believes, he just likes to listen)

Which is why I'm pretty skeptical; since the people pushing the conspiracy theory are the people who already belive the conspiracy is there

One thing to consider that if the NIST and FEMA repors are wrong then they are either monumentally incompetent; notjust as organizations but  the indiviuals within the organizations are completely inept at their jobs to have missed all this 'evidence' or 'they' (and by 'they' I mean *all* the people who were in on the investigations) had to be in on the conspiracy. meaning the conspiracy goes back many more years than just Dubya.   If I were to take the presented evidence seriously hen it would have a lot of other implications; who knew, who was involved,what else would have to happen?  And it's in there that things fall apart when I *don't* see evidence of what would have to happen and have happened for the evidence to support the conspiracy to be true


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Feb 12, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The only thing that I can say is that I'm not willing to accept the official story in the light of this evidence without some sort of verifiable, repeatable, scientific study that backs up there findings.



But you believe this huge unrealistic conspiracy theory with no "evidence" that it happened this way either?? Saying somebody elses theory is wrong doesnt make your theory right.

Here. Enjoy. All the kooky theories you could ever want.

http://www.orwelltoday.com/conspiracy.shtml


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Feb 12, 2006)

MIT

http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/


If you dont want to read the whole thing (because you simply dont want to believe any of it) than at least read this part.

http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter V Fire.pdf


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Feb 12, 2006)

"The mistaken belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine a well-established theory lies at the heart of all conspiratorial thinking (as well as creationism, Holocaust denial and the various crank theories of physics). All the "evidence" for a 9/11 conspiracy falls under the rubric of this fallacy. Such notions are easily refuted by noting that scientific theories are not built on single facts alone but on a convergence of evidence assembled from multiple lines of inquiry."

-Michael Shermer, publisher of Skeptic (www.skeptic.com). His latest book is Science Friction.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Feb 12, 2006)

Well. I ahve been doing my own "research" as you can see and I noticed Eric Hufschmid on the list of members. Is he the apollo hoax Eric Hufschmid?

Yes.

http://home.pacbell.net/skeptica/apollohoax.html


Watch the vid clip. LOL

http://www.sho.com/site/ptbs/topics.do?topic=ct
LOL

And heres another one of Prof. Jones's theories.
http://www.physics.byu.edu/faculty/jones/rel491/handstext and figures.htm

Hes also the guy who was involved in some "cold fusion" claims that he couldnt repeat or prove and was criticized pretty harshly for it.

Science at its best there folks! Woah.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 12, 2006)

FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> The problem, John is that 'this evidence' as such is being presented by people with an a prior world view (anti-neo-con, pro-conspiracy) that renders such 'evidence' highly suspect.


 
Prof. Jones is a conservative morman from Utah.  He is someone who typically would support any sort of liberal agenda.  This is a bi-partisen group.



> How many times have you seen an online debate between two people of two different views and one of them decides it's not worth the time and effort to continue the debate? It doesn't mean the other side has 'won', it just means one side has considered it not worth bothering and gone on with more important things in their life. That's the same ting I see here. One side comes up wioth a theory that fits what they already believe anyway, and a way of viewing the data to make it fit the theory, the other side refutes it once, the first side disputes the refutation, and the other side decides it's not worth the trouble to keep chasing this one around the mulberry bush. So the first side claims some sort of victory which isn't really, but since the other side gave up first, the first side can use theirlast word as 'proof'.


 
I've long since given up trying to "prove" anything on the internet.  I'm just trying to get a feeling as to what people think after they've read this research.  The problem I'm encountering now is that nobody is reading it and they are injecting their own assumptions that 

A. The final report is correct 
B. There is no possible way that the buildings could have been demolished.  

In reality, neither of these assumptions is a priori.  There is absolutely no reason to assume that both MUST be correct.



> This is what is happening here. The conspirists come up with a theory of what happened that goes counter to the official story, other people refute the conspirists theory, the conpirists explain away the refution and since no one comes through with a refutation of that explanation, the debate stops, not because the conspirists are 'right' but because it's not worth the continuing effort to try and deal with all the accusations


 
The way I see it is that people are answering questions that are addressed in the research.  I'm presenting some of the research in response to the questions.  However, if one just made an effort to honestly read this material, I think we could move beyond this.



> And you are taking the last part of the exchange as the 'proof' of the conspiracy and proof that the conspirists are correct, but I've seen enough of these things come along to know that that's how it *always* happens, long after no one will listen to the conspirists except Art Bell (and I don't think he really believes, he just likes to listen)


 
I don't think that at all.  And I would like to point out that these people are not Art Bell.  Take a look at their profiles and take a look at the people cited in the research.



> Which is why I'm pretty skeptical; since the people pushing the conspiracy theory are the people who already belive the conspiracy is there.


 
In this case, it is different.  These are folks who do not typically get caught up in conspiracy theories because they are professionals and their reputations and careers are on the line.  When one reads the research, the first thing one notices is that they just lay out the evidence and let the cards fall where they may.  One can check and attempt to verify this stuff and I am currently involved in doing this...



> One thing to consider that if the NIST and FEMA reports are wrong then they are either monumentally incompetent; notjust as organizations but the indiviuals within the organizations are completely inept at their jobs to have missed all this 'evidence'


 
This is entirely possible and may be probable.  It wouldn't be the first time the government messed on something...cough cough Katrina cough cough.



> or 'they' (and by 'they' I mean *all* the people who were in on the investigations) had to be in on the conspiracy. meaning the conspiracy goes back many more years than just Dubya. If I were to take the presented evidence seriously hen it would have a lot of other implications; who knew, who was involved,what else would have to happen? And it's in there that things fall apart when I *don't* see evidence of what would have to happen and have happened for the evidence to support the conspiracy to be true.


 
This is a valid point and I think that its merit truly needs to be considered, but one cannot be let to interfere in the actual interpretation of what actually did happen.  If evidence exists that supports the assertion that the buildings were demolished, then it is possible that it occured.  And if it is possible for the buildings to be demolished, then it would also be possible for all of the peices of the conspiracy that took the buildings down to fall into place...however improbable it might be.  That is just classical logic.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 12, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> But you believe this huge unrealistic conspiracy theory with no "evidence" that it happened this way either?? Saying somebody elses theory is wrong doesnt make your theory right.


 
True.  However, evidence exists that supports the theory that these buildings were demolished and this evidence was ignored by the NIST and FEMA reports as well as the 9/11 commission.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 12, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20V%20Fire.pdf


 
This essay repeats, almost verbatim, the findings of the NIST and it states that its results are based on computer modelling...not actual observed evidence.  Again, the problems that I outlined above and the problems outlined in the research presented still remain.  This would be the case whether or not I want to "believe" anything...


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 12, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> "The mistaken belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine a well-established theory lies at the heart of all conspiratorial thinking (as well as creationism, Holocaust denial and the various crank theories of physics). All the "evidence" for a 9/11 conspiracy falls under the rubric of this fallacy. Such notions are easily refuted by noting that scientific theories are not built on single facts alone but on a convergence of evidence assembled from multiple lines of inquiry."
> 
> -Michael Shermer, publisher of Skeptic (www.skeptic.com). His latest book is Science Friction.


 
It is more then just a handful and all one has to do is read the research to find out.  The bottom line is that very little of the official story is actually explained by the observable evidence...see for yourself.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Feb 12, 2006)

I would have written my own post on this but Im not a very good writer. This guy says what I was going to say anyways so Im justs going to post a little piece of it. The rest of his blog is a good read too.

http://citizenjo.blogspot.com/



> The first thing to know about scholars is that they are almost invariably the dumbest people on earth. Or, rather, outside of their fields of study (and oftentimes even in their fields) they are idiots. I would trust the average idiot on the street to fix my car than the entire collective of tenured professors on my campus. But, lucky for me, the scholars behind Scholars for 9/11 Truth have absolutely no expertise in any field relevant to 9/11. There is one exception: notable crackpot Robert Bowman who, like Ramsey Clark, uses previous government positions to validate their outrageous claims. Let us take a look at a few of the members of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. Here I will list a scholar's name, followed by their central area of scholarship. In some cases, their inherent bias is shamelessly obvious:
> 
> Kevin Barrett, Folklore (no kidding?) at UW-Madison
> Tracy Blevins, Bioengineering at Rice University
> ...


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Feb 12, 2006)

As to the "molten metal" a quick google search explains that. The collapsed pile of debris with the fire still burning inside it could reach blast furnace temperatures. The firemen were putting out fires for weeks. In the heart of the pile it was probably like a forge. They get into all kinds of details..

So MIT is in with the gvt. huh? The conspiracy deepns. All those BYU nut jobs MUST know more than the MIT eggheads.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 12, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> Well. I ahve been doing my own "research" as you can see and I noticed Eric Hufschmid on the list of members. Is he the apollo hoax Eric Hufschmid?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> ...


 
Can anyone say ad hominem?



> And heres another one of Prof. Jones's theories.
> http://www.physics.byu.edu/faculty/jones/rel491/handstext%20and%20figures.htm


 
So, you'd dismiss him because of his religion?  He's morman.  That is what they believe.  Would you dis someone for being a jew?  How about for believing in the historical jesus?  



> Hes also the guy who was involved in some "cold fusion" claims that he couldnt repeat or prove and was criticized pretty harshly for it.
> 
> Science at its best there folks! Woah.


 
More ad hominem and irrelevent attacks.  We could discuss the research presented, but instead you post this stuff.  What is our motive for posting on this thread?  To get to the bottom of this or to prove it wrong and protect your own assumptions.  If its the latter then take a look at my signature.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Feb 12, 2006)

I have read the 9/11 site. Its a bunch of unqualified nut's backing up a "scientist" that thinks Christ visited the Aztecs/Incas...wierd.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 12, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> I would have written my own post on this but Im not a very good writer. This guy says what I was going to say anyways so Im justs going to post a little piece of it. The rest of his blog is a good read too.
> 
> http://citizenjo.blogspot.com/


 
More ad hominems.  No real substance.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Feb 12, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Can anyone say ad hominem?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Add whatever you want, Im not inclined to believe nutjobs who use science to back up their wierd beliefs. Theyre unqualified kooks.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 12, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> As to the "molten metal" a quick google search explains that. The collapsed pile of debris with the fire still burning inside it could reach blast furnace temperatures. The firemen were putting out fires for weeks. In the heart of the pile it was probably like a forge. They get into all kinds of details..


 
This is true.  The question is how those fires got that hot when the building falling and the fires in the buildings could not have gotten hot enough to melt copious amounts of metal, much less evaporate entire sections of the beams.  



> So MIT is in with the gvt. huh? The conspiracy deepns. All those BYU nut jobs MUST know more than the MIT eggheads.


 
This is your assumption that he is part of the conspiracy, when in fact there are a number of more probably reasons as to why he wrote the paper on the NIST findings that he did.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 12, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> I'm not inclined to believe nutjobs who use science to back up their wierd beliefs. Theyre unqualified kooks.


 
And both of these assumptions are not allowing you to really take a look at this stuff and actually consider it on the basis of its evidence.  You are pasting your assumptions on the evidence whether they fit there or not.

All I'm trying to do is honestly take a look at these arguments and compare them to the evidence.  I'm convinced by the evidence that there are huge holes in the official story, but I am not totally buying into the government implosion theory...although I think the evidence is compelling.  It doesn't help to litter this thread with a bunch of ad hominems and juvenile attacks on someones personal blog.  

Just be skeptical and take the argument to their claims.  That is what I'm doing right now...checking facts and trying to verify certain bits of information.  It is possible that we could both contribute productively in this way.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 12, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Can anyone say ad hominem?


 So you're suggesting that a history of ridiculous claims, isn't relavent to further ridiculous claims?  Can you say 'Spinning'?




			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> So, you'd dismiss him because of his religion? He's morman. That is what they believe. Would you dis someone for being a jew? How about for believing in the historical jesus?


 I would 'dis' someone if their religious views were guiding their science.




			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> More ad hominem and irrelevent attacks. We could discuss the research presented, but instead you post this stuff. What is our motive for posting on this thread? To get to the bottom of this or to prove it wrong and protect your own assumptions. If its the latter then take a look at my signature.


 It's very relavent, if it's more evidence that the alleged 'research' is bogus, and simply made up.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 12, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> And both of these assumptions are not allowing you to really take a look at this stuff and actually consider it on the basis of its evidence. You are pasting your assumptions on the evidence whether they fit there or not.


 Translation: "So what if their noted liars and kooks, they could be telling the truth....this time.  You should give them a chance!"



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> All I'm trying to do is honestly take a look at these arguments and compare them to the evidence. I'm convinced by the evidence that there are huge holes in the official story, but I am not totally buying into the government implosion theory...although I think the evidence is compelling. It doesn't help to litter this thread with a bunch of ad hominems and juvenile attacks on someones personal blog.


 So you're saying that we should not consider the fact that these men have a history of questionable science, questionable research and highly DUBIOUS claims?  That's your statement?  



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Just be skeptical and take the argument to their claims. That is what I'm doing right now...checking facts and trying to verify certain bits of information. It is possible that we could both contribute productively in this way.


 He is checking facts.  What you're doing right now is imploding.  Your 'Fortress of Truth' has become a deck of cards in a heavy cross-wind.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 13, 2006)

There's no chance that you can look at this stuff objectively.  That's fine, I knew it go down that like that for alot of folks here.

And I think that you are right.  This is too controversial and I don't want it to reflect poorly on MT.

upnorthkyosa

ps - the second comment is directed towards an anonymous comment.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 13, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> I dont mean to attack you, upnorth. You seem like a nice guy. But your profile says you are a science teacher?


 
I didn't see this before.  Yes, I am a science teacher.  However, I teach at the secondary level so I have a degree in all of the subjects I teacher.  Biology, Geology, and Physics.  In college, I also minored in Chem.  When I finally pay off my loans, I'm going to go back to school and get my Phd so I can teach at the college level and do more research.


----------



## kid (Feb 13, 2006)

I think that a lot of this has real substance.  I watched the buildings fall over and over again.  I remember seeing it happen that horrible morning and thinking, damn that was fast.  I didn't think much of it at the time.  That was before I had much schooling in physics or in any area.  Now I am going to school to become a pilot and I asked my instructor about plane crashes, and asked a lot of questions about them. we looked at a lot of videos that he has of them.    And a lot of what what he said coincides with what these scholars are saying.  These facts right here make me want to hear more.  There were people standin in the whole where the planes entered the buildings.  that proves right there that the tempetures where not hot enough the MELT molten steel.  I have to agree with upnorthkyosa here that to just through away this theory is ridiculous, and not to be cowards.  For one moment try this, imagine that the world is round and not flat?  Sound familiar?  Some people chose not to beleive what they were told.  How about if witches weigh as much as ducks and ducks float on water than the witch will also float.  All I am saying now is try for one second to beleive that what they say could have substance.


Mark


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 13, 2006)

kid said:
			
		

> I think that a lot of this has real substance. I watched the buildings fall over and over again. I remember seeing it happen that horrible morning and thinking, damn that was fast. I didn't think much of it at the time. That was before I had much schooling in physics or in any area. Now I am going to school to become a pilot and I asked my instructor about plane crashes, and asked a lot of questions about them. we looked at a lot of videos that he has of them. And a lot of what what he said coincides with what these scholars are saying. These facts right here make me want to hear more. There were people standin in the whole where the planes entered the buildings. that proves right there that the tempetures where not hot enough the MELT steel.


 
One of the things I thought about before I posted this material was that some people, especially people in the military or people who have great zeal for this country, would find this material extremely offensive.  I'm not sure there is any good way to talk about this stuff without a few people blowing up.  I suppose I could post the equations that I've been working out...checking on Dr. Jones' work, but that would get really boring really quick...

Anyway, it might be best to leave this one be and discuss it in person or we may very well end up with a flame fest...


----------



## kid (Feb 13, 2006)

Yes, I guess you are right.  It just disappoints me sometimes when the majority of the ppl are to scared to try and make sense of these things.  But I guess we all better listen to big brother.  (no pun intended upnorth)


Mark


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Feb 13, 2006)

Robert Bowman: Another one of the "Scholars"

He was a 1980's peace-in-space activist whose main strategy was Soviet admiration. He once even argued that the USSR was justified in locking its own citizens inside their country because they had been bought and paid for via 'free education' and 'free health care' and thus were legitimate assets of the state, not to be wasted by losing them. 

Such a perfectly executed plan yet the whistle blowers havent meet gruesome ends at the hands of CIA assassins like the witnesses to the Government assassination of President Kennedy. The smoking men are slipping. I can only assume Mr. "Kid" is one of Mr. "Upnorths" students based on location and MA system. That must be an interesting school, what with all the black helicopters flying around it. Make sure you check the basement for demolitions.

Just teasing, this has been one of the most interesting (and wierd) discussions I have ever had, and probably the most typing too. 

It takes all kinds. And the fact that people here are able to present stuff like this says good things about this country. Nobody is out protesting with "Death to BYU" or "Behead the Scholars for 9/11 truth" signs. Although some of the anti-Bush protesters remind me of Muhammad cartoon protesters with their hatred and spite..but thats another topic.

Enjoy the freedom.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 13, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> There's no chance that you can look at this stuff objectively. That's fine, I knew it go down that like that for alot of folks here.
> 
> And I think that you are right. This is too controversial and I don't want it to reflect poorly on MT.
> 
> ...


 Well, upnorth, i've agreed with you in the past, but when you start getting in to conspiracy theories, I think you're wandering off the reservation.  

As for as not giving it an objective chance, this 'stuff' is not objectively reasonable to begin with.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 13, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> One of the things I thought about before I posted this material was that some people, especially people in the military or people who have great zeal for this country, would find this material extremely offensive. I'm not sure there is any good way to talk about this stuff without a few people blowing up. I suppose I could post the equations that I've been working out...checking on Dr. Jones' work, but that would get really boring really quick...
> 
> Anyway, it might be best to leave this one be and discuss it in person or we may very well end up with a flame fest...


 Come one, up, you're adding 2 + 2 and getting 4,245.  'It doesn't make sense the steal melted = VAST CONSPIRACY!!!!!'  You've got very little evidence of the former, yet you LEAP to the LATTER!  That's the BIG problem.

Again, it's not unlike 'Intelligent Design'.  You start with a conclusion, and then work to find only the evidence that supports.  Then you accuse everyone else of being closed minded when they point out that the Emperor is naked.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 13, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> Robert Bowman: Another one of the "Scholars"
> 
> He was a 1980's peace-in-space activist whose main strategy was Soviet admiration. He once even argued that the USSR was justified in locking its own citizens inside their country because they had been bought and paid for via 'free education' and 'free health care' and thus were legitimate assets of the state, not to be wasted by losing them.


 
It's easy to poke a little fun at some of these guys, I agree.  However, it is just as easy to poke fun at people like Leo Strauss...who once argued that regular people can't handle the truth so it is just fine for the government to lie to them in order to "get the job done."  

People have all kinds of sides, but in science, ideally, that shouldn't matter.



> Such a perfectly executed plan yet the whistle blowers havent meet gruesome ends at the hands of CIA assassins like the witnesses to the Government assassination of President Kennedy. The smoking men are slipping.


 
If the evidence shows that the event could have happened, then there must have been a way to pull it off, no matter how improbable.  One thing to keep in mind is how elaborate some drug smuggling conspiracies become.  The ones that actually get busted often end up netting dozens, if not hundreds of individuals as this stuff changes hands.  Thus, I would say, the chances of pulling of an elaborate conspiracy of any kind are at least...possible.



> I can only assume Mr. "Kid" is one of Mr. "Upnorths" students based on location and MA system. That must be an interesting school, what with all the black helicopters flying around it. Make sure you check the basement for demolitions.


 
Yup.  He is a student of mine, he's also my brother.  Our school is particularly adept at using our chi to blast the black helicopters from the sky.  Currently the CIA is trying to enlist us, despite our beliefs, to see if we can zonk people over the internet with chi.  They have assured us that only our enemies will be the targets of our most super secret power...for some reason, I'm not buying it.



> It takes all kinds. And the fact that people here are able to present stuff like this says good things about this country. Nobody is out protesting with "Death to BYU" or "Behead the Scholars for 9/11 truth" signs. Although some of the anti-Bush protesters remind me of Muhammad cartoon protesters with their hatred and spite..but thats another topic.
> 
> Enjoy the freedom.


 
This is a good point.  Nobody is going out and trying to take these guys down for putting their arguments out...and we can really thank our way of life for that.  This information will make it or break it on how well it explains the observed evidence.  Basically, we have two competing theories...

1.  The "official" fire theory - which states that the buildings collapsed because of the fire.

2.  The controlled implosion theory - which states that WTC 1,2 and 7 were demolished on purpose (for whatever reason).

It is entirely possible that neither "theories" fit the evidence and that something else occured.  However, I think that the one benefit that can be garnered from this research is that it shows that there are some serious questions about theory number one...and that in and of itself is troubling.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 13, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> Robert Bowman: Another one of the "Scholars"
> 
> He was a 1980's peace-in-space activist whose main strategy was Soviet admiration. He once even argued that the USSR was justified in locking its own citizens inside their country because they had been bought and paid for via 'free education' and 'free health care' and thus were legitimate assets of the state, not to be wasted by losing them.
> 
> ...


 Yes, God bless America....here, you can be as KOOKY and wierd, and paranoid as you want, and the government won't intefer.  Hell, they even keep giving you grants to conduct your 'Kooky' research.

Ask the enemies of Stalin what a REAL conspiracy looked like from the inside......if you can find where they're buried.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 13, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Well, upnorth, i've agreed with you in the past, but when you start getting in to conspiracy theories, I think you're wandering off the reservation.
> 
> As for as not giving it an objective chance, this 'stuff' is not objectively reasonable to begin with.


 
I'll disagree with you here.  And this is why...

You can take the equations 

1.  d = .5 gt^2
2.  v = gt
3.  m(t)v(t) = [m(1)v(1) + m(2)v(2)]

And show that WTC 1 and 2 fell far to fast for the official theory to explain.  And this is assuming that there is absolutely nothing but the law of intertia between the floors.  

You can also use equations that describe the 2nd law of thermodynamics and tumbling objects and come to the conclusion that the towers would have fallen away from the path of most resistence, which was straight down.

Does this alone prove that it was a conspiracy by the government to commit mass murder?  No.

However, there is more...melted and evaporated steel, sulfidation as explosive residue, and measured steel temps far above what could be caused by a fire and collapse...and it is presented in such a way that one can check the authenticity.  

The official version does not address these things.  Could there be another reason why this stuff was ignored?  Could these buildings have been demolished for reasons that were not political?  Could a better theory then both of these come along and explain the evidence?

All of these are valid questions and will take time to answer.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 13, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> It's easy to poke a little fun at some of these guys, I agree. However, it is just as easy to poke fun at people like Leo Strauss...who once argued that regular people can't handle the truth so it is just fine for the government to lie to them in order to "get the job done."


 Those rascally 'neo-cons'.  It was STRAUSS that blew up the WTC?  I thougth he was dead.  I guess that's what 'they' want me to believe.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> People have all kinds of sides, but in science, ideally, that shouldn't matter.


 It shouldn't matter if someone is a known liar, who falsifies data?  I hardly think that's the case.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> If the evidence shows that the event could have happened, then there must have been a way to pull it off, no matter how improbable. One thing to keep in mind is how elaborate some drug smuggling conspiracies become. The ones that actually get busted often end up netting dozens, if not hundreds of individuals as this stuff changes hands. Thus, I would say, the chances of pulling of an elaborate conspiracy of any kind are at least...possible.


 Please.  That's apples and A-bombs difference.  You're talking the difference between a criminal interprise to make money for a few hundred people, versus a Manhattan project sized endeavor to murder Thousands of Americans, for some 'Nebulous' purpose.  Big difference, my friend.




			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Yup. He is a student of mine, he's also my brother. Our school is particularly adept at using our chi to blast the black helicopters from the sky. Currently the CIA is trying to enlist us, despite our beliefs, to see if we can zonk people over the internet with chi. They have assured us that only our enemies will be the targets of our most super secret power...for some reason, I'm not buying it.


 Sadly, many of the people you've been quoting would probably believe that.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> This is a good point. Nobody is going out and trying to take these guys down for putting their arguments out...and we can really thank our way of life for that. This information will make it or break it on how well it explains the observed evidence. Basically, we have two competing theories...


 Soooo.....They can conduct a Manhattan project sized conspiracy to MURDER thousands of Americans, blow up American landmarks, start wars, but they can't silence a few nutcakes?  hehehe.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> 1. The "official" fire theory - which states that the buildings collapsed because of the fire.


 So you say, some disagree.  Your whole THEORY is based on #1 and #2, so you have to cling to these two points, to back up the innuendo and hyperbole of the rest of the asinine argument.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> 2. The controlled implosion theory - which states that WTC 1,2 and 7 were demolished on purpose (for whatever reason).


 Again, your whole 'Theory's' only evidence are these two points.  Of course, if you're wrong, which I have no doubt you are, then it's another example of a few people seeing their theories in conflict with reality, and simply dismissing reality as inferior to their theories.  



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> It is entirely possible that neither "theories" fit the evidence and that something else occured. However, I think that the one benefit that can be garnered from this research is that it shows that there are some serious questions about theory number one...and that in and of itself is troubling.


 The problem, however, is that the only people who 'see' this evidence, are those who have shown themselves, in the past, to border on the mentally ill.  Perhaps you've bought more in to the salesman than the product.


There seems to be a desire on the part of some people, to imagine a 'hidden world' where nothing is what it appears.  For the most part on this planet, however, things are EXACTLY as they appear.  This is one of those cases.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 13, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Come one, up, you're adding 2 + 2 and getting 4,245. 'It doesn't make sense the steal melted = VAST CONSPIRACY!!!!!' You've got very little evidence of the former, yet you LEAP to the LATTER! That's the BIG problem.
> 
> Again, it's not unlike 'Intelligent Design'. You start with a conclusion, and then work to find only the evidence that supports. Then you accuse everyone else of being closed minded when they point out that the Emperor is naked.


 
I appreciate your opinion and I do take it into consideration as I examine what I've said and done in this thread (as far as calling people, calculating numbers, and checking facts).  However, I still disagree.  When you look at all of the evidence together, it puts some serious holes in the official story and it does show some support for another theory.  The holes in the official story are troublesome by itself.  Why would all of this hard physical evidence be ignored?  And I'm not talking about comments by witnesses.  This is hard physical evidence carried out by scientists who performed professional observations and tests.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 13, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I'll disagree with you here. And this is why...
> 
> You can take the equations
> 
> ...


 In science, we understand that when our theories don't match reality, it is our theories that are flawed.  In this conspiracy drivel psuedo science, if reality doesn't match our theory, reality is flawed.  In essence, what you are saying is 'What happened didn't match our theories about how it should happen, so OBVIOUSLY it couldn't have happened that way'......or, your theories are flawed.  Of course, that's not possible, is it?  



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> You can also use equations that describe the 2nd law of thermodynamics and tumbling objects and come to the conclusion that the towers would have fallen away from the path of most resistence, which was straight down.


 oooooooohhhhhhhhhhh.....utter BS.  I saw the buildings falling aroudn the path of least resistance.  They didn't fall straight down, they collapsed right on the floors that were struck by planes.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Does this alone prove that it was a conspiracy by the government to commit mass murder? No.


 Hell, it doesn't even prove what you claim it proves.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> However, there is more...melted and evaporated steel, sulfidation as explosive residue, and measured steel temps far above what could be caused by a fire and collapse...and it is presented in such a way that one can check the authenticity.


 Really, you've personally examined this evidence, are you taking 'their word' for it?  And what 'melts steel' to those temperatures.  Certainly not explosives.   You've tap-danced around this whole issue.  



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The official version does not address these things. Could there be another reason why this stuff was ignored? Could these buildings have been demolished for reasons that were not political? Could a better theory then both of these come along and explain the evidence?


 None that you would accept.  Why?  Because this has become a matter of belief for you and the theorists.  You will only accept evidence that supports your paranoia, and will discount anything 'inconvenient'....like reality.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> All of these are valid questions and will take time to answer.


 But you've already come up with the answers.  There are no answers, that don't involve conspiracies, that you will accept.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 13, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I appreciate your opinion and I do take it into consideration as I examine what I've said and done in this thread (as far as calling people, calculating numbers, and checking facts). However, I still disagree. When you look at all of the evidence together, it puts some serious holes in the official story and it does show some support for another theory. The holes in the official story are troublesome by itself. Why would all of this hard physical evidence be ignored? And I'm not talking about comments by witnesses. This is hard physical evidence carried out by scientists who performed professional observations and tests.


 hehe.  I once watched a show where some nut-job was trying to explain how he had absolute PROOF that aliens had visited this field.  He had a rock, that he said did not belong there, and had, in fact, come from some other part of the planet.  He then went in to this vast diatribe about this was scientifically impossible, and how, the only explaination was, that 'aliens' had brought it.  

I remember getting a headache watching this guy.  I remember thinking....'Or, someone chunked it in to the field.....maybe even YOU'.  

So, which theory makes more sense, that A) Some alien intelligence traveled the gulfs of space and time to bring a rock to a corn field or B) This guy was an idiot.

He may not have had Science going for him, but her certainly had 'Science' going for him.   Obviously a student of the ole' saw 'If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS' line of thinking.


Another example.  I once attended a Clandestine Lab class, in which a Chemistry Professor, recognized by the DEA, was teaching a segment of a class.  One of the undercover guys said that they had been running in to operations where meth cooks were synthesizing an important compound (using a electro-chemical process I won't get in to the obvious reasons).  This nationally recognized professor did a vast, long equation on the board, and then declared it a myth.  He said it was impossible, could not be done.

Later, they brought a guy in who knew how to do it, and they synthesized the compound exactly as the Professor had pronounced impossible.  The Professor was flabberghasted.  Everything he had learned to believe, was tossed on it's head by reality.  Just goes to show, an equation is a good working model, but it IS NOT reality itself.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 13, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> It shouldn't matter if someone is a known liar, who falsifies data? I hardly think that's the case.


 
I think that I know who you are referring too.  Here is a story...

As an undergrad, I had a Chemistry professor for my Inorganic Class.  He was absolutely brilliant and he taught me alot about x-ray crystallography.  He also was a Creationist.  Further, he believed in the historical Jesus and he used "science" to show that this person actually existed and actually did everything that was claimed.  Should I throw out what he taught because of the other dubious fields in which he was involved?

In the end, I respected him for both of those things.  He challenged me to understand the chemistry and physics behind objects that were far to small to see and we had many lively discussions about Creationism, evolution, and the Historical Jesus...even though I disagreed with that.

Is this so different then Prof. Jones?



> Please. That's apples and A-bombs difference. You're talking the difference between a criminal interprise to make money for a few hundred people, versus a Manhattan project sized endeavor to murder Thousands of Americans, for some 'Nebulous' purpose. Big difference, my friend.


 
I think that your a priori assumption that the conspiracy had to be as large as the Manhatten project is unfounded.  Also, I would like you to think about the real life conspiracy that carried out MKULTRA.  That project went on for 25 years, involved thousands of people, and was extremely unethical.



> Soooo.....They can conduct a Manhattan project sized conspiracy to MURDER thousands of Americans, blow up American landmarks, start wars, but they can't silence a few nutcakes? hehehe.


 
Maybe or maybe not.  However, this very thing has occured multiple times in history.  Why are we immune?



> So you say, some disagree. Your whole THEORY is based on #1 and #2, so you have to cling to these two points, to back up the innuendo and hyperbole of the rest of the asinine argument.


 
I can't take credit for "my" theory.  I'm only parroting what I've read.  With that being said, there is more evidence then just 1 and 2.



> Again, your whole 'Theory's' only evidence are these two points. Of course, if you're wrong, which I have no doubt you are, then it's another example of a few people seeing their theories in conflict with reality, and simply dismissing reality as inferior to their theories.


 
In Dr. Jone's paper, he lays out 17 reasons.  In Dr. Griffen's papers, he lays out 100 reasons and 11 reasons respectively.  Dr. Fetzer's paper provides historical context.  Taken together, the collective work, at the very least, portrays a troubling picture.



> The problem, however, is that the only people who 'see' this evidence, are those who have shown themselves, in the past, to border on the mentally ill. Perhaps you've bought more in to the salesman than the product.


 
You can do the calculations with the equations above and see this evidence also.  You can also look up the works cited and you can also check some of the physical facts.  And I don't think that one needs to be mentally ill to do this.  



> There seems to be a desire on the part of some people, to imagine a 'hidden world' where nothing is what it appears. For the most part on this planet, however, things are EXACTLY as they appear. This is one of those cases.


 
This thought that things are exactly as they appear is interesting.  I think this also.  Keeping this in mind, it is entirely possible for certain people to tell you how things appear...especially when one does not understand what they are really seeing.  The bottom line is that the evidence will determine this.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Feb 13, 2006)

Except for the fact that they are "moon landing never happened", "Christ visited the Aztecs", loons. They have little credibility in my book. How do they know better than the scientists at MIT?


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 13, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> In science, we understand that when our theories don't match reality, it is our theories that are flawed. In this conspiracy drivel psuedo science, if reality doesn't match our theory, reality is flawed. In essence, what you are saying is 'What happened didn't match our theories about how it should happen, so OBVIOUSLY it couldn't have happened that way'......or, your theories are flawed. Of course, that's not possible, is it?


 
The point is that I and you can calculate that the rate that the buildings fell according to the "pancake theory" described in the official story, is physically impossible.



> oooooooohhhhhhhhhhh.....utter BS. I saw the buildings falling aroudn the path of least resistance. They didn't fall straight down, they collapsed right on the floors that were struck by planes.


 
For one thing, the strikes by the planes only damaged a few of the outer supporting beams and none of the inner supporting beams.  Even the NIST report and FEMA acknowledges that the strikes by the planes did not bring the towers down.  Fire was the fundamental compenent in the official story.

For another thing, if you take a look at the law of entropy and how it applies to tumbling objects, you'll find that these objects tend to bounce away from the path of least resistence.  This would imply an assymetrical collapse in that the towers would have snapped off at the site of the fire/crash.  The fact that they symmetrically collapsed means that they fell into the path of most resistence which is straight down into the steel supporting structure.  The improbablity of this is easy to understand, if you take a pencil and place it point up on the table and slam your hand directly down onto it, the pencil will remain standing and the flesh of your hand will move around the paths of least resistence.  The NIST and FEMA reports attempt to content with this by implying that the fire enveloped the entire building...which is obviously not true, because firefighters were getting people out from the lower floors and all reports stated that there were no fires (until the explosions occured long after the airplane strikes).  Even if the fires were somehow able to spread through the core of the building, the structure, according to the engineers who built it and the fire cheifs who studied it, would only have been stressed to a third of its capacity.  Yet, this isn't even an issue because the fires did not envelop the entire building.



> Really, you've personally examined this evidence, are you taking 'their word' for it?


 
I'm not taking their word for it.  For the things that I've been able to check, as I've listed above, it checks out.



> And what 'melts steel' to those temperatures. Certainly not explosives. You've tap-danced around this whole issue.


 
When one demolishes a steel building one uses a combination of explosives and thermite.  It's not one or the other.  Their explanation is much more in depth on this point.



> None that you would accept. Why? Because this has become a matter of belief for you and the theorists. You will only accept evidence that supports your paranoia, and will discount anything 'inconvenient'....like reality.


 
I think that you are generalizing here.  



> But you've already come up with the answers. There are no answers, that don't involve conspiracies, that you will accept.


 
One thing to remember is that all answers involve conspiracies.  The official story involves a conspiracy of 19 members of al qaeda.  So, what else to we have to accept but a conspiracy theory? 

In reality, only the evidence matters and that is all we really can look at in order to come up with an explanation for this events causation.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Feb 13, 2006)

http://people.howstuffworks.com/wtc7.htm



> The heat expanded, twisted and buckled the steel support structure, gradually reducing the building's stability. Any number of things could have happened during this period. For example, connections between vertical columns and floor trusses probably broke, dropping sections of floor on lower levels and breaking connections between the core and the perimeter wall, possibly causing columns along the perimeter to buckle outward. Every broken connection or buckled length of steel added to the force acting on connected steel segments, until the entire structure was weakened to the point that it couldn't hold the upper section of the building.
> 
> When this happened, the top part of each building collapsed onto the lower part of the building. Essentially, this was like dropping a 20-story building on top of another building. Before the crash, this upper structure exerted a constant downward force -- its weight -- on the superstructure below. Obviously, the lower superstructure was strong enough to support this weight. But when the columns collapsed, the upper part of the building started moving -- the downward force of gravity accelerated it. The momentum of an object -- the quantity of its motion -- is equal to its mass multiplied by its velocity. So when you increase the velocity of an object with a set mass, you increase its momentum. This increases the total force that the object can exert on another object.
> 
> ...





> While the towers' support structure ultimately couldn't withstand the raging fire, it was strong enough to save thousands of people's lives. Around 99 percent of the people below the impact in each tower were able to evacuate before the buildings collapsed. If the towers hadn't been built with redundant structural stability, the death toll would have easily been in the tens of thousands.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 13, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Another example. I once attended a Clandestine Lab class, in which a Chemistry Professor, recognized by the DEA, was teaching a segment of a class. One of the undercover guys said that they had been running in to operations where meth cooks were synthesizing an important compound (using a electro-chemical process I won't get in to the obvious reasons). This nationally recognized professor did a vast, long equation on the board, and then declared it a myth. He said it was impossible, could not be done.
> 
> Later, they brought a guy in who knew how to do it, and they synthesized the compound exactly as the Professor had pronounced impossible. The Professor was flabberghasted. Everything he had learned to believe, was tossed on it's head by reality. Just goes to show, an equation is a good working model, but it IS NOT reality itself.


 
This is a very good point.  If someone can come along and show me how these falling buildings can "pancake" and violate the law of interia, the law of momentum conservation, the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and the laws of gravity, I'm all ears.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Feb 13, 2006)

http://people.howstuffworks.com/fra.../pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Feb 13, 2006)

Ive even heard of inertia. The collapse started with a downward motion, why would it fall like a tree.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Feb 13, 2006)

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/COMMUNITY/09/13/rittenhouse.cnna/

Tod Rittenhouse is an expert in blast engineering from the international consulting engineering firm Weidlinger Associates and has been the blast engineer for a number of embassies and government buildings. He has been called to discuss such problems as the Oklahoma City bombing and the previous World Trade Center calamity. 





> RITTENHOUSE: When the event first occurred, naturally we all wondered how sound the building would be given the structure. We were concerned about the damage and in getting the people out in time before some type of collapse occurred. Like most people, I did not want to believe that a complete collapse could occur. But these were large bombs, strategically placed -- the bomb being the airplane and the placement being in a vulnerable spot in the building. The port authority has worked to secure the perimeter around the base of the building so the only way to attack the building is at a higher elevation -- such as an air attack.
> 
> CHAT PARTICIPANT: Can you explain why the buildings collapsed?
> 
> ...


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 13, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> http://people.howstuffworks.com/wtc7.htm


 
This is only repeating the assertions in the official story.  Here is are some problems...



> The heat expanded, twisted and buckled the steel support structure, gradually reducing the building's stability. Any number of things could have happened during this period. For example, connections between vertical columns and floor trusses probably broke, dropping sections of floor on lower levels and breaking connections between the core and the perimeter wall, possibly causing columns along the perimeter to buckle outward. Every broken connection or buckled length of steel added to the force acting on connected steel segments, until the entire structure was weakened to the point that it couldn't hold the upper section of the building.


 
1.  According to the who designed and maintained this building and the fire chiefs who study this, the strikes of the planes and the fires would not have stressed the buildings more then 1/3rd of their capacity.

2.  These buildings were specifically designed in order to spread an increased load from damaged areas onto other areas.

3.  The fires caused by the jet fuel and other flammable material were not hot enough to weaken the steel in affected areas.

4.  The fires did not burn long enough to weaken the steel in affected areas because steel conducts heat away from the site of burning (this is ontop of the fact that they weren't hot enough).



> When this happened, the top part of each building collapsed onto the lower part of the building. Essentially, this was like dropping a 20-story building on top of another building. Before the crash, this upper structure exerted a constant downward force -- its weight -- on the superstructure below. Obviously, the lower superstructure was strong enough to support this weight. But when the columns collapsed, the upper part of the building started moving -- the downward force of gravity accelerated it. The momentum of an object -- the quantity of its motion -- is equal to its mass multiplied by its velocity. So when you increase the velocity of an object with a set mass, you increase its momentum. This increases the total force that the object can exert on another object.


 
If you were to drop a 20 story building on top of the floors and there was absolutley nothing in between them but the inertia of their mass, it still would fall slower then it actually did.  If you put stuff in between the floors like reinforced steel girders, even the huge force of a 20 story building would meet resistence.  In fact, according to the law of thermodynamics, it would topple over.  But it did not.



> To understand how this works, think of a hammer. Resting in your hand, it doesn't hurt you at all. But if you drop it on your foot, it can do some damage. Similarly, if you swing the hammer forward, you can apply enough force to drive nails into a wall.


 
This analogy analogy does not apply because the situation violates the laws of physics.  However, if one were to remove all of the supports (via explosives) of the floors and start the entire structure sagging, then one is adding velocity to this equation.

m(t)v(t) = [m(1)v(1) + m(2)v(2)]

And suddenly, the impossible becomes possible.  And if one adds even more energy via explosives depleting the m(2) part the equation, it becomes even more possible.



> When the upper structure of each tower fell down, its velocity -- and therefore its momentum -- increased sharply. This greater momentum resulted in an impact force that exceeded the structural integrity of the columns immediately underneath the destroyed area. Those support columns gave way, and the whole mass fell on the floors even farther down. In this way, the force of the falling building structure broke apart the superstructure underneath, crushing the building from the top, one floor at a time.


 
As you can see, by looking solely at the law of thermodynamics and the law of momentum one can disprove the "pancake" theory put forward in the initial story.  This analysis has not included all of the other evidence and becomes even stronger when it does.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 13, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> http://archives.cnn.com/2001/COMMUNITY/09/13/rittenhouse.cnna/
> 
> Tod Rittenhouse is an expert in blast engineering from the international consulting engineering firm Weidlinger Associates and has been the blast engineer for a number of embassies and government buildings. He has been called to discuss such problems as the Oklahoma City bombing and the previous World Trade Center calamity.


 
This is just another recitation of the pancake theory.  As I stated above, if absolutely nothing was between the floors and one dropped 20 floors down and started a collapsed it still would have fallen slower then it did because of each floors inertia.  In reality, according the law of thermodynamics, the building should have toppled over...that is unless there was no resistence at all beneath the collapsing upper floors...


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 13, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I think that I know who you are referring too. Here is a story...
> 
> As an undergrad, I had a Chemistry professor for my Inorganic Class. He was absolutely brilliant and he taught me alot about x-ray crystallography. He also was a Creationist. Further, he believed in the historical Jesus and he used "science" to show that this person actually existed and actually did everything that was claimed. Should I throw out what he taught because of the other dubious fields in which he was involved?


 You should if what he is telling you has to do with his dubious beliefs.  For example, past manufacturing of evidence to support wacko theories, should definitely be kept in mind when examining evidence of current wacko theories.  



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> In the end, I respected him for both of those things. He challenged me to understand the chemistry and physics behind objects that were far to small to see and we had many lively discussions about Creationism, evolution, and the Historical Jesus...even though I disagreed with that.


 Did you believe his data about Jesus?



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Is this so different then Prof. Jones?


 Your Chem professor talking about Jesus, and trying to use 'science' as evidence, is JUST like Prof. Jones and his conspiracy theories.  That's exactly my point.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I think that your a priori assumption that the conspiracy had to be as large as the Manhatten project is unfounded. Also, I would like you to think about the real life conspiracy that carried out MKULTRA. That project went on for 25 years, involved thousands of people, and was extremely unethical.


 Yes, but it DID not involve THOUSANDS of people committing TREASON and MURDER, for some reason you can't even define.  



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Maybe or maybe not. However, this very thing has occured multiple times in history. Why are we immune?


 Name one.  




			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I can't take credit for "my" theory. I'm only parroting what I've read. With that being said, there is more evidence then just 1 and 2.


 None you've presented.  




			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> In Dr. Jone's paper, he lays out 17 reasons. In Dr. Griffen's papers, he lays out 100 reasons and 11 reasons respectively. Dr. Fetzer's paper provides historical context. Taken together, the collective work, at the very least, portrays a troubling picture.


 It portrays a troubling picture alright.....of possible mental illness.




			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> You can do the calculations with the equations above and see this evidence also. You can also look up the works cited and you can also check some of the physical facts. And I don't think that one needs to be mentally ill to do this.


 No, you just have to be mentally ill to imagine conspiracies that don't exist.




			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> This thought that things are exactly as they appear is interesting. I think this also. Keeping this in mind, it is entirely possible for certain people to tell you how things appear...especially when one does not understand what they are really seeing. The bottom line is that the evidence will determine this.


 The evidence is against you, despite delusions to the contrary.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 13, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> This is a very good point. If someone can come along and show me how these falling buildings can "pancake" and violate the law of interia, the law of momentum conservation, the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and the laws of gravity, I'm all ears.


 We have only your and your fellow conspiracy wonks assertions that ANYTHING violates the laws of 'anything'.   What you're really saying is, that you've developed and artificial theory about how things 'should' work, and you claim what someone else is saying, violates that model.  It's bogus.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 13, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> This is just another recitation of the pancake theory. As I stated above, if absolutely nothing was between the floors and one dropped 20 floors down and started a collapsed it still would have fallen slower then it did because of each floors inertia. In reality, according the law of thermodynamics, the building should have toppled over...that is unless there was no resistence at all beneath the collapsing upper floors...


 At least so you keep maintaining.  Of course, again, your actually just throwing around your own models, and claiming that reality is violating it.  Perhaps your model is mistaken.....impossible!!!! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





  Because conspiracy wonks CAN'T be wrong in their theories.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Feb 14, 2006)

Why do the scientists at MIT believe in the pancake theory if it so "obviously" violates your "law"? From what I understand, if the center columns of the buildings were pretty much strong and it was the weakened clips that gave way and fell down on the lower floors that gave way under the weight, then they just slide down the center collums, gaining momentum from the increasing weight of floor upon floor coming down. The air between floors getting blasted out the windows all around.

If these guys were so darn smart and able to rig up the towers with nobody being the wiser, why were they not smart enough to drop the towers in a more "realistic" way according to your theory?


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Feb 14, 2006)

http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/sciam/



> Kausel addressed the oft-asked question of why the towers did not tip over like a falling tree. "A tree is solid, whereas building is mostly air or empty space; only about 10 percent is solid material. Since there is no solid stump underneath to force it to the side, the building cannot tip over. It could only collapse upon itself." Robert McNamara said his failure mechanism theory "focuses on the connections that hold the structure together," but he cautioned that "we really need to wait for a detailed investigation, before we decide if we have to up the code ratings for these connections in signature structures."


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 14, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> Why do the scientists at MIT believe in the pancake theory if it so "obviously" violates your "law"? From what I understand, if the center columns of the buildings were pretty much strong and it was the weakened clips that gave way and fell down on the lower floors that gave way under the weight, then they just slide down the center collums, gaining momentum from the increasing weight of floor upon floor coming down. The air between floors getting blasted out the windows all around.


 
Even if there was nothing in between the floors at all, the inertia along would have slowed them down.  Thus, even if the clips were weak, it still wouldn't have mattered...in fact, it would have slown down the collapse even more.  There is no way that the towers could have fallen at nearly free fall speed unless...

a.  There was no resistence between the floors
b.  Every single floor was already moving down with some velocity right before it was hit.  This factor would be v(1) in the equation I posted before.

I do not know why the scientist at MIT published a paper that directly reflected the NIST findings.  I'm looking at the dates on the papers and it looks like it was published around the same time as the governmental report.  As of now, I'm looking to see if he was involved in the NIST in any way.  I suspect that he was part of the cadre that cranked out the NIST report...but we'll have to see what turns up.



> If these guys were so darn smart and able to rig up the towers with nobody being the wiser, why were they not smart enough to drop the towers in a more "realistic" way according to your theory?


 
The simple answer is that an asymetrical collapse could have destroyed a heck of a lot more then just the towers and "rigging" the towers to fall in a more realistic way would have caused an asymetrical collapse.  

I'm not sure what else to say about some of this stuff.  Right now, I'm waiting for some rebuttle to appear for these findings.  I'm really curious as to how this will play out in an academic debate.  It is entirely possible that there are other, more plausible explanations.  However, if I were to wager, I would say that, at the very least, the old reports will end up being discredited.

Time will tell...

upnorthkyosa


----------



## kid (Feb 14, 2006)

Its hard to beleive that people could be so evil to kill all these other people but it happened.  People go to great lengths in order to fuel their ambitions.  We aren't the people that we want to be, we are the person that we became.  Everyone is capable to hide something from another in order to further their advancement and are willing to hurt one or many in order to reach that goal.  There is supposedly one person in history that has not done this.  Jesus.  Look at the towers collapse again tell me that isn't strange.  In fact I have it on my computer at home i'll post a link soon.  I look at this stuff and can't beleive some people cant see its real.


Mark


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 14, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I do not know why the scientist at MIT published a paper that directly reflected the NIST findings. I'm looking at the dates on the papers and it looks like it was published around the same time as the governmental report. As of now, I'm looking to see if he was involved in the NIST in any way. I suspect that he was part of the cadre that cranked out the NIST report...but we'll have to see what turns up.


 'Cadre'?! Oh, I get it....anyone who disagrees with your conclusions is either A) Ignorant or B) Part of the conspiracy.  That's stable.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 14, 2006)

kid said:
			
		

> Its hard to beleive that people could be so evil to kill all these other people but it happened. People go to great lengths in order to fuel their ambitions. We aren't the people that we want to be, we are the person that we became. Everyone is capable to hide something from another in order to further their advancement and are willing to hurt one or many in order to reach that goal. There is supposedly one person in history that has not done this. Jesus. Look at the towers collapse again tell me that isn't strange. In fact I have it on my computer at home i'll post a link soon. I look at this stuff and can't beleive some people cant see its real.
> 
> 
> Mark


 Yep, those hijackers were just government agents, who did it for money and personal gain.  Funny thing is, they were smart enough to pull this off, but too stupid to realize that they can't spend money when they're dead.....:rofl:

So explain to me the motive of 'suicide bombing for profit'.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Feb 14, 2006)

Thing is, why go through the whole complicated show? As if just crashing planes into the towers wasnt enough? We have to go Jerry Bruckheimer and synchronize a demolition of the towers to. Requiring thousands of pounds of explosives and careful cutting of key support structures (that leave most buildings being imploded so weak that you cant go near them but somehow they stay open for business and planes crashing into them dont knock them down). But they are not smart enough to make them fall in a "realistic" (according to our physics whizes) way when they "know" its going to be seen on TV and replayed into history. If you are going to set up something like this then why not have them fall like trees into other buildings? Now that would have been a Bruckheimer moment. But at the same time we cant scan cell phone conversations from inside the NSA without someone leaking, Karl Rove gets leaked and so on....Its just way too "out there" sorry show all the equations you want Im not buying it.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Feb 14, 2006)

> The simple answer is that an asymetrical collapse could have destroyed a heck of a lot more then just the towers and "rigging" the towers to fall in a more realistic way would have caused an asymetrical collapse.



Sorry, but that just sounds really-well-sorry-stupid. They are going to commit mass murder on a huge, dramatic, scale. Crashing loaded airplanes into occupied buildings but they are afraid of creating "too much damage" thats just wierd.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 15, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> Thing is, why go through the whole complicated show? As if just crashing planes into the towers wasnt enough? We have to go Jerry Bruckheimer and synchronize a demolition of the towers to. Requiring thousands of pounds of explosives and careful cutting of key support structures (that leave most buildings being imploded so weak that you cant go near them but somehow they stay open for business and planes crashing into them dont knock them down).


 
According to eyewitness accounts, the "explosions" that may have imploded the buildings happened after the airplanes hit.  Also, according to the designers of the buildings, multiple civic engineers and fire specialists, the impact and the fire would not have brought the buildings down.  In fact, the NIST's own scale model of the building would not fail when tested under every circumstance, even there most extreme scenarios.  This is why they went to a computer simulation in order to get their data.  This simulation only work when they changed a number of assumptions...information on those assumptions is not available in their report.  Also, this computer simulation is unavailable for any public review.  How can anyone verify their findings without that information?



> But they are not smart enough to make them fall in a "realistic" (according to our physics whizzes) way when they "know" its going to be seen on TV and replayed into history. If you are going to set up something like this then why not have them fall like trees into other buildings? Now that would have been a Bruckheimer moment. But at the same time we cant scan cell phone conversations from inside the NSA without someone leaking, Karl Rove gets leaked and so on....Its just way too "out there" sorry show all the equations you want Im not buying it.


 
When the WTC complex was destroyed, the dust from the pulverized concrete had a ph of 12.  This is equivelent to liquid drano.  The EPA issued a warning that stated that this was a huge public health threat and that people should be removed from the areas affected ASAP.  The White House covered this warning up and issued a statement that stated that everything was fine and that people should return to bussiness as usual.  

Why did they do that?  One of the reasons is because of the location of the financial district.  It is not very far at all from the WTC complex.  Shutting down the financial district for any amount of time, effectively cuts the head off of the american economy.  Hundreds of billions of dollars exchange hands in a single day down there.  If WTC 1 and 2 would have collapsed asymetrically, the financial district would not only have been shut down longer, it could have been destroyed also.  

This theory about how the WTC was destroyed could be totally incorrect, but it is demonstratable that opening the Financial District at all costs was part of the White House's agenda.  Right now, there are emergency workers who are dying because of the decision by the White House to cover up the EPA's findings.  There are even more who are suffering from exposure to this dust.  Imagine what would happen to your lungs if you breathed in a powdered form of liquid drano for any amount of time?


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 15, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> 'Cadre'?! Oh, I get it....anyone who disagrees with your conclusions is either A) Ignorant or B) Part of the conspiracy. That's stable.


 
I don't think there is a simple answer to this question.  It certainly isn't black or white, A or B as you suggest.  Human's are complex creatures and are driven to do the things that we do for many reasons.  I think part of the answer comes down to overlapping paradigms.  Some people trust the government and some do not.  Some people have a large nationalistic streak and some do not.  Some people were really afraid after the terrorists struck and some were not.  

I'm going to perform a little experiment that may enlighten part of this question.  I sent a copy of Dr. Jone's paper to two of my old physics professors.  One of them was an unabashed liberal and the other a stout conservative.  We'll see what happens...


----------



## qizmoduis (Feb 15, 2006)

Personally, I'll take the word of experienced structural engineers.  Physics professors are usually pretty smart, but their expertise is elsewhere.

Although I'd love to believe that Bush and his cronies had something to do with this, it just doesn't add up.  Because of the way the towers were constructed, and the amount of burning jet fuel splashed around, the structural integrity of the towers was compromised, bringing them down.  

The razor applies.  It really was an act of terrorism that coincidentally played right into the hands of the mad, power-hungry neoconservative cabal we're currently suffering under.

The good folks at badastronomy have been discussing this for a while:

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=35175


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Feb 15, 2006)

Molten Steel Myth.

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html


----------



## kid (Feb 15, 2006)

> Yep, those hijackers were just government agents, who did it for money and personal gain. Funny thing is, they were smart enough to pull this off, but too stupid to realize that they can't spend money when they're dead.....:rofl:
> 
> So explain to me the motive of 'suicide bombing for profit'.


 
For a number of reasons.  Money for his family, so they have a chane in whatever hellhole he's from;family was threatened when cornered people can do some crazy things; or possibly a higher up in their organization got together with another from the U.S and colaborated this scheme together to further line their own pockets and friends pockets and decided to say its for religous reasons.  

Anyways what  was saying before people are capable of doing these deeds.  To me it these scholars make more sense than the 911 commisions.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 15, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> Molten Steel Myth.
> 
> http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html


 
There are pictures of the hot spots and steel being removed from the rubble pile that are giving off a visible radiation consistent with the temps for molten steel.  There are also pictures of the slag removed from the site that is also obviously once molten steel.  This is unequivical proof of its existence and it meets a standard of proof above mere eyewitness testimony.







Look at the bottom of this hot item.  The color of the radiation emitted from this item is indicative of its temperature.  One can see the metal dripping from its ends.  There is no way that this can be any other metal then steel because the temperature is just too hot.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 15, 2006)

qizmoduis said:
			
		

> Personally, I'll take the word of experienced structural engineers. Physics professors are usually pretty smart, but their expertise is elsewhere.
> 
> Although I'd love to believe that Bush and his cronies had something to do with this, it just doesn't add up. Because of the way the towers were constructed, and the amount of burning jet fuel splashed around, the structural integrity of the towers was compromised, bringing them down.
> 
> ...


 
I've been following that thread.  Alot of the same points have come up...although it did get nasty.  I would like to point out that there are structural engineers and civil engineers that have sided with the findings of this group.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Feb 16, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> There are pictures of the hot spots and steel being removed from the rubble pile that are giving off a visible radiation consistent with the temps for molten steel. There are also pictures of the slag removed from the site that is also obviously once molten steel. This is unequivical proof of its existence and it meets a standard of proof above mere eyewitness testimony.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So what melted it? Explosives dont "melt metal" it cuts it as anybody in the  military who went through demo school would know. If you are saying thermite did it then you havent been reading any of the links posted here. You obvoiusly didnt read the link that photo came from as even that refutes the "molten metal" myth. How do you know thats steel?


> First, there&#8217;s no proof here other than the caption of when and where this was taken.
> 
> Second, whatever&#8217;s glowing red here clearly isn&#8217;t isn&#8217;t &#8220;molten&#8221; in the sense of &#8220;melted&#8221;.There may possibly be something dripping off one end, but we don&#8217;t know what that is.
> 
> ...


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Feb 16, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I've been following that thread. Alot of the same points have come up...although it did get nasty. I would like to point out that there are structural engineers and civil engineers that have sided with the findings of this group.



"some"..the vast majority think its goofy conspiricy crap. Which seems to be the same here based on all the good reputation messages I have been getting.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 16, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> So what melted it? Explosives dont "melt metal" it cuts it as anybody in the military who went through demo school would know. If you are saying thermite did it then you havent been reading any of the links posted here. You obvoiusly didnt read the link that photo came from as even that refutes the "molten metal" myth. How do you know thats steel?


 
One of the things that has surprised me on this thread is the lack of basic physics knowledged by the majority of posters.  The NIST report, simply cannot be right because it violates the laws of physics, as I have shown.  The buildings could not have "pancaked" at near free fall speed and the buildings would not have fallen into the paths of most resistence according to the laws of thermodynamics.

The molten metal in that picture is emitting light like a black body and using Wein's Law, one can determine the temperature by analyzing the color of the metal.  The person who wrote that website is obviously wrong, because the temperature of that metal is extremely hot.  Way too hot to have been caused by jet fuel.  Hot enough to melt it.  There is no doubt from looking at that picture and looking at the pictures of the slag that came from the WTC complex that molten steel was present.  

Your question of how did it melt is warrented.  Nothing in the official story explains the presence of molten steel.  In fact, its presence seems to present a difficulty for the official version because there is nothing in that explanation that could have gotten that hot in order to melt steel.

As far as Thermite goes, I have personally seen that reaction in the lab.  I know how it works.  When you use sulfur as an accellerant, this reaction quickly gets hot enough to melt steel.  This is not an explosive reaction.

Here is professional analysis of the steel beams by one of the few peer reviewed papers out there.

"An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7."



> While the exact location of this beam could not be determined, *the unexpected erosion of the steel found in this beam warranted a study* of microstructural changes that occurred in this steel.  Examination of other sections in this beam is underway.
> 
> ANALYSIS - *Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur*. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel.  This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the* steel beam approached ~1000°C  *by a process similar to making a blacksmiths weld in a hand forge.  (Barnett, 2001)


 
This observation is consistent with what one would see from a thermite reaction.  At the very least, we need to get more WTC steel and repeat these tests.  This may prove difficult because the US government immediately put the steel on ships to China to be recycled.  This was done despite the objections given by fire scientists.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 16, 2006)

More on Thermite

http://www.dodtechmatch.com/DOD/Patent/PatentDetail.aspx?type=description&id=6766744&HL=ON



> Thermite, one of the most common pyrotechnic incendiary agents, is essentially a mixture of powdered ferric oxide and powdered or granular aluminum. When raised to its ignition temperature, an intense reaction occurs whereby the oxygen in the ferric oxide is transferred to the aluminum, producing molten iron, aluminum oxide, and releasing approximately 750 kilocalories per gram. The reaction proceeds as follows:
> 
> 8Al+3Fe.sub.3 O.sub.4.fwdarw.4Al.sub.2 O.sub.3 +9Fe
> 
> ...


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 16, 2006)

More testimony by experts...



> Engineers have been trying to figure out exactly what happened and whether they should be worried about other buildings like it around the country&#8230; Most of the other buildings in the [area] stood despite suffering damage of all kinds, including fire... *&#8216;Fire and the structural damage &#8230;would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated&#8217;*, Dr. [Jonathan] Barnett said.  (Glanz, 2001; emphasis added.)



Molten steel is one thing.  Evaporated steel is quite another.  Jet fuel cannot melt steel and it cannot evaporate steel.  What can evaporate steel?  How did the steel evaporate in the WTC complex?


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 16, 2006)

I agree with this 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.
> 
> ...


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 16, 2006)

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 high-level cutting charges, 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.
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.... Generally speaking, blasters will explode the major support columns on the lower floors first and then a few upper stories [nb: The upper floors then fall as a tamper, resulting in progressive collapse-- this is common in controlled demolition.]  (Harris, 2000; emphasis added.)
		
Click to expand...

*


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 16, 2006)

An article in the journal New Civil Engineering (NCE) lends support to concerns about the NIST analysis of the WTC collapses.  It states:

*



World Trade Center disaster investigators [at NIST] are refusing to show computer visualizations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, NCE has learned.  Visualisations of collapse mechanisms are routinely used to validate the type of finite element analysis model used by the [NIST] investigators.  The collapse mechanism and the role played by the hat truss at the top of the tower has been the focus of debate since the US National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST) published its findings&#8230;.

University of Manchester [U.K.] professor of structural engineering Colin Bailey said there was a lot to be gained from visualising the structural response.  &#8220;NIST should really show the visualisations; otherwise the opportunity to correlate them back to the video evidence and identify any errors in the modeling will be lost,&#8221; he said&#8230;.

A leading US structural engineer said NIST had obviously devoted enormous resources to the development of the impact and fire models.  &#8220;By comparison the global structural model is not as sophisticated,&#8221; he said.  &#8220;The software used [by NIST] has been pushed to new limits, and there have been a lot of simplifications, extrapolations and judgment calls.&#8221;  (Parker, 2005; emphasis added.)
		
Click to expand...

*


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 16, 2006)

"The buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel." 

An executive of the company that certified the steel used in the construction of the World Trade Center has questioned the common theory that fuel fires caused its collapse, in a letter yesterday to the head of the government team that has spent two years studying how the trade center was built and why it fell. 

The author of the letter, Kevin Ryan, is site manager at Environmental Health Laboratories in South Bend, Indiana, a division of Underwriters Laboratories, the product-compliance and testing giant. Because UL certified the WTC steel for its ability to withstand fires, its performance on September 11 is obviously of concern to the company. 



> From Kevin R. Ryan Site Manager of the Environmental Health Laboratories South Bend, Indiana (Company site - www.ehl.cc) A division of Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. (Company site - www.ul.com)
> 
> To Frank Gayle Deputy Chief of the Metallurgy Division Material Science and Engineering Laboratory National Institute of Standards and Technology NIST and the World Trade Center at wtc.nist.gov Dr. Gayle biography wtc.nist.gov/pi/wtc_profiles.asp?lastname=gayle
> 
> ...


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Feb 16, 2006)

You would need WAY too much thermite to "burn" a skyscraper down. And Ive seen thermite in the military. It takes time to work. Its not used for demo. its used to destroy equipment. The effort of setting up thermite is even more wacko than the "controlled demo" theory in the set-up factor allone.

This concerns me from a teacher espically a science teacher



> This is *unequivical proof* of its existence and it meets a standard of proof above mere eyewitness testimony.



Anybody who says this about something they saw on the internet raises real concerns. If thats all you need to be convinced, Im skeptical about many other things presented here as "proof". We have no idea what that is. I have seen housefires where all sorts of things glow and or melt. There was a lot of stuff in those buildings besides steel.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Feb 16, 2006)

Free Fall Myth

http://www.911myths.com/html/freefall.html


> How much greater?  If the video evidence gives such a great ranges of guesses, then maybe another approach is required, at least as a crosscheck.  We tried looking at the audio of each collapse, and came up with a minimum of 14 seconds in each case (see our South Tower and North Tower pages for more), and the potential for them to have taken several seconds longer.   Calculating these times involves far too many judgement calls for us to claim proof of anything, but we do think it adds significantly more support to the 15+ seconds collapse time, and makes the 8.4 second end of the spectrum look particularly unlikely.
> 
> We can cross-check this by looking at the seismic evidence.  Although often presented as supporting the shortest 8-point-something time, in our view there&#8217;s a case for arguing that this, too, indicates the collapse time was much, much longer.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Feb 16, 2006)

http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf



> By far the largest source of aluminum at the WTC was the exterior cladding on WTC 1 & 2. In quantitative terms it may be estimated that 2,000,000 kg of anodized 0.09&#61618; aluminum sheet was used, in the form of 43,600 panels, to cover the fa&#231;ade of each Twin Tower.





> The other major source of aluminum at the WTC was the aluminum alloy
> airframes of the Boeing 767 aircraft that crashed into the Twin Towers on the
> morning of 9-11. It may be estimated that, on impact, these aircraft weighed
> about 124,000 kg including fuel; of this weight, 46,000 kg comprised the
> ...





> it is probable that as much as 10,000 kg of molten aluminum
> formed in each Tower.





> This natural passivation of Al, by the rapid formation of a thin film of impervious oxide, may easily be disrupted when Al is heated above its melting point of 660&#61616; C, (or ~ 550&#61616; C if the Al is alloyed to metals such as Cu or Mg). In its molten state, Al is susceptible to very violent and exothermic reactions with oxygen, even when the oxygen is chemically bound. A well-known example of the reactivity of molten aluminum is the aluminum water reaction that sometimes occurs with explosive violence when aluminum is cast into a mold unless precautionary masures are taken.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Feb 16, 2006)

http://astro.umsystem.edu/atm/ARCHIVES/OCT00/msg00433.html
where we read:


> &#8220;Pouring molten aluminum in a concrete mold can be VERY DANGEROUS. If the concrete is of normal mix the mold has a very high chance of exploding violently showering you with molten aluminum.
> For those that are interested, it is more than just a steam explosion that can result. The aluminum-water reaction that occurs with molten aluminum is highly exothermic, and will cause the aluminum to detonate with greater energy release than an equivalent weight of TNT. We at the department of Energy became painfully aware of this potential when we realized that the old reactors at Savannah River used metal aluminum fuel and target assemblies. Core meltdown took on a whole new meaning. I also have a friend that worked at the nearby East Alco Aluminum foundry. Everyone there knows that if a crucible full of molten aluminum spills on the concrete floor, they RUN!&#8221;



http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf



> Occurrence of Thermite Type Compounds at the WTC If we look at H & K&#8217;s list of compounds that have the potential to induce &#8220;catastrophic explosions&#8221; in the presence of molten aluminum, namely, water, lime, gypsum and rust, we see that all of them were pesent in the Twin Towers during 9-11:


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Feb 16, 2006)

So maybe Thermite WAS used. The melting aluminum from burning airplanes and melting cladding MADE thermite.

Interesting but far from a conspiracy.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 17, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> Free Fall Myth
> 
> http://www.911myths.com/html/freefall.html


 
The official NIST account lists the time of collapse as 10.6 seconds.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 17, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf


 
For one thing, the slag was tested and those tests showed that it was composed of molten iron and aluminum.  For another, the blackbody radiation given off by the glowing embers is way to hot for aluminum to remain partially solid.  Burning jet fuel cannot melt aluminum or steel even in a perfect flame.  The flame temps given by Dr. Gayle of the NIST were less then 500 degrees.  Far below the melting point of aluminum and steel.  So what melted both of these metals?


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 17, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> So maybe Thermite WAS used. The melting aluminum from burning airplanes and melting cladding MADE thermite.
> 
> Interesting but far from a conspiracy.


 
That is very interesting...it could be possible.  My only question is where did the elemental sulfur come from?  Lots of stuff contains sulfur compounds, but it is not enough to cause sulfidation of large amounts of iron.  This is despite the fact that nothing in the official story can actually get hot enough to melt either aluminum or steel...


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 17, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> You would need WAY too much thermite to "burn" a skyscraper down. And Ive seen thermite in the military. It takes time to work. Its not used for demo. its used to destroy equipment. The effort of setting up thermite is even more wacko than the "controlled demo" theory in the set-up factor allone.


 
Yes, it takes time, but that is how steel buildings are demolished.  When sulfur is used as an accelerant, the reaction speeds up and becomes so exothermic that it vaporizes steel.  This doesn't take long at all.



			
				Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> Anybody who says this about something they saw on the internet raises real concerns. If thats all you need to be convinced, Im skeptical about many other things presented here as "proof". We have no idea what that is. I have seen housefires where all sorts of things glow and or melt. There was a lot of stuff in those buildings besides steel.


 
Even without a direct elemental analysis, we can rule out some metals based on available data.  The photograph shows a chunk of the hot slag being extracted at ground zero.  The hottest portion of the chunk is the lower portion, which was deepest down in the slag, and the metal is seen to be yellow-hot, certainly above cherry-red hot.  The following table (see http://www.processassociates.com/process/heat/metcolor.htm ) provides data regarding the melting temperatures of lead, aluminum, structural steel and iron, along with approximate metal temperatures by color.  Note that the approximate temperature of a hot metal is given by its color, quite independent of the composition of the metal.
​
*Blackbody Material - Temeraptures given in &#176;F  &#176;C  K*
Lead (Pb) Melts       621     327   601
Faint Red               930     500   770
Blood Red              1075    580   855
*Aluminum Melts     1221    660   933
Medium Cherry       1275    690   965
Cherry                  1375    745   1020
Bright Cherry         1450    790   1060
Salmon                 1550    845   1115
Dark Orange          1630    890   1160
Orange                 1725    840   1215
Lemon                  1830    1000  1270
Light Yellow           1975   1080   1355
White                   2200   1205   1480
*Structural Steel   ~2750  ~1510  ~1783
        Melts
*Iron Melts            2800   1538    1811 
*Thermite             >4500  >2500  >2770







            We see from the photograph above that solid metal slag existed at salmon-to-yellow-hot temperature (approx. 1550 - 1900 oF, 845 - 1040 oC.)  The temperature is well above the melting temperatures of lead and aluminum, and these metals can evidently be ruled out since they would be runny liquids at much lower (cherry-red or below) temperatures.  This peice of slag was being removed five weeks after the towers fell.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 17, 2006)

An intriguing photograph (below right) taken by Rob Miller, photojournalist with the New York Post, provides additional photographic evidence (Swanson, 2003) for the use of thermite or a sulfur-containing derivative such as thermate.  We see debris and dust as WTC 1 collapses, with WTC 7 seen in the foreground, across the street from WTC 1.  The photograph in the link shows, for comparison, the thermite reaction with a  grayish-white aluminum-oxide dust plume extending upwards from the white-hot molten iron "blob" from the reaction 

http://www.cchem.berkeley.edu/demolab/images/ironred.jpg






Mr. Miller captured two ladder-like structures in his photograph (middle left; a cleaner photo is being sought), consistent with steel structures observed in the core of WTC 1.  Observe the grayish-white plumes trailing upward from white "blobs" at the left-most extremities of the upper structure.  (The lower structure is mostly obscured by dust.)  It is possible that thermite cut through structural steel and that what we now observe is white-hot iron from the reaction adhering to the severed ends of the steel, with grayish-white aluminum oxide still streaming away from the reaction sites. The observations are_ consistent with the use of thermite or one of its variants._  However, further analysis of this and additional photographs from the series is necessary before any firm conclusions can be drawn about this line of evidence.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 17, 2006)

Please note this for comparison

http://www.implosionworld.com/cinema.htm 

This is the only way a symmetrical collapse has ever been observed for a building made of steel.  Also, no steel building has ever fallen due symetrically, or asymetrically to fire damage and minor structural damage.  Ever.

See for yourself how WTC 7 collapses.

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html 

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. 

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/wtc1_close_frames.html
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&#8230; (Glanz and Lipton, 2002; emphasis added)* 

But how? What caused the 47 enormous steel core columns of this building (which supported the antenna) to evidently give way nearly simultaneously?  That mystery was raised by the FEMA report (FEMA, 2002) and the New York Times (Glanz and Lipton, 2002) yet not resolved in the official reports (FEMA, 2002; Commission, 2004; NIST, 2005).  The NIST report notes that:

...photographic and videographic records taken from due north of the WTC 1 collapse appeared to indicate that the antenna was sinking into the roof (McAllister 2002).  When records from east and west vantage points were viewed, it was apparent that the building section above the impact area tilted to the south as the building collapsed. (NIST, 2005)

However, we find no quantitative analysis in the report which shows that this tilting of the building section was sufficient to account for the large apparent drop of the antenna as seen from the north, or that this building-section-tilting occurred before the apparent antenna drop. Furthermore, the FEMA investigators also reviewed "videotape recordings of the collapse taken from various angles" yet came to the sense that "*collapse began with one or more failures in the central core area of the building*." (FEMA, 2002)


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Feb 17, 2006)

Its also the only time 2 fully loaded passenger planes ever crashed into 2 skyscrappers. 

I just discovered what Occams Razor was from this thread. This conspiracy theory is what it was made for. The idea of the government being able to pull this off when it cant drive a few Iraqi trucks laded with WMD into a desert alone makes all of this **** seem stupid.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 17, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> Its also the only time 2 fully loaded passenger planes ever crashed into 2 skyscrappers.


 
Again, all groups agree, Scholars for 9/11 Truth, NIST, and FEMA, that the mechanical damage done by the aircrafts wasn't even close to enough to bring the buildings down.  1-3 supporting steel beams were demonstrateably damaged in the actual crashes.  The NIST and FEMA reports put the blame for the collapses of WTC 1, 2, and 7 solely on the fire.  Shortly, I will be providing another argument that shows why this is not possible.



			
				Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> I just discovered what Occams Razor was from this thread. This conspiracy theory is what it was made for. The idea of the government being able to pull this off when it cant drive a few Iraqi trucks laded with WMD into a desert alone makes all of this **** seem stupid.


 
The official version of the story about the collapse of these buildings is physically impossible.  It violates multiple laws of nature thus there is absolutely no possible way for it to be true.  Therefore, in essence, we are left with no theory for the collapse of these buildings.  We don't know how it happened...and that, in my opinion, is important on a whole bunch of levels.

Here is one example...

Lets assume for a moment, that these buildings were not intentionally demolished (I'm sure that won't be hard for a number of you  ).  If these buildings collapsed because of some reason inherit in their construction or for some other reasons.  This poses a safety risk that must be corrected before any other buildings like these are constructed.  Heaven forbid that the same mistakes are made because we refused to learn about them for political reasons.  

The bottom line is that we really owe it to ourselves, and to the victims, to honestly get to the bottom of this.  I am honestly not quite sure about the controlled demolition of these buildings.  There is some evidence that seems to support that theory, but there is also alot more work that needs to be done before I'd totally buy into it.  As far as the official explanation, however, I am convinced that it cannot be true.  For whatever reasons, we are not being told the truth.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 17, 2006)

I'm going to put one more nail in the coffin of the official story...

When I was in the 8th grade, I took a metal shop class.  One of the projects that we had to do used a crucible and a furnace to melt aluminum to poor into a sand mold that we had designed.  The furnace temperature was 2000 degrees.  This is far above the melting point of aluminum.  I took 2 kg of aluminum and placed it in the crucible and waited.  And waited.  And waited.  50 minutes went by.  By the end of the class period, I was able to use the tongs to pour the molten metal into my mold.  

50 minutes to melt 2 kg of aluminum in a furnace at 2000 degrees.

The reason why it took so long is because of something called specific heat.  The equation for this is Q = cm (t2-t1).  Where Q is the heat added, c is the specific heat of the material affected, m is the mass of the material and (t2-t1) is the change in temperature.

c is a specific property of a material that is based off of its chemical structure and it does not change.  For aluminum, the value is .9 j/g*K.  This indicates that the metal warms up relatively quickly and cools down relatively quickly.  However, if we were to use a fire of 2000 degrees to warm up to warm up 1000 kg of aluminum 1000 degrees K *that would take hours.*

The specific heat of steel is .438 j/g*K.  Steel is an even better conductor of heat then aluminum by nearly a factor of two.  

In order for a "global failure" of the buildings to occur, the steel core of WTC 1, 2, and 7 had to fail.  This is the only way that a symetrical collapse of the building is possible.  And that total failure, due to fire, is what is listed as the collapse of all three buildings.  How many tons of steel were in each building?  How many tons of steel need to fail when the fires are only 500 degrees?  

By now, it should be obvious that the amount of time that WTC 1 and 2 burned is not enough for the steel to have even warmed significantly.  In fact, the seven hours that WTC 7 burned doesn't even come close to warming the steel up to where it would even lose strength!  In order to warm only 1000 kg of steel to 1000 degrees (a temp at which is structural integrity would be compromised by 50%) in a 500 degree fire requires days.  And this is in a well insulated furnace where hardly any heat escapes...not an open building where heat transfer is parts of the building uncontrolled.

Thus, it is impossible for the fire to have caused the collapse of these buildings.  The fires weren't hot enough, they weren't big enough, and there wasn't enough time for them to burn.  It should come as no wonder why the journal _Fire Engineering_ refers to the official story of the collapse as a "half baked farce."


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Feb 17, 2006)

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0621-02.htm



> More to the point, evidence indicates that the FBI and CIA had information about a plot before Bush took office and did nothing. Was the Clinton Administration part of the plan, along with the FBI, CIA, FAA, and the airline industry? And why four planes? Why not just one? And why target a building with thousands of people in it when any symbol of America would stir patriotism and cause outrage? And why, if the government knew of or plotted the attack, didn&#8217;t the authorities pack the planes with undercover agents and stop the attacks as they started? What a coup that would have been. Bush could have parleyed that bit of heroism into election for life.
> 
> The conspiracists claim that Bush is a dim bulb, yet they give him credit for pulling off a complex and unprecedented attack. They claim, correctly I think, that he is only interested in protecting the rich; so why would he support an act that hurt the airline and travel industry and took the bottom out of an already declining stock market?
> 
> It doesn&#8217;t make sense, to put it kindly. Nine-eleven conspiracy theories are an ugly, ignorant and dangerous distraction from the real political problems that the policies of the Bush Administration represent. The fact that Bush is exploiting the situation for political gain doesn&#8217;t make him responsible for the situation itself; any politician would do the same. The conspiracists, to the degree they are identified with the left, will do more damage to the credibility of progressive politics than they will to the reputation of the Bush Administration. If I didn&#8217;t know any better, I would say that the emergence of the 9-11 conspiracy theory is a FBI plot to discredit the left.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Feb 17, 2006)

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1230517.html



> Don't get me wrong: Healthy skepticism is a good thing. Nobody should take everything they hear--from the government, the media or anybody else--at face value. But in a culture shaped by Oliver Stone movies and "X-Files" episodes, it is apparently getting harder for simple, hard facts to hold their own against elaborate, shadowy theorizing.
> 
> Fortunately, facts can be checked. For our special report, PM compiled a list of the 16 most common claims made by conspiracy theorists, assertions that are at the root of virtually every 9/11 alternative scenario. These claims all involve fields that are part of PM's core expertise--structural engineering, aviation, military technology and science.





> We assembled a team of reporters and researchers, including professional fact checkers and the editors of PM, and methodically analyzed all 16 conspiracy claims. *We interviewed scores of engineers, aviation experts, military officials, eyewitnesses and members of the investigative teams who have held the wreckage of the attacks in their own hands.* We pored over photography, maps, blueprints, aviation logs and transcripts. In every single instance, we found that the facts used by conspiracy theorists to support their fantasies were mistaken, misunderstood or deliberately falsified.
> 
> Reasonable people are entitled to wish that our government had been better prepared and more alert. *But those who peddle fantasies that this country encouraged, permitted or actually carried out the attacks are libeling the truth--and disgracing the memories of the thousands who died that day.*


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 17, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1230517.html


 
The PM article was already posted.  Points that are relavent have been dealt with above.  And this article does nothing to address the physical imposibilities that have been addressed.  Some of the points the article makes regarding the stuff on the pentagon and on the supposed shooting down of 193 seem to be back with some facts.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Feb 17, 2006)

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=9&c=y


> PM consulted more than 300 experts and organizations in its investigation into 9/11 conspiracy theories.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Feb 17, 2006)

"Reasonable people are entitled to wish that our government had been better prepared and more alert. But those who peddle fantasies that this country encouraged, permitted or actually carried out the attacks are libeling the truth--and disgracing the memories of the thousands who died that day."


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Feb 17, 2006)

If you can keep trotting out your favorite "facts" Ill keep trotting out mine.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 17, 2006)

Why do technical journals _Fire Engineering_ and _New Civil Engineering_ and actual safety labs like _Underwriter Labs_ bring up the very same points that have been brought up on this thread regarding the official story?  Why physicists that see these arguments scratching their heads wondering how the government came to these conclusions?  Who are these people that PM interviewed?  What did they really say?  Is this just another example of the propaganda that gets bandied about in our popular media?  This is especially evident when the physics behind these arguments is so elementary.  I cannot believe that any expert would look at the arguments that have been presented and retain the title expert.

Like I said, some of the points that PM brings up are backed up with facts.  Others are demonstratably false.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 17, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> If you can keep trotting out your favorite "facts" Ill keep trotting out mine.


 
That's fine.  But I think that anybody can take a look at the physics that has been presented and really get uncomfortable with the official story.  The "down with conspiracy theory" line really doesn't attack this.  The calculations regarding the conservation of momentum, the 2nd law of thermodynamics, the specific heat of solids, etc...they all add up.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Feb 17, 2006)

http://www.rotten.com/library/conspiracy/september_11_conspiracy_theories/



> Come on! Why in God's name would they undertake a massive plot using sci-fi technology costing probably billions of dollars, when they could just hijack the planes themselves for only the cost of life insurance? For that matter, if they remote-controlled two jets to crash into the WTC, why not just do the same thing at the Pentagon, instead of hitting it with a missile and then pretending it was a plane?
> 
> How could the conspirators be such morons and yet execute the most successful cover-up in human history? (OK, maybe the second most successful.) The obvious answer is probably also the correct answer: They can't, they didn't, and this whole line of thought is even less worthy of your consideration than the secret of Area 51.





> And while you can't always trust what the government tells you, the sheer volume of U.S. documentation released after the 9/11 attacks is staggering. In addition to the extremely improbable scenarios under which the CIA or the Mossad would actually have executed the attacks, an entire agency of the U.S. government would be needed just to handle the hundreds of thousands of pages of document forgeries now in circulation supporting most elements of the official story.
> 
> In addition, the mythical conspirators seem to have carefully planted a series of whistleblowers who would inexplicably pop up to blame the government for its mind-blowing but strictly bureaucratic failures to prevent the attack. Just for verisimilitude? It boggles the mind.
> 
> The conspiracy theorists do have one explanation which makes all of the above problems go away: Everyone in the media is working for the Mossad. Including this author.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Feb 17, 2006)

http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_1253.shtml



> "The claims that the explosions and fires would not have generated enough heat to cause the building to collapse are nonsense," Partin told THE NEW AMERICAN. "Steel doesn't have to 'melt' as some of these people claim. The yield strength of steel drops very dramatically under heat, and the impact of the airliners would have severely impacted the support columns. When they could no longer support the upper stories and the top started coming down, the dynamic loading caused a very rapid collapse, or 'pancaking,' that would have very nearly approached free-fall rate. No demolition charges were needed to accomplish this."
> 
> Edward Peik, vice president of Alpine Environmental, Inc. of Chelmsford, Mass., agrees. Peik, a civil engineer, with 40 years of engineering experience in government and industry, grew up in New York City and is familiar with the structure of the Twin Towers. "I was at home watching all of this unfold on TV" on 9/11, he told The New American. "My first reaction was, 'My God, they've got to get everybody out of there right away, because it's going to come down fast!' I called my son Ron, who is also an engineer. We were both beside ourselves because we knew that they wouldn't stay up very long. As soon as fire hits steel, it loses strength fast and those towers had relatively lightweight steel beams spanning large distances. The building was supported by the steel outer walls. When the upper part of the building started coming down, the floors below could not support the weight crashing down on them. It was a vertical domino effect."
> 
> The opinions of Partin, Peik, and several other structural experts we consulted agree with the official consensus that the WTC towers collapsed as a result of the severe damage caused by the planes and the ensuing fires, not as a result of controlled demolition. General Partin says that he was contacted by vonKleist, who wanted him to support his position, which Partin was not willing to do.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 17, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> http://www.rotten.com/library/conspiracy/september_11_conspiracy_theories/


 
rotten.com?  I'm sure they really have looked at thousands of government documents.  I, on the other hand, am reading the NIST report this very minute.  And so are the physics profs that I've sent it and the arguments against it.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 17, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_1253.shtml


 
The central claim is demonstratably false to anyone who is equiped with a calculator.  I am currently developing a worksheet that will take people through the calculations needed to address the conservation of momentum issue.  I will post it when I'm finished.

Further, this person obviously has no idea how hot the fires were or how solids absorb heat according to their specific heat.  

The author is just parroting the "antiscience" put forward in the NIST report.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 17, 2006)

Looks like someone has already done the work...


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Feb 17, 2006)

http://www.popularmechanics.com/blog/science/2252006.html



> In our March issue, POPULAR MECHANICS reveals the results of an in-depth investigation into a variety of September 11 conspiracy theories. Since the story appeared, a number of Web sites have discussed our story. We welcome all interested readers. The story is posted here (though to see the piece in context, and with all photos, we suggest purchasing a print copy when it hits stands next week). You can also read my Editor's Notes concerning the piece here.
> 
> A number of online commentators have taken issue with our story for failing to reach the conclusions they would like. We have been accused of being part of a "cover-up" and worse. For those who've read about our story on the Internet and aren't familiar with POPULAR MECHANICS, here's a little background: POPULAR MECHANICS has a long history of reporting on science, technology, engineering, aviation and military affairs. Virtually every alternative theory involving 9/11 includes claims regarding hard facts in these areas. In order to help our readers understand this complex and controversial issue, we chose to focus strictly on specific claims that can be checked against the facts. These include areas such as the structural integrity of steel girders  exposed to fire, the radar system employed by NORAD in 2001 and the nature of the wreckage found in the weeks after the attacks.
> 
> ...


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Feb 17, 2006)

Anybody who saw 9/11 remembers that the towers started collapsing from above impact points of the planes down, not from the bottom up. So not only did the conspirators have to wire up 2 skyscrapers for demolition with nobody noticing anything wrong, the pilots had to be able to fly their planes into the excact points of the buildings where the initial charges were set to go off to make it appear "realistic". Or were they wired up to go down under the cover of another truck bomb attack like that in the 90's and it was just coincidence that the hijackers choose that day to strike?


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Feb 17, 2006)

http://bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=34793
http://bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=34746
http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=othertheories&action=display&thread=1116367890


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Feb 17, 2006)

You say the "near free-fall" collapse of the towers defies the laws of physics. Why would a demolition be any different? How can a demolition be made to defy these same laws of physics, and what evidence is there this is how it was done?


----------



## kid (Feb 17, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> Anybody who saw 9/11 remembers that the towers started collapsing from above impact points of the planes down, not from the bottom up. So not only did the conspirators have to wire up 2 skyscrapers for demolition with nobody noticing anything wrong, the pilots had to be able to fly their planes into the excact points of the buildings where the initial charges were set to go off to make it appear "realistic". Or were they wired up to go down under the cover of another truck bomb attack like that in the 90's and it was just coincidence that the hijackers choose that day to strike?


 
I am a pilot.  It is very easy to fly a plane into a precise spot like that.  Even though I don't think that that need to have been done.  the explosives could have been set up with a remote trigger for each set of floors. 



> You say the "near free-fall" collapse of the towers defies the laws of physics. Why would a demolition be any different? How can a demolition be made to defy these same laws of physics, and what evidence is there this is how it was done?


 

 Demolition is going to take away a lot of the inerta imact on each floor  allowing more momentum to build up.  Causing the buildings to fall faster without nearly as much resistance.

Kid


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 17, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> You say the "near free-fall" collapse of the towers defies the laws of physics. Why would a demolition be any different? How can a demolition be made to defy these same laws of physics, and what evidence is there this is how it was done?


 
The very fact that the building fell at near freefall speed is evidence of demolition.

m(t)v(t) = m(1)V(1) + m(2)v(2)

Assuming that the bulk mass is v(1) and that it reaches a velocity v(1).  Upon impact with m(2) whose velocity is v(2) = 0 m/s, the only affect of which is to increase the mass of m(1) which becomes m(t) and ultimately slows v(t).

With that being said, in order to fall at freefall speed, two things must be done.

1.  The velocity v(2) of each floor must be increased.  
2.  The mass (m(2) of each floor must be decreased.

In a controlled implosion, this is accomplished by destroying the inner core of a building causing all of the floors to begin to move downward.  This increases v(2).  Then, as a mass driven collapse m(1)v(1) begins at what ever point in the network of charges, the floors underneath are demolished using high explosives in order to reduce the mass (m(2).

As one watches the collapses on video, one can witness the core of the building being "pulled" right before the collapse.  And then one can witness the pulverization of each floor with high explosives as each floor collapses.  About halfway through each collapse, there is no m(1) anymore as all of the concrete has been totally destroyed.  The only thing carrying the collapse downward is the timing of the regular (non-thermite) explosives.

All of the concrete dust is testimony of the explosive energy put into the system beyond what is allowed by gravity alone.  Further, one can watch beams being fluch upward and outward hundreds of feet.  Totally impossible in a gravitational collapse situation.  Of course, since we are talking about a symetrical collapse and since the only situation where symetrical collapses occur is in a professional demolitions, this point is moot.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 17, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> http://bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=34793
> http://bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=34746
> http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=othertheories&action=display&thread=1116367890


 
All of them exchange sophomoric platitudes instead of actual argument.  They load their statements with so much prepositioned supposition and conjecture that it is obvious that they have placed themselves in the feild of one paradigm.  Not a single one of them have significantly addressed the points brought up on this thread.  It seems that the classic, "the government is too incompetent to carry this out," explanation ruled the day there too.

Syncophants and nothing more.  Get out a calculator and check for yourself.  That is the only way to really get into this problem...and as soon as you do that, you will see the same numbers that I'm seeing.

Also, notice how those threads are closed and this one is still open.  Way to keep the dialogue flowing and keep it positive!


----------



## modarnis (Feb 18, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> All of them exchange sophomoric platitudes instead of actual argument. They load their statements with so much prepositioned supposition and conjecture that it is obvious that they have placed themselves in the feild of one paradigm. Not a single one of them have significantly addressed the points brought up on this thread. It seems that the classic, "the government is too incompetent to carry this out," explanation ruled the day there too.
> 
> Syncophants and nothing more. Get out a calculator and check for yourself. That is the only way to really get into this problem...and as soon as you do that, you will see the same numbers that I'm seeing.
> 
> Also, notice how those threads are closed and this one is still open. Way to keep the dialogue flowing and keep it positive!


 

Not that I would waste the time doing these "calculations", but where will you get the actual values for mass or velocity?  It would seem obvious that if the mass of these buildings and the contentseach individual floor are not know values, so any attempt at putting a value to it after the fact would be an educated guess at best.  The same would apply to velocity.  What would the reference points be for those speed measurements?  Difficult to recreate from video.  

There are so many problems in the world that people could devote time of energy to solving that would have more meaning and impact than solving internet conspiracy theories


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 18, 2006)

modarnis said:
			
		

> Not that I would waste the time doing these "calculations", but where will you get the actual values for mass or velocity? It would seem obvious that if the mass of these buildings and the contentseach individual floor are not know values, so any attempt at putting a value to it after the fact would be an educated guess at best. The same would apply to velocity. What would the reference points be for those speed measurements? Difficult to recreate from video.
> 
> There are so many problems in the world that people could devote time of energy to solving that would have more meaning and impact than solving internet conspiracy theories


 
Using the distance between the floors given in the construction specs, one can use d = 1/2 gt^2 to determine the time it took for the floor to fall that distance.  Then, using v = gt one can determine the velocity that one would substitute into v(1) in the above equation.  The value for the mass of each floor is given by the NIST and other sources as 100,000 tons.  In order to substitute this figure into m(1) one must convert it to kg.  Multiply it by 2000 and divide by 2.2.  The value for m(2) is the same as the value for m(1).  The value for v(2) is 0 m/s since the floor is stationary.  Finally, ones value for m(t) can be determined by adding m(1) and m(2).  From the very first calculation, the "pancake theory" is in trouble because one can obviously see that the value for v(t) is going to be greatly diminished by the inertia of m(2) alone.  If one continues the calculation for each floor, one ends up with a time of collapse far above the 10 seconds observed.  (See the graph posted up thread)  Thus, it is physically impossible for the "pancake theory" to describe the collapse of these buildings.  Something else happened.


----------



## kid (Feb 18, 2006)

Just in case, some people might not be familiar with these equations.  d = distance, g = gravity(freefall 9.8 meters /second),  v = velocity, t = time, m = mass m/s = meters per second


kid


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 18, 2006)

kid said:
			
		

> Just in case, some people might not be familiar with these equations. d = distance, g = gravity(freefall 9.8 meters /second), v = velocity, t = time, m = mass m/s = meters per second
> 
> 
> kid


Actually, "g" is the acceleration of mass due to gravity on Earth, and is expressed as meters/second/second, or m/s^2.


----------



## kid (Feb 18, 2006)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> Actually, "g" is the acceleration of mass due to gravity on Earth, and is expressed as meters/second/second, or m/s^2.


 

You are correct.  Also 9.8 m/s^2 is without resistance or as my physics instructor would say "in a perfect world." but you can get semi close with this number.  glad to see your reading this stuff flatlander, and thanks for the correction.


Mark


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Feb 18, 2006)

Demolished buildings dont "free fall". Stuff hitting the ground and the "stuff" above it hitting that causes resistance. It didnt "free fall" at all.


----------



## kid (Feb 18, 2006)

Buildings like these should never collapse even near freefall speed.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Feb 18, 2006)

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html



> This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.1 It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the *near* free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Feb 18, 2006)

Ill believe engineers who build skyscrapers over physics teachers who really think their calculations are 100% a representation of reality or kooky internet conspiracy theorists anyday.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Feb 18, 2006)

http://www.heraldextra.com/component/option,com_smf/Itemid,/topic,5725.msg16877#msg16877



> **Professor Jones is no more an expert in matters of structural engineering that you, me or any lay reader of this paper. He is a physicist in the astronomy department. I find it odd that one man without expertise gets so much attention for conspiracy theories when the ENTIRE BYU Engineering Department has rejected his theories (see below). *
> 
> *The American Society of Civil Engineers conducted a multi-year study examining the collapse of the towers and found that the metal did not melt, but became weakened at the high temperature of the burning fuel. All it took was for the upper floors to collapse and then the weight of the top of a sky scraper falling on each successive floor caused the next one to collapse. Of course the weight of such a fall would blast out the windows of each floor coming down. So much for Professor Jones "squibs" theory.
> 
> *That professor Jones selectively believes some CIA intelligence (that Bin Laden's original denial when we knew where he was in Afghanistan is real) but that his taking credit is not, is classic conspiracy theorist maneuver.   This fill-in-the-blank-mentality is often used when facts don't add up for ideologues. Instead of summoning video and language experts to show us why the tape is a fake, Professor Jones and his cohorts simply ignore evidence that is not in there favor. In their minds if the administration is corrupt to its core (including every single member of the FBI and CIA), then anything that doesn't support their theories must be a lie.


 


> Below are some informative links, including one's from credentialed experts who are in the overwhelming majority.  I suggest that the Herald at least give these groups some equal print space instead trying to compete with the National Enquirer or the Weekly World News.
> 
> 
> http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=4&c=y
> ...


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Feb 18, 2006)

http://www.et.byu.edu/news_jones_statement.htm

If you didnt believe the above.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Feb 18, 2006)

Must really tick of BYU that Jones is not even a professor of aything close to anything relevent.  Call him "Professor Jones" if you want, but he's a philosophy professor, so in anything regarding physics and mechanical engineering, 'Mr Jones' is all he deserves


----------



## FearlessFreep (Feb 18, 2006)

Sorry, Fetzer is the philosophy guy.  My bad


----------

