Scholars for 9/11 Truth

[sgtmac_46]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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

 

[Blotan Hunka]

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

 

[Blotan Hunka]

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?

RITTENHOUSE: The exterior structure is comprised of columns. The vertical load bearing members and the horizontal elements called "beams." When the plane impacted the building, it severely damaged those exterior columns. The following fire further damaged the support columns. So it was a two step event; initial damage by plane and further damage or subsequent loss of structural stability that caused the building to fail.


CHAT PARTICIPANT: Was it due to the structural engineering that the building collapsed relatively straight down?

RITTENHOUSE: There are two reasons why it fell straight down. One is the structural engineering --how it was designed. And how it fell is really a phenomenon. The other reason is because the impact zone was so high up in the building that the weight of the uppermost floors fell onto the impact zone. Had the impact zone been lower in the building, the structure may have fallen in a tree-like effect, rather than crushing down on itself.

 

[Makalakumu]

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]

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]

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

Name one.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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