Scholars for 9/11 Truth

[Blotan Hunka]

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

 

[Makalakumu]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Looks like someone has already done the work...

 

[Blotan Hunka]

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.

We didn't attempt to speculate on broad political issues, or to reconstruct all the events of September 11. Our goal was simply to look at the evidence that conspiracy theorists themselves cite most frequently in attacking the mainstream view of 9/11. In each case, we found that they were mistaken at best.

Some commentators have suggested that there are other facts or issues we should examine. We will certainly consider doing that in a follow-up piece. We welcome your comments.--James Meigs

 

[Blotan Hunka]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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