[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Donate]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Breaking News:

Faces / Rollin' Stones Keyboardist Ian McLaglan Dies At Age Sixty Nine

Vladimir Putin's annual State of the Nation address

Romney's Inner Circle Is Convinced He's Running (NYC KoolAid Fest with Christie)

Hungary summons U.S. envoy over McCain's 'neo-fascist' comment

Rollin' Stones Saxophone Player Bobby Keys Dies At Age Seventy

Longtime Major League Baseball umpire Dale Scott says he's gay

Holder announces plan to target racial profiling

Why Putin Is Winning The New Cold War?

Obama's Uneasy Relationship With The Pentagon

Insanity: Washington sends war signals to Russia

Protests temporarily close malls, shut down trains

In 2008, Obama Knew About Immigrations’s Effect On Wages–Or His Ghostwriter Did

Russia Vows Support For Syria's Bashar Assad

What Obama left out

Elderly man on oxygen is allegedly attacked, carjacked, then run over in Ferguson by prote

A town explodes in anger

Ted Cruz: Joe Lieberman for Defense secretary

Ferguson grand jury says Darren Wilson will NOT face trial for shooting dead Michael Brown

United States, Canada and Ukraine vote against UN resolution on glorification of nazism

SNB says will [SELL] Swiss franc at 1.20 per euro to defend cap

Obama spurns GOP in speech.

Jim Webb announces 2016 exploratory bid for president

Obama says the border fence is 'now basically complete'

Have Sanctions Against Russia Failed?

Senate Democrats block Keystone XL Pipeline

Ted Cruz's Top Digital Operative Ditches Him For Rand Paul

US review of IS video confirms American's death - AOL.com

Police say someone is shooting ears of corn at cars in Carver (Massachusetts)

Islamic State Claims It Has Beheaded American Hostage Peter Kassig

Satellite photograph reveals Kiev Military Jet Shooting Down MH17


Other News:

On a Roll ... Suddenly --- things look up for the GOP.

“My daddy would turn over in his grave ... if he knew --- I voted for a Republican,”

White House Ignores Ongoing Cyber Massacre on US

19 Signs That You Live In A Country That Has Gone Completely Insane

Reckless Congress ‘Declares War’ on Russia

Congress gives Native American lands to foreign mining company with new NDAA

Reports: Obama Mulling Sanctions on Israel

St. Louis PD : Teach Your Children To Be Afraid Of Cops So We Don’t Have To Kill Them

Police Chief: Turn in Friends & Neighbors Who Are ‘Gun Enthusiasts’ So Cops Can ‘Vet’ Them

Phoenix police officer shoots dead unarmed black man during scuffle

Judge DWI Case Dismissed, Shows What a Sham the System Is

Obama’s Nominee to Head Up ICE Agrees With Unlawful Amnesty

EXCLUSIVE: Rookie NYPD officer who shot Akai Gurley in Brooklyn stairwell was texting unio

Can't beat that meat! 84% of vegetarians go back to consuming animals, study finds

Denver student protesters cheered when car struck officer, union official says

Journey for Justice runs into hostile counter-protest, keeps marching

Warren Buffett, Reluctant PAC Man, Is Ready for Hillary

OBAMA’S MENTAL ILLNESSES JUSTIFIES HIS REMOVAL FROM OFFICE UNDER THE 25TH AMENDMENT

Goon Thug Cops Murder At Will

New York City Cops Murder Street Entreprenuer

The five most over-rated guns of all time

Don’t panic, but Pentagon now thinks Russia can jam American air-to-air missiles

US drugs now flowing INTO Mexico

Apple deliberately deleted its rivals' music from your iPod for YEARS, claim lawyers

Free Speech for the Rams—But Not for the Redskins

Revealed: Officer who shot 12-year-old Tamir Rice dead was 'weepy' and had 'dismal' handgu

Police are killing even more people than FBI figures show

That Moment When You Realize They’re “Grubering” You…

Obama Appoints Notoriously Corrupt Police Chief to Improve Cops’ Credibility

Grand Jury Decides to Let NYPD Officer Get Away With Murder


War on Terror
See other War on Terror Articles

Title: Who Did 911 - OBL, Bush Or Mossad? The Evidence
Source: Rense
URL Source: http://rense.com/general73/whdid.htm
Published: Sep 12, 2006
Author: Nashid Abdul-Khaaliq
Post Date: 2006-09-12 15:39:07 by Original_Intent
Views: 266
Comments: 131

Who Did 911 - OBL, Bush Or Mossad? The Evidence By Nashid Abdul-Khaaliq 9-12-6

Another year has passed by since the September 11, 2001 attacks on the U.S. What has been gradually happening is that more and more the initial mainstream media version of what happened on that gruesome day is proving to be less true. Increasing credible and respected people such as scientists, ex-governmental officials, religious leaders, journalists and others are PUBLICLY coming out with information that refutes the mainstream media version of events. What is more interesting is that besides being called "kooks" and the information presented being called "conspiracy theories", the substance of the new information debunking mainstream media is going unchallenged! The new information about 911 and the ones presenting it are being called all kinds of names but the information being presented is not being challenged or proven in anyway to be false.

Furthermore, after all these years after 911 the FBI has not uncovered any Al Qaeda cells in the United States nor has it found any paper trail. Although thousands of Muslims have been arrested not one has been convicted of acts of terrorism. The London Times reported the following one year after 911 and it is still true today:

"Thousands of FBI agents have rounded up more than 1,300 suspects across America since September 11, but they have failed to find a single Al-Qaeda cell operating in the United States...Tom Ridge, Director of Homeland Security could not explain why none had been caught."

Curiously though, according to FOX news, throughout late 2000 and 2001, a total of 200 Israeli spies were arrested. It was the largest spy ring to be uncovered in the history of the US. The Washington Post also reported that some of these Israelis were arrested in connection with the 9-11 investigation. Carl Cameron of FOX News Channel did an excellent four part, nationally televised, series of investigations into this blockbuster scandal. But FOX pulled the investigative series after Zionist groups complained to FOX executives. FOX even went so far as to remove the written transcripts of the series from its website.

The question that each individual needs to answer is what should we do as thinking, rational and reasonable people? Should we give into the herd mentality and continue to blindly believe the mainstream media version of events or should we act like truly reasonable, rational and thinking people and examine the evidence on both sides in order to ascertain the truth? After all someone had to question and and break from the herd perception and look at evidence to ascertain that the world was not flat.

I have written this essay to present both views -- the mainstream media version that led us to believe that OBL and Al-Qaeda did 911 versus the version based on uncovering facts surrounding Israeli and American government involvement. I want you to objectively look at both and think deeply about what is being presented. Go to the links and investigate further. Then make a decision for yourself regarding which is more credible. You will find the facts I present to be unquestionably true but my comments biased. I hope that won't bother you. I am definitely of the opinion that it was Israelis along with corrupt elements in our government who were responsible for doing 911 as most of you reading this essay may believe about OBL and Al-Qaeda doing it.

1. The Mainstream Version

Let me share with you mainstream media "evidences" used to link 19 Arabs to doing 911. Besides this, there is the "so-called" proof that President Bush claim to have that was never shown to the American people but supposedly shown to Musharraf in Pakistan, who now publicly states that he has doubts. Here is a list of the evidences we were made to believe was sufficient proof linking OBL and Al-Qaeda to 911:

Quote:

Like assailants who, in their preparations, leave tracks behind them like a herd of stampeding elephants?

The 911 hijackers made payments with credit cards with their own names; they reported to their flight instructors with their own names.

They left behind rented cars with flight manuals in Arabic for jumbo jets. They took with them, on their suicide trip, wills and farewell letters, which fall into the hands of the FBI, because they were stored in the wrong place and wrongly addressed.

Clues were left like behind like in a child's game of hide-and-seek, which were to be followed!

One writer wrote the following about the discovery of Mohammed Atta's passport for a domestic flight for which a passport was not necessary.

The Magic Passport Theory

We can now add Mohamed Atta's reality-defying passport to the Arlen Specter Gallery of Improbable Projectiles. This incriminating item was thrown intact from a cataclysmic fireball and miraculously plucked from 1.6 million tons of debris in a matter of hours. The corporate media rarely mention the unlikelihood of this. Many in the alternative press, though, are unafraid to draw an obvious, albeit taboo, inference: that the Atta passport is planted evidence. According to Washington, DC, peace activist John Judge, other potential plants include the Arabic-language flight manuals left in one of the hijackers' cars (with note: The discussion of the flight manuals begins at around 13:30). These manuals could serve no useful purpose at such a late stage unless the hijackers planned to finish learning how to fly during a half-hour ride to the airport. But as deliberately placed articles, they are as if a signed diary called "My Plan to Kill the President" had been unearthed in Lee Harvey Oswald's flat. Also high on the possible planted evidence list is a spiritual manifesto for the Al Qaeda kamikaze pilots, which, to journalist Robert Fisk, sounds an awful lot like it was written by a God-fearing Christian.

Wow!!! I guess somehow Mohammed Atta was able to open a window on the plane and throw out his passport at the right time so that it won't be destroyed as the plane's black boxes were. Such accuracy and precision to let the world know of his guilt is truly amazing.

Then there are the Bin Laden videos. How convenient! We happen to be living in a video-centric world. Most of what people are exposed to and believe comes from watching TV. How wonderful and convenient it must be to find out that Bin Laden left proof of his guilt on video for consumption by a video-centric world. I guess if we were living in a world where smoke signals was the primary means of communication we would have found the correct smoke signals left by Bin Laden to correctly identify him as the perpetrator of 911.

But alas the Bin Laden videos were proven to be fake! But our honest media that made such a big fuss about showing the false videos never went back and told the American public that they had shown the world fake videos. Nawww, they did not want to because it did not serve their purpose. Here is what some Professionals who examined the videos wrote about them: Quote: Professor Gernot Rotter, scholar of Islamic and Arabic Studies, Asia-Africa Institute, University of Hamburg: "Regardless of the question if bin Laden personally was actively involved in the organization of the attacks or not: This tape is of such poor quality that many passages are unintelligible. And those that are intelligible have often been taken out of context, so that you can't use that as evidence. The American translators who listened to the tape and transcribed it obviously added things that they wanted to hear in many places. Things that can't be heard - never mind how often you listen to it.

"Guilty or not guilty? If the US government wants to find bin Laden guilty of the deed, they have to come up with better evidence.

"And look: the English translation that the US government presented to the world is not only manipulated in parts, but even contains mistakes. A report from Ekkehard Sieker and Georg Restle."

Dr. Abdel El M. Husseini, scholar in Arabic culture/language: "I carefully checked the Pentagon translation. The translation is very problematic. The passages that are the most important, the ones that are supposed to prove bin Laden's guilt, are not identical to the Arabic sound."

http://www.unansweredquestions.org/timeline/2001/monitor122001.html

Never mind also that in Bin Laden's last interview for the BBC with Carol Valentine, he denounced the attacks and stated that he had nothing to do with the killing of innocent people on 911. But since this was a story that had to be read most people don't know about that because it did not come in the form of "smoke signals" -- sorry I mean videos. I elaborate more about this below.

All of what is stated above was reported in mainstream media as "evidences" linking the 19 Arabs to 911. This is what most people were told and from this type of evidence most people believe OBL and Al-Qaeda did 911. I welcome anyone reading this article who have more to go on than what was presented above that causes them to believe that 911 was done by OBL and 19 Arabs to please share it with us?

Now let's compare this to the mountain of evidence below implicating the Israelis and corrupt elements in our government. After doing so ask yourself seriously which is more believable. Again, I have references from main stream media sources to everything listed below. If you question anything please let me know and I will point you to the source.

2. Israelis and Corrupt Elements in the US Government Guilty Version

Here is a partial listing and involvement with events surrounding 911 that Israelis were involved with that no other country or organization in the world including the U.S. can match. Not only numerous but each involvement is quite significant in importance:

1. It was Israelis who were caught watching the WTC burn and crumble and celebrating it with joy. When the Lakers beat Sacramento for the NBA crown they celebrated. Why? Because their efforts were successful! The event, which was the championship game, they won. The Israelis, according to eye witnesses who saw them on top of the van were ecstatic. They were joyful and why you ask? Because of America's misery, America's lost and thousands of innocent lives perishing. But to the Israelis this was success. They were ecstatic with joy because they too won the championship game!

Even when these Israelis were in FBI custody they failed numerous lie detector tests. In fact they did not pass a single one.

To show that this joy was not local only to the 5 Israelis, look at what was said by and about their leaders:

Reactions from the Israeli side to the September attack:

Ehud Sprinzak, terrorism expert at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, said "From the perspective of Israelis, it is the most important public relations act ever committed in our favor."

The attack "was good for the Israelis," "It is very good", said Benjamin Netanyahu...before he caught himself and amended his statement.

In an interview with Le Monde, Ami Ayalon, former Head of the Israeli Militia for Israel, stated: "Since September 11, our leaders have been euphoric."

The reason why the Israelis failed lie detector tests is because the truth that they could not admit was we planned this. We pulled it off. We successfully created a Pearl Harbor incident to get the stupid goyim fully in bed with us. And just like we did in the time of Christ we are going to do today. We will get our media fully in bed with us to blame someone else for the crime. Yeah we were caught in the Lavon Affair, USS Liberty, etc. But we are ready now. The stakes are too high.

2. It was Israelis whose van was stopped and maps and other paraphernalia were found leading the FBI to believe that they had definite involvement with 911.

3. It was the Israeli owner of the Moving van company that immediately shutdown his business, put his house up for sale and fled to Israel when his employees were caught. Aren't these drastic actions and shouldn't we want to know why the owner behaved that way?

4. It was Israelis who were caught spying on the US and lived in the same vicinity as the supposed "hijackers".

5. It was Israelis who were about 200 spies in a spy ring that Carl Cameron reported about in FOX News saying that government officials stated that they had "tie-ins" to 911. By the way this news was suppressed and the story taken off the Foxx News website. The people responsible for that were JINSA (the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs). JINSA President and CEO David Steinmann is also a director of CAMERA (Committee for Accurate Middle East Reporting in America), the group that actually staged the e-mail, fax, letter, and phone call mobilization that squeezed Fox TV, to the point that they removed the transcripts of the four Carl Cameron segments from their own web site. I wonder why these American Israelis were interested in doing such a thing?

The FOX series and other mainstream news media sources revealed that many of these Israelis were army veterans with electronics and explosives expertise. Many of them failed lie detector tests. Dr. Steven E. Jones, professor of physics at BYU and Kevin Ryan, former lab manager and scientist at Underwriters Labs -- the company that tested the steel used in the World Trade Center buildings, and fired Kevin Ryan when he went public with information about a cover-up ­ have shown conclusive proofs that the collapsed of the WTC buildings were due to thermite and explosives and NOT as a result of the planes crashing into them. Could it be that these scientists have uncovered in later years one of the real purposes for the Israeli spy network presence in the US in 2001?

6. It was Israelis who the following was reported about by U.S. government authorities when the Israeli spies were found: "An Israeli government spokesman reported a few days ago the news of arresting a number of Israelis by the US intelligence bodies in Florida. This might seem strange but what is more significant is the deliberate ignorance by the Israeli government of the reason for the arrests. The Israelis did not even mention the reason or the case for which their subjects were detained. The point is that a big quantity of the Anthrax germ was held with the Israelis when they were arrested. Moreover, the detainees had 15 charts of the New York Trade Center and eight charts of the Pentagon building which were attacked on September 11th. This is in addition to other six charts of the White House, which was among the would-be targets of the September 11th attacks. According to discreet US reports, the charts found with the Israelis had accurately drawn the Pentagon building and the World Trade Center and defined their geometric projections, as well as, precisely depicted the many floors. Further, some data included in the charts define the itineraries of civil passenger planes and their destinations!!!..."

7. It was Israelis who the Jerusalem Post on September 12, 2001 reported 4000 missing or expected to be dead as a result of doing business and working at the WTC on 911.

8. It was the Israeli general counsel Alon Pinkas who reported that out of the 4000 Israelis dead or missing actually only one was killed, a visitor. The statistics of this happening is IMPOSSIBLE. The only reason this could happen is if somehow Israelis were warned ahead of time about the planes crashing into the WTC. The natural question to ask is, are there any evidence of prior warnings of the impending WTC attacks given to anyone in the world? If there is let's narrow the list down to see if any warnings happen to be given to Israelis. Well it just so happens that there were prior warnings and the only people in the world to receive them were Israelis!!!!

9. It was Israelis who received Odigo warnings two hours before the planes struck the WTC buildings. This was reported both in the Ha'aertz and Washington Post newspapers. This is proof positive that someone who cares for the lives of Israelis knew that planes were going to be crashed into the WTC ahead of time and wanted to make sure Israelis were not killed. I am sure the identity of that person was not Bin laden. This succinctly explains why only one Israeli got killed on 911 although the number was expected to be as much as 4000.

10. It was Israelis who were armed with 9mm pistols, nine grenades, C-4 explosives, three detonators and 58 bullets and caught in Mexico in an attempt to blow the Mexican Congress up on October 10, 2001, one month after 911. Curiously these Israelis were found with Pakistani passports in their possession. The Israelis were booked for conspiracy to destroy a building by means of an explosive by the Mexican police. If they were successful in blowing up the Mexican Congress -- leaving the Pakistani passports where they could be found by the authorities -- would like 911, have been blamed on Muslim terrorists. They got caught red-handed here and only G-d knows how many other incidents innocent Muslims are being blamed for that were really done by Israelis.

11. Pakistani General Gul, who at one time was a close ally of the U.S. and a staunch supporter of Western values -- who could have blamed 911 on his Russian or Indian enemies -- instead chose to blame 911 on Israelis. This former director of the Pakistani Intelligence Service said un-categorically about 911 that "The Israeli Mossad and its American associates are the obvious culprits." Why did he just happen to also blame Israelis? Why didn't he blame India or Russia who were far worse enemies to Pakistan than Israelis? This was a man who was close to the American Secret Service leaders and their ally. How come he seems to know what Vreeland and other CIA operatives worldwide knew about 911?

12. The news about the impending attacks was known by even low ranking CIA agents like Delmart Vreeland. To prove it he wrote what was going to happen in August, 2001 in a sealed envelope while in prison in Canada and had his guards open the envelope on September 14th. Lo and behold he accurately predicted the attacks of 911. If he knew about this I am certain that many others in the CIA especially at higher levels knew about it also. As such this was a deliberate planned action set up to create a Pearl Harbor type event to cause the American government to take actions that the planners of this event wanted. With the complicity of the Israeli controlled news media the finger was solidly pointed on OBL, Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. They did not allow any suspicion to be pointed anywhere else. How convenient!!!

As an example of the many reports throughout the world implicating Israeli involvement in 911, here is a partial text of one from Canada's Stern-Intel on September 17, 2001:

"A US military intelligence source revealed details of an internal intelligence memo that points to the Israeli Mossad intelligence service having links to the World Trade Centre and Pentagon attacks."

13. A report from the German external intelligence agency, the Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND) states the following: German intelligence detected plans for an attack on the United States, to take place on September 10 or 11, 2001. Israel was aware of the plans and wished the attack to take place without hindrance. The German ambassador informed the President of the US of the impending attacks. He thanked the ambassador and said that he already knew. Subsequently, his administration urgently requested the suppression of information on this warning.

14. The U.S. Army School for Advanced Military Studies (SAMS), wrote this about the Israeli Mossad which was reported about on September 10, 2001 one day before 911:

"Wildcard. Ruthless and cunning. Has capability to target U.S. forces and make it look like a Palestinian/Arab act."

BINGO! The very next day an "Arab act" took place against the U.S. and no suspicion or investigation was done based on this credible report from SAMS. As I said the finger was so firmly pointed against Bin Laden that even intelligent people were so suffocated by the Israeli controlled press that no other questions were entertained.

15. It was a Zionist owned company, Metals Management, and a life time Zionist Mayor of N.Y. who was responsible for so quickly removing the steel evidence from the WTC such that no investigation could be done on whether or not the WTC steel beams melted from heat or due to bombs going off that caused the WTC to crash. Dr. Frederick W. Mowrer from the Fire Engineering department at the University of Maryland told the New York Times: "I find the speed with which important evidence has been removed and recycled to be appalling."

16. Although the planes used to crash into the WTC could have flown from La Guardia, Kennedy, or some nearer airport, they chose to fly from Boston's Logan airport which was much further away from the WTC. Doing this lengthened the time to the destination making it easier for NORAD to intercept the planes. Why this was done? It was because an Israeli company, ICTS International, controlled airport security at Boston Logan airport.

17. An abnormal amount of put stock options were purchased against United and American Airlines right before 911. Gee whiz I wonder why British Airways, Southwest Airlines, Continental or other Airlines did not have abnormally large amounts of put stock options purchases also? Why did it just so happen to be from the two airlines that were involved with the 911 incident? It was reported that many Israelis and even an ex-CIA director from Deutsche bank made huge profits on the purchase. One person made as much as $2,500,000.00 on the deal and when last reported did not come to pick up his money. How did all these people know that American and United Airlines stocks will drop so dramatically in value the next day???

Not only airline stocks but according to the Barnes Review, " Between August 26 and September 11, 2001, a group of speculators, identified by the American Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) as Israeli citizens, sold "short" a list of 38 stocks that could reasonably be expected to fall in value as a result of the pending attacks. These speculators operated out of the Toronto, Canada and Frankfurt, Germany, stock exchanges and their profits were specifically stated to be "in the millions of dollars."

http://tbrnews.org/Archives/a048.htm

I ask the same question as Michael Shore does in the following paragraph, Why? Also why did this story just drop from the media and no follow up was done? Another example of the media in cahoots with the planners of 911 to deflect attention from the obvious and keep the Americans firmly fixated on OBL/Al-Qaeda as the only possibility for 911.

"It would seem easy enough for the FBI and CIA to go to the stockbrokers where these trades were made and find out who made them. This is probably the closest link that can be established to someone who was involved in 911 but neither the FBI nor CIA is, apparently, pursuing this. Why?"

18. When Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hizbollah and other Palestinian groups commit acts of freedom against the brutal Israeli regime, no matter how small the numbers they kill of the enemy they take responsibility for it. That has been their pattern for a long time. Now the largest attack killing the most amount of "the enemy" Americans, instead of OBL boasting about it and even cheering like the Israelis did at the WTC he said the following: "I was not involved in the September 11 attacks in the United States nor did I have knowledge of the attacks. There exists a government within a government within the United States. The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself; to the people who want to make the present century a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity. That secret government must be asked as to who carried out the attacks....The American system is totally in control of the Jews, whose first priority is Israel, not the United States. "

http://www.public-action.com/911/oblintrv.html

This is quite significant because as successful as this act was it would have been something for OBL to boast about but instead he condemns it and distances himself from it. Very unlikely behavior for someone guilty and who would normally gloat at such a major accomplishment. The U.S. government claimed that it had proof which they never showed any of us. They claimed that they showed it to the Pakistani President but he also came out with a statement claiming that he believes that there is no way that OBL could have pulled off 911 alone. What happened to the proof?

19. Financially it was Israelis who profited handsomely from the destruction of the WTC. Larry Silverstein, a Zionist Jew whose company acquired the 99 year lease for the WTC got an insurance payment for more than 4.6 billion dollars for 2 attacks on the WTC on 911. Incidentally he acquired the lease 6 months before the 911 attacks and just "happened" to fully insure it against terrorist attacks.

Another Israeli by the name of Frank Lowy, chairman and founder of Westfield Holdings, had recently acquired the 99-year lease for the 425,000 square foot retail portion of World Trade Center before the WTC attacks of Sept. 11, according to The Jerusalem Post . He too also fully insured his lease against terrorist attacks and will also be paid billions.

So in regards to 911 we find Israelis involved with many things. Strange wouldn't you say that we don't find Russians, Saudis, Italians, Pakistanis or even Africans involved with events related to 911 as Israelis. Isn't it just coincidental that the people involved just happens to be Israelis.

With all this evidence of Israeli involvement, corrupt U.S. government officials involvement and media complicity in covering and even dropping information that should be pursued and thoroughly investigated I ask the question why, why in the hell is any of this not being investigated? This is a mountain of evidence. Other evidence not discussed but also valid is the many reports showing evidence that the WTC was blown up from within explaining how the buildings fell, no video or stills of any of the hijackers at Logan Airport, how did the U.S. government identify so quickly the identities of the hijackers and was able to fix the blame on OBL just a few hours after the event, the fact that 7 of the hijackers identified are still alive today, the many false reports about terrorists identities like the one of a Pakistani man who never left Pakistan in his life having his picture publicly broadcasted in the media, and I could go on and on.

The only logical conclusion that a reasonable person can arrive at is this: The 9-11 attacks, the anthrax murders, and numerous other foiled terror plots, were planned, orchestrated, financed, carried out, and covered up by the forces of Israel. What other logical explanation can there be?

What we have been told officially about 911 has more holes in it than aged cheese. It just does not add up. Yet serious actions are being taken against innocent Muslims and thousands of lives are being lost and even more are being harassed and persecuted. Why isn't our government investigating the huge pile of evidence pointing to the Israelis and why aren't relations between the U.S. and Israel cooled? Why? Why? Why?

Note: Please go to the following site that has links to all of the facts presented above for verification:

http://www.ivanfraser.com/articles/conspiracies/stranger.html

"Strive as in a race to achieve the goal of excellence in all that you do."

For real insights visit:

http://www.geocities.com/mewatch99/

Regards, Nashid

Post Comment   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: Original_Intent (#0)

For real insights visit:

http://www.geocities.com/mewatch99/

Go to geocities and get the real lowdown.

calcon  posted on  2006-09-12   16:07:59 ET  Reply   Trace  


#2. To: calcon (#1)

200 dancing art students...cant be wrong...

Who gave the orders to the NYPD to release them and who got them out of the country so quickly?

Which Feds if any?

If true...then who has the REAL skinny on it?

Who were there and what were they doing here...?

JoeSnuffy  posted on  2006-09-12   16:32:00 ET  Reply   Trace  


#3. To: All (#2)

Of course one would expect an author by the name of Nashid Abdul-Khaaliq to have a slightly different viewpoint than one named Solomon Goldstein or Paddy O'Brien...

JoeSnuffy  posted on  2006-09-12   16:33:44 ET  Reply   Trace  


#4. To: Original_Intent (#0)

I guess I'm one of those who believe the Federales couldn't punch their way out of a paper sack....IOW, they had no clue how to pull this off effectively.

OBL? Likely he gave the marching orders to do something, then took the credit when the unlikely occured.

Mossad? Think Lebanon....Israel is acting like our Rumsfeldian Federales.

Space Aliens.....now there's something to think about. /s

add925  posted on  2006-09-12   16:41:33 ET  Reply   Trace  


#5. To: Original_Intent (#0)

Nashid Abdul-Khaaliq, could this guy be trusted, or is he a terrorist just making fun of OI, or is he a Mossad operative, making fun of OI, or could he just be dolt, who makes up junk just like Griffin of the 9/11 not so truthful movement????

Israelis got Islamic idiots to fly planes into the WTC?

Are you always posting wrong stuff?

Is this your hobby?

This would work better if had blamed Japan, they are know users of suicide missions, and the Israelis do not have enough people to waste on one way missions, planed one way missions.

And to put a seal on your doltish foray into fantasy land where you seem to be a prisoner, not sure any Islamic terrorist would do anything an Israelis would plan, for some reason, I feel this is a constant.

oh, it is posted on rense.com, the internet sewer, self critiqing, see rense.com is equal to false, just junk,

rense.com, seems to be lacking any facts, could this be true?

kbb  posted on  2006-09-12   16:57:56 ET  Reply   Trace  


#6. To: Original_Intent (#0)

The Evidence By Nashid Abdul-Khaaliq

Well this ought to be interesting if not entirely objective.

4 givan 1  posted on  2006-09-12   19:02:03 ET  Reply   Trace  


#7. To: Original_Intent (#0)

This article is such an obvious rehash of everything published by the anti-Israel conspiracy nuts that I'm tempted to say that the supposed author, Nashid Abdul-Khaaliq, is in fact a Mossad agent. But not a very bright one.

Magician  posted on  2006-09-12   19:24:19 ET  Reply   Trace  


#8. To: Bill D Berger, Critter, GO65, Max61, all (#0)

Most amusing. About all the 'bots can do is come up with half-witticisms and Strawmen.

I don't see a refutation based on anything resembling fact or logic. Just assertions, slurs, and sludge.

Original_Intent  posted on  2006-09-13   3:25:44 ET  Reply   Trace  


#9. To: Magician, Original_Intent (#7)

"Who Did 911 - OBL, Bush Or Mossad? The Evidence"

LOL, I've always said, scratch a conspriacy theorist and almost without fail, underneath you'll find an anti-Semite hiding!

(OI: Didn't you get the memo? The truth has been laid bare by one of your own, Christopher Bollyn. He claimed the WTC were brought down with a "disintegration ray"!)

Boot Hill  posted on  2006-09-13   3:42:26 ET  Reply   Trace  


#10. To: Original_Intent (#8)

DOV S. ZAKHEIM - Former Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) and Chief Financial Officer

DOV S. ZAKHEIM - DOV S. ZAKHEIM - DOV S. ZAKHEIM - DOV S. ZAKHEIM


Video


THE WAR ON WASTE - Rumsfeld Says 2.3 Trillion Dollars Missing - "9-10-01"


"The 9/11 Pentagon Attack - "One Army office in the Pentagon lost 34 of its 65 employees in the attack. Most of those killed in the office, called Resource Services Washington, were civilian accountants, bookkeepers and budget analysts."


Bush and GOP Approve $401.3 BILLION DEFENSE SPENDING BILL

Uncle Bill  posted on  2006-09-13   4:00:44 ET  Reply   Trace  


#11. To: Magician (#7)

If the joos did this the make up of the hijakcers would have been:

PLO, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hizbollah .

OInk is moron, the Mossad isn't.

WhiteSands  posted on  2006-09-13   4:08:04 ET  Reply   Trace  


#12. To: Boot Hill (#9)

Oh, gee. The old "you're asking uncomfortable questions so I'll accuse you of being an anti-semite schtick.

I am just sooooooo hurt.

Gosh, nobody's ever pulled that one before.

Earth to 'bot Hill: It ain't working anymore - people are wise to the schtick. Trying to use the anti-semite slur to silence people simply causes some people to redouble their efforts. It shows that something is getting traction when you have to start reaching to make unsupported slurs.

Now run along and play your "Hurdy Gurdy" or in the Traffic. See, I gave you a choice. How magnaminous of me.

Later 'bot.

Original_Intent  posted on  2006-09-13   4:08:51 ET  Reply   Trace  


#13. To: Uncle Bill (#10)

Interesting timing on Rummy's revelation. It kind of got buried as a result of the PsyOp. Interesting timing that.

Original_Intent  posted on  2006-09-13   4:10:42 ET  Reply   Trace  


#14. To: Original_Intent (#13)

"The Army did not publish stand-alone financial statements for FY 2001 due to the loss of financial management personnel sustained during the September 11 terrorist attack."

Uncle Bill  posted on  2006-09-13   4:14:17 ET  Reply   Trace  


#15. To: Original_Intent, Uncle Bill, Bill D Berger, Critter, GO65, Max61, all (#8)

I don't see a refutation based on anything resembling fact or logic. Just assertions, slurs, and sludge.

What a flatulence filled gas bag you are.

http://internetdetectives.biz/case/loose-change

Larry Silverstein Avery states that on July 24, 2001, Larry Silverstein, owner of WTC 7, signed a 99-year lease for the World Trade Center complex, including a $3.5 billion insurance policy covering terrorist acts. First of all, bidding had been going on since the beginning of the year. Silverstein Properties was originally the runner-up, with Vornado Realty Trust winning the deal but later losing it after negotiations failed. Later, Silverstein almost lost the deal. Second, the World Trade Center towers had been targeted by terrorists in the past. Insurance covering terrorism would make sense. Third, the policy would likely cover terrorism anyway:

The property losses for the World Trade Center towers are likely to be covered under U.S. insurance polices, which do not usually mention coverage for terrorist acts explicitly, Hartwig told Reuters. Insurers paid out $510 million after militants bombed the World Trade Center in 1993.

And at first, Silverstein wanted even less insurance:

In its court papers, Swiss Re shows how Silverstein first tried to buy just $1.5 billion in property damage and business-interruption coverage. When his lenders objected, he discussed buying a $5 billion policy. Ultimately, he settled on the $3.5 billion figure, which was less than the likely cost of rebuilding. His lenders, led by GMAC, a unit of General Motors, which financed nearly the entire cost of the lease, agreed.

Later in the video, Avery mentions that after the attacks, Silverstein demanded $7.2 billion from his insurers (it was actually $7.1 billion), and claimed that each attack was a separate event. Avery then says that on December 6, 2004, he was awarded only $2.2 billion by the courts. (He eventually received a total of $4.6 billion.) I'm not sure how this is relevant to anything, and Avery presents this information without making any claims. There's nothing mysterious or alarming about expecting payment from your insurers after major property loss, and $3.5 billion likely wouldn't be enough to rebuild the complex, which is exactly what he's doing: rebuilding the complex. He's not just keeping that money for himself.

Put options Avery points out that in the week before the attacks, abnormally high amounts of put options (bets that a stock will fall) were placed on United Airlines, Boeing, and American Airlines. He shows highlights from this Chicago Tribune article, published just eight days after the attacks. Avery doesn't present the result of the investigation, which can be found in the Chapter 5 notes of the 9/11 Commission Report:

130. Highly publicized allegations of insider trading in advance of 9/11 generally rest on reports of unusual pre-9/11 trading activity in companies whose stock plummeted after the attacks. Some unusual trading did in fact occur, but each such trade proved to have an innocuous explanation. For example, the volume of put options—investments that pay off only when a stock drops in price—surged in the parent companies of United Airlines on September 6 and American Airlines on September 10—highly suspicious trading on its face. Yet, further investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection with 9/11. A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10. Similarly, much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10 was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades. These examples typify the evidence examined by the investigation. The SEC and the FBI, aided by other agencies and the securities industry, devoted enormous resources to investigating this issue, including securing the cooperation of many foreign governments. These investigators have found that the apparently suspicious consistently proved innocuous. Joseph Cella interview (Sept. 16, 2003; May 7, 2004; May 10-11, 2004); FBI briefing (Aug. 15, 2003); SEC memo, Division of Enforcement to SEC Chair and Commissioners, "Pre-September 11, 2001 Trading Review," May 15, 2002; Ken Breen interview (Apr. 23, 2004); Ed G. interview (Feb. 3, 2004).

Later in the video, he shows us this San Francisco Chronicle article from September 29, 2001. Not exactly recent. If people with foreknowledge of the attacks intended to profit from them, why wouldn't they collect the money? If they were afraid of getting caught, why would they buy all those put options in the first place? As the SEC and FBI investigation showed, they would have been discovered anyway.

After that, Avery says Reuters reported that the German computer company Convar did data recovery work on damaged hard drives found in the WTC wreckage, while showing a screenshot of a Reuters story on "Unknown News" from December 19, 2001. He quotes Richard Wagner:

"There is a suspicion that some people had advance knowledge of the approximate time of the plane crashes in order to move out amounts exceeding $100 million," he says. "They thought that the records of their transactions could not be traced after the main frames were destroyed."

Avery then claims that the FBI did not investigate Convar's results, without providing any sources. With no evidence supporting this, how can he come to that conclusion? As shown in the 9/11 Commission Report, the SEC and FBI's financial investigation revealed nothing amiss.

yukon  posted on  2006-09-13   5:05:00 ET  Reply   Trace  


#16. To: Original_Intent (#12)

"Oh, gee. The old "you're asking uncomfortable questions so I'll accuse you of being an anti-semite schtick."

When you accuse the Jews of causing 9-11, as you've done in the past, the only "schtick" happening is your blatant display of anti-Semitism.

Boot Hill  posted on  2006-09-13   6:11:08 ET  Reply   Trace  


#17. To: Original_Intent (#0)

Who Did 911 - OBL, Bush Or Mossad? The Evidence

Who hired the Thermites?

Follow the matza balls, which happen to be the currency of the Thermited Statics, home of the Thermites on UB313.

Coincidence?

I THINK NOT!



r-u-n-n o-f-t  posted on  2006-09-13   6:38:58 ET  (7 images) Reply   Trace  


#18. To: Boot Hill, Bill D Berger, AGAviator, Uncle Bill, Critter, Mehitable, Cynicom, all (#16)

I didn't accuse anybody of anything. I posted an article that asks some provocative questions.

If you don't like where the evidence points then refute it with FACTS.

Instead what you resort to is unfounded and unsupported Argumentum Ad Hominem slurs and Red Herring to divert from the substance of the article.

If you don't like it then PROVE it wrong.

But it would seem you cannot because you resort immediately to personal attacks.

Original_Intent  posted on  2006-09-14   3:24:43 ET  Reply   Trace  


#19. To: r-u-n-n o-f-t (#17)

Oh, the pepetual vacuity machine strikes again.

Yawn.

Original_Intent  posted on  2006-09-14   3:26:00 ET  Reply   Trace  


#20. To: yukon (#15)

And your point? Anyone can cut and paste. You have not presented anything compelling - you've pasted a snippet from a blog that is attacking a couple of points in the movie "Loose Change".

Your point in posting this disrelated snippet is?

Original_Intent  posted on  2006-09-14   3:31:17 ET  Reply   Trace  


#21. To: Original_Intent (#20)

And your point?

I'm not going to hold your hand and walk you through it. You should be old enough to read and comprehend English. Post# 15 is a refutation, with facts and logic, of 9/11 CT BS. Deal with it if you are capable.

yukon  posted on  2006-09-14   5:30:52 ET  Reply   Trace  


#22. To: Original_Intent (#19)

Mysterious red cells might be aliens

r-u-n-n o-f-t  posted on  2006-09-14   5:56:24 ET  Reply   Trace  


#23. To: Original_Intent (#18)

    "I didn't accuse anybody of anything..."

    "If you don't like where the evidence points..."

Get back to me when you've made up your mind.

Boot Hill  posted on  2006-09-14   6:14:54 ET  Reply   Trace  


#24. To: Original_Intent (#19)

r-u-n-n o-f-t  posted on  2006-09-14   6:33:52 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace  


#25. To: Original_Intent (#0)

We can now add Mohamed Atta's reality-defying passport to the Arlen Specter Gallery of Improbable Projectiles.

(chuckle)

Bill D Berger  posted on  2006-09-14   7:08:39 ET  Reply   Trace  


#26. To: Original_Intent (#12)

Now run along and play your "Hurdy Gurdy"

Thrown like a star in my vast sleep

I open my eyes to take a peep

To find that I was by the sea

Gazing with tranquillity.

'Twas then when the Hurdy Gurdy Man

Came singing songs of love,

Then when the Hurdy Gurdy Man

Came singing songs of love.

Hurdy gurdy, hurdy gurdy, hurdy gurdy, gurdy he sang.

Hurdy gurdy, hurdy gurdy, hurdy gurdy, gurdy he sang.

Hurdy gurdy, hurdy gurdy, hurdy gurdy, gurdy he sang.

Histories of ages past

Unenlightened shadows cast

Down through all eternity

The crying of humanity.

'Tis then when the Hurdy Gurdy Man

Comes singing songs of love,

Then when the Hurdy Gurdy Man

Comes singing songs of love.

Hurdy gurdy, hurdy gurdy, hurdy gurdy, gurdy he sang.

Hurdy gurdy, hurdy gurdy, hurdy gurdy, hurdy gurdy, hurdy gurdy.

Hurdy gurdy, hurdy gurdy, hurdy gurdy, gurdy he sang.

Hurdy gurdy, hurdy gurdy, hurdy gurdy, gurdy he sang.

Here comes the roly poly man and he's singing songs of love,

Roly poly, roly poly, roly poly, poly he sang.

Hurdy gurdy, hurdy gurdy, hurdy gurdy, gurdy he sang,

Hurdy gurdy, hurdy gurdy, hurdy gurdy, gurdy he sang

Bill D Berger  posted on  2006-09-14   8:30:05 ET  Reply   Trace  


#27. To: Bill D Berger (#26)

Thank you. A classic.

Original_Intent  posted on  2006-09-14   13:28:39 ET  Reply   Trace  


#28. To: yukon, boot hill, all (#15)

I see our resident wingnuts are playing in the sandbox again.

Badeye  posted on  2006-09-14   13:30:46 ET  Reply   Trace  


#29. To: Boot Hill (#23)

"I didn't accuse anybody of anything..."

"If you don't like where the evidence points..."

Get back to me when you've made up your mind.

Har! In other words you cannot defend your slur.

When asked for substantive support away you go.

Original_Intent  posted on  2006-09-14   13:31:16 ET  Reply   Trace  


#30. To: Badeye (#28)

I see our resident wingnuts are playing in the sandbox again.

Don't step in it.

4 givan 1  posted on  2006-09-14   13:31:38 ET  Reply   Trace  


#31. To: Badeye, Bill D Berger, all (#28)

I see our resident wingnuts are playing in the sandbox again.

Yup, your 'bot buddies will do anything but examine the evidence or go where it leads.

Original_Intent  posted on  2006-09-14   13:32:56 ET  Reply   Trace  


#32. To: Original_Intent (#31)

I see our resident wingnuts are playing in the sandbox again. Yup, your 'bot buddies will do anything but examine the evidence or go where it leads.

Koo koo kachooooo...

Badeye  posted on  2006-09-14   13:37:55 ET  Reply   Trace  


#33. To: Original_Intent (#29)

    "Har! In other words you cannot defend your slur."

Incorrect, using your own words ("If you don't like where the evidence points..."), I showed that you do in fact, accuse the Jews of causing 9-11.

Boot Hill  posted on  2006-09-14   16:34:34 ET  Reply   Trace  


#34. To: Original_Intent (#0)

BTTT

Uncle Bill  posted on  2006-09-15   21:48:17 ET  Reply   Trace  


#35. To: Uncle Bill, Original_Intent (#34)

This new movie, in convenient 30 min chunks, is a detailed debunking of the Official Story of the Collapses of the three World Trade Center Buildings. If you only have time for one, see Part 3 of 3. See them all if you can. There are some hard realities in here, so put on your thinking caps and set aside your feeling caps.

911 Mysteries - Demolitions (Part 1 of 3) http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=- 7143212690219513043&q=911+Mysteries+-+Demolitions

911 Mysteries - Demolitions (Part 2 of 3) http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=- 999558027849894376&q=911+Mysteries+-+Demolitions

911 Mysteries - Demolitions (Part 3 of 3) http://video.google.com/videoplay? docid=1162851149755261569&sourceid=zeitgeist

http://www.911weknow.com/

What timing those "cavemen" with "box cutters" had.

Itisa1mosttoolate  posted on  2006-09-15   21:59:53 ET  Reply   Trace  


#36. To: Itisa1mosttoolate (#35)

There are some hard realities in here, so put on your thinking caps and set aside your feeling caps.

Dylan Avery and crew? ROTFLOL!!!

"Our consciousness had been altered" It certainly has.

yukon  posted on  2006-09-15   22:25:35 ET  Reply   Trace  


#37. To: Itisa1mosttoolate (#35)

What timing those "cavemen" with "box cutters" had.

Yes, it's almost like they planned it for a time to be of most benefit to the current maladministration.

And thanks for the links.

Original_Intent  posted on  2006-09-16   1:55:10 ET  Reply   Trace  


#38. To: Boot Hill (#33)

I showed that you do in fact, accuse the Jews of causing 9-11.

And where exactly did you do that - in your opium fantasies?

I will admit I am critical of Israel and Labor/Bolshevik Zionists - but it is not because they are Jewish it is because of what some of them do.

However, I am not going to chase your Red Herring. You are simply a pathetic Spinbot with no wit and whose only refutation is to engage in Argumentum Ad Hominem slurs.

Later 'bot.

Original_Intent  posted on  2006-09-16   2:02:08 ET  Reply   Trace  


#39. To: Original_Intent, Boot Hill (#38)

in Argumentum Ad Hominem

must get money for making us read this every ten post?

He always does this

kbb  posted on  2006-09-16   2:05:28 ET  Reply   Trace  


#40. To: Itisa1mosttoolate (#35)

This new movie, in convenient 30 min chunks, is a detailed debunking of the Official Story of the Collapses of the three World Trade Center Buildings. If you only have time for one, see Part 3 of 3. See them all if you can. There are some hard realities in here, so put on your thinking caps and set aside your feeling caps.

How many lies did you count when you watched the films (wasting 90 minutes of your life to the CT crap). I got tired trying to count the false relationships, and lies.

The only people who believe these videos must have a learning disability not yet discovered.

Please hold your breath until we find a cure. NOW!

Thinking cap? You must be kidding.

Hard realities - yes, the hard realities in the video are the total lack of facts presented

Wake up - for anyone who believes these video, please wake up - If the videos were full of facts and evidence they would have won the Pulitzer Prize for journalism, simple fact; but then it will not win a Pulitzer Prize for fiction unless they enter as such, my best guess is it will not win the fiction prize either.

Since you love the video enjoy your undiagnosed learning disability, the real world is over rated anyway

Have a great weekend unless you are of Islam, then you have to go to work in the morning after prayer.

kbb  posted on  2006-09-16   2:27:31 ET  Reply   Trace  


#41. To: Itisa1mosttoolate, ALL (#35)

The real purpose behind many of these Keepers Of Odd Knowledge.

Who knows, IATL, maybe they even sell Pod coffee cups.

You better get yours before they run out.

ROTFLOL!

BeAChooser  posted on  2006-09-16   2:28:43 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace  


#42. To: kbb, Original_Intent, Boot Hill (#39)

must get money for making us read this every ten post?

All he's got. No points, just the same old crap.

yukon  posted on  2006-09-16   2:33:35 ET  Reply   Trace  


#43. To: yukon (#42)

All he's got. No points, just the same old crap.

Whine, snivel. I don't argue false points and I don't bite on Red Herring arguments unless it suits my fancy.

You can whine and bellyache all you wish, but it proves nothing - just that you are, like your 'bot friends, an intellectual Pygmy who can come up with little more than one misstatement, blown out of proportion, and otherwise nothing but insults and slurs.

So, whine on Duuuuuuuuuuude.

Original_Intent  posted on  2006-09-16   2:42:09 ET  Reply   Trace  


#44. To: kbb (#40)

If the videos were full of facts and evidence they would have won the Pulitzer Prize for journalism

That none are able to comprehend that fact alone is indicative of a deep-seated mental void.

yukon  posted on  2006-09-16   2:44:57 ET  Reply   Trace  


#45. To: Original_Intent (#38)

    "And where exactly did you do that...?"

1. You post an article entitled: "Who Did 911 - OBL, Bush Or Mossad?"

2. You then respond to an accusation of anti-Semitism by saying: "if you don't like where the evidence points then refute it with facts".

3. In other words you just said, "yes, I think the Jews probably did 9-11, but you can't refute those facts".

That's a gotcha, chuckles.

Boot Hill  posted on  2006-09-16   6:36:01 ET  Reply   Trace  


#46. To: kbb, yukon, Original_Intent (#39)

    "Argumentum Ad Hominem"

    "[he] must get money for making us read this every ten post? He always does this"

You might say he posts ad hominem! — ad nauseam!

Our resident witch doctor likes to wave his favorite talisman vigorously in hopes that a mysterious sounding Latin phrase and a big blue link will intimidate the heathens, that he hopes have never bothered to read and understand what that phrase actually means.

Don't ever let him fool you with that juvenile stunt, his ad hominem charge is almost always a fallacy in itself, because it is never ever an ad hominem attack to call into question the reliability, credibility or rationality, of those who offer opinions, ideas, theories, conclusions, etc. The credibility of a witness is always a proper issue for the jury to decide. It's the American way!

Boot Hill  posted on  2006-09-16   7:09:17 ET  Reply   Trace  


#47. To: Original_Intent (#0)

BTTT

Uncle Bill  posted on  2006-09-16   23:42:56 ET  Reply   Trace  


#48. To: Uncle Bill (#47)

Why don't we just call you BTTT, UB? That's seems to be the extent of your content.

BeAChooser  posted on  2006-09-16   23:47:57 ET  Reply   Trace  


#49. To: Original_Intent (#0)

Nashid, the author of this "article", is a black American who converted to Islam, works in Saudi Arabia, and posts at libertyforum.org as "ansar".

thoughtcriminal  posted on  2006-09-16   23:49:20 ET  Reply   Trace  


#50. To: thoughtcriminal (#49)

Bush panders, covers up for and kisses all three. Next.

Uncle Bill  posted on  2006-09-16   23:50:26 ET  Reply   Trace  


#51. To: Original_Intent (#18)

Two years ago, I refuted the lie about Israelis cashing in on stocks prior to 9/11. The source for this claim was Walter Storch of "The Barnes Review". After asking Storch for his source and showing him the SEC releases, he cut off contact and basically ran away.

thoughtcriminal  posted on  2006-09-16   23:58:32 ET  Reply   Trace  


#52. To: Original_Intent (#0)

The only logical conclusion that a reasonable person can arrive at is this: The 9-11 attacks, the anthrax murders, and numerous other foiled terror plots, were planned, orchestrated, financed, carried out, and covered up by the forces of Israel. What other logical explanation can there be?

Nashid Abdul-Khaaliq friends in Saudi Arabia did it! What a tool

what about women having the right to be free?

Nashid wrote:

You mean their new found perversities about sex given to them by ungodly Jews. We differ kreplach. I accept a moral world without sexual corruption. You don't! Please don't misinterpret me. I do believe in enjoying the blessings of sex to the fullest extent as God intended, but with my wife.Woman means womb of mind. Women are both the physical and mental wombs for the development of all minds in society. As a result they demand more respect than to be treated as sexual objects!

Are you gay?

Nashid wrote:

Again that is your opinion NOT facts. You can spin all you want but it does not change reality.Western women may think that showing boobs, butts and being Baywatch babes is a symbol of true womanhood. But they are sadly mistaken.

Nashid my daughters make more money than their male peers! Why should they not be free to do so and be free of bonds?

Nashid wrote:

Being a sex object and a sex slave is NOT freedom. It is an attempt to get men and women to become like dogs. No, equal pay for equal work is more a sign of freedom and equality for women. Not having a need for a feminist movement or ERA for women is a sign of true freedom for women. We agree, "CORRUPT MUSLIMS" invented Belly dancing and Harems. They have nothing to do with the pure teachings of Islam.Islam feels that women have too much value to society for them to be demeaningly viewed as sex objects.8. Getting back to the veil. The veil came into Islamic countries 300 years after the passing of Prophet Muhammad. According to Karen Armstrong: "There is nothing in the Koran about obligatory veiling for all women or their seclusion in harems. This only came into Islam about three generations after the prophet's death, under the influence of the Greeks of Christian Byzantium, who had long veiled and secluded their women in this way. Veiling was neither a central or a universal practice; it was usually only upper-class women who wore the veil. But this changed during the colonial period."

Does this mean my daughters have to take a pay cut???????

Back to topic, why are you so dumb Nashid and why did Israel do 9/11???

Nashid said: Yes...under the pretense of fighting terrorism, the Israelis were able to conduct a mass invasion into Palestinian villages. This was their payment for the role they played in helping to ignite the 911 attacks that triggered and gave the justification for all of the four goals above to be acted upon. Let's not forget also the role they played in controlling the media to keep the finger pointed at Bin Laden and not allow any intelligent scrutinization to go on. The fallout the Israelis are receiving may be less than what was expected by them. They felt that the 911 attacks would so enrage Americans and the world that everyone will be in an uproar and would support whatever heinous actions the Israelis would do against the Palestinian "terrorists." Except for the Christian Zionists and ignorant, uninformed Americans the world has joined in unison to condemn them. In the court of world opinion the Israelis are no better off today than they were before the 911 attacks and the condemnation in Durban, South Africa of Zionism as racism. So yes they got their invasion into the Palestinian territory but they are still seen as being ugly to the rest of the world.

Are you sure you are not a terrorist misleading our posts and puting out junk?/

Nashid wrote: I was an alter boy once...

kbb  posted on  2006-09-17   0:23:57 ET  Reply   Trace  


#53. To: thoughtcriminal (#49)

Thanks. So, that's ansar eh? I should go over and see what's going on at LF - haven't been over for a few weeks.

Original_Intent  posted on  2006-09-17   1:43:11 ET  Reply   Trace  


#54. To: thoughtcriminal (#51)

Two years ago, I refuted the lie about Israelis cashing in on stocks prior to 9/11. The source for this claim was Walter Storch of "The Barnes Review". After asking Storch for his source and showing him the SEC releases, he cut off contact and basically ran away.

TBR is interesting but I can't say that I trust it all that much. They have an agenda and it shows up in their reportage - gives it kind of an off flavor.

However, the options trading is still something to raise eyebrows in a question mark.

Original_Intent  posted on  2006-09-17   1:46:31 ET  Reply   Trace  


#55. To: Original_Intent (#54)

Storch was very receptive to questions until the SEC press releases were sent to him. He then cut off communication.

thoughtcriminal  posted on  2006-09-17   1:47:49 ET  Reply   Trace  


#56. To: kbb (#52)

And your point?

Original_Intent  posted on  2006-09-17   1:50:29 ET  Reply   Trace  


#57. To: thoughtcriminal (#55)

I have to admit that is an area in the 911 data set that I have not looked at a lot. The options trading, and the financial trail is interesting in "suggesting" foreknowledge but it is by no means anything definite and is certainly not a "smoking gun".

Original_Intent  posted on  2006-09-17   1:57:16 ET  Reply   Trace  


#58. To: Boot Hill, all (#45)

Nope I challenged you to back up your slurs and ad hominems which you have not done. So far all you have done is recycle your unsupported slurs, repackage them, and then try to pretend that you have done something responsive to my counter to your unsupported ad hominem smears.

All you have done here is manufacture a Strawman Argument and then refute the Strawman.

As the "straw man" metaphor suggests, the counterfeit position attacked in a Straw Man argument is typically weaker than the opponent's actual position, just as a straw man is easier to defeat than a flesh-and-blood one. Of course, this is no accident, but is part of what makes the fallacy tempting to commit, especially to a desperate debater who is losing an argument. Thus, it is no surprise that arguers seldom misstate their opponent's position so as to make it stronger. Of course, if there is an obvious way to make a debating opponent's position stronger, then one is up against an incompetent debater. Debaters usually try to take the strongest position they can, so that any change is likely to be for the worse. However, attacking a logically stronger position than that taken by the opponent is a sign of strength, whereas attacking a straw man is a sign of weakness.

For example: "In other words you just said, "yes, I think the Jews probably did 9-11, but you can't refute those facts"."

No, I did not say that - you are trying to put words in my mouth i.e., you are manufacturing a Strawman - and very very dishonestly at that. You objected to the article but did so via smears and ad hominem nonsense i.e., falsehoods. I challenged you to refute those elements of the article with which you disagree. As well, and you no doubt know this, my repeated position upon many threads IS and has consistently been that 911 was an Inside Job i.e., orchestrated by elements within the U.S. FedGov.

You have just proven yourself to be without honor or integrity.

"That's a gotcha, chuckles."

ROFLMFAO! What a Maroon.

Original_Intent  posted on  2006-09-17   2:11:47 ET  Reply   Trace  


#59. To: Original_Intent (#58)

What's your personal stance on 9/11?

thoughtcriminal  posted on  2006-09-17   2:13:43 ET  Reply   Trace  


#60. To: Original_Intent (#56)

And your point?

OH yeah, the point? Nashid Abdul-Khaaliq has put together some internet hearsay and drawn a conclusion, gee, I thought I had done the same...

that is all I have to say about that

kbb  posted on  2006-09-17   2:32:21 ET  Reply   Trace  


#61. To: thoughtcriminal (#59)

I think that one these two is the likely answer:

A. It was allowed to happen, and even perhaps facilitated by elements within the Executive branch of the U.S. Government.

OR

B. It was an inside job and the "19Arabswhohateuscuzwe'refree" were patsies.

I lean more toward "B" as there are too many outpoints that suggest foreknowledge and would have required the resources of a government.

Original_Intent  posted on  2006-09-17   2:34:56 ET  Reply   Trace  


#62. To: kbb (#60)

OH yeah, the point? Nashid Abdul-Khaaliq has put together some internet hearsay and drawn a conclusion, gee, I thought I had done the same...

that is all I have to say about that

Translation: You were trying to spam up the thread and engage in a Red Herring misdirection i.e., a logical fallacy i.e., a false argument.

So, when put in the position of "put up" you "cut and run".

Original_Intent  posted on  2006-09-17   2:37:11 ET  Reply   Trace  


#63. To: Original_Intent (#62)

Translation: You were trying to spam up the thread and engage in a Red Herring misdirection i.e., a logical fallacy i.e., a false argument.

So, when put in the position of "put up" you "cut and run".

I read his stuff

All of it is exactly what you said, his stuff is Spam, red herring, false arguments, ad nauseam

Spent a lot of time reading what he said, studied it all, carefully researcher each thing he put forth.

He mentioned the USS Liberty, and I was wondering how that ties into 9/11, I found it to be misdirection.

After reviewing my careful study, I find his conclusion about as coherent as my lack of point, and possible only of interest to myself, I should of posted to myself and not bothered you, did I?

I was thinking his stuff was spam

Sorry, guess I failed to make a point, by failing to make a point and you label me Spam, and the things I label Spam you label what?

I find no merit in his entire article; I was interested in his background and I posted some things to remind me to follow up on how a convert can be more informed on Islamic topics then real Islamic scholars I have talked with. Finding a site of his work, I found things he posted that disagree with some Islamic scholars. No big deal, just interesting.

I was wondering why he had so many points that are just false, I will never know, will you?

My point, my overall point, be it Spam to your typical red herring post of red herring post, is; I think his "facts" do not support his thesis, his conclusion or much of anything.

Can I call it a collection of junk, since my stuff is just Spam, or just tell you again I disagree with his conclusion. Found no substantiated support for all points, or sentences or how ever you would like to parse it.

I found it hard to make his conclusion since I found no evidence to support it.

For instance:

If stock options were related to 9/11 we would have confirmation from the FBI through the SEC; all my stock transactions that are wrong are quickly and sometimes costly corrected. But what if there were some and the FBI is holding close the information to keep finding people connected to the network that aided the terrorist, unless you use this papers premise. If you accept the papers premise, then you have added many more to the CT and geometrically increased the chance someone will talk. (and if it was related to the original terrorist network, which this paper denies, then it would also be at risk of release) Many improbable outcomes when you use the stock options as a CT point. Not exactly my opinion, but first hand contact with vice presidents of financial businesses, why have they agreed with me, that the stock options are not part of the CT. But I have put that to rest years ago.

his points, like the stock options have no real proof to support his conclusion. Not fair but true, unless you have spent time and researched each point

each point goes on to be like the last and the next, failing to gather sufficient facts to make his point,

you said it much better but some of your terms may not match all his points, and we must add some more terms to list

thanks

kbb  posted on  2006-09-17   3:34:25 ET  Reply   Trace  


#64. To: Original_Intent (#8)

Just assertions, slurs, and sludge.

Thanks for the phrase I will attach this to you idiot CT's.

ASSERTIONS, SLURS, and SLUDGE. Allow me to include: NO COMMONSENSE. NO REALIZATION OF COINCIDENCE. NO REALIZATION OF ANOMYLY. NO REALIZATION OF s**t HAPPENS, ETC.................................................................

ANV  posted on  2006-09-17   3:46:05 ET  Reply   Trace  


#65. To: Original_Intent (#0)

BTTT

Uncle Bill  posted on  2006-09-20   3:47:05 ET  Reply   Trace  


#66. To: Original_Intent (#0)

(1) Verifiable empirical fact: According to Peter Tully of Tully Construction of Flushing, NY, and Mark Loizeaux of Controlled Demolition, Inc. of Phoenix, MD., who were both involved in the removal of the rubble, molten steel was found at the basement levels in the ruins of World Trade Center buildings 1, 2 and 7. There are many corroborating sources that reported molten steel in the ruins. Since these reports cannot be denied, NIST has even made a (failed) attempt to address the matter in its recently released "FAQ"- scroll down to #13 at this link. Molten steel or iron was also observed pouring from the side of WTC 2 in the minutes prior to its collapse [see pp. 10-16 in the paper at this link].

(2) Consequence of the laws of physics: At most, the mass of steel that could be melted by a hydrocarbon fire would be on the order of lengths of fine steel wire. A stoichiometric combustion of kerosene, generally regarded as dodecane, for example...

C12H26 + 18.5O2 +69.595N2 ===> 12CO2 + 13H2O + 69.595N2 + 7518 kJ

...would have at best the above 7,518 kJ locked into 2.712 kg of combustion products to yield an adiabatic flame temperature (AFT) of some 2,398 K or 2,125 C (it is about 130 K less after including the inevitable endothermic dissociation reactions at these temperatures in order to reach an equilibrium state). At standard temperature and pressure, one mole of an ideal gas occupies 22.4 liters; at 2,398 K the volume would have expanded by a factor of 2398/273, i.e. nearly 9 times, to 196.8 liters/mol. The 7.518 MJ is spread amongst 94.595 moles or 18.62 cubic meters of hot gaseous products. At some 0.146 kg/m^3, these are much lighter than air at STP. In order to melt a mere 1 kg of steel that would take up a volume of only 0.127 liters, at least 1 MJ would be required. If 1/7.518 of the enthalpy (heat) in the products was directed at the kilogram of steel, the temperature rise would be reduced from 2,105 K to a little above 1,825 K which would result in a temperature of a little over 1,845 C and still potentially hot enough to melt some steel. But in real-world conditions, flame and upper layer hot gas temperatures are well below the AFT, typically barely reaching 1,000 C and certainly well below the melting point of steel. Heat radiates out in all directions, and would not be concentrated just at some particular 0.127 liter lump of steel. And the jet fuel fires in the WTC would have burnt out within a few minutes. The remaining combustible office material would have released lower quantities of heat per unit of fuel, and with lower AFTs, flame temperatures would have been lower for a given proportion of heat losses. Moreover, the oxygen-starved fuel-rich environment of the compartment fire would have reduced the temperature increase and the heat yielded per unit of fuel by a factor of about one-third. In the rubble, low air exchange rates would lead to low mass burning rates, poor combustion efficiency and low power output. A few smouldering pieces of wood could not create temperatures capable of melting steel.

If it were possible for hydrocarbon fires to melt significant quantities of steel, then burnt-out cars would regularly be observed consisting primarily of solidified pools of molten steel on the ground, and kerosene heaters would be lethal devices.

As for the kinetic energy available from the massive collapse, this is given by:

KE = 0.5*m*v^2

...and if all of this was converted to heat and remained within the material, the temperature increase is given by:

T2 - T1 = 0.5*m*v^2 / (c*m) = 0.5*v^2 / c

where c is the specific heat of the material.

The masses cancel, with the temperature increase determined merely by the velocity and the specific heat. At 200 mph = 89.4 m/s, and taking c for steel as 450 J/kg.K, the increase in temperature is:

0.5 * 89.4^2 / 450 = 8.88 degrees K. (The concrete would be cooler; its specific heat is nearly twice that of steel.)

400,000 tonnes distributed over an area of more than 4,000 square metres averages less than 100 tonnes per square metre. There would not be spots that were so much hotter than the mean that rivers of molten steel were formed. And a 200 mph terminal velocity corresponds to faster than free-fall speed, which itself would be evidence of controlled demolition.

(3) Conclusion from (1) and (2): The WTC steel was melted by a type of combustion such as a thermite reaction, as opposed to hydrocarbon fires of office combustibles ignited by jet fuel.

(4) Conclusion from (3): WTC 1, 2 and 7 were subjected to controlled demolitions involving pre-installed charges.

(5) Verifiable empirical facts: Larry Silverstein and Frank Lowy (both Jewish) took over the WTC lease and $3 to $7 billion insurance policies - and made damned sure the policies covered acts of terrorism -  a mere six weeks prior to 9/11. Silverstein had close ties to Ariel Sharon, Ehud Barak, and Benjamin Netanyahu (all Israeli Prime Ministers). Netanyahu used to call Silverstein every Sunday afternoon, New York time, without fail. Lewis Eisenberg (Jewish), chairman of the Port Authority, oversaw negotiations which handed the lease to Silverstein and Lowy. Both Eisenberg and Silverstein held leadership positions with the United Jewish Appeal, a billion-dollar Zionist "charity" organization. Larry Silverstein conveniently had a "dermatologist's appointment" on the morning of 9/11 rather than taking his customary breakfast at the Windows on the World restaurant at the top of the North Tower, thereby avoiding the fate of nearly three thousand WTC occupants.

Netanyahu is linked to both 9/11 and the London 7/7 bombings. Israeli and Jewish supremacists and fascists have a long history of terrorism and false flag attacks such as the King David hotel (1946), the Lavon Affair (1954), the USS Liberty (1967), Operation Trojan in Tripoli (1986), Oklahoma City (1995), etc. Rabbi Dov Zakheim (Jewish) "lost" - i.e. embezzled - over $2 trillion during his tenure as Comptroller of the Pentagon in the months leading up to 9/11. From 1997 to 2001 he was CEO of a company that made transceivers for the simultaneous remote control of up to eight aircraft, or the remote takeover of planes already in flight. The first arrests within hours of the 9/11 attacks were the five "dancing Israelis", Mossad agents dressed as Arabs who were found with box cutters, $4,700 cash hidden in a sock, foreign passports, a van which tested positive for traces of explosives, and were seen filming and celebrating the attacks with "high fives" and shouts of joy and mockery. These agents were eventually released by Michael Chertoff (Jewish). The Zim American-Israeli Shipping company (Israeli-owned) inexplicably broke its lease to move out of WTC 1 just days before 9/11, having to pay a $50,000 fine as a result. Within a few months of 9/11, it moved back to New York from Pennsylvania. Odigo (Israeli company) and Goldman Sachs (Israeli company) received advance warnings of the 9/11 attacks. Some of the alleged hijackers, who were said to be devout Muslims, were seen on gambling boats belonging to Jack Abramoff (Jewish).

(6) Conclusion from (4) and (5): The evidence shows that Israel and Judeo-fascists orchestrated 9/11, either working under the Rothschild Mafia or as an out-of-control monster created by the House of Rothschild. They did not merely play a central role, they actually did it! The motive included press-ganging the armed services of other nations into fighting wars as Israel's proxy army on a false prospectus. One target was Israel's overt foe Iraq in a war to the value of hundreds of billions of dollars and a cost to the proxy armies of thousands of lives needlessly sacrificed. As Mahathir Mohamad observed in an October 2003 speech shortly before retiring as Malaysia's prime minister, Jews rule the world by proxy, and get others to fight and die for them.

(7) Verifiable empirical facts: Jewish leaders regularly describe non-Jews as equivalent to "grasshoppers", "beasts", "crocodiles", etc. The Jewish Talmud, a hate-filled supremacist tract, states that Jews may kill, rob and lie to non-Jews, sanctions paedophilia, and advocates the genocide of non-Jews.

(8) Conclusion from (6) and (7): Israel and Judeo-fascists are not only guilty of 9/11, they are the only group with a sufficiently perverted morality and lack of conscience and empathy for fellow human beings, that would be capable of perpetrating such a cold-blooded act of mass-murder for profit. Governments could not persuade operatives to mass-murder thousands of their compatriots in controlled skyscraper demolitions. The Bush administration's complicity in crashing a UAV into the Pentagon's west wing, together with Israel's Dolphin-class submarines equipped with nuclear- tipped cruise missiles with a 900-mile range, its various spy-rings' gatherings of secrets with which to blackmail politicians and its control of the mainstream media, provided Israel with the necessary leverage that would force the US authorities to cover for Netanyahu / Zakheim's Pentagon embezzlement and Netanyahu / Zakheim / Silverstein's WTC controlled demolition $3+ billion insurance scam and pretext for perpetual war - a "war on terror". The irony of that will not have been lost on Netanyahu, he was the principal architect of the doctrine of a "war on terror" that in reality was the pretext for state-sponsored terrorism for profit. Just because someone was nominally born as a Jew, it does not mean that they necessarily have an "evil gene" and cannot be their own person. Zionist Occupied Governments (ZOGs) assert without evidence that terrorism is carried out by "Islamic extremists" or "Islamo- fascists". The evidence demonstrates that there exists, within Judaism, a fanatical, evil sect of Judeo-fascists, who are the true terrorists. Those appeasers and accessories who deny the crimes of Israel are part of the problem, not the solution. They should be drummed out of the Truth movement forthwith.

Poseidon  posted on  2006-09-25   20:36:17 ET  Reply   Trace  


#67. To: r-u-n-n o-f-t (#17)

Bush with his hand in the cookie jar?

Burma Shave  posted on  2006-09-25   20:46:33 ET  Reply   Trace  


#68. To: Magician, yukon (#7)

This article is such an obvious rehash of everything published by the anti-Israel conspiracy nuts

So do you believe the passport and the video were not planted "evidence"? (BTW, if you do, you're definitely KOOKs.)

knightofstjohn  posted on  2006-09-25   20:47:34 ET  Reply   Trace  


#69. To: Poseidon (#66)

The evidence demonstrates that there exists, within Judaism, a fanatical, evil sect of Judeo-fascists, who are the true terrorists. Those appeasers and accessories who deny the crimes of Israel are part of the problem, not the solution. They should be drummed out of the Truth movement forthwith.

Why not quit wasting space and just come out and say it's all the "Choos" fault? It makes about as much sense as your diatribe. I say you are a crackpot.

yukon  posted on  2006-09-25   21:15:30 ET  Reply   Trace  


#70. To: knightofstjohn (#68)

So do you believe the passport and the video were not planted "evidence"?

Prove that it was conspiracy kook.

yukon  posted on  2006-09-25   21:19:38 ET  Reply   Trace  


#71. To: yukon (#70)

Prove that it was conspiracy kook.

I asked you a direct question:

Do you believe the passport and the video were not planted "evidence"?

Answer, KOOK!

knightofstjohn  posted on  2006-09-25   21:22:59 ET  Reply   Trace  


#72. To: knightofstjohn (#71)

planted "evidence"?

You're the kook. You're claiming something was planted. On what basis? Where's the evidence? Typical CT, accusations and speculation without corroboration or supporting evidence. Is it any wonder your credibility is a problem?

yukon  posted on  2006-09-25   21:29:23 ET  Reply   Trace  


#73. To: Poseidon, ALL (#66)

(1) Verifiable empirical fact: According to Peter Tully of Tully Construction of Flushing, NY, and Mark Loizeaux of Controlled Demolition, Inc. of Phoenix, MD., who were both involved in the removal of the rubble, molten steel was found at the basement levels in the ruins of World Trade Center buildings 1, 2 and 7.

Actually, neither said molten steel was found at the basement level. The basement level claim is a fabrication by a dishonest, anti-Bush hack journalist named Bollyn. Loizeaux did say there were reports of molten steel, but mostly around the south tower and the one image that is posted of such steel was taken near the top of the rubble pile. Not at the basement level.

Molten steel or iron was also observed pouring from the side of WTC 2 in the minutes prior to its collapse [see pp. 10-16 in the paper at this link].

No, the real experts in such things say that was probably molten aluminum ... probably from the body of the plane. And just for your information, Dr Wood, a former member of st911.com, agrees. She has challenged Dr Jones of st911.com regarding his assertion that the color of the material proves it was steel. A rather effective challenge too, considering how wacky her other ideas are about the collapse.

(2) Consequence of the laws of physics: At most, the mass of steel that could be melted by a hydrocarbon fire would be on the order of lengths of fine steel wire. A stoichiometric combustion of kerosene, generally regarded as dodecane, for example...

A bunch of irrelevant goobledegoop by someone who doesn't understand structures, fire, steel or physics. NOT ONE real expert in such topics has challenged the NIST analyses and conclusions about the temperatures that were reached during the fires and the effects of those fires on the structure. NOT ONE ... anywhere in the world.

BeAChooser  posted on  2006-09-25   21:32:11 ET  Reply   Trace  


#74. To: yukon (#72)

It's a simple question, KOOK. Why won't you answer? I'll go first:

I believe the passport and the manual/video on how to fly jet airplanes were planted evidence.

Your turn:

Do you believe the passport and the video were planted evidence?

Answer, weasel-KOOK!

knightofstjohn  posted on  2006-09-25   21:33:37 ET  Reply   Trace  


#75. To: Poseidon (#66)

Interesting piece. The heat calculations make sense and seem to model what would occur in the REAL world as opposed to the fantasy land of 'botdom. Thanks for posting it.

Original_Intent  posted on  2006-09-26   2:13:45 ET  Reply   Trace  


#76. To: kbb, all (#39)

in Argumentum Ad Hominem

must get money for making us read this every ten post?

He always does this

Would you like some cheese to go with that whine?

Original_Intent  posted on  2006-09-26   2:16:05 ET  Reply   Trace  


#77. To: BeAChooser (#73)

Actually, neither said molten steel was found at the basement level. The basement level claim is a fabrication by a dishonest, anti-Bush hack journalist named Bollyn. Loizeaux did say there were reports of molten steel, but mostly around the south tower and the one image that is posted of such steel was taken near the top of the rubble pile. Not at the basement level.

Whether it was found at the top or the bottom, it is still (amongst much else) evidence of controlled demolition.

No, the real experts in such things say that was probably molten aluminum ... probably from the body of the plane. And just for your information, Dr Wood, a former member of st911.com, agrees. She has challenged Dr Jones of st911.com regarding his assertion that the color of the material proves it was steel. A rather effective challenge too, considering how wacky her other ideas are about the collapse.

Experts would know that the aluminum theory is improbable, since (1) In the unlikely event that aluminum did melt, it would barely get above the melting point and thus was the wrong color and (2) Given the low emissivity of aluminum, the rate of radiant heat absorption would have been too low to account for the observed flow rates. Iron from a thermite reaction fits the wealth of other data.

A bunch of irrelevant goobledegoop by someone who doesn't understand structures, fire, steel or physics. NOT ONE real expert in such topics has challenged the NIST analyses and conclusions about the temperatures that were reached during the fires and the effects of those fires on the structure. NOT ONE ... anywhere in the world.

The fact that you describe it as "irrelevant goobledegoop" tells me all I need to know about your expertise. It is highly amusing that, in the bizarre parallel universe of the wingnut theorists, whenever the Mafia has been pulling off some multi-hundred-billion-dollar scam (whether an old-fashioned "Jewish lightning" building insurance fraud to double up as the pretext for a war on terror, or a hoax about gas chambers as the pretext for annexing a sovereign state), the laws of physics, chemistry, biology, logic, mathematics and psychology suddenly undergo a local, temporary variation to accommodate the fraudsters' claims. In the real world, trucks can crash at high velocity without turning into puddles of molten steel, kerosene heaters are much more useful than a chocolate teapot, and burnt out auto wrecks do not look like something out of a Terminator movie. At the space-time co-ordinates of the Zionist Mafia's crime operations, carbon dioxide mysteriously takes on a negative heat of formation that is about twenty times the normal value, so that burning papers can melt steel, and bodies can be cremated with half a kilogram of coke or a few drops of used motor oil or a couple of short planks.

When experts such as Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan challenge the fire-induced collapse official fantasy they are suspended or sacked, which doesn't encourage others to speak out. NIST themselves concluded that most perimeter panels (157 of 160 locations mapped), along with two core columns tested, "saw no temperature T greater than 250 C". They also found that it would have been necessary to remove at least four floors (five given the likely core column temperatures) before serious risk of instability and global collapse due to the effect on the core columns' slenderness ratio. My own analysis on steel temperatures and floor removal agreed with NIST's conclusions.

Poseidon  posted on  2006-09-26   19:59:25 ET  Reply   Trace  


#78. To: yukon (#69)

The evidence demonstrates that there exists, within Judaism, a fanatical, evil sect of Judeo-fascists, who are the true terrorists. Those appeasers and accessories who deny the crimes of Israel are part of the problem, not the solution. They should be drummed out of the Truth movement forthwith. Why not quit wasting space and just come out and say it's all the "Choos" fault? It makes about as much sense as your diatribe. I say you are a crackpot.

I say this 'bot ought to be upgraded.

Poseidon  posted on  2006-09-26   20:00:52 ET  Reply   Trace  


#79. To: Poseidon, ALL (#77)

Whether it was found at the top or the bottom, it is still (amongst much else) evidence of controlled demolition.

ROTFLOL! So you don't know whether it was found on the top or the bottom? If it was found on the top and the *experts* telling you it's proof of a demolition say it was found on the bottom, don't you think you might want to consider the credibility of your experts? And if it is proof of a controlled demolition, don't you think you could come up with the name of even ONE expert in steel and fire who champions your cause? JUST ONE? ROTFLOL!

Experts would know that the aluminum theory is improbable, since (1) In the unlikely event that aluminum did melt, it would barely get above the melting point and thus was the wrong color and (2) Given the low emissivity of aluminum, the rate of radiant heat absorption would have been too low to account for the observed flow rates. Iron from a thermite reaction fits the wealth of other data.

Stop plagiarizing your experts. If you're going to quote verbatim something one your so-called *experts* wrote at least give them credit. Because I suspect you haven't a clue what you just said. ROTFLOL! And, by the way, you might want to check out what Dr Wood and Dr Reynolds, two of st911.com's formerly prestigious *scholars*, have to say about Dr Jones' analysis of color and emissivity. ROTFLOL!

The fact that you describe it as "irrelevant goobledegoop" tells me all I need to know about your expertise.

I'm not claiming expertise. I never have. I simply cite the statements and analyses of REAL experts ... not plagiarize phony ones like your Dr Jones. ROTFLOL!

When experts such as Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan

ROTFLOL! Do you know what Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan did for a living ... what you apparently think qualifies them to speculate on the real cause of the collapse of the WTC towers? Jones was a sub-atomic particle physicist who for more than 30 years studied and worked on nothing else but sub-atomic particles and cold fusion. NOTHING ELSE. Not a single paper on macro-world physics. And Ryan? He's an expert in water treatment.

challenge the fire-induced collapse official fantasy they are suspended or sacked,

True. Ryan no longer works at UL ... because he chose to publish his dishonest and ill-informed assertions about the collapse under a UL letterhead. He should have had more sense than that. And Jones is on a forced leave because he can't get a single expert in structures, demolition, steel, fire, concrete, impact or any other subject with direct relevance to what happened to the towers to bless his nonsense. Not even from his university. Why he has even had to lie about his paper being peer reviewed. The only independent publication to publish his paper was an ECONOMICS journal known for espousing Marxist ideas. And a st911.com "journal" THAT HE AND FETZER (you know, the philosopher) STARTED and which can't manage to come up with a real expert in any of the named subjects to review the paper can hardly be called a credible peer review venue either. ROTFLOL!

NIST themselves concluded that most perimeter panels (157 of 160 locations mapped), along with two core columns tested, "saw no temperature T greater than 250 C".

ROTFLOL! I bet you can't post the URL of the NIST documents from which that information came. Do you know that NIST concluded the temperatures determined from the sample tests VALIDATE the computer models they used to evaluate the peak temperatures during the fire. That at the location where those columns saw temperatures below 250 C, the computer models indicated temperatures below 250 C? Do you know that elsewhere in those computer models, which experts say are currently the best way of estimating peak temperatures in complex situations like this, the temperatures were calculated to be over 1000 C (1800 F to be exact)? And do you know that one reason the tested samples didn't show temperatures above 250 C is because the test they had was limited to cases where the peak temperature didn't exceed about 250 C? You don't even know what you are talking about, Poseiden. And you are clearly not interested in learning.

My own analysis on steel temperatures and floor removal agreed with NIST's conclusions.

This is the funniest claim of them all. You have a resume we can look at Poseidon? Why you must be a genius ... an Einstein ... compared to all the real structural engineers and experts in fire/steel out there in the world. ROTFLOL!

BeAChooser  posted on  2006-09-26   22:01:51 ET  Reply   Trace  


#80. To: BeAChooser (#79)

ROTFLOL! So you don't know whether it was found on the top or the bottom?

I don't need to know where it was found. Either you are claiming that hydrocarbon fires can melt steel (but strangely, not when a car burns out), or an impact of tens of tons per square meter which takes place over several seconds would melt steel (but in contrast, when trucks collide with tens of tons of mass over a few square meters over the space of tens of milliseconds, the steel does not melt), or admitting that thermite or similar was used to bring down WTC 1, 2 and 7. So which is it?

If it was found on the top and the *experts* telling you it's proof of a demolition say it was found on the bottom, don't you think you might want to consider the credibility of your experts? And if it is proof of a controlled demolition, don't you think you could come up with the name of even ONE expert in steel and fire who champions your cause? JUST ONE? ROTFLOL!

You seem to have a fixation over "experts". I have never been impressed by "arguments" relying on fallacies such as appeal to authority. Those who support the government line may well be highly qualified, but the system of incentives and deterrents hardly supports coming out on the side of CD, and will not encourage these experts into putting a lot of effort into disproving the official version of events. Consequently, these experts are biased. That is why I decided to research the matter myself. The objective facts take precedence over the pronouncements of some expert.

I would not be surprised if some at st911.org were infiltrators. Steven Jones is genuine and has enough expertise to see that the fire- induced collapse theory is false, although is reluctant to address the question of who did it. Kevin Ryan is no phony, having raised eminently sensible questions and been sacked for his pains.

Stop plagiarizing your experts. If you're going to quote verbatim something one your so-called *experts* wrote at least give them credit. Because I suspect you haven't a clue what you just said. ROTFLOL!

The comments on aluminum were my own, not of some "expert".

ROTFLOL! I bet you can't post the URL of the NIST documents from which that information came.

Try this cached version. It shows the URL as http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build05/PDF/b05018.pdf, but NIST have pulled it.

Do you know that NIST concluded the temperatures determined from the sample tests VALIDATE the computer models they used to evaluate the peak temperatures during the fire. That at the location where those columns saw temperatures below 250 C, the computer models indicated temperatures below 250 C?

This much is true.

Do you know that elsewhere in those computer models, which experts say are currently the best way of estimating peak temperatures in complex situations like this, the temperatures were calculated to be over 1000 C (1800 F to be exact)?

You are confusing peak temperatures with steel temperatures. The gaseous combustion products probably did peak over 1000 C at a few times and places. But the steel temperature would have depended on the proportion of fireproofing remaining (almost invariably most or all of it), the mass of the steel, the area of steel exposed to fire, and the heat flux density available for absorption by the steel after allowing for the mass of combustibles per floor, the fact that 40% of the energy was vented out to drive the smoke plume, and another 7 MJ/kg or so of wood equivalent had been lost due to fuel-rich combustion. A couple of floors on WTC 1 and 2 would have had fireproofing compromised by impacting debris over up to 1% of their area. Enough fireproofing remained to prevent global collapse. WTC 7 had all of its fireproofing in place. And on the one hand, the WTC 7 fires were said to have raged out of control because there was no attempt to fight them; another version claims that Silverstein's "pull it" remark referred to the firefighters in WTC 7.

If you really want to learn about this, I suggest you study my research at

www.takeourworldback.com/911/911fires1.htm. It includes steel temperatures and floor removal and much more.

Poseidon  posted on  2006-09-27   17:59:36 ET  Reply   Trace  


#81. To: knightofstjohn, yukon (#74)

I believe the passport and the manual/video on how to fly jet airplanes were planted evidence.

Your evidence to make you believe this?

The reason you do not believe it is possible for items to be ejected from a massive crash?

Why do experts in accident investigations believe it is possible for items to be ejected from aircraft crashes and you do not?

Do you have a simple answer?

Since items can survive aircraft accidents with little or no damage even though the aircraft was traveling at 400 mph or even 600 mph, your planted evidence would require some sort of supporting facts to believe.

kbb  posted on  2006-09-27   18:09:29 ET  Reply   Trace  


#82. To: Poseidon, BeAChooser, yukon, putupjob (#80)

Those appeasers and accessories who deny the crimes of Israel are part of the problem, not the solution. They should be drummed out of the Truth movement forthwith.

Steven Jones is genuine and has enough expertise to see that the fire- induced collapse theory is false, although is reluctant to address the question of who did it. Kevin Ryan is no phony, having raised eminently sensible questions and been sacked for his pains.

What a waste of your research when you let your political bias guide your conclusions! Do you really hate jews or did I read your stuff wrong?

When you mention Dr Jones, you become a kook! Your political rant ruins your conclusions and Dr Jones is so far out it make me laugh. Have you missed how he changes his paper as he learns he was in error.

Even thought you correctly represent the fuel as equal to 315 tons of TNT equivalent energy in your paper, why would anyone endure all your calculations to find out your true purpose in making up your conclusions?

Once you jump on DR Jones bandwagon your work is worthless. You must keep your own work totally independent. And you must point out the liars when you see them.

A quick review of your stuff indicates you believe in CD of the WTC, if I am wrong then you need to fix your web site and your comments to indicate your real conclusions.

Your CD ideas, if that is your idea, is missing proof, noise, and visual evidence.

Your web site makes you a top kook in the 9/11 lie movement, certified today we have found another one! Your energy work, at least some of it looks close here and there, too bad you are just another…

Your web site is really the icing on the kook cake!

Finding someone in the 9/11 truth movement that is a nut case = 1259+1

Finding someone in the 9/11 truth movement that has a fact = holding at ZERO

kbb  posted on  2006-09-27   18:43:37 ET  Reply   Trace  


#83. To: kbb (#81)

I believe the passport and the manual/video on how to fly jet airplanes were planted evidence. -kosj

Your evidence to make you believe this?

The reason you do not believe it is possible for items to be ejected from a massive crash?

It makes no difference why I believe what I believe or why you believe what you believe. I made a statement and asked a question. I'll do the same here again:

I believe the passport and the manual/video on how to fly jet airplanes were planted evidence. --kosj

You turn:

Do you believe the passport and the manual/video on how to fly jet airplanes were planted evidence? Yes or no?

knightofstjohn  posted on  2006-09-27   20:11:42 ET  Reply   Trace  


#84. To: Original_Intent (#0)

100% demented swill for idiots.

I know a United Airlines supervisor whose direct report handed the boarded passes directly to several Islamic scum balls for United 175 who were later identified as the highjackers.

All people who believe all that other kook nonsense is a big ffffing dope.

putupjob  posted on  2006-09-27   20:27:46 ET  Reply   Trace  


#85. To: knightofstjohn, packrat1145 (#83)

Do you believe the passport and the manual/video on how to fly jet airplanes were planted evidence? Yes or no?

no

kbb  posted on  2006-09-27   21:50:19 ET  Reply   Trace  


#86. To: Original_Intent (#18)

I posted an article that asks some provocative questions.

The only question I have after skimming this crap is regarding the author's sanity...

JohnHuangIsAChineseSpy  posted on  2006-09-27   22:08:15 ET  Reply   Trace  


#87. To: putupjob (#84)

Gee, I am just so shocked that a 'bot would not be willing to look at evidence.

And yeah, I'm sure, you know a UAL Supervisor who personally checked in the hijackers. Yeah, right, suuuuuuuuuure, you betcha', uh huh, yup, rodger, indeed, ...

Let me guess; his name is Joe Isuzu.

And a raghead hiding in a cave in Afghanistan had the ability to totally befuddle NORAD, set up conflicting government exercises, and magically make buildings collapse.

What is it you said you're smoking? Whatever it is that's some baaaaaaaaaad s**t.

Original_Intent  posted on  2006-09-28   1:01:16 ET  Reply   Trace  


#88. To: JohnHuangIsAChineseSpy (#86)

I posted an article that asks some provocative questions.

The only question I have after skimming this crap is regarding the author's sanity...

How impressive. You can make an Argumentum Ad Hominem.

Yawn.

Original_Intent  posted on  2006-09-28   1:06:30 ET  Reply   Trace  


#89. To: Original_Intent, JohnHuangIsAChineseSpy (#88)

I posted an article that asks some provocative questions.

The only question I have after skimming this crap is regarding the author's sanity...

How impressive. You can make an Argumentum Ad Hominem.

Yawn.

darn again, your web site,

too bad you have no facts just your AH idiot site

the provocative question here is why is OI anal for his AH site?

kbb  posted on  2006-09-28   1:13:30 ET  Reply   Trace  


#90. To: Poseidon (#80)

Either you are claiming that hydrocarbon fires can melt steel (but strangely, not when a car burns out), or an impact of tens of tons per square meter which takes place over several seconds would melt steel (but in contrast, when trucks collide with tens of tons of mass over a few square meters over the space of tens of milliseconds, the steel does not melt), or admitting that thermite or similar was used to bring down WTC 1, 2 and 7. So which is it?

If thermite was used, why was the steel still molten after many days?

poitiers  posted on  2006-09-28   1:27:18 ET  Reply   Trace  


#91. To: Poseidon, ALL (#80)

I don't need to know where it was found.

Sure you do. Don't you think that matters with respect to proving your *theory* of why the collapse occurred? If you say there were thermite bombs in the basement as opposed to the upper floors of the towers, you'd presumably end up with steel at different levels of the rubble.

You also need to know so you can determine whether to trust the sources telling you that thermite was used in the first place. If those *experts* tell you that there were "pools" of the material in the basement, and you can't find a single image of a pool anywhere, much less the basement, nor a eyewitness who described the steel as being in "pools", what might you conclude about your *expert*? Perhaps that he is a liar ... that he is making up things ... that he exaggerates? So of course you need to know where the molten steel was supposedly found.

Either you are claiming that hydrocarbon fires can melt steel (but strangely, not when a car burns out), or an impact of tens of tons per square meter which takes place over several seconds would melt steel

You have three problems.

First, I think think you understand fire but I KNOW there are people in the world who do and so far NOT ONE of them has come forward to suggest what you claim ... that molten metal (even steel) in the rubble is impossible or that the NIST fire model calculation is grossly in error. Apparently, the notion that material burning in the rubble could have melted even steel isn't a big deal.

Second, you don't appear to understand how much gravitational energy was locked up in the skyscraper ... 1-2 percent of the energy released by the Hiroshima bomb. As the tower collapsed, it released that energy. And seismologists are on record saying that very little of that energy went into the earth or into the air. So where do you think it went, Poseiden?

Third, there were other factors that possibly came into play that day.

Do you know that they found evidence of eutectic reactions in the steel? Last I head they didn't know the source of this reaction but do you know what a eutectic reaction does to the melting point of steel? Lowers it.

And do you know what can happen when materials like water, oxygen, aluminum, rust, calcium and sulfur are mixed? Some combinations may release energy. Lots of it. Fireman say there were good sources of oxygen in the already very hot rubble. They put plenty of water on it, too. The outside of the building was made of aluminum. So were the planes. Wall board contains calcium and sulfer. Concrete contains calcium and oxygen. The steel appears to have been rusted. And because of the collapse, much of the structure was ground up into a very fine dust. Which makes reactions even more likely to occur. Perhaps you should read this: http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf. It's offers a nice alternative to your (Jones') thermite/thermate theory.

You seem to have a fixation over "experts". I have never been impressed by "arguments" relying on fallacies such as appeal to authority.

Even when the experts number in the THOUSANDS and after 5 years NOT ONE expert has come forward to disagree with the group? You probably do your own doctor and lawyering too. But you know what they say about people that do that ...

Those who support the government line may well be highly qualified, but the system of incentives and deterrents hardly supports coming out on the side of CD, and will not encourage these experts into putting a lot of effort into disproving the official version of events.

Oh nonsense. You think experts in France or Egypt or China wouldn't want to show the US government was behind 9/11? You think the US government somehow exerts control on EVERY professional in the world? Well why doesn't it control the folks you claim are *experts*, like Jones or Ryan? You think experts in structures, demolition, steel, fire, impact and other relevant disciplines are only Bush-bots? That none of them are hard core democRATS? Ridiculous.

As to putting a lot of effort into disproving it ... how much effort can it take to say, you are right, Poseidon? You did the work in your post, right? All they have to do is bless it. The phenomena you folks keep claiming is proof of demolition is OBVIOUS. Why can't you get just ONE credible expert in any of the listed disciplines to agree with you that it's OBVIOUS?

That is why I decided to research the matter myself.

Well we are dying to hear your qualifications. ROTFLOL!

I would not be surprised if some at st911.org were infiltrators.

Wow ... I guess we'd better add them to the THOUSANDS that already have to be members of the evil Bush conspiracy. ROTFLOL!

Steven Jones is genuine

Why do you say that? Because he, seemingly alone amongst thousands of physicists around the world, agrees with you? Was he "genuine" in claiming his article was peer reviewed when it fact it wasn't reviewed by any structural engineers, demolition experts, experts in steel or fire or impact, seismologists or macro-world physicists? Why it wasn't even reviewed by his peers ... fellow sub-atomic particle physicists. What he claimed were peers were a group of MARXIST ECONOMISTS. ROTFLOL! What a "genuine" person. ROTFLOL!

Kevin Ryan is no phony, having raised eminently sensible questions and been sacked for his pains.

He got sacked because he tried to make people think his non-expert OPINION was shared by Underwriter Laboratories. He even put his opinion on official UL stationary. Well it isn't shared and UL has a reputation to protect. Hence, he lost his job. And besides, Ryan (as has been explained in detail in previous threads) was simply wrong or deliberately dishonest about fact after fact concerning steel, fire and the government's scenario. Ryan either didn't bother to read the NIST reports thoroughly or he dishonestly presented material from them. I think the later.

The comments on aluminum were my own, not of some "expert".

Well then maybe you should put them in a *white paper* and submit them to Jones' journal for *peer* review. You aren't afraid of the government, are you? ROTFLOL!

"I bet you can't post the URL of the NIST documents from which that information came."

Try this cached version. It shows the URL as http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build05/PDF/b05018.pdf, but NIST have pulled it.

Another conspiracy? ROTFLOL!

Well maybe you should have read in more detail what that document said. For example, did you fail to see this?

*********

Task 5 - Characterize thermal excursions of steel

Summary of metallographic analysis - core columns

Two core columns in impact area with sufficient paint
Columns 603 (floors 92-93) and 605 (floors 98-99)
Paint analyses indicate both columns < 250 C

CONSISTENT with:

Impact model results
Col 603 (fl 92-93) and 605 (fl 98-88) - fire proofing intact

Fire and thermal/structural models

Col 603, floors 92 and 94
- no significant fires near
- peak temperature of approximately 100 C

Col 605 on floor 98
- some surrounding fire
- peak temperature less than 200 c

***************

Do you understand what the above is telling you, Poseiden?

"Do you know that NIST concluded the temperatures determined from the sample tests VALIDATE the computer models they used to evaluate the peak temperatures during the fire. That at the location where those columns saw temperatures below 250 C, the computer models indicated temperatures below 250 C?"

This much is true.

So why did you choose to take the one quote in the report out of context and imply the tested samples somehow invalidated NIST's assertion that temperatures in the structure were well above 250 C in other critical areas of the structure. Admit it, you were trying to be dishonest.

"Do you know that elsewhere in those computer models, which experts say are currently the best way of estimating peak temperatures in complex situations like this, the temperatures were calculated to be over 1000 C (1800 F to be exact)?"

You are confusing peak temperatures with steel temperatures. The gaseous combustion products probably did peak over 1000 C at a few times and places. But the steel temperature would have depended on the proportion of fireproofing remaining (almost invariably most or all of it), the mass of the steel, the area of steel exposed to fire, and the heat flux density available for absorption by the steel after allowing for the mass of combustibles per floor, the fact that 40% of the energy was vented out to drive the smoke plume, and another 7 MJ/kg or so of wood equivalent had been lost due to fuel-rich combustion.

You are again trying to be dishonest. If you look at the fire code model results (using code that the experts in such matters say are the best method available to evaluate temperatures in complex situations such as this) you will see that temperatures exceeded 1000 C in various portions of the impacted floors for MANY MINUTES. It doesn't take long in such a situation for UNPROTECTED STEEL to also reach temperatures on that order. Steel is a very good thermal conductor. And you are wrong about most or all of the fireproofing being intact in the impacted areas of the structure. NIST modeling and tests indicate the fire coatings had to be compromised over large areas by the impact. And temperatures didn't have to get nearly that high to have a profound impact on the strength of the steel. At 600 C steel loses half its strength. And you know what else? With all the experts in fire and steel around the country and the world ... NOT ONE has stood up to say NIST was wrong and you are right. Not ONE. Wonder why...

the A couple of floors on WTC 1 and 2 would have had fireproofing compromised by impacting debris over up to 1% of their area. Enough fireproofing remained to prevent global collapse.

Where did you get this 1% figure. Make it up on the spot? And why do you think more than a couple floors of the towers had to be compromised for failure to occur?

WTC 7 had all of its fireproofing in place.

So? It burned for 7 HOURS. Was the steel in the building rated for that?

If you really want to learn about this, I suggest you study my research at

www.takeourworldback.com/911/911fires1.htm.

First, I notice that you don't mention your credentials? Why not? I happen to think credentials important when considering scientific or engineering matters...

Now I don't intend to review your entire site. If you think you have a case then I suggest you wrap it up in a nice technical paper and submit it to a credible, peer viewed technical journal or two. Do that ... get what you have published ... get at least a few REAL experts to stand up and say what you've done is sound and then you'll have my attention. But I'm not holding out much hope for that. Not when I can look at even one section of your paper and find glaring holes. Let me show you what I mean.

On the web page concerning the Pentagon crash, you state "We need not analyse whether the wings of Flight 77 could have fitted into the pre-collapse hole in the Pentagon facade." Nice dodge since many of your truth movement's leaders (*experts*) have claimed the hole is much to small (some even said 20 feet wide) and been caught LYING. But you will eventually have to explain to me how whatever you think caused the hole managed to cause a hole that big and with such a shape.

It does not matter whether a wanabee pilot - whose flying skills were so poor that he was refused permission to hire a Cessna in August 2001 - developed the skills of a crack fighter pilot after a few weeks' flight simulator training, managing to steer a Boeing 757 a few feet above the Pentagon lawn at over 500 mph after descending 7000 feet in 150 seconds and making a sharp 270 degree turn pulling high Gs on his jet flying debut.

Actually, the plane didn't have to pull high G's (this is conspiracy site fodder) and it actually would have been difficult to set down a Boeing 757 flying a few feet above the surface. It would have a natural tendency to want to stay airborne. I doubt you are a pilot so you are just repeating what claims you've seen on conspiracy websites. The funny is ... groups like st911.com haven't been able to come up with any credible aeronautical engineers to back up these claims. One of the supposed *experts* they cite making your claim is Nila Sagadevan. Problem is, Nila's resume is almost as tenuous as yours and you'd think a guy who claims to be an aeronautical engineer and pilot would at least be able to get the dimensions of a 757 right. ROTFLOL!

Indeed, cameras from a gas station and a hotel captured the impact with the Pentagon, but the tapes were confiscated within minutes by the FBI. In fact, the official story now admits that photos were taken by a Pentagon security camera.

A smart guy like you must know that the FBI had to confiscate any tapes of the event in order to preserve the evidence and ensure a reliable evidentiary trail. But as trials on the matter wrap up these tapes are being released. And a smart guy like you must realize that many factors play into what is recorded by any given camera. Frame rate, field of view, resolution, lighting on the scene, velocity of the objects being filmed, etc. So far, two tapes of the event have been released. Neither conclusively shows a plane or lack of a plane. I look at the first video that was released and see what I believe is the plane in it. You watch it and probably see nothing. But then, here again, not one expert in video imagery has come forward to conclusively show that the video cameras should have recorded one.

The problem with the five frames of the "Pentagon security camera" record of the Flight 77 impact is that none of them show a Boeing 757 about to strike the Pentagon facade.

I and others don't agree. I think the plane could very easily be hidden in the shadows in that short video. Here's an example where someone proved to me it is possible:

Or take a look at this which at one point embeds the security camera video in a computer simulation of the crash:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=21568_The_Pentagon_Attack_Simulation&only

The authorities claimed that the security camera frame rate was 100 frames per second.

Clearly FALSE. No way they'd put a 100 frame per second camera in a security camera at that location. A slow frame rate is common in security cameras because they are mostly interested in scene changes, vehicles. and people. Also, fit a whole day's surveilance on a video tape requires a slow frame rate. In fact, the frame rate was actually reported to be less than 2 frames per second. Anyone who claims it was a hundred just got it wrong.

The field of view of the video was perhaps 300 feet at most. The plane was reportedly traveling at close to 500 mph at impact. 500 mph is over 700 feet per second. So in 1/2 a second, the plane could have flown from one side of the video field to the other and disappeared into the fireball. It wouldn't be surprising to miss a clear image of the plane.

To return briefly to the question of the missing wings, we cannot safely conclude that the wings would not have been shredded into confetti. Let's suppose the reinforced concrete Pentagon facade is stronger than the wings, which fail to smash their way more than a cm into the concrete.

Wait? Are you claiming after all that no hole was made in the Pentagon by the wings? Yes? No?

BeAChooser  posted on  2006-09-28   1:28:46 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace  


#92. To: Original_Intent (#87)

Your connection to evidence in September 11 is limited to kook sites and oh yeah, man, that's how bush did it man, Alex Jones said it man. They like are like scientists, dude.
Unlike you, yes, I have direct contact to the actual events and the direct evidence. Like I said, I have a close personal friend who was the supervisor of the gate attendant for UA 175 who gave the SCUM BALLS the boarding passes.


I'll start listening to all you kook jobs when you have actual insiders who start supporting what is now just your silly sickening kookery.

putupjob  posted on  2006-09-28   3:06:56 ET  Reply   Trace  


#93. To: kbb, knightofstjohn (#85)

Do you believe the passport and the manual/video on how to fly jet airplanes were planted evidence? Yes or no?

no

Bwahahaha!

Bill D Berger  posted on  2006-09-28   6:04:58 ET  Reply   Trace  


#94. To: putupjob, all (#92)

I'll start listening to all you kook jobs when you have actual insiders who start supporting what is now just your silly sickening kookery.

No you won't. You're not paid to listen or to objectively look at the evidence. You are here to discourage people from looking at the evidences of their own eyes and to examine the obvious evidences which are in the general public record.

What kind of plane did you say hit WTC7?

Virtually all of your ramblings conform nicely to the techiniques outlined in "Twenty-Five Ways to Suppress the Truth". To wit:

"14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10 (the "it's old news" ploy).

Example: 'Since you know so much, if James Earl Ray is as innocent as you claim, who really killed Martin Luther King, how was it planned and executed, how did they frame Ray and fool the FBI, and why?'

Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. It is not necessary to completely resolve any full matter in order to examine any relative attached issue. Discussion of any evidence of Ray's innocence can stand alone to serve truth, and any alternative solution to the crime, while it may bolster that truth, can also stand alone. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 14 - demand complete solutions)?"

AND

"18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive they are to criticism.'

Example: 'You are such an idiot to think that possible -- or are you such a paranoid conspiracy buff that you think the 'gubment' is cooking your pea-brained skull with microwaves, which is the only justification you might have for dreaming up this drivel.' After a drawing an emotional response: 'Ohhh... I do seem to have touched a sensitive nerve. Tsk, tsk. What's the matter? The truth too hot for you to handle? Perhaps you should stop relying on the Psychic Friends Network and see a psychiatrist for some real professional help...'

Proper response: 'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. You attempt to draw me into emotional response without discussion of the issues. If you have something useful to contribute which defeats my argument, let's here it -- preferably without snide and unwarranted personal attacks, if you can manage to avoid sinking so low. Your useless rhetoric serves no purpose here if that is all you can manage. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 18 - emotionalize, antagonize, and goad opponents)?'"

No, you are either a paid disinformationist, as evidenced by your reliance upon disparaging personal attacks i.e., Argumentum Ad Hominem and Strawman Arguments i.e., "when you have met condition "x" then I will actually look at the evidence" or you are a nonthinking partisan who does not want to examine any "steenking" evidence which might knock your "Rove Colored Glasses" askew.

I'm not even going to try and make you think for yourself - just point out the falsities that you rely upon to attack and disparage any viewpoint other than the official spin.

Original_Intent  posted on  2006-09-28   13:30:31 ET  Reply   Trace  


#95. To: kbb (#82)

What a waste of your research when you let your political bias guide your conclusions! Do you really hate jews or did I read your stuff wrong?

You have made an incorrect assumption about the time order of events. Back in 2002, before I began looking into 9/11, I was not particularly interested in Jews, Arabs, Zionism, etc. I preferred Bush over Gore on both ideological grounds and apparent substance/spin balance. I was aware of many smart Jews, e.g. physicists and economists, and vaguely felt that Jews were somewhat more advanced than Arabs. As far as religion goes, I have long been an atheist; anti- theist is the description I now prefer. You don't need religion to see what is right and wrong, and it also provides no advantages in trying to figure the ultimate questions such as how did the universe start or how did such a vastly improbable event as the forming of proteins from amino acids occur. Science holds the advantage, and fortunately, scientists are less likely to fight to the death to prove whose theory is right.

I had suspected that something wasn't quite right with the "Arab hijackers" story, and my suspicions were heightened in the run-up to the Iraq war which appeared to be on bogus pretexts. My misgivings over this were subsequently proved correct, but in the meantime I started looking into 9/11 and was surprised to see such a lot of material on the internet. Very quickly, I started doing some calculations. There was a page that caught my attention: "How Hot Did The Jet Fuel Heat The World Trade Center?" However, the assumptions and approximations on that page had many shortcomings. It did not allow for office combustibles that could have provided about 3 times the energy supplied by the jet fuel, it did not allow for the fact that the steel could heat up without conducting heat to the concrete, but it did not allow for 40% of the energy being vented out to drive the smoke plume, did not allow for incomplete oxygen-depleted combustion and did not allow for the presence (or otherwise) of the fireproofing. I decided to carry out a more detailed study...

I concluded that government spin about "Islamic extremists / militants / terrorists" is a massive lie. There is no actual evidence to support it apart from planted passports, receipts that survive bomb blasts, "confessions" obtained under duress, etc. The real terrorists are Jewish extremists. It is not the people who are being terrorised, it is the governments that the cabal wishes to subjugate.

The evidence points to extremist Talmudic Rabbis being principal players in fomenting trouble. I suspect a genocidal combination of Talmudic and genetic influences. The "war on terror" will never be won, since it is orchestrated by the terrorists themselves rather than targeted at them. Once the criminal elite who thrive on war for profit and power are removed from circulation, ordinary, decent Jews along with Muslims, Christians, Hindu, atheists, etc should be able to live together in peace.

Poseidon  posted on  2006-09-29   16:36:29 ET  Reply   Trace  


#96. To: poitiers (#90)

If thermite was used, why was the steel still molten after many days?

Thermite is the likely agent for producing very high steel temperatures. In some cases, molten steel was observed where surrounding debris such as pulverized concrete provided insulation. On other occasions, the molten steel had solidified. Some relatively slow combustion could have persisted once the tempratures had been reached. But substances deliberately placed by malevolent agents are the only explanation for steel-melting temperatures, and the substances could also have contributed to combustion in the period following collapse.

Poseidon  posted on  2006-09-29   16:55:51 ET  Reply   Trace  


#97. To: Poseidon, BeAChooser, yukon, putupjob (#95)

I had suspected that something wasn't quite right with the "Arab hijackers" story, and my suspicions were heightened in the run-up to the Iraq war which appeared to be on bogus pretexts. My misgivings over this were subsequently proved correct, but in the meantime I started looking into 9/11 and was surprised to see such a lot of material on the internet. Very quickly, I started doing some calculations. There was a page that caught my attention: "How Hot Did The Jet Fuel Heat The World Trade Center?" However, the assumptions and approximations on that page had many shortcomings. It did not allow for office combustibles that could have provided about 3 times the energy supplied by the jet fuel, it did not allow for the fact that the steel could heat up without conducting heat to the concrete, but it did not allow for 40% of the energy being vented out to drive the smoke plume, did not allow for incomplete oxygen-depleted combustion and did not allow for the presence (or otherwise) of the fireproofing. I decided to carry out a more detailed study...

So you are trusting .00067 percent of all American engineers and saying the WTC was not done by the terrorist. You have 99.99933 percent of engineers in the United States have not joined the 9/11 CT movement!

Plus you ignore the expert, the top guy!!

The original structural engineering Leslie E. Robertson design for an aircraft impact, but it was a slow speed landing configuration, 7 to 10 times less energy at impact than the 9/11 impacts!

has everyone written you off as a kook who hates jews? The original structural engineering Leslie E. Robertson said it was the 10,000 gallons of fuel they failed to consider (besides the order of magnitude larger crash). Based on the design of the WTC, it is amazing the towers remained standing as long as they did, surviving a impact blast 10 times greater than design.

Leslie E. Robertson is a structural engineer who has designed hundreds of buildings around the world including the World Trade Center.

Leslie E. Robertson, , said: "The twin towers of the World Trade Center were designed to resist safely the impacting by the largest aircraft of that time...the intercontinental version of the Boeing 707. In no small measure because of the high level of competence of the men and women of LERA, each of the towers resisted the impact of an aircraft larger than the 707. Yes, fire brought down the towers, but the structural integrity created by the engineers of LERA allowed perhaps thousands of persons to evacuate the buildings prior to the fire-induced collapse." http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/WTC/LesRobertson.html

Leslie E. Robertson, , said: on being hit by a commercial jet - " It appears that about 25,000 people safely exited the buildings, almost all of them from below the impact floors; almost everyone above the impact floors perished, either from the impact and fire or from the subsequent collapse. The structures of the buildings were heroic in some ways but less so in others. The buildings survived the impact of the Boeing 767 aircraft, an impact very much greater than had been contemplated in our design (a slow-flying Boeing 707 lost in the fog and seeking a landing field). Therefore, the robustness of the towers was exemplary. At the same time, the fires raging in the inner reaches of the buildings undermined their strength. In time, the unimaginable happened . . . wounded by the impact of the aircraft and bleeding from the fires, both of the towers of the World Trade Center collapsed." http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument

Leslie E. Robertson, , said: more on design for jet impact – " The two towers were the first structures outside of the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707. It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark. To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires." http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument

More on Robertson - http://interactive.wsj.com/fr/emailthis/retrieve.cgi? id=SB1002665463810757240.djm http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/WTC/LERPresentation.htm

you are saying defense industries at 3.7 percent of our GDP are the criminal elite? When health care is over 13 percent of our GDP? When big companies who supply you fuel, health care, build airplane to fly you, give you coke, and water, etc, these companies have more assets then our military?

What is your point.

you have chosen a funny cause, and the lies of the CT movement have caught you too. yep you have joined the massive .00067 engineers in the truth movement who can not calculate squat!

What are you saying, your political views make how the WTC really fell wrong?

Or you believe a small group of experts that are incapable of doing proper calculations? Was that your web site with more junk science?

kbb  posted on  2006-09-29   17:14:53 ET  Reply   Trace  


#98. To: Poseidon, ALL (#95)

The real terrorists are Jewish extremists.

ROTFLOL!

BeAChooser  posted on  2006-09-29   18:36:56 ET  Reply   Trace  


#99. To: BeAChooser (#91)

I don't need to know where it was found.

Sure you do. Don't you think that matters with respect to proving your *theory* of why the collapse occurred? If you say there were thermite bombs in the basement as opposed to the upper floors of the towers, you'd presumably end up with steel at different levels of the rubble.

If A is found dead in a locked room with bullet wounds to the chest, B is found in the same room holding a smoking gun, and C has a strong alibi having been 1000 miles away at the time, I don't need to pinpoint exactly where A and B were found to know that C didn't fire the shots.

On the other hand, the official "Bin Laden did it" theory variously claimed that Suqami or Atta's passport was found "in the vicinity of Vesey Street" or a "few blocks" away from the WTC complex. Don't you think the officials ought to be able to agree on whether it was Vesey Street or a few blocks away? And with two attempts to name the hijacker and two attempts to place where the passport was found, the authorities got all four combinations wrong. ROTFLOL! They had not even bothered to check which way the plane was going and match the hijacker's name to the relevant street, or to consider the aerodynamics of a flying passport. This is consistent with the contempt with which they regard the readers of their spiel.

Or take the FBI's "skill" in correctly identifying all 19 hijackers by September 14. On September 27 they released the exact same list of names, ignoring the fact that eight of these "dead" hijackers had already turned up alive and well. For example, Salem al-Hamzi was said to be "alive and indignant" in Saudi Arabia. His passport had been stolen by a pickpocket in Cairo in 1998. Abdulaziz Alomari was a Saudi Telecom employee whose passport had been stolen in 1995. He had been studying in Denver, and his apartment was broken into. If you do a search for Mossad + passports + "New Zealand", things should become clearer.

Maybe your trusted sources such as the FBI, Fox News and the New York Times exaggerate and are not reliable!

Either you are claiming that hydrocarbon fires can melt steel (but strangely, not when a car burns out), or an impact of tens of tons per square meter which takes place over several seconds would melt steel

You have three problems.

First, I think think you understand fire but I KNOW there are people in the world who do and so far NOT ONE of them has come forward to suggest what you claim ... that molten metal (even steel) in the rubble is impossible or that the NIST fire model calculation is grossly in error.

Soon after 9/11, there were outlandish claims that the "jet fuel fires had melted the steel". The 'experts' did not refute this but the 9/11 skeptics pointed out that it was impossible and eventually the 'experts' - even NIST - agreed. When I started looking into 9/11, I was a little skeptical of the reports of molten steel - there did not seem to be many sources. Now the number of sources has grown considerably, and these reports are part of the mainstream. Scholars for 9/11 Truth are correctly pointing out that this molten steel is evidence of skullduggery. They include fire protection engineers, physicists, mathematicians, pilots, chemists, an explosive ordnance technician, software engineers, a forensic pathologist, etc. Unfortunately, if one of your experts were to join Scholars for 9/11 Truth, it seems you would not count them as an expert.

Second, you don't appear to understand how much gravitational energy was locked up in the skyscraper ... 1-2 percent of the energy released by the Hiroshima bomb. As the tower collapsed, it released that energy. And seismologists are on record saying that very little of that energy went into the earth or into the air. So where do you think it went, Poseiden?

I agree that figure is about right. Much of the energy was used in pulverizing the concrete and shearing the steel. But I have already shown how to calculate the temperature increase if all of that - and more - was converted into heat.

An upper bound of some 453,600 tonnes x 9.807 m/s^2 x 417 m gives 2.045^12 J which is 3 - 4 percent of the Hiroshima bomb. That supposes the entire 500,000 tons was dropped from 1368 feet. There should be a reducing factor of more than 2, considering the steel was much heavier grade at the bottom, and a considerable amount of the building's mass was below ground. Each Tower had 6,800 tons of perimeter box columns below the start of the bifurcation columns on the 4th floor and 6,500 tons of core box columns below the 9th floor, more than an eighth of the total steel.

But the energy would be distributed over hundreds of thousands of tons of mass over an area of more than 40,000 square feet. Even assuming the entire mass fell from 1368 feet, we have:

E = m*g*h or E = 0.5*m*v^2 where v = SQR(2*g*h) which again leads to E = m*g*h

For the temperature rise we divide by the mass and heat capacity:

T2 - T1 = m*g*h/(m*c) ==} g*h/c

So for g = 9.807 m/s^2, h = 1368 / 3.2808 m, and c = 450 J/kg.K

then the temperature increase (Kelvin) = 9.09 degrees. This is already a very high estimate for the mean, and there is no mystical effect whereby a few particular pieces of steel undergo increases hundreds of times greater than the mean. And unfortunately for the "gravitational energy melts steel" theory, even if the steel was already hot, it still requires some 250 KJ/kg for the latent heat of fusion to melt it, which is over 60 times the energy needed to raise from, say, 25 C to 34 C.

Third, there were other factors that possibly came into play that day.

Now you're talking! The criminals had to make very sure all three buildings came down. You can't just crash a plane and expect a building to collapse - it just doesn't happen. WTC 7 was supposed to be hit by UA 93. Unfortunately for Israel, when the Air Force shot the plane down in PA, they had the building all wired up ready to "pull" it, since it contained incriminating evidence such as Zakheim's SPC transceivers. How embarrassing when the authorities had to concoct the "Let's Roll!" story and then claim that WTC 7 had collapsed due to "fires", when it had never even been hit by a plane. ROTFLOL!

Do you know that they found evidence of eutectic reactions in the steel? Last I head they didn't know the source of this reaction but do you know what a eutectic reaction does to the melting point of steel? Lowers it.

The 'eutectic reaction' claims were the desperate measures of those who know they've been rumbled, and these were used to attempt to explain the collapses. They knew that some folk, blinded by ideology, would be hoodwinked. Unfortunately, the melting point would still be much too high for fires in an oxygen-starved heap of rubble mostly comprised of inert materials such as steel and pulverized concrete.

Perhaps you should read this: http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf. It's offers a nice alternative to your (Jones') thermite/thermate theory.

Actually, I like the Greening paper; it shows his calculations and the effects of changing assumptions for the variables. Sometime I will get around to looking at this in more detail. But there is too much uncertainty, both in the collapse times and calculations of what they should actually be, for this to be a good test of CD vs "Bin Laden did this". I would recommend you look at Gordon Ross' site, which shows why an initial collapse would have been arrested by the intact lower section of the buildings. It also proposes a viable mechanism for a controlled demolition collapse, which accounts for observations of inward bowing of perimeter columns on one face of each Tower.

Those who support the government line may well be highly qualified, but the system of incentives and deterrents hardly supports coming out on the side of CD, and will not encourage these experts into putting a lot of effort into disproving the official version of events.

Oh nonsense. You think experts in France or Egypt or China wouldn't want to show the US government was behind 9/11?

Andreas von Bulow, former German Defense Minister, has pointed out that the government made up the tale of 19 "Muslim" hijackers. Michael Meacher, a former British government minister, was another who pointed out that the war on terror is bogus. Both outline their views in this video. Anatoli Kornukov, the commander-in-chief of the Russian Air Force, said that the official 9/11 story is impossible. Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan President, has recently suggested that the US government had a hand in the 9/11 attacks and said that the towers "could have been dynamited".

You think the US government somehow exerts control on EVERY professional in the world?

The US government exerts pressure on other governments, as when it threatened Pakistan and Afghanistan with being bombed back to the Stone Age. The Zionist Mafia, with its Mossad cells posing as "al-Qaeda" terrorists ROTFLOL! threatens them with train / bus / restaurant bombings, and radiological bombs or even relatively small nukes, which the government would then be forced to claim was the handiwork of "al-Qaeda". In turn, the governments exert pressure on their citizens. The people in these countries are often even more fearful of government.

Well why doesn't it control the folks you claim are *experts*, like Jones or Ryan? You think experts in structures, demolition, steel, fire, impact and other relevant disciplines are only Bush-bots? That none of them are hard core democRATS? Ridiculous.

For your information, this is not a Bush vs Democrats issue. They are all compromised.

Kevin Ryan is no phony, having raised eminently sensible questions and been sacked for his pains.

He got sacked because he tried to make people think his non-expert OPINION was shared by Underwriter Laboratories. He even put his opinion on official UL stationary. Well it isn't shared and UL has a reputation to protect. Hence, he lost his job. And besides, Ryan (as has been explained in detail in previous threads) was simply wrong or deliberately dishonest about fact after fact concerning steel, fire and the government's scenario. Ryan either didn't bother to read the NIST reports thoroughly or he dishonestly presented material from them. I think the later.

Ryan should be commended for his integrity and courage in speaking out against the terrorists.

Well maybe you should have read in more detail what that document said. For example, did you fail to see this?

*********

Task 5 - Characterize thermal excursions of steel

Summary of metallographic analysis - core columns

Two core columns in impact area with sufficient paint Columns 603 (floors 92-93) and 605 (floors 98-99) Paint analyses indicate both columns < 250 C

CONSISTENT with:

Impact model results Col 603 (fl 92-93) and 605 (fl 98-88) - fire proofing intact

Fire and thermal/structural models

Col 603, floors 92 and 94 - no significant fires near - peak temperature of approximately 100 C

Col 605 on floor 98 - some surrounding fire - peak temperature less than 200 c

***************

Do you understand what the above is telling you, Poseiden?

"Do you know that NIST concluded the temperatures determined from the sample tests VALIDATE the computer models they used to evaluate the peak temperatures during the fire. That at the location where those columns saw temperatures below 250 C, the computer models indicated temperatures below 250 C?"

This much is true.

So why did you choose to take the one quote in the report out of context and imply the tested samples somehow invalidated NIST's assertion that temperatures in the structure were well above 250 C in other critical areas of the structure. Admit it, you were trying to be dishonest.

"Do you know that elsewhere in those computer models, which experts say are currently the best way of estimating peak temperatures in complex situations like this, the temperatures were calculated to be over 1000 C (1800 F to be exact)?"

You are confusing peak temperatures with steel temperatures. The gaseous combustion products probably did peak over 1000 C at a few times and places. But the steel temperature would have depended on the proportion of fireproofing remaining (almost invariably most or all of it), the mass of the steel, the area of steel exposed to fire, and the heat flux density available for absorption by the steel after allowing for the mass of combustibles per floor, the fact that 40% of the energy was vented out to drive the smoke plume, and another 7 MJ/kg or so of wood equivalent had been lost due to fuel-rich combustion.

You are again trying to be dishonest. If you look at the fire code model results (using code that the experts in such matters say are the best method available to evaluate temperatures in complex situations such as this) you will see that temperatures exceeded 1000 C in various portions of the impacted floors for MANY MINUTES.

On the contrary, it is you who is trying to be dishonest. I was referring to the document by Frank Gayle dated October 20, 2004, and there is not a word about 1000+ C temperatures. My interpretation of the document is obviously the same as Kevin Ryan's - it demonstrates that 99.9 percent of the steel did not reach critical temperatures. I had already calculated some steel temperatures when this came out, and was pleased to see that NIST agreed with my predictions of low steel temperatures.

Is there one expert - even a semi-expert - who agrees with your claim that Frank Gayle's document suggests steel temperatures of over 1000 C? I suspect you do not know what you are talking about. Given the number of documents NIST have published, I would not be surprised if one or more of them mention gas temperatures briefly over 1,000 C in patches. But the Gayle document is talking about steel temperatures. You are reading things that aren't there. Some cranks see clouds and believe they are the face of Jesus, or imagine that rocks on Mars are humanoid faces. ROTFLOL!

A couple of floors on WTC 1 and 2 would have had fireproofing compromised by impacting debris over up to 1% of their area. Enough fireproofing remained to prevent global collapse.

Where did you get this 1% figure. Make it up on the spot?

I have never made figures up. The amount of "dislodged" fireproofing would have been far too minimal to have any impact on the fact that the fires could not have raised the temperature of more than a tiny fraction, if any, of the steel to greater than the critical temperature at around 550 C. Not enough of the Cafco Blaze-Shield on the trusses would have been compromised - over a sufficient number of floors, and a sufficient area on each of these floors - for the effect of the fire(s) to have been enough to tip the balance from survival to catastrophic collapse. The Boeing 767-200 series has a fuselage diameter of about 16.5 feet, i.e. less than one-tenth the width of each Tower, and less than one and a half floors in height. The floor trusses originally had 3/4 inch of fire resistive coating (FRC); by September 2001 the entire impact zone of WTC 1 (floors 92 to 99) had been upgraded to 1.5 inches with Blaze-Shield II. The tested performance of Blaze-Shield II's cohesion / adhesion strength ranges from 360 to 399 psf compared with a standard performance of 150 psf; its compressive strength has been found to be from 1,700 to 2,380 psf.

"Preliminary calculations suggest that the resulting overpressures [from the fireballs] were less than 1 lb per square inch (PSI)...It is likely that the force of the impact and the speed with which debris travelled through the structures compromised the sprayed-on fire protection of some of the steel members in the immediate areas of the impact."

Civil Engineering Magazine, May 2002

"The force of the impact and the resulting debris field and fireballs probably compromised spray-applied fire protection of some of the steel members in the immediate area of impact. The exact extent of this damage will probably never be known..."

FEMA 403, Chapter Two, 2-24

An overpressure of "less than 1 psi", i.e. less than 144 psf.

It is fair to say that some of the FRC on some trusses in the immediate impact area was compromised by debris. The deflagration overpressure was far too low to damage fireproofing. The main damage area in WTC 1 would have been a rectangular section of some 17 feet in width and 60 feet in length from the north face to the core, and much of this tiny proportion of two or three floors would have been already destroyed by the impact. ("AA 11" had a descent angle of about 10 degrees, so 68 feet horizontally - taking it into the core - would correspond to a 12 feet height drop which makes for an extra floor albeit at reduced length of damage zone.) The west, south and east sides would have undergone relatively little damage in the inter ceiling-floor zone; floors above and below likewise. The truss-initiated collapse theory requires total collapse and removal of at least five floors, which would not have happened in 102 minutes of release of some 10^12 joules per floor with almost all of the truss FRC remaining even on the worst floors. Each WTC floor had about 56 tons of fireproofing, so the FRC over three floors at 168 tons was more massive than the plane and its fuel. The Blaze-Shield would not have been "blown" off the trusses.

Since the impacting debris (from "Flight 11") was approaching at a descent angle of about ten degrees, most of the trusses were shielded from this by four inches of solid concrete. Where the debris did not smash its way through the concrete, most of the FRC on the trusses would have remained intact. The height of the trusses was 29 inches, so from 29 inches / tan [10 degrees] we have 164 inches, say 14 feet, as the length of the strip where the truss bottom chord might have had its FRC compromised in places, beyond the extent of the smashed concrete. The width of the strip is 17 feet, from the diameter of the plane fuselage, so 14 x 17 feet is 238 square feet. At 207 feet by 207 feet, each floor was 42,849 square feet, so the area of possibly partially compromised bottom chord FRC is some 0.6% of the total floor area. Wing debris (from part of a single wing for a given floor due to the aircraft roll of about 25 degrees), and debris bouncing off a floor and smashing through ceiling tiles (which were 2 psf), could have added a little, but not enough to support the fire collapse theory.

And why do you think more than a couple floors of the towers had to be compromised for failure to occur?

If too many floors were removed, the core columns would have failed due to the effect on the slenderness ratio. As each floor is removed - and this is as in a total failure - the effective length of the core columns increases. The slenderness ratio is the ratio of effective length to the radius of gyration. When the slenderness ratio is too high, then buckling would occur. In order to initiate failure of all core columns and global collapse, five floors would have had to have gone, or four floors if the core columns were critically hot. On this, I agreed with NIST's results.

WTC 7 had all of its fireproofing in place.

So? It burned for 7 HOURS. Was the steel in the building rated for that?

At any given point in the building, combustibles will only burn for about 20 minutes before the material has been consumed and the flames move on to another section or floor. Other buildings exposed to much more intense fires lasting more than 7 hours have not collapsed. One version of events claims that there was no attempt to contain the WTC 7 fires. Another version says that there were firefighters in the building, and uses this to explain Larry Silverstein's "pull it" statement.

More than five years after the event, NIST are still struggling to fabricate a "theory" on why the building collapsed, citing a lack of manpower for the delay in publishing their report. As any aware individual knows, it collapsed due to a controlled demolition. WTC 7's Monokote MK-5 fireproofing, a gypsum- based SFRM, has particularly good specifications. It outperforms the twin towers' Blaze-shield Types DC/F and II in terms of thermal conductivity and specific heat capacity, according to NIST-sponsored tests carried out by Anter.

Why don't you compile your theories of what happened on 9/11, and set it up on a website? Reviewing it for errors would be interesting, and such a review would need an entire website. ROTFLOL!

If people want to publish their credentials, that's fine by me. I had decided I would either not publish at all, or not publish my personal details. Since I knew the material would interest some people, I chose to place it in the public domain.

On the web page concerning the Pentagon crash, you state "We need not analyse whether the wings of Flight 77 could have fitted into the pre-collapse hole in the Pentagon facade." Nice dodge since many of your truth movement's leaders (*experts*) have claimed the hole is much to small (some even said 20 feet wide) and been caught LYING. But you will eventually have to explain to me how whatever you think caused the hole managed to cause a hole that big and with such a shape.

I don't need to explain every last detail of what happened. Even if Flight 77 had hit the Pentagon, flown by Hani Hanjour, that would not nullify the clear evidence of a controlled demolition of three skyscrapers on the same day. Of course, Hanjour, who could barely even drive a car and was refused permission to fly a Cessna, would not have developed the skills to fly a 757 like a crack fighter pilot in the space of a few weeks. The precision of the complex maneuvers in this moonbat conspiracy theory of a Muslim suicide amateur pilot flying a 757 into the Pentagon was reported by sources such as the Washington Post, ABC and CBS. So you actually believe this ludicrous nonsense? ROTFLOL!

The Pentagon hit was the relatively minor psy-op that Bushco were tricked into pulling off in order that Israel could orchestrate a multi-hundred-billion-dollar operation involving the mass murder of nearly a hundred times as many Americans as they killed in their 1967 attack on the USS Liberty.

It does not matter whether a wanabee pilot - whose flying skills were so poor that he was refused permission to hire a Cessna in August 2001 - developed the skills of a crack fighter pilot after a few weeks' flight simulator training, managing to steer a Boeing 757 a few feet above the Pentagon lawn at over 500 mph after descending 7000 feet in 150 seconds and making a sharp 270 degree turn pulling high Gs on his jet flying debut.

Actually, the plane didn't have to pull high G's (this is conspiracy site fodder) and it actually would have been difficult to set down a Boeing 757 flying a few feet above the surface. It would have a natural tendency to want to stay airborne.

It doesn't detract from the fact that many experts and pundits agree that this would have been an extraordinarily complex maneuver for a novice pilot whose skills were poorly rated. If we take this analysis of the flight path by Steve Koeppel, the radius of the minor axis can be seen to be about 1.59 miles or 2560 meters. He assumes only 275 knots ~ 316 mph ~ 141 m/s for the airspeed; the impact velocity was said to be over 500 mph and a higher speed should be assumed for the final approach. At 500 mph or 223 m/s, the centripetal acceleration has a magnitude of v^2/r which is 19.42 m/s^2 = 1.98g. So Hanjour would have experienced a force of nearly 2g pulling him over to the left as he was fighting to line the nose up with the Pentagon. The final straight part of the path looks to be about 2559 meters, so Hanjour would have had barely over 11 seconds to aim at the ground floor. How did he know how to turn off the transponder, why wasn't Flight 77 scheduled that day in the BTS database, why were there no Arabs on the flight manifest or the autopsy, and why was there no physical evidence of a Boeing 757 at the crash scene? The logical answer is that Flight 77 never hit the Pentagon.

A smart guy like you must know that the FBI had to confiscate any tapes of the event in order to preserve the evidence and ensure a reliable evidentiary trail. But as trials on the matter wrap up these tapes are being released.

The trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, a convenient Muslim patsy, concluded in May 2006. They are running out of excuses for not releasing the tapes.

The problem with the five frames of the "Pentagon security camera" record of the Flight 77 impact is that none of them show a Boeing 757 about to strike the Pentagon facade.

I and others don't agree. I think the plane could very easily be hidden in the shadows in that short video.

As above, your interpretation of the data leads you to see things that are not there. But my statement is entirely accurate. All you can see is part of an object that just might be a Boeing - or could be almost anything. This page has images that I would describe as showing a Boeing 757, the sort of images that are sorely lacking in the released frames.

The authorities claimed that the security camera frame rate was 100 frames per second.

Clearly FALSE. No way they'd put a 100 frame per second camera in a security camera at that location. A slow frame rate is common in security cameras because they are mostly interested in scene changes, vehicles. and people. Also, fit a whole day's surveilance on a video tape requires a slow frame rate. In fact, the frame rate was actually reported to be less than 2 frames per second. Anyone who claims it was a hundred just got it wrong.

There were reports of 100 fps circulating in 2004 when I wrote that. An analysis of the latest video release showed that it had been heavily manipulated. Given the budget at the Pentagon and need for security, it is not credible that all cameras on the west wing were operating at such low frame rates.

To return briefly to the question of the missing wings, we cannot safely conclude that the wings would not have been shredded into confetti. Let's suppose the reinforced concrete Pentagon facade is stronger than the wings, which fail to smash their way more than a cm into the concrete.

Wait? Are you claiming after all that no hole was made in the Pentagon by the wings? Yes? No?

No, the wings would not necessarily have made a hole. The object could have been a missile, or a small or large plane. But it certainly wasn't Flight 77 piloted by Hani Hanjour.

Poseidon  posted on  2006-09-30   13:46:17 ET  Reply   Trace  


#100. To: Poseidon (#99)

Other buildings exposed to much more intense fires lasting more than 7 hours have not collapsed.

http://www. firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/boyle.html

Captain Chris Boyle, NYFD;

"A little north of Vesey I said, we?ll go down, let?s see what?s going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what?s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn?t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn?t look good."

yukon  posted on  2006-09-30   14:03:25 ET  Reply   Trace  


#101. To: Poseidon, BeAChooser, yukon, putupjob (#99)

But it certainly wasn't Flight 77 piloted by Hani Hanjour.

where is flight 77?

757 is way too easy to fly and anyone could have flown it into the Pentagon.

Ask a pilot, make that another pilot, i am one, so you have an experts, but you are too much into 9/11 junk to believe truth, so you make up junk

the plane wings would what????

no Arabs on the flight manifest

what manifest are you talking about? bet it is the list of victims, and you are too open minded to remember terrorist are not victiims!

the no plane no brain group, is alive in this guy?

kbb  posted on  2006-09-30   14:13:24 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace  


#102. To: Poseidon, kbb, ALL (#99)

Maybe your trusted sources such as the FBI, Fox News and the New York Times exaggerate and are not reliable!

Your answer has nothing to do with YOUR claim there were molten pools of steel in the basements of the towers. Why don't you tell us what your sources are for your molten pools of steel in the basement claim? Hmmmmmmmmm?

Soon after 9/11, there were outlandish claims that the "jet fuel fires has melted the steel".

There were a few experts who jumped the gun before they knew the facts and suggested the jet fuel had melted steel. Later they said they spoke without thinking things through carefully enough. Not ONE expert in fire or steel today says the jet fuel fires melted the steel.

The 'experts' did not refute this

This is a totally false statement. Plenty of experts at the time who thought before they spoke said that wasn't true and that molten steel wasn't necessary to explain the collapse. Must you lie to make your case?

but the 9/11 skeptics pointed out that it was impossible and eventually the 'experts' - even NIST - agreed.

This is a false statement. You are trying to rewrite history.

When I started looking into 9/11, I was a little skeptical of the reports of molten steel - there did not seem to be many sources. Now the number of sources has grown considerably, and these reports are part of the mainstream.

No one is suggesting there wasn't molten steel at the site. But you can't show us but one or two pictures of POSSIBLY molten steel and NONE of them shows a pool of it or shows it in the basement of either tower. And noone who was there has actually used the word "pool" in any source we can trust. The fact that Christopher Bollyn made the claim some did is meaningless. Bollyn demonstrably LIED in the article where he claimed this and the people he claimed made the statement are no where else on record saying any such thing.

Scholars for 9/11 Truth are correctly pointing out that this molten steel is evidence of skullduggery.

Then why can't they get one real expert in steel or fire or chemistry or structures or macro-physics or impact or seismology to come forward and say actually this.

They include fire protection engineers

Name these "fire protection" engineers.

physicists

The only physicists I know of on the 911 truth movement side of this debate (like Jones and Grimmer) have spent entire their 30 year careers studying nothing but sub-atomic particles, cold fusion and the micro properties of solar cells. Neither has ANY macro-world physics experience. If you want to name another, go ahead, I'll be happy to take their credentials apart.

mathematicians, pilots

Which have what to do with steel and fire and impact and structures?

chemists

By all means, name these chemists. Let's see if they actually have any REAL expertise in the subject at hand.

an explosive ordnance technician

Again, name this individual. I bet this person isn't at all qualified to speak on this matter.

software engineers

Like Hoffman? Like Glazier? Like Hufschmid? Yeah ... sure ... software engineers are certain to know all about structure, steel, fire and impact. ROTFLOL!

, a forensic pathologist,

Name this person. Let's see exactly what he or she claims. Bet it has nothing to do with structures, steel, fire, impact or collapse, if he/she sticks to the area of his/her expertise.

The sad truth is that most of the *experts* at st911.com have actually had to LIE in order to support their silly accusations. Just like you've done a time or two now.

Much of the energy was used in pulverizing the concrete and shearing the steel. But I have already shown how to calculate the temperature increase if all of that - and more - was converted into heat.

Sure you have. Which is why you've got dozens of named experts in such subjects joining in to say you are right. Which is why you've published your results in a peer reviewed journal. (SARCASM)

WTC 7 was supposed to be hit by UA 93.

This is a new one. Anything to actually support this assertion? No? ROTFLOL!

Unfortunately for Israel, when the Air Force shot the plane down in PA, they had the building all wired up ready to "pull" it, since it contained incriminating evidence such as Zakheim's SPC transceivers. How embarrassing when the authorities had to concoct the "Let's Roll!" story and then claim that WTC 7 had collapsed due to "fires", when it had never even been hit by a plane. ROTFLOL!

Yeah. Right. And ROTFLOL! is my line.

The 'eutectic reaction' claims were the desperate measures of those who know they've been rumbled

Sure they were. Why nearly every engineer and scientist on earth with any REAL expertise in subjects like steel and fire and impact and structures must be part of the zionist conspiracy. Right? ROTFLOL!

Actually, I like the Greening paper; it shows his calculations and the effects of changing assumptions for the variables. Sometime I will get around to looking at this in more detail.

ROTFLOL! Life is short. Right?

I would recommend you look at Gordon Ross' site, which shows why an initial collapse would have been arrested by the intact lower section of the buildings.

Ah yes. Gordon Ross. The guy who holds degrees in both Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering and graduated from Liverpool John Moores University in 1984. The guy who is smarter than all the structural and demolition engineers in the world. Who is smarter than all the computer codes that have shown the collapse would have continued to the ground once it started.

Gordon's paper is filled with flaws.

Here's an example. He states "Examination of the video evidence shows that the antennae began to move downwards a fraction of a second before the roof line. This can only be achieved through a downward movement of the core to which it was directly connected. The early movement of the antennae in WTC1 when regarded in relation to the roof line shows that it was the movement of the upper core structure acting on the perimeter columns through the floors, which was driving the collapse in the early stages, and not vice versa." He must have missed this statement by NIST: "Photographic and videographic records were reviewed to identify structurally-related events. Where possible, all four faces of a building were examined for a given event or time period to provide complete understanding of the building response. Observations from a single vantage point can be misleading and may result in incorrect interpretation of events. For instance, 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."

Here's another example that was pointed out in a discussion here: http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/06/17/18281125.php. His analysis assumes that the columns in the floors being impacted will reconnect with something in the falling debris that will maximally resist the descent of all of the debris above. He states "Upon impact with the lower section the falling mass would deliver a force which would grow from zero, up to the failure load of the impacted storey columns, over a finite period of time and distance." That premise leads to this statement "The analysis shows that despite the assumptions made in favour of collapse continuation, vertical movement of the falling section would be arrested prior to completion of the 3% shortening phase of the impacted columns, and within 0.02 seconds after impact. A collapse driven only by gravity would not continue to progress beyond that point." But Ross assumes a perfect descent of the collapsing structure and perfect contact between the columns of the falling floors with the undamaged columns in the floors below. THIS IS AN ABSURD PREMISE.

And that's before we even get to flaws in the rest of his assumptions, physics and math. Some of these flaws have been pointed out by Dr Greening. Anyone know what Mr Ross has actually worked on during his engineering life? We wouldn't want him to be another, Professor Jones, who gets called a physicist but actually has only worked on sub-atomic particles for the last 30 years. Now since Mr Ross posts over at Liberty Forum, maybe he could be convinced to join us here to tell us a little more about his qualifications. You game to contact him, Poseiden? And while you are at it, see if Professor Jones can be induced to visit. ROTFLOL!

By the way, did you know that Gordon also thinks he's a seismologist. He and Craig T. Furlong wrote a paper titled “Seismic Proof – 9/11 Was An Inside Job (Updated Version II)”. Here: http://worldtradecentertruth.com/volume/200609/SeismicFurlong.doc. Craig Furlong isn't listed as a st911 member or associate. But some of what he's written on the web would suggest he lives in California. I bet he's not a seismologist. Bet he's not even an engineer. Could he be a science illustrator? Because a Craig Furlong, living in California, who received a Bachelor of ARTS in science illustration in 1998 is the only Craig Furlong I can find via the web (http://scienceillustration.org/html/bios.htm). One more thing ... on various 9/11 forums Craig makes some rather interesting assertions ... such as "anyone who sees a video of WTC7 KNOWS it was a controlled demolition." Now there's someone who didn't make up his mind until viewing all the data. And Gordon had no problem authoring a paper with him. ROTFLOL!

"You think experts in France or Egypt or China wouldn't want to show the US government was behind 9/11?"

Andreas von Bulow, former German Defense Minister, has pointed out that the government made up the tale of 19 "Muslim" hijackers.

Andreas Bulow is not an expert in structures, fire, demolition, steel, impact, etc.

Michael Meacher, a former British government minister, was another who pointed out that the war on terror is bogus.

Michael Meacher is not an expert in structures, fire, demolition, steel, impact, etc.

Anatoli Kornukov, the commander-in-chief of the Russian Air Force, said that the official 9/11 story is impossible.

Anatoli Kornukov is not an expert in structures, fire, demolition, steel, impact, etc.

Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan President, has recently suggested that the US government had a hand in the 9/11 attacks and said that the towers "could have been dynamited".

Hugo Chavez is not an expert in structures, fire, demolition, steel, impact, etc. And you are REALLY getting desperate to make the US the bad guy when you have to quote people like Hugo Chavez as your *experts*. ROTFLOL!

"You think the US government somehow exerts control on EVERY professional in the world?"

The US government exerts pressure on other governments, as when it threatened Pakistan and Afghanistan with being bombed back to the Stone Age. The Zionist Mafia, with its Mossad cells posing as "al-Qaeda" terrorists ROTFLOL! threatens them with train / bus / restaurant bombings, and radiological bombs or even relatively small nukes, which the government would then be forced to claim was the handiwork of "al-Qaeda". In turn, the governments exert pressure on their citizens. The people in these countries are often even more fearful of government.

Talk about being paranoid. I'm talking about countries like FRANCE. Or GERMANY. Or JAPAN. Tell us ... if *they* can control every professional in the world ... why aren't *they* controlling you? Are you special? ROTFLOL!

For your information, this is not a Bush vs Democrats issue.

That's my point.

They are all compromised.

Making the claim they are "ALL compromised" completely silly. IRRATIONAL.

Ryan should be commended for his integrity and courage in speaking out against the terrorists.

Integrity? Dishonestly wanting people to think he had UL backing for his assertions by publishing them on UL stationary? That's integrity? Making statements about the facts that are clearly false? Allowing himself to be held on a pedestal as some sort of expert in these subjects when his ONLY expertise in is water treatment? I see no integrity in that. None at all.

On the contrary, it is you who is trying to be dishonest. I was referring to the document by Frank Gayle dated October 20, 2004, and there is not a word about 1000+ C temperatures.

So everything you KNOW you got from a project status briefing given at an advisory meeting on the topic of Mechanical and Metallurgical Analysis of Structural Steel in 2004? While ignoring all the official and final documents by NIST on the topic of the fires and structural behavior? Get this through your head. The topic of that briefing wasn't the fires or peak temperatures reached in the event. It was the analysis of the steel samples they had with the best methods they could use. Nothing more. No wonder you have such an incorrect perception of the facts and the event. What are you afraid those other documents will tell you, Poseiden? The truth?

My interpretation of the document is obviously the same as Kevin Ryan's - it demonstrates that 99.9 percent of the steel did not reach critical temperatures.

Wow! You agree with an expert in WATER TREATMENT. Big Deal. Here are the facts. They tested only a few samples from a few locations. Then only could test the samples that still had paint on them. The tests were limited in the maximum temperatures they could tell had occurred. It is a bald faced LIE to claim that 99.9 percent of the steel didn't reach a critical temperature. It is a bald faced LIE to claim that Gayle was even speaking to the issue of the maximum temperatures seen in the structure or by all steel in the structure. It also misleading because most of the steel in the towers at the impact level did not have to reach a critical temperature for collapse to occur. You're even dishonest about the proposed failure mode.

I had already calculated some steel temperatures when this came out, and was pleased to see that NIST agreed with my predictions of low steel temperatures.

Then publish your results. Make a name for yourself. ROTFLOL!

Is there one expert - even a semi-expert - who agrees with your claim that Frank Gayle's document suggests steel temperatures of over 1000 C?

I said no such thing. When you have to LIE about what I have said and maintain, then I know you are bag of hot air.

Given the number of documents NIST have published, I would not be surprised if one or more of them mention gas temperatures briefly over 1,000 C in patches.

You seem to be admitting that you haven't read the main NIST reports. ROTFLOL!

But the Gayle document is talking about steel temperatures. You are reading things that aren't there. Some cranks see clouds and believe they are the face of Jesus, or imagine that rocks on Mars are humanoid faces. ROTFLOL!

Look in the mirror. Then see if you can come up with the name of ONE real expert in fire or steel that agrees with you. Can you even come up with ONE?

A couple of floors on WTC 1 and 2 would have had fireproofing compromised by impacting debris over up to 1% of their area. Enough fireproofing remained to prevent global collapse.

"Where did you get this 1% figure. Make it up on the spot?"

I have never made figures up.

Then answer the question. A judge would tell you that your convoluted answer was nonresponsive. How exactly did you arrive at the 1% figure. Pull it out of thin air? And why do you ignorantly assume that if if all the fireproofing in a particular region of the impacted floors is removed, this isn't a problem? Wouldn't the fireproofing of the members in that area be compromised? After all ... some of those members might have lost 100% of their coatings while overall a much smaller fraction of the overall steel on the impacted floors. And once those members failed, perhaps firecoatings would be irrelevant to the rest of the collapse. So perhaps your 1% UNSUPPORTED CLAIM is simply irrelevant to the problem at hand.

"The tested performance of Blaze-Shield II's cohesion / adhesion strength ranges from 360 to 399 psf compared with a standard performance of 150 psf; its compressive strength has been found to be from 1,700 to 2,380 psf.

Preliminary calculations suggest that the resulting overpressures [from the fireballs] were less than 1 lb per square inch (PSI)...It is likely that the force of the impact and the speed with which debris travelled through the structures compromised the sprayed-on fire protection of some of the steel members in the immediate areas of the impact."

Civil Engineering Magazine, May 2002

"The force of the impact and the resulting debris field and fireballs probably compromised spray-applied fire protection of some of the steel members in the immediate area of impact. The exact extent of this damage will probably never be known..."

FEMA 403, Chapter Two, 2-24

An overpressure of "less than 1 psi", i.e. less than 144 psf.

... snip ...

The Blaze-Shield would not have been "blown" off the trusses.

You haven't read the NIST reports, have you. You do realize that it wasn't just overpressure that knocked off the fireproofing. No? ROTFLOL!

Here ... you might want to factor this info into your study ... http://www.nistreview.org/_media/documents/NIST/appendixi.pdf "Interim Report on Assessment of Sprayed Fireproofing in the WTC Towers-Methodology" ... for when you publish your results in a credible peer reviewed journal. Pay particular attention to Section I.5 Response To Impact.

Then you might want to search out what the result of the study they mention in Section I.5 was. You can find it here: http://www.nistreview.org/_media/documents/NIST/final/NISTNCSTAR1-2.pdf and here: http://www.nistreview.org/_media/documents/NIST/final/NISTNCSTAR1-6.pdf. Particularly the last report. ROTFLOL!

The truss-initiated collapse theory requires total collapse and removal of at least five floors

GARBAGE. You don't understand the collapse theory. You're not a structural engineer. And NOT ONE structural engineer appears to agree with you. What are your credentials, btw?

At any given point in the building, combustibles will only burn for about 20 minutes before the material has been consumed and the flames move on to another section or floor.

Really? Then perhaps the steel portions of the Windsor Tower in Madrid shouldn't have collapsed. ROTFLOL!

Other buildings exposed to much more intense fires lasting more than 7 hours have not collapsed.

The steel frame portions of the Windsor tower did.

More than five years after the event, NIST are still struggling to fabricate a "theory" on why the building collapsed, citing a lack of manpower for the delay in publishing their report. As any aware individual knows, it collapsed due to a controlled demolition.

Then you are saying that all the structural engineers, demolition experts, experts in steel, fire, impact and macro-world physics in the world are "unaware". Because so far NOT ONE of them has come forward to support you in this statement. Maybe we shouldn't go in anything they've designed. Oh that's right ... you think they are ALL compromised. ROTFLOL!

If people want to publish their credentials, that's fine by me. I had decided I would either not publish at all, or not publish my personal details. Since I knew the material would interest some people, I chose to place it in the public domain.

But you know that without publishing your credentials you will not be credible. Especially when you misstate facts like you have in this thread. But it's probably a wise decision on your part. We wouldn't want you to lose your job. Just hope it has nothing to do with structures, demolition, steel, fire, impact, seismology or macro-world physics. ROTFLOL!

"But you will eventually have to explain to me how whatever you think caused the hole managed to cause a hole that big and with such a shape."

I don't need to explain every last detail of what happened.

Every last detail? So you think explaining the gross size and shape of the Pentagon hole is a "last detail"? I bet a bunch of readers laughed at that. ROTFLOL!

Even if Flight 77 had hit the Pentagon

If that's the case, then many of your experts are wrong about the simplest aspect of the matter. That being the case, how can they be trusted about anything else they claim?

The Pentagon hit was the relatively minor psy-op that Bushco were tricked into pulling off in order that Israel could orchestrate a multi-hundred-billion-dollar operation involving the mass murder of nearly a hundred times as many Americans as they killed in their 1967 attack on the USS Liberty.

It's hard to obey Goldi's edict against calling you a certain label. ROTFLOL!

Actually, the plane didn't have to pull high G's (this is conspiracy site fodder) and it actually would have been difficult to set down a Boeing 757 flying a few feet above the surface. It would have a natural tendency to want to stay airborne.

It doesn't detract from the fact that many experts and pundits agree that this would have been an extraordinarily complex maneuver for a novice pilot whose skills were poorly rated.

So after trying to lie about the maneuver, you simply walk away with "it doesn't detract"? ROTFLOL!

If we take this analysis of the flight path by Steve Koeppel, the radius of the minor axis can be seen to be about 1.59 miles or 2560 meters. He assumes only 275 knots ~ 316 mph ~ 141 m/s for the airspeed; the impact velocity was said to be over 500 mph and a higher speed should be assumed for the final approach. At 500 mph or 223 m/s, the centripetal acceleration has a magnitude of v^2/r which is 19.42 m/s^2 = 1.98g. So Hanjour would have experienced a force of nearly 2g pulling him over to the left as he was fighting to line the nose up with the Pentagon.

Aren't you amazed that so few pilots and aeronautical engineers have raised their hands and said you and Mr Koeppel are right? Aren't you amazed at the number of other pilots, navigators and aeronautical engineers who must know he is right and are remaining silent? They must ALL be traitors, right? Afterall, this is so OBVIOUS. Well, as Mr Koeppel said "Of course, this is all speculation, not facts." ROTFLOL!

and why was there no physical evidence of a Boeing 757 at the crash scene?

Another LIE. There was plenty of physical evidence that a Boeing 757 at the crash scene. Near the end of the this videoclip, you will find images of aircraft parts they found at the crash site.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=21568_The_Pentagon_Attack_Simulation&only

And here are some links that go into why what was found was indeed from a 757 and not something else.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml

http://www.911-strike.com/engines.htm "The plane debris observed in the various photographs does indeed comport with that of a 757, at least to the limited degree with which they can be compared to actual 757 parts or the manufacturer's detail drawings, as shown above. The engine compressor or turbine disk appears to be approximately the correct diameter to have been used in a Rolls Royce RB211-535E4B engine, as used in American Airlines 757 aircraft. The fragment of the high pressure combustor casing also comports with the string of fuel inlet nozzle holes, the mounting bosses of which have the correct number of screw holes (6). The combustor is definitely not from a Pratt and Whitney PW2037, which is the other make of 757 engine used in the airline industry, nor is it from a General Electric CF6-80C2. ... snip ... With regards to the missile theory: The engine parts might comport with the Rolls-Royce turbofan engine in a British Harrier jump-jet, but probably not with a Global Hawk or other missile. The wheel and landing gear parts do not look like they came from a fighter plane or missile. After a diligent search, we have been unable to find any photographs of parts which are clearly from a fighter jet or missile, rather than from a Boeing 757."

************

http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/turbofans.html

"Proponents of theories that no 757 crashed into the Pentagon have cited the alleged incompatibility of engine debris at the site with the types of engines in Boeing 757s. Two of the more common arguments are:

* Only one engine was found at the crash site, whereas a 757 has two engines.
* The diameter of the engine parts in the wreckage are only about half the diameter of a 757 engine.

Both of these arguments are fallacious. ... snip ... The idea that the engine parts photographed at the crash site were too small to be from an engine found on a 757 is based on a failure to appreciate that different parts of a modern high-bypass turbofan engine differ dramatically in diameter. The fallacy is illustrated by a passage in one of the more popular articles purporting to prove that no 757 crashed into the Pentagon: The Missing Wings. ... snip ... Contrary to the article's implication, the high-pressure rotor in the upper right photograph is in fact the diameter of such parts from a 757 engine."

************

From http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJudge/PAandAAF77.html

"The Pentagon Attack and American Airlines Flight 77, by John Judge ,researcher and founder for 9/11 CitizensWatch ,21 February 2004"

... snip ...

As it turned out, my friend had not been on Flight 77, having taken the day off work to care for her sick father, and to my relief she had survived. She had lost her entire regular crew, both pilots and all the attendants, including her best friend at work. She was immediately invited in to a series of briefings and grief counseling sessions by both the airline and the Pentagon.

... snip ...

When questions arose about Flight 77, I contacted her to raise the issues that concerned me and the speculations of others who denied the plane hit the Pentagon. She was adamant in saying it had, and told me she had been to the crash site and had seen parts of the plane.

... snip ...

I have spoken to dozens of other witnesses to the event, and to others who know the reports. Wayne Madsen, a respected local journalist, spoke to a camera person at WJLA-TV 7 who had been driving to the Pentagon on instructions from his office, expecting a public statement from authorities there in response to the events in New York City. Shortly after the crash he saw a woman standing by the road at the edge of the Pentagon, next to her car, and apparently in shock. He stopped to help her and found she could not speak. But she pointed him to the far side of her car. The passenger side had been sheared off in part and sections of the landing gear from the plane were on the ground nearby. Others I have spoken to, including pilots, either saw the crash happen and identified the plane, or saw parts of the plane in the wreckage days afterwards.

At the funeral service on September 20th in Annapolis for Charles Burlingame, the pilot of AA Flight 77, my friend was approached by another flight attendant to assist in support work for the rescue crews at the site. This work was being organized by the Salvation Army. The Pentagon was seeking people with security clearances that they could trust to be near the site and all the airline attendants qualified for that level of clearance. The shifts ran from 10 am to 10 pm, and then for the next twelve hours. She and her mother signed up for an overnight shift on Friday, September 21st.

At the end of her shift on Saturday morning, September 22nd, she was approached along with other attendants to visit the crash site. One declined, but she and two others took a van driven by the Salvation Army to the area. They were forced to wait almost 45 minutes at a safety fence around the area before being admitted into the area of destruction. As they waited, members of a psychological support group talked to them about their feelings. She will never forget what she saw there.

The area was covered with rescue equipment, fire trucks, small carts, and ambulances. They were still hoping to find survivors. Small jeeps with wagons attached were being used to transport workers and others at the site. One flight attendant was driving one of these around the site. Once inside the fence, she was unable to clearly discern where the original wall had been. There was just a gaping hole. She got off the van and walked inside the crash site. The other attendants broke down crying once they were inside. But my friend went in further than the others and kept her emotions in check as she has been trained to do and usually does in emergency situations.

She saw parts of the fuselage of an American Airlines plane, a Boeing 757 plane. She identified the charred wreckage in several ways. She recognized the polished aluminum outer shell, an unpainted silver color that is unique to American Airline planes, and the red and blue trim that is used to decorate the fuselage. She saw parts of the inside of the plane, which she easily identified since she flew and worked in them for years. Upholstery, drapes and carpeting she could identify by both color and design. The soft carpeting and padding of the inner walls had a cloud design and color she recognized from American Airline planes, though it has since been replaced. The blue coloring of drapes and carpet were also specific to the 757 or 767 larger planes, and were not used on the smaller planes. Seating upholstery also matched the AA 757 planes, including the blue color, tan squares and hints of white.

She saw other parts of the plane and engine parts at a distance but they were familiar to her. She did not see any galley supplies, which she would have recognized as well, nor any jump seats. All the parts were charred but colors were still visible. She also saw charred human bones but not any flesh or full body parts.

One area of fuselage had remaining window sections and the shape of the windows, curved squares not ovals, was also distinct to the 757's she had flown. She also saw parts with the A/A logo, including parts of the tail of the plane. Smaller A/A logos and "American" logos are also on the planes and she saw parts of those. One website shows pictures of wreckage inside the building, including sections of the fuselage with bright lime and yellow coloring, which is distinctive to Boeing parts. My friend confirmed this, having visited a Boeing plant where she saw the bright colors on the production line marking the inside of fuselage parts. She did not notice this coloring at the site, but the photos show it in some pieces of the plane.

She spent approximately 15 minutes in the crash area looking at parts of the wreckage, all of which she recognized as coming from a Boeing 757 American Airline plane, the same planes she flew regularly. She did not see any rubber, only metal pieces of fuselage, engine parts and sections of the inside of the plane.

... snip ...

The crew of Flight 77 who died in the crash included her personal friend Renee May. She had spoken to Renee's mother after the crash, and Renee had used a cell phone to call her mother during the hijacking. Her mother noted specific phone numbers to call American Airlines operations to report a hijacking. "There are six of them," Renee had told her, one more than in the official version.

... snip ...

Cell phone calls made from the planes that day have become an area of contention as well. However, my friend told me that attendants regularly hear cell phones ringing during flights, despite the prohibition. In fact, the airlines are now ending the restriction while on the ground, having discovered that these devices do not actually interfere with communications or functions aboard the plane before take off. Some cell phones do not work as well as others at high altitudes and speeds, but major carriers have multiple towers and the calls do not even roam in connection. Other people I know have tested Verizon and other cell phones crossing the country and found them to work normally. In addition, many of the calls made that day were to family members who clearly recognized their relatives' voices.

... snip ...

My friend is therefore a credible and very knowledgeable eyewitness to the fact that American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. She has been vilified by those who refuse to believe the obvious, as have the many witnesses to the event. We lack clear footage of the event, some of which was confiscated by the FBI, or pictures showing all the wreckage and plane parts. Working from a few un-timed photographs, others have speculated that not only did AA77 not hit the Pentagon, but that a cruise missile or smaller plane did.

My friend is herself a researcher for many years into government misdeeds and cover-ups. If she did not see the parts, she would say so. She has no reason to lie about it. Nor is she confused about what she saw. She is a professional and is used to looking at evidence. Families of victims and others who work at the airlines, as well as many witnesses I have spoken to, are offended and shocked by these unfounded speculations. Those willing to do a modicum of investigative work here in DC will be quickly disabused of this disinformation. For a more thorough presentation of the range of witness testimonies, and linking sites, see the work on Flight 77 and the Pentagon attack by Penny Schoner at www.ratical.org.

My attendant friend knows and has put me in touch with other American Airline employees and pilots who were at the site and took photographs. We are busy locating these, as well as another attendant who was at the site with her that day. 9/11 CitizensWatch has also been pushing for public release of all photographic evidence relating to the Pentagon attack from federal agencies and other sources and plans to file a Freedom of Information request to get records from all federal agencies that might hold them.

*******************

As above, your interpretation of the data leads you to see things that are not there.

One can only laugh at a statement like that coming from someone who has claimed the things you have on this thread. ROTFLOL!

Clearly FALSE. No way they'd put a 100 frame per second camera in a security camera at that location. A slow frame rate is common in security cameras because they are mostly interested in scene changes, vehicles. and people. Also, fit a whole day's surveilance on a video tape requires a slow frame rate. In fact, the frame rate was actually reported to be less than 2 frames per second. Anyone who claims it was a hundred just got it wrong.

There were reports of 100 fps circulating in 2004 when I wrote that.

The reports were false. The imagination of folks like you who think they know about subjects they don't have a clue about.

An analysis of the latest video release showed that it had been heavily manipulated.

... by Mark Sugrue and Russell Pickering. Oh yes ... the two involved in Loose Change.

This would be the Mark Sugrue who posted on ebay that "I will buy 10 copies of "Loose Change 2nd Edition" and distribute them for free to people who need to know. but only if 100 other people will too." He a big supporter of the "Loose Change" video. But do you know that no structural engineers, demolitions experts, or any other relevant professionals have supported the claims put forth in that video?

And you know, don't you, that Mark still thinks the towers came down at nearly free fall speed? And you thought this guy was good at video interpretation. Why even I can see the towers didn't fall at free fall speed in the videos that are available. ROTFLOL!

And Russell Pickering? Even Hollywood couldn't make up such drama ... http://www.erichufschmid.net/SamDannerResponds3Aug2006.html. Unlike Sugrue, Pickering can't even claim expertise in video imagery. He was working as a fire fighter before 9/11.

"Wait? Are you claiming after all that no hole was made in the Pentagon by the wings? Yes? No?"

No, the wings would not necessarily have made a hole.

Let me start by rephrasing the question. Do you think there was hole in the Pentagon more than 90 feet wide? Yes or no?

BeAChooser  posted on  2006-10-01   1:30:16 ET  Reply   Trace  


#103. To: BeAChooser (#102)

Your answer has nothing to do with YOUR claim there were molten pools of steel in the basements of the towers. Why don't you tell us what your sources are for your molten pools of steel in the basement claim? Hmmmmmmmmm?

It is you who has been caught lying to make your argument. If you read my original post you will see that I never said there were "pools" of molten steel in the basement. Peter Tully was one of literally dozens who actually saw molten steel. Mark Loizeaux reported molten steel at the bottom of the towers' elevator shafts, down seven basement levels at 70 feet below the surface. He had not directly seen this but was relaying information provided to him by contractors.

Another compilation of molten steel reports that is well worth considering was posted to the George Washington blog and a Physics and Technology forum:

WHY was there Molten Metal Under Ground Zero for Months after 9/11?

Molten metal flowed underneath ground zero for months after the Twin Towers collapsed:

An employee of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue witnessed "Fires burning and molten steel flowing in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet."

http://www.sas.upenn.edu/sasalum/newsltr/summer2002/k911.html

The head of a team of scientists studying the potential health effects of 9/11, reported, "Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel."

http://www.jhsph.edu/Publications/Special/Welch.htm

A public health advisor who arrived at Ground Zero on September 12, said that "feeling the heat" and "seeing the molten steel" there reminded him of a volcano.

http://www.neha.org/9-11%20report/index-The.html

New York firefighters recalled in a documentary film, "heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel."

http://www.nypost.com/movies/19574.htm

According to a worker involved with the organizing of demolition, excavation and debris removal operations at ground zero, "Underground it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from Building 6."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/congress/9-11_commission/

An expert stated about World Trade Center building 7, "A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been PARTLY EVAPORATED in extraordinarily high temperatures" (pay-per-view).

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html? res=F10812FF3F590C7A8EDDA80994D9404482

Note that evaporation means conversion from a liquid to a gas; so the steel beams in building 7 were subjected to temperatures high enough to melt and evaporate them.

http://www.answers.com/evaporation&r=67

A reporter with rare access to the debris at ground zero "descended deep below street level to areas where underground fires still burned and steel flowed in molten streams."

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/07/77nwash.htm

The same journalist also refers to "the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole." (pages 31-32)

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0002E5QKI/qid=1133995198/sr=1- 5/ref=sr_1_5/104-4327082-0495169?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

An engineer stated in the September 3, 2002 issue of The Structural Engineer, "They showed us many fascinating slides ranging from molten metal, which was still red hot weeks after the event."

http://web.archive.org/web/20030422113455/http://www.istructe.org.uk/about/files /president/Tour-2002-NewYork.pdf

An Occupational Safety and Health Administration Officer at the Trade Center reported a fire truck 10 feet below the ground that was still burning two weeks after the Tower collapsed, "its metal so hot that it looked like a vat of molten steel."

http://www.thenewliberator.com/wethepeople.htm

The structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC, described fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 days after the attacks.

http://www.seau.org/SEAUNews-2001-10.pdf

According to a member of New York Air National Guard's 109th Air Wing, who was at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6, "One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers' remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots."

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3731/is_200112/ai_n9015802

A fireman stated that there were "oven" like conditions at the trade centers six weeks after 9/11.

http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video% 20archive/red_hot_ground_zero_low_quality.wmv

Firemen and hazardous materials experts also stated that, six weeks after 9/11, "There are pieces of steel being pulled out [from as far as six stories underground] that are still cherry red" and "the blaze is so 'far beyond a normal fire' that it is nearly impossible to draw conclusions about it based on other fires." (pay-per-view)

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/nydailynews/access/87451160.html? did=87451160&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&dids=87451160:87451160:&date=Nov+1% 2C+2001&author=GREG+GITTRICH+DAILY+NEWS+STAFF+WRITER&pub=New+York+Daily+News&des c=FIRE+MAY+SMOLDER+FOR+MONTHS

A NY Department of Sanitation spokeswoman said "for about two and a half months after the attacks, in addition to its regular duties, NYDS played a major role in debris removal - everything from molten steel beams to human remains...."

http://wasteage.com/mag/waste_dday_ny_sanitation/

As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O'Toole saw a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, "was dripping from the molten steel."

http://www.fallenbrothers.com/community/showthread.php?p=2948#post2948

Indeed, the trade center fire was "the longest-burning structural fire in history",

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1634

even though it rained heavily on September 14, 2001

http://www.courttv.com/assault_on_america/0914_rain_ap.html

and again on September 21, 2001,

http://www.wnbc.com/news/962722/detail.html

and the fires were sprayed with high tech fire-retardands,

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1634

and "firetrucks [sprayed] a nearly constant jet of water on" ground zero."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/12/19/archive/main321907.shtml

Indeed, "You couldn't even begin to imagine how much water was pumped in there," said Tom Manley of the Uniformed Firefighters Association, the largest fire department union. "It was like you were creating a giant lake."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/12/19/archive/main321907.shtml

Note the New York Post, in its review of a documentary, writes of firefighters who "encountered rivers of molten steel". The New York Times has an interesting statement from Dr. Jonathan Barnett, a professor of fire protection engineering. He says that a combination of an uncontrollable fire and structural damage "would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures". The Times article also reports that "experts" said buildings the size of WTC 7 that are treated with a layer of fireproofing have never collapsed in a fire of any duration.

Maybe the firefighters, contractors, Tully, Loizeaux, Bollyn, New York Post, New York Times, fire protection professor, engineers etc are all part of a "Muslim conspiracy". LOL!

Frank A DeMartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, said in a January 2001 interview that he believed the building was sufficiently resilient to sustain multiple impacts by jetliners. Each would be just like a pencil puncturing netting.

Lee Robertson, the lead structural engineer who designed the WTC towers, said that he designed it for a fully-loaded 707 to hit it.” This Boeing 707 vs 767 comparison includes links to Boeing's specifications pages. Moreover, the 767s which allegedly hit the Towers were lighter than a 707. It is generally agreed that they were only carrying about 10,000 gallons of fuel on impact. The operational empty weight of a Boeing 767-200ER is a little over 80 tonnes. If we suppose 100 kg apiece for 81 passengers and their baggage, the total is 90 tonnes plus the fuel at 3.1 kg/gal or 31 tonnes, for a total of 121,000 kg or 266,757 lb - well short of the 336,000 lb maximum take-off weight of the 707.

Aaron Swirski, another architect, said that the WTC was designed to survive that kind of attack.

There were a few experts who jumped the gun before they knew the facts and suggested the jet fuel had melted steel. Later they said they spoke without thinking things through carefully enough.

The mainstream media tried to milk the "melted steel" claims for all they were worth. You can bet they would have persisted with these stories for just as long as they thought they could get away with them.

Not ONE expert in fire or steel today says the jet fuel fires melted the steel.

I'm very pleased to hear it.

Name these "fire protection" engineers.

The fire protection engineering professor I mentioned above pointed out quite rightly that the fires of WTC 7 could not have explained the partly evaporated steel members in the WTC 7 pile. The Scholars for 9/11 Truth members list shows that it is a broad church that includes all professions I mentioned. If a Scholars for 9/11 Lies was formed that included the same comprehensive spectrum of occupations, it would add a modicum of credibility to the pro-Bush/Democrat school who support what is essentially a religious tale.

WTC 7 was supposed to be hit by UA 93. This is a new one. Anything to actually support this assertion? No? ROTFLOL!

It is the most rational hypothesis, given the facts. So far, I have not heard a better theory.

Gordon's paper is filled with flaws.

Here's an example. He states "Examination of the video evidence shows that the antennae began to move downwards a fraction of a second before the roof line. This can only be achieved through a downward movement of the core to which it was directly connected. The early movement of the antennae in WTC1 when regarded in relation to the roof line shows that it was the movement of the upper core structure acting on the perimeter columns through the floors, which was driving the collapse in the early stages, and not vice versa." He must have missed this statement by NIST: "Photographic and videographic records were reviewed to identify structurally-related events. Where possible, all four faces of a building were examined for a given event or time period to provide complete understanding of the building response. Observations from a single vantage point can be misleading and may result in incorrect interpretation of events. For instance, 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."

I and many others don't buy NIST's 'explanation' of a tilting illusion. Yes, the antenna did tip slightly to the south and then to the east. But the apparent foreshortening relates to the angle according to a sinusoidal law. You need quite a high tilt angle to produce an appreciable 'downward motion'. At 10 degrees tilt, the antenna would still appear to be cos (10 degrees) = 0.9848 of its 'original' length. So a point twenty feet above the roofline, for example, would only appear to 'descend' by 3.6 inches. And the early FEMA studies concluded, from video evidence (taken from the north) that the core failed first. So has one of your experts made a mistake, or have you disqualified FEMA from your select group?

Greening's work has been debunked, e.g. see here:

http://www.irishantiwar.org/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl? msg_id=0003F0&topic_id=1&topic=Irish%20Anti-War

Excerpts:

here is GQ's debunk of greening. i sent this to professor jones to review:

Basically he came to the conclusion that Greening used an erroneous and exaggerated value for overall mass which of course falsifies the results of his conclusions.

Funny thing is when we approached Greening with this on email he replied and didn't deny it! He said he got his figures for mass from Eager, Bazant & Kausel and admitted that he doesn't know if they are correct! Go figure.

[...] Considering Greening's results are already skewed we know that the energy calculated is not sufficient to support the gravitational collapse of the towers.

So everything you KNOW you got from a project status briefing given at an advisory meeting on the topic of Mechanical and Metallurgical Analysis of Structural Steel in 2004? While ignoring all the official and final documents by NIST on the topic of the fires and structural behavior?

I referred to many documents from NIST and FEMA and other sources. I was interested in the factual information, e.g. about the WTC specifications. Anyone can adjust some computer model to get the results they want - or have been ordered to arrive at. My research was to be independent of others and based on first principles, so in my model I did not take NIST's conclusions on gas temperatures into account. Wow! You agree with an expert in WATER TREATMENT. Big Deal. Here are the facts. They tested only a few samples from a few locations. Then only could test the samples that still had paint on them. The tests were limited in the maximum temperatures they could tell had occurred. It is a bald faced LIE to claim that 99.9 percent of the steel didn't reach a critical temperature.

It is not a lie, it is the facts. Even 2% of the floor area over 4 floors is only 0.02 * 4 / 110 = 0.073% or 99.927%. Kevin Ryan wrote a good piece about 9/11, saying that rather than a chemistry or engineering problem, it is best to approach initially through statistics. You have to decide how likely you think it is that all of the fireproofing would have fallen off in just the right places. Psychology would then explain why folk have a dependency on this highly improbable story.

How much of the steel do you think reached critical temperature?

It is a bald faced LIE to claim that Gayle was even speaking to the issue of the maximum temperatures seen in the structure or by all steel in the structure. It also misleading because most of the steel in the towers at the impact level did not have to reach a critical temperature for collapse to occur.

But the amount that could reach critical temperature was much too low to initiate collapse. Before impact, the core columns had demand : capacity ratios of 0.4 to 0.5; the perimeter columns were 0.17 to 0.2. After impact, additional load was transferred to other members, particularly on the side of the impact. Many perimeter columns still had the same low load of only 17% of capacity; just two of them were close to their limit. The core columns ranged from 0.4 to 0.77 of capacity.

Most core columns were aligned with a flange facing the incoming debris, so the inner webs and other flange were effectively shielded. The first row of core columns were the heaviest grade, up to about W14x257 in WTC 1. Towards the center of the core, column 704 was probably the weakest, and also had the web aligned east - west. If this column had failed, load could successfully be redistributed. In general, the core columns were sufficiently massive and would have had enough intact fireproofing, that they would not have failed.

The most heavily stressed perimeter columns were on the side of the impact, but their fireproofing, being on the inside, was on the wrong side to be critically affected by debris. Some of the trusses, especially the bottom chord, would have lost much of the fireproofing. But the vulnerable area would have covered less than 20 x 20 feet, and partial floor collapse on two or three floors would have made little difference anyway.

WTC 7 was not hit by a plane, had the original demand : capacity ratios, and had intact Monokote fireproofing. In order for collapse to occur here, just about all the steel on one or more floors would have had to have reached critical temperature. It would not have happened, without the criminality of the Rothschild/Bronfman Mafia.

You seem to be admitting that you haven't read the main NIST reports. ROTFLOL!

I used whatever information I needed for my analysis.

Then answer the question.

I'll bet you would love to be doing interrogations at Guantanamo. "Answer the question! What? You lying Aye-rab!" "Gurgle... I'm dr-drowning. Arrgh!" LOL!

A judge would tell you that your convoluted answer was nonresponsive.

It is amusing to see the hoops NIST and others have to jump through in an attempt to explain the official account.

How exactly did you arrive at the 1% figure. Pull it out of thin air? And why do you ignorantly assume that if if all the fireproofing in a particular region of the impacted floors is removed, this isn't a problem?

If the size of the region is too low, the probability of it having any effect becomes very low. Suppose the plane took out a concrete section about 17 feet wide extending 40 feet into the building. If the trusses' fireproofing was destroyed for a further 14 feet, taking it to within a few feet of the core, the trusses in this area would easily reach critical temperatures. But it's less than 0.6% of the total floor area. The trusses on the other three sides are okay, and so are most trusses on the impact side. Almost all other members are protected or too massive to reach critical temperatures. The fires are just not going to make much difference. A partial collapse of an additional section of floor on one or two floors would have been extremely unlikely to tip the balance between survival and collapse, to say the least. The probability of fire-induced collapse in both WTC 1 and 2 is very, very low. As for WTC 7, its collapse (along with the molten steel!) proves skullduggery, and helps to identify the perpetrators.

The Blaze-Shield would not have been "blown" off the trusses.

You haven't read the NIST reports, have you. You do realize that it wasn't just overpressure that knocked off the fireproofing. No? ROTFLOL!

Of course there was more than overpressure to contend with, otherwise I would have arrived at a figure of 0% not 1%!

Here ... you might want to factor this info into your study ... http://www.nistreview.org/_media/documents/NIST/appendixi.pdf "Interim Report on Assessment of Sprayed Fireproofing in the WTC Towers-Methodology" ... for when you publish your results in a credible peer reviewed journal. Pay particular attention to Section I.5 Response To Impact.

Then you might want to search out what the result of the study they mention in Section I.5 was. You can find it here: http://www.nistreview.org/_media/documents/NIST/final/NISTNCSTAR1-2.pdf and here: http://www.nistreview.org/_media/documents/NIST/final/NISTNCSTAR1-6.pdf. Particularly the last report. ROTFLOL!

Most of my research was on WTC 1. WTC 2 would have had slightly more fireproofing dislodged, but this was countered by the shorter time available for heat absorption. As for WTC 7, the fire-collapse theory is absurd. I am not surprised that NIST have concluded "at least over a third to a half of the core width" (averages at about 58 feet or 28% of the building width). They had to come up with the required results. I would agree that over this 28% area, there would have been some damage to pieces of fireproofing, but dispute that it would be sufficiently severe and thorough to allow critical steel temperatures. At the center of the impact zone, some 0.6% of the area, there would have been severe fireproofing damage, and potentially critical temperatures. But the overall effect would be closer to taking off 1% of the fireproofing rather than 28%.

The truss-initiated collapse theory requires total collapse and removal of at least five floors GARBAGE. You don't understand the collapse theory.

And you do?

Then perhaps the steel portions of the Windsor Tower in Madrid shouldn't have collapsed. ROTFLOL!

I'm surprised you even have the audacity to mention the Windsor Tower. A far more intense fire than any at the WTC, persisting for 26 hours over multiple floors, and there was no global collapse with tale-tell molten steel found in the heap. ROTFLOL!

So we have all the experts agreeing that the jet fuel fires could not have "melted the steel", and this in a compartment fire where the air flow rate was probably 2,000 to 25,000 cfs. At the same time, it is not disputed that molten steel was found in the debris heap, with the steel smothered by materials such as pulverized concrete, and with many gallons of water sprayed on to the ruins. If a one-foot square chimney had formed with air rising through it at, say, 10 mph or about 15 fps, the rate is 15 cfs or over a hundred times less than a single WTC floor. The rational explanation is that an accelerant was used to ensure the collapses, accounting for the molten steel.

The official conspiracy theorists' problem is that they started with the wrong hypothesis, and consequently have been forced to tack on ad hoc postulates in lackluster attempts to make their theory work. "The sprinklers were severed!" "Much of the fireproofing was knocked off!" "The fires were very intense!" "The impact damage was very severe!" Then the pesky molten steel compels them to carry on with the fruit loop: "It was the gravitational energy that did it. Well, it sounds good; let's just hope no one knows what it means." When that fails, they try other ruses such as 'burning iron' or 'a primordial soup of various elements and compounds that just might react'. "What if they spot the fact that the air flow rate when the towers were standing was much higher, but even then it didn't melt the steel?" "Don't worry, we can call them crackpots or something."

Believers in the official theory have to rely on hundreds of improbable coincidences and other events of dubious possibility. In total, the probability of their version of events being true is, at best, vanishingly small.

We lack clear footage of the event, some of which was confiscated by the FBI, or pictures showing all the wreckage and plane parts. Working from a few un-timed photographs, others have speculated that not only did AA77 not hit the Pentagon, but that a cruise missile or smaller plane did.

The most likely scenario is that a large plane hit the Pentagon. There was no Flight 77 that day; it was unscheduled. The last time it was cancelled was Wednesday September 5, 2001, and before that on Saturday August 18. Hanjour did not have the skills to fly a 757. Just as the criminals had to ensure the towers came down, for a crime of this magnitude it would be crazy to gamble that Hanjour would be capable of flying six feet above the ground without scraping the lawn. The FBI daren't show the videos since that would disprove the official story.

There are disinfo agents in the 9/11 truth movement: some claim that the Apollo moon landings were a "hoax", some say that billions of dollars' worth of gold (10,000 tons!) was stolen from beneath the WTC towers just before they collapsed, and some claim no planes hit the towers. Their hypothesis is that cleverly placed charges resulted in the entry holes matching the outline of a Boeing 767. This brings to mind a possible theory on how a no-planer's brain is assembled: Take a few ounces of sawdust and disperse in the form of a circle. Get an expert demolition team to place charges so as to shoot the sawdust into a tiny little space. LOL!

And Russell Pickering? Even Hollywood couldn't make up such drama ... http://www.erichufschmid.net/SamDannerResponds3Aug2006.html. Unlike Sugrue, Pickering can't even claim expertise in video imagery. He was working as a fire fighter before 9/11.

Sam Danner was exposed by his son as an attention-seeker who liked to tell tales (he should have been a politician!). The Danner 'Global Hawk' hoax was a disinfo operation - a desperate attempt to discredit 9/11 skeptics, as evidence of the Zionist Mafia's crimes continues to mount up.

Let me start by rephrasing the question. Do you think there was hole in the Pentagon more than 90 feet wide? Yes or no?

If you mean before the collapse, I would say probably not. NIST are claiming up to 120 feet; I wouldn't rule this out.

Poseidon  posted on  2006-10-02   21:25:51 ET  Reply   Trace  


#104. To: Poseidon, honway, ALL (#103)

"Your answer has nothing to do with YOUR claim there were molten pools of steel in the basements of the towers. Why don't you tell us what your sources are for your molten pools of steel in the basement claim? Hmmmmmmmmm?"

It is you who has been caught lying to make your argument. If you read my original post you will see that I never said there were "pools" of molten steel in the basement.

You wrote that it is was "verifiable empirical fact" that "molten steel was found at the basement levels in the ruins of World Trade Center buildings 1, 2 and 7." You reference a Christopher Bollyn article which states that "Tully told AFP that he had seen pools of 'literally molten steel' in the rubble."

Don't try to tell us you weren't claiming there were pools of molten steel in the basements of the towers.

Peter Tully was one of literally dozens who actually saw molten steel. Mark Loizeaux reported molten steel at the bottom of the towers' elevator shafts, down seven basement levels at 70 feet below the surface. He had not directly seen this but was relaying information provided to him by contractors.

First, I challenge you to come up with "dozens" who actually saw molten steel. Honway tried and he never approached a dozen citations. And only some reports were actually first hand accounts and NONE used the word "pool" to describe what they saw. Furthermore, there are only a few images that MIGHT be labeled molten steel in the rubble. Isn't it amazing that something as remarkable and supposedly ubiquitous as this was so poorly documented? Please understand that I'm not saying there wasn't molten steel in the rubble but not as described by you as "verifiable empirical fact".

Your problem is that no source other than Christopher Bollyn makes this claim as to what Tully or Loizeaux said. And Bollyn demonstrably LIED in the article where he first made this claim: http://www.rense.com/general60/seis.htm. He LIED when he claimed the seismic record shows "spikes" BEFORE the collapse began. It does not. NO seismologist anywhere has used the word "spike" to describe the waveform at the WTC. In fact, NO seismologist has indicated there was anything suspicious about the waveform, especially right before the collapse began. This is simply a fabrication by Bollyn. You can go read everything the seismologists at Columbia's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory have written or said, and you will NOT find ANY mention of what Bollyn claims. NONE. He is a LIAR.

As further proof of this, I offer this 5mb Windows Media Player video of a speech that was presented by Christopher Bollyn to a 9-11 conspiracy meeting on 23 Oct 2004z: http://www.EricHufschmid.net/ForBollynsSpeech23Oct2004.wmv. In it, Bollyn claims there was no hole in the outside of the Pentagon large enough for Flight 77. That's another outright LIE as I've proven over and over here at LP by posting photos of the hole and damage to the face. He lies about the quantity of debris on the lawn. He lies about the engine. In fact, he shows he doesn't even know what part of the engine was found. He thinks the part found showed the outside diameter of the engine. If he'd done even a little honest research, he'd know that wasn't the case and that the part is totally consistent with a 757 engine. He further speculates that a DU tipped missile did the damage at the pentagon and DU was involved in the WTC crashes too. The man is a K**K and a LIAR. And you are a FOOL if you trust anything he claims.

And, finally, do you know that honway discovered this letter from Loizeaux?

****************

294. To: All (#293)

Mr. Bryan:

I didn't personally see molten steel at the World Trade Center site. It was reported to me by contractors we had been working with. Molten steel was encountered primarily during excavation of debris around the South Tower when large hydraulic excavators were digging trenches 2 to 4 meters deep into the compacted/burning debris pile. There are both video tape and still photos of the molten steel being "dipped" out by the buckets of excavators. I'm not sure where you can get a copy.

Sorry I cannot provide personal confirmation.

Regards,

Mark Loizeaux, President CONTROLLED DEMOLITION, INC.

honway posted on 2004-08-16 13:05:15 ET

***************

Notice where he said the molten steel was primarily found? Tell us why it would primarily be found around the South Tower near the surface of the rubble pile if your and Jones' theory about thermite in BOTH towers is correct?

Another compilation of molten steel reports that is well worth considering was posted to the George Washington blog and a Physics and Technology forum:

WHY was there Molten Metal Under Ground Zero for Months after 9/11?

Again, NONE of those describe "pools" of the stuff.

The head of a team of scientists studying the potential health effects of 9/11, reported, "Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel."

No one is denying that molten steel was found at the site.

A public health advisor who arrived at Ground Zero on September 12, said that "feeling the heat" and "seeing the molten steel" there reminded him of a volcano.

No one is denying it was very hot either.

A reporter with rare access to the debris at ground zero "descended deep below street level to areas where underground fires still burned and steel flowed in molten streams."

Wow! You'd think that if there was a government coverup underway, they wouldn't have granted a reporter (Langewiesche), as he described it, "unfettered, round-the-clock physical access to the site; free access to supervisors and workers there; and access to the meetings of city officials, engineers, construction companies, and consultants." Or do you think he's part of the conspiracy? ROTFLOL!

The same journalist also refers to "the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole." (pages 31-32)

Did you notice in your link that according to the journalist a demolition expert named David Griffin volunteered his time at the WTC site? And I find nowhere on the internet an indication that this David Griffin (http://www.dhgriffin.com/utility/news/greensboroNR-2002-03-10.asp) thinks it was a controlled demolition. Yet, David R. Griffin, a PHILOSOPHER and THEOLOGIAN who is one of the most outspoken leaders of the *truth movement* and who was not at the site, insists it was. ROTFLOL!

An engineer stated in the September 3, 2002 issue of The Structural Engineer, "They showed us many fascinating slides ranging from molten metal, which was still red hot weeks after the event."

No one denies there was still red hot metal weeks after the event.

An Occupational Safety and Health Administration Officer at the Trade Center reported a fire truck 10 feet below the ground that was still burning two weeks after the Tower collapsed, "its metal so hot that it looked like a vat of molten steel."

A fire truck? One that at the surface when the towers collapse? Did they use thermite on it, too? ROTFLOL!

The structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC, described fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 days after the attacks.

Did this structural engineer mention bombs as being the cause? No? ROTFLOL!

And did you notice in the link that "the Structural Engineers Association of New York took upon the task of assisting in the search and rescue mission (and in the debris removal mission). Hundreds of New York structural engineers have volunteered to work in eight-hour shifts around the clock." So tell me, Poseiden, do you think these hundreds of structural engineers are all part of the conspiracy? Because NONE of the them have come forward to support your allegations. And they saw it all first hand.

Firemen and hazardous materials experts also stated that, six weeks after 9/11, "There are pieces of steel being pulled out [from as far as six stories underground] that are still cherry red" and "the blaze is so 'far beyond a normal fire' that it is nearly impossible to draw conclusions about it based on other fires." (pay-per-view)

Link didn't work. Never the less, no one is saying this wasn't an unusual fire. But then it did have an unusual cause. And there's a big difference between "cherry red" and "pools of molten steel". Right?

A NY Department of Sanitation spokeswoman said "for about two and a half months after the attacks, in addition to its regular duties, NYDS played a major role in debris removal - everything from molten steel beams to human remains...."

Any of these workers come forward to support your *truth movement* with claims that it was a controlled demolition? I mean there must be at least one democRAT amongst them.

As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O'Toole saw a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, "was dripping from the molten steel."

These same firemen also noted that there were good sources of oxygen flowing into the regions from underground, keeping the intense fires alive. And did any of these firefighters say they found one shred of physical evidence that bombs were used? With so many going off, don't you think at least a few traces of bombs (wires, detonators, whatever) might have survived? Firemen are really good at detecting arson. Have any come forward and stated "This was a controlled demolition"? No? So what's your theory, Poseidon ... that they are all involved in the coverup?

Indeed, the trade center fire was "the longest-burning structural fire in history",

This event had many firsts.

even though it rained heavily on September 14, 2001

and again on September 21, 2001,

and "firetrucks [sprayed] a nearly constant jet of water on" ground zero."

Indeed, "You couldn't even begin to imagine how much water was pumped in there," said Tom Manley of the Uniformed Firefighters Association, the largest fire department union. "It was like you were creating a giant lake."

If Dr Greening is right, water would only have made the fires burn hotter. Water and molten aluminum don't go together. As Greening noted (http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf):

"The nature and causes of molten aluminum-water explosions has been studied in some detail by P.D. Hess and K.J. Brondyke, who published their results in the April 1969 issue of the trade journal Metal Progress. ... snip ... A true “chemical” explosion involving exothermic reactions between molten aluminum, water and the lining of the pit or mold. Hess and Brondyke (H & K) describe these reactions as “catastrophic” since they invariably blow the container apart and are accompanied by a bright flash of light. H & K’s investigations revealed that these violent explosions occurred when coatings of lime, gypsum, rust, or a sludge of aluminum hydroxide where present. Using thermocouple measurements, H & K found that the temperature of the container rose by about 1500 degrees. H & K conclude that aluminum, striking the container, reacts with a metal oxide, M-O, and undergoes a so-called thermitereaction generating extreme heat."

Greening gives other sources to corroborate this. For example, http://astro.umsystem.edu/atm/ARCHIVES/OCT00/msg00433.html "“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!”

And that rubble was chock full of molten aluminum, concrete dust, rust, gypsum AND WATER. Isn't that correct?

and the fires were sprayed with high tech fire-retardands,

Not until later. Retardants are actually what eventually extinguished the fires.

The New York Times has an interesting statement from Dr. Jonathan Barnett, a professor of fire protection engineering. He says that a combination of an uncontrollable fire and structural damage "would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures".

But a eutectic reaction might. And the sort of temperatures created in the reactions that Greening described.

The Times article also reports that "experts" said buildings the size of WTC 7 that are treated with a layer of fireproofing have never collapsed in a fire of any duration.

But then none of those other structures was ever hit by a huge fast moving object knocking off the fireproof coatings before the fires broke out. Were they.

Frank A DeMartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, said in a January 2001 interview that he believed the building was sufficiently resilient to sustain multiple impacts by jetliners. Each would be just like a pencil puncturing netting.

First, Demartini was a construction manager (with a degree in ARCHITECTURE). Do you know what that means. He was NOT a structural engineer. There is a difference. In education. In expertise. In his statement, he completely overlooked the importance of velocity in the impact. The towers were NOT "designed" for a high speed impact as you folks want to imply.

Second, DeMartini was only 14 during the construction of the WTC towers. So I doubt he was all that familiar with their design or capability. On the other hand, Leslie Robertson was.

Lee Robertson, the lead structural engineer who designed the WTC towers, said that he designed it for a fully-loaded 707 to hit it.”

But again, not a high speed impact. And you apparently didn't read all the Lee Robertson has said on this topic. Let me help you ...

Here's the rest of what he said.

http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument "Reflections on the World Trade Center, Leslie E. Robertson, ... snip ... The lead structural engineer reflects on the rise and fall of the World Trade Center towers. ... snip ... The two towers were the first structures outside of the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707. It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark. To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires." ... snip ... Figure 3 shows the comparative energy of impact for the Mitchell bomber that hit the Empire State Building during World War II, a 707, and a 767. The energy contained in the fuel is shown in Figure 4. Considerations of larger aircraft are shown in Figures 5 and 6. The physical sizes of these aircraft are compared with the size of the floor plate of one of the towers in Figure 7. These charts demonstrate conclusively that we should not and cannot design buildings and structures to resist the impact of these aircraft. Instead, we must concentrate our efforts on keeping aircraft away from our tall buildings, sports stadiums, symbolic buildings, atomic plants, and other potential targets."

Here's the same article but with the figures showing that the energy of the 9/11 impacts was far more than the design impact.

Aaron Swirski, another architect, said that the WTC was designed to survive that kind of attack.

ROTFLOL! You are being dishonest again. He did not say it was designed for an impact at high velocity. In fact, he said the collapse may have been due to the size of the plane, bigger than the architects had ever planned for. And the towers did in fact survive the impact. In fact, NIST concluded that had there not been a subsequent fire, the towers probably would have remained standing (although how they would have been repaired is a big question mark).

Look, here's what another good article says about this claim of yours:

http://www.rit.edu/~smo5024/papers/wtc/ "it is amazing that the towers survived the initial impacts at all—even if they were designed to be hit by aircraft—considering the fact that the Boeing 767's involved in the terrorist attack were notably larger and traveling much faster than the 707 considered in the design of the World Trade Center. The 707 was assumed to be coming in for a landing when it would hit one of the skyscrapers (707's were the standard airliner at the time when the World Trade Center was built). This meant that the plane would be traveling at a low rate of speed—about 180 miles per hour—and have minimal fuel. On the other hand, the 767's were carrying enough fuel for transcontinental flights (about 10,000 gallons each) and were flying far faster. The airspeeds of the jets as they impacted the buildings were estimated at about 470 and 590 miles per hour, approximately 2.6 and 3.2 times faster than the 707 (FEMA 1.17). In addition, the 767 is about 25 percent larger than the 707, with a wingspan of 156 feet, a length of 159 feet, and a height of 53 feet (1.19). Considering the size and speed of the airplanes that crashed into the World Trade Center towers, it is remarkable that they stood at all."

"Not ONE expert in fire or steel today says the jet fuel fires melted the steel."

I'm very pleased to hear it.

No you are not. Because it makes you look foolish.

"Name these "fire protection" engineers."

The fire protection engineering professor I mentioned above pointed out quite rightly that the fires of WTC 7 could not have explained the partly evaporated steel members in the WTC 7 pile.

Oh ... so you were referring to this:

An expert stated about World Trade Center building 7, "A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been PARTLY EVAPORATED in extraordinarily high temperatures" (pay-per-view).

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html? res=F10812FF3F590C7A8EDDA80994D9404482

when you wrote "Scholars for 9/11 Truth are correctly pointing out that this molten steel is evidence of skullduggery. They include fire protection engineers,".

LIAR. By the way, the URL above doesn't work, the expert isn't named in what you quoted, and I'll bet you that the article doesn't say it is evidence of "skullduggery". And there is nothing to indicate that the expert quoted by the Times is a member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. I'll bet you he isn't.

The Scholars for 9/11 Truth members list shows that it is a broad church that includes all professions I mentioned.

Sure. It has a couple physicists who have done nothing else for 30 years but work on sub atomic particles and the micro structure of solar cells. And someone who claims to be an aeronautical engineer and pilot who doesn't know the dimensions of a 757. A mathematician who is probably still calculating PI. And software engineers who wouldn't know the difference between a joist and a gusset plate if you hit them on the head with one. And I'm still waiting to learn the name of this "explosive ordnance technician" you mentioned. ROTFLOL!

"WTC 7 was supposed to be hit by UA 93. This is a new one. Anything to actually support this assertion? No? ROTFLOL!"

It is the most rational hypothesis, given the facts. So far, I have not heard a better theory.

But where did you hear this theory. Or is this something you just made up? ROTFLOL!

I and many others don't buy NIST's 'explanation' of a tilting illusion.

Let me guess ... all of you are K**Ks.

You need quite a high tilt angle to produce an appreciable 'downward motion'. At 10 degrees tilt, the antenna would still appear to be cos (10 degrees) = 0.9848 of its 'original' length. So a point twenty feet above the roofline, for example, would only appear to 'descend' by 3.6 inches.

Is that so? You know it depends on where the observer is located, don't you? You know it depends on how wide the top of the roof is, don't you? You know how tall the antenna actually was, don't you? You know how much it actually tilted, don't you? I'm thinking you left a few parameters out of your analysis, sir. ROTFLOL!

And the early FEMA studies concluded, from video evidence (taken from the north) that the core failed first. So has one of your experts made a mistake,

It says quite clearly that they only based that on video evidence from the north. NIST did the right thing ... looked at ALL the evidence. "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."

The antenna was on the North Tower.

Now look at this video taken from the north-west side of the tower.

"http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/north_tower_collapse.mpeg

Note that the antenna tilts away from the observer the exact same amount as the corner of the tower closest to the camera tilts as the collapse begins. Even from this angle you can clearly see that the antenna is not collapsing into the structure before the tilting begins. Your claim is nothing but an optical illusion, and yes, FEMA blew it. It's FEMA ... right?

Greening's work has been debunked, e.g. see here:

http://www.irishantiwar.org/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl? msg_id=0003F0&topic_id=1&topic=Irish%20Anti-War

This supposed debunking pertained to something entirely different than Dr Greening's discussion of what happens when you mix aluminum, lime, rust, heat and water. You see, I don't trust Greening to analyze the collapse energy of the towers either because he is a CHEMIST. But I do think a chemist, especially one in the nuclear industry, might know a lot about chemistry of metals. More than ... say ... a sub-atomic particle physicist.

"So everything you KNOW you got from a project status briefing given at an advisory meeting on the topic of Mechanical and Metallurgical Analysis of Structural Steel in 2004? While ignoring all the official and final documents by NIST on the topic of the fires and structural behavior?"

I referred to many documents from NIST and FEMA and other sources.

Well there are now two possibilities. One is that you didn't bother to read the rest of what NIST has said and concluded about this. In which case you are now lying to cover for this. The other is that you did, in which case you were dishonestly portraying the facts when you described what NIST concluded. Either way you were lying.

Anyone can adjust some computer model to get the results they want - or have been ordered to arrive at.

Oh I forgot ... you think everyone's part of the conspiracy. ROTFLOL!

My research was to be independent of others and based on first principles,

ROTFLOL! You are such an Einstein. You should publish. Or you will perish.

"It is a bald faced LIE to claim that 99.9 percent of the steel didn't reach a critical temperature."

It is not a lie, it is the facts.

It IS a bald faced LIE. Congratulations, Poseidon, you've proven yourself repeatedly to be a liar ... in your very first thread on this forum.

Kevin Ryan wrote a good piece about 9/11, saying that rather than a chemistry or engineering problem, it is best to approach initially through statistics.

Kevin Ryan is foolish ... as he amply proved. Just like you, Kevin Ryan ignored the statement in the NIST reports that the paint deformation and spheroidization tests were only able to reliably measure temperatures to about 250 C. Just like you, Ryan missed the fact that the temperatures measured in those steel samples were CONSISTENT with what NIST fire codes indicated the maximum temperatures were at those locations. Those tests actually VALIDATE the fire code models. And now you want us to believe he's an Einstein in statistics too? ROTFLOL!

But the amount that could reach critical temperature was much too low to initiate collapse.

And you say this based on your Einsteinian *expertise* in structural analysis? Because you can do calculations in your head or on the back of an envelope that most structural engineers require super computers to perform? I tell you what, Einstein ... if you think your structural analysis is correct, publish your results in a structural engineering journal. Make a name for yourself. ROTFLOL!

I'm surprised you even have the audacity to mention the Windsor Tower. A far more intense fire than any at the WTC, persisting for 26 hours over multiple floors, and there was no global collapse with tale-tell molten steel found in the heap.

I guess, Einstein, that you are completely unaware of the fact that all steel portions of the Windsor Tower collapsed during that fire. That everything else that remained standing was a REINFORCED CONCRETE STRUCTURE. ROTFLOL!

But you go right ahead and rave-on about the WTC towers. While we laugh.

There was no Flight 77 that day; it was unscheduled.

ROTFLOL! This just keeps getting better and better.

"Let me start by rephrasing the question. Do you think there was hole in the Pentagon more than 90 feet wide? Yes or no?"

If you mean before the collapse, I would say probably not.

Then you are wrong. There was a CENTRAL hole about 16-18 feet in diameter ... about the size of Flight 77's fuselage. No one disputes that. This photo,

very clearly shows a wingshaped hole on the left side of that central hole ... before the collapse.

And this image,

very clearly shows a wingshaped hole in the outer wall of the building extending to the right side of the central hole. Where once there was a solid wall, you can see broken interior columns. And this is a photo before the collapse, too.

And this image show you why those images prove the hole was more than 90 feet across:

BeAChooser  posted on  2006-10-03   16:35:11 ET  (4 images) Reply   Trace  


#105. To: BeAChooser (#104)

You wrote that it is was "verifiable empirical fact" that "molten steel was found at the basement levels in the ruins of World Trade Center buildings 1, 2 and 7." You reference a Christopher Bollyn article which states that "Tully told AFP that he had seen pools of 'literally molten steel' in the rubble."

Don't try to tell us you weren't claiming there were pools of molten steel in the basements of the towers.

I didn't explicitly state that, but I believe that is what any reasonably competent, impartial analyst would conclude, given the data. There were reports of "streams" and "rivers" of molten steel, and much of it was found well below ground level. In the interests of fair reporting, I have rewritten the paragraph #1 in my above piece Who Did 9/11? as follows:

(1) Verifiable empirical fact: There are many corroborating sources that reported molten steel in the ruins of the World Trade Center. Another excellent summary of reports, ranging from "cherry red steel" (about 745 degrees C) at a depth of six stories underground that was found six weeks after the attacks, to a steel beam "dripping with the molten steel" to "streams" and "rivers" of molten steel, may be found here at the George Washington blog. The latter includes a link to a New York Times archived article (pay-per-view) stating that Dr. Jonathan Barnett, a professor of fire protection engineering, said that an uncontrollable fire could not explain steel members in the WTC 7 debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures. Mark Loizeaux of Controlled Demolition, Inc. of Phoenix, MD., who was involved in the removal of the rubble, was reported as saying that molten steel was found at the basement levels in the ruins of World Trade Center buildings 1, 2 and 7. This was confirmed by journalist William Langewiesche who personally witnessed areas where "steel flowed in molten streams" after "descending deep below street level" (subscribers only link here, but see above George Washington blog for the quotes). As late as February 2002, Bronx firefighter Joe "Toolie" O'Toole saw a crane lift a steel beam vertically from deep within the catacombs of Ground Zero. "It was dripping from the molten steel," he said. Some molten material would have been aluminum, but analysis confirmed significant quantities of iron. Since the existence of molten steel or iron cannot be denied, NIST has even made a (failed) attempt to address the matter in its recently released "FAQ"- scroll down to #13 at this link. Molten steel or iron was also observed pouring from the side of WTC 2 in the minutes prior to its collapse [see pp. 10-16 in the paper at this link].

The latest revision may be found here.

Now it can be said that BeAChooser has provided some input into my article. Don't worry, I won't tell them. We wouldn't want you to lose your job. I just hope it has nothing to do with structures, impact, steel, fires, etc. LOL!

I certainly don't believe everything Christopher Bollyn has written, especially his recent reports. After the Hoffman Estates arrest, for instance, he originally wrote that he was tasered and then 'cuffed. Then, on talk radio, he was saying that he was tasered whilst restrained. And no mention of being zapped twice. It's not the sort of detail one would forget. However, there is no proof that Bollyn misquoted Mark Loizeaux. And you have a habit of calling people "liars" just because they disagree with your somewhat idiosyncratic interpretations of reports (q.v. below).

First, I challenge you to come up with "dozens" who actually saw molten steel.

I have provided links to about nineteen reports of molten or evaporated steel. Which is the more reasonable - to suppose that each of these is associated with groups of several workers involved in the clear-up who witnessed the molten steel, or that they are all liars and part of a conspiracy? I know which hypothesis I would favor.

Isn't it amazing that something as remarkable and supposedly ubiquitous as this was so poorly documented? Please understand that I'm not saying there wasn't molten steel in the rubble but not as described by you as "verifiable empirical fact".

It's not surprising considering that guards were immediately placed at the crime scene, Ground Zero, to prevent independent investigators from getting hold of samples of steel, and a couple of weeks later Mayor Giuliani even banned photography at the site.

Your problem is that no source other than Christopher Bollyn makes this claim as to what Tully or Loizeaux said.

Your problem is that it's not just Bollyn's report, but dozens of others.

And Bollyn demonstrably LIED in the article where he first made this claim: http://www.rense.com/general60/seis.htm. He LIED when he claimed the seismic record shows "spikes" BEFORE the collapse began. It does not. NO seismologist anywhere has used the word "spike" to describe the waveform at the WTC.

That's probably because most people know what a spike is, and there were undeniably "spikes" in the seismic record. But I always thought the timing would be too ambiguous to prove explosions. For example, it's possible to disprove the London police claims about the 7/7 bombings, since the bombers' alleged movements were physically impossible. In keeping with their previous form, the authorities have still not admitted to lying through their teeth. Bollyn probably expressed a sincere belief, but his interpretation could have been colored by what he wanted to see.

He is a LIAR.

As further proof of this, I offer this 5mb Windows Media Player video of a speech that was presented by Christopher Bollyn to a 9-11 conspiracy meeting on 23 Oct 2004z: http://www.EricHufschmid.net/ForBollynsSpeech23Oct2004.wmv. In it, Bollyn claims there was no hole in the outside of the Pentagon large enough for Flight 77. That's another outright LIE as I've proven over and over here at LP by posting photos of the hole and damage to the face.

After seeing your photos (bottom of your last post), I can see why just about every serious researcher and investigator rejects it as "proof", and I am more inclined to believe the missile hypothesis. It looks like something you got from one of those government or Zionist-sponsored disinformation sites. The line on the left side is merely a shadow above the windows. It is exactly horizontal. If it was the hole made by the impacting wing, then damage from the port engine would have damaged an area beneath this line; the fuselage entry hole should have been higher up, and the starboard engine damage should have been below the fuselage hole rather than above a line extending from the left wing. The engines are beneath wing level and the fuselage mostly above. Or was Hanjour such an ace that he could fly the craft upside-down? LOL!

Your photos neither proves that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, nor that Bollyn is a "liar".

And, finally, do you know that honway discovered this letter from Loizeaux?

****************

294. To: All (#293)

Mr. Bryan:

I didn't personally see molten steel at the World Trade Center site. It was reported to me by contractors we had been working with. Molten steel was encountered primarily during excavation of debris around the South Tower when large hydraulic excavators were digging trenches 2 to 4 meters deep into the compacted/burning debris pile. There are both video tape and still photos of the molten steel being "dipped" out by the buckets of excavators. I'm not sure where you can get a copy.

Sorry I cannot provide personal confirmation.

Regards,

Mark Loizeaux, President CONTROLLED DEMOLITION, INC.

I have seen that, and he does not even deny saying that it was found at the basement levels.

Notice where he said the molten steel was primarily found? Tell us why it would primarily be found around the South Tower near the surface of the rubble pile if your and Jones' theory about thermite in BOTH towers is correct?

Of course the trenches were only a few meters deep into the pile. As they removed material, they were continually descending. No structural engineer would start off by building a 70 foot deep trench, shore up the walls, and then proceed sideways. This thermal analysis shows that the hot spots were not just limited to the South Tower, but evenly distributed across all three targets of the controlled demolitions.

"Another compilation of molten steel reports that is well worth considering was posted to the George Washington blog and a Physics and Technology forum:

WHY was there Molten Metal Under Ground Zero for Months after 9/11?"

Again, NONE of those describe "pools" of the stuff.

But they describe "rivers", "streams", and molten steel "running" and "dripping".

Firemen and hazardous materials experts also stated that, six weeks after 9/11, "There are pieces of steel being pulled out [from as far as six stories underground] that are still cherry red" and "the blaze is so 'far beyond a normal fire' that it is nearly impossible to draw conclusions about it based on other fires." (pay-per-view) Link didn't work.

Seems okay to me. Try this. They charge $3.95 to see the article. It does say that "cherry red" pieces of steel were still being pulled out at the last week of October. At the start, the article mentions, "Girders of red-hot steel driven as many as six stories below ground by the collapse of the World Trade Center...". So, they could have originated in the basement, or they might have fallen faster and overtaken other material, which is what the OCT will probably have to claim.

Never the less, no one is saying this wasn't an unusual fire. But then it did have an unusual cause. And there's a big difference between "cherry red" and "pools of molten steel". Right?

The cherry red steel was found six stories down, a full six weeks after 9/11. Soon after the attacks, there were probably literally "rivers" of molten steel at this level.

These same firemen also noted that there were good sources of oxygen flowing into the regions from underground, keeping the intense fires alive. And did any of these firefighters say they found one shred of physical evidence that bombs were used? With so many going off, don't you think at least a few traces of bombs (wires, detonators, whatever) might have survived?

The WTC had 19,600 miles of telephone cable and 12,000 miles of electrical cable. No one is going to question a few lengths of wire and pieces of cell phones.

If Dr Greening is right, water would only have made the fires burn hotter. Water and molten aluminum don't go together. As Greening noted (http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf):

That's his physics paper; I believe you mean this one on the chemistry.

"The nature and causes of molten aluminum-water explosions has been studied in some detail by P.D. Hess and K.J. Brondyke, who published their results in the April 1969 issue of the trade journal Metal Progress. ... snip ... A true “chemical” explosion involving exothermic reactions between molten aluminum, water and the lining of the pit or mold. Hess and Brondyke (H & K) describe these reactions as “catastrophic” since they invariably blow the container apart and are accompanied by a bright flash of light. H & K’s investigations revealed that these violent explosions occurred when coatings of lime, gypsum, rust, or a sludge of aluminum hydroxide where present. Using thermocouple measurements, H & K found that the temperature of the container rose by about 1500 degrees. H & K conclude that aluminum, striking the container, reacts with a metal oxide, M-O, and undergoes a so-called thermitereaction generating extreme heat."

It is very interesting material, and I will be looking into this. I hope to incorporate some review of these ideas when I revise point #2 in my article.

And that rubble was chock full of molten aluminum, concrete dust, rust, gypsum AND WATER. Isn't that correct?

Here is an analogy that illustrates my take on this. Suppose there is a middle-aged lady, who has been happily married for 29 years. The first husband dies or disappears, and husband number two takes out a massive $3+ billion insurance policy on her life. It is subsequently found that the first husband's removal from the scene is linked to a friend and business partner of the new husband. Six weeks later, the lady dies in mysterious circumstances in an accident that would not be fatal unless the laws of physics, chemistry and biology were revised - e.g., a small piece of cardboard falls on her head from a height of one foot. Any detective worth their salt should be suspicious, to say the least.

Bullet wounds to the chest are then discovered, and five assassins who are linked to husband #2 and his associate are arrested after being found dancing and celebrating with "high fives" and with traces of gunpowder on their fingers. "Ah", the skeptics cry, "a human body is comprised of some highly reactive elements. You have potassium, sodium, calcium, magnesium, iron, plenty of water, and oxygen in the air. Moreover, the body is heated to about twenty degrees above ambient. Isn't it quite possible that some sort of exothermic reaction occurred, forming the observed bullet holes?" The skeptics then conclude that the death was due to natural causes, after her head was hit by a piece of cardboard at 5 mph. Everyone else marks them down as kooks.

Of course, the aluminothermic reaction-based demolitions had been in the planning process for years, and the perpetrators had always intended to promote the "natural thermite reactions" theories when folk became suspicious (one reason for the choice of cutting agent). We know the buildings were subject to controlled demolitions, we know who did it, and now it is just a matter of working out the details of how they did it.

"The Times article also reports that "experts" said buildings the size of WTC 7 that are treated with a layer of fireproofing have never collapsed in a fire of any duration."

But then none of those other structures was ever hit by a huge fast moving object knocking off the fireproof coatings before the fires broke out. Were they.

Neither was WTC 7. And not only is there no proof that sufficient fireproofing was "knocked off" in WTC 1 and 2, it is extremely improbable.

In [DeMartini's] statement, he completely overlooked the importance of velocity in the impact. The towers were NOT "designed" for a high speed impact as you folks want to imply.

AA 11's mass and impact velocity (470 mph) were both lower than those of a fully-loaded 707 at cruising speed. And what about the impact velocity for WTC 7? These claims about only being designed for a slow-moving plane are just more ad hoc disinfo and rationalizations compiled after the event. If they designed it to survive being hit by a 707, they would not have said, "Let's assume the 707 is only travelling at 200 mph and let's assume it has only a few gallons of fuel remaining." They might as well have just designed it to survive an impact from a hot air balloon.

"Aaron Swirski, another architect, said that the WTC was designed to survive that kind of attack. "

ROTFLOL! You are being dishonest again. He did not say it was designed for an impact at high velocity.

He did say that "it was designed to survive something like that" (listen to 2 minutes 14 seconds into this link):

http://www.jpradio.com/Archive/2001/09/11/asx/010911swi.asx

and he also says the building was designed "like a pipe", so that if you make a hole in the pipe, the entire pipe doesn't collapse. I relayed what I heard.

In fact, he said the collapse may have been due to the size of the plane, bigger than the architects had ever planned for.

Well, the mass of the 767 with only 10,000 gallons of fuel, as billed in the official script, was less than that of a fully loaded 707. So that theory is debunked. Those planes, particularly the alleged AA 11, may have contained some additional aluminum / iron oxide powder mixture, with some pre- installed thermite - just in case a plane was shot down - along with potassium permanganate and glycerine on the target floors.

One thing that Swirski surely got wrong was when he said that half a million people work in those buildings. The total of dead or escaped was only 17,559, according to NIST.

Look, here's what another good article says about this claim of yours:

http://www.rit.edu/~smo5024/papers/wtc/ "it is amazing that the towers survived the initial impacts at all—even if they were designed to be hit by aircraft— considering the fact that the Boeing 767's involved in the terrorist attack were notably larger and traveling much faster than the 707 considered in the design of the World Trade Center. The 707 was assumed to be coming in for a landing when it would hit one of the skyscrapers (707's were the standard airliner at the time when the World Trade Center was built). This meant that the plane would be traveling at a low rate of speed—about 180 miles per hour— and have minimal fuel. On the other hand, the 767's were carrying enough fuel for transcontinental flights (about 10,000 gallons each) and were flying far faster. The airspeeds of the jets as they impacted the buildings were estimated at about 470 and 590 miles per hour, approximately 2.6 and 3.2 times faster than the 707 (FEMA 1.17). In addition, the 767 is about 25 percent larger than the 707, with a wingspan of 156 feet, a length of 159 feet, and a height of 53 feet (1.19). Considering the size and speed of the airplanes that crashed into the World Trade Center towers, it is remarkable that they stood at all."

This is a typically misleading disinformation piece. You merely have to consider the over 5 times safety factor built into the perimeter columns and the over 2 times safety factor built into the core columns. Here is a good article on the design parameters:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

John Skilling, the head structural engineer for the WTC, said back in 1993 that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a huge jetliner such as the Boeing 707. They had assumed that all of the jet fuel would be dumped into the building, creating a horrendous fire that would kill a lot of people. But "the building structure would still be there". He added that demolition experts would be capable of placing charges at the right locations in order to bring down the building.

And I quote:

"A white paper released on February 3, 1964 states that the Towers could have withstood impacts of jetliners travelling 600 mph -- a speed greater than the impact speed of either jetliner used on 9/11/01.

The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707 / DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact."

BeAChooser: Not ONE expert in fire or steel today says the jet fuel fires melted the steel.

Poseidon: I'm very pleased to hear it.

BeAChooser: No you are not. Because it makes you look foolish.

Huh? I have never said that the jet fuel fires melted the steel. With the experts agreeing that the jet fuel fires did not melt the steel, we are left with the intriguing question of what did melt it. The criminals would be much happier if there had been no molten steel to have to explain away. I would be less happy if they were not up the creek without a paddle.

Oh ... so you were referring to this:

An expert stated about World Trade Center building 7, "A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been PARTLY EVAPORATED in extraordinarily high temperatures" (pay-per-view).

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html? res=F10812FF3F590C7A8EDDA80994D9404482

when you wrote "Scholars for 9/11 Truth are correctly pointing out that this molten steel is evidence of skullduggery. They include fire protection engineers,".

LIAR. By the way, the URL above doesn't work, the expert isn't named in what you quoted, and I'll bet you that the article doesn't say it is evidence of "skullduggery". And there is nothing to indicate that the expert quoted by the Times is a member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. I'll bet you he isn't.

For a start, I wasn't referring to that; the Times article was something entirely separate. Try this link:

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html? res=F10812FF3F590C7A8EDDA80994D9404482

If it doesn't work then just delete the %20 that gets inserted at a carriage return or space. They charge a few dollars for the 4-page article A NATION CHALLENGED: THE SITE. I can confirm that it includes a paragraph:

"A combination of an uncontrollable fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said."

Page 2 introduces him as Jonathan Barnett, a professor of fire protection engineering at the Worcester Polytechnic Institute.

The Scholars for 9/11 Truth lists fire protection engineer Brian Duncan as an associate member.

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhoAreWe.html

"The Scholars for 9/11 Truth members list shows that it is a broad church that includes all professions I mentioned."

Sure. It has a couple physicists who have done nothing else for 30 years but work on sub atomic particles and the micro structure of solar cells. And someone who claims to be an aeronautical engineer and pilot who doesn't know the dimensions of a 757. A mathematician who is probably still calculating PI. And software engineers who wouldn't know the difference between a joist and a gusset plate if you hit them on the head with one. And I'm still waiting to learn the name of this "explosive ordnance technician" you mentioned. ROTFLOL!

Michael Gass, an associate member, is listed as "Air Force Explosive Ordnance, Disposal Specialist, Bomb disposal technician".

They also have some structural engineers: Joseph M Phelps, Doyle Winterton, Michael Lovingier, and Ted Muga; and civil engineers: Jack Keller, Tom Spellman, and Ken Wrenn; along with a number of other engineers who are mostly hardware not software.

"WTC 7 was supposed to be hit by UA 93."

This is a new one. Anything to actually support this assertion? No? ROTFLOL!"

"It is the most rational hypothesis, given the facts. So far, I have not heard a better theory."

But where did you hear this theory. Or is this something you just made up? ROTFLOL!

I deduced it quite some time ago. There are probably a number of other proponents of the theory; I believe Mike Rivero is one.

My theory is that Israel's plan involved three planes and three high-rises that had been wired for demolition. By piggy-backing their own operation on the back of Rumsfeld and Cheney's Pentagon hit, Israel was able to get away with Zakheim's $2+ trillion embezzlement of Pentagon funds and its WTC demolition false-flag terror operation that would serve as the pretext for a "war on terror" and eventually lead to more American servicemen dying in Iraq and Afghanistan than the total killed in the 9/11 attacks. Israel needed the Air Force stand down, so ideally they had to get their strikes in before the Pentagon hit, under cover of the war games exercises. Flight UA 93 was too late to avoid being shot down.

"I referred to many documents from NIST and FEMA and other sources."

Well there are now two possibilities. One is that you didn't bother to read the rest of what NIST has said and concluded about this. In which case you are now lying to cover for this. The other is that you did, in which case you were dishonestly portraying the facts when you described what NIST concluded. Either way you were lying.

You have a rather bizarre way of interpreting data, and you end up concluding that everyone is a "liar" whenever they disagree with you. Let's look at what a structural engineer thought about the NIST report that got Kevin Ryan fired. It turns out that Charles N. Pegelow agrees with Kevin Ryan's and my interpretations.

At this link of James Fetzer talk radio archives:

http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Fetzer06.html

...scroll down to August 24 and listen to the 2nd hour with Charles Pegelow. Fetzger introduces Pegelow about 9 minutes into the audio, pointing out that the latter's experience with oil rigs makes him well positioned to address the issues of the WTC, given that oil rigs are steel structures that frequently have to contend with fires. At 13 minutes, Pegelow says that the "pancake theory" is not even applicable to steel structures, and you could only get immediate collapse of a floor if you took out all the columns at the same time. At 14 minutes, he says that NIST's report said that the exterior columns didn't get hotter than 250 degrees and the interior columns not more than "500 to 525 degrees". Fetzer and Pegelow then confirm that this is Fahrenheit degrees.

I'm not sure how he gets those exact figures; he's probably speaking from memory. The paint analysis indicated perimeter panels not more than 250 C at 157 out of 160 locations, and the metallographic analysis showed no significant perimeter steel temperatures over 625 C. The paint analysis on two core columns tested found that they did not reach 250 C. Anyway, a water treatment expert, a structural engineer, and I have come to the same conclusion on that NIST document. You are claiming that because temperatures were low at some locations, as predicted by the model, that validates the model's predictions of high temperatures elsewhere. But it does no such thing! Suppose the model predicts a 200 degrees K increase at point A and a 1200 K increase at B, but the predictions are 50% too high. The increase should have been 133 degrees at A and 800 degrees at B. Samples at A are found to have remained below 250 C.

That doesn't validate the model. You need many more data points, samples extending over the range of the model's predictions. And it could be only 2% in error at point A but 50% in error at point B in the high temperature zones. The empirical evidence has to take priority over computer predictions.

Suppose you had a horse racing system that was claimed to be "very profitable". After testing the predictions on one race, you find the horse wins. It would be folly to stake your life savings on the next bet, given such a small sample size.

Kevin Ryan is foolish ... as he amply proved. Just like you, Kevin Ryan ignored the statement in the NIST reports that the paint deformation and spheroidization tests were only able to reliably measure temperatures to about 250 C.

They indicated whether the temperatures reached 250 C, and in almost all cases, they did not. That provides us with useful data.

You might as well give up these silly evidence-free "Arab conspiracy" theories that you have gleaned from government disinformation propaganda sites. I will not laugh if you admit you were wrong - well, not very much!

Poseidon  posted on  2006-10-07   17:48:15 ET  Reply   Trace  


#106. To: Poseidon (#105)

My theory is that Israel's plan involved three planes and three high-rises that had been wired for demolition. By piggy-backing their own operation on the back of Rumsfeld and Cheney's Pentagon hit

yukon  posted on  2006-10-07   18:11:29 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace  


#107. To: Original_Intent (#61)

I lean more toward "B" == nut

heart of gold  posted on  2006-10-07   19:01:15 ET  Reply   Trace  


#108. To: Poseidon, ALL (#105)

The latter includes a link to a New York Times archived article (pay-per-view) stating that Dr. Jonathan Barnett, a professor of fire protection engineering, said that an uncontrollable fire could not explain steel members in the WTC 7 debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures.

ROTFLOL! And did you bother to check out what else Dr. Barnett has said? Well, first off, not a word about BOMBS. In fact, here is something he says:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/terrorism/jan-june02/towers_5-1.html

JONATHAN BARNETT: Normally, we don't design our buildings to be hit by aircraft. And so the fireproofing that was used in the World Trade Center wasn't designed to stick to the steel if it was hit by an aircraft. We think much of the fireproofing in the impact area fell off the steel it was meant to protect.

And do you know what he was really talking about, Poseiden, when he said that fire alone couldn't account fro partly evaporated steel? This:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm "An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7 ... snip ... 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 ~1,000ºC, forming the eutectic liquid by a process similar to making a “blacksmith’s weld” in a hand forge."

Following up on that, you might find this interesting:

http://skeptosis.blogspot.com/2006/07/open-letter-to-professor-jonathan.html " Tuesday, July 25, 2006, an Open Letter to Professor Jonathan Barnett, Months ago, I was involved in a brief correspondence with Jonathan Barnett, a professor of Fire Protection Engineering at the Worcester Polytechnic Institute. Dr. Barnett (along with others from WPI) performed the 'Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7', the results of which became FEMA 403 Appendix C (pdf). The correspondence began after I discovered a mis-attributed quote in one of Dr. Frank Greening's papers at 911myths.com, 'Sulfur and the World Trade Center Disaster' (pdf), which seemed to suggest that FEMA Report 403 had blamed 'acid rain' for the extreme sulfidation and erosion of structural steel at WTC7. Once it had been determined that the quote actually came from an interview in the Spring 2002 edition of 'Transformations', WPI's alumni newsletter, the 911myths paper was updated and I subsequently received the following email from Professor Barnett: "The major issue Mr. Skeptical is that you ASSUME the worst. Dr. Greening is a thoughtful scientist. Instead of celebrating his work you zeroed in on a minor point. The world would be a far better place if we assumed people meant well and that what you see is what you get. Even your penname, is a reflection of strife and lack of trust in people who have done nothing to earn this view of them. I feel sorry for you and others like you who go through life like this. One of the reasons I spend a lot of time in Australia is that by far the vast majority of Australians assume you are fair dinkum unless you prove otherwise. You might try starting over and work from that viewpoint. You'll find it refreshing, your health will improve, and the world will be a better place. Until then, you will have my prayers as I pray that you find peace in your soul. Jonathan"

Get a clue, Poseiden ... Dr Barnett is not on your side in this debate.

And regards his mention of Dr Greening, you might want to read this: http://911myths.com/Sulfur.pdf.

Mark Loizeaux of Controlled Demolition, Inc. of Phoenix, MD., who was involved in the removal of the rubble, was reported as saying that molten steel was found at the basement levels in the ruins of World Trade Center buildings 1, 2 and 7.

The person reporting that was Christopher Bollyn. Not a reliable source.

This was confirmed by journalist William Langewiesche who personally witnessed areas where "steel flowed in molten streams" after "descending deep below street level"

I'm not denying there was molten steel. What I am asking is why can't you show us any photos of these "pools" you claim existed. Why can't you actually quote a first hand witness using the word "pools"?

Molten steel or iron was also observed pouring from the side of WTC 2 in the minutes prior to its collapse [see pp. 10-16 in the paper at this link].

FALSE. The metal was most likely aluminum.

"And Bollyn demonstrably LIED in the article where he first made this claim: http://www.rense.com/general60/seis.htm. He LIED when he claimed the seismic record shows "spikes" BEFORE the collapse began. It does not. NO seismologist anywhere has used the word "spike" to describe the waveform at the WTC."

That's probably because most people know what a spike is, and there were undeniably "spikes" in the seismic record.

No, there weren't and more important there was nothing one might even call a "spike" BEFORE the collapse began. Had there been, then no doubt one of the hundreds of seismologists who have looked at the data around the world would have raised a red flag or at least said something by now. Are they, like the thousands of structural engineers around the world, also part of the great Zionist conspiracy? (sarcasm)

"As further proof of this, I offer this 5mb Windows Media Player video of a speech that was presented by Christopher Bollyn to a 9-11 conspiracy meeting on 23 Oct 2004z: http://www.EricHufschmid.net/ForBollynsSpeech23Oct2004.wmv. In it, Bollyn claims there was no hole in the outside of the Pentagon large enough for Flight 77. That's another outright LIE as I've proven over and over here at LP by posting photos of the hole and damage to the face."

After seeing your photos (bottom of your last post), I can see why just about every serious researcher and investigator rejects it as "proof", and I am more inclined to believe the missile hypothesis. It looks like something you got from one of those government or Zionist-sponsored disinformation sites.

ROTFLOL! Fine. You go right ahead and espouse the "missile hypothesis" and no big hole in the Pentagon theory. ROTFLOL!

The line on the left side is merely a shadow above the windows.

Oh. So you think the hole in the face directly behind the white car and to the left of the fuselage hole

is just a "shadow"? Ok. ROTFLOL!

This thermal analysis shows that the hot spots were not just limited to the South Tower, but evenly distributed across all three targets of the controlled demolitions.

That thermal analysis also shows hot spots outside the locations where the structures were located. You'd think that if thermite was used on the core columns and basement supports as you folks allege, the hot spots would lie within the outlines of the structures.

They charge $3.95 to see the article.

I have no interest in purchasing a document. I know there was hot steel. SO WHAT?

The cherry red steel was found six stories down, a full six weeks after 9/11. Soon after the attacks, there were probably literally "rivers" of molten steel at this level.

So what? Find me an expert in fire who has joined your side of this debate. When you do, then I'll take an interest. Until then, I will just conclude they don't have a problem with the notion of hot or even molten steel being found in the rubble.

I believe you mean this one on the chemistry.

Yes.

We know the buildings were subject to controlled demolitions, we know who did it, and now it is just a matter of working out the details of how they did it.

Well good luck ... K**K.

AA 11's mass and impact velocity (470 mph) were both lower than those of a fully-loaded 707 at cruising speed.

Except that the structures weren't designed for a 707 impact impacting at cruising velocity. The velocity of AA11 was about 3 times higher than the design velocity. That corresponds to 9 times as much energy. And it is the energy that matters.

These claims about only being designed for a slow-moving plane are just more ad hoc disinfo and rationalizations compiled after the event.

Right. Of course. And the original designers of the towers who said that must also now be part of this twisted Israeli plot. ROTFLOL! You've turned out to be a real Keeper Of Odd Knowledge.

Those planes, particularly the alleged AA 11, may have contained some additional aluminum / iron oxide powder mixture, with some pre- installed thermite - just in case a plane was shot down - along with potassium permanganate and glycerine on the target floors.

ROTFLOL! This just gets better and better.

John Skilling

I tell you what. Why don't you contact Skilling to get the facts first hand. Find out from him whether they assumed a cruise speed impact of 707. Find out from him whether he thinks the NIST folks are covering up something. Maybe you can even get him to join your Scholars for 9/11 Truth. Get back to us when he does. ROTFLOL!

The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707 / DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour.

There is a huge difference between concluding that the structure won't collapse after an impact and concluding it is "safe". And as I pointed out, NIST already stated that had there NOT been a fire, the towers probably would have continued to stand for a while at least. You aren't telling us anything we don't already know, Poseiden.

Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage

Skilling did not have the tools in 1964 to evaluate the damage from an impact in detail. But we do now and those tools clearly show this statement is complete FALSE.

They charge a few dollars for the 4-page article A NATION CHALLENGED: THE SITE.

I'm not going to purchase any articles from the NY Times. A waste of money. Besides, I already showed you that Dr Barnett is not on your side in this debate.

The Scholars for 9/11 Truth lists fire protection engineer Brian Duncan as an associate member.

Who is the art and creative director of flywire.com? Hmmm .... what's that? Well, their website (http://www.theflywire.com/aboutus.cfm) says "The Flywire, Inc. is the number #1 resource for urban entertainment for urban adults, ages 21-65 yrs. old, in the Baltimore/Washington Metropolitan area." ROTFLOL! Doesn't sound like he's practicing fire protection engineering, does it. Any idea why? Why is it that we can't find anything else about this guy? ROTFLOL!

Michael Gass, an associate member, is listed as "Air Force Explosive Ordnance, Disposal Specialist, Bomb disposal technician".

Can you quote anything that he's specifically said or written on 9/11? Anything at all?

They also have some structural engineers: Joseph M Phelps, Doyle Winterton, Michael Lovingier, and Ted Muga; and civil engineers: Jack Keller, Tom Spellman, and Ken Wrenn;

Joseph M Phelps? So out of 140,000 members of the American Society of Civil Engineers, they finally got one to join. ROTFLOL! Well what else can we find out about him? Well, for one, he's 82 years old and runs a 9 hole golf course in Florida (http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/08/scholar-scorecard.html). ROTFLOL! Can you quote anything he's actually written or said on the 9/11 structures? No?

Doyle Winterton credentials are equally tenuous. He apparently has no advanced degrees and never held an academic appointment. He appears to own a stereo store and was supposedly licensed as an Engineer-in-Training until 1999 when that expired. Wow! What an expert.

Michael Lovingier resume is listed by st911.com as "Information technology manager , Structural/Environmental Engineering". Sounds like he's doing information technology. Can you tell us ANYTHING about him or what's he's actually written or said about 9/11? Hmmmmmm?

Ted Muga is said to be a "Naval aviator; Commercial pilot; Structural engineering". Again, there is nothing more. And it doesn't sound like structural engineering is his first priority. Why can't you tell us ANYTHING about him ... other than what the st911 site claims. Do you know that st911 claimed that Jeffrey Farrer was a full member and an expert in Physics and Material Science. Then it turned out he was a STUDENT in Jones department and got downgraded to a student member. ROTFLOL!

Jake Keller is a specialist in agricultural and irrigation engineering, not structures. And he's VP of Westminster John Knox, the publisher of Griffin's book. He calls the nonsense that Griffin spouts about 9/11 “progressive stances on theological and social issues”. He's hardly qualified or a dispassionate observer.

Tom Spellman resume says "Civil engineering, architecture". So why can't we find anything else about him? Only that he is actively involved in anti-war protests, and thinks 8 people with 40 lbs of explosives each making 10 trips, would be enough stage the collapse (http://www.todaystmj4.com/_content/news/special/story_3451.asp). ROTFLOL!

Ken Wrenn, "civil engineering". That's it? That's all you have? No actual resume or quotes? No information at all about him? Surely you can come up with SOMETHING to prove the guy actually exists and actually believes the bombs in towers theory.

There are probably a number of other proponents of the theory; I believe Mike Rivero is one.

ROTFLOL!

Let's look at what a structural engineer thought about the NIST report that got Kevin Ryan fired. It turns out that Charles N. Pegelow agrees with Kevin Ryan's and my interpretations.

Charles Pegelow? Mr Pegelow has a BS in CIVIL ENGINEERING (1972). That is not a degree in STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING, which is a separate, higher level degree that you have to earn. His is also a civil engineering license, rather than a structural engineering license. You have to earn that too. So you are wrong to call him a structural engineer. Furthermore, it turns out this BSCE has been working for about 30 years in the oil drilling industry. He's not exactly an expert on tall buildings or fire. But I bet you think so. ROTFLOL!

BeAChooser  posted on  2006-10-10   17:47:58 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace  


#109. To: All (#0)

Curiously though, according to FOX news, throughout late 2000 and 2001, a total of 200 Israeli spies were arrested. It was the largest spy ring to be uncovered in the history of the US. The Washington Post also reported that some of these Israelis were arrested in connection with the 9-11 investigation.

No Al Queda and 200 Israelies... It just has to be a misprint. And they call the naysayers kooks. Unbelievable.

Don  posted on  2006-10-10   17:53:21 ET  Reply   Trace  


#110. To: BeAChooser (#108)

Imagine going to war in Korea.

When it gets ugly and tens of thousands of US servicemen are killed, detainees beaten, money missing ,museums robbed, these same exact people will say the US blew up a small nuke to make it appear that Kim Jong had a nuke.

WhiteSands  posted on  2006-10-10   17:54:57 ET  Reply   Trace  


#111. To: BeAChooser, All (#104)

Good pics. How long did it take "The Firm" to make these pics?

Don  posted on  2006-10-10   17:55:54 ET  Reply   Trace  


#112. To: BeAChooser (#108)

And do you know what [Jonathan Barnett] was really talking about, Poseiden, when he said that fire alone couldn't account fro partly evaporated steel? This:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm "An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7 ... snip ... 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 ~1,000ºC, forming the eutectic liquid by a process similar to making a “blacksmith’s weld” in a hand forge."

Get a clue, Poseiden ... Dr Barnett is not on your side in this debate.

I am well aware that Dr Barnett is supposed to be on the side of those who are covering up for Silverstein and Netanyahu. But whether in rare moments of candor, such as Barnett talking about evaporated steel, or active attempts to promote the official hoax, such as admitting to and attempting to explain the unusually high sulfur content in the steel, Israel's players and useful fools often do almost as good a job as the truth-seekers in debunking the criminals' version of events. At the end of that article (from FEMA 403 App. C), it says:

"The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires."

Barnett, Biederman and Sisson were either demonstrably lying when they concluded that "No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified", or their level of scientific expertise is well below that of Professor Steven Jones. See page 19 in Steven Jones' paper. He recognised that the high sulfur level is the unmistakable fingerprint of thermate - thermite with added sulfur - so that it would be easier to cut through the steel columns. Of course, the crackpots have tried to come up with alternative explanations such as "acid rain". So acid rain spilled through the debris pile and "reacted" with the steel, which not only managed to reach 1000 C in the fires but failed to cool down afterwards? Or the rain caused an exothermic reaction which melted the steel? Or sulfur in the gypsum wallboard burnt and was deposited on the steel so as to cause a eutectic reaction and intergranular melting at 1000 C temperatures? And those who propose these theories are "scientists"? LOL!

Some suggested that the sulfur originated from the jet fuel. But that theory fails in the case of WTC 7, the source of the steel that was the subject of analysis by Barnett et al.

And regards his mention of Dr Greening, you might want to read this: http://911myths.com/Sulfur.pdf.

I have been looking into some of Dr Greening's theories, and you know what? They don't work!

For example, take his theory about ten tonnes of molten aluminum per tower that allegedly produced exothermic reactions when water was added to it, and then just happened to transfer all this energy to large quantities of steel. Given the density of 2700 kg/m^3, ten tonnes of aluminum would have a volume of around 3.7 cubic meters. The official theory has the problem of simultaneously trying to account for sufficient energy sources to melt it, and for it then to remain molten for long enough to "react" with water and then transfer its heat to the steel. If it was in the form of a cube of length 1.547 meters, and it somehow melted without changing shape too much before the collapse due to a large sag in the floor at just the right place across two axes, then this pool might conceivably remain molten for a relatively long time. It's hardly likely. And the problem here is that the absorbing area to mass ratio is too low and very little of this would melt.

If it had been smashed up into, say, 3,700,000 pieces that were each 1 cc in volume, and they happened to be distributed so that none were on top of each other, yet they managed to end up in a zone that was subject to severe fires in the minutes prior to collapse, with the total area exposed to radiant heat being 370 m^2, the problem is that these little molten cubes would rapidly lose heat and solidify within minutes of the collapse.

For the "Bin Laden" theory, the optimum configuration of this aluminum would have the maximum thickness that could be melted given the available heat absorption, in order to minimise the required surface area that has to be exposed to radiant heat and maximise the time required for the molten pool to melt. From the Stefan - Boltzmann equation:

P = A * e * sigma * (Te^4 - Ta^4)

where P is the rate of radiative heat transfer, A is the exposed area of the absorbing body, e is the emissivity, sigma is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant of 5.6703 * 10^-8 W/m^2.K^4, and Te and Ta are the absolute temperatures of emitter and absorber respectively. We find that for e = 1, the heat flux is 150 kW/m^2 when Te = 1003 C (1276 K) and Ta = 20 C or Te = 1085 C and Ta = 660 C. This is a high estimate for the gas temperatures and heat flux. Nevertheless, we shall take these values in order to be as fair as possible to the "Bin Laden" theory.

Most of the contributions are from fuel with a relatively low separation from the steel member, and it is known that in any particular area the combustibles would typically take about 20 minutes to be consumed, with the flames then moving on to the next zone. So given the 150 kW/m^2, we have a potential absorption of 150,000 W times 1,200 seconds = 180 MJ/m^2.

When I run my program to compute absorption by the core columns, summing contributions from co-ordinates from all directions on the particular floor and allowing for 40% of the energy being vented out to drive the smoke plume and a combustion efficiency of some 68% after allowing for oxygen depleted zones, the total absorbed is about 80 to 90 MJ/m^2. That is with no fireproofing in place. It also supposes that the jet fuel, office combustibles and some aircraft combustibles are totally consumed over a 102 minute period, being as fair as possible to the "Bin Laden" theory. The potential absorption for unprotected perimeter columns is about 37 MJ/m^2; contributions are from only one side and the mean separation of all floor co-ordinates is greater for the perimeter columns than it is for the core columns.

However, aluminum has a notoriously poor emissivity, which is why it is used as a reflector in infrared heaters. A typical value for its emissivity is 0.1, so the potential absorption of 180 MJ/m^2 is reduced by 90% to 18 MJ/m^2. Given the heat capacity for aluminum at some 900 J/kg.K and latent heat of fusion of about 397 kJ/kg, it takes about 397 + 0.9 * (660 - 25) = 968.5 kJ to melt a kg of aluminum. That is a rather low estimate, since specific heat increases at higher temperatures, and 1 MJ is a reasonable round figure to take as the requirement to melt 1 kg of aluminum.

So given an actual absorption of 18 MJ/m^2, the aluminum that could be melted per m^2 is 18 kg. Its volume would be 18 / 2700 kg/m^3 = 0.00667 m^3 and therefore its depth would be 6.67 mm or 0.262 inches. The total surface area is 3.7 / 0.00667 = 555 square meters, or a square of sides 77.3 feet which is a sizeable proportion of a WTC floor. It is improbable that this particular area of this particular floor would exhibit severe fires in the final 20 minutes prior to collapse. And ideally, the aluminum sheet pieces would not be lying on the floor, but hanging vertically midway between the floor and ceiling in order to maximise absorption.

Against all odds, let us assume that all ten tonnes of this aluminum happened to be molten, just as the building(s) collapsed. Unfortunately for the OCT supporters and accessories to mass murder, it would solidify within minutes.

If we suppose that the debris pile adjacent to the molten aluminum is approximated by the characteristics of lightweight concrete, with a conductivity k of 0.9 W/m.K and a density p of 1,750 kg/m^3 and a specific heat c of 800 J/kg.K, its thermal diffusivity alpha is given by:

alpha = k / (p * c) = 6.429 * 10^-7 square meters per second.

(We shall return to that in a moment.) The mean density of the upper office floors was about 110 kg/m^3, so a debris density of 1,750 kg/m^3 would correspond to 117 floors including basement levels being compressed to about 7 stories. Considering the heavier steel at the bottom, it would be denser, but where molten metal was surrounded by solid steel, heat would be conducted away from it more quickly.

The rate of heat conduction Q / t from the molten aluminum is related to the thermal conductivity k of the surrounding medium, the area of heat transfer A and the temperature gradient (T1 - T2) / x where T1 - T2 is the difference in temperatures at two points and x is the distance between those points, according to:

Q / t = k * A * (T1 - T2) / x

If we start with a high estimate for the distance across which the temperature gradient occurs, assuming x = 0.1 meters, then with k = 0.9 W/m.K, A = 1 square meter, T1 = 660 C and T2 = 25 C, we obtain 0.9*635/0.1 = 5.715 kW as the rate of heat losses per m^2 of conductive transfer. In order to solidify the aluminum, it is merely necessary to take out the latent heat of fusion of 397 kJ/kg. Given the depth of 6.67 mm, each square meter of molten aluminum is 18 kg, so the outflow must be 18 * 397 kJ = 7.146 MJ per m^2. [To simplify and avoid recalculating the figures, I have not allowed for an expansion factor of about 12% for the liquid state. In reality, the area of heat transfer would increase by nearly 8%, and so the error is in favor of the "Bin Laden" theory by increasing the time to solidify.] However, the heat flows in two directions (we ignore the other axes since the time to solidify corresponds to the shortest dimension of the molten pool), so only 3.573 MJ/m^2 of energy need be transferred to the debris pile in one direction along the axis of the shortest dimension. 3.573 MJ / 5.715 kW = 625 seconds = 10.4 minutes to solidify the aluminum with these assumptions.

In fact, heat losses would be quicker than that. If a bar of semi-infinite length with insulated sides is "instantly" heated at one end, the distance x at which half the temperature rise occurs is given by:

x = 2 * z * SQR(alpha * t)

where z is the value required to yield a Gauss error function of 0.5, alpha is the thermal diffusivity in square meters per second, and t is the time in seconds. Since erf(0.477) is close to 0.5, the distance is:

2 * 0.477 * SQR(6.429 * 10^-7 * 625) = 0.0191 meters at 625 seconds. This suggests that the 0.1 meters estimate above for the distance over which the temperature gradient appears was too high, the temperature gradient would actually be over a shorter length (i.e. a greater gradient), the rate of conductive transfer would really be higher, and the time for the aluminum to solidify would be less than 10.4 minutes.

Just for the sake of argument and to try to keep the fruit loop alive, let us suppose that, against all odds, a lump of molten aluminum managed to form in the WTC fires in the form of a cube (which would maximise the time of remaining molten), and successfully became buried within the pile after collapse. Since aluminum expands in volume by about 12% in the liquid state, the length of the cube is actually nearly 4% greater than 1.547 meters, but the energy that must flow out in order to solidify is a little less per unit area of contact with the surroundings. This does not greatly affect the time taken to solidify. It is known that molten aluminum can undergo an exothermic reaction when in contact with water, releasing some 15 to 17 MJ/kg.

So, let us suppose that as the water is pumped onto the debris and debris is removed, water just happens to react with all of the molten aluminum, releasing the maximum 17 MJ/kg. And let us suppose that it had cooled at an inexplicably low rate, so that the full ten tonnes of molten aluminum was available for reaction. And let us suppose that all of this energy was miraculously transferred to the steel, which somehow had elected not to conduct any heat away from the molten aluminum until just at the time when water reacted with the molten aluminum, whereupon the steel suddenly took up its place in close thermal contact with the aluminum and the whole of the 17 MJ/kg of molten aluminum was successfully transferred to the steel.

The total potential energy available is 10,000 * 17 MJ = 170 GJ. Now the heat required to melt 1 kg of steel is a little over 1 MJ; let us assume only 1 MJ. So if all of these bizarrely improbable and impossible events just happened to occur, the amount of steel that could be melted is 170 tonnes. Allowing for some expansion in the liquid state, if we suppose a density of 7,250 kg/m^3, the volume is 23.45 cubic meters which if arranged in the form of a cube would have sides of length 2.862 meters or 9.39 feet.

This might qualify as a "pool", "stream" or "river". However, there were several of them, and the thermal images show quite a number of hot spots per building. Once this molten metal is spread rather more thinly, it is not going to remain molten for weeks. To get this far, we have had to postulate several wildly improbable events and the impossibility of the aluminum remaining molten without transferring heat to the steel, then suddenly transferring all of its energy to the steel at just the right time.

The official conspiracy theorist position is analogous to finding the victim's body with bullet wounds and the killer with a smoking gun, and then concluding that the killer was really Bigfoot or Elvis Presley! In fact, this reminds me of the joke where Sherlock Holmes winds up saying, "Watson, you fool, someone has stolen our tent!"

The Scholars for 9/11 Truth have conducted experiments where molten aluminum was poured on rusty steel, for example, and no exothermic reaction was observed.

The person reporting that was Christopher Bollyn. Not a reliable source.

The interesting development here is Christopher Bollyn getting fired by American Free Press. There are two possibilities. The first theory is that Bollyn was a Zionist plant right from the start. The second is that he has been unduly influenced and lured away from AFP by Eric Hufschmid, who, along with his ranter Daryl Setter / "Bradford Smith", clearly is a cointelpro operative who was installed and promoted by Rupert Murdoch's agents, and allocated the task of dividing and discrediting the truth movement.

In the first theory, back in the planning stages of 9/11, the conspirators would have known that their controlled demolition of the WTC - the buildings had to be taken down by 2007 - would leave an unmistakable signature. They couldn't use a low yield nuclear device and risk tell-tale signs of radioactive ash and radiation sickness. The great thing about thermite as a cutting agent was that they could wheel out all these "it's a natural phenomenon" disinformation theories. There was a eutectic reaction from acid rain or sulfur from the gypsum wallboard. The aluminum from the planes melted in the fires. There was an exothermic reaction of water and molten aluminum. There was a natural thermite reaction with molten aluminum and rusty steel. Etc, etc. But these theories don't work - and they fail Occam's Razor.

So Bollyn was installed as one of Israel's key agents. The stunt with the library banning the book Final Judgement was in order to introduce him to Michael Collins Piper and American Free Press. To prove his credentials, he was allowed to photograph David Rockefeller at the Bilderberg meeting. He was allocated a number of stories about Israeli involvement in 9/11, such as the Zim Shipping company moving out of the WTC days before the attacks. A particularly important scoop was when he got to report what Peter Tully and Mark Loizeaux said about the molten steel. It is not necessary that they are part of a conspiracy. Loizeaux might have said that molten steel was found at various levels from near the surface right down to the basement, down seven levels at the bottom of the elevator shafts, with Bollyn spinning that into it all being found at the bottom to make it seem more sinister.

It was then necessary to discredit Bollyn. Another disinformation agent, Eric Hufschmid, helped to set up the Sam Danner hoax. But Bollyn seems to have been deliberately discrediting himself, by lying over the circumstances of his arrest and tasering. Hufschmid and Daryl Setter present themselves as very anti- Zionist to try to get truth-seekers to support them on a blindly ideological basis. For instance, Daryl rants about carpet bombing Israel until there is a crater so deep it would take an explorer team weeks to get to the bottom of it. And Christopher Bollyn is linked to Israel. He spent several summers working on a kibbutz in the Jordan Velley. Evidently, his first wife was Israeli, and he speaks fair Hebrew and Arabic.

All along, the plan was that his truthful stories of molten steel and Israeli involvement should be discredited as lies from a dodgy reporter. However, there is no reason to suspect that Bollyn lied over the molten steel, since his account is corroborated by other reports.

The second theory is that Bollyn is genuine, and was lured away from AFP and into the Hufschmid / Setter camp, perhaps being persuaded by Hufschmid to change his story about the tasering at a vulnerable time. But the odds are against this. If Bollyn did indeed lie about the seismic "spikes" (q.v. below), misquoting Thorne Lay or Arthur Lerner-Lam, or lied about what Mark Loizeaux or Peter Tully said, then this theory is debunked and I would revert to theory #1.

I'm not denying there was molten steel. What I am asking is why can't you show us any photos of these "pools" you claim existed. Why can't you actually quote a first hand witness using the word "pools"?

Steven Jones' paper, page 9, has a photo of previously molten metal which is now stored in a New York warehouse. As I said, the authorities wasted little time before banning photography at the site. Apart from confirming that molten steel was still running 21 days after the attacks, this article published by structural engineers says:

"All photographs shown on television, shot-on-site were preapproved by the FBI. We were shown photographs that were not released for public view."

It looks like the authorities had something to hide! LOL!

William Langewiesche used the word "streams". If the amount of molten steel was as low as you suggest, it could not have remained molten for long. A large volume of molten steel with the smallest dimension in yards, rather than mm, possibly at temperatures in excess of the melting point, and surrounded by insulating debris, could have accounted for the reports of molten steel persisting for up to five weeks.

If a molten steel pool of length 3 meters along its shortest dimension, possibly a cube, had survived in the rubble and was only at melting point, it would solidify after the latent heat of fusion of 250 kJ/kg had been taken out. Taking the density at some 7250 kg/m^3, a 1 x 1 x 1.5 meters section would have a mass of 1.5 * 7250 = 10,875 kg. The required outflow of heat would be 10,875 * 250 kJ/kg = 2.718 GJ per m^2 of area of contact with the surroundings. If the steel was to solidify over a period of five weeks, then 2.718 GJ / 3,024,000 seconds indicates that energy would have to be transferred at an average rate of 899 W/m^2. If we take a thermal diffusivity of 6.429 * 10^-7 m^2/s for the surrounding debris (as calculated above), the distance x at which half the temperature increase at the hot end occurs after a time t is given by:

x = 2 * 0.477 * SQR(6.429 * 10^-7 * t)

...and if we set t = 5 weeks = 3,024,000 seconds, x = 1.33 meters.

The surrounding debris would not reach thermal equilibrium, and it is known that the temperature gradient in concrete exposed to fire is sharper at the hot end. So if we suppose a temperature gradient of 1500 K over 1.33 meters and k = 0.9 W/m.K, then from:

Q / t = k * A * (T1 - T2) / x

we have Q / t = 0.9 * 1 * 1500 / 1.33 = 1015 W/m^2 which is not too far out from the 899 W/m^2 above.

So this is the sort of sizes I had in mind for the largest "pools". A 3 meter cube would be nearly 200 tonnes of steel or iron. If there were several such pools per building but mostly smaller than this, hundreds of tonnes would still be less than 1% of the total steel. But I suspect that much of this would be elemental iron from the thermite reaction. Either way, whether it was structural steel or iron, the quantities consistent with the reports and the associated timeframe of weeks could not have been produced from the energy available from the building fires and the collapses. The official theory would even have severe problems in accounting for relatively low quantities of molten steel or iron.

"Molten steel or iron was also observed pouring from the side of WTC 2 in the minutes prior to its collapse [see pp. 10-16 in the paper at this link]."

FALSE. The metal was most likely aluminum.

This claim has already been debunked by the fact it was the wrong color. Aluminum would have appeared silver, and would have stayed the same as it fell due to its low emissivity. In contrast, steel or iron could go from yellow hot to red hot after radiating heat to the environment as it dropped hundreds of feet. Other combustibles, burning with a yellow flame, would have floated to the top of any molten aluminum. Furthermore, the fires would not have been intense enough to melt aluminum at the rate it was observed pouring out of the side. Some estimates have placed the volume at several cubic yards, each of which would be over 3 tonnes if aluminum.

It was said that this alleged molten aluminum had pooled up and was thrown out when a floor collapsed. But look at how NIST described it:

“NIST reported (NCSTAR 1-5A) that just before 9:52 a.m., a bright spot appeared at the top of a window on the 80th floor of WTC 2, four windows removed from the east edge on the north face, followed by the flow of a glowing liquid. This flow lasted approximately four seconds before subsiding. Many such liquid flows were observed from near this location in the seven minutes leading up to the collapse of this tower.” Source: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm (August 2006)

So let's see if I have this right. The very same floor collapsed about a dozen times, again and again? And it only shed a fraction of the molten metal each time? LOL!

"That's probably because most people know what a spike is, and there were undeniably "spikes" in the seismic record."

No, there weren't

I see one source of this dispute. If the x-axis scale is set to about 5 minutes per inch (as shown at whatreallyhappened.com), it looks like spikes. At about 6 seconds per inch I would call it waves. [A comparison of both is shown here.] The other noticeable feature is that the y-axis has been expanded on the compressed x-axis version, so it looks even more like spikes and less like the waves version.

On the "spike" version, the very large spikes are about 20 times the amplitude of the smaller disturbances, which is in line with what Bollyn wrote. However, considering the x-axis scale, the large waves last for about 10 seconds - the time of the collapses - and the shorter waves continue for about a minute, starting slightly before the large "spike". Some people may have seen the "spike" version and thought that the one minute of small waves was the ten second collapse and the ten second spike was a suspicious two second event at the start of the collapse. Bollyn could have been deliberately misleading, but he might have genuinely mistaken the one minute period for the collapse and misinterpreted the spike as sinister "evidence of demolition". I don't see this as proof that he lied at this point.

Except that the structures weren't designed for a 707 impact impacting at cruising velocity. The velocity of AA11 was about 3 times higher than the design velocity. That corresponds to 9 times as much energy. And it is the energy that matters.

Nevertheless, the 1964 white paper analysis concluded that the Towers could withstand impacts of jetliners at 600 mph, and John Skilling, the head structural engineer, confirmed in 1993 that the Towers had been designed to survive not only the impacts but the "horrendous fire" that would kill a lot of people after the jet fuel had all dumped into the building. Note how Skilling's quote "the building structure would still be there" in his 1993 statement, along with his saying that a demolitions expert would know how to bring the building down, was reported in the Seattle Times. Then, in post-9/11 reports, the spin doctors removed these parts and left the quote about the "horrendous fire" as in this blatent piece of dishonest journalism.

And the engineers who worked on the Towers' design had calculated that you could remove all the perimeter columns on one side, the corners, and some more columns along each adjacent side, subject the building to a 100 mph wind from any direction, and it would still not topple or collapse.

"John Skilling"

I tell you what. Why don't you contact Skilling to get the facts first hand. Find out from him whether they assumed a cruise speed impact of 707. Find out from him whether he thinks the NIST folks are covering up something. Maybe you can even get him to join your Scholars for 9/11 Truth. Get back to us when he does. ROTFLOL!

Why don't you contact Greening and find out whether he is on a retainer to write his papers? The money trail might point to Seagrams. Maybe they'll put you on the payroll. LOL!

I'm not going to purchase any articles from the NY Times. A waste of money.

If the crooks remain in power much longer, they'll even start charging us for the air that we breathe.

"Michael Gass, an associate member, is listed as "Air Force Explosive Ordnance, Disposal Specialist, Bomb disposal technician"."

Can you quote anything that he's specifically said or written on 9/11? Anything at all?

Some of the Scholars such as Kevin Ryan have been active in writing and speaking. Others probably just wanted to express their support. But I started looking into 9/11 long before st911 was formed. Back then, I noticed that a Professor A K Dewdney was involved. Now I just see it as a bonus that a several hundred strong scholars group has emerged and gotten some mainstream publicity. If you only devoted half as much time to studying the science and logic of 9/11 as you do to investigating the background of individuals in the truth movement, you would have a better grasp of the whole picture and understanding of the issues.

Poseidon  posted on  2006-10-12   22:05:08 ET  Reply   Trace  


#113. To: Poseidon, ALL (#112)

I am well aware that Dr Barnett is supposed to be on the side of those who are covering up for Silverstein and Netanyahu.

Right, K**K.

"The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified.

No longer true. Source of sulfur have been identified. Your problem is you insist on stopping your investigation at the beginning of the government's investigation. You need to get beyond the FEMA era if you really want to know the truth.

Barnett, Biederman and Sisson were either demonstrably lying when they concluded that "No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified", or their level of scientific expertise is well below that of Professor Steven Jones.

Right, K**K.

He recognised that the high sulfur level is the unmistakable fingerprint of thermate - thermite with added sulfur - so that it would be easier to cut through the steel columns.

Too bad a growing number of his st911 researchers are disagreeing with him. You did see the paper by Reynolds and Woods, didn't you? No? ROTFLOL!

And regards his mention of Dr Greening, you might want to read this: http://911myths.com/Sulfur.pdf.

I have been looking into some of Dr Greening's theories, and you know what? They don't work!

Oh and I'm sure you are eminently qualified to tell us they don't. Afterall, you are an *einstein*. ROTFLOL!

Like I said ... if you think he's wrong and it's all a big conspiracy, why don't you publish a paper in a peer reviewed journal ... and not the one founded by Dr Jones in his transparent attempt to claim his papers were *peer* reviewed. ROTFLOL!

The Scholars for 9/11 Truth have conducted experiments where molten aluminum was poured on rusty steel, for example, and no exothermic reaction was observed.

ROTFLOL! You'd better check out what those former st911'ers Reynolds and Woods had to say about those tests. And what Greening had to say about them too.

The interesting development here is Christopher Bollyn getting fired by American Free Press. There are two possibilities. The first theory is that Bollyn was a Zionist plant right from the start. The second is that he has been unduly influenced and lured away from AFP by Eric Hufschmid, who, along with his ranter Daryl Setter / "Bradford Smith", clearly is a cointelpro operative who was installed and promoted by Rupert Murdoch's agents, and allocated the task of dividing and discrediting the truth movement.

How do you keep all the webs clear in your mind? ROTFLOL!

So Bollyn was installed as one of Israel's key agents.

So now Bollyn is one of the conspirators. You K**Ks just get K**Kier and K**Kier. ROTFLOL!

If Bollyn did indeed lie about the seismic "spikes" (q.v. below), misquoting Thorne Lay or Arthur Lerner-Lam, or lied about what Mark Loizeaux or Peter Tully said, then this theory is debunked and I would revert to theory #1.

My guess is you'll always have a theory. ROTFLOL!

Steven Jones' paper, page 9, has a photo of previously molten metal which is now stored in a New York warehouse.

You mean this?

You and Jones don't even know what you are looking at, do you. ROTFLOL!

Molten steel or iron was also observed pouring from the side of WTC 2 in the minutes prior to its collapse [see pp. 10-16 in the paper at this link].

"FALSE. The metal was most likely aluminum."

This claim has already been debunked by the fact it was the wrong color. Aluminum would have appeared silver, and would have stayed the same as it fell due to its low emissivity.

Again, you apparently haven't read what Reynold's and Woods, two FORMER confederates of *Professor* Jones have had to say about this claim. ROTFLOL!

Is this silver?

Or this?

Or this?

Or this?

Or this?

Is this?

That image comes from here:

******************

From http://www.csar.uiuc.edu/~tlj/aluminum.htm

Typical solid rocket motor propellants, like those used in the boosters of the Space Shuttle, are composed of particles of ammonium perchlorate (AP) and aluminum (Al) imbedded in a fuel binder. Typical composition of a propellant is 70% by weight AP, 16% by weight Al, and 14% by weight binder.

The typical size of an Al particle is roughtly 18 microns in diameter.

As the surface regresses, the Al particles become free from the solid propellant and are heated. The small Al particles agglomerate with one another until they form larger particles, usually on the order of 100 microns, then lift of f the surface and are injected into the chamber flow.

As the Al particles leave the combustion region the temperature of the gas is hot enough for ignition to take place, causing the Al particles to burn.

The complexity of including aluminum burning in any numerical simulation can be seen by viewing the two movies below.

The first movie consists of PBAN/AP/AL with 84% by weight total solids loading, with 16% by weight Al particles.

The second movie is that of a Tactical Booster #2, HTPB/AP/Al with 87% by weight total solids loading, with 19% by weight Al particles.

The movies are from United Technologies, Pratt & Whitney, Chemical Systems Division. One aspect of Rocfire will be to simulate numerically this complicated picture of separation, agglomeration, and burning of aluminum particles.

*****************************

Furthermore, the fires would not have been intense enough to melt aluminum at the rate it was observed pouring out of the side.

FALSE. The NIST fire code models clearly show the fire was intense enough.

That's probably because most people know what a spike is, and there were undeniably "spikes" in the seismic record.

"No, there weren't"

I see one source of this dispute.

There's no dispute. There are only K**Ks claiming something which isn't there.

Nevertheless, the 1964 white paper analysis concluded that the Towers could withstand impacts of jetliners at 600 mph,

Nevertheless, they weren't "designed" for such an impact as has been alleged by you folks. Furthermore, even NIST has said that the towers would have survived for a time had it not been for the fires. You are beating a dead horse.

and John Skilling, the head structural engineer, confirmed in 1993 that the Towers had been designed to survive not only the impacts but the "horrendous fire" that would kill a lot of people after the jet fuel had all dumped into the building.

You are misquoting what Skilling said. He did not say they designed the tower to survive the fire or that they'd even analyzed what would happen to the structures in such a fire. He ONLY said there would be fires and that they would kill a lot of people. Leslie Robertson has specifically stated that response to fires was NEVER investigated during the design of the structures. And by the way, did you notice in the article where it said “Skilling, 72, was not involved in the design of the building mechanics”? Do you know that Robertson lead the structural team?

And the engineers who worked on the Towers' design had calculated that you could remove all the perimeter columns on one side, the corners, and some more columns along each adjacent side, subject the building to a 100 mph wind from any direction, and it would still not topple or collapse.

But how about adding several dozen compromised interior columns and beams to the mix, along with a bunch of sagging floors that are pulling on the columns? Surely you aren't claiming that the back of the envelope calculations of engineers 30 years ago trump those of modern engineers using the power of super computers to compute behaviors (such as buckling) that earlier engineers couldn't begin to model.

Why don't you contact Greening and find out whether he is on a retainer to write his papers? The money trail might point to Seagrams.

Right, K**K.

"Michael Gass, an associate member, is listed as "Air Force Explosive Ordnance, Disposal Specialist, Bomb disposal technician"."

Can you quote anything that he's specifically said or written on 9/11? Anything at all?

Some of the Scholars such as Kevin Ryan have been active in writing and speaking.

But Kevin Ryan isn't a structural engineer or a demolition expert. He's a water treatment guy who has made a fool of himself. So again ... can you quote anything that Michael Gass has said or written on this matter? Yes or no?

Others probably just wanted to express their support

Then they don't count because who knows what they are expressing support for? I doubt any of them buy into the entire package promoted by the *Truth* movement.

Back then, I noticed that a Professor A K Dewdney was involved.

An expert in mathematics? Yeah ... I'm sure he knows a lot about structures, demolition, fire, steel, buckling and macro-world physics. ROTFLOL!

If you only devoted half as much time to studying the science and logic of 9/11 as you do to investigating the background of individuals in the truth movement, you would have a better grasp of the whole picture and understanding of the issues.

I've looked at the *logic* of your beliefs, K**K. Believe me. ROTFLOL!

BeAChooser  posted on  2006-10-13   0:03:57 ET  (7 images) Reply   Trace  


#114. To: BeAChooser (#113)

Too bad a growing number of his st911 researchers are disagreeing with him. You did see the paper by Reynolds and Woods, didn't you? No? ROTFLOL!

Morgan Reynolds is an economist, not a scientist. And a 'former' Bush Admin member in the same sense that Bin Laden, dead or alive, is a 'former' CIA asset. And note how they are peddling nonsense such as their Fact #5 "no aluminum airliner hit the Towers" at this link:

http://www.total911.info/2006/09/revere-radio-special-reynolds-wood-on.html

Reynolds and Woods are nothing more than second-rate infiltrators promoting straw man theories. Lies are intermixed with a number of truthful points in an attempt to cast doubt on the true facts that provide evidence of the crime. The WTC fires gas temperatures were more likely below 1000 C than above it, and the aluminum could not have gotten anywhere near the gas temperatures let alone matched or exceeded them, which would have been necessary to produce the observed yellow liquid. Larry Silverstein's team concluded that fire temperatures were lower than typical "fully developed" office fires, because of dust and debris distributed by the crashes. They placed the temperatures at between 750 F and 1300 F (about 400 C to 700 C). His study said the floors did not fail, and the collapses were due to column failure. They are right, but the column failure was not due to burning paper and curtains. It was the result of a thermate-based controlled demolition.

If the gas temperatures were 700 C and the alloy melted at only 600 C, then given an emissivity of 0.1 the absorption rate would be:

P/A = 0.1 * 5.67 * 10^-8 * (973^4 - 873^4) = 1.789 kW/m^2.

With 397 kJ/kg for the latent heat of fusion, the alloy could melt at a rate of 4.5 g per square meter per second, or 5.4 kg per square meter after 20 minutes of sustained local combustion after the metal had already managed to reach 600 C.

Reynolds' and Woods' "no WTC planes" absurdities and blatant agenda of trying to discredit Dr Jones allow us to disregard any further disinformation that they have concocted.

Here is what Steven Jones had to say about Reynolds' and Woods' attacks on him:

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/JonesReplytoReynolds-Wood.pdf

It includes a letter from someone confirming that molten aluminum (exposed to air) is silvery in appearance.

That image [of orange / yellow flames] comes from here:

******************

From http://www.csar.uiuc.edu/~tlj/aluminum.htm

Typical solid rocket motor propellants, like those used in the boosters of the Space Shuttle, are composed of particles of ammonium perchlorate (AP) and aluminum (Al) imbedded in a fuel binder. Typical composition of a propellant is 70% by weight AP, 16% by weight Al, and 14% by weight binder.

The typical size of an Al particle is roughtly 18 microns in diameter.

This is getting better and better! The criminals and their agents are so desperate that they have to pull out pictures of an ammonium perchlorate / aluminum powder mixture with the aluminum particles only 18 microns in diameter, then pretend that since that burns with an orange or yellow flame and there was aluminum in it, the molten iron observed pouring from the side of WTC 2 and subsequently found in the debris pile was "really" molten aluminum from an aircraft. I've seen the light, now. A Boeing 767 smashes through some perimeter columns, using almost half of its kinetic energy just to penetrate the building. Then it not only has enough energy in reserve to reduce the 159 foot plane into 18 micron particles, but also for a nuclear reaction - or rather an alchemic reaction - to take place whereby most of the aluminum is transmuted into nitrogen, hydrogen, oxygen and chlorine, only to be combined in a heavily endothermic reaction into a powerful oxidiser - ammonium perchlorate. It then mixes with the residual finely divided aluminum powder to form an incendiary or explosive, and then survives an hour of intense fires until it explodes and pours over the side of the building. In the rubble pile, it transmutes to molten iron.

Haven't the official conspiracy theorists ever stopped to consider that, just sometimes, the simplest theories that fit the facts and are consistent with the laws of science, logic, mathematics, psychology, etc, are right, and the yellow molten material was already iron from a controlled demolition involving an aluminothermic reaction when it was observed pouring out of the window? Rather than the fruit loop of aluminum turns to ammonium perchlorate and then to iron, they would be better off with the theory I proposed for them in the previous post - it has only about half a dozen stages that are either impossible or about as likely as a Martian landing tomorrow and claiming responsibility for global warming. ROTFLOL!

Of course, that's before even counting the hijackers who were dead when they were alive and well and indignant, and the relatively likely improbabilities such as the 1 in 250 probability of the coincidence of the change in leaseholder and $3+ billion insurance beneficiary within a six-week period after 29 years of Port Authority ownership, the wargames on the morning of 9/11, the NRO exercise in Virginia that commenced at 9:00 on 9/11 and involved a plane crashing into a building, the pilot who allegedly flew Flight 77 who happened to have formulated plans in his last Navy mission concerning the possibility of a commercial airliner hitting the Pentagon, the instant messaging warnings, the 1 in 1.805 trillion probability of three skyscrapers collapsing due to fire on a particular day if we accept that it happens 3 times every hundred years although it hadn't happened before 2001, the 1 in 320 billion probability that the nation most heavily involved with false-flag terror and deception was the same nation linked to the new WTC owners and the spies caught celebrating the attacks and those who had foreknowledge and the lobbyist who had 'devout' Muslims on his gambling boat and the Pentagon Comptroller who 'lost' $2+ trillion and had been CEO at`a company that made transceivers for the simultaneous remote control of up to eight aircraft, etc, etc. LOL!

"Furthermore, the fires would not have been intense enough to melt aluminum at the rate it was observed pouring out of the side."

FALSE. The NIST fire code models clearly show the fire was intense enough.

In the fervid imaginations of those who are trying to cover up the biggest crime for 60 years. The low temperatures reached by actual samples of steel that were tested by NIST provide evidence that it wasn't, as do the laws of physics and the observations of black smoke.

"and John Skilling, the head structural engineer, confirmed in 1993 that the Towers had been designed to survive not only the impacts but the "horrendous fire" that would kill a lot of people after the jet fuel had all dumped into the building."

You are misquoting what Skilling said. He did not say they designed the tower to survive the fire or that they'd even analyzed what would happen to the structures in such a fire. He ONLY said there would be fires and that they would kill a lot of people.

I not only provided the link where Skilling confirmed that "the building structure would still be there" after a horrendous fire from dumped jet fuel, I showed how post-9/11 reports had spun this into quoting Skilling out of context by omitting the parts about the building surviving and how demolition professionals could take down the building. As you did, by selectively quoting him!

Skilling specifically said that their analysis showed that the resulting jet fuel fires would be the biggest problem following an impact with a 707, adding that the building structure would survive a horrendous fire. The World Trade Center was designed to survive a 707 impact, and the designers' analysis showed that the WTC would survive horrendous jet fuel fires. Hence, the WTC was designed to survive a 707 impact and horrendous jet fuel fires that would kill a lot of people.

Leslie Robertson has specifically stated that response to fires was NEVER investigated during the design of the structures. And by the way, did you notice in the article where it said “Skilling, 72, was not involved in the design of the building mechanics”? Do you know that Robertson lead the structural team?

Robertson and Skilling were partners, and clearly both were responsible for the WTC. Most reports, especially the earlier ones, list them both as equal partners. John Skilling died in 1998 at the age of 76, two years after retiring, and in post 9/11 articles Robertson as the surviving chief structural enginner has taken the limelight. We will never know whether Skilling would have suspected a conspiracy.

Once the Towers had collapsed, Robertson would have had no choice but to go along with the theory that it was the fires that did it, e.g. as here. He was hardly going to say that they designed the WTC to survive the jet fuel fires but must have made a mistake somewhere. If you had asked either of them just after the buildings had survived the 1975 fire or the 1993 bombing, they would have confirmed that an analysis had shown that the building would survive jet fuel fires. As Skilling did in 1993.

But how about adding several dozen compromised interior columns and beams to the mix, along with a bunch of sagging floors that are pulling on the columns? Surely you aren't claiming that the back of the envelope calculations of engineers 30 years ago trump those of modern engineers using the power of super computers to compute behaviors (such as buckling) that earlier engineers couldn't begin to model.

If these calculations of thirty years - and even much longer - ago are as primitive and inaccurate as you suggest, we would have seen many more building collapses. But even then, engineers would have been able to predict when buckling would occur. It depends on factors such as the load, capacity, effective length, radius of gyration, elastic modulus, and the yield strength. As NIST (and I) concluded with the WTC, it would have been necessary to remove four or five floors before there would be a serious risk of all core columns failing and precipitating global instability. If the columns had all been heated to over 550 C, say, (which they weren't) then the change in the elastic modulus and the yield strength would have reduced the removal requirement from five to four floors. As for the perimeter columns, their demand : capacity ratio was better (lower) than that of the core columns.

But Kevin Ryan isn't a structural engineer or a demolition expert. He's a water treatment guy who has made a fool of himself. So again ... can you quote anything that Michael Gass has said or written on this matter? Yes or no?

No, I don't know specifically what he has said about 9/11 or the WTC, but his actions speak louder than words. He has added his name to a group led by James Fetzer and Steven Jones, both of whom subscribe to the controlled demolition hypothesis. He is an expert in explosives and bombs. No explosives expert is going to publicly join a somewhat controversial group that believes the WTC was brought down with explosives or accelerants, unless he is fairly sure that the theory has some merit.

By the way, Professor Fetzer said on a talk radio broadcast that Brooklyn residents told him that the Rabbi called them and told them that they should not go into Manhattan the following day, which was 9/11.

I've looked at the *logic* of your beliefs, K**K. Believe me. ROTFLOL!

In the bizarre parallel world of your alternative 'reality', hijackers can be simultaneously dead, alive and well. The criminals are never those with the means, motive and opportunity to carry out the crime, but inevitably those who die, are illegally imprisoned, tortured, and have their nations bombed and annexed as their opponents' bank balances go through the roof and the invading armies loot museums and abuse and rape the natives. The alphabet soup spy agencies are taken unawares by suicide hijackings, yet within hours know full personal details of every vaporized hijacker. Passports are found in a number of locations, none of which are consistent with the laws of physics and the trajectory of the crashed aircraft from whence they came. An elusive, enigmatic man living in a cave in Afghanistan scores ten out of ten for ability to pull off a brilliant military feat, but zero for game theory, group dynamics, and applied psychology. A military HQ is hit by a Boeing 757 which fails to leave the correct imprint or any credible physical evidence at the crash scene. A plane crashes into a field and leaves an empty crater with most of the wreckage dispersed over a radius of eight miles.

The chemical bonds provided by glue mysteriously fail. Insulation materials suddenly become excellent conductors of heat. In an oxygen starved compartment fire, burning paper cuts through massive steel columns like a knife through butter. The laws of probability break down. Cell phones become as reliable as clockwork at the speed and altitude of a cruising Boeing 767 or 757. Hijackers elude airport security cameras and persuade burly, experienced pilots to hand over control of the plane by threatening them with box cutters. The hijackers cannot fly a Cessna and can barely drive a car, but know how to turn off a transponder, navigate their way through hundreds of miles of airspace whilst eluding the mighty US Air Force, and how to steer a plane within inches of the ground at over 500 mph. Devout Muslims, who reject the idea of interest being paid on deposits, are highly proficient in capitalist speculation techniques such as short selling of airline stocks.

The caveman appears in a video that looks like it has been made in a TV studio where they have not even bothered to use cardboard cutouts to look like mountains as in old westerns. In another appearance, the caveman undergoes a transformation and has a new nose, ears, mouth, head, etc - but he is really still the same man. In July 2004, a video is finally released purporting to show a couple of hijackers at Dulles airport. Inexplicably, the intensity of the light streaming through the doors suggests that the video was made about noon in June or July. Of course, it wasn't faked, it really was taken half an hour after sunrise on a September morning when the shadows were over 16 times longer and light levels over 9 times lower compared to solar noon. The government "makes an honest mistake" about "WMDs" which results in a civil war and 655,000 excess deaths of Iraqi civilians in less than 4 years, corresponding to 0.01% of the global population, not to mention contaminating vast tracts of land with radioactive waste with a half-life of billions of years.

Thanks, but no thanks. Your 'reality' is not for me.

Poseidon  posted on  2006-10-14   13:06:47 ET  Reply   Trace  


#115. To: Poseidon, ALL (#114)

Morgan Reynolds is an economist, not a scientist.

ROTFLOL! So you st911'ers are FINALLY figuring that out? Funny how you folks were constantly holding him up as an *expert* and a *scholar* when he was spouting the same CT nonsense as the rest. But now that he's suddenly at odds with aspects of Jones' *theory* he's a K**K? ROTFLOL!

Well maybe you should apply the same standard of dismissal to the rest of the idiots in your organization ... NOT ONE of whom actually has any education or experience appropriate to the problem at hand. NOT ONE who is educated or experienced in tall structures, fire, impact, buckling, demolition, seismology or macro-world physics.

Reynolds and Woods are nothing more than second-rate infiltrators promoting straw man theories.

Oh ... so now they too are part of the conspiracy? ROTFLOL! So how many members of this conspiracy are we now at? Five thousand? Ten? Twenty? ROTFLOL!

Larry Silverstein's team concluded that fire temperatures were lower than typical "fully developed" office fires, because of dust and debris distributed by the crashes. They placed the temperatures at between 750 F and 1300 F (about 400 C to 700 C).

So now it's Larry Silverstein's "team"? ROTFLOL! You really are a Keeper Of Odd Knowledge.

Reynolds' and Woods' "no WTC planes" absurdities and blatant agenda of trying to discredit Dr Jones allow us to disregard any further disinformation that they have concocted.

Oh I agree they are K**Ks ... but they were your *experts* until suddenly their tune changed. I love it when K**Ks attack K**Ks. ROTFLOL!

It includes a letter from someone confirming that molten aluminum (exposed to air) is silvery in appearance.

Yeah. I'm sure you know all about it. ROTFLOL!

A Boeing 767 smashes through some perimeter columns, using almost half of its kinetic energy just to penetrate the building.

And you arrived at this conclusion how?

Then it not only has enough energy in reserve to reduce the 159 foot plane into 18 micron particles,

That's a strawman, K**K. I never suggested any such thing. I was just proving that your claim that molten aluminum or even burning aluminum is always silver in color is FALSE.

Haven't the official conspiracy theorists ever stopped to consider that, just sometimes, the simplest theories that fit the facts

ROTFLOL! Simple. A conspiracy with thousands of participants, NONE of whom has broken rank and spilled the beans in 5 years? A conspiracy where EVERY SINGLE REAL EXPERT in structures, steel, fire, buckling, demolotion, seismology and macro-world physics IN THE ENTIRE WORLD is a member? You really are a K**K. ROTFLOL!

Of course, that's before even counting the hijackers who were dead when they were alive and well and indignant, and the relatively likely improbabilities such as the 1 in 250 probability of the coincidence of the change in leaseholder and $3+ billion insurance beneficiary within a six-week period after 29 years of Port Authority ownership, the wargames on the morning of 9/11, the NRO exercise in Virginia that commenced at 9:00 on 9/11 and involved a plane crashing into a building, the pilot who allegedly flew Flight 77 who happened to have formulated plans in his last Navy mission concerning the possibility of a commercial airliner hitting the Pentagon, the instant messaging warnings, the 1 in 1.805 trillion probability of three skyscrapers collapsing due to fire on a particular day if we accept that it happens 3 times every hundred years although it hadn't happened before 2001, the 1 in 320 billion probability that the nation most heavily involved with false-flag terror and deception was the same nation linked to the new WTC owners and the spies caught celebrating the attacks and those who had foreknowledge and the lobbyist who had 'devout' Muslims on his gambling boat and the Pentagon Comptroller who 'lost' $2+ trillion and had been CEO at`a company that made transceivers for the simultaneous remote control of up to eight aircraft, etc, etc.

And why should we believe any of the above is true when you can't even get the simpliest of facts right? When you can't even get ONE real expert in subjects relevant to the collapse of the towers or damage to the Pentagon to come forward and support you? When you have knowing LIED about other facts of the event? When you continue to claim, despite incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, that the hole in the Pentagon was much to small to be caused by a commercial passenger plane impact. Why should we trust ANYTHING a K**K claims?

Skilling confirmed that "the building structure would still be there"

I haven't seen evidence that Skilling, who was a senior member of the firm at the time, was involved in the actual design of the towers. It was Robertson who moved to NYC to head the design. And Robertson has stated that they did NOT look at what the fires would do to the structure. So I tell you what K**K, if you want us to believe you, then use your incredible browsing skills and provide us with the actual analysis that Skilling did of the structure to confirm that the fires wouldn't collapse it.

Skilling specifically said that their analysis showed that the resulting jet fuel fires would be the biggest problem following an impact with a 707, adding that the building structure would survive a horrendous fire.

So where is this analysis? Where are statements from all the others who worked on it who might still be alive? Are they ALL, like Robertson, part of the conspiracy? ROTFLOL!

Leslie Robertson - "To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance."

MIT Civil Engineering professor Eduardo Kausel - "However, the World Trade Center was never designed for the massive explosions nor the intense jet fuel fires that came next—a key design omission."

"Nothing would have stopped the World Trade Center from coming down, given the heat of the fire and the length of time it burned," said John Hooper, a principal of Skilling Ward Magnusson Barkshire of Seattle, successor to the firm that served as structural engineer for the World Trade Center towers. "Too much fire for too long a duration will bring any building down."

If these calculations of thirty years - and even much longer - ago are as primitive and inaccurate as you suggest, we would have seen many more building collapses.

I didn't say they were primitive or inaccurate as far as normal loadings are concerned. But dealing with an impact by a fuel filled aircraft was NOT a normal loading. Indeed, it's a very rare event. It wasn't until the mid and late 70's that the tools to even begin to deal with such situations were developed. You don't know what you are talking about, *Einstein*.

If the columns had all been heated to over 550 C, say, (which they weren't)

That's a FALSE statement, K**K. If you think I and NIST are wrong ... then PUBLISH. Let's see you get your nonsense published in ANY credible peer reviewed journal.

"So again ... can you quote anything that Michael Gass has said or written on this matter? Yes or no?

... snip ... No explosives expert is going to publicly join a somewhat controversial group that believes the WTC was brought down with explosives or accelerants, unless he is fairly sure that the theory has some merit.

Tell you what, Poseiden. Here's Gass' phone number: 803) 237-1247. Why don't you call him and ask him SPECIFICALLY why he joined st911 and why he thinks the theory of explosives bringing down the towers has merit. And report back. ROTFLOL!

By the way, Professor Fetzer said on a talk radio broadcast that Brooklyn residents told him that the Rabbi called them and told them that they should not go into Manhattan the following day, which was 9/11.

Professor Fetzer, a philosopher, is a proven LIAR. The following are the 15 points that Fetzer outlined about 9/11 in a rebuttal to Moseley and my rebuttal to each one.

********************

1. The impact of the planes cannot have caused enough damage to bring the buildings down, since the buildings were designed to withstand them (as Frank DeMartini, the project manager, has observed); the planes that hit were very similar to those they were designed to withstand, and they continued to stand after those impacts with negligible effects.

LIAR. First, the towers were designed to withstand the impact of a commercial traveling much slower than the ones that actually impacted. Leslie Robertson, lead structural engineer for the World Trade Center, commented on this point in Reflections on the World Trade Center. He wrote “It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark. Little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance.” So not only did they assume an impact by a plane flying well below its maximum speed, they didn't account for the effects of fire. Remember, the impact energy is not only a function of mass but velocity SQUARED. Robertson went on to note that the kinetic energy of the 767 impact witnessed on 9-11 was nearly seven times greater than the building's design ever anticipated.

Furthermore, Fetzer is LYING when he claims the impacts caused negligible effects. The impacts destroyed dozens of key structural members and knocked the fire protection off the rest in the impact area. Structural engineers are on record saying it was a near thing, even without the fires that followed.

2. The melting point of steel at 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit is about 1,000 degrees higher than the maximum burning temperature of jet-fuel-based fires, which do not exceed 1,800 degrees under optimal conditions, so the fires cannot have caused the steel to melt, which means that melting steel did not bring the buildings down.

Melting steel is not even given as the cause of the collapse in the FEMA and NIST investigations. So this is a red herring on Fetzer's part. Surely a philosopher understands that's bogus logic. So that makes him deliberately dishonest. A LIAR. What is stated as the cause is the loss in strength of the steel due to the fires. Unprotected steel (and tests and engineers indicate the steel in the impact zone lost its fire protection as a result of the impact) loses over HALF it's strength at only 600 C. At the temperatures the fire is believed to have reached according to the best fire codes available, it retains only about 10 percent of it's original strength.

3. UL had certified the steel in the buildings up to 2,000 degrees for at least six hours before it would even significantly weaken, where these fires burned too low and too briefly – about one hour in the South Tower and one and a half in the North – to have even caused the steel to weaken, much less melt.

LIAR. The UL certifies steel WITH FIRE PROTECTION INTACT to survive for hours at 2000 F. Again, Fetzer is putting forth a red herring. He's being dishonest.

4. If the steel had melted or weakened, the affected floors would have displayed completely different behavior, with some asymmetrical sagging and tilting, which would have been gradual and slow, not the complete, abrupt and total demolition that was observed.

More dishonesty on Fetzer's part. The towers did indeed display asymmetric sagging and tilting long before the actual collapse. Here are some images from the NIST reports that prove this. They show sagging floors and asymmetric behavior many minutes before the collapse.

This behavior is just what Weidlinger Associates in a lawsuit (not part of the NIST study and hence outside their control) show should have occurred due to fire and impact damage:

Finally, let me quote this ... again from NIST. "New York Times, December 3, 2003 ... snip ... S. Shyam Sunder, who is leading the investigation for the National Institute of Standards and Technology in the Commerce Department, said, "We are seeing evidence of floors appearing to be sagging — or that had been damaged — prior to collapse." Still, Dr. Sunder said, "The relative role of the floors and the columns still remain to be determined in the collapse." According to an alternative theory of the collapse, the planes that smashed into the towers damaged the towers' vertical structural columns so severely that the buildings were virtually certain to fall. In that view, none of the buildings' many structural novelties — the towers were daring engineering innovations in their day — would have played a significant role in the collapses. Last spring, the standards institute found the first photographic evidence on the east face of the south tower that a single floor — with its lightweight support system, called a truss — had sagged in the minutes before it started collapsing. Now, detailed analysis of photos and videos has revealed at least three more sagging floors on that face, said William Pitts, a researcher at the institute's Building and Fire Research Laboratory. In addition, Dr. Pitts said, sudden expansions of the fires across whole floors in each tower shortly before they fell suggested internal collapses — burning floors above suddenly giving way and spreading the blaze below. Finally, an unexplained cascade of molten metal from the northeast corner of the south tower just before it collapsed might have started when a floor carrying pieces of one of the jetliners began to sag and fail. The metal was probably molten aluminum from the plane and could have come through the top of an 80th floor window as the floor above gave way, Dr. Pitts said. "That's probably why it poured out — simply because it was dumped there," Dr. Pitts said. "The structural people really need to look at this carefully." ... snip ... The studies of the floor trusses and the design of the towers are just two elements of the investigation, which is carrying out computer calculations of the collapses, rebuilding pieces of the towers in order to test them in real fires, and piecing together a highly detailed chronology of the response to the attack. In one set of laboratory tests concerning the floor trusses, researchers used earthquake simulators to violently shake assemblages much like the ceilings in the twin towers. The shaking was meant to simulate the impact of the aircraft. The findings, said Richard Gann, a senior research scientist at the Building and Fire Research Laboratory, showed that many of the fire-protecting ceiling tiles near the impact probably crumbled, exposing the undersides of the trusses directly to the fires."

So Fetzer has to know what he wrote is false if he read the NIST reports or has been paying the slightest attention to the news. If he didn't try to keep abreast of the facts before speaking out on the subject, then he is being blindly dishonest which can only be due to unreasonable hatred of Bush or the US government ... or simply being incompetent and a K**K.

5. There was not enough kinetic energy for the collapse of one floor to bring about the collapse of the next lower floor, even if the impact of the planes and the ensuing fires had been enough to cause the steel to weaken, which means that, even if one floor had collapsed due to the impacts and the fires, that could not have caused lower floors to fall.

There is NOT ONE qualified structural engineer, expert in impact, or macro-world physicist IN THE ENTIRE WORLD who has come forward to say they agree with Fetzer. And one can name many such professionals who have specifically addressed this issue and concluded that the collapse of the towers was inevitable once the impact floor failed. They conclude that the sudden failure of a floor, dropping the many floors above it on to the floor below, would have produced FAR more than enough kinetic energy to collapse the floor below the impact zone and every floor below that. Fetzer is simply making things up at this point. He is a BALD FACED LIAR.

Go here http://www.asse.org/engi_calu_wtc.htm and you will find two links to material produced by the American Society of Safety Engineers. One, http://www.asse.org/prac_spec_calculation_wtc.pdf, takes you to a pdf file containing a paper on "calculating the impact force of a mass falling on an elastic structure". It's by Thomas J. Mackin, Department of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign. It describes, in detail, the derivation of a formula for determining the force of impact when a mass falls onto an elastic structure (like an intact floor). Now the results of using that approach are given in the second link, http://www.asse.org/prac_spec_analysis_wtc.pdf, a set of presentation charts which conclude "when the upper structure hits the intact lower structure, the impact force is on the order of 30 times the weight of the mass above! This force fails all the attachments and causes a cascade of floors pancaking downward."

Here (http://www3.tam.uiuc.edu/news/200109wtc/) is another simple analysis BY A REAL AND COMPETENT ENGINEER that proves Fetzer hasn't a clue what he is talking about. That proves he is just regurgitating the nonsense of K**Ks. Let me quote from it: "Once more than about a half of the columns in the critical floor that is heated most suffer buckling (stage 3), the weight of the upper part of the structure above this floor can no longer be supported, and so the upper part starts falling down onto the lower part below the critical floor, gathering speed until it impacts the lower part. At that moment, the upper part has acquired an enormous kinetic energy and a significant downward velocity. The vertical impact of the mass of the upper part onto the lower part (stage 4) applies enormous vertical load on the underlying structure, far exceeding its load capacity, even if it is not heated."

Large scale computer calculations that have been performed here in the US and abroad also show Fetzer is LYING about this. I've posted one from China previously which clearly shows that progressive collapse results once a floor fails. I also posted another where the authors performed a large-scale AUTODYN simulation of the impact and then studied the subsequent failure. In looking at the collapse, the initial conditions for the calculation were the building damaged by the impact from the plane as calculated during the first phase of their study with the "effective plastic strain of the elements in the severe fire damage region" set "to their ultimate plastic strain limit. These structural members are thus assumed to be completely failed in the beginning of the subsequent progressive collapse calculation." Their conclusion is that "driven by gravity, the structures above the impact site fall to the floors below. The stored potential energy of the floors is rapidly converted to kinetic energy with the falling floors acting like the impact of a heavy mass. The impact velocity increases as the collapsing floors are accelerated by gravity. The impact causes the immediate failure of the perimeter and core columns supporting the floors below and leads to the progressive collapse of the entire building." Were the engineers who did these studies traitors or liars or incompetent? Or is Fetzer either ignorant or a LIAR?

6. There was not enough kinetic energy for the collapse of one floor to bring about the pulverization of the next floor, even if the impact of the planes and the ensuing fires had been enough to cause the steel to weaken and one floor to collapse upon another, which required a massive source of energy beyond any that the government has considered.

LIAR. According to REAL physicists, the potential energy released by the collapse of the WTC towers was one percent of the energy in the Hiroshima Bomb. http://www.swarthmore.edu/Home/News/Clippings/2001/01.09.27.html. Seismologists derived a similar estimate and stated that the bulk of that energy did NOT go into the ground or the air. It went into deforming and heating the tower and its contents. Now you try to convince us that the equivalent of 600 tons of TNT distributed over the structure as it collapsed wouldn't have pulverized it.

7. Heavy steel construction buildings like the Twin Towers, built with more than 100,000 tons of steel, are not even capable of "pancake collapse," which can only occur with concrete structures of "lift slab" construction and could not occur in "redundant" welded-steel buildings, such as the towers, unless every supporting column were removed at the same time, as Charles Pagelow has pointed out to me.

Fetzer hasn't a clue about what he claims. NOT ONE structural engineer anywhere in the world appears to agree with him and many such professionals publically seem quite comfortable with the notion of pancaking in the WTC towers. And do you know who Charles Pagelow is? Someone who spent the last 30 years working in the Oil Drilling industry. Surely this isn't Fetzer's *expert* on this subject. ROTFLOL!

Here is what REAL experts in demolition say about the WTC event:

----------------------

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

Implosionworld.com has received numerous inquiries from around the world requesting information and commentary relating to the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001, and specifically the felling of the World Trade Center towers. We have been contacted by media outlets, structural engineers, schoolteachers, conspiracy theorists and many others who are searching for answers and some “perspective” regarding these significant events that have evoked deep emotions and undoubtedly changed our world forever.

... snip ...

DID THE WORLD TRADE CENTER TOWERS ACTUALLY “IMPLODE”?

No. They collapsed in an uncontrolled fashion, causing extensive damage to surrounding structures, roadways and utilities. Although when viewed from a distance the towers appeared to have telescoped almost straight down, a closer look at video replays reveal sizeable portions of each building breaking free during the collapse, with the largest sections--some as tall as 30 or 40 stories--actually “laying out” in several directions. The outward failure of these sections is believed to have caused much of the significant damage to adjacent structures, and smaller debris caused structural and cosmetic damage to hundreds of additional buildings around the perimeter of the site.

WHY DID THEY COLLAPSE?

Each 110-story tower contained a central steel core surrounded by open office space, with 18-inch steel tubes running vertically along the outside of the building. These structural elements provided the support for the building, and most experts agree that the planes impacting the buildings alone would not have caused them to collapse. The intense heat from the burning jet fuel, however, gradually softened the steel core and redistributed the weight to the outer tubes, which were slowly deformed by the added weight and the heat of the fire. Eventually, the integrity of these tubes was compromised to the point where they buckled under the weight of the higher floors, causing a gravitational chain reaction that continued until all of the floors were at ground level.

DID THE TERRORISTS PLANT ANY BOMBS IN THE BUILDINGS IN ADVANCE TO GUARANTEE THEIR DEMISE?

To our knowledge there is no evidence whatsoever to support this assertion. Analysis of video and photographs of both towers clearly shows that the initial structural failure occurred at or near the points where the planes impacted the buildings. Furthermore, there is no visible or audible indication that explosives or any other supplemental catalyst was used in the attack.

-------------------

8. The destruction of the South Tower in 10 seconds and of the North in 11 is even faster than free fall with only air resistance, which would have taken at least 12 seconds – which, as Judy Wood has emphasized, is an astounding result that would have been impossible without extremely powerful explosives.

LIAR. Neither tower collapsed in those times. The photo and video record CLEARLY shows that the towers did not collapse at nearly free-fall speed (in 10 or 11 seconds). The record clearly shows it took at least 50% longer than that which is enough time that a tower nearly 3 times as high to free-fall to the ground. I've posted this data ( http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/freefall.html and http://911review.com/errors/wtc/times.html) several times at LP. It's all over the internet. Fetzer has to know this ... which makes him a LIAR. Furthermore, let me point out that Judy Woods has spent her entire MATERIALS ENGINEERING career studying DENTAL materials.

9. The towers are exploding from the top, not collapsing to the ground, where the floors do not move, a phenomenon that Judy Wood has likened to two gigantic trees turning to sawdust from the top down, which, like the pulverization of the concrete, the official account cannot possibly explain.

Judy Woods again. Let's take a closer look at Ms Woods' resume since she seems to want to call herself a *scholar* when it comes to steel, concrete and collapsing buildings. http://www.ces.clemson.edu/me/mefaculty/Wood.html Look at her research and publications and you find this - " IADR (International Association for Dental Research ), and the Academy of Dental Materials. She currently serves on the SEM Composite Materials Technical Division Committee and has organized a symposium on Biocomposites for the 2001 Annual SEM Conference." And her publications all appear to be dental related. ROTFLOL!

10. Pools of molten metal were found at the subbasement levels three, four and five weeks later, an effect that could not have been produced by the plane-impact/jet-fuel-fire/pancake collapse scenario, which, of course, implies that it was not produced by such a cause.

LIAR. I challenge ANYONE to provide a credible source who says "pools of molten metal were found" much less found "at the subbasement levels". Christopher Bollyn, who started this nonsense, LIED about that. He has not one shred of evidence to prove it. He claimed quotes in that article that are directly contradicted by everything else said or published by the named individuals elsewhere. He misstated and mischaracterized facts in that same article regarding the seismic data and its implications. He's the same nut who wrote articles claiming that Wellstone was assassinated and that a giant energy beam actually destroyed the WTC towers. I also challenge anyone to name ONE real expert in fire or steel who says finding molten material in the rubble was impossible under the scenario promoted by the government. Since this has been widely discussed on the internet, Fetzer has to know all this. So he's being dishonest.

11. WTC-7 came down in a classic controlled demolition at 5:20 p.m. after Larry Silverstein suggested the best thing to do might be to "pull it," displaying all the characteristics of classic controlled demolitions, including a complete, abrupt and total collapse into its own footprint, where the floors are all falling at the same time, and so forth, an event so embarrassing to the official account that it is not even mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report.

First, Silverstein did not say "pull it" in the context of pulling "a building". In the sentence where he used that phrase he was clearly referring to the fire-fighting effort. Second, Fetzer clearly hasn't read the NIST report which clearly disputes his claims. The NIST report clearly shows a progression to the collapse that does not fit his description that it was a controlled demolition. And finally, NOT ONE demolition expert in the world has come forward to say the WTC7 collapse was a controlled demolition. NOT ONE. Is Fetzer enough of a nut to think he's more of an expert on demolition than all of them or is he K**Ky enough to believe that all demolition experts in the world are members of the Illuminati?

Some more of interest, proving Fetzer is a LIAR and a K**K.

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_fire.html

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/06/wtc-7.html

12. The hit point at the Pentagon was too small to accommodate a 100-ton airliner with a 125-foot wingspan and a tail that stands 44 feet above the ground; the kind and quantity of debris was wrong for a Boeing 757: no wings, no fuselage, no seats, no bodies, no luggage, no tail! Which means that the building was not hit by a Boeing 757!

LIAR. LIAR. LIAR. As I've demonstrated over and over, there are plenty of sources on the web that prove the entrance hole in the Pentagon is quite consistent with the impact of an jet with a wingspan of 125 feet. This one photo alone does it (just remember when looking at this image that the plane's tail wasn't 44 feet high during the impact because the landing gear were up.)

And I could post a dozen other images (and have on recent threads with Critter) that prove Fetzer is a dishonest liar about the hole and damage being inconsistent with Flight 77 hitting the building. And check out the video at the link below before you conclude Fetzer's honest about the Pentagon crash not being consistent with a Flight 77 impact:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=21568_The_Pentagon_Attack_Simulation&only

13. The Pentagon's own videotape does not show a Boeing 757 hitting the building, as even Bill O'Reilly admitted when it was shown on "The Factor"; but at 155 feet, the plane was more than twice as long as the 71-foot Pentagon is high and should have been present and visible; it was not, which means that the building was not hit by a Boeing 757!

LIAR. Watch the video at the LGF site I linked above. It superimposes a 757 over the video clip and proves Fetzer is a LIAR when he makes the above statement. And O'Reilly? He's uninformed and ignorant about a lot of things.

14. The aerodynamics of flight would have made the official trajectory – flying at high speed barely above ground level – physically impossible; and if it had come in at an angle instead, it would have created a massive crater; but there is no crater and the government has no way out, which means that the building was not hit by a Boeing 757!

LIAR. Name the aeronautical engineers claiming this? The only one I've seen named is Nila Sagadevan ... one of the *scholars*. Nila's credentials are highly suspect. He currently makes his living as a communication consultant and writing books on religion ( http://www.religioustolerance.org/indexbom05a.htm) and we have no idea where Nila ever actually worked as an aeronautical engineer. Furthermore, Nila stated the following in his analysis of the event "If a 757 were placed on the ground on its engine nacelles (I.e., gear retracted as in flight profile), its nose would be almost 20 above the ground! Ergo, for the aircraft to impact the ground floor of the Pentagon, Hanjour would have needed to have flown in with the engines buried 10-feet deep in the Pentagon lawn" in his analysis of the event. This is false because the diameter of the fuselage is 13 feet and the engines hang down below the fuselage only a few feet. If this self-proclaimed aeronautical engineer and pilot doesn't know the dimensions of a 757, it is hard to believe he is competent to discuss this matter on any level. Furthermore, note that Nila said this in one of his articles: "No pilot in the world would have been able to control the plane while maintained that air speed at 20 feet off the ground for that long a distance. Again, it's just impossible but here I will admit that an expert is needed in order to explain the standards of lift and drag associated with flying a large airliner." Why would an expert be needed to explain these things if he is an expert? He also makes many other false and ignorant statements about the Pentagon crash and the WTC collapses. So if this is who Fetzer is relying on for his 14th claim, Fetzer's a gullible fool on top of everything else.

15. If Flight 93 had come down as advertised, then there would have been a debris field of about a city block in size, but in fact the debris is distributed over an area of about eight square miles, which would be explainable if the plane had been shot down in the air but not if it had crashed as required by the government's official scenario.

I won't call him a liar in this case. It is possible the government shot Flight 93 down. But it is also possible that violent maneuvers prior to the crash during the struggle by the passengers to retake the plane ripped part of the plane off. Or perhaps a bomb did it. Never the less, I think it is already clear that regardless of the facts, Fetzer would find fault with the US government because clearly he is NOT a *Scholar of TRUTH*. He's a PROVEN LIAR.

**************

You are going to have to do better than quoting *Professor* Fetzer, K**K.

The government "makes an honest mistake" about "WMDs" which results in a civil war and 655,000 excess deaths of Iraqi civilians in less than 4 years

ROTFLOL! You want to claim 655,000 Iraqis have died since the invasion? Well where are the bodies, K**K?

BeAChooser  posted on  2006-10-14   16:47:38 ET  (7 images) Reply   Trace  


#116. To: BeAChooser (#115)

"Reynolds and Woods are nothing more than second-rate infiltrators promoting straw man theories."

Oh ... so now they too are part of the conspiracy? ROTFLOL! So how many members of this conspiracy are we now at? Five thousand? Ten? Twenty? ROTFLOL!

There is a good article that goes into the numbers that would be needed, by Douglas Herman...

Source: http://www.rense.com/general73/ow.htm

****************

How 50 Men May Have Engineered 911

Douglas Herman

9-12-6

I've read a lot of commentary about the number of plotters it would have required to carry out an "Inside Job," black operation on September 11, 2001. One lively critic of the Truth Movement, Jan Burton, emailed me that 10,000 men would be needed. And all of them would have to keep their mouths shut forever.

I think 50 top specialists might carry out an operation like 9-11 successfully. Here's how it might be done.

Four or five head plotters at the top might hatch a plan. Call our plan PNAC. Plan of a New Attack Conspiracy. This handful of top government officials would hold the true reins of power in the White House and the Pentagon. I could name three or four players right now, just as anyone could, but I'll leave their identities to the imagination of my readers.

These powerful men, connected to banking, oil and the defense industry, would have a plan in place months in advance. They would then be joined by a half dozen foreign political operatives from a small, tech-savvy country. This small tech-savvy country would, ironically, have top officials in place already in the Pentagon. They would possess dual citizenship but be most loyal to one country. The small one.

Now we have 10-12 plotters.

The secretive, top operatives of the two countries would be joined by a few top honchos in the intelligence field. They would serve as a delaying force, delaying the warnings of loyal and patriotic Americans in the FBI, NSA and the FBI. Any whistleblowers that arose---like FBI translator Sibel Edmonds or the deceased FBI agent John O'Neill---would be marginalized later by a complicit mainstream media. This media would consist mostly of dupes and true believers. They would be outside the loop and not required to have insider information.

Now we number 15-20 key plotters.

These remarkable and clever men command huge numbers of SPECIAL FORCES. These special commandos resemble the Navy Seals. They possess certain demolition skills and variety of disguises and genuine-looking yet fake identification. I suspect these key players pledged a loyalty to a certain tech-savvy country and have been highly trained to follow orders. Trained professional killers who ask no question. Ever. Additionally, with their identifications, they are allowed ready access to key security points easily. Perhaps a dozen men altogether--maybe as few as a half dozen-probably gained access to the WTC buildings 1,2, and 7 in the months prior to that "attack."

How many conspirators do we number thus far? 30 or 35 maybe? Far cry from the "tens of thousands" the Bushco apologists suggest.

Next, one would need the ability to control planes by remote control. Curiously, the head of a small, tech-savvy company that possessed that very technical electronic skill also enjoyed ready access to the Pentagon. He worked there in a high position as Comptroller, controlling the flow of money (during a time when 2.6 trillion went unaccounted for). According to Wikipedia: "In 2001, Dov Zakheim was CEO of SPC International, a subsidiary of System Planning Corporation, a defense contractor specializing in electronic warfare technologies including remote-controlled aircraft systems.

Coincidental? Perhaps-perhaps not.

Now you would need two or three more top people, preferably very rich, connected to the New York real estate market to acquire control of a suitable target. Let us call this target the WTC complex, a suitable array of architectural white elephants and one very highly important US government building (WTC-7) that could be insured for far more money than they cost. For the sake of simplicity, we'll require some skilled commandos to remain close to the targets. To remotely control the hijacked planes into the towers and Pentagon. How many skilled technicians would this require? Five thousand, you say? How about a dozen?

Well, now we've reached the 50. Anyone else is a peripheral player. Any top US general, befuddled at the Pentagon or NORAD is simply a victim, as much as those bewildered FAA air traffic controllers or USAF pilots. By the way, whatever happened to those air traffic control tapes? Guess we can add that fellow to our list of plotters, the top official who ordered the tapes destroyed after the New York Massacre.

That takes us to 51. Call it Area 51. A place that doesn't exist. Except in the twilight zone of our imagination. Except in the minds of "conspiracy nuts" like myself.

Lastly, critics of an inside job, like my correspondent Jan Burton, claim that somebody, anybody, would have come forward by now and "blown" the plot wide open. Now why would they do that? Indeed, well-trained commandos from another country might feel compelled to drunkenly boast about their exploits but I seriously doubt any commando would suffer any pangs of conscience.

And suppose some top official already came forward? Sybil Edmonds already came forward about 911 and her revelations have amounted to exactly nothing. Any top US official would have to think twice before risking his neck to suffer ridicule and probable recriminations---and threats of harm to himself and his family. I'm reminded of those US Navy sailors who were threatened with simple military courts martials and demotions if they talked about the attack on the USS Liberty. Now multiply the threat by, say, death. How many would talk then?

USAF veteran, amateur historian and controversial novelist of The Guns of Dallas,

Douglas Herman explained the likely scenario of the JFK assassination in his recent suspense thriller. He writes for that last bastion of free speech--the internet. Support it or lose it. Contact him at douglas herman7 @yahoo.com [removespaces]

****************

So outside of Doug Herman's 50, you have a few more employed in the cover up operation over the next few years. But as he says, these are peripheral players. They do not know more than they need to, and certainly do not know the details of how the job was done. Some work out of loyalty to Israel, some are just useful fools, and others are paid.

"A Boeing 767 smashes through some perimeter columns, using almost half of its kinetic energy just to penetrate the building."

And you arrived at this conclusion how?

It was in a peer-reviewed paper based on a finite element analysis that took about four hours to run on a Pentium IV 2.78 GHz PC. They assume 240 m/s impact velocity - which is too high especially for the WTC 1 impact - and also take as much as 25,370 kg as the mass of fuel in a single wing, so they have overestimated the energy just prior to impact. Given these assumptions, they found that 46% of the initial K.E. was used to penetrate the columns, so the true figure would be a little higher than that.

"Then it not only has enough energy in reserve to reduce the 159 foot plane into 18 micron particles,"

That's a strawman, K**K. I never suggested any such thing. I was just proving that your claim that molten aluminum or even burning aluminum is always silver in color is FALSE.

You are invariably guilty of the very charges you accuse others of. I have never said that molten or burning aluminum is always silver; just that it would have been silver at the maximum temperatures that would have been possible in the WTC fires of burning papers, curtains and workstations. Any aluminum that melted would have barely exceeded the melting point. Your example of burning rocket propellant was like comparing apples and oranges, and I showed what would have been necessary to produce a comparable situation at the WTC.

"Haven't the official conspiracy theorists ever stopped to consider that, just sometimes, the simplest theories that fit the facts"

ROTFLOL! Simple. A conspiracy with thousands of participants, NONE of whom has broken rank and spilled the beans in 5 years? A conspiracy where EVERY SINGLE REAL EXPERT in structures, steel, fire, buckling, demolotion, seismology and macro-world physics IN THE ENTIRE WORLD is a member? You really are a K**K. ROTFLOL!

As shown above, there are only about 50 principal players, and these are not the sort of people who would talk. There is a powerful incentive for structural engineers, etc, to keep quiet. They don't want to lose their jobs. As for NIST, they were given the conclusion "Muslims did 9/11", and their task was to work backwards to find a series of 'facts' that would support that conclusion and please their superiors. As scholars such as Kevin Ryan correctly pointed out, this is anti-science. The scientific method should be about starting with the facts, finding a hypothesis that fits the facts, and then continuing to test the hypothesis against further facts. The theory "Muslims did 9/11 (and brought down three skyscrapers)" fails, because the facts don't support it. Facts such as molten iron found at the bottom of WTC 1, 2 and 7, and excessive sulfidation of structural steel.

Actually, here is a whistleblower. I see you have already tried to deal with this on this forum, but not very convincingly.

And why should we believe any of the above is true when you can't even get the simpliest of facts right?

Which fact are you referring to here, and are there _any_ facts that you have got right?

When you can't even get ONE real expert in subjects relevant to the collapse of the towers or damage to the Pentagon to come forward and support you? When you have knowing LIED about other facts of the event?

This conclusion of yours could only be true if I actually believed your version of events. If your version of what happened on 9/11 was objective fact, you and I both believed it, and I claimed another series of events had happened, then I would be lying. But in that case, I would have no motive to lie or promote another version of events. Given that I do not accept your 'reality', I would be lying if I said I believed it.

When you continue to claim, despite incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, that the hole in the Pentagon was much to small to be caused by a commercial passenger plane impact.

Here, you have knowingly LIED about what I said! The problem is not that the hole is too small, but that it is in an impossible place. In order to fit the fuselage as low as it was supposed to be on the ground floor, the engines would have gouged out massive tracks in the lawn.

I haven't seen evidence that Skilling, who was a senior member of the firm at the time, was involved in the actual design of the towers. It was Robertson who moved to NYC to head the design. And Robertson has stated that they did NOT look at what the fires would do to the structure. So I tell you what K**K, if you want us to believe you, then use your incredible browsing skills and provide us with the actual analysis that Skilling did of the structure to confirm that the fires wouldn't collapse it.

We know that the Seattle Times reported Skilling as confirming that his people did an analysis that showed the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 and the resulting "horrendous fire" from dumped jet fuel:

http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display? slug=1687698&date=19930227

"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."

And look at what NIST had to say on the matter. These, remember, are BeAChooser-approved experts, so their words should carry some weight.

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTCPublicMeeting02122004handouts.pdf

from page 9:

************

• Buildings are not designed to withstand the impacts of fuel-laden commercial airliners

• Structural safety of the WTC towers in an aircraft collision was a consideration in the original design

• The impact scenario considered a Boeing 707 aircraft traveling at 600 mph; another document considered an aircraft impact at the 80th floor

• Analysis indicated that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building

• Fire safety: There are two views on whether the effect of jet fuel and aircraft contents was a consideration in the original building design:

• One view suggests that an analysis was done indicating the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel would dump into the building and there would be a horrendous fire.

• Another view suggests that the fuel load, and the fire damage that it would cause, may not have been considered.

• Life safety: There are two views on what would be the effect of aircraft impact on occupant life safety:

• One view, which did not consider the fires, suggests that the aircraft impact would not have endangered the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.

• Another view, which considered the fires, recognized that a lot of people would be killed even though the building structure would still be there.

************

So your claim about the building only being designed to withstand a Boeing at 180 mph is debunked - even NIST admits it was 600 mph! And look where the story about the WTC only being designed to survive the impact of an aircraft at low speed that was lost in fog and coming in to land with very little fuel originates.

FEMA (see page 17) i.e., the government! It contradicts the genuine, pre-2001 sources.

As for the analysis of the fire, even NIST realised that they would not get away with lying about this as you have done. So they covered themselves by suggesting that there were "two views" - i.e. the government's spun version and the truth.

If my version is correct, I do not have to propose a conspiracy here. After the buildings collapsed, Robertson naturally did not say that they did analyse the effect of the fires but they must have got it wrong. He wouldn't have wanted to cast doubts on the quality of his work, and the interviewers / media would have been happy to go along with the theory that it was the "massive jet fuel fires" that destroyed the buildings.

If your version is true, then Skilling or the Seattle Times must have lied and are part of the conspiracy, and NIST has also been infiltrated. Skilling wasn't one of Bin Laden's gang. Perhaps they have some agents at NIST. LOL!

"If the columns had all been heated to over 550 C, say, (which they weren't)"

That's a FALSE statement, K**K. If you think I and NIST are wrong ... then PUBLISH. Let's see you get your nonsense published in ANY credible peer reviewed journal.

NIST have already published! They found that 98% of perimeter panels did not exceed 250 C, and all core columns tested remained below 250 C. And these are _your_ experts.

Tell you what, Poseiden. Here's Gass' phone number:

Call him if you like. You are the one who refuses to face all the facts staring at you in plain sight. I do not need to confirm what years of research has already proved to me.

Professor Fetzer, a philosopher, is a proven LIAR. The following are the 15 points that Fetzer outlined about 9/11 in a rebuttal to Moseley and my rebuttal to each one.

********************

1. The impact of the planes cannot have caused enough damage to bring the buildings down, since the buildings were designed to withstand them (as Frank DeMartini, the project manager, has observed); the planes that hit were very similar to those they were designed to withstand, and they continued to stand after those impacts with negligible effects.

LIAR. First, the towers were designed to withstand the impact of a commercial traveling much slower than the ones that actually impacted. Leslie Robertson, lead structural engineer for the World Trade Center, commented on this point in Reflections on the World Trade Center. He wrote “It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark.

I have already debunked this claim. So here, Fetzer is right and you are wrong.

2. The melting point of steel at 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit is about 1,000 degrees higher than the maximum burning temperature of jet-fuel-based fires, which do not exceed 1,800 degrees under optimal conditions, so the fires cannot have caused the steel to melt, which means that melting steel did not bring the buildings down.

Melting steel is not even given as the cause of the collapse in the FEMA and NIST investigations. So this is a red herring on Fetzer's part.

Fetzer is right about "the fires cannot have caused the steel to melt" as far as the molten iron is concerned. And although FEMA and NIST have admitted that the structural steel didn't melt in the fires, there are still reports circulating on the internet that it did, so it is in order for Fetzer to debunk these claims. For instance, here, it is reported that a structural engineer, Chris Wise, said that the columns and the floors would have melted. Professor John Knapton said that the "aviation fluid melted the steel".

3. UL had certified the steel in the buildings up to 2,000 degrees for at least six hours before it would even significantly weaken, where these fires burned too low and too briefly – about one hour in the South Tower and one and a half in the North – to have even caused the steel to weaken, much less melt.

LIAR. The UL certifies steel WITH FIRE PROTECTION INTACT to survive for hours at 2000 F. Again, Fetzer is putting forth a red herring. He's being dishonest.

Fetzer's answer would have been more complete had he pointed out that most of the fireproofing would have stayed intact.

6. There was not enough kinetic energy for the collapse of one floor to bring about the pulverization of the next floor, even if the impact of the planes and the ensuing fires had been enough to cause the steel to weaken and one floor to collapse upon another, which required a massive source of energy beyond any that the government has considered.

LIAR. According to REAL physicists, the potential energy released by the collapse of the WTC towers was one percent of the energy in the Hiroshima Bomb. http://www.swarthmore.edu/Home/News/Clippings/2001/01.09.27.html. Seismologists derived a similar estimate and stated that the bulk of that energy did NOT go into the ground or the air. It went into deforming and heating the tower and its contents. Now you try to convince us that the equivalent of 600 tons of TNT distributed over the structure as it collapsed wouldn't have pulverized it.

Fetzer is right. The kinetic energy is given by mass * g * height. Take the collapse of one floor, suppose the upper 13-floor block of WTC 1 had dropped 12 feet. I did a detailed analysis of the weight and placed it at 34,573 tons = 31,365 tonnes. (Others such as Greening merely copied others' figures.) The energy is:

31,365,000 kg * 9.807 m/s^2 * 3.658 m = 1.125 GJ. This is about one fifty- thousandth the energy of the Hiroshima bomb, or equivalent to about 500 pounds of TNT. Each of the regular office floors (around floor 98) of WTC 1 had about 785 tons of concrete. So it's more than a ton of concrete per pound of TNT.

Of course, once the collapse front nears the ground, the dropped distance has increased a hundredfold, the velocity ten times, and the energy a hundred times. And the mass increases. The gravitational energy must have played a very major part in pulverising the concrete. But the structures did not take long to turn to dust.

8. The destruction of the South Tower in 10 seconds and of the North in 11 is even faster than free fall with only air resistance, which would have taken at least 12 seconds – which, as Judy Wood has emphasized, is an astounding result that would have been impossible without extremely powerful explosives.

LIAR. Neither tower collapsed in those times. The photo and video record CLEARLY shows that the towers did not collapse at nearly free-fall speed (in 10 or 11 seconds). The record clearly shows it took at least 50% longer than that

Fetzer is incorrect here about air resistance being only 12 seconds, which is total nonsense. He was probably misled by Judy Wood. The 10 seconds was mentioned in the 911 Commission report.

14. The aerodynamics of flight would have made the official trajectory – flying at high speed barely above ground level – physically impossible; and if it had come in at an angle instead, it would have created a massive crater; but there is no crater and the government has no way out, which means that the building was not hit by a Boeing 757!

LIAR. Name the aeronautical engineers claiming this? The only one I've seen named is Nila Sagadevan ... one of the *scholars*. Nila's credentials are highly suspect. He currently makes his living as a communication consultant and writing books on religion ( http://www.religioustolerance.org/indexbom05a.htm) and we have no idea where Nila ever actually worked as an aeronautical engineer. Furthermore, Nila stated the following in his analysis of the event "If a 757 were placed on the ground on its engine nacelles (I.e., gear retracted as in flight profile), its nose would be almost 20 above the ground! Ergo, for the aircraft to impact the ground floor of the Pentagon, Hanjour would have needed to have flown in with the engines buried 10-feet deep in the Pentagon lawn" in his analysis of the event. This is false because the diameter of the fuselage is 13 feet and the engines hang down below the fuselage only a few feet. If this self-proclaimed aeronautical engineer and pilot doesn't know the dimensions of a 757, it is hard to believe he is competent to discuss this matter on any level.

But in one of your previous posts, where you showed an image of the entry hole, you described it as "about 16-18 feet in diameter ... about the size of Flight 77's fuselage". Most sources place the 757 fuselage diameter at about 13 feet, with the height a few inches more than the width.

Professor Fetzer is not right all the time, but he is right most of the time and has an accurate enough grasp of the big picture to come to the correct conclusion.

ROTFLOL! You want to claim 655,000 Iraqis have died since the invasion? Well where are the bodies, K**K?

This figure was the result of a study by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Naturally, the figure is disputed by Bushco, but some believe it could be an underestimate.

Poseidon  posted on  2006-10-15   22:21:47 ET  Reply   Trace  


#117. To: Poseidon, Be A Chooser, kbb (#116)

There is a good article that goes into the numbers that would be needed, by Douglas Herman...

Source: http://www.rense.com/general73/ow.htm

There is descension amongst the kooks.

http://www.wingtv.net/tho rn2006/censorship.html

yukon  posted on  2006-10-15   23:07:44 ET  Reply   Trace  


#118. To: yukon (#117)

There is descension amongst the kooks.

http://www.wingtv.net/tho rn2006/censorship.html

wow

there is whole orchard of nuts there, they are selling books about nutty things

i see nuts, 9/11 CT nuts, there everywhere

kbb  posted on  2006-10-15   23:40:50 ET  Reply   Trace  


#119. To: yukon (#117)

There is descension amongst the kooks.

Dissension amongst skeptics of government propaganda. Jeff Rense censored Douglas Herman's April article. Of course, the question of whether Rense, Alex Jones or Wing TV are shills has never been satisfactorily resolved. There is certainly no love lost between Wing TV and the other two. At the moment, Wing TV appear the most genuine. Trust, but verify!

Poseidon  posted on  2006-10-16   6:29:39 ET  Reply   Trace  


#120. To: All (#99)

I made a minor error in an earlier post where I wrote:

An upper bound of some 453,600 tonnes x 9.807 m/s^2 x 417 m gives 2.045^12 J which is 3 - 4 percent of the Hiroshima bomb. That supposes the entire 500,000 tons was dropped from 1368 feet. There should be a reducing factor of more than 2, considering the steel was much heavier grade at the bottom, and a considerable amount of the building's mass was below ground.

I had converted from tons to tonnes, but multiplied by 500,000 * 1000 instead of 453,600 * 1000 kg. The true figure for 500,000 tons all dropped from 1368 feet should be about 10% less, at 1.855 trillion joules.

Also, when I wrote yesterday that "Fetzer is incorrect here about air resistance [time for free fall] being only 12 seconds", the "only" should be deleted or changed to "as much as".

Poseidon  posted on  2006-10-16   7:01:16 ET  Reply   Trace  


#121. To: Poseidon, ALL (#116)

How 50 Men May Have Engineered 911

Yeah ... right. I suppose the 50 were very busy scattering debris all over the Pentagon site right after they faked the plane crash? Right?

And how many to keep it covered up? ROTFLOL!

If you believe the number is anywhere near 50, you truly are loony.

It was in a peer-reviewed paper based on a finite element analysis

I'm glad to see you like LS-DYNA. So why don't you believe this analysis?

http://www.luxinzheng.net/news/enwtc.html "Mechanical simulation and parameter discussion for the collapse of WTC (World Trade Center) after aeroplane impact are presented in this paper with the dynamic FEA software of LS-DYNA. The simulation results are very close to the real situation, which means that such type of special damage process can be recurred on the computer with proper parameter and numerical model. The results show that the direct reason for the collapse is the softening of steel under fire and the chain reaction damage of floors under the impact load of upper floors."

And I take it you didn't like Purdue's analyses of the impact and their conclusions?

http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/phase3/

http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/scientists-and-engineers-simulate-jet-colliding-with-world-trade-center-11483.html

Because NOT ONE of engineers involved in any of these analyses, including the one you linked from Akron, believes your bombs in the WTC nonsense. NOT ONE.

ROTFLOL!

The minimum impact velocity of the aircraft to just penetrate the exterior columns would be 130 m/s."

Which is 290 mph.

The impact velocity of the slowest of the two planes was 470 mph.

The energy at 470 mph is 470*470/290/290 = 2.62 times higher than at 290.

100/2.62 = 38% ... not 50%.

But in any case, SO WHAT if half the energy of impact was needed to penetrate the outer layer of columns? There was still plenty left to do the damage to the interior that the experts say occurred.

I have never said that molten or burning aluminum is always silver; just that it would have been silver at the maximum temperatures that would have been possible in the WTC fires of burning papers, curtains and workstations.

And how hot would that be?

Any aluminum that melted would have barely exceeded the melting point.

Ohhhhh ... are you trying to suggest a fire from burning papers, curtains and workstations can't get much hotter than about 600 C, the melting point of alloyed aluminum? Let's see ... that's about 1000 F. I guess you weren't aware that they MEASURED temperatures in the Windsor Tower fire at over 1400 F. I guess you aren't aware that hydrocode fire analysis tools, considered the best method available for computing the temperatures in complex fires like this, indicate temperatures in the WTC in the region where debris from the planes would have ended up after the impact were in excess of 1800 F?

As shown above, there are only about 50 principal players,

Right, K**K.

There is a powerful incentive for structural engineers, etc, to keep quiet. They don't want to lose their jobs.

Even the engineers who work in France, China, Germany, Japan, Canada, ...? Are those 50 so powerful they control the jobs of even those engineers? ROTFLOL!

And what you seem to be saying is that structural engineers put their pocket book ahead of the lives of people. Gee ... maybe we shouldn't have them designing all those structures that we, by the millions, put our lives into the hands of every day? ROTFLOL!

And one more thing. Why are structural engineers so less ethical (is that the right word?) than say ... forensic pathologists? Consider the Ron Brown death. Now in that case multiple forensic pathologists came forward to suggest foul play ... at the risk of their careers (some even had their careers destroyed). In fact, every single forensic pathologists who has publically said something about that case has indicated Brown should have been autopsied ... except for one. Why were forensic pathologists so much better people than structural engineers? Is there something wrong with the education of structural engineers? ROTFLOL!

As for NIST, they were given the conclusion "Muslims did 9/11", and their task was to work backwards to find a series of 'facts' that would support that conclusion and please their superiors.

Right, K**K. Tell us, what about the engineers who did the analyses for both sides in the law suits that followed 9/11? Such as Weidlinger Associates. Those cases didn't involve the government and there were engineers on opposite sides in the case hoping to find culpability by someone other than hijackers. Yet, they arrived at the same conclusion as NIST as far as why the structures collapsed. Just curious. How do you explain that?

As scholars such as Kevin Ryan

He's a *scholar*? No, he's a fool. ROTFLOL!

Actually, here is a whistleblower. I see you have already tried to deal with this on this forum, but not very convincingly.

I don't recall saying anything about SGT Lauro Chavez. But I could be mistaken. By all means, refresh my memory with a link to where I said something about him or what he claims?

"And why should we believe any of the above is true when you can't even get the simpliest of facts right?"

Which fact are you referring to here

Well, for starters, do you still maintain that the hole in the Pentagon was less than 90 feet in width?

If your version of what happened on 9/11 was objective fact, you and I both believed it, and I claimed another series of events had happened, then I would be lying.

You almost sound like SKYDRIFTER. ROTFLOL!

Here, you have knowingly LIED about what I said! The problem is not that the hole is too small, but that it is in an impossible place.

Well did I misunderstand when you answered my question "Are you claiming after all that no hole was made in the Pentagon by the wings? Yes? No?" by writing "No, the wings would not necessarily have made a hole." I interpreted that to mean you didn't think the wings made a hole in the Pentagon. You also said in response to the question "Let me start by rephrasing the question. Do you think there was hole in the Pentagon more than 90 feet wide? Yes or no?" this: "If you mean before the collapse, I would say probably not." Again, I interpreted that to mean you were denying the 90 foot wide plus hole that photos show existed in the Pentagon BEFORE the collapse occurred. Are you saying now that you've changed your mind

In order to fit the fuselage as low as it was supposed to be on the ground floor, the engines would have gouged out massive tracks in the lawn.

You apparently don't know the dimensions of a 757. Or maybe you are basing your beliefs on what Nila (that st911 *scholar*, pilot and aeronautical engineer) claimed? ROTFLOL!

We know that the Seattle Times reported Skilling as confirming that his people did an analysis that showed the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 and the resulting "horrendous fire" from dumped jet fuel:

FALSE. They did not report Skilling saying AN ANALYSIS showed the towers would withstand the resulting "horrendous fire". It only reported that he said it would still be standing. Not the same thing. But we do know FOR CERTAIN that the engineer who actually was responsible for the design of the structures (Robertson) is on record saying they did NOT do such an analysis. And none of the other engineers who worked on the structures has stepped up and contradicted him. NOT ONE. Why is that? Are they included in your 50?

And look at what NIST had to say on the matter. ... snip ... Structural safety of the WTC towers in an aircraft collision was a consideration in the original design. The impact scenario considered a Boeing 707 aircraft traveling at 600 mph; another document considered an aircraft impact at the 80th floor

This NIST handout is poorly worded. I think the design of the WTC towers was completed BEFORE the Skilling analysis was done. A high speed impact was NOT considered during the design, just as Robertson, the head designer, has said.

So your claim about the building only being designed to withstand a Boeing at 180 mph is debunked - even NIST admits it was 600 mph!

No, they admitted that the Skilling whitepaper which they were referring to used a velocity of 600 mph. I'm not denying that. But was the Skilling paper a design document? No. Poor wording left the impression it was the "design" velocity. Skilling is dead and any document showing such an analysis has not been found. I do know this. The man who headed the design team (Robertson) has categorically stated that 180 mph was the design velocity and survival of the structure from a resultant fire was not considered.

You might want to read the history of what went on back then: http://scott-juris.blogspot.com/The%20Height%20of%20Ambition%20Part%20Four.pdf "The Height of Ambition: Part Four September 8, 2002 By JAMES GLANZ and ERIC LIPTON ... snip ... But Robertson still had one more set of structural calculations to perform. Lawrence Wien, who was continuing his fight against the towers, had begun to remind New Yorkers publicly of a Saturday morning in July 1945, when a B-25 bomber, lost in the fog, barreled into the 79th floor of the Empire State Building. Most of the 14 people who died were incinerated by a fireball created when the plane's fuel ignited, even though the fire was quickly contained. The following year,another plane crashed into the 72-story skyscraper at 40 Wall Street, and yet another one narrowly missed the Empire State Building, terrifying sightseers on the observation deck. Wien and his committee charged that the twin towers, with their broader and higher tops, would represent an even greater risk of mid air collision. They ran a nearly full-page ad in The Times with an artist's rendition of a commercial airliner about to ram one of the towers. ''Unfortunately, we rarely recognize how serious these problems are until it's too late to do anything,'' the caption said. The Port Authority was already trying to line up the thousands of tenants it would need to fill the acres of office space in the towers. Such a frightful vision could not be left unchallenged. Robertson says that he never saw the ad and was ignorant of the political battle behind it. Still, he recalls that he addressed the question of an airplane collision, if only to satisfy his engineer's curiosity. For whatever reason, Robertson took the time to calculate how well his towers would handle the impact from a Boeing 707, the largest jetliner in service at the time. He says that his calculations assumed a plane lost in a fog while searching for an airport at relatively low speed, like the B-25 bomber. He concluded that the towers would remain standing despite the force of the impact and the hole it would punch out. The new technologies he had installed after the motion experiments and wind-tunnel work had created a structure more than strong enough to withstand such a blow. Exactly how Robertson performed these calculations is apparently lost - he says he cannot find a copy of the report. Several engineers who worked with him at the time, including the director of his computer department, say they have no recollection of ever seeing the study. But the Port Authority, eager to mount a counter attack against Wien, seized on the results -- and may in fact have exaggerated them. One architect working for the Port Authority issued a statement to the press, covered in a prominent article in The Times, explaining that Robertson's study proved that the towers could withstand the impact of a jetliner moving at 600 miles an hour. That was perhaps three times the speed that Robertson had considered. If Robertson saw the article in the paper, he never spoke up about the discrepancy. No one else issued a correction, and the question was answered in many people's minds: the towers were as safe as could be expected, even in the most cataclysmic of circumstances. There were only two problems. The first, of course, was that no study of the impact of a 600-mile-an-hour plane ever existed. ''That's got nothing to do with the reality of what we did,'' Robertson snapped when shown the Port Authority architect's statement more than three decades later."

If your version is true, then Skilling or the Seattle Times must have lied and are part of the conspiracy,

No. I'm not challenging that Skilling did an after the design analysis that showed a 600 mph impact could be STRUCTURALLY survived. And the Seattle Times didn't report that Skilling had analyzed what the fire would do to the structure. They just reported what he said and what he said could mean anything.

NIST have already published! They found that 98% of perimeter panels did not exceed 250 C

The fire models show that temperatures on the perimeter would in general not have exceeded 250 C. So what?

Also, you mischaracterize the facts. NIST did NOT test 98% of the perimeter columns.

and all core columns tested remained below 250 C.

And the fire models show that those particular columns that were tested would not have exceeded 250 C. So what?

"Tell you what, Poseiden. Here's Gass' phone number:"

Call him if you like.

I have no need to call him. You are the one who desperately needs an expert.

I do not need to confirm what years of research has already proved to me.

Then I suggest it is time to publish, K**K. You aren't getting any younger. ROTFLOL!

"ROTFLOL! You want to claim 655,000 Iraqis have died since the invasion? Well where are the bodies, K**K?"

This figure was the result of a study by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

And it's just as bogus and politically motivated as the first study they did. Where are the bodies?

BeAChooser  posted on  2006-10-16   18:14:28 ET  Reply   Trace  


#122. To: BeAChooser (#121)

I'm glad to see you like LS-DYNA. So why don't you believe this analysis?

http://www.luxinzheng.net/news/enwtc.html "Mechanical simulation and parameter discussion for the collapse of WTC (World Trade Center) after aeroplane impact are presented in this paper with the dynamic FEA software of LS-DYNA. The simulation results are very close to the real situation, which means that such type of special damage process can be recurred on the computer with proper parameter and numerical model. The results show that the direct reason for the collapse is the softening of steel under fire and the chain reaction damage of floors under the impact load of upper floors."

The conclusion looks impressive enough. Problem is, the authors have practically assumed it at the outset. They say:

************

Because of the weak fire resistance capacity of steel, the high temperature caused by the burning of aeroplane oil will soften the steel. So the material of steel under fire is needed to be setup, whose other parameter is the same to normal steel except that the Yang’s modulus and strength is set as 1/20 of normal ones, to approach the performance of steel at 700 C.

***********

So they *assumed* that the steel was reduced in strength by a factor of twenty times, with no explanation to show how they arrived at this postulate. It would be surprising if this model did not predict collapse under such conditions. Incidentally, a twenty times reduction in strength would correspond to steel that had almost melted. I compiled a chart of relative strength against temperature which goes like this:

Temp (C): 0, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100

R.Strnth: 1, 1, .995, .995, .99, .99, .99, .985, .985, .98, .98

Temp (C): 110, 120, 130, 140, 150, 160, 170, 180, 190, 200

R.Strnth: .98, .975, .97, .97, .965, .965, .96, .955, .955, .95

Temp (C): 210, 220, 230, 240, 250, 260, 270, 280, 290, 300

R.Strnth: .95, .945, .94, .935, .93, .925, .925, .92, .915, .91

Temp (C): 310, 320, 330, 340, 350, 360, 370, 380, 390, 400

R.Strnth: .905, .9, .89, .885, .88, .875, .87, .86, .855, .845

Temp (C): 410, 420, 430, 440, 450, 460, 470, 480, 490, 500

R.Strnth: .835, .82, .805, .79, .775, .76, .74, .72, .7, .68

Temp (C): 510, 520, 530, 540, 550, 560, 570, 580, 590, 600

R.Strnth: .66, .635, .61, .585, .56, .535, .51, .48, .45, .425

Temp (C): 610, 620, 630, 640, 650, 660, 670, 680, 690, 700

R.Strnth: .4, .38, .36, .34, .32, .3, .275, .255, .235, .215

Temp (C): 710, 720, 730, 740, 750, 760, 770, 780, 790, 800

R.Strnth: .205, .195, .185, .18, .17, .16, .15, .14, .13, .125

Temp (C): 810, 820, 830, 840, 850

R.Strnth: .115, .11, .1, .095, .09

I took the mean of four or five graphs from various sources. The graph used by FEMA showed a slightly worse performance than the others. A temperature of 700 C would result in serious weakening, but the reduction factor should be about 0.215 not 0.05.

The Xinzheng/Jianjing paper goes on to say:

************

Improving the structure fire resistance ability or control the fire influence area will avoid or delay the structure collapse, efficiently. We simulate the fire influence by adjusting the material property of elements. From the numerical results, even though the structure has been damaged seriously by the impact, if the influence area is smaller than 20%~25% of the survival section in the tower, the collapse still can be avoided. When more than 30~50% of the survival section near the impact zone fails, the collapse will start.

************

So even given the impact damage, and the fact that they assumed steel influenced by fire for 56 minutes would automatically lose 95% of its strength, it was still necessary that 30~50% or more of the steel would be so weakened. A proper analysis would take into account how much energy was released by the combustibles, how much was vented out to drive the smoke plume, how much was lost due to a fuel-rich stoichiometry, how hot the various members got based on their mass, absorbing area and amount of fireproofing that had been damaged, etc. The amount of steel that lost 95% of its strength would be nowhere near 30% - not even 10%. LOL!

And I take it you didn't like Purdue's analyses of the impact and their conclusions?

http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/phase3/

http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/scientists-and-engineers-simulate-jet- colliding- with-world-trade-center-11483.html

These do not explain the molten steel or iron, the eyewitness reports of explosions and bombs, including the bombs in the basement where one of the less experienced operators in WTC 7 got it wrong and pressed the button about ten seconds before the plane impact, not afterwards. LOL! Not to mention the record of Israel (and pre-1948 Jewish terrorists) in staging phony false-flag terror and attempting to frame a third party for political advantage.

Because NOT ONE of engineers involved in any of these analyses, including the one you linked from Akron, believes your bombs in the WTC nonsense. NOT ONE.

ROTFLOL!

After the trial, when the ringleaders are gassed and the peripheral players go to jail, no engineers will support the "Bin Laden collapsed WTC" theory - not even one! Then, no doubt, you will probably deny ever having believed it!

"The minimum impact velocity of the aircraft to just penetrate the exterior columns would be 130 m/s." Which is 290 mph.

The impact velocity of the slowest of the two planes was 470 mph.

The energy at 470 mph is 470*470/290/290 = 2.62 times higher than at 290.

100/2.62 = 38% ... not 50%.

Their figures are a few percent out somewhere; they have 240 m/s (537 mph) as the top speed of the aircraft and initial impact velocity, the residual impact velocity after penetration was 171 m/s (383 mph). 1-(171/240)^2 is about 49% not 46%. They say about 46% of the initial kinetic energy of the aircraft was used to damage the columns and the aircraft. The paper does point out that this is a worst case scenario, assuming a full tank of fuel. And given these assumptions of more fuel and a higher velocity than the actual case, it was found that the aircraft wings and fuel tanks would not have penetrated the exterior columns if the column thickness was more than 20 mm. Of course, in the upper floors the exterior steel was only about 1/4" thick. At the lower floors, it could be more than 2" thick, so the aircraft would not have penetrated at these levels.

Presumably, the Pentagon wall would have had to have been only comparable in strength to the upper WTC exteriors. If it had been specially strengthened to withstand a terrorist attack, then it should have been comparable to the lower WTC floors and a plane would not have penetrated. Given that the gravity load and wind load was a lot less at the Pentagon, it would not have resisted the plane unless it had been specially reinforced.

But in any case, SO WHAT if half the energy of impact was needed to penetrate the outer layer of columns? There was still plenty left to do the damage to the interior that the experts say occurred.

The next stage involved further damaging the plane and smashing 4 inches of concrete for some distance in towards the core. After the point where the concrete started to survive, trusses would have been damaged for a bit and then there would be an area where the trusses had survived, but fireproofing was damaged. But the area where the trusses survived and maximum damage occurred to the fireproofing, even on the worst floor, would be such a low proportion of the 42,849 square feet of floor area, that it would make little difference if this steel got up to 850 C, say. Even if the damaged concrete area was relatively low and the trusses had survived and fireproofing had been fully ripped off over an area more than the width of the fuselage, say 30 feet, and extended 50 feet beyond the limit of the smashed concrete, that is only 3.5% of the area of a particular floor. And the descent angle of AA 11 was about ten degrees, so most of the trusses would have been shielded by four inches of solid concrete.

The first line of defense at the core - the outer line of core columns - would have been stronger than those at the center. The minimum specifications would have been in the order of a W14x193, which has a flange thickness of 1.44 inches and a web thickness of 0.89 inches. The analysis showed that even the entire plane at 537 mph with a full tank of fuel would have failed to penetrate the building if the exterior columns were more than 20 mm thick. I accept that there is a possiblity that if an engine had survived intact and entered between the floors and directly hit a core column it might have taken out the column. But almost all columns would have survived. The damage to fireproofing, even a whole of one side of a flange with the inner webs and opposite flange intact, would not be enough to result in average column temperatures significantly in excess of 400 C after 102 minutes. Total column failure would have required the removal of five floors, and there was not sufficient damage to fireproofing over a great enough area on five floors to initiate this.

"I have never said that molten or burning aluminum is always silver; just that it would have been silver at the maximum temperatures that would have been possible in the WTC fires of burning papers, curtains and workstations. "

how hot would that be?

I answered here when I said:

"any aluminum that melted would have barely exceeded the melting point."

Ohhhhh ... are you trying to suggest a fire from burning papers, curtains and workstations can't get much hotter than about 600 C, the melting point of alloyed aluminum? Let's see ... that's about 1000 F. I guess you weren't aware that they MEASURED temperatures in the Windsor Tower fire at over 1400 F. I guess you aren't aware that hydrocode fire analysis tools, considered the best method available for computing the temperatures in complex fires like this, indicate temperatures in the WTC in the region where debris from the planes would have ended up after the impact were in excess of 1800 F?

Gas temperatures might have reached 1800 F or 1000 C in places, although not for the whole of the 56 or 102 minutes. The problem is that gas temperatures =/= solids or melted solids temperatures. First you have to raise the aluminum to melting point. Then you have to melt it. It requires about 1 MJ/kg of aluminum just to get this far. 1 inch thick aluminum over 1 m^2 would weigh 0.0254 * 2700 = 68.6 kg per square meter. A radiator at 1000 C could provide some 150 kW/m^2, but with the emissivity of aluminum at about 0.1, only 15 kW/m^2 would be absorbed. In 56 minutes, 15,000 * 56 * 60 = 50.4 MJ/m^2 which could only melt 50.4 kg of aluminum per square meter which is less than one inch thick after 56 minutes of 1000 C gas temperatures. And this is before raising the temperature above the melting point. The molten metal seen pouring out of the side of WTC 2 has been estimated as totalling several cubic yards, ie. tons of the material. That would need the aluminum to be spread out over at least a 100 m^2 or a 33 feet by 33 feet section of the floor. The maximum thickness of aluminum that could be melted by the fires would be too low to ensure that it would remain molten in the pile for any appreciable time.

Alternatively, if the aluminum was only 1/2 inch thick, it might reach 850 C after 56 minutes, but only if the gas temperature remained at 1000 C for 56 minutes which is unlikely. And the area required is now 146 m^2 of floor space, or about 40 feet by 40 feet. So higher temperatures are possible if combined with a lower mass of aluminum. But even 850 C, even if the emissivity was high enough to show any color in daylight, would not appear bright yellow or even white like the molten iron from a thermite reaction.

And one more thing. Why are structural engineers so less ethical (is that the right word?) than say ... forensic pathologists? Consider the Ron Brown death. Now in that case multiple forensic pathologists came forward to suggest foul play ... at the risk of their careers (some even had their careers destroyed). In fact, every single forensic pathologists who has publically said something about that case has indicated Brown should have been autopsied ... except for one. Why were forensic pathologists so much better people than structural engineers? Is there something wrong with the education of structural engineers?

Forensic pathologists or coroners were not quite so ethical in cases such as James Forrestal or Dr David Kelly. In the case of the WTC, the structural engineers have obviously not spent as much time investigating 9/11 and Zionist false-flag terror as many of those in the 9/11 truth movement, and they are probably not even aware of the molten steel. They get their information from the mainstream media.

Right, K**K. Tell us, what about the engineers who did the analyses for both sides in the law suits that followed 9/11? Such as Weidlinger Associates.

Weidlinger would have arrived at a conclusion that Larry Silverstein would have wanted, i.e. the hijackers and the fires brought down the buildings. Silverstein and the Government are on the same side on this.

Those cases didn't involve the government and there were engineers on opposite sides in the case hoping to find culpability by someone other than hijackers. Yet, they arrived at the same conclusion as NIST as far as why the structures collapsed. Just curious. How do you explain that?

Which engineers are you referring to on the "other" side?

I don't recall saying anything about SGT Lauro Chavez. But I could be mistaken. By all means, refresh my memory with a link to where I said something about him or what he claims?

This is the thread where it was discussed.

Well, for starters, do you still maintain that the hole in the Pentagon was less than 90 feet in width?

It could have been more; it could have been less. I have not seen conclusive proof.

Well did I misunderstand when you answered my question "Are you claiming after all that no hole was made in the Pentagon by the wings? Yes? No?" by writing "No, the wings would not necessarily have made a hole." I interpreted that to mean you didn't think the wings made a hole in the Pentagon.

I meant I had done an analysis which showed that the force of the impact on the wings was well in excess of the yield strength, suggesting that the wings could have broken up into very small pieces. So no hole would not necessarily mean no wings.

You also said in response to the question "Let me start by rephrasing the question. Do you think there was hole in the Pentagon more than 90 feet wide? Yes or no?"

this: "If you mean before the collapse, I would say probably not." Again, I interpreted that to mean you were denying the 90 foot wide plus hole that photos show existed in the Pentagon BEFORE the collapse occurred. Are you saying now that you've changed your mind

I am saying that I do not believe the photographic evidence is conclusive. The arguments over this have continued for over five years, and sites such as Russell Pickering's provide a good analysis including the pros and cons of the various options. I wholeheartedly agree that the option with the most cons is the government's version of events with Hani Hanjour flying Flight 77. Anyone who believes that has to be a K**K. LOL!

"In order to fit the fuselage as low as it was supposed to be on the ground floor, the engines would have gouged out massive tracks in the lawn. "

You apparently don't know the dimensions of a 757. Or maybe you are basing your beliefs on what Nila (that st911 *scholar*, pilot and aeronautical engineer) claimed? ROTFLOL!

How many feet do you think the engines are below the fuselage, and how many feet above the ground was the fuselage entry hole?

FALSE. They did not report Skilling saying AN ANALYSIS showed the towers would withstand the resulting "horrendous fire". It only reported that he said it would still be standing. Not the same thing.

Maybe it would have been judged that the building was seriously compromised and it would have to be demolished for safety reasons. But for our purposes, if the analysis showed the building would remain standing long enough for all survivors to escape, then the events of 9/11 contradicted the predictions of the analysis.

"NIST have already published! They found that 98% of perimeter panels did not exceed 250 C."

The fire models show that temperatures on the perimeter would in general not have exceeded 250 C. So what?

I said: "If the columns had all been heated to over 550 C, say, (which they weren't)", and you said: "That's a FALSE statement, K**K". But if some column temperatures did not exceed 250 C, they did not all exceed 550 C.

ROTFLOL! You want to claim 655,000 Iraqis have died since the invasion? Well where are the bodies, K**K?

"This figure was the result of a study by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health."

And it's just as bogus and politically motivated as the first study they did. Where are the bodies?

Mostly buried. Most of the deaths in the study were substantiated by death certificates. The experts in the field such as epidemiologists and human rights officials believe the figures are the best estimate of mortality we have, and there is no reason to doubt the accuracy. See:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442.html?nav=hcmodule

Poseidon  posted on  2006-10-19   22:06:03 ET  Reply   Trace  


#123. To: Poseidon, ALL (#122)

"So the material of steel under fire is needed to be setup, whose other parameter is the same to normal steel except that the Yang’s modulus and strength is set as 1/20 of normal ones, to approach the performance of steel at 700 C."

Maybe their English was just bad. After all, it's not Yang's modulus, is it? ROTFLOL!

"And I take it you didn't like Purdue's analyses of the impact and their conclusions?"

These do not explain the molten steel or iron

Perhaps because the molten steel wasn't created during the impact or collapse but by conditions afterwards. Least that's what the REAL experts seem to think.

the eyewitness reports of explosions and bombs

There were no *eye*witness reports of explosions (due to explosives) or bombs. No one *saw* anything that was a bomb or definitively indicated a bomb. LAYPEOPLE simply interpreted something (a noise, a puff of smoke, etc) as explosions due to bombs. But NOT ONE REAL expert in demolition has indicated bombs brought down the WTC while numerous REAL demolition experts have definitively said what was observed/heard were NOT explosions in a controlled demolition. But then you must think those experts are all part of your magic 50.

including the bombs in the basement where one of the less experienced operators in WTC 7 got it wrong and pressed the button about ten seconds before the plane impact, not afterwards.

ROTFLOL! Well that operator must also have pressed a button ten MINUTES before the collapse because a loud noise interpreted by LAYPEOPLE as a bomb also was heard at that time.

After the trial, when the ringleaders are gassed and the peripheral players go to jail, no engineers will support the "Bin Laden collapsed WTC" theory - not even one! Then, no doubt, you will probably deny ever having believed it!

ROTFLOL! What a fantasy world you live in Poseiden. I assume you will be one of the star *expert* witnesses for the prosecution .... after you get your paper published, of course. ROTFLOL!

If it had been specially strengthened to withstand a terrorist attack, then it should have been comparable to the lower WTC floors and a plane would not have penetrated.

Sounds like another paper you should author and get peer reviewed. ROTFLOL!

I accept that there is a possiblity that if an engine had survived intact and entered between the floors and directly hit a core column it might have taken out the column. But almost all columns would have survived. The damage to fireproofing, even a whole of one side of a flange with the inner webs and opposite flange intact, would not be enough to result in average column temperatures significantly in excess of 400 C after 102 minutes. Total column failure would have required the removal of five floors, and there was not sufficient damage to fireproofing over a great enough area on five floors to initiate this.

Paper. Paper. Author a paper and make a name for yourself. Why waste such an Einsteinian intellect on a little website like this?

I have never said that molten or burning aluminum is always silver; just that it would have been silver at the maximum temperatures that would have been possible in the WTC fires of burning papers, curtains and workstations.

"how hot would that be?"

I answered here when I said:

any aluminum that melted would have barely exceeded the melting point.

You do seem to be saying that the maximum temperature possible in a fire of burning papers, curtains and workstations is just above 600 C. So how do you explain the Windsor tower fire reaching MEASURED temperatures of nearly 1500 F (which is much higher than 600 C)? Afterall, it was just an office building.

But even 850 C, even if the emissivity was high enough to show any color in daylight, would not appear bright yellow or even white like the molten iron from a thermite reaction.

I guess you still haven't read what Woods and Reynolds wrote on this subject.

Forensic pathologists or coroners were not quite so ethical in cases such as James Forrestal or Dr David Kelly.

Yes but still, out of the group of forensic pathologists a fairly large number are clearly ethical and willing to blow whistles even at great risk to their careers. But you are suggesting that 100% of a MUCH larger group of structural engineers are not. Why are structural engineers so deficient ethically? Because they start out as civil engineers, perhaps? How is it that all the engineers at NIST, BRFL, ASCE, NCSBCS, FEMA and countless other organizations and companies here and abroad have been corrupted. Does civil engineering make one *evil*???

In the case of the WTC, the structural engineers have obviously not spent as much time investigating 9/11

ROTFLOL! Right, sherlock.

and they are probably not even aware of the molten steel. They get their information from the mainstream media.

But the mainstream media has talked about molten metal. That argument doesn't fly.

Weidlinger would have arrived at a conclusion that Larry Silverstein would have wanted, i.e. the hijackers and the fires brought down the buildings. Silverstein and the Government are on the same side on this.

But doesn't that imply a conspiracy greater than your magic 50? Afterall, the engineering team for Silverstein was comprised of Weidlinger Associates Inc., led by Matthys Levy and Najib Abboud; LZA Technology/Thornton-Tomasetti Group, led by Daniel Cuoco and Gary Panariello; ARUPFire, led by Richard Custer; Hughes Associates Inc., led by Craig Beyler; SafirRosetti, led by Howard Safir; Hillman Environmental Group, led by Christopher Hillmann and John B. Glass Jr.; RWDI, led by Peter Irwin; Dr. W. Gene Corley, who led the ASCE-FEMA study; Professor Sean Ahearn; and Z-Axis Corp., led by Gary Freed and Alan Treibitz. And those are just the big names. In most cases they had engineers working for them do the actual work. They must be part of the magic 50 too. Or is it not 500? ROTFLOL!

Which engineers are you referring to on the "other" side?

There were engineers working with lawyers on the other side of the case. Opposing Silverstein. You KNOW they had engineers working for them. Don't play dumb. Here: http://newsmine.org/archive/9-11/questions/collapse/graphic-look.txt

*****************

October 29, 2002

In Data Trove, a Graphic Look at Towers' Fall

By JAMES GLANZ and ERIC LIPTON

There is a computer image that captures the jetliner's nose as it splays open like a log being split, its wings shearing apart, the entire aircraft dissolving into a hail of steel and aluminum buckshot during its deadly plunge through one of the twin towers.

There is, too, a meticulously annotated, color-coded map that tracks how the fires in the towers moved on the morning of Sept. 11 — window by window, floor by floor, timed to the minute as they chased trapped office workers.

And there is the alien landscape of ground zero — the cliffs of debris, the weird meadows of tumbled columns, and the somehow uncrushed subterranean passageways — that is captured in thousands of never-before-seen photographs.

This trove of material, including videotape, compact discs, witness accounts, mathematical analyses and high-tech imagery, was kept confidential until last week, when a federal judge in the World Trade Center insurance case made it clear that he had no objection to its public release. Taken together, the dozens of boxes represent the largest single repository of raw data and expert analysis on the Sept. 11 attack in Lower Manhattan, dwarfing the analysis compiled by the government in its first examination of how and why the towers collapsed.

The expert consultants, who have marshaled this material as part of a $3.5 billion lawsuit, consistently reach conclusions that support the side that hired them: either a consortium of insurance companies or Larry A. Silverstein, the trade center leaseholder. Regardless of their legal allegiances in that case, the forensic scientists and engineers are undisputed authorities, and the value of their labor will undoubtedly transcend the legal battle of the moment and perhaps reshape perceptions of the tragedy. The material contains, for example, a stunning new analysis asserting that except for a quirk in the path of the second jetliner, the south tower could have caved in and fallen the instant it was struck, taking many more lives.

Simulations of the planes' passage through the buildings may also explain the mystery of why some people on the very floors the planes struck could survive the impact: instead of exploding horizontally, the shattered planes were actually somewhat compacted by the dynamics of the crashes.

But the experts found that a much wider and more rapid dispersal of burning jet fuel in the north tower may explain why dozens of people on floors below the plane impact died in that building.

he opposing teams of experts also produced impressively comprehensive, but ultimately completely different answers to the rarely asked question of what might have been the implications for the Trade Center if only one tower had been struck and destroyed.

One set of experts determined that the damage caused by the one tower's collapse would have rendered the entire complex useless. The other experts, using the same raw data, dismiss suggestions that a single collapse would have caused serious structural damage, permanent environmental contamination or ignited widespread fires in the other tower.

These are just a few of the revelations and disagreements that emerge from the thousands of pages of reports by the experts.

Feat of Forensic Engineering

"Taken in the aggregate, it represents a milestone in the forensic engineering of a disaster," said Jeremy Isenberg, a member of the National Academy of Engineering and president of Weidlinger Associates, where some of the work was done, who believes the information can be used to build safer skyscrapers and to better understand the risks posed by existing ones. "I have never seen this level of technical knowledge and experience brought to bear on a single problem."

The mass of documents and analysis was compiled over the last year by a kind of dream team of engineering experts as the two litigants weighed in on the question of how much Mr. Silverstein should be compensated for the loss of the towers. Mr. Silverstein says that he is owed about $7 billion, the insurance companies half that.

Both sides, recognizing the extraordinary public interest in what would normally be an esoteric insurance debate, say they always intended to make the work public, and agreed to discuss their findings.

The Sept. 11 disaster began as two jetliners, each weighing more than 200,000 pounds with their fuel, cargo and doomed passengers, hurtled into the towers and disappeared forever from the view of the outside world.

But a powerful computer simulation led by Matthys Levy, an engineer and founding partner at Weidlinger Associates, has created a three-dimensional rendition of the mayhem that probably took place in less than a second before most of the plane fragments came to rest inside the towers. The simulation created ultra-slow-motion movies, each frame separated from the next by less than a thousandth of a second, as the plane and the structure of the towers broke up.

Although the simulation does not include the people who, tragically, were on the floors that were struck, the movies do hold new revelations about their immediate fate.

The planes were moving at such great speeds — up to 586 miles an hour in the south tower impact and almost 500 miles an hour in the north — that the aluminum of their wings and fuselage and the steel of their engines passed through the perimeter steel columns of the towers almost without slowing down, the simulation shows.

"It was able to go through the outer wall quite easily," Mr. Levy said.

Once inside, the aluminum of the planes was hacked to pieces by the concrete slabs of the floors, which acted like great axes when struck from the side. The heavier steel of the engines punched ahead until striking sturdy structural elements or plunging all the way through the building and soaring out the other side. As the plane slowed, the concrete floors themselves were pulverized to dust. Whole sections of the light steel support trusses that held up the floors — a web of thin bars and steel strips — were annihilated.

Shrapnel Compressed

Surprisingly, though, most of the shrapnel created from the planes stayed in a relatively confined path and was even compressed slightly. Seen from the side, the hail of debris formed a tapering cavity, like a worm burrowing into an apple, rather than exploding in all directions. This compression may explain why relatively few people were immediately hurt outside the floors of impact and why a handful of people on those very floors survived and escaped from the south tower.

The mangled planes finally barreled into a forest of crucial structural columns in the cores of the buildings, the simulations show. In both towers, the damage to those columns was severe — so severe, in fact, that the simulations predict that the south tower should have, by this calculation, collapsed immediately.

Mr. Levy conceded that the simulations do have some significant limitations. They take into account only the tower's structural steel and not the partitions and other contents of the offices inside, which must have absorbed some of the plane's impact. So the estimated damage to the structure itself is an upper limit, "the worst thing that could happen in terms of the results," Mr. Levy said.

John Osteraas, director of civil engineering practice at Exponent Failure Analysis, who has been retained by the insurance companies, said that the incorrect result cast doubt on some of its predictions.

But Mr. Levy, who is working for Mr. Silverstein's side of the suit, said he did not believe that the erroneous prediction of the south tower's collapse revealed any shortcoming in the computer work. Rather, he said, it showed how close the tower came to falling even before the fires broke out. Subtleties in the path of the plane, which the simulation may not have captured, could have been the difference, he said.

"A slight change in the direction of the plane could have caused more damage, could have caused immediate collapse," he said.

Next, of course, came the fire. By assembling thousands of photographs, videos and witness accounts, Richard L. P. Custer, the national technical director of ArupFire, a Massachusetts fire science company, prepared a color-coded map of each face of the two towers that shows the spread of fire and smoke from the moment the fireballs erupted until each of the towers collapsed.

What emerges from this analysis and a separate fire survey by Exponent Failure Analysis may help explain why everyone in the two floors just below the plane impact in the north tower ultimately died, even if they survived the initial impacts. In the south tower, most people below impact survived and were able to flee.

As the American Airlines Flight 11 rammed into the north tower, the jet fuel was sprayed into a much larger area within the tower, the analysis shows. It documents office workers who reported burning ceilings, floors and elevators at locations throughout the lower reaches of the north tower. Flames even reached the north tower lobby, where several people were severely burned as they stood near the elevators.

The rapid and wide dispersion of the fuel apparently ignited fires on the 92nd and 93rd floors of the north tower, just below the impact zone, where Carr Futures and Marsh & McLennan had their offices. The fires also engulfed another series of floors just above impact and they somehow spread to the offices of Cantor Fitzgerald in the tower's upper reaches, possibly through a mechanical shaft, the analysis finds.

Huge Fireball, Less Damage

The experience in the south tower, at least with regard to the fire, was quite different. First, a much larger fireball in the south probably consumed more of the fuel, and, spectacular as it was, did little damage itself. Second, the path of the plane was angled away from elevator shafts and stairwells, probably leading to a more confined area of spillage, said Craig L. Beyler, a fire expert who is technical director at Hughes Associates.

"The north tower was a very central hit," Dr. Beyler said. "The south tower was more asymmetrical."

The fires in the south tower were largely confined to the tight area around the plane impact, Mr. Custer's report finds. And no fire at all is seen from the western face of the tower, even in the impact zone, which was the one area where a stairwell survived, allowing 18 people to get out of the building before it fell — the only people from either building at or above impact who survived.

A statistical accounting by Mr. Custer bears out those conclusions. At one time or another, fire appeared in approximately 390 windows in the north tower, compared with 151 in the south. The reports do not directly address what these differences in the fire patterns meant for the trapped worker. Still, the findings may explain why so many more people jumped or fell from the windows of the north tower than from the south.

Steadily, the fires weakened the structure of the towers. The Weidlinger analysis created a series of diagrams for the towers, showing how stresses were distributed before they were struck, then after. Immediately after impact, the stress on remaining columns shot up, over a butterfly-shaped pattern around the impact zone on the facade and throughout the core. But none of the columns were stressed to the breaking point.

As the fires burned and the columns heated and weakened, the bland matrix of numbers measuring stresses shifted to critical levels, indicating the inevitable approach of the catastrophe the world soon witnessed. Finally, according to the Weidlinger analysis, the columns heated to the point at which the laws of physics dictated the next act: they lost their strength and failed, leading to collapse.

Not everyone agrees with those conclusions. Other analysts believe that the trade center's floors, supported by the lightweight trusses, sagged and snapped in the heat, removing critical supports for the columns, which then buckled and led to collapse. The issue remains unresolved, Dr. Osteraas said.

A Catalog of Disaster

Either way, said Daniel A. Cuoco, an engineer who is president of the Thornton-Tomasetti Group, "the central portion collapsed on itself and the facade just peeled off," a conclusion he reached after his company, which worked for the city at ground zero beginning on Sept. 11, examined hundreds of photographs of the ghastly patterns of destruction and debris that remained where the giant towers had stood.

Those photographs, each annotated to specify where and when it was taken, form perhaps the largest repository of ground zero images ever assembled. "They present a catalog, so to speak, to anyone who has an interest in understanding the disaster," said Richard Tomasetti, co-chairman of the Thornton-Tomasetti Group.

A darkened, subterranean train station where tumbling debris has ripped open the ceiling and fouled the tracks with twisted bars and pulverized concrete. An abandoned, dust-choked, underground newsstand, gutted ductwork and burned-out wiring dangling over shelves still neatly stocked with candy and magazines. A steel canyon carved into what had been the trade center's plaza, the charred and ruddy steel columns that had held up the towers strewn about like tree branches after a hurricane.

It is a world that has vanished. But through this strange, adversarial court proceeding, its images remain.

**************

Not one of them has mentioned bombs. Are they also part of the conspiracy? Or just incompetent ... unlike you. ROTFLOL!

"I don't recall saying anything about SGT Lauro Chavez. But I could be mistaken. By all means, refresh my memory with a link to where I said something about him or what he claims?"

This is the thread where it was discussed.

Ah yes, now I recall. You said I tried to deal with this, but not very convincingly. Well I disagree. I think post 29 and the others that followed were a very convincing rebuttal of some of the assertions made by this SGT Chavez.

"Well, for starters, do you still maintain that the hole in the Pentagon was less than 90 feet in width?"

It could have been more; it could have been less.

How much less?

"Well did I misunderstand when you answered my question "Are you claiming after all that no hole was made in the Pentagon by the wings? Yes? No?" by writing "No, the wings would not necessarily have made a hole." I interpreted that to mean you didn't think the wings made a hole in the Pentagon."

I meant I had done an analysis which showed that the force of the impact on the wings was well in excess of the yield strength, suggesting that the wings could have broken up into very small pieces. So no hole would not necessarily mean no wings.

Why don't you just answer the question. Was a hole made in the Pentagon by the wings? Yes? No?

I am saying that I do not believe the photographic evidence is conclusive.

Well I am saying it is. And it would appear that the REAL experts agree with me. The *experts* on your side of this debate are so K**Ky that many of them are still claiming the hole was less than 20 feet wide. AND YOU KNOW THAT IS FALSE.

The arguments over this have continued for over five years, and sites such as Russell Pickering's provide a good analysis including the pros and cons of the various options.

This image is from that site:

Do you really want to claim the pre-collapse hole wasn't 90 feet across? ROTFLOL!

And by the way, Pickering's site is deceptive in its efforts to create a conspiracy. For instance, this image

is presented with the suggestion it is a fair comparison of the size of the pentagon structure to the size of the plane. FALSE. Note how tall the tail is? The comparison would suggest the tail of the plane should have reached to near the top of the Pentagon building. THAT IS FALSE. The tail of a 757 is 44 feet high with the landing gear extended. The Pentagon was 90 feet high. And the landing gear were not extended when the plane hit. So the actual height of the tail was more like 20 something feet. So that "fair comparison" is just plain BOGUS.

In order to fit the fuselage as low as it was supposed to be on the ground floor, the engines would have gouged out massive tracks in the lawn.

You apparently don't know the dimensions of a 757. Or maybe you are basing your beliefs on what Nila (that st911 *scholar*, pilot and aeronautical engineer) claimed? ROTFLOL!

How many feet do you think the engines are below the fuselage, and how many feet above the ground was the fuselage entry hole?

The diameter of the fuselage was 13 feet and the engines hung down below the fuselage only a few feet. Here, look at this:

Here's a site that looks at the issue of whether a 757 hit the Pentagon in detail:

http://home.planet.nl/~reijd050/JoeR/pentahole_dimensions_est.htm

It states that the distance from the "Top of the fuselage to bottom engines. (landing gear was up)" is 17.7 feet According to that site, the width of the fuselage is 12.5 feet. Take 6.25 feet (half the fuselage diameter) from 17.7 feet and you get about 11.5 feet from the center of the fuselage to the bottom of the engines. The damage to the Pentagon would allow the engines to pass into the building without ever touching the ground.

if the analysis showed the building would remain standing long enough for all survivors to escape, then the events of 9/11 contradicted the predictions of the analysis.

You haven't even proven there was an analysis of what the fire would do to the structure. All you have is a vague statement and YOUR OWN INTERPRETATION. But the HEAD of the design team has EXPLICITLY stated there was no such analysis done. Period.

Most of the deaths in the study were substantiated by death certificates.

LIAR. The LA Times did an exhaustive search of the death certificates recorded by the Iraqi Ministry of Health and the Baghdad morgue, checking them against a sampling of local health departments, and came up with about 50,000 TOTAL. So where are the other 600,000 YOU FOLKS CLAIM EXIST? And who issued those death certificates if it wasn't the morgues or ministry of health? Do the researchers of this bogus study attempt to address this discrepancy? No? ROTFLOL!

And here's another discrepancy they fail to address. They claim a pre-invasion mortality of 5.5/1000/year. Yet, the UN and WHO did very large studies prior to the war and concluded that pre-war mortality was on the order of 7-8/1000/year. And that work was blessed by the Lancet. Why don't they address this discrepancy? You know why ... ROTFLOL!

The experts in the field such as epidemiologists and human rights officials believe the figures are the best estimate of mortality we have, and there is no reason to doubt the accuracy.

Sure there is. Where are the bodies? Why no photographs of these bodies? Why didn't all the anti-coalition folks scattered throughout Iraq document these deaths? We know they have cameras. They'd have made great propaganda to further their cause. But they didn't ... and you know why ... ROTFLOL!

BeAChooser  posted on  2006-10-20   23:39:30 ET  (3 images) Reply   Trace  


#124. To: BeAChooser (#123)

And I take it you didn't like Purdue's analyses of the impact and their conclusions?

"These do not explain the molten steel or iron."

Perhaps because the molten steel wasn't created during the impact or collapse but by conditions afterwards. Least that's what the REAL experts seem to think.

But they haven't provided a working hypothesis that can account for it. The aluminothermic reactions controlled demolition scenario can.

Here is another good collection of reports about the molten steel:

http://history-bytes.blogspot.com/2006/09/more-molten-metal-magic.html

There are several first-hand eyewitness accounts, including a quote about "massive amounts of molten steel". I have included a link to this in the latest revision of my piece "Who Did 9/11?":

http://www.takeourworldback.com/short/israel.htm

(...not to be confused with the similarly-titled article at the top of this thread, which comes to the same conclusion.)

There were no *eye*witness reports of explosions (due to explosives) or bombs. No one *saw* anything that was a bomb or definitively indicated a bomb. LAYPEOPLE simply interpreted something (a noise, a puff of smoke, etc) as explosions due to bombs.

Here is a video of firefighters' reports of bombs or explosions:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKdvl--1Dt0&search=NYFD%20Explosives%20Towers

But NOT ONE REAL expert in demolition has indicated bombs brought down the WTC

They did before the arm-twisting began, e.g. Van Romero.

"including the bombs in the basement where one of the less experienced operators in WTC 7 got it wrong and pressed the button about ten seconds before the plane impact, not afterwards."

ROTFLOL! Well that operator must also have pressed a button ten MINUTES before the collapse because a loud noise interpreted by LAYPEOPLE as a bomb also was heard at that time.

Yes, you're probably right. Most likely, it was a bomb or triggering of the thermate reactions. The perpetrators weren't that bothered whether the collapses were 100 minutes or 50 minutes after the impacts. It's all the same to them - thousands of dead goyim, billions of dollars to collect on the insurance, trillions of dollars netted from bogus Pentagon transactions, the "new Pearl Harbor" pretext that they needed to have hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayers' money wasted and thousands of Americans sacrificed as they fought and killed tens of thousands of Iraqis, Afghans and possibly Iranians, and hundreds of thousands of civilians killed due to a breakdown in security.

The operation included taking out the core columns in the minutes leading up to the collapses. Various grades of thermate were probably used, from finely divided for a quicker reaction to a more incendiary mix. They just had to take out enough additional columns to ensure that the buildings would collapse, given the damage that had already occurred.

"any aluminum that melted would have barely exceeded the melting point."

You do seem to be saying that the maximum temperature possible in a fire of burning papers, curtains and workstations is just above 600 C.

No, but this would be a reasonable maximum to expect for aluminum, given the fact that most of the radiant heat is reflected back, in a fire that only lasted 56 minutes with any particular point not seeing temperatures reach 1000 C for more than about 15 - 20 minutes. According to NIST (e.g. NISTNCSTAR1Draft p. 181 of 292), at any given location, the duration of temperatures near 1000 C was about 15 to 20 minutes. The rest of the time, the (NIST) calculated temperatures were at 500 C or below.

So how do you explain the Windsor tower fire reaching MEASURED temperatures of nearly 1500 F (which is much higher than 600 C)? Afterall, it was just an office building.

The WTC fires were no Windsor tower fire, as the video evidence will confirm:

WTC, New York: http://911rese arch.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/fires.html

Windsor Building, Madrid:

Video http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=- 3554851540803945132

Stills http://news.bbc.co.uk/ 1/hi/in_pictures/4262509.stm

Note how the (black) smoke from the WTC fires ascended barely more than 100 feet before going horizontal; the 350 feet Windsor Building smoke got up to many times the height of the building! And the only time the WTC had comparable flames to those in Madrid was at the instant of the initial fireball. Either NIST's claim of 1000 C peak temperatures in the WTC is clearly exaggerated, or the Windsor temperatures were well in excess of 1000 C rather than 800 C or nearly 1500 F.

I allowed for 1000 C peak temperatures in the WTC, which makes it even less likely that aluminum could exceed its melting point by more than a few degrees. And if the aluminum were shredded into 0.3 inch "magic bullets" that could strip all the fireproofing off the steel, there is then the thorny problem of how it managed to reassemble itself into a large enough continuous sheet at one side of the tower that went on to melt and pour out of the window.

Only a Fully Learned Assimilator of Knowledge Extraordinaire could believe NIST's version of events. LOL!

"But even 850 C, even if the emissivity was high enough to show any color in daylight, would not appear bright yellow or even white like the molten iron from a thermite reaction."

I guess you still haven't read what Woods and Reynolds wrote on this subject.

Apart from the fact that they are disinformation agents, their 'theory' is nonsense. In order for the aluminum to be bright yellow, ir would have to be over 1000 C, i.e., over 200 C higher than the *gas* temperatures in the Windsor Building fire! And that's not taking account of aluminum's low emissivity.

Although Eric Hufschmid and Daryl Bradford Smith have some misleading information, this article:

http://www.iamthewi tness.com/MoreOnMichaelZebuhr.html

...is quite good insofar as the science is concerned. Hufschmid and Co also claim that Michael Zebuhr was murdered by the Zionists (possible, but there is no evidence), and that James Fetzer is part of the conspiracy (even more unlikely)!

But you are suggesting that 100% of a MUCH larger group of structural engineers are not. Why are structural engineers so deficient ethically? Because they start out as civil engineers, perhaps? How is it that all the engineers at NIST, BRFL, ASCE, NCSBCS, FEMA and countless other organizations and companies here and abroad have been corrupted. Does civil engineering make one *evil*???

No. There is an explanation for this. The problem is that they cannot see the wood for the trees. Kevin Ryan had the right idea, when he said that an investigation of 9/11 is best approached initially through statistics.

Ultimately, the arguments over 9/11 reduce to arguments about probabilities. For instance, you appear to think that 9/11 was either an Arab conspiracy or a conspiracy of many more than 50 with each member knowing full details of the plot, and it would be very unlikely that all would keep quiet. I think the number who know the full details of the plot is less than 50, with the others mostly peripheral players in the cover-up and propaganda department. And it depends on whether the principal players are part of a highly dedicated group. These conspirators aren't just Joe Sixpack and his mates robbing the local bank. They are in an entirely different class, conducting a trillion-dollar operation. But the official conspiracy theory includes events that are either impossible or much more improbable than a few crooks keeping their mouths shut for five years.

For my estimate of the probability for the building collapses, I would start with the fact that steel framed high-rises in the US had never previously collapsed as a result of fire, and then suppose that the probability was non- zero and in fact the rate that might be expected was about three times in 100 years. So the probability for one such collapse on any given day is 1 in 12,175; the probability of three such collapses is 1 in 1.805 trillion.

The skeptic will say that it is not every day that two such buildings are struck at high velocity by a Boeing 767 carrying 10,000 gallons of fuel. But given all the requirements for total collapse - the plane(s) had to hit with sufficient velocity and at a suitably weak point (high enough up) in the perimeter in order to penetrate the building, the aircraft had to shatter into enough pieces that were then distributed over a wide enough area over enough floors and happened to impact with and dislodge enough fireproofing, there happened to be enough combustibles and fires happened to be intense enough at the same points where fireproofing was damaged, the ventilation was sufficient to enable a high enough mass burning rate and power output, the sprinklers were taken out, the columns were sufficiently weakened by heat or by damage to floors changing the boundary conditions, impact damage was severe enough that the additional weakening from the fire could induce collapse, etc - I would conclude that 1 in 12,175 per collapse is a reasonable estimate even with the aircraft impact. It would be more like 1 in 6,000 for each tower and 1 in 50,000 for WTC 7, which gives the above figure of 1.8 trillion. You could perhaps raise the towers' probabilities a bit more and lower that of WTC 7.

Then there are the impossible phenomena which the official conspiracy theory cannot explain, such as the over 1000 C molten 'aluminum' that glowed bright yellow, and the massive amount of molten steel or iron. I would place the probability of "suicide pilots" attacks at more like once every 10,000 than 100 years. However, the probability of a trillion-dollar scam involving a phony "suicide" terror attack and demolition of three buildings for financial and political gain is once every 100 years, if not more frequently. On a day when such an operation is underway, the probability of three such collapses is close to unity, as is the probability of finding significant masses of molten iron or steel. The probability of observing molten iron pouring out of a window in the minutes leading up to collapse is a little lower, but with the official theory it would be zero.

The OCT might estimate that a suicide pilots attack on two high-rises occurs about twice every hundred years, and that given such an attack, the probability of a directly-targeted building collapsing is 1 in 2 and the probability of collapse of a building 330 feet from a targeted building is 1 in 10. So in their theory, there is a 1 in 40 chance of three collapses on the day of a suicide attack targeting two buildings. Over 100 years, slightly more than two collapses would be expected, and a third collapse at about 1 in 10 would not be too improbable. Their fifty-fifty (or even higher) estimate for the prospect of collapse in the event of a direct hit does not square with the designers, who believed that the building(s) would remain standing after aircraft impact and a horrendous fire.

But if the official conspiracy theorists are right, there are the impossible phenomena such as the molten iron, along with all of the other associated improbabilities. The 1 in 250 chance of the change in leaseholder within a six-week period over a span of 29 years. The 1 in 200 probability that, of all the nations in the world, the nation linked to the leaseholder happened to be the world leader in staging false-flag terror for political gain. The 1 in 200 probability that the Pentagon Comptroller who 'lost' over $2 trillion in bogus transactions and had access to hardware for the remote control of aircraft was also linked to the very same terrorist state. The probability that the original pilot of a plane that allegedly crashed into the Pentagon happened to have formulated a response to the possibility of a commercial airliner hitting the Pentagon, in his last Navy mission. The probability that the NRO would be staging an exercise involving a plane crashing into a building within minutes of the first 9/11 plane crashing into a building. The probability that a company that sent two-hours' advance warnings of the attacks via an instant messaging service was based in the same phony-terror staging country, and in a city associated with the rogue state's international spying and phony false-flag terrorist organization.

It would not be fair to merely multiply all the probabilities to arrive at a gross improbability. The improbable events are a subset of a larger set which, if infinite, would totally annul the improbability and result in normality. But the larger set is finite. In order to qualify as a member of the set, the probability of an event must be strongly correlated with Israel's or the Bush administration's guilt. When we assume the official conspiracy theory is true, there is a particular series of events generated as a part of causal processes inherent in that theory. When we assume Israel and their puppets in the Bush admin are guilty, another set of events such as the molten steel and the instant message warning and the change in leaseholder are generated as a causal process as part of that theory, and are entirely expected rather than random, improbable events.

After taking into account the fact that there is bound to be a finite set of events that could indicate Israel's guilt that either gave a negative result or have not even been conceived of, we are left with four variables: The gross improbability, which is just the product of all improbabilities; the number of improbable events that are multiplied to obtain the gross improbability; the size of the set of qualified events including those that did not give a positive result or have not even been conceived of; and the diluted improbability, which is a fair estimate for the improbability after allowing for the improbable events being part of a larger set. `

Here is a piece I wrote about how to calculate the diluted improbablity, given the other variables:

http://www.takeourworldback.com/77suicidebombershoax/ncralgor.htm

A readily available approximation using Google's calculator is based on the nCr formula for the number of possible combinations of n elements taken r at a time:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=100+choose+5&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

This gives an estimate of the dilution factor by which the gross improbability is adjusted. And the error in this approximation exaggerates the dilution factor, hence biases in favor of an official conspiracy theory.

For the London 7/7 bombings, for example, I arrived at a gross probability of Israel's innocence at around 1 in 10^12, and after allowing a factor for dilution of improbability, the corrected probability was in the order of tens of thousands to one against:

http://www.takeourworldback.com/77suicidebombershoax/

In the case of 9/11, the gross improbability is higher. My initial results suggested about 1 in a billion after dilution of improbability. Since then, I have found more improbabilities, but have not finally decided which ones to include.

So the structural engineers are not "evil" or part of a conspiracy. They are just focusing on the question of whether the buildings could have been collapsed by impact and fire; they correctly find that they could have been, but do not go on to explore all the alternative hypotheses in an attempt to get the improbability as low as possible. And how many structural engineers have even read The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion? I doubt if it's a significant proportion of them. In a General Theory of Kookability, the craziest theory would tend to be the theory associated with the most impossibilities and improbabilities.

And others like Dr Greening need not be working for the conspirators. He could sincerely believe the official conspiracy theory of "suicide pilots" and "fire-induced collapses", and be genuinely investigating to try to devise a (necessarily convoluted) explanation for anomalies such as molten and sulfidated steel.

But the mainstream media has talked about molten metal. That argument doesn't fly.

Given the amount of airtime allocated to reports of molten metal and the amount devoted to reports of "Arab terrorists" and "suicide pilots" by the mainstream media, it is to be expected that someone relying on such sources has been inculcated with the official theory. Even if they noticed reports of molten steel, they probably just thought that there would be some rational explanation without ditching the "suicide pilots with box cutters" nonsense.

But doesn't that imply a conspiracy greater than your magic 50? Afterall, the engineering team for Silverstein was comprised of Weidlinger Associates Inc., led by Matthys Levy and Najib Abboud; LZA Technology/Thornton-Tomasetti Group, led by Daniel Cuoco and Gary Panariello; ARUPFire, led by Richard Custer; Hughes Associates Inc., led by Craig Beyler; SafirRosetti, led by Howard Safir; Hillman Environmental Group, led by Christopher Hillmann and John B. Glass Jr.; RWDI, led by Peter Irwin; Dr. W. Gene Corley, who led the ASCE-FEMA study; Professor Sean Ahearn; and Z-Axis Corp., led by Gary Freed and Alan Treibitz. And those are just the big names. In most cases they had engineers working for them do the actual work. They must be part of the magic 50 too. Or is it not 500? ROTFLOL!

As I explained above, they need not be part of the conspiracy. Their beliefs have been shaped by the information provided to them. And yes, there are leaders in the mainstream media who are covering for the criminals. These professional public opinion shapers are just peripheral players, though. They would know that Israel did the WTC demolition. But generally, they would not have been a party to any particularly secret information that could blow the lid on the whole operation.

There were engineers working with lawyers on the other side of the case. Opposing Silverstein. You KNOW they had engineers working for them. Don't play dumb. Here:

http://newsmine.org/archive/9-11/questions/collapse/graphic-look.txt

*****************

October 29, 2002

In Data Trove, a Graphic Look at Towers' Fall

By JAMES GLANZ and ERIC LIPTON

There is a computer image that captures the jetliner's nose as it splays open like a log being split, its wings shearing apart, the entire aircraft dissolving into a hail of steel and aluminum buckshot during its deadly plunge through one of the twin towers.

[snip]

****************

Yes, there is some interesting information in this report:

"Simulations of the planes' passage through the buildings may also explain the mystery of why some people on the very floors the planes struck could survive the impact: instead of exploding horizontally, the shattered planes were actually somewhat compacted by the dynamics of the crashes. "

And:

"Once inside, the aluminum of the planes was hacked to pieces by the concrete slabs of the floors, which acted like great axes when struck from the side. The heavier steel of the engines punched ahead until striking sturdy structural elements or plunging all the way through the building and soaring out the other side. As the plane slowed, the concrete floors themselves were pulverized to dust. Whole sections of the light steel support trusses that held up the floors — a web of thin bars and steel strips — were annihilated.

Shrapnel Compressed

Surprisingly, though, most of the shrapnel created from the planes stayed in a relatively confined path and was even compressed slightly. Seen from the side, the hail of debris formed a tapering cavity, like a worm burrowing into an apple, rather than exploding in all directions. This compression may explain why relatively few people were immediately hurt outside the floors of impact and why a handful of people on those very floors survived and escaped from the south tower. "

This is what I would have said, and the laws of momentum would dictate. It doesn't fit in with the idea that all the fireproofing was "dislodged".

"The mangled planes finally barreled into a forest of crucial structural columns in the cores of the buildings, the simulations show. In both towers, the damage to those columns was severe — so severe, in fact, that the simulations predict that the south tower should have, by this calculation, collapsed immediately.

Mr. Levy conceded that the simulations do have some significant limitations. "

As can be seen by the south tower not having immediately collapsed, which is as the designers predicted. But UA 175 veered to the right and would have caused less damage to the core.

"They take into account only the tower's structural steel and not the partitions and other contents of the offices inside, which must have absorbed some of the plane's impact."

Yes.

Not one of them has mentioned bombs. Are they also part of the conspiracy? Or just incompetent ... unlike you. ROTFLOL!

The insurance companies must have carried out a risk : reward analysis and made a business decision to determine their best strategy. This was back around 2002, before the unprecedented formation of a scholarly group who declared the government account to be a pack of lies. Even so, some engineers were probably aware of the controlled demolition hypothesis. The dispute over whether the plane impacts should be counted as one or two attacks was uncontroversial, and the insurance companies must have realised that they had a good chance of moving the final payout down towards $3.55 billion rather than $7.1 billion. As I understand it, Silverstein was awarded an extra $1.1 billion and the payout came to some $4.65 billion, which is nearer the lower figure. Court rulings went for and against Silverstein - hence, no conspiracy there. The insurance companies' reasoning would have been that a battle over the much more controversial topic of whether there was a controlled demolition would have been too risky, and they could easily have ended up having to pay the full $7+ billion. The controlled demolition scenario came with too many ramifications attached. So their strategy proved to be quite successful.

But of course, many people throughout the world are now working to expose the controlled demolitions. It is not just a question of saving a few billions or even trillions of dollars, it is a matter of taking our world back from these reptilian-like monsters before they kill billions of people, or even set evolution back by hundreds of millions of years.

Ah yes, now I recall. You said I tried to deal with this, but not very convincingly. Well I disagree. I think post 29 and the others that followed were a very convincing rebuttal of some of the assertions made by this SGT Chavez.

You started with your usual arguments over credentials; then pretended the towers were only designed to survive a 180 mph hit. The most reasonable part was about the explosives. But much of the accelerants would have been focused on weakening the core columns below the impact zone. The crooks knew which floors they had targeted, and did not need to wire a large number of floors. The thermate on the core columns and other skullduggery is just precipitating what the impact and fire might have done, but very likely wouldn't have. The building fails at the weakest point, and it would look like the floors sagged and caused inward bowing of exterior columns. And there would be reports of explosions in the basement, injuries caused as a result, and pools of molten steel.

One theory says that the impact and fire caused the collapse - after an Islamic militant tricked 19 followers into becoming suicide pilots, only to provide coalition forces with the pretext they wanted to invade Islamic nations. LOL! Another theory says that global collapse was ensured by the use of accelerants that reinforced the effects of the impact and fires. Since the rewards were so great (trillions of dollars), the perpetrators would have gone to a great deal of trouble to pull off their dastardly scheme.

Even if something went wrong and collapse seemed to originate at the bottom, they could then make up a story about fires in the basement caused from kerosene that had poured down the elevator shafts.

Well, for starters, do you still maintain that the hole in the Pentagon was less than 90 feet in width?

"It could have been more; it could have been less. "

How much less?

If those column numbers (8 and 18) indicated in the photos as the limits of the wider hole are genuine, then with just over ten feet per column that would suggest 90 to 100 feet as the width. I have still not conclusively determined the size.

Why don't you just answer the question. Was a hole made in the Pentagon by the wings? Yes? No?

By part of the wings, yes, but clearly not the full span of 125 feet. Overall, the evidence such as witness reports and lamp pole damage favors a large plane rather than a missile.

And by the way, Pickering's site is deceptive in its efforts to create a conspiracy. For instance, this image

is presented with the suggestion it is a fair comparison of the size of the pentagon structure to the size of the plane. FALSE. Note how tall the tail is? The comparison would suggest the tail of the plane should have reached to near the top of the Pentagon building. THAT IS FALSE. The tail of a 757 is 44 feet high with the landing gear extended. The Pentagon was 90 feet high.

Actually 77 feet 3 1/2 inches. The plane does look rather high in that image.

Here's a site that looks at the issue of whether a 757 hit the Pentagon in detail:

http://home.planet.nl/~reijd050/JoeR/pentahole_dimensions_est.htm

It states that the distance from the "Top of the fuselage to bottom engines. (landing gear was up)" is 17.7 feet According to that site, the width of the fuselage is 12.5 feet. Take 6.25 feet (half the fuselage diameter) from 17.7 feet and you get about 11.5 feet from the center of the fuselage to the bottom of the engines. The damage to the Pentagon would allow the engines to pass into the building without ever touching the ground.

According to the ASCE / SEI Pentagon Building Performance Report, the left engine bounced off the ground some way short of the facade, about the same time as the nose hit the wall. What do you think of that report?

You haven't even proven there was an analysis of what the fire would do to the structure. All you have is a vague statement and YOUR OWN INTERPRETATION.

It's also NIST's interpretation. NISTNCSTAR1-2, p. 112 mentions the Port Authority documents that showed that, in the original design, a 600 mph impact from a Boeing 707 was considered, and the analysis indicated that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building.

NISTNCSTARDraft, the page that shows as "60 of 292", also mentions the analysis of the 600 mph impact, and says, "Skilling and his team rose to the challenge of providing the required load capacity within Yamasaki's design concept". So even NIST agrees that Skilling was the top man. Back around the mid-sixties, Leslie Robertson was only 37 and John Skilling was 43. Robertson was junior partner to Skilling. After 9/11, with Skilling no longer around, Robertson's role in the design is being played up, and he is being used to promote the ridiculous theory about the towers being designed to take a hit from a Boeing 707, but at only 180 mph. A theory that should be consigned to the deepest rubbish bin! LOL!

But the HEAD of the design team has EXPLICITLY stated there was no such analysis done. Period.

Robertson wasn't head of design. And NISTNCSTAR1-2 p. 118 of 462 talks about a property risk assessment report that was prepared for Silverstein Properties before they got the lease in 2001. In the event of an aircraft striking the tower, the assessment said that the structural designers of the Towers have publicly stated that in their opinion that either of the Towers could withstand an impact from a large modern passenger aircraft. The ensuing fire would damage the skin in this scenario, as the spilled fuel would fall to the Plaza level where it would have to be extinguished by the NYC Fire Department. However, the next page shows that the designers had allowed for "all the fuel" dumping into the building, creating a horrendous fire that would kill many people, after which "the building structure would still be there". And like the previous NIST document, this one mentions that there are two views on this matter. Yes - the truth, and the government's version. LOL!

"Most of the deaths in the study were substantiated by death certificates."

LIAR. The LA Times did an exhaustive search of the death certificates recorded by the Iraqi Ministry of Health and the Baghdad morgue, checking them against a sampling of local health departments, and came up with about 50,000 TOTAL. So where are the other 600,000 YOU FOLKS CLAIM EXIST?

The John Hopkins study was based on interviews at 1,849 households with 12,801 inhabitants. They found 82 deaths in the pre- invasion period and 547 post-invasion. The average annual excess deaths for the post-invasion period was extrapolated to the total Iraqi population of 27,139,584.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6045112.stm

There have been some criticisms of the methodology and the accuracy from such an extrapolation. But the critics tend to be politically biased, such as Steven E Moore who works for a Republican-aligned political consultancy company. He has been debunked as an innumerate and a hypocrite:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/10/flypaper_for_innumerates_wsj_e.php

On the other hand, the real experts in the field support the study. For instance, this Reuters report quotes Dr. David Rush, a professor and epidemiologist at Tufts University in Boston, Michael Intriligator, professor of economics at the University of California at Los Angeles, and Jonathan Parfrey, executive director of the Los Angeles chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility.

And who issued those death certificates if it wasn't the morgues or ministry of health? Do the researchers of this bogus study attempt to address this discrepancy? No? ROTFLOL!

The researchers obtained death certificates to back up 92% of the deaths claimed by the households interviewed, so this would have been just a few hundred certificates.

And here's another discrepancy they fail to address. They claim a pre- invasion mortality of 5.5/1000/year. Yet, the UN and WHO did very large studies prior to the war and concluded that pre-war mortality was on the order of 7- 8/1000/year. And that work was blessed by the Lancet. Why don't they address this discrepancy? You know why ... ROTFLOL!

The CIA claimed 6.02 deaths per thousand per year in 2002. That is probably more reliable than the figures they have for the following years.

Sure there is. Where are the bodies? Why no photographs of these bodies? Why didn't all the anti-coalition folks scattered throughout Iraq document these deaths? We know they have cameras. They'd have made great propaganda to further their cause. But they didn't ... and you know why ... ROTFLOL!

Most of the deaths were from gunshot wounds from civilians shooting each other, not from coalition forces. But the large number of deaths and civil war is exactly what the more foresighted folk were warning of before the invasion. Meanwhile, Israel is happy; it achieved its objective of murder and mayhem whilst getting other schmucks to pay the blood price and find the greenbacks.

Poseidon  posted on  2006-10-25   8:24:05 ET  Reply   Trace  


#125. To: Poseidon, ALL (#124)

Perhaps because the molten steel wasn't created during the impact or collapse but by conditions afterwards. Least that's what the REAL experts seem to think.

But they haven't provided a working hypothesis that can account for it.

Sure they have. You just haven't been listening.

The aluminothermic reactions controlled demolition scenario can.

So does Dr Greening's theory (http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf). And without the numerous problems in logic and contrary evidence that the controlled demolition scenario has.

Here is another good collection of reports about the molten steel:

No one is denying there was molten steel.

Here is a video of firefighters' reports of bombs or explosions:

None of which is an EYEwitness to an explosion due to explosives or bombs. No one SAW anything that was a bomb or definitely indicated a bomb. If it had been that obvious then demolition experts around the world would be saying the structure was a controlled demolition. But they aren't. Just the opposite, in fact.

"But NOT ONE REAL expert in demolition has indicated bombs brought down the WTC"

They did before the arm-twisting began, e.g. Van Romero.

ROTFLOL! So you think Van Romero was an expert? Do you know his actual credentials? Here:

*************

http://infohost.nmt.edu/~red/van.html

"Van D. Romero, Ph.D.

... snip ...

Current Employment

Since 1997: Vice President for Research and Economic Development, New Mexico Tech., Serves as chief official of the Research and Economic Development Division responsible for the encouragement, leadership, and support of research at the Institute and for the administrative and policy making activities of the division; offers dynamic research and administrative leadership to stimulate, coordinate, and provide support for the research at New Mexico Tech; acts as advocate for research within the Institute; serves as director of the Geophysical Research Center; manages the research support functions of the Research Division; serves as the Institute's representative and on-campus administrator for the Waste-Management Education and Research Consortium; acts as an external advocate and representative for New Mexico Tech's research activities; serves as mentor to new faculty to help them establish their research programs at the Institute; strongly encourages diversity and affirmative action; identifies research opportunities and actively encourages development of interdisciplinary research at the institute; ensures that high quality proposals are submitted by the Institute."

Previous Experience

1995-1997: Director, Energetic Materials Research & Testing Center, Direct and manage a multi-disciplinary team of scientists, engineers, and staff involved in RDT&E programs in energetic materials. EMRTC provides a working laboratory for conducting research in support of both government and commercial programs in the areas of ordnance, explosives, propellants and other energetic materials. Facilities include over 30 separate test sites, gun ranges and research labs located within a 32 square mile field laboratory. Developed and implemented counter-terrorist program that benefits research and academic programs.

1994 - 1995: Senior Member Technical Staff, Sandia National Lab, Albuquerque, NM. Conducted Environmental Impact Assessment for Medical Isotope Production program. Program consisted of converting weapons program facility to produce radio-isotopes for medical usage.

1993 - 1994: Deputy Director of Environmental, Safety and Health Oversight; Manager, Hazardous Waste Programs, Superconducting Super Collider, Dallas, TX. Developed and implemented radiation protection policies compatible with DOE orders and CFR regulations, performed liaison activities with DOE, and provided technical direction to radiation and hazardous waste program. Responsible for the development and review of radiation transport calculations, shielding design, health physics procedures, mixed waste procedures, and environmental monitoring activities. Served as Chairman of the Laboratory's ALARA committee and member of DOE's R&D Laboratory Working Group (RADWG) Health Physics Procedures Committee. Responsible for RCRA compliance during project closure.

1979 - 1993: Manager, Thermal Hydraulic Programs, General Electric Knolls Atomic Power Lab, Schenectady, NY. Responsible for both the technical and personnel management of the group. Key participant in the long term planning and direction of both the research and the facilities construction and maintenance. Group responsibilities included thermodynamic and materials testing and analysis of fuel channels, steam generators, and in-core materials. This work determined the thermodynamic limits for the nuclear reactor which will power the next generation submarine scheduled for delivery at the turn of the century. In previous work as Lead Engineer, was responsible for the experimental fluid mechanics effort and developed LASER instrumentation and techniques for flow visualization and quantitative flow measurements. Additional experience includes the development, execution, and analysis of environmental impact testing of nuclear sub marines which includes radiation transport analysis, neutron detection, and gamma ray spectroscopy."

Current Funded Research Activities

* Experimental verification of the alpha-omega effect for galaxy formation with Los Alamos National Laboratories.
* Develop groundwater activation model that can be used to optimize the design for acceleration production of tritium with DOE.
* Seismic source investigation, modeling and characterization of currently deployed explosive sources, design and computational testing of improved explosive sources, experimental verification and validation of improved sources - Western Geophysical (students - recruiting, post-doc and graduate in Geophysics).
* Resusable blast test fixture, investigate explosive impact on wide-body aircraft with FAA.

Courses Taught

* Graduate and undergraduate courses in Solid State Physics and Particle Physics for the Physics Department
* Course in Explosives Surety for the Chemical Engineering Department

Patents Held

* Procedure to study Bubble Evolution by correcting scattered LASER light and dynamic pressure signals

**********

ROTFLOL! So we learn that at the time of 9/11 he wasn't even working in the field of explosives. We learn that for ONLY 2 or 3 years during his career he ran a group that focused on ordnance, explosives and energetic materials ... and not so much the effects of them on structures but the characteristics of the explosives themselves. Certainly there is no mention of him or any organization he worked for working on explosive demolition of structures or buildings. And we learn that prior to 1995, he conducted Environmental Impact Assessments, implemented radiation protection policies and investigated thermodynamic limits for the nuclear reactors. That's hardly the resume of the explosives, demolition and structures *expert* you and the other K**KS made him out to be. In fact take a look at his publications. You won't find one word about demolition or structures in those titles. And hardly a mention of explosives.

And you think his arm was twisted into retracting his initial (and foolish) impression of what he saw? It always comes down to that with you K**Ks, doesn't it. I suppose you think one of your *magic 50* paid him or his family a visit? Wouldn't Occam suggest he just jumped the gun and felt foolish afterwards? ROTFLOL!

including the bombs in the basement where one of the less experienced operators in WTC 7 got it wrong and pressed the button about ten seconds before the plane impact, not afterwards.

ROTFLOL! Well that operator must also have pressed a button ten MINUTES before the collapse because a loud noise interpreted by LAYPEOPLE as a bomb also was heard at that time.

Yes, you're probably right. Most likely, it was a bomb or triggering of the thermate reactions. The perpetrators weren't that bothered whether the collapses were 100 minutes or 50 minutes after the impacts.

You are so symptomatic of a K**K, it's downright funny.

The WTC fires were no Windsor tower fire,

Why not? The WTC was full of flammable materials ... probably more than the Windsor Tower since the occupants were out of the Tower at the time of the fire. The WTC didn't even have firefighters dumping huge volumes of water on the fires ... like the Windsor Tower fire did. The WTC even had ten thousand gallons of jet fuel to initiate the fire ... and rupture holes in the outer wall to let in air. If anything, it looks to me like the WTC was more conducive to a hot fire than the Windsor Tower.

as the video evidence will confirm:

Most others, notably the experts in such things, have looked at the video evidence and disagree with you. Tell you what ... publish your findings. ROTFLOL!

Note how the (black) smoke from the WTC fires ascended barely more than 100 feet before going horizontal;

And the wind conditions at both the day of the fires?

Either NIST's claim of 1000 C peak temperatures in the WTC is clearly exaggerated,

No, they are the result of fire code models that are considered the state of the art and best available method where determining the temperatures in complex fires is concerned. Your back of the envelope nonsense is not the state of the art. But maybe you should publish it in an appropriate journal. ROTFLOL!

I allowed for 1000 C peak temperatures in the WTC, which makes it even less likely that aluminum could exceed its melting point by more than a few degrees.

What do you think the melting point of aluminum is?

And if the aluminum were shredded into 0.3 inch "magic bullets" that could strip all the fireproofing off the steel,

It might even start burning. What would that do to your theory?

"I guess you still haven't read what Woods and Reynolds wrote on this subject."

Apart from the fact that they are disinformation agents, their 'theory' is nonsense.

Well you should publish. Tell you what, why don't you post a rebuttal to Woods on the st911.com forum. I'm sure Jones' would LOVE to have your help.

Although Eric Hufschmid and Daryl Bradford Smith have some misleading information,

ROTFLOL! Earlier in this thread you trashed them. Make up your mind. By the way, do you know that Eric Hufschmid even questions whether we landed on the moon? Can you say K**K? And Daryl Bradford Smith? Now there's another real K**K. Lists his occupation as "Freedom Fighter". Actually, I think he's just out to make a buck (http://www.iamthewitness.com/DarylBradfordSmith_BookSpecial.html) ROTFLOL!

"But you are suggesting that 100% of a MUCH larger group of structural engineers are not. Why are structural engineers so deficient ethically? Because they start out as civil engineers, perhaps? How is it that all the engineers at NIST, BRFL, ASCE, NCSBCS, FEMA and countless other organizations and companies here and abroad have been corrupted. Does civil engineering make one *evil*???"

No. There is an explanation for this. The problem is that they cannot see the wood for the trees.

Oh ... so the folks who design all our large structures ... buildings, bridges, tunnels, planes, cars .... on whose lives billions of people rely each day ... are easily confused people who can't see the wood for the trees? ROTFLOL!

just Kevin Ryan had the right idea,

But water treatment experts are not confused. I see. ROTFLOL!

Ultimately, the arguments over 9/11 reduce to arguments about probabilities.

I would agree that the argument about 50 people being able to do everything you folks allege, while keeping tens of thousands of others who could blow the whistle silent (even though the evidence you folks point to as your proof is supposedly *obvious* to even lay people) is a argument about probability.

For instance, you appear to think that 9/11 was either an Arab conspiracy

Well, in that case, we even have video of the hijackers planning and training for the mission. I suppose you include them in your *magic 50*?

I think the number who know the full details of the plot is less than 50, with the others mostly peripheral players in the cover-up and propaganda department.

But those other play no small role. All you have to do to blow this whole thing open is get some of those peripheral players to come forward and tell the public that bombs were what really brought down the WTC towers. Afterall, you folks claim that the evidence needed to arrive at that conclusion is already public. ALL YOU NEED are the experts to support your views. Boy, the *magic 50* must be busy keeping the tens of thousands quiet at this point. I wonder how they are doing it? Promises of oil profits? ROTFLOL!

These conspirators aren't just Joe Sixpack

Some of them are. That taxi driver whose car was hit by a lightpole at the Pentagon must know the truth. Those folks who saw the videos from the Sheraton at the Pentagon must know the truth. Some of the firemen at the WTC must know the truth. Many a REAL structural engineer must know the truth.

Face it, K**K, you are defending the indefensible. Probability is NOT your friend.

For my estimate of the probability for the building collapses,

My response is PUBLISH. Test your estimate in the REAL world of professionals.

I would start with the fact that steel framed high-rises in the US had never previously collapsed as a result of fire,

Ah ... but that's a probability that is CONDITIONAL on buildings having been hit by planes carrying thousands of gallons of jet fuel impacting high up in the structures at nearly full velocity and then having burned without fire protection for a hour. Any history of that happening, K**K? Even ONCE?

and then suppose that the probability was non- zero and in fact the rate that might be expected was about three times in 100 years. So the probability for one such collapse on any given day is 1 in 12,175; the probability of three such collapses is 1 in 1.805 trillion.

ROTFLOL! I have one word for you, K**K. PUBLISH.

I would conclude that 1 in 12,175 per collapse is a reasonable estimate even with the aircraft impact. It would be more like 1 in 6,000 for each tower and 1 in 50,000 for WTC 7, which gives the above figure of 1.8 trillion.

PUBLISH! See how those estimates fair amongst your *peers*. ROTFLOL!

I would place the probability of "suicide pilots" attacks at more like once every 10,000 than 100 years.

Really? How do you arrive at that probability? Ever hear of a Kamikaze? Ever total up the total number of fanatics who have tried to crash or blow up planes the past few decades? You think there is a shortage of people inclined to suicide by blowing them selves up for a cause? What world have you been living on.

designers, who believed that the building(s) would remain standing after aircraft impact and a horrendous fire.

ROTFLOL! You haven't proven that claim.

It would not be fair to merely multiply all the probabilities to arrive at a gross improbability. The improbable events are a subset of a larger set which, if infinite, would totally annul the improbability and result in normality.

ROTFLOL! PUBLISH. PUBLISH. Everyone ... let's all chant ... PUBLISH!!!

After taking into account the fact that there is bound to be a finite set of events that could indicate Israel's guilt

Ah yes ... now we see what it all comes down to in your mind. ROTFLOL!

Here is a piece I wrote about how to calculate the diluted improbablity, given the other variables:

Pardon me, if I don't bother, K**K.

For the London 7/7 bombings, for example, I arrived at a gross probability of Israel's innocence at around 1 in 10^12, and after allowing a factor for dilution of improbability, the corrected probability was in the order of tens of thousands to one against:

ROTFLOL! This just gets funnier and funnier, EINSTEIN.

In the case of 9/11, the gross improbability is higher. My initial results suggested about 1 in a billion after dilution of improbability. Since then, I have found more improbabilities, but have not finally decided which ones to include.

Oh ... by all means, include them ALL. ROTFLOL!

And how many structural engineers have even read The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion?

ROTFLOL!

And others like Dr Greening need not be working for the conspirators. He could sincerely believe the official conspiracy theory of "suicide pilots" and "fire-induced collapses", and be genuinely investigating to try to devise a (necessarily convoluted) explanation for anomalies such as molten and sulfidated steel.

But the mainstream media has talked about molten metal. That argument doesn't fly.

But Greening isn't denying the existence of molten steel. His theory explains it. And it's not all that convoluted. Not nearly as convoluted as yours. ROTFLOL!

"But doesn't that imply a conspiracy greater than your magic 50? Afterall, the engineering team for Silverstein was comprised of Weidlinger Associates Inc., led by Matthys Levy and Najib Abboud; LZA Technology/Thornton-Tomasetti Group, led by Daniel Cuoco and Gary Panariello; ARUPFire, led by Richard Custer; Hughes Associates Inc., led by Craig Beyler; SafirRosetti, led by Howard Safir; Hillman Environmental Group, led by Christopher Hillmann and John B. Glass Jr.; RWDI, led by Peter Irwin; Dr. W. Gene Corley, who led the ASCE-FEMA study; Professor Sean Ahearn; and Z-Axis Corp., led by Gary Freed and Alan Treibitz. And those are just the big names. In most cases they had engineers working for them do the actual work. They must be part of the magic 50 too. Or is it not 500? ROTFLOL!"

As I explained above, they need not be part of the conspiracy. Their beliefs have been shaped by the information provided to them.

Of course. That's explains it. ROTFLOL!

And yes, there are leaders in the mainstream media who are covering for the criminals.

How many? 5? 10? Are they also busy threatening any structural engineer or demolition expert or expert in fire, steel, impact, seismology or macro-world physics who happens to see the light and have a conscience? Or is that job let to one of the other *magic 50*? ROTFLOL!

The insurance companies must have carried out a risk : reward analysis and made a business decision to determine their best strategy.

Who at the insurance companies did this? Everywhere we turn, it seems you are adding more and more folks to the *conspiracy*. When will it end? ROTFLOL!

before the unprecedented formation of a scholarly group who declared the government account to be a pack of lies.

The 911 Scholars For Truth? ROTFLOL! Do you really consider them *scholars*? If so, all I can say is you have low standards. And lying is the least of your issues since many of these so-called *scholars* have LIED in their pursuit of the *truth*.

But of course, many people throughout the world are now working to expose the controlled demolitions.

You being one of them. All I can say is PUBLISH. ROTFLOL!

You started with your usual arguments over credentials;

That's because credentials, like or not, MEAN SOMETHING. And expert in water treatment is not an expert in fire or steel or structures or physics.

then pretended the towers were only designed to survive a 180 mph hit.

They were. The Chief Designer of the towers (Robertson) says so.

The crooks knew which floors they had targeted,

Why did they target different floors in each tower? Why did the planes hit the structures at different angles and velocities? Did these *magic 50* include structural engineers that could tell the others what the consequence of the different impacts would be ... so they could plan where to place these imaginary bombs? Did they tell the rest of the 50 when to set the bombs off to bring the towers down? And were they also involved in the Pentagon attack? My, they must have been really busy running all those codes and calculations ... doing it themselves because otherwise someone in the firms they worked at might realize what was going on and expose the plot ... before or after the event. Or perhaps they had help but they have already eliminated everyone involved in the planning and calculations. Sort of like what the Pharoahs did to keep the location and details of their tombs secret? ROTFLOL!

"Why don't you just answer the question. Was a hole made in the Pentagon by the wings? Yes? No?"

By part of the wings, yes, but clearly not the full span of 125 feet.

Of course not. No one is claiming that. Because the portions of wings without fuel in them did not have enough mass to penetrate. But at least we are starting to converge on the FACT that there was a plane shaped hole in the Pentagon more than 90 feet wide. That's hard to create with a missile or small aircraft. Yet many of your so-called *scholars* insist a missile or small aircraft is what did it.

"The Pentagon was 90 feet high."

Actually 77 feet 3 1/2 inches.

My mistake. I've been writing 90 feet so many times I did it one too many times.

According to the ASCE / SEI Pentagon Building Performance Report, the left engine bounced off the ground some way short of the facade, about the same time as the nose hit the wall. What do you think of that report?

Perhaps. They are the ones with the close up photos of the structure. None of the images that are available publically show that region right next to the building in any detail. Foreshortening and all that. But the fact stands that there is enough room from the top of the fuselage hole in the Pentagon to the ground to accommodate the wings AND ENGINES in the holes off to each side of the fuselage hole ... given that the bottom of the engines is 17.7 feet from the top of the fuselage.

It's also NIST's interpretation.

NIST was clearly referrring to the Skilling memo. But the memo was not part of the design process. It was done after the fact for political reasons. The Head Designer (Robertson) said reports that a 600 mph impact was considered in the design ARE WRONG. And that bit of history I linked tells you why.

and the analysis indicated that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building.

But it was an analysis done with tools that pale in comparison to the ones available today ... especially where impacts are concerned. The tools today are MUCH more accurate and capable of reflecting reality.

"Skilling and his team rose to the challenge of providing the required load capacity within Yamasaki's design concept". So even NIST agrees that Skilling was the top man.

But Skilling was not in New York where the design was being done. Robertson relocated to New York City when the firm was awarded the WTC contract. And just because Robertson had a boss (Skilling) in Seattle does not mean that Skilling was the head designer for the project or aware of all details. Robertson was the structural engineer of record. He was the project engineer. Not Skilling.

After 9/11, with Skilling no longer around, Robertson's role in the design is being played up

ROTFLOL!

web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20I%20History.pdf "Robertson was the most influential engineer on the project and assumed the position of lead structural designer of the towers. Robertson had as much influence on the form of the building as anyone apart from Yamasaki himself."

and he is being used to promote the ridiculous theory about the towers being designed to take a hit from a Boeing 707, but at only 180 mph. A theory that should be consigned to the deepest rubbish bin!

Well go ahead an PUBLISH. See if the rest of the engineering community agrees with you. ROTFLOL!

But the HEAD of the design team has EXPLICITLY stated there was no such analysis done. Period.

Robertson wasn't head of design.

FALSE. You are LYING. He was indeed the lead structural engineer and project manager.

The John Hopkins study was based on interviews at 1,849 households with 12,801 inhabitants. They found 82 deaths in the pre- invasion period and 547 post-invasion. The average annual excess deaths for the post-invasion period was extrapolated to the total Iraqi population of 27,139,584.

So where are the missing 600,000 bodies? For that matter, where are the missing 550,000 death certificates? ROTFLOL!

There have been some criticisms of the methodology and the accuracy from such an extrapolation.

Some? ROTFLOL!

But the critics tend to be politically biased,

That's always your answer, isn't it. ROTFLOL!

such as Steven E Moore who works for a Republican-aligned political consultancy company.

Folks should see what you claim has been debunked:

******************

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009108

655,000 War Dead?

A bogus study on Iraq casualties.

BY STEVEN E. MOORE

Wednesday, October 18, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

After doing survey research in Iraq for nearly two years, I was surprised to read that a study by a group from Johns Hopkins University claims that 655,000 Iraqis have died as a result of the war. Don't get me wrong, there have been far too many deaths in Iraq by anyone's measure; some of them have been friends of mine. But the Johns Hopkins tally is wildly at odds with any numbers I have seen in that country. Survey results frequently have a margin of error of plus or minus 3% or 5%--not 1200%.

The group--associated with the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health--employed cluster sampling for in-person interviews, which is the methodology that I and most researchers use in developing countries. Here, in the U.S., opinion surveys often use telephone polls, selecting individuals at random. But for a country lacking in telephone penetration, door-to-door interviews are required: Neighborhoods are selected at random, and then individuals are selected at random in "clusters" within each neighborhood for door-to-door interviews. Without cluster sampling, the expense and time associated with travel would make in-person interviewing virtually impossible.

However, the key to the validity of cluster sampling is to use enough cluster points. In their 2006 report, "Mortality after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: a cross-sectional sample survey," the Johns Hopkins team says it used 47 cluster points for their sample of 1,849 interviews. This is astonishing: I wouldn't survey a junior high school, no less an entire country, using only 47 cluster points.

Neither would anyone else. For its 2004 survey of Iraq, the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) used 2,200 cluster points of 10 interviews each for a total sample of 21,688. True, interviews are expensive and not everyone has the U.N.'s bank account. However, even for a similarly sized sample, that is an extraordinarily small number of cluster points. A 2005 survey conducted by ABC News, Time magazine, the BBC, NHK and Der Spiegel used 135 cluster points with a sample size of 1,711--almost three times that of the Johns Hopkins team for 93% of the sample size.

What happens when you don't use enough cluster points in a survey? You get crazy results when compared to a known quantity, or a survey with more cluster points. There was a perfect example of this two years ago. The UNDP's survey, in April and May 2004, estimated between 18,000 and 29,000 Iraqi civilian deaths due to the war. This survey was conducted four months prior to another, earlier study by the Johns Hopkins team, which used 33 cluster points and estimated between 69,000 and 155,000 civilian deaths--four to five times as high as the UNDP survey, which used 66 times the cluster points.

The 2004 survey by the Johns Hopkins group was itself methodologically suspect--and the one they just published even more so.

Curious about the kind of people who would have the chutzpah to claim to a national audience that this kind of research was methodologically sound, I contacted Johns Hopkins University and was referred to Les Roberts, one of the primary authors of the study. Dr. Roberts defended his 47 cluster points, saying that this was standard. I'm not sure whose standards these are.

Appendix A of the Johns Hopkins survey, for example, cites several other studies of mortality in war zones, and uses the citations to validate the group's use of cluster sampling. One study is by the International Rescue Committee in the Democratic Republic of Congo, which used 750 cluster points. Harvard's School of Public Health, in a 1992 survey of Iraq, used 271 cluster points. Another study in Kosovo cites the use of 50 cluster points, but this was for a population of just 1.6 million, compared to Iraq's 27 million.

When I pointed out these numbers to Dr. Roberts, he said that the appendices were written by a student and should be ignored. Which led me to wonder what other sections of the survey should be ignored.

With so few cluster points, it is highly unlikely the Johns Hopkins survey is representative of the population in Iraq. However, there is a definitive method of establishing if it is. Recording the gender, age, education and other demographic characteristics of the respondents allows a researcher to compare his survey results to a known demographic instrument, such as a census.

Dr. Roberts said that his team's surveyors did not ask demographic questions. I was so surprised to hear this that I emailed him later in the day to ask a second time if his team asked demographic questions and compared the results to the 1997 Iraqi census. Dr. Roberts replied that he had not even looked at the Iraqi census.

And so, while the gender and the age of the deceased were recorded in the 2006 Johns Hopkins study, nobody, according to Dr. Roberts, recorded demographic information for the living survey respondents. This would be the first survey I have looked at in my 15 years of looking that did not ask demographic questions of its respondents. But don't take my word for it--try using Google to find a survey that does not ask demographic questions.

Without demographic information to assure a representative sample, there is no way anyone can prove--or disprove--that the Johns Hopkins estimate of Iraqi civilian deaths is accurate.

Public-policy decisions based on this survey will impact millions of Iraqis and hundreds of thousands of Americans. It's important that voters and policy makers have accurate information. When the question matters this much, it is worth taking the time to get the answer right.

Mr. Moore, a political consultant with Gorton Moore International, trained Iraqi researchers for the International Republican Institute from 2003 to 2004 and conducted survey research for the Coalition Forces from 2005 to 2006.

**************

He has been debunked as an innumerate and a hypocrite

Sure he has. (sarcasm)

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/10/flypaper_for_innumerates_wsj_e.php

Tim Lambert starts off by claiming that http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB112309371679604061-dBhlRI3P8VY2nGAQnwgknCDREMk_20070116.html is "an excellent news article" on the first John Hopkin's Study. It's titled "Counting the Civilian Dead in Iraq" and claims that the John Hopkin's study did just that. Well that's a LIE because John Hopkin's first study made NO ATTEMPT to distinguish whether the CLAIMED dead were civilians or not. The author apparently didn't read the report before reporting on it. Not a very encouraging start, Tim Lambert, computer scientist. And by the way, I hope you read the rest of your link because Mr Moore, someone with REAL credentials in this area, joined in to more than adequately defend himself and his statements against a blogger.

And Moore is not the only one who finds fault with Tim Lambert's work:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/04/ibc_takes_on_the_lancet_study.php#comment-81075 (See the posts by joshd, a member of Iraq Body Count)

On the other hand, the real experts in the field support the study.

Ask them where the missing bodies are, Poseiden. Ask them where the death certificates are. Ask them why all of a sudden the pre-war mortality statistics that the UN and WHO came up from MUCH larger samples than John Hopkins used, which folks like these experts your cite and journals like the Lancet once blessed, are no longer thought true. Because if they were, one would have to completely doubt the John Hopkins study results. So where are the bodies, Poseiden?

"And who issued those death certificates if it wasn't the morgues or ministry of health?

The researchers obtained death certificates to back up 92% of the deaths claimed by the households interviewed, so this would have been just a few hundred certificates.

But they are claiming that 92% of the 655,000 claimed deaths would be able to similarly supply death certificates. That's 600,000 of which LA Times in an exhaustive search accounted for about 50,000. Where are the missing certificates, Poseiden?

"They claim a pre- invasion mortality of 5.5/1000/year. Yet, the UN and WHO did very large studies prior to the war and concluded that pre-war mortality was on the order of 7- 8/1000/year. And that work was blessed by the Lancet. Why don't they address this discrepancy?"

The CIA claimed 6.02 deaths per thousand per year in 2002.

You are not answering the question. I have no idea where the CIA got their data. But I do know how the UN and WHO derived their results. And that the Lancet once blessed them. And suddenly the Lancet doesn't even mention them during it's so-called peer review. Furthermore, you'd admit, wouldn't you, that the CIA might have had reasons in 2002 to downplay the number of people dying in Iraq since at that time there was great pressure to end the sanctions because of those deaths. Surely you don't trust the CIA, as paranoid as you are.

"Sure there is. Where are the bodies? Why no photographs of these bodies? Why didn't all the anti-coalition folks scattered throughout Iraq document these deaths? We know they have cameras. They'd have made great propaganda to further their cause. But they didn't ... and you know why ... ROTFLOL!"

Most of the deaths were from gunshot wounds from civilians shooting each other, not from coalition forces.

So what? The bodies would still make great propaganda. But at least you, unlike some of the other supporters of this nonsense, aren't claiming all the missing have been vaporized by US bombs or buried under destroyed buildings. ROTFLOL!

Meanwhile, Israel is happy; it achieved its objective of murder and mayhem whilst getting other schmucks to pay the blood price and find the greenbacks.

Yes, that is your theory ... K**K.

BeAChooser  posted on  2006-10-25   15:57:04 ET  Reply   Trace  


#126. To: BeAChooser (#125)

Perhaps because the molten steel wasn't created during the impact or collapse but by conditions afterwards. Least that's what the REAL experts seem to think.

"But they haven't provided a working hypothesis that can account for it. "

Sure they have. You just haven't been listening.

It must be you who wasn't listening, since I have already shown in Post 112 why Greening's "molten aluminum ==> exothermic reactions ==> molten steel" theory fails.

"The aluminothermic reactions controlled demolition scenario can. "

So does Dr Greening's theory (http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf). And without the numerous problems in logic and contrary evidence that the controlled demolition scenario has.

Greening's theory is riddled with absurdities and contrary evidence. And the "suicide pilots" yarn has literally hundreds of problems. For example, why did the authorities have to fake a video of a 'confession' from an actor playing the part of Osama Bin Laden? Or did Osama celebrate his 9/11 success by having a face-lift, then demand a refund and reversal when he found it didn't make him better looking? And all of that whilst encircled by Nato forces in an Afghan cave. LOL! And why did Bin Laden quote names of two 'suicide hijackers' who had already turned up alive and well? How did Bin Laden make a video in 2004, three years after he was reported to have died, that looked like it had been produced in a tv studio rather than a cave? The forgers couldn't even be bothered to make a cardboard cutout background of a 'mountainous panorama' as in early westerns, or check which of the nineteen 'hijackers' had been thrown off Jack Abramoff's gambling boat in the Gulf of Mexico and which were merely examples of Mossad's "second-quality" passports where the documents have been stolen but they do not have the real person behind it to back up the story. ROTFLOL!

"Here is another good collection of reports about the molten steel: "

No one is denying there was molten steel.

Good.

"Here is a video of firefighters' reports of bombs or explosions: "

None of which is an EYEwitness to an explosion due to explosives or bombs. No one SAW anything that was a bomb or definitely indicated a bomb.

You are in denial. The firefighters and the witnesses do not agree with you

ROTFLOL! So you think Van Romero was an expert? Do you know his actual credentials? Here:

*************

http://infohost.nmt.edu/~red/van.html

"Van D. Romero, Ph.D.

**********

His credentials are a good match for the very subjects you demand from your experts:

**********

Previous Experience

1995-1997: Director, Energetic Materials Research & Testing Center, Direct and manage a multi-disciplinary team of scientists, engineers, and staff involved in RDT&E programs in energetic materials. EMRTC provides a working laboratory for conducting research in support of both government and commercial programs in the areas of ordnance, explosives, propellants and other energetic materials. Facilities include over 30 separate test sites, gun ranges and research labs located within a 32 square mile field laboratory. Developed and implemented counter-terrorist program that benefits research and academic programs.

Current Funded Research Activities

* Seismic source investigation, modeling and characterization of currently deployed explosive sources, design and computational testing of improved explosive sources, experimental verification and validation of improved sources - Western Geophysical (students - recruiting, post-doc and graduate in Geophysics). * Resusable blast test fixture, investigate explosive impact on wide-body aircraft with FAA.

Courses Taught

* Graduate and undergraduate courses in Solid State Physics and Particle Physics for the Physics Department * Course in Explosives Surety for the Chemical Engineering Department

Conference Publications (1997)

Romero, V., P. E. Williams, D. Collis, S. Welch. "Blast Research, Development, Test and Evaluation," 2nd Asia Pacific Conference on Shock Impact Loads on Structures: Melbourne, Australia; November 25-27.

Romero, V. and Williams, P. E "Blast Waves from Non-Ideal Explosives," Conference of the American Physics Society Topical Group on Shock Compression of Condensed Matter; Amherst, MS; July 28-August 1.

Ferrel, R. and Romero, V. "Simulation of High Density Hydrogen Compression," Conference of the American Physical Society Topical Group on Shock Compression of Condensed Matter; Amherst, MS; July 28-August 1.

Romero, V. Invited Presentation: "Terrorist Bombs: The Characteristic of 'Non- ideal' Explosives." American Society of Civil Engineers, Architectural Engineering Division; Mitigation of the Effects of Terrorist Violence: A Research Planning Conference; March 13-14; Newark, NJ.

**********

The list includes explosives, ordnance, energetic materials, impacts, structures, macroscopic condensed matter physics, seismology, terrorism, etc.

In fact take a look at his publications. You won't find one word about demolition or structures in those titles. And hardly a mention of explosives.

One conference was on Shock Impact Loads on Structures. Another was advising civil engineers how to mitigate the effects of explosives on structures.

"The WTC fires were no Windsor tower fire, "

Why not?

The video record.

"Note how the (black) smoke from the WTC fires ascended barely more than 100 feet before going horizontal; "

And the wind conditions at both the day of the fires?

At the altitude of the WTC fires on 9/11, the windspeed was about 15 mph. By the time the smoke was almost horizontal, the vertical component of velocity would be well under 7 mph. It would not have reached even nearly as high as the Windsor Building smoke.

"Either NIST's claim of 1000 C peak temperatures in the WTC is clearly exaggerated, "

No, they are the result of fire code models that are considered the state of the art

... by official conspiracy theorists and government-funded organizations.

What do you think the melting point of aluminum is?

About 660 C for the pure element. I have assumed 600 C or less for alloys, in some of my calculations, to favor fire-induced collapse and fire-induced molten aluminum theories.

"And if the aluminum were shredded into 0.3 inch "magic bullets" that could strip all the fireproofing off the steel, "

It might even start burning. What would that do to your theory?

No problem. The aluminum from the plane could not have burned, as it was not sufficiently finely divided. The flash point for finely divided aluminum powder is about 645 C. Pieces that were much larger than a dust or powder, e.g. 0.3 inches in size, would have required temperatures well in excess of those available from burning hydrocarbons. But finely divided aluminum certainly did burn (ignited by potassium permanganate and glycerine) at the WTC on 9/11, and it reduced iron oxide powder to molten iron.

"Although Eric Hufschmid and Daryl Bradford Smith have some misleading information, "

ROTFLOL! Earlier in this thread you trashed them. Make up your mind.

Any reasonably competent disinformation agent has to include about 90% genuine information. If most of what they provide is nonsense, their cover is blown too quickly, e.g. Tom Flocco.

By the way, do you know that Eric Hufschmid even questions whether we landed on the moon??

Yes. That is part of his 10% disinformation. The Apollo fake conspiracy theory was widely promoted in the months leading up to 9/11, specifically as part of the perpetrators' plans to portray skeptics of government claims as "kooky conspiracy theorists".

Can you say K**K? And Daryl Bradford Smith? Now there's another real K**K. Lists his occupation as "Freedom Fighter". Actually, I think he's just out to make a buck (http://www.iamthewitness.com/DarylBradfordSmith_BookSpecial.html) ROTFLOL!

Could be. But Daryl doesn't actually write the material on his site. His job is to do the talking, and Hufschmid runs the website.

Oh ... so the folks who design all our large structures ... buildings, bridges, tunnels, planes, cars .... on whose lives billions of people rely each day ... are easily confused people who can't see the wood for the trees? ROTFLOL!

They are almost invariably very good at what they do. But generally, they do not devote hours each week or each day reading between the lines and analysing how they have been misled by government and the mass media.

Well, in that case, we even have video of the hijackers planning and training for the mission. I suppose you include them in your *magic 50*?

So it took the crooks over five years to fake 'training videos'. The forgers may even believe in the nonsense; they see their job as one of shaping public opinion and providing the required 'evidence' that their employers demand. Even if forced to talk, they would have little to tell. They don't know about thermite in the WTC.

"These conspirators aren't just Joe Sixpack "

Some of them are. That taxi driver whose car was hit by a lightpole at the Pentagon must know the truth.

The aircraft that hit the Pentagon was probably near enough to the real thing that the taxi driver did not have time to see the difference. A video would have proved the official story false, which is why the videos were either confiscated or were poor quality fakes.

Those folks who saw the videos from the Sheraton at the Pentagon must know the truth.

Maybe the FBI were the only ones to have seen them. They could be Israeli infiltrators.

Some of the firemen at the WTC must know the truth.

Which is why they reported bombs and described the investigation as a "half-baked farce" that would just amount to "paper- and computer-generated hypotheticals".

Many a REAL structural engineer must know the truth.

But they don't want to lose their jobs.

"I would place the probability of "suicide pilots" attacks at more like once every 10,000 than 100 years. "

Really? How do you arrive at that probability? Ever hear of a Kamikaze? Ever total up the total number of fanatics who have tried to crash or blow up planes the past few decades? You think there is a shortage of people inclined to suicide by blowing them selves up for a cause? What world have you been living on.

'Devout' Muslims who go to strip bars and gambling joints? A revolutionary in a cave who merely provides his enemies with a pretext to invade and loot his people's homelands - because he doesn't like his enemies' freedoms? LOL! And they don't just have to be brainwashed into wanting to give up their lives and attack; they have to successfully pull off the operation. They have to evade airport security, the Air Force, persuade burly pilots to hand over control of the planes, know how to turn off the transponders, know how to navigate at 35,000 feet, be ace pilots capable of flying with an engine within inches of the ground at 345 to 530 mph, etc. Human behavior is purposeful action designed to achieve ends that benefit the actor.

"designers, who believed that the building(s) would remain standing after aircraft impact and a horrendous fire. "

ROTFLOL! You haven't proven that claim.

You are flogging a dead horse here. Even the *experts* at NIST disagree with you. But why not publish your findings in a peer-reviewed journal? LOL!

The 911 Scholars For Truth? ROTFLOL! Do you really consider them *scholars*? If so, all I can say is you have low standards. And lying is the least of your issues since many of these so-called *scholars* have LIED in their pursuit of the *truth*.

The day that a 911 Scholars For Bush spontaneously forms, with dozens of professors and hundreds of associates members, I will agree that you folk might have something.

"then pretended the towers were only designed to survive a 180 mph hit. "

They were. The Chief Designer of the towers (Robertson) says so.

And the Port Authority documents show that a 600 mph impact and horrendous fires from jet fuel dumped into the building were also within the design parameters.

Why did they target different floors in each tower?

That was to help reinforce the illusion of "suicide pilots" being responsible. The planners could not target too low, since the perimeter columns would have been too strong to admit the aircraft. They could not target too high, since the impulse of an initial collapse would have been too low and the collapse would have been arrested. (At least, a controlled demolition under such conditions would have looked even more suspicious.) The fireproofing in WTC 2 had not been upgraded above the 78th floor, so they probably decided to target towards the lower limit of the 3/4 inch truss fireproofing area. In WTC 1 they went a bit higher up, for the advantage of having to work with thinner columns.

Why did the planes hit the structures at different angles and velocities?

The WTC 2 plane velocity was higher, to ensure penetration through thicker perimeter columns. As for the angle, the second plane to hit had to be the real thing since many cameras would be trained on it. The first hit - the alleged 'AA 11' was one of Dov Zakheim's Boeings that had been retro-fitted with all the software patches, in order to maximize the degree of remote operator control. It was essential that at least one plane hit a Tower. The scheduled UA 175 had to be taken over whilst in flight, and the operators found it was not quite as responsive. But they still managed to hit the other Tower.

Did these *magic 50* include structural engineers that could tell the others what the consequence of the different impacts would be ... so they could plan where to place these imaginary bombs?

The operation was being planned for ten years or more. However, as Skilling said, a demolition expert would have known where to place charges in order to take down the building.

Did they tell the rest of the 50 when to set the bombs off to bring the towers down? And were they also involved in the Pentagon attack?

The WTC demolition was a Mossad operation. The Rothschild-Bronfman Mafia have spent the better part of 100 years brainwashing Jews into thinking that they are almost universally persecuted and despised wherever they go, which is total nonsense. Apart from excelling in the sciences and many other fields, Jews have even made positive contributions to culture. It's not what people are that counts, but what they do. What is widely despised is the jettisoning of timeless values of liberty, justice, tolerance and integrity for a system based on short-term profit that is failing humankind. With their strategy of playing on people's fears, the Mafia have been able to brainwash their operatives into imagining that sinking ferries and blowing up trains, restaurants and skyscrapers is necessary to "save Jews" around the world. Hence, the proportion who defect and talk is relatively low. But some still talk, e.g. Ben Freedman, Mordechai Vanunu, Victor Ostrovsky, and David Cole.

Those who directed the Pentagon attack did in fact realise that certain people might have talked, and they were eliminated and claimed as having perished on "Flight 77". The list included Charles Burlingame, a former Navy fighter pilot who used to work in the section of the Pentagon that was hit, and who had formulated a response for the eventuality of an airliner being flown into the Pentagon; Wilson "Bud" Flagg, a retired American Airlines pilot and Navy Admiral; Stanley Hall, a Raytheon vice-president of operations for electronic systems; Bryan Jack, a senior Defense Department executive; Chandler Keller, a Boeing propulsion engineer; Barbara Olson, wife of a Solicitor General who pretended to have received cell phone calls from "Flight 77"; Ruben Ornedo, a Boeing satellite communications engineer; and Robert Penniger, an electrical engineer with BAE Systems. And we are supposed to believe that it was just another bizarre 'coincidence' that all these people just happened to be on a nearly empty flight. Give me an official conspiracy theorist, and I'll show you someone who's become detached from reality. ROTFLOL!

This link shows another dozen 'Flight 77 passengers' with links to defense and government. Add the four Raytheon employees supposedly killed on AA 11, plus John O'Neill at the WTC, and that's up to 25 we can deduct from the list of conspirators who have to be kept quiet. The moral is: don't get involved in this type of operation - it's not conducive to good health.

But at least we are starting to converge on the FACT that there was a plane shaped hole in the Pentagon more than 90 feet wide. That's hard to create with a missile or small aircraft. Yet many of your so-called *scholars* insist a missile or small aircraft is what did it.

After reviewing video evidence and analyses, I have concluded that your figure of 96 feet is a pretty good estimate for the width of the first floor impact hole. From photos, and taking the fuselage width as 12 1/2 feet, I make the difference in height between bottom of fuselage and bottom of engines at about 4 feet. Or if the center of fuselage was 13 feet above ground level, the top would be at 20 feet, the bottom at 6 feet, and the bottom of the engines two feet above the ground. The inter-engine distance (center to center) is 41 to 42 feet, and engine diameter 6 1/2 feet or a little more.

There is then the fact that "Flight 77" had rolled slightly to the left on impact. If the angle was just 5 degrees, the difference in height between the engines comes out at 41 * sin (5 degrees) = 3.6 feet; i.e. the port engine is down 1.8 feet and the starboard engine raised 1.8 feet. So this would leave the port engine two-and-a-half inches above ground level at the point of impact.

Let's be generous to the official theory, and forget about the roll. Imagine Hanjour a mile out, flying at the lower estimate of 345 mph, so it takes him 10.4 seconds to cover the final mile. Suppose he has managed to get the correct yaw and roll, and just has to use the elevators to set the pitch to aim for a point (bottom of engines) two feet above ground level, give or take a couple of feet. The final descent has been estimated as 1 foot for every 20 horizontal feet, or 264 feet over a mile, so a mile out he is at 266 feet. At theta = arc sin (266 / 5280) = 2.88771 degrees, the bottom of the engines just touch the ground after a mile. At theta = arc sin (264 / 5280) = 2.86598 degrees, the engines clear the ground by two feet after a mile. A difference of only 0.02173 degrees. Or double that if it can be plus or minus two feet.

This is similar to an unskilled operator launching a missile to the Moon at 82,400,000 mph which leaves 10.4 seconds to make in-flight adjustments to the bearing. And the Moon has been shrunk to only one-sixth of its actual radius, with either way off the center equivalent to the plus or minus two feet at a mile. Unlike the missile launcher who could carefully line up with an eyepiece beforehand whilst on terra firma, Hanjour is being thrown about in a plane, experiencing minimum lateral forces of at least 1/2g and probably peaking at some 2g. And how does he know which point on the screen to line up with the target to finish with the bottom of the engines at a particular altitude? The idea that a notoriously poor pilot could pull this off on his 757 debut is laughable. It all points to a skilled remote operator - or a team. The controllers could have operated from a C-130 overflying the airliner, maybe handing over to someone at the Pentagon - Rumsfeld's side - for the final approach.

An approach angle of 42 degrees off from normal to the facade implies a ratio of 1 : cos (42 degrees) = 1.346 : 1 between the width of the impact hole required to admit the object, and the width of the object. In the following table, we are initially given two variables, 96 feet and 124 feet 10 inches:

Row / Column ** 757-200 wingspan ** impact hole

Should be ******** 124' 10" ********* 168'

Observed ********* 71' 4" ********** 96'

Deficit *********** 53' 6" ********** 72'

So there is some 53 feet of wingtips unaccounted for, or the impact hole should ideally be 72 feet wider. It is true that as the angle of incidence is increased, the impact hole made by the plane would become a smaller proportion of the theoretical size of the hole needed to admit the plane. Maybe the wings were partly shredded; maybe they partially bent back. It should also be worth considering planes with smaller wingspans. E.g., the Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI) Arava 201, mainly supplied to military customers, has a 68' 9" wingspan. There are a few arguments against this candidate, e.g. top speed of only 200 mph.

With the engines some 21 feet from the fuselage center, and allowing for the 1.346 factor, the engines should have impacted about 28 feet from the fuselage at column 14. This would place the starboard engine a little to the left of column 17, and the port engine just to the right of column 11. So they would have gone into the wide first floor hole.

Given the angle of approach of 42 degrees, and that the wings are swept back about 30 degrees, the left wing should have been only some 18 degrees off from normal to the facade, so might have been expected to slice its way sideways through the wall. It is odd that the dark horizontal and vertical lines above and between the windows, to the north of the main entry hole, have been claimed by some official conspiracy theorists as impact damage from the left wing. The limestone appears to be missing along these lines, but it seems more consistent with renovation work. Beyond the engines, the Boeing 757-200 only has two ribs to account for vertical lines. Half the wingspan is 62 feet, so column 8 to 14 after allowing for the 1.346 adjustment factor would correspond to a distance of 6 * 10 / 1.346 = 45 feet along the wing, leaving 17 feet. Even if the wingtip had snapped off and spun round, that would only take it to just to the right of column 6, and the horizontal line continues well beyond that point.

But the fact stands that there is enough room from the top of the fuselage hole in the Pentagon to the ground to accommodate the wings AND ENGINES in the holes off to each side of the fuselage hole ... given that the bottom of the engines is 17.7 feet from the top of the fuselage.

The engines could fit, given suitable flying skills not commensurate with Hani Hanjour's ability, and we would have to propose that the wings were partially shredded or partly retracted. Most evidence from eyewitnesses supports the large plane theory, and I have always preferred this overall to a small plane or missile hypothesis. But the government's refusal to release the videos shows that they have something to hide.

"It's also NIST's interpretation. "

NIST was clearly referrring to the Skilling memo. But the memo was not part of the design process. It was done after the fact for political reasons. The Head Designer (Robertson) said reports that a 600 mph impact was considered in the design ARE WRONG. And that bit of history I linked tells you why.

The John E Fernandez article says Robertson was lead structural designer of the towers, but that was written post 9/11, and looks like it was done after the fact for political reasons. See this piece, written before the demolition:

http://www.geocities.com/unicornrider7/wtc_building_facts.html

**********

Engineer: John Skilling and Leslie Robertson of Worthington, Skilling, Helle and Jackson

[...]

Yamasaki and engineers John Skilling and Les Robertson worked closely...

**********

But it was an analysis done with tools that pale in comparison to the ones available today ... especially where impacts are concerned. The tools today are MUCH more accurate and capable of reflecting reality.

The main difference is that with hindsight they are able to devise an 'explanation' that supports the "militant Muslims" nonsense.

But Skilling was not in New York where the design was being done. Robertson relocated to New York City when the firm was awarded the WTC contract. And just because Robertson had a boss (Skilling) in Seattle does not mean that Skilling was the head designer for the project or aware of all details. Robertson was the structural engineer of record. He was the project engineer. Not Skilling.

The corollary is that Robertson was unaware of all details and all analyses that Skilling's team did in Seattle. As we now know, the Seattle team analysed the effect of a 600 mph impact and horrendous fires from dumped jet fuel, and concluded that the building should survive such event. Suppose they had found that collapse would be likely. Wouldn't they have then urgently contacted Robertson and told him there was a problem?

"Robertson wasn't head of design. "

FALSE. You are LYING. He was indeed the lead structural engineer and project manager.

That is your theory, based on politically correct article(s) written after the fact.

"The researchers obtained death certificates to back up 92% of the deaths claimed by the households interviewed, so this would have been just a few hundred certificates. "

But they are claiming that 92% of the 655,000 claimed deaths would be able to similarly supply death certificates. That's 600,000 of which LA Times in an exhaustive search accounted for about 50,000. Where are the missing certificates, Poseiden?

Either LA Times' search was not exhaustive, or they are lying about the results. The mainstream media promoted the theory that Iraq had "WMDs", when bloggers knew otherwise. Why should we believe anything in the MSM when there is a motive for biasing it to suit the prevailing political consensus?

They claim a pre- invasion mortality of 5.5/1000/year. Yet, the UN and WHO did very large studies prior to the war and concluded that pre-war mortality was on the order of 7- 8/1000/year. And that work was blessed by the Lancet. Why don't they address this discrepancy?

"The CIA claimed 6.02 deaths per thousand per year in 2002. "

You are not answering the question.

I have not seen these supposed UN / WHO results, but even 7-8/1000/year is quite low compared with the Hopkins figures of 13.2/1000/year overall post invasion, or 19.8/1000/year for June 2005 - June 2006. The Hopkins researchers clearly wanted to avoid using other sources' results, to keep their own conclusions as independent as possible.

There is a good article here:

http://www.juancole.com/2006/10/655000-dead-in-iraq-since-bush.html

*******Excerpt

First of all, Iraqi Muslims don't believe in embalming or open casket funerals days later. They believe that the body should be buried by sunset the day of death, in a plain wooden box. So there is no reason to expect them to take the body to the morgue. Although there are benefits to registering with the government for a death certificate, there are also disadvantages. Many families who have had someone killed believe that the government or the Americans were involved, and will have wanted to avoid drawing further attention to themselves by filling out state forms and giving their address.

Personally, I believe very large numbers of Iraqi families quietly bury their dead without telling the government of all people anything about it. Another large number of those killed is dumped in the Tigris river by their killers. A fisherman on the Tigris looking for lunch recently caught the corpse of a woman. The only remarkable thing about it is that he let it be known to the newspapers. I'm sure the Tigris fishermen throw back unwanted corpses every day.

Not to mention that for substantial periods of time since 2003 it has been dangerous in about half the country just to move around, much less to move around with dead bodies.

There is heavy fighting almost every day at Ramadi in al-Anbar province, among guerrillas, townspeople, tribes, Marines and Iraqi police and army. We almost never get a report of these skirmishes and we almost never are told about Iraqi casualties in Ramadi. Does 1 person a day die there of political violence? Is it more like 4? 10? What about Samarra? Tikrit? No one is saying. Since they aren't, on what basis do we say that the Lancet study is impossible?

There are about 90 major towns and cities in Iraq. If we subtract Baghdad, where about 100 a day die, that still leaves 89. If an average of 4 or so are killed in each of those 89, then the study's results are correct. Of course, 4 is an average. Cities in areas dominated by the guerrilla movement will have more than 4 killed daily, sleepy Kurdish towns will have no one killed.

**********

Poseidon  posted on  2006-10-31   22:18:16 ET  Reply   Trace  


#127. To: Original_Intent (#0)

Bush's illicit love affair with the North American Union, Security and Prosperity Partnership, et al which together is designed to eliminate American sovereignty is enough evidence to prove that a link exists between the Bush globalist administration and the 9/11 attacks.

Burma Shave  posted on  2006-10-31   22:33:24 ET  Reply   Trace  


#128. To: Poseidon, ALL (#126)

I have already shown in Post 112 why Greening's "molten aluminum ==> exothermic reactions ==> molten steel" theory fails.

Sure you did, Poseiden. Publish ... PUBLISH! ROTFLOL!

For example, why did the authorities have to fake a video of a 'confession' from an actor playing the part of Osama Bin Laden?

Are you an expert on Bin Laden and video image analysis too? Why you are a regular Renaissance man? In that case, I'd love to hear what you have to say about the latest video tapes which show Bin Laden meeting some of the 9/11 hijackers and the hijackers training in Afghanistan prior to 9/11. Those clever fakes too? I must say, for such a tiny country Israel sure is busy and devious. ROTFLOL!

"None of which is an EYEwitness to an explosion due to explosives or bombs. No one SAW anything that was a bomb or definitely indicated a bomb."

You are in denial. The firefighters and the witnesses do not agree with you

No I'm not. NONE of the firefighters or witnesses was an eyewitness to ANYTHING that was definitely a bomb or indicated a bomb. NONE OF THEM. If you think one is, pony up. Let's see EXACTLY what that firefighter or witness claims.

His credentials are a good match for the very subjects you demand from your experts

No they are not. Romero's credentials have NOTHING to do with structures. They have NOTHING to do with what explosives do to structures.

One conference was on Shock Impact Loads on Structures.

The conference was. His paper wasn't.

The WTC fires were no Windsor tower fire,

"Why not?"

The video record.

Well if the video record is all one needs to know this then why are you still alone? Why haven't dozens of real experts in fire and structures joined you in this cause? Oh that's right. They all live in fear of Mossad. ROTFLOL!

At the altitude of the WTC fires on 9/11, the windspeed was about 15 mph. By the time the smoke was almost horizontal, the vertical component of velocity would be well under 7 mph. It would not have reached even nearly as high as the Windsor Building smoke.

Gosh. Now you're an expert on meteorology and the behavior of smoke too! Truly Remarkable. ROTFLOL!

"No, they are the result of fire code models that are considered the state of the art"

... by official conspiracy theorists and government-funded organizations.

No, by ALL the fire experts in the world regardless of who they work for. Gee it must be lonely being the only self-proclaimed fire expert who disagrees with them. Guess the only solution for you is PUBLISH. Or perish. ROTFLOL!

Any reasonably competent disinformation agent has to include about 90% genuine information.

ROTFLOL! Do you look under your bed before going to sleep at night?

But generally, they do not devote hours each week or each day reading between the lines and analysing how they have been misled by government and the mass media.

But you do. ROTFLOL!

So it took the crooks over five years to fake 'training videos'.

Why'd it take so long?

The aircraft that hit the Pentagon was probably near enough to the real thing that the taxi driver did not have time to see the difference.

Nor all the others who were on the roadway at the time and testified that a large commerical jet with AA markings was the culprit? Hey ... maybe Mossad has a mass hallucination machine. ROTFLOL!

"Those folks who saw the videos from the Sheraton at the Pentagon must know the truth."

Maybe the FBI were the only ones to have seen them.

You really need to keep up with the conspiracies, Poseiden. The conspiracy sites all claim that Sheraton employees looked at those video tapes.

Some of the firemen at the WTC must know the truth.

Which is why they reported bombs and described the investigation as a "half-baked farce" that would just amount to "paper- and computer-generated hypotheticals".

Exactly which firemen and how many of them out of the total? And what are they saying today? Or did they just drop the matter, even though hundreds of their own were murdered? Oh yes ... they are intimidated by Mossad too. ROTFLOL!

"Many a REAL structural engineer must know the truth."

But they don't want to lose their jobs.

Nah ... it must be fear of death at the hands of Mossad. ROTFLOL!

'Devout' Muslims who go to strip bars and gambling joints?

Oh. So you derived your 1 suicide pilot in 10000 every 100 years probability from this fact? Wow! You truly are an incredible statistician and logician, P. The whole world could learn from your acumen. ROTFLOL!

And the Port Authority documents show that a 600 mph impact and horrendous fires from jet fuel dumped into the building were also within the design parameters.

Not true, for the reasons indicated in that link I provided. But then I doubt you even read it.

"Why did they target different floors in each tower?"

That was to help reinforce the illusion of "suicide pilots" being responsible.

I see. ROTFLOL!

"Why did the planes hit the structures at different angles and velocities?"

The WTC 2 plane velocity was higher, to ensure penetration through thicker perimeter columns. As for the angle, the second plane to hit had to be the real thing since many cameras would be trained on it. The first hit - the alleged 'AA 11' was one of Dov Zakheim's Boeings that had been retro-fitted with all the software patches, in order to maximize the degree of remote operator control. It was essential that at least one plane hit a Tower. The scheduled UA 175 had to be taken over whilst in flight, and the operators found it was not quite as responsive. But they still managed to hit the other Tower.

I see. You almost sound like you were there. ROTFLOL!

Did these *magic 50* include structural engineers that could tell the others what the consequence of the different impacts would be ... so they could plan where to place these imaginary bombs?

The operation was being planned for ten years or more.

Wow! Even before the 1993 WTC bombing? And they kept it all secret for over 10 years? Remarkable. ROTFLOL!

> The WTC demolition was a Mossad operation. The Rothschild-Bronfman Mafia have spent the better part of 100 years brainwashing Jews into thinking that they are almost universally persecuted and despised wherever they go, which is total nonsense.

ROTFLOL! Well there you have it folks. THE REST OF THE STORY. ROTFLOL!

Apart from excelling in the sciences and many other fields, Jews have even made positive contributions to culture. It's not what people are that counts, but what they do. What is widely despised is the jettisoning of timeless values of liberty, justice, tolerance and integrity for a system based on short-term profit that is failing humankind. With their strategy of playing on people's fears, the Mafia have been able to brainwash their operatives into imagining that sinking ferries and blowing up trains, restaurants and skyscrapers is necessary to "save Jews" around the world. Hence, the proportion who defect and talk is relatively low. But some still talk, e.g. Ben Freedman, Mordechai Vanunu, Victor Ostrovsky, and David Cole.

Amazing. Those "Jews". ROTFLOL!

You know ... you really are a K**K, P.

Those who directed the Pentagon attack did in fact realise that certain people might have talked, and they were eliminated and claimed as having perished on "Flight 77".

Oh ... so the passenger list of Flight 77 included those who knew about the plot but might have talked. I see. ROTFLOL!

After reviewing video evidence and analyses, I have concluded that your figure of 96 feet is a pretty good estimate for the width of the first floor impact hole.

ROTFLOL! You don't say.

From photos, and taking the fuselage width as 12 1/2 feet, I make the difference in height between bottom of fuselage and bottom of engines at about 4 feet. Or if the center of fuselage was 13 feet above ground level, the top would be at 20 feet, the bottom at 6 feet, and the bottom of the engines two feet above the ground.

You don't say.

So this would leave the port engine two-and-a-half inches above ground level at the point of impact.

You don't say.

> This is similar to an unskilled operator launching a missile to the Moon at 82,400,000 mph which leaves 10.4 seconds to make in-flight adjustments to the bearing.

And you are a pilot/astronaut too. You are truly remarkable. ROTFLOL!

The controllers could have operated from a C-130 overflying the airliner

Right. Flown by several of the 50. ROTFLOL!

Should be ******** 124' 10" ********* 168'

Why should a plane with a 124 foot wingspan create a hole 168 wide? Take me through this calculation really slowly. ROTFLOL!

we would have to propose that the wings were partially shredded

Of course. The portions that didn't contain enough mass ... fuel. I've said that all along.

But the government's refusal to release the videos shows that they have something to hide.

No, it's a consequence of lawyers and a lawyer mentality everywhere in our government.

The John E Fernandez article says Robertson was lead structural designer of the towers, but that was written post 9/11, and looks like it was done after the fact for political reasons.

Right. It's ALL a conspiracy. ROTFLOL! I suppose Mossad has writers too.

As we now know, the Seattle team analysed the effect of a 600 mph impact and horrendous fires from dumped jet fuel, and concluded that the building should survive such event.

No, we don't know that. That's your interpretation of a rather vague statement in an interview with Skilling. Whereas I supplied a link quoting Robertson directly as to why what you claim is false. Oh that's right ... Robertson is Mossad. ROTFLOL!

Either LA Times' search was not exhaustive, or they are lying about the results.

ROTFLOL! So now the LATimes is part of the conspiracy too? ROTFLOL!

The mainstream media promoted the theory that Iraq had "WMDs", when bloggers knew otherwise.

Bloggers knew otherwise? Well I hate to tell you but Iraq did have WMD. That binary sarin shell that turned up proves it. And you can't tell us why Iraq went to so much trouble to sanitize computers, files and facilities that the ISG said were associated with something you bloggers claim Iraq didn't have. ROTFLOL!

I have not seen these supposed UN / WHO results

Don't you have a browser?

but even 7-8/1000/year is quite low compared with the Hopkins figures of 13.2/1000/year overall post invasion, or 19.8/1000/year for June 2005 - June 2006.

But it's about the same as what Hopkins claimed in their first bogus report. Don't tell me Les Roberts really messed up during that first study. That the real answer was 13.2 and not 7.9. Why I'd think if he messed up that badly they wouldn't have let him be one of the principle authors of the second study. But they did. ROTFLOL!

>> There is a good article here:

http://www.juancole.com/2006/10/655000-dead-in-iraq-since-bush.html

Juan Cole? ROTFLOL!

First of all, Iraqi Muslims don't believe in embalming or open casket funerals days later. They believe that the body should be buried by sunset the day of death, in a plain wooden box.

So you are claiming that if we were to investigate further we'd find the missing 600000 bodies buried in plain wooden boxes? Don't you think that is the sort of proof Hopkins should have asked to see? And why weren't any of these hundreds of thousands of funerals photographed ... even by the insurgents?

Although there are benefits to registering with the government for a death certificate, there are also disadvantages.

Make up your mind. Did they or didn't they? The latest Hopkin's study claims they virtually all did.

Personally, I believe very large numbers of Iraqi families quietly bury their dead without telling the government of all people anything about it.

My goodness. You're an expert in this field too? You are the Millennium Man!

I'm sure the Tigris fishermen throw back unwanted corpses every day.

You're "sure". ROTFLOL!

There is heavy fighting almost every day at Ramadi in al-Anbar province, among guerrillas, townspeople, tribes, Marines and Iraqi police and army.

Well if al-Anbar had really lost half a million Iraqis ... don't you think someone would have noticed before John Hopkins anti-American research team did? ROTFLOL!

Does 1 person a day die there of political violence? Is it more like 4? 10? What about Samarra? Tikrit? No one is saying. Since they aren't, on what basis do we say that the Lancet study is impossible?

Because you aren't claiming 1 or 4 or 10 or even 100. You are claiming more than 500 a day since the war began. Day in and day out.

If we subtract Baghdad, where about 100 a day die

Now and then. Most of the time the figure is much less.

In any case ... where are the bodies. I suggest if you really want us to believe this claim you'd better be prepared to go to Iraq and dig.

BeAChooser  posted on  2006-11-01   2:18:32 ET  Reply   Trace  


#129. To: BeAChooser (#128)

Are you an expert on Bin Laden and video image analysis too? Why you are a regular Renaissance man? In that case, I'd love to hear what you have to say about the latest video tapes which show Bin Laden meeting some of the 9/11 hijackers and the hijackers training in Afghanistan prior to 9/11.

If people believe that, they'll believe anything. Firstly, from the very high sample of previous fake videos, we may induce that the 'training video' is almost certainly fake. Secondly, from the fact that the "Bin Laden did 9/11" yarn is a proven hoax, we can deduce that the video is most definitely fake. Thirdly, from internal contradictions such as 'suicide hijackers' who were found to be still alive and well when they were supposed to be dead, we can again deduce that the video is certainly fake, and the forgers / scriptwriters are incompetent. By the way, I'd love to know whether you think the five Osamas pictured here are all the same man.

No they are not. Romero's credentials have NOTHING to do with structures. They have NOTHING to do with what explosives do to structures.

Then why were his papers presented at conferences on the effects of explosives on structures, if they were entirely irrelevant? An explosives expert who knows nothing about what explosives can do is a funny sort of explosives expert. LOL!

"So it took the crooks over five years to fake 'training videos'. "

Why'd it take so long?

They had to wait until within a few weeks of some important elections. And perhaps they should sack the forgers and employ others who can do a better job in a shorter time. LOL!

Those folks who saw the videos from the Sheraton at the Pentagon must know the truth.

"Maybe the FBI were the only ones to have seen them. "

You really need to keep up with the conspiracies, Poseiden. The conspiracy sites all claim that Sheraton employees looked at those video tapes.

This claim originated from Rowan Scarborough and Bill Gertz. Scarborough is a hack employed by Donald Rumsfeld, and his sidekick Gertz is a CIA plant who peddles the same pro-defense scare stories propaganda. And you need to keep up with which skeptics are genuine and which are disinformation agents. The Sheraton employees story has been promoted by a guy named Karl Schwarz who also writes under the alias of "Jon Carlson". He claims that an A-3 Skywarrior hit the Pentagon, and that the South Tower airliner was a Boeing 737. Well, at least the Skywarrior wingspan at 72 feet 6 inches is a good match for the impact hole.

Exactly which firemen and how many of them out of the total?

There are plenty of reports by firefighters and other credible witnesses of explosions and bombs going off. And this was supposedly a conventional office fire of burning hydrocarbons, about an hour after the last of the jet fuel had been consumed. LOL! If you can provide even a dozen reports by witnesses saying they didn't think there were any bombs exploding, then I'd say you might be on to something. Either way, maybe it would be worth publishing a paper on the myriad of 'mistaken' witnesses. LOL!

And what are they saying today? Or did they just drop the matter, even though hundreds of their own were murdered? Oh yes ... they are intimidated by Mossad too. ROTFLOL!

Not the Mossad; they were ordered by the government not to speak on grounds of "national security".

"And the Port Authority documents show that a 600 mph impact and horrendous fires from jet fuel dumped into the building were also within the design parameters. "

Not true, for the reasons indicated in that link I provided. But then I doubt you even read it.

I read it, but didn't see anything convincing.

"The operation was being planned for ten years or more. "

Wow! Even before the 1993 WTC bombing? And they kept it all secret for over 10 years? Remarkable. ROTFLOL!

In the early stages, there were only a handful of conspirators. Well under 50.

"Should be ******** 124' 10" ********* 168' "

Why should a plane with a 124 foot wingspan create a hole 168 wide? Take me through this calculation really slowly. ROTFLOL!

The angle of approach of the alleged 'Flight 77' was about 42 degrees, according to the ASCE Building Performance report (see p.35 just above figure 6.1). Consider the moment when the right wingtip strikes the facade. There is a right-angled triangle with its hypotenuse, the projected width of the impact hole, at the top; the side that extends from the right-angle at the bottom to the angle at the top right is the wingspan of 124' 10"; and the other side on the left showing how far the left wingtip has to go before impact is a little less than the wingspan. The angle at the top right is 42 degrees, the amount by which the plane is off from a line normal to the facade. The wingspan forms the adjacent side to the top right 42 degree angle. So the fraction wingspan / projected width = adjacent / hypotenuse = cos (42 degrees) = 0.7431. Or the reciprocal 1.346 is the projected width divided by the wingspan.

The ASCE report talks about 120 feet of "severe damage" and calculates the projected wingspan width as 90 feet. "Projected width" could imply either calculating the larger length from the smaller side (wingspan) or as the report did, calculating the other way round. Either way, you see their ratio of one-and-a-third is close enough to my figure. It is true that, eventually, if the angle is too great, the laws of physics take over and the momentum of the plane would not be able to produce the mathematically-predicted very wide hole. But the width still looks like it might be too small.

"we would have to propose that the wings were partially shredded "

Of course. The portions that didn't contain enough mass ... fuel. I've said that all along.

I haver never denied that this is a possible explanation.

"But the government's refusal to release the videos shows that they have something to hide. "

No, it's a consequence of lawyers and a lawyer mentality everywhere in our government.

That doesn't stop them releasing videos of 'hijackers' at Logan Airport (e.g. when the forgers couldn't be bothered to get up early enough in the morning, to get the exterior sunlight levels right. LOL!) or in Afghanistan - after they've had a suitable time to fake them, and when there are impending elections for which the propaganda might swing a few votes.

Bloggers knew otherwise? Well I hate to tell you but Iraq did have WMD. That binary sarin shell that turned up proves it.

So a rusty relic of WWI technology that they forgot to destroy is such a dire threat to the US, that it justified an invasion and the loss of hundreds of thousands of civilians in the resulting chaos? Of course, it wouldn't make sense to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on an invasion just to loot the odd $8.8 billion from an Oil-for-Food fund, along with a few treasures from museums. It's a negative-sum game. From the criminals' point of view, it's great. The whole thing is funded by taxpayers' money, but the profits go into the crooks' private bank accounts. Since they don't have to lay out a cent of their own, their return on investment is infinite. It's another money-transfer scam, but - unfortunately - one on a massive scale that involves a lot of killing.

And you can't tell us why Iraq went to so much trouble to sanitize computers, files and facilities that the ISG said were associated with something you bloggers claim Iraq didn't have. ROTFLOL!

Another conspiracy? LOL! How many Iraqis would have been in on this conspiracy - 50, or 500? And don't you think one of them would have spoken out by now, and told the occupying forces all about the "hidden WMDs"?

"but even 7-8/1000/year is quite low compared with the Hopkins figures of 13.2/1000/year overall post invasion, or 19.8/1000/year for June 2005 - June 2006. "

But it's about the same as what Hopkins claimed in their first bogus report. Don't tell me Les Roberts really messed up during that first study. That the real answer was 13.2 and not 7.9.

The first study was in 2004, when the deaths rate was much lower. The latest study places the deaths rate for March 2003 - April 2004 at 7.5 deaths/1000/year, which is in line with the 7.9. May 2004 - May 2005 was 10.9 deaths/1000/year, June 2005 - June 2006 was 19.8 deaths/1000/year, and the overall post-invasion average is 13.2 deaths/1000/year.

Juan Cole? ROTFLOL!

So you are claiming that if we were to investigate further we'd find the missing 600000 bodies buried in plain wooden boxes? Don't you think that is the sort of proof Hopkins should have asked to see?

No. These people have all been killed because a greedy bunch of killers have seized power, and they are supposed to be dug up again just to satisfy you?

And why weren't any of these hundreds of thousands of funerals photographed ... even by the insurgents?

They were probably too busy grieving to think about trying to cash in on an opportunity that might influence political opinion in a foreign land.

"Personally, I believe very large numbers of Iraqi families quietly bury their dead without telling the government of all people anything about it. "

My goodness. You're an expert in this field too? You are the Millennium Man!

"I'm sure the Tigris fishermen throw back unwanted corpses every day. "

You're "sure". ROTFLOL!

Those were Juan Cole's comments from his article, but seem very reasonable to me.

"Does 1 person a day die there of political violence? Is it more like 4? 10? What about Samarra? Tikrit? No one is saying. Since they aren't, on what basis do we say that the Lancet study is impossible? "

Because you aren't claiming 1 or 4 or 10 or even 100. You are claiming more than 500 a day since the war began. Day in and day out.

Around 500 a day. Juan Cole is pointing out that 100 a day in Baghdad plus around 4 a day in each of 89 other major towns and cities would total the required 500. It would have to average around 4.5, so he isn't far out.

Poseidon  posted on  2006-11-01   21:03:20 ET  Reply   Trace  


#130. To: Poseidon (#129)

I tire of you, K**K.

I have nothing more to say to you than PUBLISH if you want what you claim to go anywhere.

And knowing that you won't, I laugh.

ROTFLOL!

BeAChooser  posted on  2006-11-01   22:28:01 ET  Reply   Trace  


#131. To: Poseidon (#129)

Good stuff, keep it up. http://www.hermes-press.com/

Itisa1mosttoolate  posted on  2006-11-01   22:38:04 ET  Reply   Trace  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Donate]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]