|
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 ArticlesTitle: 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 Top Page Up Full Thread Page Down Bottom/Latest
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?
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?
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 & Ks 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 alleven if they were designed to be hit by aircraftconsidering 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 speedabout 180 miles per hourand 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:
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 blacksmiths 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!
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!
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?
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.
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?
***************** 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!
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.
Top Page Up Full Thread Page Down Bottom/Latest
|