|
|
|
|||||||
| World Markets | ShareLynx | Futures | Money Masters | INO Markets | INO Metals | Asian Mrkets | Pre-market | Google GIM |
| Conspiracies Conspiracies posted here - 9/11 Etc. |
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
01-31-2006
|
|||
|
|||
SCHOLARS REPUDIATE OFFICIAL VERSION OF 9/11
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/index.html http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/PressRelease27Jan2006.html OP/ED: SCHOLARS REPUDIATE OFFICIAL VERSION OF 9/11 Claim government's account violates laws of physics and engineering 27 January 2006 An influential group of prominent experts and scholars have joined together alleging that senior government officials have covered up crucial facts about what really happened on 9/11. The members of this new non-partisan association, "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" (S9/11T), are convinced their research proves the current administration has been dishonest with the nation about events in New York and Washington, D.C. These experts contend that books and articles by members and associates have established that the World Trade Center was almost certainly brought down by controlled demolitions and that the available relevant evidence casts grave doubt on the official story about the attack on the Pentagon. They believe that the government not only permitted 9/11 to occur but may even have orchestrated these events to facilitate its political agenda. The society includes U.S. and international faculty and students of history, science, military affairs, psychology, and even philosophy. According to its spokesmen, S9/11T represents a concerted effort to uphold the standards of truth and justice and to strengthen democracy in this nation, which has taken a terrible hit in the aftermath of 9/11, when "everything changed." Its function is to bring scientific rigor to the study of 9/11 phenomena. The members of this group are dedicated to exposing falsehoods and to revealing truths behind 9/11, "letting the chips fall where they may." The evidence has become sufficiently strong that they are speaking out. They are actively devoting themselves to reporting the results of their research to the public by means of lectures, articles, and other venues. The society includes numerous notable professors and scholars, including: Morgan Reynolds, Texas A & M Professor Emeritus of Economics, former Chief Economist for the Department of Labor for President George W. Bush, and former Director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy AnalysisThe society, founded by Professors Fetzer and Jones, who serve as its co-chairs, is approaching 50 members to date. Fetzer, a philosopher of science, observed that the government's "official account" is not even physically possible, because it violates laws of nature. "What we have been told is fine," he said, "if you are willing to believe impossible things. Serious scholars don't believe in tooth fairies." Beyond encouraging its members to vigorously express their concerns on this score through lectures, conferences, symposia, articles, and books as well as other access routes that publicize their findings,the society's initial activities, which are expected to increase in frequency and intensity, include the following projects and endeavors: Professor Jones is refining his influential analysis of the physics of the collapse of buildings at the World Trade Center.Studies by the society's founders and by prominent theologian David Ray Griffin, who has taken a leading role in exposing false claims about 9/11, are accessible from the association's home page, scholarsfor911truth.org. Information for those who may want to join S9/11T can also be found there. 
|
|
#2
02-01-2006
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: SCHOLARS REPUDIATE OFFICIAL VERSION OF 9/11
The Destruction of the World Trade Center:
Why the Official Account Cannot Be True David Ray Griffin Authorized Version (with references & notes) http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html In The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11 (2004), I summarized dozens of facts and reports that cast doubt on the official story about 9/11. Then in The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions (2005a), I discussed the way these various facts and reports were treated by the 9/11 Commission, namely, by distorting or simply omitting them. I have also taken this big-picture approach, with its cumulative argument, in my previous essays and lectures on 9/11 (Griffin, 2005b and 2005d).[1] This approach, which shows every aspect of the official story to be problematic, provides the most effective challenge to the official story. But this way of presenting the evidence has one great limitation, especially when used in lectures and essays: It means that the treatment of every particular issue must be quite brief, hence superficial. People can thereby be led to suspect that a more thorough treatment of any particular issue might show the official story to be plausible after all. In the present essay, I focus on one question: why the Twin Towers and building 7 of the World Trade Center collapsed. One advantage of this focus, besides the fact that it allows us to go into considerable detail, is that the destruction of the World Trade Center provides one of the best windows into the truth about 9/11. Another advantage of this focus is that it will allow us to look at revelations contained in the 9/11 oral histories, which were recorded by the New York Fire Department shortly after 9/11 but released to the public only in August of 2005. I will begin with the question of why the Twin Towers collapsed, then raise the same question about building 7. 1. The Collapse of the Twin Towers Shortly after 9/11, President Bush advised people not to tolerate “outrageous conspiracy theories about the attacks of 11 September” (Bush, 2001).[2] Philip Zelikow, who directed the work of the 9/11 Commission, has likewise warned against “outrageous conspiracy theories” (Hansen, 2005). What do these men mean by this expression? They cannot mean that we should reject all conspiracy theories about 9/11, because the government’s own account is a conspiracy theory, with the conspirators all being members of al-Qaeda. They mean only that we should reject outrageous theories. But what distinguishes an outrageous theory from a non-outrageous one? This is one of the central questions in the philosophy of science. When confronted by rival theories---let’s say Neo-Darwinian Evolution and Intelligent Design---scientists and philosophers of science ask which theory is better and why. The mark of a good theory is that it can explain, in a coherent way, all or at least most of the relevant facts and is not contradicted by any of them. A bad theory is one that is contradicted by some of the relevant facts. An outrageous theory would be one that is contradicted by virtually all the relevant facts. With this definition in mind, let us look at the official theory about the Twin Towers, which says that they collapsed because of the combined effect of the impact of the airplanes and the resulting fires. The report put out by FEMA said: “The structural damage sustained by each tower from the impact, combined with the ensuing fires, resulted in the total collapse of each building” (FEMA, 2002).[3] This theory clearly belongs in the category of outrageous theories, because is it is contradicted by virtually all the relevant facts. Although this statement may seem extreme, I will explain why it is not. No Prior Collapse Induced by Fire The official theory is rendered implausible by two major problems. The first is the simple fact that fire has never---prior to or after 9/11---caused steel-frame high-rise buildings to collapse. Defenders of the official story seldom if ever mention this simple fact. Indeed, the supposedly definitive report put out by NIST---the National Institute for Standards and Technology (2005)---even implies that fire-induced collapses of large steel-frame buildings are normal events (Hoffman, 2005).[4] Far from being normal, however, such collapses have never occurred, except for the alleged cases of 9/11. Defenders of the official theory, of course, say that the collapses were caused not simply by the fire but the fire combined with the damage caused by the airliners. The towers, however, were designed to withstand the impact of airliners about the same size as Boeing 767s.[5] Hyman Brown, the construction manager of the Twin Towers, said: “They were over-designed to withstand almost anything, including hurricanes, . . . bombings and an airplane hitting [them]” (Bollyn, 2001). And even Thomas Eagar, an MIT professor of materials engineering who supports the official theory, says that the impact of the airplanes would not have been significant, because “the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure” (Eagar and Musso, 2001, pp. 8-11). Likewise, the NIST Report, in discussing how the impact of the planes contributed to the collapse, focuses primarily on the claim that the planes dislodged a lot of the fire-proofing from the steel.[6] The official theory of the collapse, therefore, is essentially a fire theory, so it cannot be emphasized too much that fire has never caused large steel-frame buildings to collapse---never, whether before 9/11, or after 9/11, or anywhere in the world on 9/11 except allegedly New York City---never. One might say, of course, that there is a first time for everything, and that a truly extraordinary fire might induce a collapse. Let us examine this idea. What would count as an extraordinary fire? Given the properties of steel, a fire would need to be very hot, very big, and very long-lasting. But the fires in the towers did not have even one of these characteristics, let alone all three. There have been claims, to be sure, that the fires were very hot. Some television specials claimed that the towers collapsed because the fire was hot enough to melt the steel. For example, an early BBC News special quoted Hyman Brown as saying: “steel melts, and 24,000 gallons of aviation fluid melted the steel.” Another man, presented as a structural engineer, said: “It was the fire that killed the buildings. There’s nothing on earth that could survive those temperatures with that amount of fuel burning. . . . The columns would have melted” (Barter, 2001).[7] These claims, however, are absurd. Steel does not even begin to melt until it reaches almost 2800° Fahrenheit.[8] And yet open fires fueled by hydrocarbons, such as kerosene---which is what jet fuel is---can at most rise to 1700°F, which is almost 1100 degrees below the melting point of steel.[9] We can, accordingly, dismiss the claim that the towers collapsed because their steel columns melted.[10] Most defenders of the official theory, in fact, do not make this absurd claim. They say merely that the fire heated the steel up to the point where it lost so much of its strength that it buckled.[11] For example, Thomas Eagar, saying that steel loses 80 percent of its strength when it is heated to 1,300˚F, argues that this is what happened. But for even this claim to plausible, the fires would have still had to be pretty hot. But they were not. Claims have been made, as we have seen, about the jet fuel. But much of it burned up very quickly in the enormous fireballs produced when the planes hit the buildings, and rest was gone within 10 minutes,[12] after which the flames died down. Photographs of the towers 15 minutes after they were struck show few flames and lots of black smoke, a sign that the fires were oxygen-starved. Thomas Eagar, recognizing this fact, says that the fires were “probably only about 1,200 or 1,300˚F” (Eagar, 2002). There are reasons to believe, moreover, that the fires were not even that hot. As photographs show, the fires did not break windows or even spread much beyond their points of origin (Hufschmid, 2002, p. 40). This photographic evidence is supported by scientific studies carried out by NIST, which found that of the 16 perimeter columns examined, “only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250˚C [482˚F],” and no evidence that any of the core columns had reached even those temperatures (2005, p. 88). NIST (2005) says that it “did not generalize these results, since the examined columns represented only 3 percent of the perimeter columns and 1 percent of the core columns from the fire floors”. That only such a tiny percent of the columns was available was due, of course, to the fact that government officials had most of the steel immediately sold and shipped off. In any case, NIST’s findings on the basis of this tiny percent of the columns are not irrelevant: They mean that any speculations that some of the core columns reached much higher temperatures would be just that---pure speculation not backed up by any empirical evidence. Moreover, even if the fire had reached 1,300˚F, as Eagar supposes, that does not mean that any of the steel would have reached that temperature. Steel is an excellent conductor of heat. Put a fire to one part of a long bar of steel and the heat will quickly diffuse to the other parts and to any other pieces of steel to which that bar is connected.[13] For fires to have heated up some of the steel columns to anywhere close to their own temperature, they would have needed to be very big, relative to the size of the buildings and the amount of steel in them. The towers, of course, were huge and had an enormous amount of steel. A small, localized fire of 1,300˚F would never have heated any of the steel columns even close to that temperature, because the heat would have been quickly dispersed throughout the building. Some defenders of the official story have claimed that the fires were indeed very big, turning the buildings into “towering infernos.” But all the evidence counts against this claim, especially with regard to the south tower, which collapsed first. This tower was struck between floors 78 and 84, so that region is where the fire would have been the biggest. And yet Brian Clark, a survivor, said that when he got down to the 80th floor: "You could see through the wall and the cracks and see flames . . . just licking up, not a roaring inferno, just quiet flames licking up and smoke sort of eking through the wall."[14] Likewise, one of the fire chiefs who had reached the 78th floor found only “two isolated pockets of fire.”[15] The north tower, to be sure, did have fires that were big enough and hot enough to cause many people to jump to their deaths. But as anyone with a fireplace grate or a pot-belly stove knows, fire that will not harm steel or even iron will burn human flesh. Also in many cases it may have been more the smoke than the heat that led people to jump. In any case, the fires, to weaken the steel columns, would have needed to be not only very big and very hot but also very long-lasting.[16] The public was told that the towers had such fires, with CNN saying that “very intense” fires “burned for a long time.”[17] But they did not. The north tower collapsed an hour and 42 minutes after it was struck; the south tower collapsed after only 56 minutes. To see how ludicrous is the claim that the short-lived fires in the towers could have induced structural collapse, we can compare them with some other fires. In 1988, a fire in the First Interstate Bank Building in Los Angeles raged for 3.5 hours and gutted 5 of this building’s 62 floors, but there was no significant structural damage (FEMA, 1988). In 1991, a huge fire in Philadelphia’s One Meridian Plaza lasted for 18 hours and gutted 8 of the building’s 38 floors, but, said the FEMA report, although “[b]eams and girders sagged and twisted . . . under severe fire exposures. . . , the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage” (FEMA, 1991). In Caracas in 2004, a fire in a 50-story building raged for 17 hours, completely gutting the building’s top 20 floors, and yet it did not collapse (Nieto, 2004). And yet we are supposed to believe that a 56-minute fire caused the south tower to collapse. Unlike the fires in the towers, moreover, the fires in Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and Caracas were hot enough to break windows. Another important comparison is afforded by a series of experiments run in Great Britain in the mid-1990s to see what kind of damage could be done to steel-frame buildings by subjecting them to extremely hot, all-consuming fires that lasted for many hours. FEMA, having reviewed those experiments, said: “Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900°C (1,500-1,700°F) in three of the tests. . . , no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments” (1988, Appendix A). These comparisons bring out the absurdity of NIST’s claim that the towers collapsed because the planes knocked the fireproofing off the steel columns. Fireproofing provides protection for only a few hours, so the steel in the buildings in Philadelphia and Caracas would have been directly exposed to raging fires for 14 or more hours, and yet this steel did not buckle. NIST claims, nevertheless, that the steel in the south tower buckled because it was directly exposed to flames for 56 minutes.[18] A claim made by some defenders of the official theory is to speculate that there was something about the Twin Towers that made them uniquely vulnerable to fire. But these speculations are not backed up by any evidence. And, as Norman Glover, has pointed out: “[A]lmost all large buildings will be the location for a major fire in their useful life. No major high-rise building has ever collapsed from fire. The WTC was the location for such a fire in 1975; however, the building survived with minor damage and was repaired and returned to service” (Glover, 2002). Multiple Evidence of Controlled Demolition There is a reverse truth to the fact that, aside from the alleged cases of 9/11, fire has never caused large steel-frame buildings to collapse. This reverse truth is that every previous total collapse has been caused by the procedure known as “controlled demolition,” in which explosives capable of cutting steel have been placed in crucial places throughout the building and then set off in a particular order. Just from knowing that the towers collapsed, therefore, the natural assumption would be that they were brought down by explosives. This a priori assumption is, moreover, supported by an empirical examination of the particular nature of the collapses. Here we come to the second major problem with the official theory, namely, that the collapses had at least eleven features that would be expected if, and only if, explosives were used. I will briefly describe these eleven features. Sudden Onset: In controlled demolition, the onset of the collapse is sudden. One moment, the building is perfectly motionless; the next moment, it suddenly begins to collapse. But steel, when heated, does not suddenly buckle or break. So in fire-induced collapses---if we had any examples of such---the onset would be gradual. Horizontal beams and trusses would begin to sag; vertical columns, if subjected to strong forces, would begin to bend. But as videos of the towers show,[19] there were no signs of bending or sagging, even on the floors just above the damage caused by the impact of the planes. The buildings were perfectly motionless up to the moment they began their collapse. Straight Down: The most important thing in a controlled demolition of a tall building close to other buildings is that it come straight down, into, or at least close to, its own footprint, so that it does not harm the other buildings. The whole art or science of controlled demolition is oriented primarily around this goal. As Mark Loizeaux, the president of Controlled Demolition, Inc., has explained, “to bring [a building] down as we want, so . . . no other structure is harmed,” the demolition must be “completely planned,” using “the right explosive [and] the right pattern of laying the charges” (Else, 2004).[20] If the 110-story Twin Towers had fallen over, they would have caused an enormous amount of damage to buildings covering many city blocks. But the towers came straight down. Accordingly, the official theory, by implying that fire produced collapses that perfectly mimicked the collapses that have otherwise been produced only by precisely placed explosives, requires a miracle.[21] Almost Free-Fall Speed: Buildings brought down by controlled demolition collapse at almost free-fall speed. This can occur because the supports for the lower floors are destroyed, so that when the upper floors come down, they encounter no resistance. The fact that the collapses of the towers mimicked this feature of controlled demolition was mentioned indirectly by The 9/11 Commission Report, which said that the “South Tower collapsed in 10 seconds” (Kean and Hamilton, 2004, p. 305).[22] The authors of the report evidently thought that the rapidity of this collapse did not conflict with the official theory, known as the “pancake” theory. According to this theory, the floors above the floors that were weakened by the impact of the airliner fell on the floor below, which started a chain reaction, so that the floors “pancaked” all the way down. But if that is what happened, the lower floors, with all their steel and concrete, would have provided resistance. The upper floors could not have fallen through them at the same speed as they would fall through air. However, the videos of the collapses show that the rubble falling inside the building’s profile falls at the same speed as the rubble outside[23] (Jones, 2006). As architect and physicist Dave Heller (2005) explains: the floors could not have been pancaking. The buildings fell too quickly. The floors must all have been falling simultaneously to reach the ground in such a short amount of time. But how?. . . In [the method known as controlled demolition], each floor of a building is destroyed at just the moment the floor above is about to strike it. Thus, the floors fall simultaneously, and in virtual freefall. (Garlic and Glass 6) Total Collapse: The official theory is even more decisively ruled out by the fact that the collapses were total: These 110-story buildings collapsed into piles of rubble only a few stories high. How was that possible? The core of each tower contained 47 massive steel box columns.[24] According to the pancake theory, the horizontal steel supports broke free from the vertical columns. But if that is what had happened, the 47 core columns would have still been standing. The 9/11 Commission came up with a bold solution to this problem. It simply denied the existence of the 47 core columns, saying: “The interior core of the buildings was a hollow steel shaft, in which elevators and stairwells were grouped” (Kean and Hamilton, 2004, 541 note 1). Voila! With no 47 core columns, the main problem is removed. The NIST Report handled this most difficult problem by claiming that when the floors collapsed, they pulled on the columns, causing the perimeter columns to become unstable. This instability then increased the gravity load on the core columns, which had been weakened by tremendously hot fires in the core, which, NIST claims, reached 1832°F, and this combination of factors somehow produced “global collapse” (NIST, 2005, pp. 28, 143). This theory faces two problems. First, NIST’s claim about tremendously hot fires in the core is completely unsupported by evidence. As we saw earlier, its own studies found no evidence that any of the core columns had reached temperatures of even 482°F (250˚C), so its theory involves a purely speculative addition of over 1350°F.[25] Second, even if this sequence of events had occurred, NIST provides no explanation as to why it would have produced global—-that is, total--collapse. The NIST Report asserts that “column failure” occurred in the core as well as the perimeter columns. But this remains a bare assertion. There is no plausible explanation of why the columns would have broken or even buckled, so as to produce global collapse at virtually free-fall speed, even if they had reached such temperatures.[26] Sliced Steel: In controlled demolitions of steel-frame buildings, explosives are used to slice the steel columns and beams into pieces. A representative from Controlled Demolition, Inc., has said of RDX, one of the commonly used high explosives, that it slices steel like a "razor blade through a tomato." The steel is, moreover, not merely sliced; it is sliced into manageable lengths. As Controlled Demolition, Inc., says in its publicity: “Our DREXSTM systems . . . segment steel components into pieces matching the lifting capacity of the available equipment.”[27] The collapses of the Twin Towers, it seems, somehow managed to mimic this feature of controlled demolitions as well. Jim Hoffman (2004), after studying various photos of the collapse site, said that much of the steel seemed to be “chopped up into . . . sections that could be easily loaded onto the equipment that was cleaning up Ground Zero.”[28] Pulverization of Concrete and Other Materials: Another feature of controlled demolition is the production of a lot of dust, because explosives powerful enough to slice steel will pulverize concrete and most other non-metallic substances into tiny particles. And, Hoffman (2003) reports, “nearly all of the non-metallic constituents of the towers were pulverized into fine power.”[29] That observation was also made by Colonel John O’Dowd of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. “At the World Trade Center sites,” he told the History Channel, “it seemed like everything was pulverized” (History Channel, 2002). Dust Clouds: Yet another common feature of controlled demolitions is the production of dust clouds, which result when explosions eject the dust from the building with great energy. And, as one can see by comparing videos on the Web, the collapses of the towers produced clouds that are very similar to those produced by controlled demolitions of other structures, such as Seattle’s Kingdome. The only difference is that the clouds produced during the collapses of the towers were proportionally much bigger.[30] The official account, therefore, involves a huge violation of the laws of physics---a violation that becomes even more enormous once we factor in the energy required to pulverize the concrete (let alone the energy required to break the steel). The importance of King’s point can be appreciated by juxtaposing it with the claim by Shyam Sunder, NIST’s lead investigator, that although the clouds of dust created during the collapses of the Twin Towers may create the impression of a controlled demolition, “it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception" (Popular Mechanics, 2005). The pancaking, according to the official theory being defended by Sunder, began at the floor beneath the holes created by the impact of the airliners. As King points out, this theory cannot handle the fact, as revealed by the photographs and videos, that dust clouds were created far above the impact zones. Horizontal Ejections: Another common feature of controlled demolition is the horizontal ejection of other materials, besides dust, from those areas of the building in which explosives are set off. In the case of the Twin Towers, photos and videos reveal that “[h]eavy pieces of steel were ejected in all directions for distances up to 500 feet, while aluminum cladding was blown up to 700 feet away from the towers” (Paul and Hoffman, 2004, p. 7). But gravitational energy is, of course, vertical, so it cannot even begin to explain these horizontal ejections. Demolition Rings: Still another common feature of collapses induced by explosions are demolition rings, in which series of small explosions run rapidly around a building. This feature was also manifested by the collapses of the towers.[32] Sounds Produced by Explosions: The use of explosives to induce collapses produces, of course, sounds caused by the explosions. Like all the previous features except the slicing of the steel columns inside the building, this one could be observed by witnesses. And, as we will see below, there is abundant testimony to the existence of such sounds before and during the collapses of the towers. Molten Steel: An eleventh feature that would be expected only if explosives were used to slice the steel columns would be molten steel, and its existence at the WTC site was indeed reported by several witnesses, including the two main figures involved in the clean up, Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction, and Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Incorporated. Tully said that he saw pools of “literally molten steel” at the site. Loizeaux said that several weeks after 9/11, when the rubble was being removed, “hot spots of molten steel” were found “at the bottoms of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven [basement] levels” (both statements quoted in Bollyn, 2004).[33] Also, Leslie Robertson, the chief structural engineer for the Twin Towers, said: “As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running” (Williams, 2001). Knight-Ridder journalist Jennifer Lin, discussing Joe "Toolie" O'Toole, a Bronx firefighter who worked for many months on the rescue and clean-up efforts, wrote: "Underground fires raged for months. O'Toole remembers in February seeing a crane lift a steel beam vertically from deep within the catacombs of Ground Zero. 'It was dripping from the molten steel," he said'" (Lin, 2002). Greg Fuchek, vice president of sales for LinksPoint, Inc., which supplied some of the computer equipment used to identify human remains at the site, described the working conditions as "hellish," partly because for six months, the ground temperature varied between 600 degrees Fahrenheit and 1,500 degrees or higher. Fuchek added that "sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel" (Walsh, 2002). And still more witnesses spoke of molten steel.[34] This testimony is of great significance, since it would be hard to imagine what, other than high explosives, could have caused some of the steel to melt. The importance of the nature of the collapses, as summarized in these 11 features, is shown by the fact that attempts to defend the official theory typically ignore most of them. For example, an article in Popular Mechanics (2005), seeking to debunk what it calls some of the most prevalent myths about 9/11 fabricated by “conspiracy theorists,” completely ignores the suddenness, verticality, rapidity, and totality of the collapses and also fails to mention the testimonies about molten steel, demolition rings, and the sounds of explosions.[35] 2. Testimonies about Explosions and Related Phenomena in the 9/11 Oral Histories Most of these 11 features---all but the slicing of the core columns and the molten steel in the basements---are features that, if they occurred before or during the collapses of the towers, could have been observed by people in the area. And, in fact, testimonies about some of these phenomena have been available, since shortly after 9/11, from reporters,[36] fire fighters,[37] police officers,[38] people who worked in the towers,[39] and one prominent explosives expert, Van Romero, [40] who said on that very day after viewing the videotapes, that the collapses not only resembled those produced by controlled implosions but must, in fact, have been caused by “some explosive devices inside the buildings” because they were “too methodical” to have been chance results of the airplane strikes (Uyttebrouck, 2001).[41] Some of these testimonies were very impressive. There were, however, only a few of them and they were scattered .....more http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html
|
|
#3
02-01-2006
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: SCHOLARS REPUDIATE OFFICIAL VERSION OF 9/11
Interesting how they dismiss the impact stating that the building was designed to be impacted by aircraft of that size, reducing the argument to a 'burn down' theory.
I wonder if the towers were designed to have the top third of its weight dropped upon the botton two thirds ? .
|
|
#4
02-01-2006
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: SCHOLARS REPUDIATE OFFICIAL VERSION OF 9/11
Quote:
"no steel building had ever fallen down (before or since)" and yet on 9/11 we get three falling from fire, one in fact was not even hit (oops sorry about that, I forgot you pretend WTC 7 was different) It was not fire that brought those 3 buildings down....
|
|
#5
02-01-2006
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: SCHOLARS REPUDIATE OFFICIAL VERSION OF 9/11
IMPACT, FIRE
Physics can not be seperated by conjecture - Unless you have a sheep skin. Or you are a sheep skin. .
|
|
#6
02-01-2006
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: SCHOLARS REPUDIATE OFFICIAL VERSION OF 9/11
For the folks requiring professional confirmation ...
But new tests at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) show it was not the jet fuel that kept those flames alive. Dr. Frank Gayle, Metals Expert: "Your gut reaction would be the jet fuel is what made the fire so very intense, a lot of people figured that's what melted the steel. Indeed it didn't, the steel did not melt." A fire in a simulated office of the WTC devours virtually everything; workstations, paper, walls, carpet. Until in reality, both towers dissolved into 110-story chimneys. (convection - the worse case drafting of combustables) Dr. Frank Gayle: "This is a particularly valuable piece for us -- the upper part of the fuselage. ... Hit these three legs of this panel, and kicked them into the building." Kevin McGrattan, Mathematician: "A common practice in fire-protection engineering is to separate different parts of the building using rated walls. A two-hour rating will keep a fire from penetrating it for roughly two hours. But this tower was designed so that each floor was fairly open." The investigators have found that the windows between the columns blew out, fueling the fire and bringing so much oxygen in that it weakened the structure underneath, which then collapsed. Dr. Shyam Sunder: "When we put the basic temperatures in this model we start to see sagging of the floor system, as well deflection of the (support) column." And while the planes' wings and engines weakened some areas, scientists don't think that was enough to make the towers fall. They're now focusing on the floor truss supports where white foam fireproofing may not have been as strong as builders believed. (maybe not strong enough for a landing strip either) . Last edited by Halophyte; 02-01-2006 at 03:12 PM..
|
|
#7
02-01-2006
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: SCHOLARS REPUDIATE OFFICIAL VERSION OF 9/11
@Halo,
keep ignoring all the parts of this story that do not fit your own model of what happened.... i.e. "Evaporated Steel from office furniture burning" or how about "The top 1/3 of the building drops on the remaining 2/3 of the building, gaining a speed of over 200mph in just under a half second, thereby leveling the whole building in just 8.8 seconds....." Amazing what you are clinging to, I almost wonder if you work for the govt or Larry Silverstein
|
|
#8
02-01-2006
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: SCHOLARS REPUDIATE OFFICIAL VERSION OF 9/11
Quote:
Neither, I'm an alien spy from planet Reality. .
|
|
#9
02-01-2006
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: SCHOLARS REPUDIATE OFFICIAL VERSION OF 9/11
Quote:
All of this still ignores the free fall descent, and the "Vaporized steel" not to mention all the other lies of 9/11 that you refuse to even bring into the picture... you think if this were a trial, and the Judge heard about the Pentagon, WTC 7 Tower collapse, and all the other lies, He would say "Not admissable" Why is it not admissable your honor? I mean they are supposed to be part of the same attack, we have one building that was not even hit with a plane, a few small fires and it fell on top of itself...." "or how about all those puts placed on United or American" Judge "Its Not admissable because Halo says so, he gets confused with the issues to look at the whole picture...."
|
|
#11
02-01-2006
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: SCHOLARS REPUDIATE OFFICIAL VERSION OF 9/11
Post your Paper Halo, "peer review" has you written all over it...
Prove all of us wrong, (this is when its time to leave, and "Have a nice day fellas") Steven Jones has issued a proclamation to the entire world.... So far no one has proved him wrong, and yet you can type away on this board and claim he is wrong..... Prove it.... Write a brief rebuttal Prove the folks at U.L. were wrong when they were asked to make a model for the towers falling, and they could not do it... because the data did not work Your supposed to be a scientist or an engineer, instead of sitting around poking fun at all us conspiracy theorists, go ahead and prove him wrong.... You know as well i do you cannot prove him wrong.... and you also know that you are either to stubborn or to arrogant to admit you are wrong
|
|
#12
02-01-2006
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: SCHOLARS REPUDIATE OFFICIAL VERSION OF 9/11
Quote:
please, your sources are a joke... The head of the physics dept at a respected university says it does not add up...
|
|
#13
02-01-2006
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: SCHOLARS REPUDIATE OFFICIAL VERSION OF 9/11
http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html
Some defenders of the official story have claimed that the fires were indeed very big, turning the buildings into “towering infernos.” But all the evidence counts against this claim, especially with regard to the south tower, which collapsed first. This tower was struck between floors 78 and 84, so that region is where the fire would have been the biggest. And yet Brian Clark, a survivor, said that when he got down to the 80th floor: "You could see through the wall and the cracks and see flames . . . just licking up, not a roaring inferno, just quiet flames licking up and smoke sort of eking through the wall."[14] Likewise, one of the fire chiefs who had reached the 78th floor found only “two isolated pockets of fire.”[15]
|
|
#14
02-01-2006
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: SCHOLARS REPUDIATE OFFICIAL VERSION OF 9/11
Quote:
The poor souls "walking around the towers" choose to jump to their deaths because of the incinerating heat. That's not a joke. I see nothing dishonorable about exiting digression. .
|
|
#15
02-01-2006
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: SCHOLARS REPUDIATE OFFICIAL VERSION OF 9/11
Quote:
They clearly illustrate how it was smoke making those folks jump, not heat.... What is dishonorable is refusing to admit when you are wrong....
|
|
#16
02-01-2006
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: SCHOLARS REPUDIATE OFFICIAL VERSION OF 9/11
Quote:
I guess that means all they needed to do was hang their heads out the windows and catch their breath ... Unfortunately, there seems to be no survivors to testify to the facts. Quote:
In your specific case, I'll continue playing the "devil's" advocate, but I don't have the manpower and money to examine every shred of evidence. I also cannot dispute every claim made by the 'witnesses' at the scene either. What does prove the need for alternative views is, the strong opposition to the structural limits not completely addressed or understood - by either party. Those limits are under study. If I may make a suggestion. Let's continue our search for those elusive explosives. .
|
|
#17
02-01-2006
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: SCHOLARS REPUDIATE OFFICIAL VERSION OF 9/11
Halo has roasted and toasted all who have implied the need for explosives to have brought down the twin towers. But its all for nothing, no gratitude of his expertise is shown, instead baseless accusations pertaining to his integrity are tossed his way.
Similarly I’ve spent several hours here pointing out the impossibility of having in-service commercial airline aircraft flown by remote or preprogrammed control as some contend this could be accomplished by covertly inserting a few chip cards into various control units which are pretty much standardized per each designated fleet type aircraft. It can’t be done. But if you don’t know how little you really know about a given subject, with just a bit of an imagination, anything is possible! With an absence of basic comprehension in any given subject, imagination trumps reality!
|
|
#18
02-01-2006
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: SCHOLARS REPUDIATE OFFICIAL VERSION OF 9/11
Quote:
First skyscrapers ever brought down by setting fires. Everything you had to say about remote control was based on a lie that you thought you could float based on NO real knowledge of avionics. The technology for remote control has been around for a long time.
|
|
#19
02-01-2006
|
|||
|
|||
Re: SCHOLARS REPUDIATE OFFICIAL VERSION OF 9/11
 zany gov official conspiracy theory - didn't know they had an official conspiracy theory. The drama of collapsing towers distracts from the evens and associations leading up to that day. .
|
|
#20
02-01-2006
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: SCHOLARS REPUDIATE OFFICIAL VERSION OF 9/11
LG and Halo, you will find all the information you need to dispute the conspircy theories here:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...e/1227842.html You will find there is no need for you to look any further
|
|
#22
02-01-2006
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: SCHOLARS REPUDIATE OFFICIAL VERSION OF 9/11
Quote:
To this I humbly apologize, as I’ve apparently made the mistake of lumping to many people into the actions of one or two. 
|
|
#23
02-01-2006
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: SCHOLARS REPUDIATE OFFICIAL VERSION OF 9/11
Quote:
|
|
#24
02-01-2006
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: SCHOLARS REPUDIATE OFFICIAL VERSION OF 9/11
Quote:
And I thought it was only dogs that chased their tail! 
|
|
#25
02-02-2006
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: SCHOLARS REPUDIATE OFFICIAL VERSION OF 9/11
Quote:
|
|
#26
02-02-2006
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: SCHOLARS REPUDIATE OFFICIAL VERSION OF 9/11
Quote:
I read your latest post with concerns of being ignored. Sorry, I was distracted, too many taking aim, dodging the bullets. You would have thought I was the anti-Christ. Jeez. First off, I'm not trying to debunk any conspiracy theory, just the bunk about building design. Trying to find the whereabouts of a few hundred pounds of explosives too. Definitely a needle in the haystack. Box girder framing, columns and post hold a building together as integral links. They depend upon each other to support the columns and post. Above all, these large heavy beams require fasteners. The weakest link in box girder design is the fasteners. Interesting enough, it is also the first AND last link to break as the building collapses. The first link to break in a structural failure and the last link to break as undamaged fasteners holds the remaining supports while it implodes. I cannot explain it much better than this. I won't go over the physics of mass/momentum vs. static/kinetic loads. I don't understand why it's so easy for folks to believe in the super strength of the buildings steel framing but fail to see why it would contain itself together as it collapsed. Just like aircraft, catastrophic failure begins and ends with the fasteners. Here's the math - 10 stories momentum plus 1 story mass = 11 stories of momentum falling, 11 stories momentum falling is greater than the static load limit of the next floor down, .... so .... 11 stories momentum plus the next floor below's mass = 12 stories momentum, etc, etc, etc ... until you reach the lobby. Why did both building collapse the same way ? They were built the same way. They were impacted the same way. The fell the same way. What was the "explosions" seen below the floors falling ? Compression load blow-outs, transfered thru the framing (and/or) exterior wall blow-out from compression of collapse. Draw your own conclusions and good luck. The one thing I've learnt while joining this board is to question ALL the sources, even if it means questioning the alternative sources. . Last edited by Halophyte; 02-02-2006 at 01:06 AM..
|
|
#27
02-02-2006
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: SCHOLARS REPUDIATE OFFICIAL VERSION OF 9/11
So we all think it was Bin Laden?
The lies start with the subjects involved , they end up in the details. You guys could talk forever about the physics and prove points one way or another. Fact remains, its the results of which are in todays news papers. Talk about chain reactions. They pulled this chain about as far as it will go. Thanks for posting on the subject skyvike was waiting to hear your opinions. I asked it before but why didn't they fall when the planes hit? The amount of energy contained on impact should have started the chain and the original energy contained in exploding fuel was spent in the first couple seconds. Whatever fuel was left for afterburn wasn't just layin around waiting to get burned for 1/2 an hour or whatever. Weakened beams bologna. Take the torch off the beam and your regained integrity in seconds. That stuff went poof!!! When you saw it go poof!!! These buildings were impressive swallowing up airliners as if they were afterlunch crumpets. To have them fall from chairs and carpet stuffs burning is false. And its not as if some unseen hand was up there with a blow torch and tank cutting beams.
__________________
English Commander: Beg your pardon sire, but won't we hit our own troops ? Longshanks: Yes... but we'll hit theirs as well. We have reserves... attack . Last edited by GREENSILVERHORN; 02-02-2006 at 02:16 AM..
|
|
#28
02-02-2006
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: SCHOLARS REPUDIATE OFFICIAL VERSION OF 9/11
Quote:
in fact we can safely say no one in the world has proved his paper invalid, and there are a lot of very smart scientists in the world... the longer that paper stands, the more likely it becomes he is correct... Send a nice note to Dr. Jones about "Weight loads", "Shear factors" or whatever else you may want to question... Who knows, maybe you can prove the guy wrong..... But no one else seem to be doing it....
|
|
#29
02-02-2006
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: SCHOLARS REPUDIATE OFFICIAL VERSION OF 9/11
Quote:
He is anxiously awaiting "peer Review", and since you feel you are his peer....and upto the challenge of discrediting him and his paper... Send any and all questions on... Why do you defend the Govt's Flim Flam story? They still have not even come clean on WTC 7 and the pentagon, and you feel they are telling the truth on the twin towers... Wassup with that?
|
|
#30
02-02-2006
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: SCHOLARS REPUDIATE OFFICIAL VERSION OF 9/11
Quote:
.... The "patsy" hijackers were proably told they were doing something other then being part of the scrap hauled away from the WTC site (or as they say they were takin for that ol' proverbially Ride) and have a nice flight. :hmmmm:  
__________________
If you can't Dazzle em with Brilliance Baffle them with Bull Shit. 
|
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
