Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

9/11


PolyNewbie

Your apoinion on 911  

57 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

none except for the video evidence showing the collapses. wtc7 was not a progressive collapse. Anyone can see that wtc7 videos. wtc1 & 2 were blown to bits from top down and not a progressive collapse either, again, obvious from videos wtc collapses
Not to me or most other observers. What I see is a progressive collapse starting where the fires and structural damage were. Why don't you try proving that there was an explosion instead of just saying there must have been one because it is 'obvious'.
No, thats what your theories depend on (but the inverse). My theories depend on nothing but evidence. .
Your 'evidence' is based entirely on assertions based on watching a few videos and a mickey mouse understanding of physics. None of this is proof or evidence of anything. If you want to provide a compelling argument then you must provide a complete story arc that actually makes sense and does not depend on belief in malevolent and irrational secret societies with super natural control over people's minds.
The word "energy beam" sound s catoonish and that why you use it, but scientifically it could be a possibility and certainly should not be dismissed as ridiculous.
I can't be bothered to look up all of the constants necessary to do the calculations but it would relatively easy to show that an energy beam powerful enough to affect a building like the WTC would need an astronomically huge power source that could not possibly be concealed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Riverwind:Your 'evidence' is based entirely on assertions based on watching a few videos and a mickey mouse understanding of physics

My understanding of physics as applied to this matter comes from multiple Phd'ed physicists that agree with my reasoning. You have not provided a single link of anyone that agrees with your understanding of physics and believes that buildings can collapse straight down into themselves as a result of non symmeterical damage and at near free fall speed.

Heres my list.

Jamse Fetzer

Jim Hoffman

Steve Jones

Robert Bowman

Paul Craig Roberts

David Hawkings

Jeff King

..and that is just off the top of my head. There are many more.

Lets see yours.

Type in any of those names with the word 911 in your search engine. Then explain to me how their understanding of physics is mickey mouse when compared to yours.

Riverwind:Not to me or most other observers. What I see is a progressive collapse starting where the fires and structural damage were.

Where did all the dust come from if the collapse of wtc1 & wtc2 was a progressive collapse. What about the 1/3 rule ? Its states that the rubble should be about 1/3 of the original height of the buildings.

Many engineers & physicists have pointed out that only elementary physics need be applied to prove 911 was an inside job. Many have commented about this and used it in many ways.

You are the one with the Mickey Mouse understanding of physics and if you say you are an engineer of physicist I say you are full of crap.

Riverwind:I can't be bothered to look up all of the constants necessary to do the calculations but it would relatively easy to show that an energy beam powerful enough to affect a building like the WTC would need an astronomically huge power source that could not possibly be concealed.

I can easily imagine a microwave array in space. I cannot imagine what would power it and the details of that but an array of microwave radiators could exist in space, but I don't speculate on how it was done. If I had to speculate I would say that it was a nuke of the type developed to demolish buildings.

I know that the buildings were demolished because they collapsed straight down at near freefall speed and had most of their mass converted to fine dust (wtc1 & wtc2)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Riverwind:If you want to provide a compelling argument then you must provide a complete story arc that actually makes sense and does not depend on belief in malevolent and irrational secret societies with super natural control over people's minds.

There you go again. All you guys use the same tactic - put words or ideas down to say they are your opponents then use them to discredit your opponent. This is exactly what Popular Mechanics and 911Myths does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heres my list.

Jamse Fetzer

Jim Hoffman

Steve Jones

Robert Bowman

Paul Craig Roberts

David Hawkings

Jeff King

..and that is just off the top of my head. There are many more.

Lets see yours.

Type in any of those names with the word 911 in your search engine. Then explain to me how their understanding of physics is mickey mouse when compared to yours.

As compared to the vast mainstream of the scientific community. I think you just got those names off Scholars for Truth, and one of the scholars is considered insane in Germany.

Critics observed their website lists only three structural engineers as members [5], and argue that the engineers involved with the scholars have little or no relevant experience or qualifications in the disciplines related to structural engineering or controlled demolitions. [5]. Critics also noted that they have just one American Society of Civil Engineers member, Joseph M. Phelps [6]. Other critiques have noted the bias in the website's Pentagon views and the inclusion of information which has little basis in evidence[7].

Two members of the group, Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds, left the Scholars due to disagreement with the organization, objecting in particular to the Scholar's rejection of their 'no plane' theories (theories arguing that no planes hit the World Trade Center).[8] However, st911 co-founder, co-chair and webmaster James Fetzer has recently spoken and written positively about Judy Wood's views - a piece by Fetzer on the st911 website argues that the Scholars should now broaden their research to consider the possibility that "directed energy...space based" weapons or "mini-nukes" were used to bring down the World Trade Center [9]. Former co-chair Steven E. Jones resigned over a dispute regarding "star wars beam weapons" as a plausible theory [10].

I prefer to use facts, unlike some other people who are refusing to address any relevant question's.

Here's an article from the University of Sydney.

Yamasaki and engineers John Skilling and Les Robertson worked closely, and the relationship between the towers’ design and structure is clear. Faced with the difficulties of building to unprecedented heights, the engineers employed an innovative structural model: a rigid "hollow tube" of closely spaced steel columns with floor trusses extending across to a central core. The columns, finished with a silver-colored aluminum alloy, were 18 3/4" wide and set only 22" apart, making the towers appear from afar to have no windows at all.

Also unique to the engineering design were its core and elevator system. The twin towers were the first supertall buildings designed without any masonry. Worried that the intense air pressure created by the buildings’ high speed elevators might buckle conventional shafts, engineers designed a solution using a drywall system fixed to the reinforced steel core. For the elevators, to serve 110 stories with a traditional configuration would have required half the area of the lower stories be used for shaftways. Otis Elevators developed an express and local system, whereby passengers would change at "sky lobbies" on the 44th and 78th floors, halving the number of shaftways.

(Taken from www.skyscraper.org)

The structural system, deriving from the I.B.M. Building in Seattle, is impressively simple. The 208-foot wide facade is, in effect, a prefabricated steel lattice, with columns on 39-inch centers acting as wind bracing to resist all overturning forces; the central core takes only the gravity loads of the building. A very light, economical structure results by keeping the wind bracing in the most efficient place, the outside surface of the building, thus not transferring the forces through the floor membrane to the core, as in most curtain-wall structures. Office spaces will have no interior columns. In the upper floors there is as much as 40,000 square feet of office space per floor. The floor construction is of prefabricated trussed steel, only 33 inches in depth, that spans the full 60 feet to the core, and also acts as a diaphragm to stiffen the outside wall against lateral buckling forces from wind-load pressures."

Taken from www.greatbuildings.com

Typical Floor Plan of the World Trade Center

A perimeter of closely spaced columns, with an internal lift core. The floors were supported by a series of light trusses on rubber pads, which spanned between the outer columns and the lift core.

Why Did It Collapse? Tim Wilkinson, Lecturer in Civil Engineering

(This is an initial suggestion, originally written on Sept 11 2001 (with some minor subsequent changes) on one possible reason for failure, and should not be regarded as official advice.)

The structural integrity of the World Trade Center depends on the closely spaced columns around the perimeter. Lightweight steel trusses span between the central elevator core and the perimeter columns on each floor. These trusses support the concrete slab of each floor and tie the perimeter columns to the core, preventing the columns from buckling outwards.

After the initial plane impacts, it appeared to most observers that the structures had been severely damaged, but not necessarily fatally.

It appears likely that the impact of the plane crash destroyed a significant number of perimeter columns on several floors of the building, severely weakening the entire system. Initially this was not enough to cause collapse.

However, as fire raged in the upper floors, the heat would have been gradually affecting the behaviour of the remaining material. As the planes had only recently taken off, the fire would have been initially fuelled by large volumes of jet fuel, which then ignited any combustible material in the building. While the fire would not have been hot enough to melt any of the steel, the strength of the steel drops markedly with prolonged exposure to fire, while the elastic modulus of the steel reduces (stiffness drops), increasing deflections.

Modern structures are designed to resist fire for a specific length of time. Safety features such as fire retarding materials and sprinkler systems help to contain fires, help extinguish flames, or prevent steel from being exposed to excessively high temperatures. This gives occupants time to escape and allow fire fighters to extinguish blazes, before the building is catastrophically damaged.

It is possible that the blaze, started by jet fuel and then engulfing the contents of the offices, in a highly confined area, generated fire conditions significantly more severe than those anticipated in a typical office fire. These conditions may have overcome the building's fire defences considerably faster than expected. It is likely that the water pipes that supplied the fire sprinklers were severed by the plane impact, and much of the fire protective material, designed to stop the steel from being heated and losing strength, was blown off by the blast at impact.

Eventually, the loss of strength and stiffness of the materials resulting from the fire, combined with the initial impact damage, would have caused a failure of the truss system supporting a floor, or the remaining perimeter columns, or even the internal core, or some combination. Failure of the flooring system would have subsequently allowed the perimeter columns to buckle outwards. Regardless of which of these possibilities actually occurred, it would have resulted in the complete collapse of at least one complete storey at the level of impact.

Once one storey collapsed all floors above would have begun to fall. The huge mass of falling structure would gain momentum, crushing the structurally intact floors below, resulting in catastrophic failure of the entire structure. While the columns at say level 50 were designed to carry the static load of 50 floors above, once one floor collapsed and the floors above started to fall, the dynamic load of 50 storeys above is very much greater, and the columns were almost instantly destroyed as each floor progressively "pancaked" to the ground.

The way the building collapsed must have been caused by explosions

One demolition expert on the day of the collapse said it looked like implosion but this is not very strong evidence. Implosion firstly requires a lot of explosives placed in strategic areas all around the building. When and how was this explosive placed in the building without anyone knowing about it. Second, implosion required more than just explosives. Demolition experts spend weeks inside a derelict building planning an event. Many of the beams are cut through by about 90% so that the explosion only has to break a small bit of steel. In this state the building is highly dangerous, and there is no way such a prepared building could still be running day to day like WTC was.

The fire wasn't hot enough to melt the steel

There has never been a claim that the steel melted in the fire before the buildings collapsed, however the fire would have been very hot. Even though the steel didnt melt, the type of temperatures in the fire would have roughly halved its strength.

There would have been variations in the distribution of the temperature both in place in time. There are photos that show people in the areas opened up by the impact, so it obviously wasnt too hot when those photos were taken, but this is not to say that other parts of the building, further inside were not hotter. In addition, to make a reasonable conclusion from these photos, it would be important to know when they were taken. It might be possible that just after the impact the area wasnt very hot, but as the fire took hold the area got hotter.

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml

In spite of their failure to account for the existing data, a number of conspiracy theories are common among people unfamiliar with the technical engineering details. Social science researchers have observed that these commonly appear after dramatic events as an emotionally satisfying way for people to deal with national trauma.

That's it, thats all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael Hardner:A computer simulation is for display purposes only, it doesn't really prove anything. The proof should be in the report. As I said, I've read it and it seems reasonable.

Not only does a computer simulation prove what happened, but they are regularly used in courts with accident related matters as proof. Most often they are used in car accidents to determine fault.

Please, say something that demonstrates your knowledge of any kind of scientific endeavor.

I keep telling you THERE IS NO PROOF - ONLY HYPOTHESIS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

James Henry Fetzer (born December 6, 1940 in Pasadena, California) is an American philosopher

Jim Hoffman is a software engineer based in Alameda, California

Steven Earl Jones is an American physicist

Robert M. Bowman (born 1934) ...holds a Ph.D. in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering

But he believes the the planes brought down the buildings!

If our government had done nothing that day, and let normal procedure be followed, those planes, wherever they were, would have been intercepted, the Twin Towers would still be standing and thousands of dead Americans would still be alive."
Paul Craig Roberts is an economist

Even google does not know who David Hawkings is...

Jeff King studied physics at MIT and is an electrical engineer and research scientist.

None of these guys has any expertise in structural engineering yet you call them expert! Give me a break.

Here is my list of people who say the controlled demolition theory is a pile of hogwash:

Farid Alfawakhiri, Ph.D. senior engineer, American Institute of Steel Construction

David Biggs, P.E. structural engineer, Ryan-Biggs Associates; member, ASCE team for FEMA report

Robert Clarke structural engineer, Controlled Demolitions Group Ltd.

Glenn Corbett technical editor, Fire Engineering; member, NIST advisory committee

Vincent Dunn deputy fire chief (Ret.), FDNY; author, The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety

John Fisher, Ph.D. professor of civil engineering, Lehigh University; professor emeritus, Center for Advanced Technology; member, FEMA Probe Team

Ken Hays executive vice president, Masonry Arts

Christoph Hoffmann, Ph.D. professor of computer science, Purdue University; project director, September 11 Pentagon Attack Simulations Using LS-Dyna, Purdue University

Allyn E. Kilsheimer, P.E. CEO, KCE Structural Engineers PC; chief structural engineer, Phoenix project; expert in blast recovery, concrete structures, emergency response

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PN, respond to what I just posted regarding the WTC attacks.

CanadianBlue: You bought Elvis and The Never Ending Story into this. It isn't a joke. Go away. I'm ignoring your posts. You posting opion pieces from others on the internet does not constitute proof.

Based on opinion pieces from the University of Sydney [Tim Wilkinson, Lecturer in Civil Engineering

] engineering department. :rolleyes:

Who knew that a Civil Engineer would know anything about buildings.

CanadianBlue: You bought Elvis and The Never Ending Story into this. It isn't a joke. Go away.

I think the only joke on here is you, and the only person people want to go away is you. Perhap's you shouldn't have made those chicken noises.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Riverwind:None of these guys has any expertise in structural engineering yet you call them expert! Give me a break.

Since when do structural engineers have any expertise in how buildings collapse ? I thought structural engineers designed buildings not to collapse.

Why wasn't a simulation done if it was so obviously due to heat and fire ?

The heat and structural damage was obviously not enough to cause the collapse. The building remained standing firm after the impact and most fires went out. There was no evidence of bending from the outside of the building. Its natural frequency did not change.

FEMA Probe Team

Ken Hays executive vice president, Masonry Arts

Christoph Hoffmann, Ph.D. professor of computer science, Purdue University; project director, September 11 Pentagon Attack Simulations Using LS-Dyna, Purdue University

Allyn E. Kilsheimer, P.E. CEO, KCE Structural Engineers PC; chief structural engineer, Phoenix project; expert in blast recovery, concrete structures, emergency response

FEMA was tasked with explaining the collapse in the context of the official version of events. The idea of controlled demolition was not considered. FEMA had only questions, one of which was regarding the sulfidization of beams that can really only be explained by CD. See sect 8 of FEMA.

Robert Clarke structural engineer, Controlled Demolitions Group Ltd.

A few CD experts have said it was definetly a controlled demolition - no doubt. Then some a few days later completely changed their mind 180 degrees.

I can find links of controlled demolition experts from around the world saying wtc7 was definetly CD, no doubt.

Any civil engineer that goes against the official version can kiss gov contracts goodbye.

Who on that list actually says CD is wrong ? Or do you infer that because they do not consider it ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please, say something that demonstrates your knowledge of any kind of scientific endeavor.

I don't think I have to prove that to you.

As people have been showing you, the various papers on the topics seem solid. The initial claim that the fires didn't burn hot enough to melt steel were addressed.

So far, we've discussed one point - the idea that bomb sniffing dogs were removed from the WTC, and have found that that claim is questionable.

This claim:

Since when do structural engineers have any expertise in how buildings collapse ? I thought structural engineers designed buildings not to collapse.

Strikes me as akin to saying 'How can doctors say what kills you when they're supposed to cure you ?'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since when do structural engineers have any expertise in how buildings collapse ? I thought structural engineers designed buildings not to collapse
ROTFL, how on earth would a structural engineer do that if they did not understand why buildings collapse? You are grasping at straws. None of your so called experts have the training or credebility necessary to make the statements that they do. I pointed you to some experts who clearly do have the expertise to evaluate what happened and the only argument you can come up with is they can't be trusted.

Sorry, most sane people are going to trust the opinion of structural engineer before they will trust the opinion of a philosopher or an economist. Can you come up with the name of one person who has experience designing real buildings that believes those buildings came down because of a controlled demolition?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Riverwind:ROTFL, how on earth would a structural engineer do that if they did not understand why buildings collapse? You are grasping at straws.

You can go through civil engineering or mechanical engineering and get a Phd without ever modelling a single building collapse. In fact modelling building collapses is rare because civil engineers design for this not to happen. Once it does happen the details are unimporatnt - the only detail that matters to engineers is if they made an error in their linear math that caused the collapse.

Collapses can be modeled on computer by engineers and this is almost always done with accidents, except in the case for 911. I wonder why. Modelling is done by adjusting initial conditions until the collapse has a debris field or post conditions that approximately that matches the evidence. This is commonly done even for car accidents. Coiuld it be that they couldn't make the model do what it needed under the assumption of pancaking ? Or was it just unimportant ?

You must know all the math is different. In designing a building not to collapse linear math is used and its an organized system. Modelling a collapse involves non linear math and the system is chaotic. Totally different although a laymen can be fooled into thinking otherwise. Without computer modelling, a thermodynamic analusis must be done and this is done by phycisists.

Fetzer is a theoretical scientist and has published in a large number of physics journals. He teached theoretical science. Paul Craig Roberts has a degree in engineering. Every Phd is a philosopher but Fetzer studied pure science, not applied and a mixture as well.

Riverwind:I pointed you to some experts who clearly do have the expertise to evaluate what happened and the only argument you can come up with is they can't be trusted.

You gave a bunch of government associated people. The people that do ask questions about 911 and are suspicious of it get fired. So its unlikely someone from FEMA or NIST would say its an inside job.

How do you explain the hot pools of molten metal that were still hot weeks after the collapse ?

If the building pancaked, how is it that the floors turned to dust ? These are contradictory.

Kevin Ryan worked for NIST but started questioning the NIST official story because he knew of experiments that showed the floors would remain in place with temps of 2000 deg F and several hours. They fired him for pointing this out. The FBI put a gagg order on all NY firemen and cops. but you can find out what they said before the gag order in many of the videos of 911. They describe a CD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Riverwind:Strikes me as akin to saying 'How can doctors say what kills you when they're supposed to cure you ?'

If there is any question about what killed you, you are autopsies by a pathologist. They don't go to a regular doctor to figure it out.

When buildings collapse from fires or there are air accidents they go to the FAA and fire mashalls to investigate because thats what they do - its their specialty to investigate accidents. Why wasn't this done for 911 ?

Isn't it strange that the gov closed evidence off from these guys and employed people that have absolutely no experience in investigating accidents to do the job ? In addition to this, the investigation was incomplete and not done using standard methods ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can go through civil engineering or mechanical engineering and get a Phd without ever modelling a single building collapse.
So? We are talking about people that specialize in building design vs. people who specialize in completely unrelated fields.
Without computer modelling, a thermodynamic analusis must be done and this is done by phycisists.
Themodynamics has nothing to do with building collapses. It is a theory designed to explain chemical reactions. People who 'analyze' building collaspes with thermodynamics are quacks seeking to make it sound like they know something.

It appears creationists abuse themodynamics in the same way truthies do:

The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.
Fetzer is a theoretical scientist and has published in a large number of physics journals. He teached theoretical science.
What does that have to do with understanding buildings? Do you think Carl Sagan would have been qualified to comment on why those buildings came down? The issue here is credibility - interlopers with some science background in unrelated fields are simply not credible when they contradict what people with the expertise in the field say.
Kevin Ryan worked for NIST...
Kevin Ryan was Site Manager of the Environmental Health Laboratories - he is a chemist that was employed doing unrelated work when he decided to start sending letters to NIST.

It appears you cannot find one person who has expertise in building construction that supports your point of view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are talking about people that specialize in building design vs. people who specialize in completely unrelated fields.

What does building design have to do with non linear chaotic processes ? Why do you think that a person who designs buildings is qualified to analyze a collapse ? Why don't they have GP'd doing autopsies ? Why don't they have aeronatical engineers analyze air crashes instead of the FAA. Specialized investigators investigate accidents and it draws a wide field of expertise and experience.

A layman can be fooled into thinking structural design has something to do with collapses but really structural design is something people practise to avoid collapses not explain them when they do happen.

Themodynamics has nothing to do with building collapses. It is a theory designed to explain chemical reactions. People who 'analyze' building collaspes with thermodynamics are quacks seeking to make it sound like they know something.

Thermodynamics has everything to do with all science. No process can violate the laws of thermodynamics. If an explanation regarding a scientific event violates the laws of thermodynamics then the explanation has to be wrong. Its been shown that the official version of events surrounding 911 violates the laws of thermodynamics and therefore is not a correct explanation.

You by saying "People who 'analyze' building collaspes with thermodynamics are quacks seeking to make it sound like they know something" have just proven your own lack of scientific sophistication. You do not have a degree in physics or engineering and that statement makes it very clear.

No theory is "designed". The laws of thermodynamics apply to everything, including electric circuits, acoustics, magnetics, cooking, material sciences, any engine, - every imaginable science or scientific process involves energy and therefore thermodynamics.

It appears creationists abuse themodynamics in the same way truthies do:

This arguement has nothing to do with creationists.

What does that have to do with understanding buildings? Do you think Carl Sagan would have been qualified to comment on why those buildings came down? The issue here is credibility - interlopers with some science background in unrelated fields are simply not credible when they contradict what people with the expertise in the field say.
Kevin Ryan was Site Manager of the Environmental Health Laboratories - he is a chemist that was employed doing unrelated work when he decided to start sending letters to NIST.

Anybody can read about an experiment and see that if the floors were heated to 2000 degrees F for several hours and did not fall apart or bend then some of the official investigation is a lie. It doesn't take much to figure that out.

There is also the 1975 fire that burned hotter for many more hours and had a much graeter load applied to the structure. There was no structural damage. You would think there would be metal fatigue or something - but nothing ! - no damage to the structure.

It appears you cannot find one person who has expertise in building construction that supports your point of view.

Building construction is not the same as building collapse and people that do speak up against 911 lose their jobs. Civil engineers depend on government contracts.

There are lots of CD experts that have said the buildings were demolished. Why don't you believe them ? It seems that you only trust people that are associated with government.

So how do you explain the hot pools of molten metal that were still liquid weeks after the collapse ?

Why were the normal authorities that investigate these things restricted from it while NIST and FEMA were used to explain the official version ?

How do you explain that Silverstein said they "..decided to pull the building then watched it collapse ..." Are you one of the folks that will insist "pull" means pull the firefighrters out and not initiate a CD ? There is video of them saying "..OK, we are going to pull building five now.." just before its remains were demolished.

Are you aware that the neocons are Straussians ? Straussian philosophy involves lying to populations to maintain myths necessary to guide societies.

How can you trust a government that has people like Bush, The Prince Of Darkness, and Henry Kissinger at the helm ? Did you know that Kissinger is wanted for war crimes all over the world ?

Did you know that a Bush was involved in both Kennedy assasinations (cover ups), MLK assasination, both Gulf wars, financing Hitler, legalizing torture of children, using chemical weapons in Iraq & financing Hitler ?

If the war on terrorism is real why are the borders between US & Mexico being left open ?

Why is it that you avoid many of my questions.?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you think that a person who designs buildings is qualified to analyze a collapse ? Why don't they have GP'd doing autopsies ?
A GP doing autosy is going to provide more useful results that a psychatrist. All of the people you point to are psychatrists trying to do autopsies. Why should we care what their opinion is?
Thermodynamics has everything to do with all science. No process can violate the laws of thermodynamics.
The laws of Thermodynamics only apply to closed systems. If you want to use thermodynamics to analyze the WTC then you have to include the entire system which includes the clouds of smoke that were produced by the collapse (hint: clouds of smoke == huge increase in entropy).
Anybody can read about an experiment and see that if the floors were heated to 2000 degrees F for several hours and did not fall apart or bend then some of the official investigation is a lie.
Hardly, all that means is that particular experiment made some invalid assumptions. You can heat metal and it will not sag if there is no load on it. To truely duplicate the effect of the fires in the WTC you would actually have to similulate the load of 50+ stories of the building. Bottom line. You cannot draw any conclusions from one experiment that produced inconclusive results. Only people who understand the limitations of an experiment are qualified to draw conclusions from the result. This guy has no qualifications or experience that would make him qualified to draw the conclusions he did.
Building construction is not the same as building collapse and people that do speak up against 911 lose their jobs. Civil engineers depend on government contracts.
Fine - then where are the retired experts who no longer care about employment? There seems to be no shortage of retired generals that are willing to criticize the Whitehouse so I would expect that there would be many retired civil engineers willing to question the official story. That fact that no retired engineers have come forward tells me that there is no substance to the allegations.
So how do you explain the hot pools of molten metal that were still liquid weeks after the collapse ?
How do to you think people in the past melted steel with wood fires? They trapped the heat inside a clay oven. The collapsed building trapped a lot of heat and burning materials. The fact that this produced molten steel in some places is not surprising.
Why is it that you avoid many of my questions.?
Because most of them are irrelevant.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Riverwind:The laws of Thermodynamics only apply to closed systems. If you want to use thermodynamics to analyze the WTC then you have to include the entire system which includes the clouds of smoke that were produced by the collapse (hint clouds of smoke == huge increase in entropy).

You don't need to do a full analysis to show that this was an inside job. Knowledge of the fact that the buildings fell at nearly free fall speed leaves one wondering, where di the energy come from to pulverize the concrete to dust + break up all that metal. You get an energy deficit right there. Jim Hoffman has done this analysis and even if you assume PVT laws apply to dust clouds you get a bigger energy deficit.

Riverwind:Hardly, all that means is that particular experiment made some invalid assumptions. You can heat metal and it will not sag if there is no load on it. To truely duplicate the effect of the fires in the WTC you would actually have to similate the load of 50+ stories of the building.

The first official version had the floors sagging due to heat and thats what initiated the pancake collapse. True - desks, computers and files add quite a bit of mass, but the etemps were not all that high.

Riverwind:How do to you think people in the past melted steel with wood fires? They trapped the heat inside a clay oven. The collapsed building trapped a lot of heat and burning materials. The fact that this produced molten steel in some places is not surprising.

No fires or smoke - just molten steel that remained hot because the heat was trapped.

How do you explain the beams that look just like they were cut with cutter charges ?

What do you think of the various CD experts that claim wtc7 was a CD ?

CD expert

Structural engineering experts: link for quote below

"Nach meiner Meinung ist das Gebäude WTC 7 mit grosser Wahrscheinlichkeit fachgerecht gesprengt worden», sagt Hugo Bachmann, emeritierter ETH-Professor für Baustatik und Konstruktion. Und auch Jörg Schneider, ebenfalls emeritierter ETH-Professor für Baustatik und Konstruktion, deutet die wenigen vorhandenen Videoaufnahmen als Hinweise, dass «das Gebäude WTC 7 mit grosser Wahrscheinlichkeit gesprengt wurde. "

translated:

"In my opinion WTC7 was with the utmost probability brought down by controlled demolition done by experts" says Hugo Bachmann, Professor emeritus for structural analysis and construction at ETH*. And also Jörg Schneider, another Professor emeritus for structural analysis and construction at ETH, interprets the small number of existing videos as indices that "WTC7 was with the utmost probability brought down by explosives".

What do you think these guys would have to gain by saying this ?

Do you think that Silverstein saying that they decided to "pull" the building is irrelevant ?

Do you think that the fact that they did not use the fire marshall & FAA to investigate and chose the inexperienced NIST & FEMA instead is irrelevant ?

Its the most important accident in US history and the government delayed investigation by 441 days then hired people that had no expertise in investigating these things. It seems like a white wash to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Riverwind: The borders are open yet the military is fighting this world wide war on terror and they are militarizing police to defend the fatherland homeland and leaving the borders wide open. Don't you think this is contradictory ? Or do you think this is just irrelevant ?

If they are afraid of terrorists doesn't it make sense to close the borders ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Knowledge of the fact that the buildings fell at nearly free fall speed leaves one wondering, where di the energy come from to pulverize the concrete to dust + break up all that metal.
The free fall myth has been already discussed and proven false in other posts on this forum and on the Internet. Theories that rely on fictitious data are not worth that much.
The first official version had the floors sagging due to heat and thats what initiated the pancake collapse. True - desks, computers and files add quite a bit of mass, but the etemps were not all that high.
There are other factors that need to be taken into account. My point is that a single experiment proves nothing conclusively and someone who draws conclusions from that deserved to be fired.
No fires or smoke - just molten steel that remained hot because the heat was trapped.
Prove it. I know you can't. The most likely explanation burning material was trapped under the rubble and this trapped enough heat to melt steel in places.
"Nach meiner Meinung ist das Gebäude WTC 7 mit grosser Wahrscheinlichkeit fachgerecht gesprengt worden», sagt Hugo Bachmann
Finally, a reference to someone that actually has expertise - but guess what? It is in german and you provided a single quote with no scientific analysis. There is no way to know if this guy has been quoted out of context. Even the online translation engines have a problem with the statement - they say the building was 'sprinkled' expertly.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about the dutch expert ?
Do you mean: Controlled Demolitions Expert Danny Jowenko who said:
"...it starts from below... They have simply blown away columns."
Here is an excellent video of the same guy explaining why explosives could not have possibly caused the collapse of WTC1 &2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkZMQAC95kI

So if you believe this guy when he says WTC7 was brought down with explosives then you have to believe him when he says WTC1 & 2 were most definitely _not_ brought down with explosives.

To make matters worse: if you watch the original video where he says that WTC7 was a controlled demolition you realize that it was a set up. He was basing his entire opinion on the video of one side of the building shown to him by the reporter. He had no idea that the building came down on 9/11 until the reporter told him. Once he realized that the building came down the same day he was not so certain how it was done. I suspect he may have had a different opinion if the reporter had shown him photos of the fire and structural damage of the other side of the building.

This is a perfect example of why quotes from 'experts' without context are meaningless.

What about the open borders - How can you believe a war on terror is real when the borders are left wide open ?
Has absolutely nothing to do with whether the science supports your demolition theory.
What do you think of Silversteins statement ?
Nothing. People misspeak all of the time. Could have meant to say 'pull em out' (as in the fire fighters). It is proof of nothing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Riverwind:Here is an excellent video of the same guy explaining why explosives could not have possibly caused the collapse of WTC1 &2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkZMQAC95kI

There is nothing conventional about how wtc1 & wtc2 were demolished. It was not a conventional controlled demolition. We know it was a controlled evnt because somehow all the sides of the buildings collapsed at the same instant all the way down. If it wasn't controlled, at some point one side would have begun to collapse faster than another side causing the remainder of the building to tip over to one side. This is what Fetzer & King refer to as the second law of thermodyanmics but anyone with common sense sees this intuitively.

So if you believe this guy when he says WTC7 was brought down with explosives then you have to believe him when he says WTC1 & 2 were most definitely _not_ brought down with explosives.

All he knows is what a conventional controlled demolition looks like. We can see that it definetly was not conventional. Many firefighters had reported an explosive wave going down the building ahead of the collapse.

To make matters worse: if you watch the original video where he says that WTC7 was a controlled demolition you realize that it was a set up. He was basing his entire opinion on the video of one side of the building shown to him by the reporter.

So you still think a few fires and damage on one side of the building would cause the collapse to initiate at the bottom and the whole building would collapse perfectly evenly ?

He had no idea that the building came down on 9/11 until the reporter told him. Once he realized that the building came down the same day he was not so certain how it was done. I suspect he may have had a different opinion if the reporter had shown him photos of the fire and structural damage of the other side of the building.

Thats a very good point - he assumes it was obviously a controlled demolition until someone tells him it happened on 911.

Why do they need CD experts when all you have to do is light a few fires, stand back and watch the thing collapse right into its own footprint ? I have seen CD guys brag about how much planning that takes. I assume from your posting here that they must be full of crap. Anyone could set up a building to collapse ito its own footprint. When contractors here about this they won't be hiring CD teams anymore.

This is a perfect example of why quotes from 'experts' without context are meaningless.

No this is a perfect example of neocons twisting the evidence and examining it out of context to draw conclusions that may make just enough sense to justify the official version in their own mind.

Has absolutely nothing to do with whether the science supports your demolition theory.

You are speaking about the open borders here. It just seems odd to me that the country has just been attacked by foreign invaders and the danger is so bad that they have to start wars (a comming draft) and implement a police state yet they are not concerned about this enemy getting across an unguarded border. It makes the whole idea of the danger of terrorists seem like its made up - that there is really no danger at all and they know it becasue they set up 911.

One would think that they would not need to have the motherland fatherland homeland security if they were willing to leave the borders open. :huh:

The free fall myth has been already discussed and proven false in other posts on this forum and on the Internet. Theories that rely on fictitious data are not worth that much.

Well you can time it yourself from the videos. Others have. The longest estimates are 12 seconds and 14 seconds. This still leaves a tenfold energy deficit as Hoffman points out.

If the buildings floors coolapsed apon one another in a pancake style collapse, where does all the dust come from ? Why wasn't there piles of concrete at the collapse site ?

Nothing. People misspeak all of the time. Could have meant to say 'pull em out' (as in the fire fighters). It is proof of nothing.

OK. He meant to say pull the firefighters out (there were no firefighters in the building but he may not have known that) so he actually meant something else when he said "pull the building", he meant "pull the firefighters". :unsure:

At least you have one thing going for your beliefes. 16 % of the US population does agree with the official version like you do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is more of what Bowman had to say about 911 (Keep in mind this guy had two engineering Phds' and directed the SDI program under Ragan)

You should read this carefully, it brings up a lot of interesting questions besides why the borders are being left open during this war on terror.

... I will sponsor (and have already lined up co-sponsors for) legislation initiating a truly independent investigation of 9/11. There is mounting evidence of complicity by elements of our own government.

If they have nothing to hide, why are they hiding everything?

Why are they hiding audiotapes of FAA and NORAD controllers? Why are they hiding videotapes of whatever hit the Pentagon? Why are they hiding the black boxes? Why did they destroy most of the forensic evidence showing that three buildings at the World Trade Center were brought down by thermite demolition charges?

If the thermite residue found on severed steel beams didn’t bring down the towers, what did? (Never before in history did steel skyscrapers fall because of fire, and THREE of them did on the same day … one of which wasn’t even hit by an airplane!)

Why did four hijacked airliners fly around for up to an hour and 45 minutes without being intercepted? Why were normal procedures not followed? (If normal procedures HAD been followed, the aircraft would have been intercepted with 20 minutes to spare, the twin towers would still be standing, and thousands of dead Americans would still be alive.)

If it was massive incompetence, why has no one been fired? … or demoted? … or court martialed? (Instead they were promoted or given the medal of freedom!)

If Osama bin Laden was really suspected, why did our government violate its own “no-fly” order to hurriedly fly the bin Laden family out of the United States before they could be questioned? Why does the “Osama bin Laden” in the “confession” videotape have a nose about an inch shorter than the real Osama bin Laden?

Why have half a dozen of the 19 “hijackers” turned up in other countries … alive and well? Were there really any hijackers at all, and if there were, were they patsies?

Who made millions on short sales of United and American Airlines? Where is the tens of billions of dollars worth of missing gold that was stored in the World Trade Center?

The American people and the families of those who died on 9/11 deserve the truth, and we do not yet have it. The above are but a tiny fraction of the unanswered questions not even raised by those who “investigated” the 9/11 tragedy.

The most unbelievable of all the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 is the OFFICIAL conspiracy theory told us by our government. The Kean-Hamilton commission report was a whitewash, a cover-up, and a bundle of deception.

If a new investigation identifies those responsible, they should be indicted for treason. And those who covered up the treason should themselves be indicted as accessories after the fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...