RoR: Forum

That was interesting, Aaron.

Post 41

Wednesday, November 22, 2006 - 5:24pm

Aaron wrote:

I used to doubt the 9-11 conspiracy theorists concerning burning jet fuel not being able to take down buildings - until presented with this compelling empirical evidence:

Can a jet fuel/hydrocarbon fire collapse a steel structure? An experiment.

:) :) :)

Aaron I sincerely hope you're joking. You don't honestly think that's a valid experiment do you?

Post 42

Wednesday, November 22, 2006 - 8:13pm

To John Armaos: I actually read your entire post, line by line, that presents information that has been vetted by authorities you deem trustworthy. Unfortunately, it is obvious from the commentary you posted that you hadn't bothered to read the research paper by Steven Jones, professor of physics at BYU, which has been peer reviewed, and to which I provided a link in my earlier remarks.

Professor Jones discusses 13 reasons why the official story is not possible. I can't discuss them all, but they all merit close scrutiny and I encourage anyone who is curious to read his paper.

I'll briefly and inadequately touch on the issue of molten metal, even though it falls under the heading of secondary rather than primary evidence, because John's post devoted so much space to this issue. Despite the fact that molten iron can apparently be formed spontaneously through rapid oxidation under certain highly specific and rare circumstances, there is no evidence that those circumstances were present on, or even after, 911. The first report from the scene of devastation of molten steel was from Sarah Atlas of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue, who later wrote that "molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet", as she searched for survivors with her dogs. So molten metal was flowing down the rubble from the start, which rules out subterreanean fires as the cause.

Moreover, Dr.Jones provides numerous video and still photos (One of the most dramatic from an NIST report) of yellow-white liquid spilling from the site of bright flashes, falling down the side of the South Tower. NIST reported "Many such liquid flows were observed from near this location (of bright flashes) in the seven minutes leading up to collapse of this (South) tower." (Video footage of the Tower's collapse demonstrates that it was this corner that buckled first.) Jones proves, through metallurgical analysis, that the liquid could not be lead, zinc or aluminum; and that the white-yellow flowing liquid metal is "consistent with flowing liquid iron from a nearby thermite reaction zone"--the glowing bright white spot in the NIST photo. Jones demonstrates that the yellow color of the liquid metal implies a temperature of 1,000 Centigrade, evidently well above the temperatures generated by black (oxygen starved) low grade fires that burned for about 20 minutes in the South Tower. (Thomas Eager, the MIT expert who created the weakened truss-zipper theory used by officialdom--part of the time--to explain the collapse, stated that it is unlikely that the diffuse fires exceeded 500 to 650 Centigrade in temperature.)

So, the plausibility of molten iron and steel being formed spontaneously is not only unproven, but seems implausible, because the required conditions of high sustained temperature and a cooking period were evidently lacking, and because there is no record of building fires ever before having created molten metals. On the other hand, Jones shows that the molten metal found in the basements of all three collapsed buildings is consistent with the effects of thermite explosions used in professional demolition. He establishes the presence of sulpher in samples taken from the WTC, which is a product of thermite detonation, through his own analysis, and also from another peer-reviewed paper (authored by three other scientists) that sampled a beam from the WTC 7.

There is no question of the existence of molten metal. What remains unanswered, beyond a doubt, is how the molten metal was created. Does this question not merit further investigation?

The evidence of molten metal at the WTC is actually a relatively minor facet of the evidence for professional detonation. Other solid evidence for detonation of WTC 7 is the obvious symmetrical implosion of the building as it collapsed rapidly (6.6 seconds, according to Jones' analysis) and evenly. Some structural damage to circular columns on the exterior facing WTC 1--350 feet away--may have been sustained. There were no persistent fires raging during the seven hours between the fall of WTC 1 and WTC 7. Claims that diesel fuel stored on the premises ignited are entirely unproven, and was assigned a "low probability of occurance" by FEMA. So we had assymetrical damage, a few radomly dispersed small fires (which oddly, were not extinguished by the sprinkler system), and a steel framed skyscraper that collapsed in perfect symmetry at nearly the rate of free fall, as illustrated vividly by video links included in Jones' paper. Does this not merit further investigation?

There are no instances of steel skyscrapers falling down due to fire in all of engineering history, prior to 911. On that date, three (count 'em!) huge tall steel buildings collapsed directly and neatly into their own foot print. On the other hand, professional demolition rountinely accomplishes this outcome, together with the enormous quntities of pulverised concrete that characterized the collapse of the WTC towers (estimated at 100 tons per tower). Does asking questions about this merit psychologizing by Bidinotto and others?

I could go on about a lot more, including that the widely-used estimate of under 10 seconds of fall time for the Twin Towers was employed by Thomas Eager and other defenders of the official story; fatal weaknesses in Eager's truss and zipper theories; wrongheaded and unfair accusations of distortion and lying by John and others; the fact that no engineering blue prints of the WTC were avaliable to FEMA or the public; and more. But what's the point? Look into this through the links provided, if you think there is basis for questioning what seem to me to be a series of highly implausible hypothesis offered by apologists for the official account of all of this. As to how it was done, I can't say; I only know the offical version of events doesn't add up. But I have read that there was a security standdown for a few days (three or four) just before 911 in the WTC, and that the security firm was, in fact, closely connected to Marvin Bush.

Post 43

Wednesday, November 22, 2006 - 8:49pm

Mark,

Check out Alex Jones's page on Myspace. On 25 July 2001, he predicted that something would happen:

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=62961422

His video is there.

Post 44

Wednesday, November 22, 2006 - 9:06pm

> Other solid evidence for detonation of WTC 7

One good way to puncture a hole in a silly conspiracy theory is to take it seriously for half a moment. Let's suppose that the Twin Towers were deliberately detonated. Having knocked down these great tall symbols of Wall Street and among the mightiest and tallest world famous buildings in America, WHY do the same to a third (and minor, smaller building) in the same area, already evacuated, hours later? Do you start blowing up fire trucks next?

Makes no sense, even from the point of view of a conspirator.

You gain no greater furtherance of your nefarious purposes, plus you run greater risk of detection, especially with all the cameras and copters flying around in the area in the wake of your previous takedown. Not to mention in the initial installation of the explosives in still another building.
(Edited by Philip Coates
on 11/22, 9:08pm)

Post 45

Thursday, November 23, 2006 - 12:27am

Mark wrote:

Unfortunately, it is obvious from the commentary you posted that you hadn't bothered to read the research paper by Steven Jones, professor of physics at BYU, which has been peer reviewed,

HA! Except it was never peer reviewed by any civil engineering journals!! Why would you write a paper and not have the field that specializes in the topic you write about to peer review it? And who is Professor Steven Jones? He's a physicist not a civil engineer with zero experience in building forensics. Steven Jones specializes and has journals in Solar Energy and Nuclear fusion. He is not qualified to write a civil engineering journal discussing the almost infinite variables that were present when the WTC collapsed. The structural engineering professors within his own University do not agree with Jone's findings and BYU doesn't want anything to do with the paper. Unqualified scientists speaking about a subject matter they know nothing about is the first sign of charlatanism.

Let's also point out this isn't the first time Professor Steven Jones has put out a journal with questionable science. He also published a journal titled " "Behold My Hands: Evidence for Christ's Visit in Ancient America" where he cites supposed evidence that circles found in South America were palms of South American deities which were the "hands of the crucified Jesus". [cue the loony bin music]

And which scholars does he cite in his 9/11 journal? People like Professor David Ray Griffin. A professor in, no not civil engineering, no not building forensics, no not even a damn field of science, but PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION!!!!

Yes, a peer reviewed journal by who exactly? Professors of Religion? Give me a break.

http://www.debunking911.com/jones.htm

Mark, here are some "gems" of wisdom from Professor Jones:

Experts said no building like it [WTC7], a modern, steel-reinforced high-rise, had
ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire. (Glanz, 2001; emphasis added.)
Fire engineering expert Norman Glover agrees:
Almost 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…

Yes, but no skyscraper ever had a 757 slam into it with a full tank of fuel. This statement alone is so idiotic. All previous skycraper fires did not have this factor, other skyscrapers had different construction than the WTC, and none of them were started with essentially a cruise missile slamming into it. To jump to the explanation explosives brought it down as the more likely explanation? Do you know how many people worked in the WTC? You're telling me they saw no one plant these alleged explosives all over the building? This would've required thousands of people to be in on it. And what about the thousands of security and police officers that worked there, they weren't just in on planting the explosives apparently, but they were also content on ending their lives that day carrying out their orders to demolish the WTC. Unbelievable.

Post 46

Thursday, November 23, 2006 - 12:47am

LOL! I also just found out Steven Jones is co-founder of the organization called "Scholars for 9/11 Truth". And who peer reviewed his journal? A Marxist Journal on Political Economy! And who are the scholars that make up "Scholars for 9/11 Truth"?

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhoAreWe.html

Out of the 76 "experts" the most common academic discipline was philosophy, with 9 members, including a co-founder. Since 7 members did not even list an academic discipline, this was 1/7 of their credentialed membership. English/literature and psychology came in next with 5 members each. Even theology and "humanities" came in with 4 and 3 members respectively. Among actual scientific fields, physics was way in front, with 5 members, including the aforementioned Dr. Jones. I am not sure as to their academic credentials though, at least one of the "physicists", Jeffrey Farrer, isn't even a professor, he is a lab manager at BYU. One has to wonder whether Steven Jones' janitor is also listed as an associate member?

So how many engineers do they have? Out of the 76, a grand total of 2. Jean-Pierre Petit, a French aeronautical engineer, who despite the obvious handicap of being French actually seems to have a relevant qualification. Curiously enough though, he doesn't seem to have written a single word on 9/11. He has written though, on a mysterious plot by the US military to bomb Jupiter with anti-matter weapons!

The second engineer is Judy Wood, who has been mentioned in the comments here for her bizarre billiard ball from the top of the World Trade Center theory. OK, Ms. Wood is an actual Mechanical Engineer at Clemson, but thus far her work has been primarily focused on the stresses of dentistry. A fascinating field no doubt, but hardly relevant to planes crashing into buildings.

http://www.debunking911.com/jones.htm

Post 47

Thursday, November 23, 2006 - 2:44am

Mark wrote:

I'll briefly and inadequately touch on the issue of molten metal, even though it falls under the heading of secondary rather than primary evidence, because John's post devoted so much space to this issue. Despite the fact that molten iron can apparently be formed spontaneously through rapid oxidation under certain highly specific and rare circumstances

HA! You mean like two jets slamming into a skyscraper and a resulting collapse kind of specific and rare circumstances?

The first report from the scene of devastation of molten steel was from Sarah Atlas of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue, who later wrote that "molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet", as she searched for survivors with her dogs. So molten metal was flowing down the rubble from the start, which rules out subterreanean fires as the cause.

Please note the oxidation of Iron for an explanation of molten metal is one explanation given for pools of molton metal found in the wreckage and subsequent weeks after the towers collapsed. Molton Iron (which comprises 98% of steel) is one possibility for these pools of molton metal. NO ONE KNOWS FOR SURE what kind of metal this was. This is purely an excerise for assumptionists. But you decide to shift the focus of the issue in your next paragraph:

Moreover, Dr.Jones provides numerous video and still photos (One of the most dramatic from an NIST report) of yellow-white liquid spilling from the site of bright flashes, falling down the side of the South Tower. NIST reported "Many such liquid flows were observed from near this location (of bright flashes) in the seven minutes leading up to collapse of this (South) tower." (Video footage of the Tower's collapse demonstrates that it was this corner that buckled first.)

You've now shifted the issue from "pools of molton steel" found after the collapse" to "yellow-white liquid spilling from the site...[before] the collapse"

Ok, so you go on to say:

Jones proves, through metallurgical analysis, that the liquid could not be lead, zinc or aluminum; and that the white-yellow flowing liquid metal is "consistent with flowing liquid iron from a nearby thermite reaction zone"--the glowing bright white spot in the NIST photo.

HA! First we ought to know by now Jones is no metalurgist by any stretch of the imagination. He uses someone else's analysis (namely the NIST) and completely misinterprets the context of the analysis given. Let's look at the metallurgical analysis he cites:

NIST report on the Towers admits:
Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns
had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250ºC… Only two core column
specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their
temperatures did not reach 250 ºC. ... Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined
that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above
600 ºC. (NIST, 2005, pp. 176-177; emphasis added)

So what could those yellow flashes be if not aluminum? Oh wait, we still can't rule out aluminum because the NIST replicated office fires with a ceiling temperature reaching 1100 degrees Celsius!!! Well above the temparature needed to melt aluminum! Where did this aluminum come from? Airplanes are made from aluminum! The exterior structure of the WTC was made from aluminum!!! The metallurgic analysis done by the NIST was not an attempt to measure the temperatures of the interior office building fire, which included a fire fueled by gasoline, office equipment, computers, paper, it was an attempt to measure the temperature of the steel core columns!!! Do you honestly think the fire raging on inside the WTC offices would heat up the steal columns to exactly the same temperature as all the other materials that were burning inside? That wasn't even the purpose of that metallurgic experiment! Don't believe that the interior contents of the WTC (computers, desks, papers, etc) could reach a high enough temperature to melt aluminum? Here's your unquestionable proof:

If you're wondering what the above pictures are, it's pictures of Air France flight 358 which didn't hit a skyscraper at 500 miles per hour. (Air France flight 358 crashed after take-off from the Toronto airport last year) The aluminum exterior of this plane melted to the ground because the materials located inside the plane, seats, carpet, plastic, and clothing reached high enough temperatures to make the conditions right for it to melt.

So no Mark, Jones did not prove at all this was not aluminum. Not even in the slightest.

You go on to write:

Jones demonstrates that the yellow color of the liquid metal implies a temperature of 1,000 Centigrade,

Which is consistent with the NIST experiment where ceiling temperatures (without jet fuel adding to the fire mind you) of office fires reaching 1100 Centigrade, well within the temperature needed.

You go on to write:

evidently well above the temperatures generated by black (oxygen starved) low grade fires that burned for about 20 minutes in the South Tower. (Thomas Eager, the MIT expert who created the weakened truss-zipper theory used by officialdom--part of the time--to explain the collapse, stated that it is unlikely that the diffuse fires exceeded 500 to 650 Centigrade in temperature.)

Straight from the NIST: "Nearly all indoor large fires, including those of the principal combustibles in the WTC towers, produce large quantities of optically thick, dark smoke. This is because, at the locations where the actual burning is taking place, the oxygen is severely depleted and the combustibles are not completely oxidized to colorless carbon dioxide and water.

The visible part of fire smoke consists of small soot particles whose formation is favored by the incomplete combustion associated with oxygen-depleted burning. Once formed, the soot from the tower fires was rapidly pushed away from the fires into less hot regions of the building or directly to broken windows and breaks in the building exterior. At these lower temperatures, the soot could no longer burn away. Thus, people saw the thick dark smoke characteristic of burning under oxygen-depleted conditions."

The NIST maintains the office fire reached temperatures of 1100 degrees Celsius. Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36)."

And Mark, as if channeling Professor Jones himself you shift the argument once again in the next paragraph to molton pools of metal found subsequent to the WTC collapse!! Here's what you wrote next:

So, the plausibility of molten iron and steel being formed spontaneously is not only unproven, but seems implausible, because the required conditions of high sustained temperature and a cooking period were evidently lacking

Which is it Mark? Molten pools of metal found at ground zero or yellow flashes from the South Tower fire prior to its collapse? Nice how you shifted the issue there. It would behoove you to stick to one claim at a time and not shift to Jones' evidence of an entirely different matter.

and because there is no record of building fires ever before having created molten metals.

Completely irrelevant. These building fires were not the result of a jet made out of aluminum slamming into them.

You go on to write:

On the other hand, Jones shows that the molten metal found in the basements of all three collapsed buildings is consistent with the effects of thermite explosions used in professional demolition. He establishes the presence of sulpher in samples taken from the WTC, which is a product of thermite detonation,

Finding Sulpher is not evidence there was a thermite detonation.

Taken from http://www.911myths.com/Sulfur.pdf

2.0 Sources of Sulfur in the WTC

Although sulfur is a relatively common constituent of materials found in typical urban environments, it is
difficult to quantify all the sources of this element in a complex structure such as the WTC. Certainly we
know that the A36 structural steel used throughout the WTC contained less than 0.04 wt % sulfur.
However, this sulfur is chemically bound in sulfide inclusions such as MnS and is essentially immobile.
More labile forms of sulfur are found as additives or natural impurities in common workplace materials
such as paper, wood and plastics. For example, wood contains up to 0.05 wt % sulfur, while vulcanized
rubber may contain up to 5 wt % sulfur.
In the present context it is not simply the presence, but the mobility, of sulfur in the WTC that is of
interest. In view of the nature of the WTC disaster it is clear that the fires provided a mechanism for the
transfer of sulfur containing species from their various sources in the buildings to the surface of structural
steel members, thereby creating an environment favorable to sulfiding. We therefore need to consider the
effects of the WTC fires on sulfur containing materials in the Trade Center buildings.

3.0 The Production of SO2 in the WTC Fires

Practically all sulfur-containing materials emit sulfur dioxide, SO2, when heated to a sufficiently high
temperature in air. However, because of the wide range of sulfur bond strengths in common sulfur
compounds, (e.g. sulfates, sulfides, thiols, etc), there is potentially a very wide range of temperatures,
typically from 300 to 1300 C, over which release of SO2 is possible. Nevertheless, measurable levels of
SO2 are always generated by the combustion of trace sulfur in carbonaceous materials such as plastic or
wood.
In the case of the WTC disaster, the Boeing 767 aircraft that hit the Twin Towers were carrying about
30,000 kg of kerosene of which about 25 % ignited inside the buildings releasing about 300 Gigajoules of
chemical energy. Office furniture, paper, plastics, carpeting, etc, provided additional fuel with an
estimated energy content of about 280 Megajoules/m2 of floor space, /See, for example, Ref 3 /. As a
result, intense fires raged inside the Twin Towers for up to an hour after the aircraft impacts and sustained
heat release rates of at least 10 MW over an effective area of about 1000 m2 in each Tower. There has
been considerable debate with regard to the temperatures that were reached at the height of these fires, but
values of at least 600 C, and as high as 1000 C in localized “hotspots”, are likely. Thus, there can be no
doubt that the fires in the WTC on 9-11 provided the appropriate conditions for the release of SO2 from
the combustion of sulfur containing materials on affected floors.
Unfortunately there appears to be very little published data on measured concentrations of SO2 in real or
simulated building fires. Nevertheless, based on known or assumed inventories of materials in the WTC it
is possible to estimate the potential release of SO2 from the two significant sources of sulfur: live load
materials and dead load materials. Live load materials are those items that are moveable within the
building such as people, office furniture, wall hangings, computers, telephones, printers, paper, etc. Dead
load materials are the permanent structural components, such as steel beams and columns, concrete floors,
gypsum wallboards, etc, used in the construction of buildings.

I'll shall continue at a later time to discuss the "theories" of WTC 7 you presented in your later paragraphs. But there's only so much time I can devote to debunking junk science.

Post 48

Thursday, November 23, 2006 - 4:53am

Mark, now to address the WTC 7 theories:

The evidence of molten metal at the WTC is actually a relatively minor facet of the evidence for professional detonation. Other solid evidence for detonation of WTC 7 is the obvious symmetrical implosion of the building as it collapsed rapidly (6.6 seconds, according to Jones' analysis) and evenly.

Yes because for some reason that defies all Evil Mastermind logic, hours and hours later, only then did the diabolical conspirators decide to ignite the explosions for WTC 7! Nevermind the fact there was no visible explosions from WTC 7 that would indicate "controlled demolitions". But that doesn't matter to the conspiracy theorists. Picking and choosing observations is their specialty! So, not only did they plant controlled demolitions, enough mind you to bring down two of the tallest buildings in the world unbeknownst to tens of thousands of people that piled into and out of the WTC daily, they couldn't just stop themselves there could they! They decided let's bring WTC 7 down too!

First of all Jones' analysis it fell in 6.6 seconds is flat out wrong. Seismic graphs show the building was falling for 18 seconds as found in the NIST report. Here's an exerpt from debunking911.com:

Seismograph trace of the collapse of WTC 7 indicates that parts of the building were hitting the ground for 18 seconds. This means the collapse took at least 18 seconds, of which only the last approximately 15 seconds are visible in videos: 8 seconds for the penthouses and 7 seconds for the north wall to come down.

And second, the building appeared to fall in on itself because of how the building was constructed, not because of these alleged "controlled demolitions". From debunking911.com:

Conspiracy sites like to bring up the 'Symmetric Collapse' of building 7 and claim that the building should have fallen over to the south. They show grainy, dark photos of debris piles which were taken well after 9/11 and a debris pile with a grayish, smoky image of building 7 in the background. They deceptively show the north side which was relatively free of damage. As if the Tower should have reached over to the other side of the building and damaged that side too.

Here is what the debris pile looked like just after 9/11

Eerily, the north face is on the debris pile as if a shroud were laid gently over the dead building. It fell over after the majority of the building fell. This indicates that the south side of the building fell before the north. It's almost as if the buildings last words were "[This] did it!..".

And now comes the most important and telling fact in this photo. Note the west side (Right side in this photo) of the north face is pointing toward the east side (Left side of this photo) where the penthouse was. What caused this? It would not be unreasonable to expect the building to fall toward the path of least resistance. The path of least resistance in this case would be the hole in the back of the building and the hole left by the penthouse. Since the penthouse was on the east and the 20 story hole in the middle, that would make the east and middle the path of least resistance. The conspiracy sites agree with this theory but say it never happened. They say the fact that it didn't happen helps prove controlled demolition. But you see it happen here... What will they say now?

"But the building doesn't look like it fell over, it fell "in its own foot print" you might say. That's because it is impossible for a 47 story steel building to fall over like that. It's not a small steel reinforced concrete building like the ones shown as *Examples* of buildings which fell over. Building 7 is more like the towers, made up of many pieces put together. It's not so much a solid block as those steel reinforced concrete buildings.

This evidence supports the NIST contention that the building collapse progressed from the penthouse out as columns were weakened by the fires. The slow sinking of the penthouses, indicating the internal collapse of the building behind the visible north wall, took 8.2 seconds according to a NIST preliminary report. Seismograph trace of the collapse of WTC 7 indicates that parts of the building were hitting the ground for 18 seconds. This means the collapse took at least 18 seconds, of which only the last approximately 15 seconds are visible in videos: 8 seconds for the penthouses and 7 seconds for the north wall to come down.

To put it simply, the building DID fall over backward and to the south-east. Just not like a steel reinforced concrete building would. Another telling photo is this one taken closer to the event date.

Note just past building 7 is a small amount of debris on the white building behind it. That building is to the north east corner of building 7. Note about 1/3rd of the east side of the building falling to the north in the photo below.

This suggests the building was split by the penthouse collapses most of the way down. One section went to the south-east while a smaller section went to the north. It wasn't that symmetrical.

Below are snapshots from a video taken from the northeast of Building 7 just as it collapses. Note that it has just begun to collapse and it is already tilting to the south

Half way through and it's still tilted to the south. Note the west side of the building has come away from the west face around what used to be the 43rd floor. Light can be seen through the east face windows.

Note the angle to the south has increased and so has the space between the west face and the rest of the building. The west face later lays on the Verizon building to the west. While it looks like it's about to hit the ground, it's still almost as high as the white building to the right. That makes it about 20 stories.

If the majority of the building fell to the south-east based on the resulting debris locations, as conspiracy theorists point out, it is evidence for a normal collapse by fire. I think they're right.

The perpetually perplexed will show you a photo of the Oklahoma City Federal Building and say "Gee, that didn't fall. If that didn't fall with more visible damage why should the WTC 7 fall?".

In someone’s need to question authority and seem smarter than the rest, they may forget an important fact. The OKC Federal building wasn't constructed the same as WTC7 and did not have its lower floors on fire for 6 hours. We can see clear as day that the building was not a tube in a tube design. We can see its lower floors weren't on fire. We can see the columns are covered in concrete. All from the same photo the conspiracy theorists use to show us how incredibly intelligent they are.

The NIST preliminary report on World Trade Center 7
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

Mark you continue on to allege:

There were no persistent fires raging during the seven hours between the fall of WTC 1 and WTC 7.

This is flat out false. All reports from the FDNY indicate there were in fact fires raging on in WTC7.

From a firefighter's account:

"They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down." - Richard Banaciski

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/
Banaciski_Richard.txt

Another firefighter's account:

"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse (Of the WTC towers) had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely" - Daniel Nigro, Chief of Department

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/
Nigro_Daniel.txt

From yet another firefighter's account:

"Then we found out, I guess around 3:00 [o'clock], that they thought 7 was going to collapse. So, of course, [we've] got guys all in this pile over here and the main concern was get everybody out, and I guess it took us over an hour and a half, two hours to get everybody out of there. (Q. Initially when you were there, you had said you heard a few Maydays?) Oh, yes. We had Maydays like crazy.... The heat must have been tremendous. There was so much [expletive] fire there. This whole pile was burning like crazy. Just the heat and the smoke from all the other buildings on fire, you [couldn't] see anything. So it took us a while and we ended up backing everybody out, and [that's] when 7 collapsed.... Basically, we fell back for 7 to collapse, and then we waited a while and it got a lot more organized, I would guess." - Lieutenant William Ryan

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC
/Ryan_William.txt

Mark you go on to say:

So we had assymetrical damage, a few radomly dispersed small fires (which oddly, were not extinguished by the sprinkler system)

They were hardly few random fires. I guess when the FDNY says "very heavy fire on many floors" that really means "oh just little piddly fires here and there". Please give me a break! This is just pure outright dishonesty. And of course the sprinkler system failed, according to the FDNY hydrant pressure had failed because of WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsing. In addition there was a big gaping hole on the side of WTC 7 about 20 stories high. I bet you not only was the sprinkler system not working, but (gasp! ready for this!) I bet the electricity wasn't working either! Hey I bet WTC 7 due to a fricken massive skysraper, two of them, some of the biggest in the world, collapsing right next to it, leaving a big gaping hole the size of 20 floors on the side of it, would probably mess up a lot of things about WTC 7 including all of its utilities.

Mark you say:

Does this not merit further investigation?

No Mark it doesn't. Sloppy science, outright dishonest representation of the facts and half-hearted analysis done by unqualified scholars does not warrant further investigation.

On the other hand, professional demolition rountinely accomplishes this outcome, together with the enormous quntities of pulverised concrete that characterized the collapse of the WTC towers (estimated at 100 tons per tower). Does asking questions about this merit psychologizing by Bidinotto and others?

It's well established fact the building because of its design which fell in a "pancake" pattern. Floor collapsing onto subsequent floor building an incredible amount of energy and momentum. Do you have any idea what the weight of each of those floors were pancaking ontop of each other creating that kind of transfer of momentum? It doesn't just "pulverize concrete" it pulverizes just about everything in its path. We're talking 10 Megajoules of energy per floor, over 100 floors with the combined energy of a small nuclear explosion! And yes, asking questions like that does merit psychologizing because anyone convinced that tens of thousands of people who would have to be in on these alleged demoltions to have been placed over two of the tallest buildings in the world and WTC 7, is clearly evidence of a psychological problem.

I could go on about a lot more, including that the widely-used estimate of under 10 seconds of fall time for the Twin Towers was employed by Thomas Eager and other defenders of the official story; fatal weaknesses in Eager's truss and zipper theories; wrongheaded and unfair accusations of distortion and lying by John and others

This is just so sad and pathetic. I'm the one accused of lying? Show me ONCE where I lied? Just one time where I lied. I DEFY YOU to prove to me I LIED!! I just showed one of your bald-faced lies: "There were no persistent fires raging during the seven hours between the fall of WTC 1 and WTC 7." Even though this flies in the face of the facts reported by the FDNY firefighters there. I guess the entire FDNY department was also in on this conspiracy as well to make up stories of raging fires blazing through WTC 7? My distortions and unfair accusations? Mark your entire post is wrought with misrepresentation of facts, drawing on questionable sources from "scholars" who know nothing about civil engineering. Utterly pathetic.

You say:

As to how it was done, I can't say;

Of course you can't! How convenient is it for you to come up with some cockamamy story of controlled demoltions bringing down the towers yet you cannot explain at all how it could've been done considering the number of people that were present in the WTC day in and day out? How could you explain it? It is an utter impossibility no one saw this and came forward. Not to mention there is not one shred of evidence from the forensics that suggests controlled demoltions took down the building.

But I have read that there was a security standdown for a few days (three or four) just before 911 in the WTC, and that the security firm was, in fact, closely connected to Marvin Bush.

I have never heard of this nor do I even understand what this means if it were true? Marvin Bush? Wow how many more people were involved? The entire security firm for the WTC, Marvin Bush, the FDNY, the Port Authority, George Bush, and who the hell knows who else. The amount of explosives that would have been required to demolish the WTC would have been an astounding amount and would've taken MONTHS to plant them all over the WTC buildings to have a controlled demolition. It is simply IMPOSSIBLE to pull that off without people knowing about it. Do you know how long it takes for controlled demoltions to be placed in buildings for them to be successful demoltions? I believe this is by far the most absurd conspiracy theory every concocted in the history of mankind!

Yes the Bush administration, which failed at everything they ever did, was somehow so smart, to pull off a conspiracy that included thousands of people and was able to bend the time space continuum to allow them to plant controlled demoltions during a security "stand down"

Unreal.
(Edited by John Armaos
on 11/23, 4:55am)

Post 49

Thursday, November 23, 2006 - 7:26am

Alex Jones once said that he thinks the alleged conspirators want to get caught. His theory is that they are in effect taunting the American people, saying something like: "This is what we can get away with. See if you can stop us."

Post 50

Thursday, November 23, 2006 - 9:40am

After I posted last night, I realized that I had erroneously attribued to Thomas Eager the opinion that the fires in the Towers achieved temperatures of 500 to 650 degrees centigrade, because they were diffuse. However, Eager also speculates that the fires in some areas reached 1300 centigrade, which is essential to his theory that "sagging trusses" soon brought each tower to collapse.

Post 51

Thursday, November 23, 2006 - 12:13pm

John, your purple rage and ugly accusations grow tedious. You've accused me of dishonesty several times now. I haven't once accused you of lying. I've complained (mildly, so far) of "wrongful and unfair" accusations by you about my supposed dishonesty, and about what you insist is lying by other people who don't think what you want them to. Yet I am willing to read through and think about evidence that appears to contradict my understanding of this. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I gather from your remarks that you have not given an honest reading to Jones' paper, which was peer reviewed by technical professionals. Am I wrong here? (I just read somewhere yesterday about the qualifications of the peers who reviewed Jones' research; I will post a link before long. But I am out of time, now.)

Professor Jones did prove, at least to my imperfect understanding, that the yellow-white liquid pouring down the the face of the south tower could not be aluminum, which is always siilver in color. He conducted experiments to test conclusions reached by NIST that the yellow-white molten metal was aluminum discolored by glowing embers of office stuff "mixed into" the (alleged) molten aluminum; he proved that the aluminum remains silver in color. He disproved the possibility that the molten metal could be zinc or particular other metals by making logical deductions from their known melting points. He gathered evidence that suggests--but does not prove--that the molten metal was iron and steel created by thermite ignition of detonation explosives. He reasons logically that the white flashes identified by NIST and illustrated in their photo, and other video footage, are consistent with thermite ignition, and traces the flow of molten iron from the flash point down the side of the tower. Since the fires in the towers were not capable of melting steel, and because thermite ignition is known to utilize sulpher (traces of which have been discovered on steel fragments retrieved from the remains of the towers) to lower the temperature at which steel can be melted to produce liquid iron, he concludes that this is evidence suggestive of professional demolition. The existence of sulpher does not prove this chain of cause and effect, but it points in the direction of detonations, especially when combined with other evidence, physical, photographic, and eye-witness reports of explosions.

The pancake story has not been proven. It is a hypothesis, and nothing more. However, it is a hypothesis that has been vetted by authorities you trust. It has enormous problems based on the particular circumstances of fire temperatures, extent and duration of the fires, building design (which is indispute, but which was apparently misrepresented--probably unintentionally--by Thomas Eager, and factors that derive from all of the above. For a floor to collapse, all joints connecting trusses to exterior (240) and core (40-something, as I recall) columns would have to give way, nearly at once. But if a few trusses disconnected from exterior or interior columns due to fire heat, their load would instantaneously be taken up by the remaining trusses, which were apparently cross trussed and bolted to corrugated metal flooring sheets overlaid by concrete(contrary to Eager's depiciton of the building design). Eager himself maintained that the physical damage inflicted on the buildings were not a factor in their subsequent collapse; that the cause was the heat of the fires. (This would appear to refute your contention that it doesn't matter that no other steel skyscrapers have been brought down by fire in engineering history.)

The fires were not raging infernos, but low mostly low temperature events (as evidenced by a great amount of black smoke and localized flames that did not burn long. To heat steel to the point at which the redundancy (500%) of the building would be overwhelmed requires fires that are not only pretty hot (1300 C or so, as Eager speculates) but are sufficiently energetic (meaning large) and of sufficient duration. But the fires were not large; on the South tower, which fell first, fire never spread beyond the initial fire zone across to the other side of the floor. Photos show relatively small fires that burned out quickly--in 20 minutes to half an hour. After the first 15 minutes of fire on the South tower, all that could be seen was black smoke.

Further, there is a big problem with the total collapse of the towers. Given Eager's hypothesis that the "clip joints" connecting trusses to columns "unzipped", why would all of the core columns collapse? For example, why would not the bottom 30 floors of core columns, which were huge, not remain standing? I have read in various sources that all the metal columns were inexplicably seperated at their joints, in relatively short lengths. (And of course, the metal lengths were immediately--in a matter of days, shipped to the Far East for recycling which wiped out the possibility of forensic examination.)

I don't know anything about the science or reasoning you copied that pertains to the dynamics of the collapse of WTC 7. For now, I can only wonder if the dynamics that your thinker discussed would play out, regardless if the cause of the building collapse were heat from fires (a little more on this below) or professional detonation. I'll have to do more reading about all of this to make sure I'm not asleep at the wheel.

There is no photographic evidence, of which I am aware, that shows anything but a few small scattered fires burning on a couple of floors of the WTC 7. If you have photographic evidence that contradicts this statement (i.e. that "proves" I am a liar) I would be highly interested in viewing it. I haven't read through all eye witness accounts of the fires on WTC 7, and I doubt you have either. I'm open to the possibility that I am mistaken, that there were raging fires on 7 that no happened to photograph, but I think the possibility is remote. But I'll check it out, based on the eye witness accounts you presented. An interesting point relating to this is the fires that consumed buildings 5 and 6, really were raging infernos. Yet those buildings remained standing.

I'm disinclined to read more cut and paste material that you throw at me, mainly because I have the impression that you haven't read through the material in the links I offered. I will read about anything you write yourself, as opposed to copying from other sources. Or I will agree to read material that you copy, but only if you agree to read material that I copy.

Phil, this is what your argument reduces to: anyone who provides evidence that the official story is contradicted by certain facts, and so has serious logical problems, must also prove exactly what happened on that day. Proving "what happened" includes discerning the motives and identities of everyone involved. But no one can know eeverything; all one can reasonably do is insist that the explanation of what happened makes good sense. I don't think the official story is plausible.

Marvin Bush was or had very recently been a principle in the security company that held the contract for the WTC and United Airlines. WTC personnel testified that they had worked 12 hour shifts for a week in the period before 911, because of bomb threats. However, in the five days prior to 9/11, the heightened security, which included bomb sniffing dogs, was canceled. Other reports that I have read recounted numerous workers trying to solve problems with electrical cables in the interior of the towers, for--as I recall--2 or three days just before 9/11. Numerous workers were on and around the site. This doesn't prove anything, of course. But if it is true, it opens a possibility that could be explored.

A major source of this heated angry disagreement may be fundamental differences in our respective world view. I don't trust the State, because the bigger it becomes, the more it systematically lies and tramples individual rights. The lying is integral to the nature of institutionalized coercion. I started out as a conservative focused on economics, and gradually came to revamp my thinking about foreign policy. I think virtually everything the State does is not only wrong, because coercive, but highly likely to be destructive of values.

I sense that John, Phil and others dislike economic interventions but approve of most military adventuring by the US State as necessary and virtuous. So it occurs to me that any major challenge to this perceived virtue--whether Pearl Harbor, or WMDs in Iraq, or questions about 911--are an affront to your values. My evidence is hardly worth considering, because it clashes with your world view; even if you can't refute a particular, you may be convinced that the conclusion I argue is impossible: it clashes with everything you believe about right and wrong.

But maybe I'm wrong about this.

Post 52

Thursday, November 23, 2006 - 1:08pm

I would suggest that any who consider extending to Mr. Armaos the benefit of the doubt on this issue consider his lack of response here on the last thread about North Korea. I withdraw my previous generosity, and suggest that all those who continue to pursue such ideologically driven drivel drive due east til they reach France.

Post 53

Thursday, November 23, 2006 - 3:14pm

Mark wrote:

haven't once accused you of lying.

Then explain this!

I could go on about a lot more, including that the widely-used estimate of under 10 seconds of fall time for the Twin Towers was employed by Thomas Eager and other defenders of the official story; fatal weaknesses in Eager's truss and zipper theories; wrongheaded and unfair accusations of distortion and lying by John and others

You said "distortion and lying by John and others" so what gives?

Post 54

Thursday, November 23, 2006 - 3:15pm

"Aaron I sincerely hope you're joking. You don't honestly think that's a valid experiment do you?"

I thought 3 smileys were enough to make that clear. I found the rabbit cage/newspaper/kerosene experiment hilarious, and half the hilarity was wondering whether the person who wrote it was serious or an excellent satirist.

Post 55

Thursday, November 23, 2006 - 3:23pm

Ted wrote:

I would suggest that any who consider extending to Mr. Armaos the benefit of the doubt on this issue consider his lack of response here on the last thread about North Korea. I withdraw my previous generosity, and suggest that all those who continue to pursue such ideologically driven drivel drive due east til they reach France.

Ted I am truly confused. I don't remember ever discussing anything in particular about North Korea with you, nor did I feel your last post on that thread warranted any particular response. I feel you are wrong and misinterpreting the powers of the Supreme Court, there's only so many circles I will dance with someone on a thread before I decide to give up and realize it is a fruitless exercise. If you feel I'm "idealogically driven" I believe that is your problem. How you feel about me is your prerogative but it doesn't change the validity of the content of my posts. If you prefer to use character assasinations on me on previously unrelated topics, then so be it. Not to mention in that thread I was attacking the Bush administration on a different matter and in this thread I am defending the Bush administration, which makes all the more hollow your accusation I'm idealogically driven. You don't know one lick about me. I only respond to the facts laid before me, and let the chips fall where they may. At times I defend this President and at times I attack him when appropriate. If you have a problem with any of my arguments on this thread then go ahead and let me know.

Post 56

Thursday, November 23, 2006 - 3:25pm

"Aaron I sincerely hope you're joking. You don't honestly think that's a valid experiment do you?"

I thought 3 smileys were enough to make that clear. I found the rabbit cage/newspaper/kerosene experiment hilarious, and half the hilarity was wondering whether the person who wrote it was serious or an excellent satirist.

LOL, Aaron I did suspect you were joking but knowing the bizarre things people have said on this forum I just wanted to make sure I knew where you stand. :)

Post 57

Thursday, November 23, 2006 - 7:52am

Here is an excellent summary, "The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True", by
David Ray Griffin.

Excerpt:

---------

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 warn
ed 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 whole article is at:

http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html

Post 58

Thursday, November 23, 2006 - 4:09pm

Mark wrote:

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I gather from your remarks that you have not given an honest reading to Jones' paper, which was peer reviewed by technical professionals. Am I wrong here?

Yes you are. I believe I already I covered that in post 45. No need to go over this again. I suggest you take a minute and actually read my posts so we don't repeat the same thing over and over again.

Professor Jones did prove, at least to my imperfect understanding

Ok Mark I'll drop the purple rage and back up for a moment here. Look at what you just said? Do you not see the problem here? You did no research into the peer review done by Jones' paper. You are not a civil engineer, you did not realize that every civil and structural engineering journal repudiated all of Jones' accusations which he was never qualified to speak on the matter in the first place. You didn't look into what kind of a scientist Jones was or you would have seen he tends to gravitate towards pseudo science material, i.e. his paper about evidence Jesus Christ appeared in South America. You didn't take anytime to read any rebuttals offered to Jones' arguements. Honestly, you call yourself an Objectivist but aren't you a bit ashamed you were duped by Jones? That you didn't take the minor effort to just think for yourself and do a little legwork and do some critical thinking on your own?

It's always a wonder how after 9/11, all of a sudden everyone thinks they're a civil or structural engineer Professor Jones included, yet unless you are an engineer you wouldn't know one lick about any of the subject matter you discuss.

Apparently, either Jones is correct in his analysis, or thousands of engineers and technicians are wrong and are contributing to this massive conspiracy to keep the real truth about controlled demolitions.

It never ceases to amaze me the people that come on to this forum who call themselves an Objectivist but are so easily taken in by snake-oil artists. I suggest you read Luke's recommendation he made in the first post of this thread, Carl Sagan's "Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark", I read this in high school. It's a must to learn the basics of critical thinking. Then try some James Randi and Michael Shermer, their poltical views may not jive with Objectivism but they are spot on with their critical thinking skills on empirical matters.

I'm disinclined to read more cut and paste material that you throw at me, mainly because I have the impression that you haven't read through the material in the links I offered.

I spent several hours going through many of the links you provided. I took it very seriously but as evident by your last post you never bothered to read the rebuttals I offered otherwise you would not have asked "you have not given an honest reading to Jones' paper, which was peer reviewed by technical professionals. Am I wrong here?" despite the fact I just said he was not peer reviewed by any technical professionals. Who's not taking the time to take this matter seriously? Me or you?

The rest of your post merely rehashes the same erroneous analysis that Professor Jones gave which has all be refuted and can be found here:

http://www.debunking911.com/

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

http://www.debunk911myths.org/

Since you won't bother even reading my responses to you then why should I even bother responding to any more of Jones' drivel? I sense you did not give a serious read to anything I said.

There is no photographic evidence, of which I am aware, that shows anything but a few small scattered fires burning on a couple of floors of the WTC 7. If you have photographic evidence that contradicts this statement (i.e. that "proves" I am a liar) I would be highly interested in viewing it. I haven't read through all eye witness accounts of the fires on WTC 7, and I doubt you have either.

Read through all witness accounts about the WTC 7 fire? How many do I need to read before enough of them corroborrate that indeed a raging inferno was going on in WTC 7? Let me know how many is enough for you? 10? 12? 25? 100? Why should I bother posting all of these eyewitness accounts corroborating this fire when all you can say "ah yes but you didn't read every eyewitness acount out there, and there might be a few to dispute what the hundreds of other people have said" what would be the point Mark? Obviously you will never be convinced and there will never be enough accounts to convince you otherwise.

But no matter Mark, here is your photographic evidence that "i.e. proves you are a liar". Here's a video of smoke billowing out of WTC 7 indicating a massive fire was ensuing:

http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi

I sense that John, Phil and others dislike economic interventions but approve of most military adventuring by the US State as necessary and virtuous.

Don't make assumptions about views I have I did not give to you. Nor is it of any consequence to the matters discussed above. I will tell you where I stand on any issue and I don't try to hide anything, nor do I appreciate the insinuation I like George Bush or that I approve most military adventuring. As if anyone who denies there's a 9/11 conspiracy must then mean he's for everything Bush has done? How completely stupid is that? Whether there was a 9/11 conspiracy, and the validity and analysis of these claims bear zero relevance to my political views. If you knew anything about me, which you don't but that won't stop you from making snap judgements about my views, you would know I routinely criticize this President for his decision to go to war in Iraq. I just choose to do my criticisms without paranoia.

Post 59

Thursday, November 23, 2006 - 9:39pm