theCPE Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 "Specifically, the repetitious suggestions from pseudo-scientists that are hardly respected in their field and are eager to put their name on any conspiracy theory in hopes of receiving some notoriety." It is a sad but very accurate truth. OK so far, but exactly why then did none of the steel columns in the two 110 story Twin Towers (even though they were, as you suggest, bending because they had been weakened), not one column remained standing in the ruins after the collapse. Indeed, they were broken into small lengths. 1) They did offer resistance and the buildings did not fall at free fall speed, unless of course you have proper scientific proof of such events. And the previous seismic activity that was linked too was hardly evidence of anything and was a direct contradiction to what whomever posted the link was trying to suggest. 2) From pictures of ground zero I saw there was plenty of broken, twisted and mangled debris, I am not sure what you expect when that many thousands of tons of concrete comes crashing down, perhaps you care to elaborate. Further and this is really important, you should research the design of the towers as it was far different than most towers built. The arrangement of steel and concrete specifically, therefore comparing the debris pile to other buildings is a futile exercise. And further confusion I have in my mind, I watched a Chinese man cook some food for me in a steel wok a few weeks ago. The fire underneath was fierce, very fierce, I wouldn't have liked to put my hand near the flame. But the wok wasn't at all troubled with the heat. Indeed, the way it clanged down on the cooker meant that, whilst it may have been "weakened" (I assume from what you tell me it would have been), it clearly had much strength left it it. The handle kept straight and attached to the bowl, that didn't warp, bend or melt, all seemed very good with it. Ranges and stoves operate around 300-400 degrees, and chefs use items specifically designed to withstand high temperatures. This is entirely irrelevant to the WTC and misses the point of my simple experimental suggestion. Obviously you have never worked with torches, metal, etc and observed the reactions metal has too heat. 120*C would be unbearable with protection then you could probably tolerate up to around 250-300*C for a short period of time.", how weak would the steel have become in those relatively cool temperatures (and we are talking far far below those reached in kilns and so forth). In addition, those men were in the buildings for up to an hour, is this a "relatively short period of time". I hardly think so. Air away from the fire dissipates heat rather quickly. The steel framing running throughout the towers could be far hotter than 300 C (572 F) and the air and surroundings of the firefighters would have been considerably less.
theCPE Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 And because you sly conspirators have evaded the question so well, I feel why not post it again! How did the fuel tanker truck catch fire and melt an overpass including the reinforcing steel thus causing its colapse? In open air (no kiln effect like with the WTC) far less fuel to propell the fire, cooler burning fuel and yet a steel overpass melted.......
theCPE Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 How cute:) It looks like some conspirators needed to enlist the help of other delusioned conspirators here so they called on the 'big guns'. http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=9704
spivver Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 theCpe states "1) They [the Twin Towers] did offer resistance and the buildings did not fall at free fall speed, unless of course you have proper scientific proof of such events. And the previous seismic activity that was linked too was hardly evidence of anything and was a direct contradiction to what whomever posted the link was trying to suggest." The basic problem is, theCPE. that those buildings did fall down in around 10 1/2 seconds, around free-fall speeds, which, had the lower steel structure resisted as you maintain, this collapse time would have been impossible. Sorry mate, but read the siesmograph result and also watch the many videos taken at the time. I assume that when you undertake your physics experiments you look at the result, not just assume that what you were expecting actually happened. And this free-fall speed is the nub of the problem, I absolutely agree with what you are saying, the structures should have resisted the upper floors, so slowing down the descent, but the fact is, they didn't. Oh, and as an aside, there are no 'big guns' here, maybe some of the 'big guns' may come in and offer their arguments, I'm just an accountant by profession, clearly not a 'big gun'. That is why I'm interested in hearing the 'proofs' of our misunderstandings from you eminent physicists. Haven't been very impressed thus far.
theCPE Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 The basic problem is, theCPE. that those buildings did fall down in around 10 1/2 seconds, around free-fall speeds, which, had the lower steel structure resisted as you maintain, this collapse time would have been impossible. I have never read a scientific paper that used terminology like "around"....there is a reason for that. Of course it fell "around" free fall speed, it obviously isn't going to fall in super slow motion, the momentum of the fall is what helped further collapse lower portions of the building. And again....look at the seismic data again.....18 seconds for tower 7. Was it twice as tall as the twin towers....I don't think so. the structures should have resisted the upper floors, so slowing down the descent, but the fact is, they didn't. No. As the impacted areas of the towers gave way and the top 20-30 floors began to fall they built up speed and thus energy and momentum. The lower portions of the towers with weakend steel (possibly not as weak as the initial zones) were impacted with the momentum of the top of the tower which was a force more than just the towers weight above that floor, and thus unable to slow the descent. For further reading which you may enjoy read this extensive debunking of popular mechanics filled with lots of links, resources, and references. http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=1
theCPE Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 I'm just an accountant by profession, clearly not a 'big gun'. That is why I'm interested in hearing the 'proofs' of our misunderstandings from you eminent physicists. Haven't been very impressed thus far. An accountant, well I am sure you know best then. Being impressed requires understanding.
spivver Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 Ah yes, Popular Mechanics, been itself debunked time and time again. Do try better. Oh, and why should I know best being an accountant?
insane_alien Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 by whom was popular mechanics debunked? and where?
spivver Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 Try here for starters: http://www.911lies.org/popular_mechanics_911_lying_traitors.html Else Google the words "reply to Popular Mechanics"
insane_alien Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 i'm sorry, i meant scientific sources. not a conspiracy site.
Tree99 Posted June 14, 2007 Author Posted June 14, 2007 I have never read a scientific paper that used terminology like "around"....there is a reason for that. Of course it fell "around" free fall speed, it obviously isn't going to fall in super slow motion, the momentum of the fall is what helped further collapse lower portions of the building. And again....look at the seismic data again.....18 seconds for tower 7. Was it twice as tall as the twin towers....I don't think so. No. I'm still working at the moment, so I'm limited to just a quick post only. I felt 'theCPE' deserved special attention for his continued determination to disgrace and embarrass himself through this extraordinary display of arrogance. As discussed earlier, the collpase speeds of WTC 1 2 & 7 are a mute point, both 'theCPE' & 'insane_alien' are trying to create an argument where one does not exist, so i will repeat it, yet again, both sides agree on the speed of collapse time. But of course, because I have to wipe your noses for you, here is the response from the FAQ section of the NIST website on collpase times: Quote 6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)? NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A). Although they don't mention WTC7 (since the question does not ask it), we can assume the same method of calculation applies, or perhaps both 'theCPE' and 'insane_alien' would like to tell those at NIST that they got it wrong? You see, even you don't belive the official reports, at least 'the conspiracy theorists' actualy agree with NIST on this one.
theCPE Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 Quote 6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)? Speeds that approximate free fall != free fall. Further, I just pointed out why once the building did start to collapse the closer to the base it got the less likely the rest of the building were to slow it down. And you are right, it is a moot point. The burden that remains on the shoulders of the conspirators is to prove that steel couldn't have been weakened by the fires. And while you are at it feel free to ignore the gas truck melting an overpass once again.
bascule Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 Try here for starters: http://www.911lies.org/popular_mechanics_911_lying_traitors.html Else Google the words "reply to Popular Mechanics" Wow, completely devoid of facts and heavy on baseless speculation. How exactly is this "debunking" Popular Mechanics? Do you have a better source, or are you just going to play the "If you Google for it you can probably find it" game
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 Right. This is bordering on ridiculous. Tree99, spivver, you need to learn how to argue. Ignoring the other side's arguments isn't exactly the best method. Stop dodging questions and start giving solid evidence or I'll end up closing this thread like all of the other ones. Note that the entire free-fall argument is pointless anyway. It doesn't matter how close it was to free-fall speed: once the top several stories (and several thousand tons) started moving, there was no way a weakened steel structure was going to offer more than token resistance. The time it took to collapse is irrelevant. What you need to prove is that jet fuel and fire was not enough to weaken the structure, and you have not done that.
insane_alien Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 ever notice how argueing with conspiracy nuts is like arguing with fish? extremely short memory spans they seem to forget that they posted a question and got an answer imediately after the answer got posted.
urchin Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 no, i'm not suggesting that the corriders weren't scorched i'm saying that they would only have been able to get water to the edge of the fire not at the hottest bit where it was doing the most damage. This is how close they managed to get to the fire, radio communication with firemen. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5370850808525003436&q=Firemen+radio+911&total=11&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1 They managed to reach the same section of the building that the aircraft impacted.
theCPE Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 When you stand over a stove where the eyes are on and heated to 300-400 F are you that hot?
insane_alien Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 yeah, on one floor. IIRC this was a multi-floor fire.
urchin Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 What caused the molten metal. Molten metal found under WTC 1,2 .Both hit by aircraft. Molten metal found under WTC 7 . Not hit by an aircraft. (No jet fuel) No molten metal found anywhere at the Pentagon.Hit by an aircraft, jet fuel fire.
insane_alien Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 pentagon didn't burn as long or as intensely as the others. i noticed you sidestepped the reply i already gave you.
spivver Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 Urchin, don't bother - these eminent scientists just can't (or won't) see it. They can't grasp their conservation of energy laws and the vast dissipation of energy used to do the work in pulverising the steel and concrete of the buildings whilst collapsing, and why the collapse is not slowed down due to this work done and energy lost in destroying the structure of the building. If each floor even slowed down the falling building by 1/4 second whilst the huge pulverisation was going on, it would take a further 22 seconds to collapse, assuming that the collapse started around the 90th floor. But hey, their administrator doesn't even question why the collapse at free-fall speeds is so crucial, as he tells us that the steel must have been weakened to the point it had zero strength and resistance, even at temperatures around 300* in the lower half of the building where the firefighters were (not to mention the fact the people were seen waving for help out of the large holes in which the aircraft plunged through the walls, so it couldn't have been that hot, even in that area!!) . Where did all this additional energy come from to maintain the collapse at free-fall speeds?? There was only a certain amount of potential energy at the start of the collapse, and it didn't half do a great deal of work at free-fall speeds. I can't remember the equations exactly, it was a long time since I was taught them at school, but it is something like mass x height for potential energy. But that's it, without any other enery source, there could not have been any further energy. Even assuming that no pulverisation took place, the laws of conservation of momentum would have slowed the collapsing floors. Anyway, I've had enough of arguing with these eminent scientists, most of them are still students anyway. The real scientists, the Drs and Professors in the USA (the psuedo-scientists as theCPE refers to them as) are working on their research to disprove the official story of the 911 Commission. Time will tell. Bye bye all.
urchin Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 pentagon didn't burn as long or as intensely as the others. i noticed you sidestepped the reply i already gave you. They reached the 78th floor. Listen here 1min. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5370850808525003436&q=Firemen+radio+911&total=11&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1 As for (pentagon didn't burn as long or as intensely as the others.) Here is the Madrid fire fairly intense I would think, and burning for more than 15 hours No molten metal found there ether. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3554851540803945132&q=madrid+fire&total=100&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=3 Also it never collapsed.
insane_alien Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 yes i listened. the got tothe lowest floor of a multi floor fire! meaning the floors above that could have been infernos. it made no mention of those. it partially collapsed though, and it isn't comparable to the WTC buildings, different materials, different contents, different construction different scenario. it also wasn't missing a lower corner from chunks of falling towers nor was it hit by a jet going at 400 mph. you cannot compare them Urchin, don't bother - these eminent scientists just can't (or won't) see it. They can't grasp their conservation of energy laws and the vast dissipation of energy used to do the work in pulverising the steel and concrete of the buildings whilst collapsing, and why the collapse is not slowed down due to this work done and energy lost in destroying the structure of the building. or perhaps we know them better than you do. gravity can supply a lot of energy. If each floor even slowed down the falling building by 1/4 second whilst the huge pulverisation was going on, it would take a further 22 seconds to collapse, assuming that the collapse started around the 90th floor. please, go read some mechanics. the building did not collapse at a constant velocity either. But hey, their administrator doesn't even question why the collapse at free-fall speeds is so crucial, as he tells us that the steel must have been weakened to the point it had zero strength and resistance, even at temperatures around 300* in the lower half of the building where the firefighters were (not to mention the fact the people were seen waving for help out of the large holes in which the aircraft plunged through the walls, so it couldn't have been that hot, even in that area!!) . just because some areas that were damaged were not unbearably hot does not mean that every other part of the building was nice and cool. Where did all this additional energy come from to maintain the collapse at free-fall speeds?? There was only a certain amount of potential energy at the start of the collapse, and it didn't half do a great deal of work at free-fall speeds. I can't remember the equations exactly, it was a long time since I was taught them at school, but it is something like mass x height for potential energy. But that's it, without any other enery source, there could not have been any further energy. Even assuming that no pulverisation took place, the laws of conservation of momentum would have slowed the collapsing floors. so you don't know? your not an expert on the situation by any means and yet you are ready to believe some nut in his basement over the multitudes of structural engineers who have said otherwise (or are they part of the conspiracy too?) The real scientists, the Drs and Professors in the USA (the psuedo-scientists as theCPE refers to them as) are working on their research to disprove the official story of the 911 Commission. Time will tell. Bye bye all. yeah i may be a student but i know a hell of a lot more than you do. if the only people who are real scientsists are those who disagree with the main stream then we would never make any progress as any idea ever thought up would have to be almost immediatley classed as wrong.
Tree99 Posted June 15, 2007 Author Posted June 15, 2007 i went to all that work and all you can say is 'very amusing' this is why i usually can't be bothered. you give them something and they completely ignore it. 'insane_alien' when your analysis is fuelled by alcohol and boredom, and the structure of that analysis is to cherry pick a few paragraphs, then I think I have been quite charitable in labeling it as "amusing". You must admit, you’re not exactly the ideal standard bearer for productive debate if this is the manner in which you conduct your analysis. Anyway, let’s respond to your 'debunking' efforts. To try and keep the size of this post down I will only quote the responses 'insane_alien' gave. complete collapse, i'll go for that. but the collapse wasn't rapid, it happened hours after the impact. When global collapse occurs in roughly 11 seconds, I think it is fairly safe to say that the collapse was 'rapid'. The buildings stood for 56 mins and 102 mins before collapse. hang on whats this! a conclusion in the introduction? seems a bit predjudiced. it also mentions incendiaries, is that something like burning jet fuel perhaps? Using the term 'incendiaries' in an explosives scenario does not mean jet fuel (rolls eyes). The conclusion at the beginning, again this is 'nit picking' he is simply stating what conclusions have been drawn from the facts, and then goes on to explain the facts. Not exactly the most confident of starts 'insane_alien' muon catlysed fusion is all very interesting and that but it really doesn't have much to do with 11/9 does it? tree99 mention that he was just giving examples of his scientific background. now, there would be nothing wrong with this if it were a background in structural engineering, {some field to do with fires or something} or even chemistry as it was chemical reactions that brought the building down and this is the angle i come from. but muon catalysed fusion? yeah i can totally see how that is intricately related to the event. in the world of logic this is known as a 'straw man'. it also puts off people trying to be critical, first time i read this article i got a few paragraphs down and thought 'a screw it' and took a quick scroll down We’ve already covered this one. He lists his work as it shows that he has been involved in controversial areas of research before, and has published many papers which have been subjected to peer view. A tried and tested career in scientific study and analysis. How many papers have you published 'insane_alien' in your distinguished career? Since his work is supported by over 100 engineers and architects whose knowledge far exceeds any brief flirtation you may have had on the subject, I don't think you are suitably qualified to call their collective judgment in to question. The last part of your paragraph does well to demonstrate the level of your scientific rigor. finally, we get to the point. this is legit. the towers were destroyed as buildings usually get when they fall down. and but it was hit by debris from two of the biggest buildings in the world that just fell down next to it. I'm sure our engineers and architects would be fascinated to hear this in depth analysis, they must have missed that bit. It's OK now, 'insane_alien' with the help of alcohol has enlightened us all, nothing to see here, lets pack up and go home. uh oh! no sources or even mention of how this was calculated! most people would just say 'he timed it from a video' and be fine about it. but tree is being pernickity about it so i will too. did he use a stop watch? did he play it frame by frame? what frame rate was it recorded in as this can vary from what its displayed at? did he use measurements from multiple cameras to check his results? could he see the ground from the angle? i want to know! As discussed earlier, this is a mute point and you are trying to create an argument where one does not exist, both sides agree on the speed of collapse time. this i have no problem with. all true, all verifiable(though still no sources in the article) and no inferences. I can only assume that you hastily skipped over the section of the document that covers material collected from the WTC site. Otherwise you seem to be in general agreement. as anyone who's done a basic science class should have drilled into them by their teacher. Indeed, Steven Jones was a professor of physics and Brigham Young University. I don't think we need you to confirm the validity of that part of the document for which you are making this remark. yeah the media reported a model. doesn't mean thats what they were given. if the people incharge had a model then there would have been no investigation. since there is then we can be sure that they are checking out their hypotheses. at the time the plan was, get something out there. let the public know we're working on it. If anything this part of you 'analysis' only helps to demonstrate the poignancy of your SFN statement that "stupid ideas seem smarter when they come at you really fast." This is the political method, put out a conclusion and then see what facts you can gather to support that conclusion. ass for the questions after Cheney's quote, the pilots were highly trained, at flying planes, not so highly trained at counter terrorist operations. after they had control there wasn't much else to do other than point the planes in the right direction. 'insane_alien' I will assume that you are not a pilot due to your ill informed statement about the flying abilities of the alleged hijackers. Perhaps you might explain to the pilots at pilotsfor911truth.org that really there was nothing to it. These professional pilots can not believe that individuals with a limited amount of training in single engine sessner planes could achieve the highly skilled flying necessary to guide these planes to their targets, particularly when the people training the alleged hijackers note how poor their flying abilities were. also referring to this as 'the official conspiracy theory' thats just bad science. its like claiming newton was covering up general relativity when he published his laws of gravity. You also seem to misunderstand what is meant by the term 'conspiracy'. If 19 Arabs 'conspired' with Osama Bin Laden to fly jets in to American targets then this is a 'conspiracy', and it remains a 'theory' because no hard evidence has been brought against the so called mastermind of the event. By all means check out the FBI most wanted website, Osama is there, but no reference is made to 9/11. Thus Dr Jones is quite rightfully referring to it as 'the official conspiracy theory'. if this guy was watching close he would have noticed the story changed in the details as new facts were brought up.this would happen if they were looking into it like in any investigation. The only reason why some of the facts have been changed is because the official story has so many holes in it that they are trying to plug those holes with hasty retractions and additions of information, this would happen if you find your 'straw man' theory slowly being pulled apart. what? only considering 2 hypotheses out of many? he should know that science is very rarely an either-or situation and there are often shades of grey. he also reffers to the official story as a conspiracy theory. this is to plant the idea in the readers mind. it is a psychological tactic that would not be employed in a proper scientific paper. Well at least he is considering more then the 1 hypothesis as put forward by the official account. The conspiracy claim, discussed and answered above, both theories are conspiracy theories, so if the official theory wants to try and use a psychological tactic to smear those who put forward a different hypothesis, then I agree, this is wrongly trying to influence the way people view that hypothesis. ahh he has an agenda. very impartial mindset to be in. /sarcasm Let me get this right, your sarcastic comment is laid down because he wants to publish his work in a manner which has served science for the past couple of centuries? I would be more alarmed if this was not his goal. i've clipped the pictures. if you want to see them go read the pdf. i have an issue with the title of this section. the collapse was NOT symmetrical. one end started falling before the others. look on youtube and you'll see plenty of videos of it. as for the proposed method of measuring the time taken, its very inaccurate both because of human involvement and the lack of knowledge of the initial frame rate. in tv the cameras record at a different framerate than they are broadcast. this can introduce a bit of error as well. also, it is unknown if the ground level can be seen in the videos he used. if it can't then the time cannot be taken as accurate since we don't know if he stopped timing when he couldn't see it anymore or if he used a fudge factor. either way would be wrong. There comes a point at which we have to say 'that is symmetrical enough', no demolition is completely symmetrical, but you can certainly term them as being symmetrical when compared to buildings which collapse without the aid of controlled explosives. You are also wrong to say that one end collapses first. If you had paid a little closer attention to the video, you would notice that the penthouse begins to drop first suggesting the internal columns of the building were severed first, a classic technique used in controlled demolition, as this pulls on the exterior walls of the building helping to achieve a collapse where virtually all the material falls within the plan area of the building. Your other point about collapse time has been answered above. a personal opinion. he is not a demolition expert or someone who knows ho buildings fail. this cannot be taken as scientific evidence just as it wouldn't be used as evidence in a court of law. No, but he is physicist who understands the laws of physics better then most, and so is amply qualified to raise an eyebrow when something does not seem right, not to mention the backing of over a hundred engineering professionals who certainly do know how a building should behave. again, from my previous comments we cannot tell if 6.5s is accurate. the fact that it fell slower than free fall is an example of physics working. if it fell at or faster than freefall acceleration then i would be curious. I think we have cleared up the accuracy of the collapse times. Near free fall speed through the past of most resistance, this should seem very peculiar even to someone with the most basic grasp of physics. no mention of the failure mode. it would fall differently if the major failure was at the top or bottom. it would fall faster if it failed at the bottom rather than the top. from watching the videos it seems that the building broke somewhere near the bottom as the main chunk of the building collapses at the same time. if it collapses from near the top it would look more like the towers. This should be obvious to anyone spending a little time watching the video evidence. Failure occurs first at the top of the building (see the penthouse sink first) and then globally across the entire floor plan of the building from the bottom, exactly like a controlled demolition. oh goody. some hard science at last. it'll either be right or wrong. lets see what we get. what? i was promised momentum not a poncy y=0.5gt^2. also, if there were explosives 1/ we would hear and see them 2/ explosives in demolitions don't move material out of the way they just weaken the structure. gravity does the hard work. 'insane_alien' seems not to like this formulae, but gives no alternative, nor does he state why this formulae should not be used in this scenario. Of course, there are many witness testimonies of explosions; we even see 'streamers' appearing from the side of the building just after the initiation of collapse. Your explanation of explosives in demolitions would certainly seem to fit the bill here, how would you suggest that the building can come down in this manner? so, we have a building that is damaged and structurally weakened by fire. it fell almost straight down. doesn't seem impossible to me. also, have you seen a building primed with explosives? there is det cord EVERYWHERE i'm sure workers would have notice clambering through a spider web of explosives. and it didn't collapse symmetrically. In a typical demolition det cord do not have to be concealed, this does not mean that it is impossible to conceal this cord. low probability does not mean it can't happen. bad use of probability got to jail do not pass go do not collect £200. No it does not, but it certainly calls for other more fitting hypothesis to be put forward. On the other hand, explosives would represent a very high probability. If the collpase exhibits all the signs of a controlled demolition then why continue to put forward a hypothesis with low probability? because cluster charges are NOTICABLE! THEY ARE VERY VERY LOUD! they also explode. i didn't see any explosions. and someone would have heard the sharp whip like crack, the large puffs of smoke and debris(since it presumably wasn't shielded) before it fell. it would even be visible on the videos. Answered above, many reports of explosions, and 'streamers' easily identifiable in the video, along with the other obvious characteristics of a controlled demolition. so it goes from 'yellow and orange material' to 'metal flowing'. this ladies and gentleman is called an ASSUMPTION a leap of faith if you will. he is assuming that the yellow orange material is glowing liquid metal. the substance does indeed behave like a liquid. it cannot be denied. lets look at the candidates, 1/ burning jet fuel is liquid and yellow/orange. lots of fuel was rather violently deposited in the towers leaveing a big gaping hole for it to flow out of. 2/ the fire reached an intensity such that the structure began to melt. this resulted in molten steel flowing out of the building. 3/ other burning liquid substances such as platics 4/ other glowing liquids such as glass. since we are primarily looking at steel as this is your area of contention we will note what is missing. sparks. have you ever watched steel being poured in a refinery? sparks shoot everywhere as it ignites these are missing. therefore it cannot have been steel. as 1/ would be the most abundant it is probable that it was indeed 1/ 'insane_alien' you only help to illustrate your lack of knowledge on the subject by insisting that option 1) is the most likely candidate. FEMA suggests that the jet fuel would of burnt off within about 10 mins, this material was noticeable just prior to collapse, some 56 mins after the plane impact. For you to even think that this jet fuel was still lingering around 56 mins later, and in such abundance that it flows out of the building, you only serve to discredit yourself. Perhaps you would like to try again? Oh yes, it could not have been steel because we do not see sparks, extremely thorough job on that one. could be paper ash. it was an office building. Could be, but when considered with the other evidence suggesting the use of thermite, the white smoke would certainly be a known characteristic of a thermite reaction. could possibly be a magnesium alloy. could also cause the white ash. there was more than one combustible material present i'm sure, given enough time, i could walk into an office and find something that burns brightly with white smoke. Again, could be, but when considered with the other evidence, thermite becomes a likely candidate. ooo missing the burning jet fuel again. what do you think it all burnt up within seconds? ignoring possibilities. not good science. also, similarity does not mean they are the same. i look like my dad. but that does not mean that i am my dad(that would be very very weird and violate causality or something.) same with reactions. 'insnae_alien' seems to love this notion that highly flammable jet fuel is just lounging around nearly an hour after the plane impact, again this only shows his lack of understanding of the facts, and the little alcohol induced rant at the end about himself and his dad, very scientific. no one is contending that the steel did melt. it didn't need to melt only needed to soften which the temperature were more than capable of doing. Yes, but the fact remains that it did melt, and we have yet to here a suitable explanation from anyone as to how this occurred, 'theCPE' with his 'blast furnace / kiln' hypothesis is pure nonsense, and fails to take in to account the magnitude of material that was pulverized and ejected laterally away from the centre of collapse and the oxygen restricted conditions of the debris pile. The debris pile was mostly steel, most of the concrete and buildings contents had been pulverized. again this assumes that it was a metal. there is no evidence for that. and it goes on to explain why it wasn't aluminum because of their experiments , because a garage is soo much like your standard kerosene soaked inferno. that does actually render the experiments themselves useless. Dr Jones experiment is purposely kept simple for clarity, what he is doing is demonstrating the melting point of aluminum, and the experiment is perfectly valid for doing this. What this experiment shows is that we can debunk claims which have been made suggesting that the material flowing from the side of the building was aluminum. So 'insane_alien' is suggesting any experiment in which you wish to melt aluminum has to be done in a kerosene soaked inferno, or else the experiment is useless, err O.K 'insane_alien' good luck with that one.
urchin Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 by Signing our Petition: TO THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND OF THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Please Take Notice That: On Behalf of the People of the United States of America, the undersigned Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and affiliates hereby petition for, and demand, a truly independent investigation with subpoena power in order to uncover the full truth surrounding the events of 9/11/01 - specifically the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7. We believe that there is sufficient doubt about the official story and therefore that the 9/11 investigation must be re-opened and must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that may have been the actual cause behind the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers and WTC Building 7. Sincerely, The Undersigned Architects (Degreed & Licensed) Architectural Professionals (Degreed) Richard Gage, AIA, Architect Walnut Creek, CA Scott Page, M. Arch / Designer Berkeley, CA Don Gibbons, Architect Pleasant Hill, CA Jeffrey Tam, Architectural Professional Oakland, CA Jeff Arnold, Architect Orinda, CA Oscar Cisnero, Architectural Professional Antioch, CA John Cole, Architect Walnut Creek, CA Elwin Wong, Architectural Professional Oakland, CA David Crawford, Architect Walnut Creek, CA Henri Tso, Architectural Professional Walnut Creek, CA Haluk Akol, Architect & Structural Engineer Lafayette, CA Arthur Stopes, Planner Berkeley, CA John Eisenhart, Architect San Diego, CA Ken Huthcinson, Architectural Professional Eugene, OR Joe Bellows, Architect Martinez, CA Jan Leits, Architectural Professional Berkeley, CA John Howland, Architect Walnut Creek, CA Michael Reuter, Architectural Professional Berkeley, CA Eric Douglas, Architect Howard Beach, NY Chris Jung, Architectural Professional Berkeley, CA Peter Hendrickson, Architect Santa Rosa, CA Tim Clark, Architectural Professional Albany, CA Osvaldo Valdes, Architect New York, NY Jason Wilkinson, Architectural Professional Berkeley, CA Lily Livingston, AIA, Architect Oakland, CA Wendy Sitler, Designer Berkeley, CA Chris Swigert, Architect Oakland, CA Dominique Roddier, phD, Naval Architect Berkeley, CA Jim Bedinghaus, Architect St. Petersburg, Florida Karlene Gullone, Architectural Professional San Francisco, CA Christian Mungenast AIA, Architect Arlington, MA Dave Heller, Architectural Professional Berkeley, CA Mickey Propadovich, Architect * Evanston, Illinois Kurt Worthington, Urban Planner San Francisco, CA Michael C. Coffey, AIA, Architect * New York, NY Travis Van Brasch, Associate AIA, Design Principal San Francisco, CA Dennis Holloway, Architect, Architect * Rio Rancho, NM Arnold A. Valdez M.Arch, Designer/Planner * Santa Fe, New Mexico Michael E. Balay, Architect * Fishers, Indiana Justin Feider, Intern Architect * Denver, Colorado Ronald F. Avery, Architect * Seguin, Texas Alan S. Glassman, M. Arch., Associate AIA, CSI, SA, Architectural Research Consultant * Lancaster, Pennsylvania Bruce Richey, AIA, Architect Ashland, Oregon Am Amnusydcjkorn, B. I.Arch, Designer * Berkeley, CA Felix Goebel, M. Arch., Designer Oakland, CA Mojgan Saberi, BS Arch., Designer Oakland, CA Engineers (Degreed & Licensed) Engineering Professionals (Degreed) J. Marx Ayres, PE, Mechanical Engineer Santa Monica, CA Gregg Brazel, BSCNE, Constr. Engr'g Evanston, IL Robert Nielson, PLS, Land Surveyor Walnut Creek, CA Ted Muga, BSCE, Civil Engineer San Diego, CA John F. Shanahan, PE, Electrical Engineer Rancho Cucamonga, CA Ken Kious, Electrical Engineer * Walnut Creek, CA Joseph Testa, P.E., Civil Engineer Thousand Oaks, CA Kevin Ryan, BS Chem., Certified Quality Engineer Bloomington, IN Dr. Michael Voschine, PhD., Structural Engineer * Miami, Florida Ken Jenkins, BS Carnegie Mellon, Electrical Engineer San Rafael, CA John Franklin, P.E. * Lubec, ME John Shinn, phD., Chemical Engineer Pleasant Hill, CA Peter Gibbons P.E., Professional Engineer * Mccausland,, Iowa John Rexroat, Mfr. Engineer Walnut Creek, CA Mr. Cameron Porter PHD, Mechanical Engineer * Boston, Massachusetts Anthony Szamboti, BSME, Mechanical Engineering Blackwood, NJ Peter D. Morse, P.E., Mechanical Engineer Tucson, Arizona Christopher Backus, BS, Mechanical Engineering Redmond, WA Tim Rohach P.E., Mechanical Engineer MSME Sugar Land, Texas Jason Griffin, BS, Civil Engineer Washington Dc, Barry K. Miller, P.E., Mechanical Engineer Hinsdale, NY Jay Easwaran, Ph.D. (Metallurgy & Materials Sci.), Metallurgical Engineer * Indianapolis, Indiana Charles N. Pegelow, PE, Civil Engineer. lic Calif CE 26344 (Structural) Houston, Texas John Sotelo, BSME, MD, Mechanical Engineer * Eureka, CA Ron Paul LeBlanc, PE, Engineer Firestone, CO S. Drake, Electrical Engineer * Bear, DE Dennis J. Kollar, P.E., Structural Engineer * West Bend, WI Ron Wilson, Engineering Staff * Fort Worth, Texas David Gregg Ph.D., Chemical Engineer Moraga, California James Brooks, B. Civil Eng, University of Texas, Engineering Consultant * Austin, TX Andrew Griffith B.S. Chemical Engineering, Engineering * Seattle, WA Richard Besco, Engineering Staff * San Luis Obispo, CA Keith E. Fleming BS Mechanical Engineering, Engineering Staff * Auburn, GA Mike Meyer, Mechanical Engineer Tempe, AZ Henry Rozumski, Aerospace Engineer/ Analyst * Aiea, HI Jeff Rogers MSME, Engineer * Woodland Park, CO Rich Reed, B.S. Structural Engineering, UC San, Structural / Soils Engineer San Diego, California David Wilkins, Electrical Engineer * San Jose, CA Robert Hulsart, Computer Engineer Franklin Square, NY Warren J Raftshol, MS Civil Engineering, 1982 * Suttons Bay, Michigan James R. Northrup, Sr., Welding Engineer & Journeyman Steamfitter Ypsilanti, MI Rich McCampbell, BS ChemE * Boston, MA Jon Marino, BSCE, EIT, Design Engineer Phoenix, AZ Victor Connor MS in electrical and computer engine, retired engineer from IBM and taught applied compu Normal, IL William Edward Parker, Retired Engineer * Louisville, KY Gene Robinson, B.S. Industrial Engineer non-licensed * Savannah, Georgia Non-U.S. Architects and Engineers & Architectural and Engineering Professionals David Quinn, M.Arch, Intern Architect * Halifax, NS – Canada Lydia A. Browne, M. Arch, Architectural Consultant, Strategy * London, (formally of Cincinnati, OH) – United Kingdom Joe Rowling, Architectural staff London, London – UK John L Bursill, Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineer Avionics * Sydney, NSW – Australia Massimo Dell'Affidabilità, Ing., Engineer, Structural Specialist * Milano, Lombardia – Italy Robert Tamaki, M.A.Sc., P.Eng., Civil Engineer Vancouver, BC – Canada Brian McHugh IEng ACIBSE BSc PgD, Engineer * Glasgow, UK – Scotland Graham Richardson, Building Services * Amersham, Bucks – UK Abhinav Dhaka, Student * New Delhi, Delhi – India Amy Dalgarno, Mechanical Engineering Student * Marywell, Scotland – UK Doug Plumb, B. Eng, (Electrical) Toronto, ON – Canada Andrew Chapman BSc MA, Student * Newcastle Upon Tyne, Tyne & Wear – England Others and Students Angelo Petraglia, B. Arch., Student * Jackson, NJ Declan Duggan, Intern Architect * Manchester, Lanchashire Troy Sexton, Student * Charleston, West Virginia Ellis Goldberg BSEET, MBA, Marketing Engineering Consultant Danville, CA Bradford McDermott, Engineer * Marina Del Rey, CA Ringhio Gattuso, Engineer * Milan, Italy Patrick Bowers, Civil Engineering Designer * Lusby, MD Mr. Roman Dulgarov, Student * Goose Creek, South Carolina Joe Martin, Engineering Staff * Hartford, CT Victor Baker, Student * San Antonio, TX Dr P S Gill MD, Medical Doctor * Southampton, Hampshire – UK Matthew Naus, Teacher * Milwaukee, Wisconsin E. Nicholas Milam, Esq., lawyer * Evanston, Illinois John Parulis, Licensed California Contractor San Rafael, CA Kirk Jaskoviak, RLA, Landscape Archiitect Hardwick, Massachusetts Ralph Collins, ASLA, APA, Landscape Architect / Planner * Conifer, CO Rudy Scarfalloto, Chiropractor, teacher * Atlanta, GA Bill Donnelly, Computer Consultant Chico, CA Jason Northrup, Computer Tech/IT Consultant * San Rafael, CA Brooke Stiltner, IT Consultant/Student * San Francisco, CA Robert S. Lynch, Structural Steel Detailer * Falls City, TX Sam Christmas, Technical Support Analyst * Brighton, Uk, East Sussex – UK Randy Caruso, Web Designer * Beacon, NY Rita Hill, Software Engineer * Trinidad, CO John Mustanich, Mr. * Millbrae, CA Bruce Allen Hendricks MPA, F.Ph., Master Photographer * Winnipeg, Manitoba – Canada John Albanese, Independent Filmmaker * New York, New York Brian Roussel, Technical Manager * Walnut Creek, CA richard ricci, ironworker local 40 nyc * Yonkers, NY Craig Ranke, Pentagon Research Expert * San Clemente, CA William O. West * Reseda, CA Donald W. Stacey, JD, MBA, Investment Banker (Retired) * Beverly, MA Ian Woods, BLA, Graduate of Landscape Architecture (U of T) * Toronto, ON – Canada John Gannon, Director Of Photography * Los Angeles, CA Jonathan Christopher Deprez, concerned citizen * Raleigh, NC Robert Sorenson C.P.O., Orthotist and Prosthetist * Oceanside, California Christopher A. Brown, Engineering staff, Survey Party Chief * Santa Barbara, california Steve Pallister, Mr * Perth, Western Australia – Australia Gregg Roberts, Business Analyst, Technical Writer/Editor Austin, TX Franklin Smith, millwright * Trafalgar, IN. Brian Hayes, Student * Bloomfield, NJ Brian Smith, Brother of Firefighter Kevin Smith (deceased 09/11 Rocky Point, New York Michael J Taillon, Project Manager * Waldorf, MD Debra Ellis, Educated Citizen * Haddon Heights, New Jersey Martin Mellor, Engineering Consultant Leuven, VB – Belgium Gabrielle Weiss, Student of Life * Rushville, New York S. A. Ferguson, American Patriot * Roanoke, Texas Christopher Emery, Doc. Film Producer / Director / Writer * Oklahoma City, OK Robert M Clement, Mr. * Hartford, CT Justin Keogh, Physics Student * Tucson, AZ Harrison Heitman, Student * Conyers, GA Matthew Fiorito, Student * La Grande, Oregon tonya morrison, Student * Houston, TX Jillian Kosmuk, Student * Winnipeg, Manitoba – Canada John Briggs, Student * Seattle, Washington Ryan K., Student * Clute, TX Erik Kamfjord, Student * Oslo, Oslo – Norway Christel Trutmann, Student * Ithaca, NY Matt Hill, IT Tech Student South Bend, IN Gabriella Sankovich Richmond, CA Thomas Spellman, Urban Activist Lake Geneva, WI Bruce A. Scherzer, Retired Power lineman * Bay City, Michigan Wally Trach, Web Consultant * Spokane, Washington Frank Shap, Local Government Manager, Degreed Engineer * Oakland, Maryland Aziz Benhelel, Teacher Setif, Setif – Algeria Regis Hohman, president * Braddock, PA Christopher Bibb BSc (Hons), Software Engineer * Swansea, West Glamorgan – Wales Paul Doherty * Manchester, Lancashire – England Lon Waters, Ph.D., Mathematician * Albuquerque, New Mexico Dean M. Jackson, Research Analyst * Washington, Dc, DC George Berman, BSc Hon, Systems Programmer * Winnipeg, Manitoba – Canada Robert Podolsky, M.S., Physicist / Engineer * Boca Raton, FL James Watson BSc, Mr Glasgow, South Lanarkshire – United Kingdom Conrad Mancuso A.O.C.A.D., Construction Project Manager Barrie, Ontario – Canada David Chen, Software Engineer * New York, NY Robert S. Fritzius, Electrical Engineer (Retired, Non-licensed) Starkville, Mississippi Gary Allen MS/CS, Software Engineer * Raleigh, NC Adam Sowa, Automotive Technician Palatine, IL Evelyn Gilbert, Model Maker/Researcher/Writer Ralgan, Waikato – New Zealand Mick Renner, PhD, Sr. Technical Writer * Berkeley, CA Bruce Abderholden, Fire Fighter / EMT * Evening Shade, AR Joe Stokes, Artist, Teacher * Dallas, Texas Teetle Clawson, CFO * Santa Cruz, CA Rolando Valle, College Graduate Chicago, IL * Pending hardcopy or other verification
Recommended Posts