Cap'n Refsmmat Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 A very valid point 'Haezed', well lets see what the 9/11 Commission Chairman Thomas Kean and Vice-Chairman Lee Hamilton had to say about the integrity of the information they were given in creating this 'respected' report. Quote, "Fog of war could explain why some people were confused on the day of 9/11, but it could not explain why all of the after-action reports, accident investigations and public testimony by FAA and NORAD officials advanced an account of 9/11 that was untrue." Oh dear, I suppose they must be 'conspiracy nuts' too. Presumably, after realizing it was all untrue, they told the truth in the report. I mean, you don't usually say "it's all wrong, but here's a report based on it." Now stop the stupid sarcastic comments.
Haezed Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 Haezed, you would like some peer reviewed papers - these any good? http://www.journalof911studies.com/ Oh, and Haezed, take a look at just how independent the 911 Commission was, it might just shock you. Most are cronies of Bush and the GOP's. Should not a public inquiry be fully independent, able to subpeona witnesses and examine them under oath, demand access to important papers etc etc... Need I go on?? Let's take a look to see the peer reviewed journals you cite: Vol. 12. 1. Laura Manwell, Ph.D. Candidate Behavioral Neuroscience, University of Guelph, speaks glowingly of the 9/11 "truth movement." Doesn't sound like someone with an open mind to me. 2. Doesn't seem to be a peer reviewed journal either. The only title in the bunch is an architect. Do you know how many architects there are in the world? 3. Nope. This is a letter not a journal. Jenkins appears to be with the "Hazardous Waste Identification Division." Impressive. 4. Nope. Another letter by Jenkins. Is Vol. 11 any better? Why don't you just pick the single one of these articles that is published in a peer reviewed journal?
Haezed Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 A very valid point 'Haezed', well lets see what the 9/11 Commission Chairman Thomas Kean and Vice-Chairman Lee Hamilton had to say about the integrity of the information they were given in creating this 'respected' report. Quote, "Fog of war could explain why some people were confused on the day of 9/11, but it could not explain why all of the after-action reports, accident investigations and public testimony by FAA and NORAD officials advanced an account of 9/11 that was untrue." Oh dear, I suppose they must be 'conspiracy nuts' too. You'll accept all that Kean has to say on this subject? I guess you disagree with the other poster that the report was a hack job? In context, was Kean really supporting a conspiracy theory? That would be news to me. I think what he was saying is that certain individuals did some CYA after the fact. Hardly surprising and in no way proof of a conspiracy theory. Besides, you dodge my question: What is your theory? Did the 9/11 attackers simply not exist? Were the planes emptied, the passengers disappeared and the planes remote controlled into the buildings? Did the US government know the plot was going to happen and time a demolition to coincide with the attacks so the buildings would fall? Not sure why the buildings falling is such a big deal, but I'd at least like to know what the theory is so we can test it for reasonability.
Tree99 Posted June 16, 2007 Author Posted June 16, 2007 Presumably, after realizing it was all untrue, they told the truth in the report. I mean, you don't usually say "it's all wrong, but here's a report based on it." Now stop the stupid sarcastic comments. Temper temper 'Cap'n Refsmmat', I'm not as you imply making 'stupid sarcastic comments' but quoting two individuals who are perhaps the most appropriate people on the planet to call those reports in to question. You will quite happily find this statement in their book 'Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 911 Commission', which was released after the 9/11 Commission was published. So lets back that up with a statement made by Peter Rundlet, Counsel for the 9/11 Commission: "A mixture of shock, anger, and sadness overcame me when I read about revelations in Bob Woodward’s new book about a special surprise visit that George Tenet and his counterterrorism chief Cofer Black made to Condi Rice, also on July 10, 2001 ... If true, it is shocking that the administration failed to heed such an overwhelming alert from the two officials in the best position to know. Many, many questions need to be asked and answered about this revelation — questions that the 9/11 Commission would have asked, had the Commission been told about this significant meeting. Suspiciously, the Commissioners and the staff investigating the administration’s actions prior to 9/11 were never informed of the meeting. The Commission interviewed Condoleezza Rice privately and during public testimony; it interviewed George Tenet three times privately and during public testimony; and Cofer Black was also interviewed privately and publicly. All of them were obligated to tell the truth. Apparently, none of them described this meeting, the purpose of which clearly was central to the Commission’s investigation. Moreover, document requests to both the White House and to the CIA should have revealed the fact that this meeting took place. Now, more than two years after the release of the Commission’s report, we learn of this meeting from Bob Woodward. Was it covered up? It is hard to come to a different conclusion. ... At a minimum, the withholding of information about this meeting is an outrage. Very possibly, someone committed a crime. And worst of all, they failed to stop the plot." . You can find this at http://www.thinkprogress.org/2006/09/30/911-meeting/
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 Temper temper 'Cap'n Refsmmat', I'm not as you imply making 'stupid sarcastic comments' but quoting two individuals who are perhaps the most appropriate people on the planet to call those reports in to question. Oh dear, I suppose they must be 'conspiracy nuts' too. I think you have a reading comprehension problem.
Babar Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 Couldn't be sulphur from a thermate reaction could it Cap'n?? There were of course tens of thousands of tons of gypsum wallboard (=plasterboard in the UK) in the towers. Gypsum is calcium sulphate.
bascule Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 And 'bascule' we are not talking about molten aluminum, look at this extract again from the FEMA report on examined steel: "The results of the examination are striking. They reveal a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused "intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese.... Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation." This is not just 'any metal' it's a steel girder. So can you kindly explain how these sorts of temperatures were acheived? Notice none of that says the girders melted into molten metal. That's a red herring. I thought this whole discussion was about video of molten metal taken at 9/11. The above paragraph does not appear to describe a possible source for that. Molten aluminum from the plane's fuselage does.
Babar Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 Notice none of that says the girders melted into molten metal. That's a red herring. I thought this whole discussion was about video of molten metal taken at 9/11. The above paragraph does not appear to describe a possible source for that. Molten aluminum from the plane's fuselage does. And significantly that stream of whatever was pouring from the building just where the plane debris would have piled up inside, ie opposite the entry point.
spivver Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 Right. So you want us to trust a journal created with the intent of proving a point. Hardly unbiased. Five democrats, five republics. Hardly "most." That would be nice, but it would be worrisome to have an independent group going around subpoena-ing things. Cap'n, we "conspiracy nuts" have been accused of not referring to peer reviewed papers, so we point you all at some which you then just dismiss, without any reasons whatsoever, not very scientific, is it? I tell you what, after you have studied those papers written by the engineers and scientists, why don't you give us your full reasons why they are wrong. I'll pass those reasons on to the relevant authors of the papers, and get back to you with their replies, can hardly be fairer than that, can I? And as regards your comments about an independent inquiry, the very purpose of an inquiry is to seek out the truth, and if witnesses and documents are unforthcoming, then I would expect the board to be able to issue subpeonas to obtain them. After all, as stated before, that is the very purpose of an inquiry. You do, sometimes, seem to have some very strange opinions..
urchin Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 Just so I understand, how do conspiracy theorists get around the detailed and respected 9/11 commission report which details how the 9/11 attackers came into the country, gathered their resources, and then attacked? Is the theory that they were US government agents? Was Osama also in our pocket when he claimed credit for the attacks? I guess that's why we never found him?! Osama has never claimed responsibility for the events of 911. There is no evidence to this day to connect Osama with events on 911. Here is the FBI list of alleged crimes committed by Osama. Note, 911 is not even mentioned. http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm
urchin Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 So now you have to explain how thermite would keep burning in the rubble days after the collapse. Once a thermate reaction is started it requires no oxygen. This is a perfect explanation of how molten metal would be found under a mountain of rubble. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5606171410622510513&q=brainiac+thermite&total=18&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=8 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermate
insane_alien Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 but a thermite reaction also burns quite fast. it would be gone in a few hours tops.
urchin Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 but a thermite reaction also burns quite fast. it would be gone in a few hours tops. 1..Thermate charges in the basement = molten metal. 2.. Thermate cutting charges used on the core= molten metal 3..Liquefied molten metal runs to the basement .Gravity 4.. Blow up the building we normally use dynamite. This causes the pulverisation effect seen on the concrete. 5.. Debris and fine dust cover the basement levels insulating the molten metal. The result produces something similar to a furnace. If you have molten metal in a furnace and then switch off the heating source the molten metal remains. It takes days to shut down an empty furnace. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2164562607157128626&q=demolished+wtc+7&total=519&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=9
insane_alien Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 and the fact that the towers collapsed from the top down?
Jennifer Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 and the fact that the towers collapsed from the top down? Darn, i was just about to bring this up. I was watching Bowling for Columbine and decided to rewatch the WTC attack. (I felt like being a liberal today ) Anyway, I was watching and I noticed the planes didn't hit the center of the buildings, they hit near the top. (Where I assume the buildings were weaker.) I can only assume that it wasn't only the heat that caused the first tower to fall, but the combination of the force of the planes hitting the skyscraper, (Even wind has been known to cause skyscrapers to sway), the weakening of the metal from the heat, and the weight of the top part of the tower that caused the top to fall onto the rest of the tower. And of course, this started the domino effect that destroyed the rest of the area. Not to mention that, for all we know, there may have been explosives on the planes themselves. Of course, as I've said before, I'm not a scientist, nor am I even educated (I'm working on it!) but in my opinion, whether the U.S. Goverment had a part or not, two 747s had enough power in themselves to destroy the tower.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 Cap'n, we "conspiracy nuts" have been accused of not referring to peer reviewed papers, so we point you all at some which you then just dismiss, without any reasons whatsoever, not very scientific, is it? I tell you what, after you have studied those papers written by the engineers and scientists, why don't you give us your full reasons why they are wrong. I'll pass those reasons on to the relevant authors of the papers, and get back to you with their replies, can hardly be fairer than that, can I? I just love how you ignore my reasoning and then tell me I have no reasoning. Tell you what, how about you read my post again and get back to me? And as regards your comments about an independent inquiry, the very purpose of an inquiry is to seek out the truth, and if witnesses and documents are unforthcoming, then I would expect the board to be able to issue subpeonas to obtain them. After all, as stated before, that is the very purpose of an inquiry. You do, sometimes, seem to have some very strange opinions.. And if you give a private board the ability to do things a court only has the authority to do, there are legal issues that arise. Once a thermate reaction is started it requires no oxygen. This is a perfect explanation of how molten metal would be found under a mountain of rubble. That still doesn't explain how it kept burning for so long.
spivver Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 I just love how you ignore my reasoning and then tell me I have no reasoning. Tell you what, how about you read my post again and get back to me? And if you give a private board the ability to do things a court only has the authority to do, there are legal issues that arise. Cap'n, you're all supposed to be the eminent scientists, how about you tell me why those peer reviewed papers I have pointed you to are in error, and I'll run your reasoning across the physicists and engineers who authored them. I believe that you either haven't got the guts, or you are unable to displace their hypotheses. And as regards an inquiry board, these do normally have the powers of a court. And my exact words were "independent inquiry", don't change the wording to obfuscate the arguments, a tactic I note is quite usual for this forum of "scientists" And Jennifer, you're not a scientist, and neither am I, so I don't see that as any problem. Indeed, that is why I am seeking proper scientific explanations from the eminent scientists here (for I know that theCPE tells me he is one), as to why some scientists who assert that the towers could not have fallen at speeds approaching free-fall are wrong. Not having much success so far. Try this out for yourself, as a non-scientist, just tell me in the diagram below which top block of the tower you would expect to hit the street first, the left hand one or the right hand one?
insane_alien Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 the right hand one of course. and thats what you would have seen if you done the experiment in real life. the building did no collapse at freefall acceleration. it was close yes but still slower. this can be seen by bits of debris falling over the sides faster than building is collapsing. buildings are designed to support primarily a static load with minimal variation with time. the huge dynamic forces involved with 20 stories dropping even one floor would be enough to void the structural integrity of the lower supports. they would offer nearly insignificant resistance. a practical example of this is to support a tin of soup on a tensioned sheet of paper. the paper will easily support the weight. if you lift the tin of soup up and drop it (even from a modest height) if will fall through the paper as if it wasn't there.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 Cap'n, you're all supposed to be the eminent scientists, how about you tell me why those peer reviewed papers I have pointed you to are in error, and I'll run your reasoning across the physicists and engineers who authored them. I believe that you either haven't got the guts, or you are unable to displace their hypotheses. Not physicists and engineers, students of neuroscience and experts in nuclear fusion. Not structural engineers. And most of the articles are unrelated to our current topic, the collapse of the buildings. And Jennifer, you're not a scientist, and neither am I, so I don't see that as any problem. Indeed, that is why I am seeking proper scientific explanations from the eminent scientists here (for I know that theCPE tells me he is one), as to why some scientists who assert that the towers could not have fallen at speeds approaching free-fall are wrong. Not having much success so far. Try this out for yourself, as a non-scientist, just tell me in the diagram below which top block of the tower you would expect to hit the street first, the left hand one or the right hand one? The diagram is misleading simply because it portrays the buildings as solid blocks, and they're small, too. Let's try a thought experiment instead: Design a 93-story tall building out of steel and concrete. It must be able to catch another 14-story building, of identical structure, falling from a height of 20 feet directly above it, without sustaining significant structural damage. Hard, isn't it? Remember that each floor of the WTC buildings was covered with concrete, too. Now pause for thought. Sure, the top floors might have had a hard time collapsing, but they weren't moving very fast. The longer the building had to fall, the more momentum it had - from mass (it collected more floors as it went) and acceleration (from gravity). If there was a 1/4 of a second delay on the top floor, there was perhaps a 1/64 second delay on the bottom. Also, claiming that the collapse was exactly 11 seconds is rather misleading. By the time the collapse has progressed to the bottom of the towers, there is so much dust and debris flying everywhere that it is impossible to determine just when the collapse stops, even in video. So it may have taken 15 seconds, or 18, or anything. Unless you had a guy with a stopwatch standing on the observation deck, you can't really claim it was "near free-fall speeds."
spivver Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 Not physicists and engineers, students of neuroscience and experts in nuclear fusion. Not structural engineers. And most of the articles are unrelated to our current topic, the collapse of the buildings. OK Cap'n, I'm going to take it that you are unable to argue why these scientists' hypothesis are wrong at http://www.journalof911studies.com . I had assumed http://www.scienceforum.net was a science forum, and also assumed you had all science branches here, no?? One I mentioned earlier is specifically to do with the collapse - of course, you all ignored it at the time http://impactglassman.blogspot.com/2007/01/hand-waving-physics-of-911.html I'll let Dr Griscom know your specific arguments as to why his writings are wrong, once you've had a chance to write them. In addition, this one also deals with the collapse: http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf Again I'll be more than willing to let Gordon Ross know of your reasons why you think his paper is flawed and then get back to you. I'm looking, however, for specific scientific arguments as to why they are wrong, not simply "this part crashed through that part" type of arguments, you are, after all, eminent scientists, the CPE advises me so. Both Dr Griscom and Gordon Ross have detailed out their hypothesis, so it is incumbent upon you also so to do. Unless, of course, you are unable to?? Insane_Alien states of the lower floors "they would offer nearly insignificant resistance" as the top was collapsing. Really?? Oh, and Cap'n, pertaining to your last line above, don't forget that there is agreement between NIST and the "conspiracy nuts" about the times of the collapses, pretty much at free-fall speeds. Oh, and another thing, you've not taken into account the energy required for the extreme pulverisation of the concrete and steel which was going on. Energy calculations, momentum, finite potential energy at start of collapse, conservation of energy (kinetic energy the moment before impact of a lower floor must be virtually the same as the kinetic energy the moment after impact (and I'm talking here of micro split seconds before and after impact for the avoidance of any doubt)... come on guys, you're the scientists.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 One I mentioned earlier is specifically to do with the collapse - of course, you all ignored it at the timehttp://impactglassman.blogspot.com/2007/01/hand-waving-physics-of-911.html I'll let Dr Griscom know your specific arguments as to why his writings are wrong, once you've had a chance to write them. In addition, this one also deals with the collapse: http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf Again I'll be more than willing to let Gordon Ross know of your reasons why you think his paper is flawed and then get back to you. Once I have the time, I'll gladly do that. Just wait a bit. Insane_Alien states of the lower floors "they would offer nearly insignificant resistance" as the top was collapsing. Really?? Oh, and Cap'n, pertaining to your last line above, don't forget that there is agreement between NIST and the "conspiracy nuts" about the times of the collapses, pretty much at free-fall speeds. Oh, and another thing, you've not taken into account the energy required for the extreme pulverisation of the concrete and steel which was going on. Energy calculations, momentum, finite potential energy at start of collapse, conservation of energy (kinetic energy the moment before impact of a lower floor must be virtually the same as the kinetic energy the moment after impact (and I'm talking here of micro split seconds before and after impact for the avoidance of any doubt)... come on guys, you're the scientists. http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm NIST says: 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' date=' 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). [...'] In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass. From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely. Note the bolded stuff. It's important.
insane_alien Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 http://www.math.wisc.edu/~robbin/angelic/911.pdf there, a mathematical model for the collapse of the towers taking into account the the acceleration and added mass of the floors as the top block hits the lower floors. comes out with similar times to the real world situation.uses more physics than that last guy. and it actually uses the equations. <ADDITIONAL> just out of curiosity i calculated the average acceleration of the collapse. you all know the basic formula s=0.5*a*t2 rearrange that and you get a=2*s/t2 so lets calculate using the time of 11 seconds for collapse. so t=11 s the roofs were 417 metres high so s = 417 m great we can work it out. a=2*417/(11*11) a=6.89 ms-2 now thats not exactly free fall acceleration(9.81 ms-2) is it? infact its only 7 tenths of freefall. stop saying it fell at near free fall rates
spivver Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 Once I have the time, I'll gladly do that. Just wait a bit. I'm a patient man. And Insane_Alien, I've studied those calculations you have linked to. Now my problem is this, these calculations do not appear to take any account of energy used in doing work, that work being the pulverisation of the steel and concrete during the collapse. At least, and not being myself a scientist, I cannot see anything in them which leads me to believe any account is taken of energy loss as a result of work done (I assume you will agree that the pulverisation of the steel and concrete will take energy, and I also assume that you saw the pulverisation going on in the many videos available on the Internet). Anyway, you are the scientists, maybe you can point me in the direction as to where in the calculations provision is made for this. My interpretation of the calculations is that they pertain to inelastic collisions only??
insane_alien Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 and what about the calculation i done showing the average acceleration of the collapse do you have issues with that too? the work one in fragmenting the concrete would likely by quite small compared to the potential energy of the building. its not as if it was impact resistant concrete.
spivver Posted June 17, 2007 Posted June 17, 2007 the work done in fragmenting the concrete would likely be quite small compared to the potential energy of the building. its not as if it was impact resistant concrete. Why?? Pretty much the whole building was pulverised!!!
Recommended Posts