i know ogv's got me on ignore, but for anyone else that cares:
quote:
Originally posted by ogvh5150
Back on topic:
Thirteen Reasons to Challenge Government-sponsored Reports and Investigate the Controlled-demolition Hypothesis
1. Molten Metal: Flowing and in Pools
There are several published observations of molten metal in the basements of all three buildings, WTC 1, 2 (“Twin Towers”) and 7. For example, Dr. Keith Eaton toured Ground Zero and stated in The Structural Engineer,
‘They showed us many fascinating slides’ [Eaton] continued, ‘ranging from molten metal which was still red hot weeks after the event, to 4-inch thick steel plates sheared and bent in the disaster’. (Structural Engineer, September 3, 2002, p. 6; emphasis added.)
The existence of molten metal at Ground Zero was reported by several observers (see first photograph above), including Greg Fuchek:
For six months after Sept. 11, the ground temperature varied between 600 degrees Fahrenheit and 1,500 degrees, sometimes higher. “In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel,” Fuchek said. (Walsh, 2002)
its interesting that here, molten metal is not explained. they havent connected the dots, nor have they stated what the molten metal was. why is molten metal evidence of demolition? i would like this explained further. but, for the record, thermite produces molten iron and not molten steel, and lets not forget all the molten aluminum from each aircraft, like this:
quote:
Originally posted by ogvh5150
2. Observed Temperatures around 1000°C and Sulfidation in WTC 7 Steel
One of the relatively few previous peer-reviewed papers relating to the WTC collapses provides \"An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7.\" This brief but important letter states:
While the exact location of this beam could not be determined, the unexpected erosion of the steel found in this beam warranted a study of microstructural changes that occurred in this steel. Examination of other sections in this beam is underway.
ANALYSIS Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1000°C by a process similar to making a “blacksmith’s weld” in a hand forge. (Barnett, 2001)
what does this mean? the fire reached 1000C?
quote:
Originally posted by ogvh5150
3. Near-Symmetrical Collapse of WTC 7
As you observed (link above), WTC 7 collapsed rapidly and nearly-straight-down symmetrically -- even though fires were randomly scattered in the building. WTC 7 fell about seven hours after the Towers collapsed, even though no major persistent fires were visible (considerable dark smoke was seen). There were twenty-four huge steel support columns inside WTC 7 as well as huge trusses, arranged non-symmetrically, along with some fifty-seven perimeter columns, as indicated in the diagram below (FEMA, 2002, chapter 5; NIST, 2005).
no major visible fires were visible huh? so why do the firemen on the scene disagree?
quote:
\"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
quote:
Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area -- (Q. A collapse zone?) -- Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it. There was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolants and so on. And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed. - Chief Cruthers
quote:
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
quote:
Firehouse: Did that chief give an assignment to go to building 7?
Boyle: He gave out an assignment. I didn’t know exactly what it was, but he told the chief that we were heading down to the site.
Firehouse: How many companies?
Boyle: There were four engines and at least three trucks. So we’re heading east on Vesey, we couldn’t see much past Broadway. We couldn’t see Church Street. We couldn’t see what was down there. It was really smoky and dusty.\"
\"A little north of Vesey I said, we’ll go down, let’s see what’s going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.
But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see.
So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.
Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?
Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.
Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?
Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.
Originally posted by ogvh5150
4. No Previous Skyscraper Complete Collapse Due to Fires
A New York Times article entitled “Engineers are baffled over the collapse of 7 WTC; Steel members have been partly evaporated,” provides relevant data.
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…
The WTC [itself] was the location for such a fire in 1975; however, the building survived with minor damage and was repaired and returned to service.” (Glover, 2002)
quote:
A challenge to conspiracy theorist:
1) Find a steel frame building at least 40 stories high
2) Which takes up a whole city block
3) And is a Tube in a tube design
4) Which came off its core columns at the bottom floors (Earthquake, fire, whatever - WTC 7)
5) Which was struck by another building or airliner and had structural damage as a result.
6) And weakened by fire for over 6 hours
7) which had trusses that were bolted on with two 5/8\" bolts.
And after all seven tests are met the building didn't fall down. Anyone dissecting this into 7 separate events is lying to you.
im still waiting for anyone to acknowledge this.
quote:
Originally posted by ogvh5150
5. Squib-timing during the Collapse of WTC 7
Horizontal puffs of smoke and debris are observed emerging from WTC-7 on upper floors, in regular sequence, just as the building starts to collapse. (The reader may wish to view the close-up video clip again.) The upper floors have evidently not moved relative to one another yet, from what one can observe from the videos. In addition, the timing between the puffs is less than 0.2 seconds so air-expulsion due to collapsing floors (see Chertoff, 2005) is evidently excluded. Free-fall time for a floor to fall down to the next floor is significantly longer than 0.2 seconds: the equation for free fall, y = ½ gt2, yields a little over 0.6 seconds, as this is near the initiation of the collapse.
id like to see the real evidence of this. if its as reliable as the rest of the half-truths distributed by the poor researchers i have my doubts as to anything in this statement. what is interesting to note is that i still havent heard a reason for demolishing the building. exactly what did it gain? i expect this question and others, to be ignored.
the alleged squibs ive seen other conspiracy sites point to are nothing but parts of a damaged building doing what a damaged building does- crumbling.
quote:
Originally posted by ogvh5150
7. Eyewitness Accounts of Flashes and Loud Explosions
Multiple loud explosions in rapid sequence were heard and reported by numerous observers in and near the WTC Towers, consistent with explosive demolition. Firemen and others described flashes and explosions in upper floors near where the plane entered, and in lower floors of WTC 2 just prior to its collapse, far below the region where the plane had struck the tower (Dwyer, 2005). For instance, at the start of the collapse of the South Tower a Fox News anchor reported:
There is an explosion at the base of the building… white smoke from the bottom… something happened at the base of the building! Then another explosion.” (De Grand Pre, 2002, emphasis added.)
Firefighter Edward Cachia independently reported:
[We] thought there was like an internal detonation, explosives, because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down…It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit. (Dwyer, 2005; emphasis added.)
i refer people back to occrider's comment regarding eye witness testimony and its reliability. and also the fact that these 'explosions' could have been caused by all kinds of things in this kind of environment.
quote:
Originally posted by ogvh5150
8. Ejection of Steel Beams and Debris-plumes from the Towers
The horizontal ejection of structural steel members for hundreds of feet and the pulverization of concrete to flour-like powder, observed clearly in the collapses of the WTC towers, provide further evidence for the use of explosives – as well-explained in http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/towers/index.html. (See also, Griffin, 2004, chapter 2.) The observed plumes or \"squibs\" are far below the pulverization region and therefore deserving of particular attention. They appear much like the plumes observed in http://www.implosionworld.com/cinema.htm (e.g., the controlled demolition of the Southwark Towers).
Unlike WTC7, the twin towers appear to have been exploded “top-down” rather than proceeding from the bottom – which is unusual for controlled demolition but clearly possible, depending on the order in which explosives are detonated. That is, explosives may have been placed on higher floors of the towers and exploded via radio signals so as to have early explosions near the region where the plane entered the tower. Certainly this hypothesis ought to be seriously considered in an independent investigation using all available data.
for anything relating to so-called squibs, please see [/QUOTE]HERE
quote:
Originally posted by ogvh5150
9. Rapid Collapses and Conservation of Momentum and Energy
The NIST team fairly admits that their report “does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached.” (NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 12; emphasis added.) Quite a confession, since much of the external evidence for explosive demolition typically comes after collapse initiation, as seen in cases of acknowledged controlled demolition. (Harris, 2000.) The NIST report could be called the official \"pre-collapse theory.\"
so, what this says is that because they didnt look for evidence of an explosion at the time of collapse, there must have been one? if you say so.
quote:
Originally posted by ogvh5150
10. Controlled Demolition “Implosions” Require Skill
The occurrence of nearly symmetrical, straight-down and complete collapses of the WTC 7 and the Towers is particularly upsetting to the “official” theory that random fires plus damage caused all these collapses. Even with high-level cutting charges, achieving such results requires a great deal of pre-planning and expertise. As Tom Harris, an authority in this field, has explained:
The main challenge in bringing a building down is controlling which way it falls. Ideally, a blasting crew will be able to tumble the building over on one side, into a parking lot or other open area. This sort of blast is the easiest to execute. Tipping a building over is something like felling a tree. To topple the building to the north, the blasters detonate explosives on the north side of the building first…
Sometimes, though, a building is surrounded by structures that must be preserved. In this case, the blasters proceed with a true implosion, demolishing the building so that it collapses straight down into its own footprint (the total area at the base of the building). This feat requires such skill that only a handful of demolition companies in the world will attempt it.
Blasters approach each project a little differently... [A good] option is to detonate the columns at the center of the building before the other columns so that the building's sides fall inward.... Generally speaking, blasters will explode the major support columns on the lower floors first and then a few upper stories… [nb: The upper floors then fall as a tamper, resulting in “progressive collapse”-- this is common in controlled demolition.] (Harris, 2000; emphasis added.)
wow. this has absolutely nothing to add whatsoever. there is no evidence here, not even an argument. for the record, WTC7 did not collapse the same way as the towers, WTC fell like this:
quote:
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 theorist point out, it is evidence for a normal collapse by fire. I think they're right.
the towers fell the way they did due to their unique design.
quote:
Originally posted by ogvh5150
11. Steel Column Temperatures of 800°C Needed: A Problem in the Argument of Bazant and Zhou
A Mechanical Engineering professor suggested that I review a paper by Zedenek P. Bazant and Yong Zhou, which I did. Quoting:
The 110-story towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand as a whole the forces caused by a horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft. So why did a total collapse occur? (Bazant and Zhou, 2002, p. 2.)
Correct – the WTC Towers were designed to withstand forces caused by large commercial aircraft – we can agree on that. MIT’s Thomas Eagar also concurs “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).
We continue with Bazant & Zhou:
The conflagration, caused by the aircraft fuel spilled into the structure, causes the steel of the columns to be exposed to sustained temperatures apparently exceeding 800oC… (Bazant and Zhou, 2002, p. 2.)
But here we note from the recent NIST report that: “The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes” and office material fires would burn out within about 20 minutes in a given location. (NIST, 2005; p. 179, emphasis added.) Certainly jet fuel burning was not enough to raise steel to sustained temperatures above 800oC. But we continue:
Once more than half of the columns in the critical floor.. suffer buckling (stage 3), the weight of the upper part of the structure above this floor can no longer be supported, and so the upper part starts falling down onto the lower part below…”(Bazant and Zhou, 2002, p. 2.)
Bazant & Zhou do not explain how “more than half of the columns in the critical floor [can] suffer buckling” at the same time to precipitate the complete and nearly symmetrical collapse observed. There were 47 huge steel core columns in each Tower, and 24 such support columns in WTC 7 (NIST 2005; NISTb, 2005).
there have been more structural experts than you can poke a stick at that have examined all the available data, so im gonna side with the majority on this one.
quote:
Originally posted by ogvh5150
12. Problems in the NIST Report: Inadequate Steel Temperatures and Tweaked Models
I have read through the hundreds of pages of the Final NIST report on the collapses of the WTC Towers. (NIST, 2005) It is interesting to note that NIST “decoupled” and delayed their final report on WTC 7, which is overdue as of this writing (NIST, 2005; NISTb, 2005). I agree with some of the NIST report; for example:
Both WTC 1 and WTC 2 were stable after the aircraft impact, standing for 102 min and 56 min, respectively. The global analyses with structural impact damage showed that both towers had considerable reserve capacity. This was confirmed by analysis of the post-impact vibration of WTC 2… where the damaged tower oscillated at a period nearly equal to the first mode period calculated for the undamaged structure. (NIST, 2005, p. 144; emphasis added.)
At any given location, the duration of [air, not steel] temperatures near 1,000oC was about 15 min to 20 min. The rest of the time, the calculated temperatures were near 500oC or below.” (NIST, 2005, p. 127, emphasis added.)
NIST contracted with Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. to conduct tests to obtain information on the fire endurance of trusses like those in the WTC towers… All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing.” (NIST, 2005, p. 140, emphasis added.)
13. NIST's Failure to Show Visualizations
An article in the journal New Civil Engineering (NCE) lends support to concerns about the NIST analysis of the WTC collapses. It states:
World Trade Center disaster investigators [at NIST] are refusing to show computer visualizations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, NCE has learned. Visualisations of collapse mechanisms are routinely used to validate the type of finite element analysis model used by the [NIST] investigators. The collapse mechanism and the role played by the hat truss at the top of the tower has been the focus of debate since the US National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST) published its findings….
University of Manchester [U.K.] professor of structural engineering Colin Bailey said there was a lot to be gained from visualising the structural response. “NIST should really show the visualisations; otherwise the opportunity to correlate them back to the video evidence and identify any errors in the modeling will be lost,” he said….
A leading US structural engineer said NIST had obviously devoted enormous resources to the development of the impact and fire models. “By comparison the global structural model is not as sophisticated,” he said. “The software used [by NIST] has been pushed to new limits, and there have been a lot of simplifications, extrapolations and judgment calls.” (Parker, 2005; emphasis added.)
Here we have serious concerns about the NIST WTC collapse report raised by structural and fire engineers, augmenting the arguments raised here by a physicist.
The thirteen points above provide scientific data and analyses that support my call for an immediate investigation of 9/11 events, while challenging the official story. A few other considerations provide further motivation for the proposed urgent investigation.
so now NIST are in on the conspiracy?
occrider
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
i know ogv's got me on ignore, but for anyone else that cares:
I guess I'm on ignore too : )
colonelcrisp
again let me re-iterate, those videos posted above are of REINFORCED CONCRETE STRUCTURES. thats like me posting crash pics of a honda civic to tell you taht a F-150 doesnt behave well in vehicle crashes.
colonelcrisp
in honor of my ignore list friends i will make one last attempt to teach some of you theorists some insight into the wonderful world that is rational thought......
one of my co workers used to be a project manager for john tinnelly & sons, a major demolition firm in irelend. he and i got into a good run on this topic yesterday and he gave me some nice insight into the difference in practicis between concrete and steel structures.
concrete demolition is very easy compared to steel as concrete is a very brittle material. a 36" by 36" column can be rendered useless by half of a 1/4 stick of dynamite. whereas a steel column of similar strenght would require a 2500-4000 grain rdx high explosive with a copper sheath, as well as a 1/4 stick "kicker" charge. the difference is, once you shatter the concrete, the only thing remaining would be the steel rebar, which is weak and will fail easily. once the rdx and copper sheath cut the steel column, you need to push it aside so it buckles and falls, thats what the kicker charge does, its usually placed above the RDX on the column and is triggered milliseconds afterwards to push the column sideways.
now with all this in mind. lets do a little bit of real world thinking here. all these charges have to be sequenced, and they ahve to be hardwired. you cant accomplish a controlled demolition by wireless detonators since the first blast would most likely render the rest of the detonators useless..... the last thing the govt would want is for some dirty little conspiracy theorist to find a half truckload of unexploded RDX littered around groud zero. so now you have thousands of charges littered around the building with 1/4" yellow det cord running all over the place.
dont you guys think that the office employees wouldnt knotice miles and miles of yellow cord going all over their offices? it would take a fleet of polish workers months to prep a building that size for demolition, not to mention the obvious tell tale signs of workers hanging off the side of the building to partially cut every single column in the building.... people tend to knotice oxy acetylene torches during regular business hours. and before you say it, yes the columns have to be partially cut since they are too big to cut with one charge.
but maybe this is why bush is pushing for this temp worker program, so he can bring in bus loads of cheap mexican labour to prep the next buildign for a controlled demolition / terrorist attack. then he will use the money he saved by paying cheap mexican labor as opposed to american workers, to pay off the thousands of police, fireman, ambulance drivers, and eyewitnesses to keep their mouths shut.....
Game Set Match
colonelcrisp
ok i guess i missed a post that was just begging for a little common sense.
quote:
I would think it to be uncomfortable to burn a box beam like that in a pile of rubble where one would have an accident around this mess. Something like that would have to wait where there would be no worry of the work falling on someone. So to me this picture is odd with the slanted edge like that. If I were to burn through steel like that I would use the least amount of gas by burning a straight line all around and not at an angle like that. Like they used to say in school: the shortest way between two points is a straight line.
well im glad grade 9 geometry taught you one thing....... your right a straight line is shorter....
but what you fail to realize, that when your cutting a 15 + ton beam is that when you cut it off, you want to know for damn sure which way its going to fall.
you see when you cut down a tree, you cut a sloped notch into one side, the straight cut the second side, this causes the tree to fall towards the notched side. savy?
now with a column, when you cut one side the steel will tend to buckle under its own weight (especially when you cut it on an angle, so what you do is cut from high to low, the thermal expansion caused by the spot heating during the cutting will bend your piece away from you. so in this case they would cut the high side of the angle, then cut down on a 45 to the low side, the beam would end up falling in the direction of the cut. and thus they wouldnt have to have 2123408712245908715012573 cranes costing 1000 dollars an hour all over the place just to cut off the columns....
until you can show me photo and video evidence of thermite cutting steel HORIZONTALY, kindly insert your fist into your rectum to block the bull from flowing. and for gods sake stop using falling sparks and weld slag from burned columns as proof.
ok im done for now
pkcRAISTLIN
colonelcrisp is the man.
ogvh5150
quote:
Originally posted by occrider
I guess I'm on ignore too : )
No. The topic is about government cover-up not ogvh5150. I can tolerate you. I said you were close to a troll not an actual troll. Once in a while I like to read your threads and I never spam them with jibberish like some others here.
Let's try to be on topic and pick a fight about the topic. Not pick a fight with me. I'll ignore your comments about me. If you can keep from badgering me and unto the actual debate then fine. If not then i'll just skim your posts but I won't ignore you. You have a more mature quality about you at times.
occrider
quote:
Originally posted by ogvh5150
No. The topic is about government cover-up not ogvh5150. I can tolerate you. I said you were close to a troll not an actual troll. Once in a while I like to read your threads and I never spam them with jibberish like some others here.
Let's try to be on topic and pick a fight about the topic. Not pick a fight with me. I'll ignore your comments about me. If you can keep from badgering me and unto the actual debate then fine. If not then i'll just skim your posts but I won't ignore you. You have a more mature quality about you at times.
Fair enough, my question originated to a specific topic that was one of among 30 or 40 that you posted. Whilst I do not have subject matter expertise as to all of the topics you posted about, I do have subject matter knowledge with respect to at least that one topic that I addressed. Thus I challenged whether you have specific subject matter expertise with respect to ALL the topics you posted about, or whether you were simply posting as a third party advocate. Thus if you are fully cognitive of every issue that you posted, can you address the specific doubts that I raised? Furthermore if you have thoroughly vetted every claim that you have made I would imagine you are confident in your ability to address doubts with respect to ANY of the multitude of issues that you have raised? In summary, I guess my question is are you simply disemminating information which may or may not be factual (whilst recognizing that there is some substnative subjectivity with respect to accuracy and your goal is to simply provide the most comprehensive picture) or are you willing to put your credibility on the line to vouch for the accuracy of the entirety of the media that you source?
ogvh5150
quote:
Originally posted by occrider
I guess my question is are you simply disemminating information which may or may not be factual (whilst recognizing that there is some substnative subjectivity with respect to accuracy and your goal is to simply provide the most comprehensive picture) or are you willing to put your credibility on the line to vouch for the accuracy of the entirety of the media that you source?
I am dissemating information from sources that I would consider credible. This would include gov't reports, public statements by officials, firsthand statements, multiple news sources, etc. I see people are shooting down the sources by discounting them as conspiracy theorists even though they have good information such as Prof. Jones. It's people like him that put their credibility on the line risking their livelihood. I would like for people to stand back and look at the whole picture in an objective mentality and not one with disdain and condescension just because they feel their favorite newscaster has more information than a university professor. As far as I can tell people here don't think I am credible and I don't see I have to prove to them anything, especially if they lean on what mainstream media tells them to. They rather read or listen to a small report rather than investigate for themselves. People are being dumbed down and they are ok with that. Rather than let their inquisitive minds investigate they rather just pounce on me and feel like a victor than actually use a few synapses and neurons to their advantage.
Knowledge makes a man unfit to be a slave
Frederick Douglass
pkcRAISTLIN
quote:
Originally posted by ogvh5150
I am dissemating information from sources that I would consider credible. This would include gov't reports, public statements by officials, firsthand statements, multiple news sources, etc. I see people are shooting down the sources by discounting them as conspiracy theorists even though they have good information such as Prof. Jones.
professor jones?
quote:
Steven E. Jones is a professor at Brigham Young University. He has created the paper which has created the ground swell around the 911 conspiracy theories. His paper was peer reviewed but not by a civil engineering journal. One would think a serious professor would get his paper peer reviewed by a scientific journal which specializes in the field they are writing the paper on.
But is Professor Jones qualified to create a paper which says the towers must have fell due to explosives? He is a physics professor but what experience does Jones have in building collapse forensics? He has none. His other peer reviewed papers consist of cold fusion technology. He conducts research in nuclear fusion and solar energy. Nothing in his background would suggest he is qualified to write a civil engineering paper on the infinitely complex building collapse of the towers.
Brigham Young University doesn't want anything to do with the paper.
A few department chairmen at Jones's university have issued critical statements, though none of these has yet addressed any of the points which Jones made in his paper and at his presentation at BYU. Chairman of the BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Dr. Miller, is on record stating in an e-mail, "I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims".
The BYU physics department has also issued a statement: "The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones's hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones's department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review." The College of Engineering and Technology department has also added, "The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones."
Jones says his paper will pass peer review again. But will it pass peer review in a respected civil engineering journal? Nothing less would be taken seriously.
One of Jones BYU colleagues had this to say after reading his paper...
Letter to the Editor
Refuting 9/11 Conspiracy Theory
April 09, 2006
Dear Editor,
After reading in the Daily Herald the presentations made by Professor Steven E. Jones (BYU Physics) to students at UVSC and BYU, I feel obligated to reply to his "Conspiracy Theory" relating to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center (9/11/01).
I have studied the summary of the report by FEMA, The American Society of Civil Engineers and several other professional engineering organizations. These experts have given in detail the effects on the Towers by the impact of the commercial aircraft. I have also read Professor Jones' (referred to) 42 page unpublished report. In my understanding of structural design and the properties of structural steel I find Professor Jones' thesis that planted explosives (rather than fire from the planes) caused the collapse of the Towers, very unreliable.
The structural design of the towers was unique in that the supporting steel structure consisted of closely spaced columns in the walls of all four sides. The resulting structure was similar to a tube. When the aircraft impacted the towers at speeds of about 500 plus mph, many steel columns were immediately severed and others rendered weak by the following fires. The fires critically damaged the floors systems. Structural steel will begin to lose strength when heated to temperatures above 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. Steel bridge girders are bent to conform to the curved roadway by spot heating flanges between 800 and 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. It is easy to comprehend the loss of carrying capacity of all the structural steel due to the raging fires fed by the jet's fuel as well as aircraft and building contents.
Before one (especially students) supports such a conspiracy theory, they should investigate all details of the theory. To me a practicing structural engineer of 57 continuous years (1941-1998), Professor Jones' presentations are very disturbing.
Originally posted by ogvh5150
they feel their favorite newscaster has more information than a university professor.
yet, for some reason, all the other professors or credible witnesses that disagree with prof. jones are ignored completely? why?
is his status of "university professor" lending more credence to his opinion? if so, perhaps someone might find this interesting:
quote:
EXPERTS CLAIM OFFICIAL 9/11 STORY IS A HOAX
Scholars for 9/11 Truth call for verification and publication by an international consortium.
Duluth, MN (PRWEB)
January 30, 2006 -- A group of distinguished experts and scholars, including Robert M. Bowman, James H. Fetzer, Wayne Madsen, John McMurtry, Morgan Reynolds, and Andreas von Buelow, have concluded that senior government officials have covered up crucial facts about what really happened on 9/11.
Their most famous member, and co-founder, is Steven Jones, a physicist at Brigham Young University. He has become famous for publishing a paper on the WTC collapse. Thus far this paper though, has only been reviewed, not in a journal on physics, or structural engineering, but in a Marxist journal of political economy. BYU itself has rejected his work. Dr. Jones primary research has been, not in structural engineering or the reaction of metals to heat, but in cold fusion, which even in the physics community is regarded as bordering on alchemy. Even more bizarrely, his other famous published work was one right out of the World Weekly News, claiming that Jesus visited Central America based on ancient Indian artwork LINK
quote:
Originally posted by ogvh5150
They rather read or listen to a small report rather than investigate for themselves. People are being dumbed down and they are ok with that. Rather than let their inquisitive minds investigate they rather just pounce on me and feel like a victor than actually use a few synapses and neurons to their advantage.
if ogv would be willing to respond to ANY of the criticism any of us have provided on data or evidence or argument then i might be more convinced of that.
if anyone wants a laugh, check out the distinguished academic career of some of jones' compatriots HERE and "source material". i especially like the professor of religion thats included :stongue:
dcougar99
just a few quotes...
"This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector." - Plato
"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." - U.S. President James Madison
"Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death". - Adolph Hitler
"Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship ... Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." - Hermann Goering, Nazi leader.
"The easiest way to gain control of a population is to carry out acts of terror. [The public] will clamor for such laws if their personal security is threatened". - Josef Stalin
