Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Fourteen Points of Agreement: World Trade Center Destruction
bentham.org — Open Civil Engineering Journal publishes letter by scientists Steven E. Jones, Frank M. Legge, Kevin R. Ryan, Anthony F. Szamboti, James R. Gourley, who hypothesize that on 9/11, World Trade Center Towers 1, 2 & 7 were brought down by controlled demolition
dordnuuv8- 238 diggs
- digg it
- DOVZAKHEIM, on 04/19/2008, -12/+62This is historic. A paper advocating controlled demolition of the Twin Towers submitted to a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Kudos to the publishers of the journal as well as Dr. Steven Jones, Dr. Kevin Ryan and everyone else involved in the research. This should be dugg by everyone who knows the truth about 9/11. So what are we waiting for America? LET'S GET 'ER DUGG!!!!!
- theright, on 04/19/2008, -27/+15The paper does not advocate controlled demolition.
- honestjoe, on 04/20/2008, -7/+18@DOVZAKHEIM
I was so happy/excited that I mistakenly dugg you down so here is 1000000 diggs and my sincerest apology.
To the debunker's I say DEBATE the facts and stop with your cowardly ad hominem attacks. LET THE DEBATE BEGIN!!!!!!! - robbinzo, on 04/20/2008, -6/+18theright you are either retarded or else suffering from cognitive dissonance
"Published papers have argued that this negligence by NIST (leaving the near-free-fall speeds unexplained) is a major flaw in their analysis [13, 14]. NIST ignores the possibility of controlled demolitions, which achieve complete building collapses in near free-fall times by moving the material out of the way using explosives. So, there is an alternative explanation that fits the data without violating basic laws of physics.
We should be able to agree from observing the near-free-fall destruction that this is characteristic of controlled demolitions and, therefore, that controlled demolition is one way to achieve complete collapse at near free-fall speed. Then we are keen to look at NIST’s calculations of how they explain near-free-fall collapse rates without explosives."- theright, on 04/20/2008, -19/+7So let me get this straight...
This paper states that controlled demolition is a possible alternative means of destructing a building in near free-fall times? Wow, I sure hope they peer-reviewed all those complex calculations Dr Jones did, and that detailed model he produced, and all that evidence he put forward for a controlled demol-oh... wait... no evidence, no models, no calculations?
So... what exactly is the purpose of getting this peer-reviewed, again? Oh, right. So 9/11 deniers can shout from the rooftops "look! six and a half years later! a peer-reviewed paper!"- robbinzo, on 04/21/2008, -3/+10Just like NIST published their quantitative analysis.
Oops, sorry they didn't.
Getting tired of the inductive logic being used by *****
- robbinzo, on 04/21/2008, -3/+10Just like NIST published their quantitative analysis.
- LeRobot, on 04/20/2008, -17/+7Too right - the people singing the praises of this thing haven't even read it. Its NOT a paper, its an "open letter". It carefully avoids putting forward any theory at all.
So what is presented as a peer reviewed paper on controlled demolitions is not a paper, was probably not peer reviewed, and does not lay out a theory to prove controlled demolitions. Is it too much to ask truthers to just read the stuff they promote?
- theright, on 04/20/2008, -19/+7So let me get this straight...
- honestjoe, on 04/20/2008, -7/+18@DOVZAKHEIM
- Herkimer56, on 04/19/2008, -29/+11And there's a huge difference between a properly peer reviewed paper and a letter to a no-name journal that Steven Jones had to pay $600 to get them to publish the thing.
- deepbl, on 04/19/2008, -9/+20So why don't you share those differences with us? Explain where the peer-review process broke down on these fourteen points of *agreement*. While you're at it, why not share some of the properly peer-reviewed research to support your position?
- onetimer, on 04/19/2008, -21/+12Easy. In credible journals, the papers are published for free or close (maybe a small fee for processing), and the peer-reviewing is done by INDEPENDENT experts in the respected fields.
In this vanity journal, there is an exorbitant fee to get your paper published, and they even let you choose who gets to peer-review your paper! It's a complete damn joke. Same ***** that intelligent designers use.
- onetimer, on 04/19/2008, -21/+12Easy. In credible journals, the papers are published for free or close (maybe a small fee for processing), and the peer-reviewing is done by INDEPENDENT experts in the respected fields.
- honestjoe, on 04/20/2008, -7/+14So Bazant and Zhou's paper often referred to by debunkers is more credible? Why because it was published two days (2 days!) after the collapse? Ok fine but could you explain why I cant find who peer reviewed it? I would be grateful if the peer reviewers could explain how they agreed with Bazant and Zhou's theory about jet fuel melting the steel. Do you have any explanation on how their paper was published in a scientific journal even though their theory clearly deifies the laws of physics?
- theright, on 04/20/2008, -13/+9"Ok fine but could you explain why I cant find who peer reviewed it?"
In respectable scientific journals the peer-reviewers are anonymous experts in their field, and those putting their papers up for publication don't get to suggest who those peer-reviewers are.
"I would be grateful if the peer reviewers could explain how they agreed with Bazant and Zhou's theory about jet fuel melting the steel. Do you have any explanation on how their paper was published in a scientific journal even though their theory clearly deifies the laws of physics?"
A quote from the paper would be nice. I'm not suggesting you're wrong, but it's evidently clear that nigh-on everything the 9/11 truth movement produces is either misleading, misrepresentation, quote mining, taking things out of context, etc. - honestjoe, on 04/20/2008, -6/+12@theright
Here is a quote from their paper "The cause was the dynamic consequence of the prolonged heating of the steel columns to very high temperature."
Their entire theory is based on the assumption that "The heating lowered the yield strength and caused viscoplastic (creep) buckling of the columns of the framed tube along the perimeter of the tower and of the columns in the building core."
This was the start of the absurd pancake theory! They were not the only ones, most of the government “$owned” experts said jet fuel melted the steel! Doesn't that alone make you realize they have NO CREDIBILITY?!? They canNOT say they didn't know that those temps are impossible with a hydrocarbon fire and defies the laws of physics because it's there JOB to know. They have NOT ever apologized for the misinformation! Is that OK with you?
All of them said ridiculously absurd temperatures that are impossible with a hydrocarbon fire and defies the laws of physics!
*Government “$owned” experts of “deception”
*BBC (Chris Wise, ect.)
*Scientific American (Eduardo Kausel)
*NOVA video (Matthys levy)
*Henry Koffman from USC
*Tom Mackin from the Univ. of Illinois
*The New Scientist
*Bazant, Z.P., & Zhou, Y.
They exaggerated the Temperatures and then there lies where repeated
*National Geographic Today - 2,900F
*A&E - 2,500F
*History Channel - 2,500F
They said:
“What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuel. . . burning at 2,000 + degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor area melts.” Additionally, the newspaper that quotes him says “Just-released preliminary findings from a National Institute of Standards and Technology study of the World Trade Center collapse support Brown’s theory.”
CHARLES THORNTON said:
Less than a quarter of an hour after it had been hit, all the conditions for the collapse of the South Tower were in place. The huge weight of the top third of the building was bearing down on the weakening structure. Analysis of the steel from this part of the building reveals that the fire here reached 2000 degrees Fahrenheit, a temperature that would definitely have caused the steel to buckle.
MANUEL GARCIA, Jr. said;
The fuel fire burned up to 1,100 degrees C (2,000 degrees F)
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 800C; (Bazant and Zhou, 2002, p. 2.)
John Gross denies that he or NIST knew about the Images of the World Trade Center Site Show Thermal Hot Spots on September 16 and 23, 2001.
http://digg.com/politics/LATEST_NIST_Lead_Engineer ...
Each of these theories claimed large scale agreement among scientist and engineers!
Large scale agreement among scientist and engineers my a**!- Hortnon, on 04/20/2008, -11/+10In addition to what theright says below, I want to point out htat you're drawing a common incorrect conclusion from the sources you quote. They do NOT claim the steel melted, they claim the steel was WEAKENED by the heat, which are two very different temperatures and sets of conditions.
- honestjoe, on 04/20/2008, -5/+12@Horton
They said:
“What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuel. . . burning at 2,000 + degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor area melts.”
Let me change computers so I can post my collection of 8 government owned scientist that say "the steel melted" or "causing the steel to melt" with links! So you better start preparing you lame ass excuse for their incompetence and/or lies. - Hortnon, on 04/20/2008, -10/+6Who's 'they'?
- theright, on 04/20/2008, -11/+8We've seen enough of your copy and pasting skills, honestjoe. In fact, I have half a mind to start calling you Kevin Ryan based on the amount of his work you copy and paste.
By "they", what you mean to say is Hyman Brown, construction manager of the World Trade Center. Granted, he is an engineering professor, but he made a mistake. Of course his claim that steel melted is absurd, and not in line with the NIST report. As far as I'm aware this quote from an interview is the only instance of him making this claim. I'm sure he has since revised his views with this regard.
Why are we dwelling on his comments, again? What is the significance of the construction manager incorrectly claiming that the fire melted steel? - honestjoe, on 04/20/2008, -5/+10I'm not just talking about Hyman Brown, I'm talking about Richard Behr, John Knapton, Eduardo Kausel, Matthys levy, Chris Wise, Henry Koffman, Tom Mackin and etc, saying that the FIRE MELTED THE STEEL!
They used the words "melted steel" do you understand? "MELTED STEEL" is what they said and the have the audacity to still call themselves scientist when even a mere high school student knows that a hydrocarbon fire cant melt steel!
So they were either noncombatant and ignorant or they were liars! So which is it? - honestjoe, on 04/21/2008, -5/+10I have not made home to my other computer yet but here is some links to the incompetent claims of "MELTED STEEL" made by those who supported the pancake theory and even had some of their papers published!
Chris wise said; "The columns would have melted, the floors would have melted and eventually they would have collapsed one on top of each other." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1540044.stm
Professor of Structural Engineering at the University of Newcastle, John Knapton] told BBC News Online: "The 35 tonnes of aviation fuel will have melted the steel... all that can be done is to place fire resistant material around the steel and delay the collapse by keeping the steel cool for longer." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/1604348.stm
Eugenie Samuel and Damian Carrington wrote in their published paper; "Each tower was struck by a passenger aeroplane, hijacked by suicidal terrorists, but remained upright for nearly an hour. Eventually raging fires melted the supporting steel struts, but the time delay allowed hundreds of people to escape."
Richard Ebeltoft, a structural engineer and University of Arizona architecture lecturer, speculated that flames fueled by thousands of gallons of aviation fuel melted the building's steel supports. http://wildcat.arizona.edu/papers/95/17/01_9_m.htm ...
Daniel Scarpinato wrote in his published paper; Intense heat melted steel supports in Trade Center http://wildcat.arizona.edu/papers/95/17/01_9_m.htm ...
Hyman Brown, a University of Colorado civil engineering professor and the Trade Center's construction manager, speculated that flames fuelled by thousands of litres of aviation fuel melted steel supports.
"This building would have stood had a plane or a force caused by a plane smashed into it," he said. "But steel melts, and 90,850 litres of aviation fluid melted the steel. Nothing is designed or will be designed to withstand that fire." http://www.suntimes.co.za/2001/09/12/architect.asp
But just wait tell I get home I have some really damning quotes at home. Come on boot licker's let me hear your excuses for the government $owned scientist blatant incompetence. Or were they lies which is it? - theright, on 04/21/2008, -9/+7All of that is great, honestjoe. Quote-mining mistaken preliminary reports is all well and good. I notice one of those claims is reported in a news article on 13/11/2001. Another is from a month after the fact, and another just three months after the fact. All of these were before serious investigations into the collapses had even begun.
You've yet to explain what the purpose of all this shameless quote mining is, though? You cannot prove these individuals were lying... and even if you could, what would be the significance of them lying? Once again, the NIST report states categorically that the fires did not melt steel. To all intents and purposes, fires melting steel does not have a place in the "official" story, no matter what some people mistakenly assumed in the immediate aftermath of the attacks. - honestjoe, on 04/21/2008, -4/+11What I am pointing out is that the papers published in support of the government theory, that debunker's so often refer to, underwent little to no peer review and were the foundation of the absurd pancake theory for which took several years of truther activism to get debunker's to pull their head out of their collective a** and realize what a joke it was.
Now it would not have taken so long had those papers been properly peer reviewed before being published. Yet the debunker's such as yourself have forgotten theses facts and are now claiming once again that the review process for another one of Dr. Jones papers has not been equal to that of the other papers published in support of the government theory.
When in fact Dr. Jones 9/11 papers have undergone FAR MORE scrutiny than any other 9/11 paper. His first paper underwent four (4) separate sets of peer reviews two (2) sets of peer reviews were by BYU.
So your argument that Dr. Jones papers don't count because they have not undergone a fair and complete review is BS and shows just how desperate you are to try and minimize a HUGE event as having another paper published that shows just how contradictory the NIST report is and how even NIST AGREES!!! BWAAAAAAAAHAAAAHAHAHAHAHA! - theright, on 04/21/2008, -7/+51. A large proportion of your quotes of individuals supporting the pancake theory, in addition to being made in the immediate aftermath of the attacks before any major investigation had even begun, have no relation whatsoever to any published papers. Your blanket statement that "the papers published in support of the government theory [...] underwent little to no peer review" is false, and extremely misleading. We're talking about isolated incidents.
2. The origin of the "pancake theory" was the FEMA preliminary report. It was not "several years of truther activism" that resulted in the refutation of the theory, it was the NIST report. In fact, it is the truthers who keep digging up the "pancake theory", long after the final publication of the NIST report, in an attempt to refute the "official story"
3. You refer to this as "another one of Dr. Jones [sic] papers". As far as I'm aware, this is the first article he has had published on the issue of 9/11 in an independent journal. No one is saying the peer-review on this letter was not up to scratch. What we're saying is that it is extremely questionable. This is only the second volume of the journal in question, which allows authors to "suggest" who peer-reviews their work and charges extraordinary sums of money for publication. It is not an established or highly respected civil engineering journal. Dr. Jones claims he doesn't know who peer-reviewed the letter, but he hasn't ruled out the (equally well publicized criticism) that among them may be individuals who he suggested.
4. You claim Dr. Jones' first paper underwent four sets of peer-review. I'd like a source for that claim.
5. If you believe the publishing of this letter containing zero original research in a completely unknown journal with a questionable peer-review process is a "HUGE event", you are sorely mistaken.
I do wonder, though. Have you actually read the letter? There is nothing in the there to peer-review except quotations from FEMA/NIST and childish comments in between. The letter does not put forward a controlled demolition theory. It's just a case of "here are some things we're nitpicking and/or misrepresenting (with references to our own, laughably peer-reviewed papers as references), we'd be willing to go ***** crazy on this... but we won't right now as we want to get this letter past peer-review"
It's not a "HUGE event", it's an absolute embarrassment to the "truth" movement. It's just a blatant attempt to fit the words "peer-reviewed" and "9/11 truth" in the same sentence for people who are too lazy/too stupid to actually read the thing. - honestjoe, on 04/22/2008, -1/+5@theright
I will take each of your # points and expose what absolute BS they are.
#1 It most certainly was do to the several years of truther activism that caused the absurd pancake theory to finally be thrown out "BY NIST"! You so often refer to Popular Mechanics who had interviewed NIST for their debunking hit piece which SUPPORTS THE PANCAKE THEORY! Why because NIST (at that time) was still supporting it. Also Brown wrote his "PUBLISHED" paper saying that “What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuel. . . burning at 2,000 + degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor area melts.” Additionally, the newspaper that quotes him says “Just-released preliminary findings from a National Institute of Standards and Technology study of the World Trade Center collapse support Brown’s theory.”
And when hearing that NIST's findings supported Brown's ridiculous theory Kevin Ryan wrote that there was no way the jet-fuel fires on 9/11 or the other subsequent fires caused by the jet fuel (inside the buildings) could have caused the steel structure of those towers to melt. He said; "This story just does not add up," Ryan wrote in his e-mail to Frank Gayle, deputy chief of the institute's metallurgy division, who is playing a prominent role in the agency investigation. "If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I'm sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers."
This caused debunker's to immediately attack Kevin Ryan by insisting that jet fuel "CAN" reach those high temperatures as "THEY WERE TOLD" by "more qualified" scientist like Bazant, Z.P., & Zhou, Y. who say it in a paper of which peer review of it and of other theories volunteering to explain the collapses was conspicuously absent. For example National Geographic Today - 2,900F, A&E - 2,500F, History Channel - 2,500F, Scientific American (Eduardo Kausel), NOVA video, (Matthys levy), Henry Koffman from USC, Tom Mackin from the Univ. of Illinois,The New Scientist and etc, etc.
Those lies have still infected the minds of some people (mostly debunker's) to this day! But thanks to the truth movement started by the 9/11 Victims Families, Survivors, Fire Fighters, other First Responders and whistle blowers like Kevin Ryan the lies have been exposed and therefore the theories that were based on those lies have had to be thrown out as it became obvious that the majority of people (excluding debunker's) were becoming aware of that they had been lied to and mislead about basic scientific FACTS!
It took NIST two (2) years after Kevin Ryan blew the Whistle to admit that the fire could not have initiated the collapse as suggested by their absurd pancake theory.
“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)
“Only three of the recovered samples of exterior panels reached temperatures in excess of 250 C (482 F) during the fires or after the collapse. This was based on a method developed by NIST to characterize maximum temperatures experienced by steel members through observations of paint cracking.” NIST, p. 181
“None of the recovered steel samples showed evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 C (1092 F) for as long as 15 minutes.” NIST, p. 180
"NIST, in its fire simulations, tried very hard to get steel (>95 % iron) to temperatures above 1000 deg C but failed! This is not surprising because NIST was using kerosene or hydrocarbon/cellulosic-based fuels. NIST WANTED high temperatures to support the idea that the structural steel was weakened by heating effects. The fires did not burn hot enough to melt, deform, or significantly weaken the steel, and NIST could not replicate the collapse of the steel when it doubled the temperatures, doubled the duration of the stress, and ignored the effect of insulation"
NIST exaggerated the temperatures (1300 F), applied these temperatures for 2 hours (i.e. over twice the duration of fires known to have existed in the failure zones), striped all the fireproofing, and then doubled the height of the inward pull zone, and applied triple the weight of what the floors were known to actually be supporting to produce even a hint of bowing from fire. Which was "ONLY" 3 inches!
“All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing.” NIST, p. 143
“The results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11.” NIST, p. 143
#2 The origin of the pancake theory was buy some of the same authors and /or advisers of the the ASCE WTC investigation (pile driver), the FEMA Report (pancake), the Weidlinger study (melted column failure), and NIST (pancake then the magic bolt theory). Although the authors of the official reports are very similar, the collapse explanations offered by the reports are quite different. For example Corley and Thornton-Tomasetti were also involved in the Weidlinger study, released in October, 2002, just five months after FEMA’s. That study, commissed by Silverstein for his insurance claim, exclusively blames column failure do to fire for the collapses. Then is was back to the pancake theory until Kevin Ryan pointed out the obvious and Now NIST's new magic bolt theory says; That the 5/8"in bolt at each end of the trusses are so strong that the supposedly sagging floors are pulling the perimeter columns in causing them to buckle and simultaneously and symmetrically fail then initiating the total collapse of the buildings. NIST also claims:
A. The bolts managed to resist bending and warping from this same high heat that caused the floors to warp and sag enough to pull the columns in.
B. The bolts did not give before the much stronger and thicker perimeter columns made out of 1,000,000 PSI super-strong steel does.
Why would the same individuals endorse two three or four (depending on which person) contradictory theories in their different roles? Apparently for political and economic reasons. The fact that failures of truss supports could indicate a design fault, and therefore fail to support the “two occurrences” claimed by Silverstein. That is why clearly implausible aspects of the column failure theory required the invention of the more sophisticated and truss-failure theory to sell the collapse theory.
#3 Of Dr. Jones's over 40 published papers this paper is in fact his second paper published regarding the collapse of the WTC. His first paper was first peer reviewed by colleges at BYU. One of which "Professor Emeritus, Civil Engineering D. Allan Firmage" was "NOT" in agreement with Jones but after a 2nd round of peer review BYU allowed Jones to publish his paper because BYU felt that the questions were settled and had the “distancing” statements by D. Allan Firmage Professor Emeritus, Civil Engineering removed from their site. That same paper had then undergone a 3rd round of peer reviews and was published in the Journal of 9/11 Studies and then that same paper had undergone a 4th round of peer reviews and was published again after four more reviewers all Ph.D’s, two were physicists had given their OK for publication in 9/11 And The American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out, by David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott. Also Dr. Jones paper has been published in Global Outlook.
Never before has any of his over 40 published papers had to undergo such an irregularly massive increase in what is normally accepted for the standard amount of scrutiny (one set of peer review) in order to be published.
#4 The source for the 4th round of reviews is from Prof. Griffin (editor of The American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out). He stated that for publication in his book Prof. Jones paper had been reviewed and there were four reviewers for Prof. Jones paper, all Ph.D’s, two were physicists.
#5 The publishing of this paper is a slap in the face of the NIST report and exposes the SERIOUS contradictions in NIST's report by using NIST's own findings thereby forcing NIST to agree that yes their report has 14 MAJOR contradictions that anyone not suffering from cognitive dissonance can see invalidates NIST's report.
Can you not see that the findings from test performed by both NIST and FEMA contradict the conclusions in the final NIST report? Another way to explain what this paper is saying is by pointing out the fact that Its "NOT" the results of the tests that Prof. Jones and others disagree with its what the "few" concluded those test results mean in the final NIST report. The conclusion should not contradict the test results and the test results should not contradict the conclusion. The 14 things we can all agree is that there are 14 major contradiction in the NIST report. - theright, on 04/22/2008, -5/+2@honestjoe:
"I will take each of your # points and expose what absolute BS they are.", as you put it...
1. I can assure you NIST don't alter their findings based on "truther activism". The claim that Popular Mechanics supported the "pancake theory" in their 2005 article "Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report" ( http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/militar ... ) is just one of many extremely misleading, intellectually dishonest claims from Dr Jones. The word "pancaking" is used four times in the relevant section of the article, but never in the context of a collapse in accordance with the "pancake theory". The PM article does not support the "pancake theory", let alone "strongly promote[...]" it as Dr. Jones falsely claims in this letter.
2. You claim construction manager Hyman Brown wrote a "published" paper in reference to his claim that the "steel in that five-floor area melt[ed]". As far as I'm aware, this is false. The quote is from a newspaper article released the day after the attacks. His explanation for the collapse was speculation at best, no matter how much you scream "jet fuel can't melt steel! anyone would know that!" In the absence of a peer-reviewed paper mirroring such claims, your use of his quote in the context of a debate over double-standards in the scrutiny of peer-review processes is erroneous. This quote first appeared in the Los Angeles Times on September 12th, 2001. Your reference to "the newspaper that quotes him" and alleges that his findings are supported by preliminary findings from NIST is a 2004 article in "Boulder Weekly" on the subject of the 9/11 "truth" movement. I would ask you once again what the significance of Brown's statements, being published on September 12th, likely being made on September 11th itself, is? It was sheer speculation made within hours of the collapse. He was mistaken. Get over it.
3. Your reference to the Bazant, Z.P., & Zhou, Y paper is complete and utter bunk. Nowhere in the paper was it claimed that jet fuel melted steel, as you assert. Bazant and Zhou quote sustained temperatures the steel columns were exposed to as "apparently exceeding 800°C", well within the range of a jet fuel fire. You question the peer-review on this paper and call it "suspicious", you should realize that it was a simple analysis published two days after the fact on September 13th.
4. Why is it that, in this bout of historical revisionism, you claim that the "pancake theory" and melting steel claims "have still infected the minds of some people (mostly debunker's [sic]) to this day" when by-and-large it is the 9/11 "truth" movement that just won't give up on these long-forgotten theories. If I could have a dollar for every time a truther came out with the "but fire can't melt steel!" or "but the pancake theory has been debunked" lines, despite the fact that the NIST report specifically states fire didn't melt steel and dismisses the pancake theory once and for all...
5. Your pathetic cherry-picked, out-of-context quotes from the NIST report are complete and utter drivel. I'm not even going to spend the time debunking each and every one. If you want to learn something about the collapses, go and read the report itself rather than reading summaries and so-called "debunkings" from the intellectually corrupt 9/11 "truth" movement.
6. As far as I'm aware (and I could be wrong; please correct me if I am), Dr Jones' first paper was not peer-reviewed four times. I do not consider your reference to David Ray Griffin, let alone David Ray Griffin himself, as reliable sources on this matter. With regards to the view of BYU in this whole affair, may I point you to:
"The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones' 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' 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."
Note the fact they do not consider the venues Dr Jones submitted the paper to able to "ensure rigorous technical peer review" of his paper. That's extremely telling with regards to your claim of multiple peer-reviews, including two by BYU, and suggestion that BYU "felt that the questions were settled [...]".
"The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones."
I'm not even going to address the so-called Journal of 9/11 Studies peer-review. He got his paper published in "Global Outlook", a 9/11 truth magazine? That's great. It's not an independent engineering journal.
7. "The publishing of this paper is a slap in the face of the NIST report and exposes the SERIOUS contradictions in NIST's report by using NIST's own findings thereby forcing NIST to agree that yes their report has 14 MAJOR contradictions that anyone not suffering from cognitive dissonance can see invalidates NIST's report."
A slap in the face to the NIST report? Yes, I'm guessing you haven't read the letter. You claim the letter "exposes [...] serious contradictions in NIST's report"? Please identify one "serious contradiction" this letter "exposes" in the NIST report.
Heck, any contradiction will do. - honestjoe, on 04/23/2008, -0/+3@theright
#1 What? Are you joking? Popular Mechanics most certainly did support the pancake theory! Are you trying to suggest that the theory of truss failure do to the fire, causing the floor to fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction IS NOT THE PANCAKE THEORY? Well you are sadly mistaken because even Popular Mechanics, after describing the collapse, writes, "Engineers call the process "pancaking,"" on the very page you linked to.
#2 You are correct about Brown, I did error and should have noticed. To save time I was cut and pasting from the above post and failed to see my mistake. I am kicking myself realizing I should have slowed down. Thank you for drawing my attention to it.
In regard to what initiated Kevin Ryan to write his letter, It was not brown but the 2004 NIST report update that came out after Kevin Ryan's first letter in 2003 to Loring Knoblauch, UL's CEO. Also Kevin Ryan is on record as being three not 2 but (3) years ahead of NIST in realizing the absurdity of the pancake theory. Impressive for a mere water boy and embarrassing for NIST.
#3 I said, "This caused debunker's to immediately attack Kevin Ryan by insisting that jet fuel "CAN" reach those high temperatures as "THEY WERE TOLD" by "more qualified" scientist like Bazant, Z.P., & Zhou, Y. who say it in a paper of which peer review of it and of other theories volunteering to explain the collapses was conspicuously absent. For example National Geographic Today - 2,900F, A&E - 2,500F, History Channel - 2,500F, Scientific American (Eduardo Kausel), NOVA video, (Matthys levy), Henry Koffman from USC, Tom Mackin from the Univ. of Illinois,The New Scientist and etc, etc."
The above comment is absolutely correct and does show that many people were grossly mislead about BASIC scientific facts not just for the first few days but for years for example Manuel Garcia Jr, physicist and engineer wrote in The Physics of 9/11 on November 28, 2006 that "The fuel fire burned up to 1,100 degrees C (2,000 degrees F) ... The exposed steel beams in the impact zone heated to between 700 C to 1,000 C.".
Where did Garcia get those imposable temps? Maybe from CHARLES THORNTON who said; "Analysis of the steel from this part of the building reveals that the fire here reached 2000 degrees Fahrenheit". And he was involved in several of the WTC investigations!
#4 Its not historical, I just pointed out one of the more recent, (November 28, 2006), imposable high temperature claims. You really don't think that has any effect on peoples perception of what happened?
#5 Well could you at least respond to my question about your Bazant and Zhou comment above? You said 800*C is well within the range of a jet fuel fire, (its the maximum temperature of hydrocarbon fires burning in the atmosphere without pressurization or pre-heating (premixed fuel and air - blue flame)), and previously you had told me that it weakened the steel by 50%.
Wouldn't that loss of strength be greater for the smaller 5/8" bolts because they require less time to heat and were more exposed to higher temperatures for longer do to their being "INSIDE" the supposed oven, where as the much stronger and thicker perimeter columns made out of 1,000,000 PSI super-strong steel were located facing out of the oven and exposed to a cool breeze causing the heat to dissipate? So how does the 5/8" bolts:
A. manage to resist bending and warping from this same high heat that caused the floors to warp and sag enough to pull the columns in.
B. not give before the much stronger and thicker perimeter columns made out of 1,000,000 PSI super-strong steel does.
Even NIST says the columns were stronger than the sheer capacity of the mere 5/8" bolts:
Column buckling was found to occur when an inward lateral load (pull-in) of approximately 12 kips was applied to three adjacent floor levels. (NCSTAR 1-6 p xlix para1)
Column instability (buckling) was reached with a transverse load of 12.6 kips per column. (NCSTAR 1-6 p115 para2)
NIST’s table 4-4 (NCSTAR 1-6 p75) shows that the interior seat capacity against horizontal tensile force is only 9 kips. (So does figure 4-16 NCSTAR 1-6 p78)
This is why NIST new theory is called the magic bolts theory.
#6 Prof. Jones paper was published twice but it had undergone far more scrutiny than just the peer reviews required for publishing. The debunkers argue that the only peer reviews that should count are the ones for a major scientific journal and if his paper were treated like anyone else's I would agree.
But when Prof. Jones first presented his paper to the BYU faculty and colleges, they only had some simple questions for which he answered and (at that time) there were no remaining issues or unresolved questions. Then Prof. Jones let the public see his presentation and had it up at BYU, but following that was when one of Prof. Jones colleges D. Allan Firmage Professor Emeritus, Civil Engineering, BYU then criticized Prof. Jones paper when he said "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." (forgetting about the massive core columns).
Firmage went on to say that the fire in the towers was similar to taking a blowtorch and spot heating the floor system like what welders do to bend bridge girders. (forgetting that the flame of a torch is far hotter than that of a natural diffuse flame and unlike a natural flame a touch has all of its heat/energy focused in one precise spot, hence the name spot heating.
Yet amazingly this caused BYU to then write a response that shows and basically says they don't trust any of their staff to be able to review his paper but some of them feel that it may have some errors but cant say what those errors are except for Mr. (the Towers were like a tube brought down by a blow torch) Firmage.
But after BYU got their 2nd (unnecessary) round of peer review they allowed Jones to publish his paper AND YES THEY TOOK DOWN THE LINK TO FIRMAGE and his hollow WTC tube was taken out by flying blow torches theory. What you had posted was old news. You already know about the other two such as the Journal For 9/11 Studies and Intellectuals Speak Out. (He did get published in Global Outlook Though I do not believe it was peer reviewed) and he has defended his research to further scrutiny from Idaho State University, Utah Valley State College, University of Colorado at Boulder and University of Denver, the Utah Academy of Science, Sonoma State University, University of California at Berkeley, and the University of Texas at Austin.
#7 You requested that I expose one "serious contradiction" in the NIST report. All of the Fire Endurance Tests result absolutely contradict NITS conclusions, but since I went over some of those in the above post I'll go with the free fall speed of collapse.
NIST agrees that had the top block of 1WTC been suspended in the air next to 2WTC and it were dropped in a vacuum at the same time that 2WTC began to collapse straight through the path of MOST resistance that is also stronger (do to the lower structural steel NOT weakened by fire), greater in mass (do to both the lower core and perimeter columns being much thicker), and density (do to the first 14 stories, and the 41st, 42nd, 75th and 76th floors, having solid steel high density beams in place of trusses.), than the top block smashing through the much larger bottom portion of the tower. They would both hit the ground at .05 seconds apart.
That’s close to the free-fall time in a vacuum, and an exceptionally rapid free-fall time through air. Therefore, air resistance alone will make it take longer than 11 seconds for gravity to pull an object to the ground from the towers’ former height.
In your above link Popular Mechanics says "Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air — along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse — was ejected with enormous energy."
The enormous energy spent ejecting several tonnes of material hundreds of feet would be equal to the enormous energy of resistance to several tonnes of material free falling down.
- theright, on 04/20/2008, -11/+7"Doesn't that alone make you realize they have NO CREDIBILITY?!?"
No, it brings me to the realization that people cannot provide a full, detailed explanation for unprecedented building collapses in extraordinary circumstances within days or months of the fact. If you believe you can completely discredit someone based on small mistakes (such as misjudging the temperatures of the fires) in such a scenario, you've got another thing coming. If I could discredit a member of the 9/11 denial movement every time they made a false claim, the movement would have been dead and buried years ago. - honestjoe, on 04/20/2008, -5/+9@theright
So your fine that with the fact that they exaggerated the Temperatures and then there lies where repeated? Their only excuse is that they were to incompetent and ignorant to know such a basic scientific fact that these temps defy the Laws of physics for a hydrocarbon fire! This is something you learn in high school! So there idiots or liars which is it?
*National Geographic Today - 2,900F
*A&E - 2,500F
*History Channel - 2,500F
They said:
“What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuel. . . burning at 2,000 + degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor area melts.”
CHARLES THORNTON said:
"Analysis of the steel from this part of the building reveals that the fire here reached 2000 degrees Fahrenheit."
MANUEL GARCIA, Jr. said;
The fuel fire burned up to 1,100 degrees C (2,000 degrees F)
The maximum temperatures that could have been attained by the steel were much too low to soften it! As pointed out by Eagar and Musso who said:
"But it is very difficult to reach [even] this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio... This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500C to 650C range [Cote, 1992]. It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke.... It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425C and loses about half of its strength at 650C [Cote, 1992]. This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse... The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable... Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650C fire." Eagar and Musso, 2001;
Dr. Greening said: "NIST, in its fire simulations, tried very hard to get steel (>95 % iron) to temperatures above 1000 deg C but failed! This is not surprising because NIST was using kerosene or hydrocarbon/cellulosic-based fuels. NIST WANTED high temperatures to support the idea that the structural steel was weakened by heating effects."
“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)
The fires did not burn hot enough to melt, deform, or significantly weaken the steel, and NIST could not replicate the collapse of the steel when it doubled the temperatures, doubled the duration of the stress, and ignored the effect of insulation:
“Only three of the recovered samples of exterior panels reached temperatures in excess of 250 C (482 F) during the fires or after the collapse. This was based on a method developed by NIST to characterize maximum temperatures experienced by steel members through observations of paint cracking.” NIST, p. 181
“None of the recovered steel samples showed evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 C (1092 F) for as long as 15 minutes.” NIST, p. 180
The evaluation of paint deformation and spheroidization seem very straightforward, according to NIST the samples available were adequate for the investigation. The tests show that the steel was exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is exactly what you get from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation.
NIST says about 4,500 gallons of jet fuel were available to feed fires=590,000 MJ of energy
Office furnishings in the impact zone would have provided 490,000 MJ of energy
Using masses and specific heats for materials heated, a maximum temp in the impact zone can be calculated. The result is less than 600 degrees F Assuming fuel burned with perfect efficiency, that no hot gases left the impact zone, no heat escaped by conduction, steel and concrete had unlimited amount of time to absorb all the heat! - Sep11insidejob, on 05/01/2008, -0/+2Lol I love it! thanks for posting Honestjoe!
You always own the$e guys.
- theright, on 04/20/2008, -13/+9"Ok fine but could you explain why I cant find who peer reviewed it?"
- deepbl, on 04/19/2008, -9/+20So why don't you share those differences with us? Explain where the peer-review process broke down on these fourteen points of *agreement*. While you're at it, why not share some of the properly peer-reviewed research to support your position?
- card51short, on 04/19/2008, -11/+21hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahah
hilarious.
Many, many journals charge fees to be published.
But...I understand you guys.
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahah- Hortnon, on 04/20/2008, -18/+8Prove it.
- card51short, on 04/20/2008, -6/+15http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/overview.htm
- Hortnon, on 04/20/2008, -18/+8Uhhh...ok, so that guy has an alternative to peer-review. ...Why do I care?
- card51short, on 04/20/2008, -6/+15read it. He points out that it is common practice to charge for peer reviewed publications.
Show me what journal Dr. Seffen got published in.
I'll see if they charge. - Hortnon, on 04/20/2008, -17/+7It's important to know the amount charged, by the way, and reasons for cost. Say, $50 to pay the secretary to forward it around to get it printed correctly is different from the $600 required here.
- BrapAllgood, on 04/20/2008, -8/+11I tell you what...we'll give the IT guy $50 to go get us lunch and then we can all brainstorm about it.
- theright, on 04/19/2008, -27/+15The paper does not advocate controlled demolition.
- eltolete, on 04/19/2008, -8/+53Anyone who still maintains that the WTC7 collapse was not a controlled demolition is only deluding him/herself. Here we have a peer -reviewed paper. The NIST(filled with Bush appointees) has still not issued a report on the collapse of WTC7.
- cquinnd, on 04/19/2008, -11/+12Is "peer reviewed" going to become the new "it's only a theory" buzzphrase?
- Hortnon, on 04/20/2008, -18/+8No, it says it right in the description: "letter"
- LeRobot, on 04/20/2008, -13/+3Try reading it. This is not a paper and does not put forward a theory for how a controlled demolition could have been carried out. It says nothing beyond "building fell down. could have been a CD. More investigation needed". And you are promoting it as a peer reviewed paper proving CD?
- card51short, on 04/20/2008, -1/+14spin deniers, spin!!!
So far we have :
1) He paid to publish it
2) It doesn't say anything...it's just a paper saying "Hey, how ya doing?!"
3) It was peer reviewed by Al Qaeda
Any others? hahahahahaha - LoPhatt, on 05/29/2008, -0/+2If I were Building 7, I would have committed suicide too, all rigged up and no way to blow with United Airlines Flight 93 crashing in Shanksville.
- onetimer, on 04/19/2008, -37/+14Give me a ***** break - this is not the "peer-reviewed paper" that the troof movement was hoping to get. This was a LETTER (there was almost NO technical analysis, and absolutely ZERO scientific proof of any kind of CD hypothesis). Throughout the whole thing, jones even had the gall to cite his previously debunked and error-filled paper from the Journal of 911 studies, a joke of a journal that he runs.
This is published in a VANITY JOURNAL, which is known in academia as a joke, because not only do you PAY to have your work published (no credible journal requires this), but you get to choose your own peer-reviewers! (this alone pretty much invalidates it in the eyes of the scientific community)
Not only was this nothing close to any kind of technical paper, but the whole "peer-review" process that he used in this "journal" was a complete damn joke. This is nothing close to any kind of credible paper in any kind of credible journal. It's laughable that you troofers are acting as if this was some kind of big deal. It just goes to show how ignorant you are of the whole process of scientific validation.
Come back when you get something peer-reviewed in a journal where you *don't* get to choose who peer-reviews your paper.- Winston451, on 04/19/2008, -9/+25Nothing is going to satisfy you and the other Ziono-trolls on Digg, however just for the record:
http://www.bentham.org/open/tociej/
The Open Civil Engineering Journal is an Open Access online journal, which publishes research articles, reviews, and letters in all areas of civil engineering.
The Open Civil Engineering Journal, a peer-reviewed journal, aims to provide the most complete and reliable source of information on recent developments in civil engineering. The emphasis will be on publishing quality articles rapidly and freely available to researchers worldwide.- onetimer, on 04/19/2008, -21/+11Hooray! More subtle bigotry from the troofers!
Congratulations, you can copy and paste the URL. The ONLY thing we are looking and have been asking for all along is a scientific paper published in a CREDIBLE journal. Jones basically paid to get a letter-to-the-editor published in a vanity journal, in which he chose who got to peer-review it.
Funny, you forgot to paste this part:
"Authors may, however, provide in their Covering Letter the contact details (including e-mail addresses) of four potential peer reviewers for their paper"
Oops!- Herkimer56, on 04/20/2008, -18/+9It didn't seem too subtle to me.
- card51short, on 04/20/2008, -6/+11hahahahaahahha yeah!! you tell em onetimer!!!
Al Qaeda publishes this journal!!
Debunked!!!
hahahahahahahahahahahahah
- onetimer, on 04/19/2008, -21/+11Hooray! More subtle bigotry from the troofers!
- jrpatent, on 04/20/2008, -12/+16Dr. Jones has specifically stated that he has no idea who the peer reviewers were.
http://911blogger.com/node/15081#comment-183601- Hortnon, on 04/20/2008, -16/+9What's to "peer-review"?
- onetimer, on 04/20/2008, -19/+8Oh right, because his word is good enough proof, right?
The mere FACT that this journal allows whoever you want to peer-review already negates any kind of credibility it wanted to achieve.
Even IF he was telling the truth, the fact that the "paper" doesn't actually offer any scientific insight or doesn't even attempt to promote any kind of CD theory makes it useless for the troof movement anyways.- jrpatent, on 04/20/2008, -7/+16Do you have proof to the contrary?
You are also misrepresenting the journal's policy. It doesn't allow you to "choose your reviewers"; it invites you to suggest reviewers. Surely the editors would not allow incompetent or compromised individuals suggested by the author to review a paper for publication in their journal. Or are the editors in on it too? - honestjoe, on 04/20/2008, -7/+18Just two days (2 days!) after the attack, a scientific paper purported to fully explain the unprecedented engineering failures using "elastic dynamic analysis." "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? - Simple Analysis" was published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE on 9/13/01. Peer review of this paper and of other theories volunteering to explain the collapses was conspicuously absent but debunker's ate it up as gospel and still refer to it as a credible peer reviewed paper!
- honestjoe, on 04/20/2008, -6/+18Please tell me how Bazant and Zhou's paper was published even though their theory of the temperature becoming so high that it melted the steel defies the law of physics! Maybe thats why no one will admit to peer reviewing Bazant and Zhou's paper that was published just two (2) days after the collapse! It seems if your a debunker wanting to spread disinformation even if it defies the laws of physics your paper will be published no matter how absurd it is.
How long was that review process any way since it was published in just two days after the collapse it couldn't have been more than a few hours. But that was good enough for the debunker's wasn't it onetimer? - card51short, on 04/20/2008, -5/+15@honestjoe:
AND they used the pancake theory that has been thoroughly debunked
hahahahaha i love it. This thread is comedic gold...where's JCM?
- jrpatent, on 04/20/2008, -7/+16Do you have proof to the contrary?
- dirka, on 04/20/2008, -16/+3OMG a Jew is saying the truthers are wrong! I can't believe it, I would have never guessed that a Jew wouldn't be against something that justified killing every muslim that get's in their way. I'm shocked...But then again Onetimer does have a point when he says the article is wrong, forget why its wrong, just believe him when he says its all B.S.
- onetimer, on 04/20/2008, -20/+9Oh my god, an anti-semitic troofer who also supports ron paul!
What are the odds...- Herkimer56, on 04/20/2008, -20/+9About one in one. Maybe less.
- card51short, on 04/20/2008, -9/+11hahahhhahhahahahahaahahhahhahahahah this peer reviewed paper doesn't count, right?
Just say it again! hahahahahahahahahahhaahahhahaha
Sorry I know this had nothing to do with the anti-semite comment above but it's just too hilarious.
hahahahahah
- onetimer, on 04/20/2008, -20/+9Oh my god, an anti-semitic troofer who also supports ron paul!
- rexblade, on 04/20/2008, -6/+17How is it bigotry? Whats all the fuss against a new and genuine independent investigation that has access to all info/evidence (all pentagon footage) and witnesses (even the ones in the government under oath)?
- theright, on 04/20/2008, -15/+8There is no additional Pentagon footage. Give it a rest.
- medicis, on 04/20/2008, -4/+13Oh, so you have access to the powers that be at the Pentagon and 'know' there is no additional footage? You are a joke.
- theright, on 04/20/2008, -11/+6@medicis:
See this page ( http://www.flight77.info/85videos.html ) on flight77.info (a site formerly owned by Scott Bingham, the person who filed the FOIA requests and obtained the footage available at present, now under new ownership but with all the original documents available) for information about the so-called additional footage.
I can assure you I'm not a joke. Just a person who knows what they're talking about. - card51short, on 04/20/2008, -3/+12Ahhh! So you have a website that says it.
Case closed ;)- theright, on 04/20/2008, -11/+4Well, if you're a paranoid delusional who thinks everyone is out to get them, the entire US government is on in some inane conspiracy and you fail to accept perfectly realistic reasons why there is no additional footage of the aircraft impact at the Pentagon... maybe it doesn't.
That's your problem.
- theright, on 04/20/2008, -11/+4Well, if you're a paranoid delusional who thinks everyone is out to get them, the entire US government is on in some inane conspiracy and you fail to accept perfectly realistic reasons why there is no additional footage of the aircraft impact at the Pentagon... maybe it doesn't.
- theright, on 04/20/2008, -15/+8There is no additional Pentagon footage. Give it a rest.
- gretavo, on 04/21/2008, -0/+5Wonder why it's Zionists who are so down on 9/11 truth? Wonder no more... http://digg.com/political_opinion/Wired_for_Terror ...
- protofear, on 06/03/2008, -0/+1wow... this link is dead.. whatever it was... it pissed someone off.. a coverup?
- protofear, on 06/03/2008, -0/+1peer reviews can be very biased, indeed...
read this from wikipedia:
The interposition of editors and reviewers between authors and readers always raises the possibility that the intermediators may serve as gatekeepers. Some sociologists of science argue that peer review makes the ability to publish susceptible to control by elites and to personal jealousy.[12] The peer review process may suppress dissent against "mainstream" theories.[13][14][15] Reviewers tend to be especially critical of conclusions that contradict their own views, and lenient towards those that accord with them. At the same time, elite scientists are more likely than less established ones to be sought out as referees, particularly by high-prestige journals or publishers. As a result, it has been argued, ideas that harmonize with the elite's are more likely to see print and to appear in premier journals than are iconoclastic or revolutionary ones..
of note is "the peer review process may suppress dissent against "mainstream" theories."
you say "This is published in a VANITY JOURNAL, which is known in academia as a joke,"
from wikipedia:
In order for scientists in many fields to attract and maintain funding it is necessary to publish in elite, prestigious journals. Such journals are generally identified by their impact factor. The small number of high-impact journals is susceptible to control by an elite group of anonymous reviewers. Results published in low-impact journals are usually ignored by most scientists in any field. This has led to calls for the removal of reviewer anonymity (especially at high-impact journals) and for the introduction of author anonymity (so that reviewers cannot tell whether the author is a member of any elite).
so, the peer review process isn't fool proof.. for either side.
- Winston451, on 04/19/2008, -9/+25Nothing is going to satisfy you and the other Ziono-trolls on Digg, however just for the record:
- eltolete, on 04/19/2008, -8/+35Ivy Leaguers are getting in on the act. There's an Ivy Leaguers for an Independent Investigation.
http://www.joseabreu.com/ - Herkimer56, on 04/19/2008, -43/+13Frank M. Legge - Works for a company that builds web sites and databases.
Kevin R. Ryan - Fired by Underwriter's Laboratories for lying about UL certifying the steel in the WTC. They did not.
Anthony F. Szamboti - Apparently does not exist outside the work of the Cult of 9/11.
James R. Gourley - An attorney.
Steven Jones - Discredited professor who lost his job for intellectual dishonesty.
Congratulations, truthers, you've once again put together a group of people completely unqualified to offer any kind of expert opinion on the events of 9/11. This letter is simply a rehash of the same old debunked truther theories that we've been seeing for years. This letter doesn't prove dick.- Herkimer56, on 04/20/2008, -25/+7I love it when the truthers bury me for telling the truth. It's a very clear indicator of their real agenda.
- MrESaulved, on 04/20/2008, -4/+16I would love to hear what the "real agenda" of a "truther" is in your words.
Tell us.- Herkimer56, on 04/20/2008, -16/+3Denying the truth obviously.
- MrESaulved, on 04/20/2008, -4/+16I would love to hear what the "real agenda" of a "truther" is in your words.
- card51short, on 04/20/2008, -3/+21herkimer are you saying that peer reviewed papers don't count anymore?
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahaha- theright, on 04/20/2008, -13/+4Where in the heck did he say that?
For the record, you're grossly misquoting something I stated. Where in the heck did I say that?- BoDeeDoe, on 04/20/2008, -3/+10You meant "he stated" right Herk? How many fake profiles do you have anyway?
- theright, on 04/20/2008, -10/+4No, he is grossly misquoting something I stated and for some reason attempting to apply it to Herkimer.
If you think me and Herkimer56 are one and the same, please feel free to email Digg abuse. You'll be sorely disappointed.
- theright, on 04/20/2008, -10/+4No, he is grossly misquoting something I stated and for some reason attempting to apply it to Herkimer.
- BoDeeDoe, on 04/20/2008, -3/+10You meant "he stated" right Herk? How many fake profiles do you have anyway?
- theright, on 04/20/2008, -13/+4Where in the heck did he say that?
- rexblade, on 04/20/2008, -3/+17Tell the truth? Herkimer? This joke writes itself.
- LeRobot, on 04/20/2008, -14/+4But is it peer reviewed? It's an "open letter" which has no hypothesis, it is just "asking questions" and demanding "more investigation". How do you peer review that?
- JoeRW, on 04/21/2008, -2/+9Good question. Would you like to study Civil Engineering (or any inquiring subject) and find out why and how?
- Herkimer56, on 04/20/2008, -25/+7I love it when the truthers bury me for telling the truth. It's a very clear indicator of their real agenda.
- Carlhole, on 04/19/2008, -8/+48Wow! So much hostility to the mere idea of organizing a renewed independent investigation to settle many of the persistent, unanswered questions about the 911 events. Why shouldn't EVERYONE ,regardless of views, embrace a thorough-going investigation that everyone can trust?
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html- onetimer, on 04/19/2008, -25/+11Not hostility toward an investigation of 911. Simply hostility toward the troof movement trying to pass off a self-peer-reviewed letter-to-the-editor in a Pay-to-publish-journal as some kind of credible proof.
- card51short, on 04/20/2008, -5/+14hahahahahahahahahhahaahahhaha pay to publish?
ahhahahahahahahahahahahahhhahhhhahahahhaahhhaahhhahahahahahahhahahah
I bet the journal uses the fees to fund wahabi sects to kill american troops, too!
hahahahahahahahahahhhahhahahaahahhahahahah
- card51short, on 04/20/2008, -5/+14hahahahahahahahahhahaahahhaha pay to publish?
- LeRobot, on 04/20/2008, -15/+5We can't get 100% consensus that man landed on the moon. Why should we cater to every crank out there who rejects the obvious? Its been seven years, show me ONE SINGLE TRUTHER who has actually come up with an alternate explanation for what happened on 911. There's nobody who will do it because when they cobble together all their little scaps and oddities it adds up to the most ludicrous, far fetched, absurd, illogical and improbably theory imaginable.
- Carlhole, on 04/20/2008, -4/+15The truth about 911 is that we do not know what happened on 911. We want to find out and you do that through a thorough-going investigation with subpoena power, which releases classified video, documentation, wreckage, etc and which tests for hypotheses such as the use of explosives. You're complaint about the Truth Movement basically says, "Since you are not omniscient about what actually happened, it is not worth attempting to discover what actually happened". If the police had to have a fully fleshed out theory of a crime before every criminal investigation, they would never discover anything. But I'm really only stating the obvious.
- theright, on 04/20/2008, -13/+5We have had investigations. Thorough investigations. Criticize the stonewalling of the 9/11 Commission all you want, but the end result was a thorough, detailed report.
Your objection to the NIST report is that they didn't test for the use of explosives? Well, I'd like to object on the grounds that they didn't test for traces of rubber ducks in the elevator lobby of each floor. If there were reasonable grounds for suspicion that explosives were used, then NIST would have tested for them. As it stands, in six and a half years after the fact, no one has put forward a coherent argument for the controlled demolition hypothesis.
I can assure you 95% of the 9/11 denial movement are not interested in a new investigation. They've already pinned the attacks on the government/NWO/PNAC/Mossad/Bush/Cheney/Zionists and use the "Just Asking Questions (JAQ-off)" approach as a cover to spread their hate-filled diatribe.- honestjoe, on 04/20/2008, -3/+7Even the 9/11 commissioners are on record calling their investigation a farce and/or say the were lied to and purposely deceived!
Senator Max Cleland --- Former member of the 9/11 Commission, said: “One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up.” He went on to say: “It is a national scandal.”
John J. Farmer, Jr., Senior Counsel, 9/11 Commission said: “I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described,” John Farmer, a former New Jersey attorney general who led the staff inquiry into events on Sept. 11, said in a recent interview. “The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years. ... This is not spin. This is not true.”
Timothy J. Roemer, PhD, 9/11 Commissioner CNN Article 8/2/06 : “A member of the 9/11 commission said Wednesday that panel members so distrusted testimony from Pentagon officials that they referred their concerns to the Pentagon’s inspector general. ... “We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting,” Roemer told CNN. “We were not sure of the intent, whether it was to deceive the commission or merely part of the fumbling bureaucracy.”
Thomas H. Kean, Chairman, 9/11 Commission said: “We, to this day, don’t know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us,” said Thomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey Republican governor who led the commission. “It was just so far from the truth. ... It’s one of those loose ends that never got tied.”
Jamie S. Gorelick, 9/11 Commissioner said: Regarding recent revelations of a July 10, 2001 meeting between Condoleezza Rice, George Tenet, and Cofer Black - “Jamie S. Gorelick, a member of the Sept. 11 commission, said she checked with commission staff members who told her investigators were never told about a July 10 meeting. “We didn’t know about the meeting itself,” she said. “I can assure you it would have been in our report if we had known to ask about it.” White House and State Department officials yesterday confirmed that the July 10 meeting took place...”
Timothy J. Roemer, PhD, 9/11 Commissioner said: Regarding recent revelations of a July 10, 2001 meeting between Condoleezza Rice, George Tenet, and Cofer Black - “In interviews Saturday and Sunday, commission members said they were never told about the meeting despite hours of public and private questioning with Rice, Tenet and Black, much of it focused specifically on how the White House had dealt with terrorist threats in the summer of 2001.
“None of this was shared with us in hours of private interviews, including interviews under oath; nor do we have any paper on this,” said Timothy Roemer, a Democratic member of the commission and a former congressman from Indiana. “I’m deeply disturbed by this. I’m furious.”
Peter Rundlet, Counsel for the 9/11 Commission said: “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 9/11 commissioners Kean and Hamilton wrote;
"recent revelations that the CIA destroyed videotaped interrogations of Qaeda operatives leads us to conclude that the agency failed to respond to our lawful requests for information about the 9/11 plot."
"Those who knew about those videotapes -- and did not tell us about them -- obstructed our investigation."
I could go on and on with comments from "ALL" of the 9/11 commissioners claiming that their investigation was obstructed yet debunkers say its complete, accurate and therefore no new investigation should be granted as requested by the 9/11 victim family members, survivors, rescue workers, and etc. Who happen to be dying because of another government cover up and lie regarding the air after 9/11! - LeRobot, on 04/20/2008, -8/+3How many of these commissioners think it was an inside job? ZERO. So how exactly do they support your case?
- honestjoe, on 04/21/2008, -1/+7@LeRobot
No I don't think the Philip Zelikow warped commission influenced by Rove and the White house will ever have the courage to say it was an inside job. But they have said more than enough to point out that another investigation (with subpoena power) is seriously needed!
So why have the boot licker's tried to stop a complete investigation since day one? Is because they hate the 9/11 victims families, fire fighters, survivors, and etc, or are they afraid of what will be found? - LeRobot, on 04/21/2008, -7/+1Right, so listing all those people was kind of a joke then, since they support my theory not yours.
Nice of you to pretend to speak for the firefighters when truthers accuse them of being part of the plot. The only people you are defending are al queda. - honestjoe, on 05/01/2008, -0/+3Here are some quotes from first responders that more accurately describe the fires and the events leading up to them. These Quotes are evidence of arson!
According to a soldier at the scene, WTC Building 7 is evacuated before the second tower is hit. [Fort Detrick Standard, 10/18/2001] All individuals in the Secret Service’s New York field office, located in WTC 7, were ordered to evacuate after the first attack. [PCCW Newsletter, 3/2006] OEM Commissioner John Odermatt, said during an interview that after the first plane hit the WTC, he left only two staffers at the command center. [Barrett and Collins, 2006, pp. 34] No reason has been given for the speedy evacuation of WTC 7 or why they DIDN'T evacuate the South Tower but instead sent everyone back into the South Tower.
#1. Why did they decide before the South Tower was hit that the “Bunker” was a greater risk to its occupants than the South Tower?
In the Naudet film the fire department initially ordered the lobby of WTC7 to be set up as the triage area for any wounded evacuated from the North tower. But an order came down not to use WTC7 (from an unknown official) before the second plane struck. When the second attack occurred Fire Commissioner Thomas Von Essen arrived at WTC 7 before the collapse of the South Tower, looking for Mayor Giuliani. Learning that the OEM headquarters has been evacuated, he later claims that he thinks, “How ridiculous. We’ve got a thirteen-million-dollar command center and we can’t even use it.” [Essen, 2002, pp. 26] He says in frustration, “How can we be evacuating OEM? We really need it now.” He will later tell an interviewer that he’d headed for the OEM headquarters because, “I thought that was where we should all be because that’s what [it] was built for.” [Fink and Mathias, 2002, pp. 230]
#2. What reason was given for the NYFD to relocate the triage area away from WTC7?
The answer to both is because WTC7 was already on fire! Here are just to pictures of over a dozen that show WTC7 on fire before the collapse of the South Tower.
Shows the fire location (before fire) of WTC7 before the false flag event: http://www.amanzafar.com/WTC/wtc-8.jpg
Shows the fire in WTC7 after the jet had struck the South Tower:
http://www.amanzafar.com/WTC/wtc-31.jpg
Shows the fire in WTC7 before the collapse of the South Tower:
http://www.amanzafar.com/WTC/wtc-31.jpg
Shows the fire even through all the dust after the South Tower collapsed: http://www.amanzafar.com/WTC/wtc-67.jpg
This has been confirmed by Chief Hall, and Chief Morris, who decided not to establish a command post at WTC7 as planed because they had discovered it was already on fire before the “South” Tower collapsed. This is also confirmed by Lt. Dennis P. Stafford who had met up with Chief Hall, and Chief Morris to assist in the establishment of a command post. http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/pa ... Other accounts confirm that WTC7 was on fire before the South Tower had collapsed and had been evacuated immediately after the first plane had struck the North Tower come from Michael Hess, New York’s corporation counsel, and Barry Jennings, a City Housing Authority worker.
Barry Jennings, a City Housing Authority worker, and Michael Hess, New York’s corporation counsel, went up to the emergency command center on the 23rd floor of WTC Building 7 after the first attack occurred. [Associated Press, 9/11/2001 However, Hess and Jennings reportedly find no one there which suggests the center is evacuated earlier than officially claimed. [Independent, 9/13/2001] Barry Jennings then starts making calls from the recently abandoned "bunker" and is then told (by phone) to get out of building 7 ASAP!
At this point, according to Hess, the power goes out in the building so they then start walking down the stairs to get out as the elevators are no longer operating. (Note: officially the power outage was do to the second plane striking the South Tower) According to Hess, when the two men get down to the eighth floor, “there was an explosion and we’ve been trapped on the eighth floor with smoke, thick smoke, all around us, for about an hour and a half.” [UPN 9, 9/11/2001] Jennings similarly describes, “We made it to the eighth floor. Big explosion. Blew us back into the eighth floor, and I turned to Hess. I said, ‘This is it; we’re dead. We’re not gonna make it out of here.’” [Penn State Public Broadcasting, 3/1/2002]
After breaking a window and calling for help, they were spotted by firefighters outside. When the firefighters go in, they also find a security officer for one of the businesses based in the building, who is trapped on the 7th floor by the smoke in the stairway. Why this guard did not evacuate earlier, along with the rest of WTC 7, is unknown. All three men are escorted out of the building. Associated Press, 9/11/2001; Giuliani, 2002, pp. 20-21 and 244; Penn State Public Broadcasting, 3/1/2002; National Institute of Standards and Technology, 6/2004, pp. L-18 ; National Institute of Standards and Technology, 9/2005, pp. 109-110 ]
The cause of the explosion is unclear but it is absolutely certain that it was started before the South Tower collapsed therefore there is plenty of evidence to declare WTC7 an arson and begin investigating it as such.
- honestjoe, on 04/20/2008, -3/+7Even the 9/11 commissioners are on record calling their investigation a farce and/or say the were lied to and purposely deceived!
- FunnyBunnyBo, on 04/20/2008, -2/+13"We have had investigations. Thorough investigations."
Liar, misinformation, disinfo agent.- BoDeeDoe, on 04/20/2008, -2/+12Herkimer56 and theright are the same person.
- card51short, on 04/20/2008, -2/+12a thorough detailed report that was funded 1/10th of other major disasters, where bush and cheney didn't have to testify under oath and where the family steering committee said "only 30% of our questions were answered".
Not to mention they let out the money trail and WTC7's collapse.
Very thorough, liar.- LeRobot, on 04/20/2008, -9/+2Oh yes, if only they'd testified under oath they would have been forced to admit the whole thing was a NWO plot. Welcome to the Scooby Doo school of truth investigation.
- theright, on 04/20/2008, -13/+5We have had investigations. Thorough investigations. Criticize the stonewalling of the 9/11 Commission all you want, but the end result was a thorough, detailed report.
- stienster, on 04/22/2008, -0/+3are you serious??? wake up.
- Carlhole, on 04/20/2008, -4/+15The truth about 911 is that we do not know what happened on 911. We want to find out and you do that through a thorough-going investigation with subpoena power, which releases classified video, documentation, wreckage, etc and which tests for hypotheses such as the use of explosives. You're complaint about the Truth Movement basically says, "Since you are not omniscient about what actually happened, it is not worth attempting to discover what actually happened". If the police had to have a fully fleshed out theory of a crime before every criminal investigation, they would never discover anything. But I'm really only stating the obvious.
- onetimer, on 04/19/2008, -25/+11Not hostility toward an investigation of 911. Simply hostility toward the troof movement trying to pass off a self-peer-reviewed letter-to-the-editor in a Pay-to-publish-journal as some kind of credible proof.
- Canada911truth, on 04/19/2008, -8/+50Even if George Bush came out and said that he and parts of his administration were responsible, these foolish deniers will still refuse to believe it. Sheesh. What's wrong with these people?
Way to go Steven Jones! Keep up the excellent work. - dordnuuv8, on 04/19/2008, -9/+36The paper is here:
http://www.bentham.org/open/index.htm (our paper is listed on top at the moment, the most recently entered paper); or go here:
http://www.bentham.org/open/tociej/openaccess2.htm
(Click on “year 2008” then scroll down to the paper and click on it.)
Full Title:
Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction
The authors are: Steven E. Jones*,1, Frank M. Legge2, Kevin R. Ryan3, Anthony F. Szamboti*,4, James R. Gourley- dordnuuv8, on 04/20/2008, -5/+19what kind of aholeZ would down digg the direct link? People afraid of People reading it for themselves and seeing if it's BS or not? That's your defense of the official 9/11 story?
- obliviousfool, on 04/20/2008, -2/+18The same kind of assholes that come in every 9/11 thread and crap all over it with jingoism, lies, and free kool-aid.
- dordnuuv8, on 04/20/2008, -5/+19what kind of aholeZ would down digg the direct link? People afraid of People reading it for themselves and seeing if it's BS or not? That's your defense of the official 9/11 story?
- Look4Truth, on 04/19/2008, -12/+41The RLC doesn't want to admit to the truth guys, notice how they endlessly search for these threads? They want desperately to keep this under wraps because they can't fathom themselves admitting to the truth because that would require responsibility and cause for action, and they'd rather turn on the idiot box to get their daily programming.
Anyone who can't at the very least see building 7 for what it was, demolished, is so far in denial or brain washed that they'll probably never come out of it. But see, their problems is that our side grows every day while theirs shrinks and that frustrates them to the point that they come here and throw around propaganda like it's candy.
Sorry RLC, you're going to lose in the end. And for those of you who might be government shills *cough* Jerky *cough*, you can go tell your handlers that we're never going to go away and our numbers are going to continue to grow.
And also, when this nation falls apart because fools like you helped, just remember what we told you when your kids are starving in the camps. Oh yeah, you didn't think the government drills on the police state was a joke did you? Yep, get ready to take your mark you evil doers, you'll get what you deserve in the end. You might think you're cool and on the winning side now but I guarantee you that you'll get what you deserve in the end, if not here on this putrid rock then later when you're forced to kneel before a mighty God who will judge you for your deeds.
Truth > lies...good > evil.- theright, on 04/19/2008, -27/+12A single shred of evidence supporting your brain-dead theory that WTC7 was a controlled demolition. "It looked like one! It fell downwards and everything!" doesn't count. Evidence of a controlled demolition. Shoot.
"[...] And for those of you who might be government shills *cough* Jerky *cough*, you can go tell your handlers that we're never going to go away and our numbers are going to continue to grow."
The mark of a true paranoid delusional. Delusions of grandeur; selflessly battling an enemy that doesn't exist...- BrapAllgood, on 04/20/2008, -6/+16Um...yeah. Open your eyes, maybe?
- theright, on 04/20/2008, -13/+6...to what, exactly?
- BrapAllgood, on 04/20/2008, -3/+13You could start with WTC7, for one EASY example. Or you can keep the blinders on...cuz it's a free country, right?
- theright, on 04/20/2008, -13/+6...to what, exactly?
- Observant1, on 04/21/2008, -0/+9"The mark of a true paranoid delusional. Delusions of grandeur; selflessly battling an enemy that doesn't exist..."
ok, lets look at who the enemy is with this "war on drugs", oh thats right, it's the citizens, when the biggest importer happens to be the govornment.
now lets look at who the enemy is with this "war on terrorism", it's GHWB's business partner's son Osama Bin Ladin, no wait, it's Al-Quaida that was a CIA filename for people we had political influence with, no wait, it's that evil Saddam we put into power years ago, no wait, it's all the Iranians and we dont know a sunni from a shiite, no wait, it's blond haired blue eyed homegrown terrorists. by tapping the enemy's phone lines and e-mails we'll get them all! we can strip search them at the airports, tazer them, torture them, kill them too, because we've taken all their rights.. oh that's right, US citizens are the terrorists too!
so much for the Don Quixote diagnosis, what about this government that just has to have SOME kind of battle to make money from, regardless the consequences. is that paranoid and delusional enough for ya? we have corporate instigated court enforced pharmaceutical fascism one way or another for people who cant quite fit in at the same time this nation's productivity has been gutted with it now going bankrupt. 1% of the people are behind bars at an estimated cost of 1.5 trillion per year for the last 15+ years. there are over twice as many government workers as there are manufacturing workers. the jobs have been offshore outsourced and often funded by corporate welfare, so the jobs are gone along with the pay rate. all of this happening is not an accident or just coincidences.
about all of our deepwater ports have been handed over to foreign interests, our national parks and reserves have been handed over to the UN, is near 70% of this nations land. Trans Texas Corridor, SPP, NAU, being built as its existence is baldface denied, our tax dollars at work. of course de-industrializing the US also means they have greatly harmed the taxation base they leech from, but dont worry, theyre boosting enforcement -which costs even more money that WE dont have to give, and they dont have to spend but will anyway in abundance like an idiot with a credit card and no bank to stop their rampant spending.
they declared US the enemy several times the last couple of decades and many people are unaware of it. they cant tax jobs that dont exist so now they want a global warming CO-2 tax on the air we breath. our enemy hates our freedom, if it's taxed, it isnt free, problem solved.
with all the control mechanisms installed/instilled after 911 the only ones who have gained anything is the enemy government that has declared US the enemy. they dont care about helping rescue workers of that day, they dont care about using depleted uranium munitions in the middle east that is a scorched earth genocidal policy war crime. they care that they dont pay for the effects as insurance companies drop people who were exposed to DU, or to "ground zero 911".
but keep that head in the sand, by all means. they dont care the costs, they arent paying for it, they are going into severe debt making US pay for it as they take away all freedoms as head in the sand dumbasses ask "proof? proof? proof?" like a retarded hairlipped dog.
- BrapAllgood, on 04/20/2008, -6/+16Um...yeah. Open your eyes, maybe?
- Look4Truth, on 04/19/2008, -10/+27You've seen tons of proof from links that have been posted but you choose to take the side of government propaganda. Like I said, if you can't see building 7 for what it is...
And if you think the government isn't monitoring sites like Digg, YOU'RE delusional. But then again, you believe the government and lamestream media has your best intentions in mind. The government has publicly ADMITTED to making up stories and paying money for ones but yet you STILL can't get a grasp on reality.
Go back to the boob tube, everything's fine. I'm sure all those government-run police state drills are just for fun, nothing to see here. After all, they love us.- theright, on 04/20/2008, -23/+12"You've seen tons of proof from links that have been posted but you choose to take the side of government propaganda. Like I said, if you can't see building 7 for what it is..."
I've seen tons of conjecture, poor science, quote mining and paranoid delusional ravings. This is a simple request. A single shred of evidence supporting your assertion that WTC7 was a controlled demolition. You seem to have been convinced, and you're mocking those who aren't by calling us "so far in denial or brain washed that they'll probably never come out of it". So surely a single shred of evidence shouldn't be too much to ask?
As you struggle to fulfill this request (and if you do attempt to fulfill it, rest assured you will be debunked), perhaps you should reconsider who's the one "so far in denial [...] they'll probably never come out of it" or "brain washed [sic]"
"But then again, you believe the government and lamestream media has your best intentions in mind."
How on earth did you arrive at that conclusion? I'm the most cynical, skeptical person you'll ever meet. Contrary to your delusional imagination, I don't watch FOX News and worship Bush. If you're going for the ad hominem approach, at least get the character assassination right...- honestjoe, on 04/20/2008, -5/+16@theright
No one has proven that the collapse of building 7 which displayed all the unique characteristics of a controlled demolition was not a controlled demolition. The ASCE WTC investigation, the FEMA Report, the Weidlinger study, the 9/11 commission report and NIST still have not been able to explain the collapse of WTC #7 for 7 LONG YEARS!
So lets start with evidence that is looked for and used in any arson investigation.
NATIONAL STANDARD FOR FIRE INVESTIGATION: NFPA 921.
Sec 12-4: Unusual residues ...could arise from thermite, magnesium or other pyrotechnic materials!
Note that sulfur is:
“The most popular vaporizing agent due to the fact it lowers ignition temperature for most pyrotechnic mixtures.” --From the web page: Pyrotechnic Chemicals
http://web.archive.org/web/20040415193823/http://m ...
The Twin Towers and WTC 7 had the puzzling sulfur residue! World Trade Center Building Performance Study, Appendix C Source”Limited Metallurgical Examination”, shows evidence of explosives used, by way of photographs, microscopic, and chemical examination.
“Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure."… “The thinning of the steel occurred by high temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation."..."The unusual thinning of the member is most likely due to an attack of the steel by grain boundary penetration of sulfur forming sulfides that contain both iron and copper."..."A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel."… “The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified.” - theright, on 04/20/2008, -16/+71. The reference to NFPA 921 is great. Unfortunately I can't find an expanded version of the quote without the truther redaction. Regardless, yes, there is no contention that thermite could (operative word here being could) produce unusual residues
2. The quote that sulfur is "the most popular vaporizing agent [...]" is also great. Not quite sure why you've sourced that common sense statement from a page on fireworks, nor why you were so desperate to get the information from that page you're getting it through archive.org, but still
3. Yes, the Twin Towers and WTC7 had evidence of some sulfur residue. However, to assert that Appendix C of the FEMA report "shows evidence of explosives used, by way of photographs, microscopic, and chemical examination" is extremely misleading
Explosives or thermite/ate cutting charges are two potential sources of the sulfur. With regards to this topic, I urge you to read F.R. Greening's paper "Sulfur and the World Trade Center Disaster" ( http://911myths.com/Sulfur.pdf ) which compares the probable sources of he sulfur. In the case of the Twin Towers, it is calculated that likely quantities of thermite cutter charges used would produce less than 1% of the sulfur exhibited. It remains just a small fraction in WTC7.
P.S. It's a bit sad that you had to plagiarize one of honestjoe's comments here on Digg to provide an answer to my question. In turn, parts of your post have been copied and pasted word-for-word (not just that in quotation marks) from various websites, although I'm assuming honestjoe's comment was your source in particular as it featured all three main points your's did. Regardless, you seem to have misunderstood the purpose of my question. You, personally, are convinced that WTC7 was a controlled demolition, and contend that those who are not convinced are "brain washed" and "in denial".
It is remarkably telling that when asked to provide evidence of your conviction, you have to frantically search for other peoples' responses to the same questions. - honestjoe, on 04/20/2008, -3/+12@ theright
You said, "P.S. It's a bit sad that you had to plagiarize one of honestjoe's comments here on Digg to provide an answer to my question. In turn, parts of your post have been copied and pasted word-for-word (not just that in quotation marks) from various websites, although I'm assuming honestjoe's comment was your source in particular as it featured all three main points your's did. Regardless, you seem to have misunderstood the purpose of my question. You, personally, are convinced that WTC7 was a controlled demolition, and contend that those who are not convinced are "brain washed" and "in denial".
It is remarkably telling that when asked to provide evidence of your conviction, you have to frantically search for other peoples' responses to the same questions."
What the hell are you talking about? Is that some kind of joke? You do realize that I am "honestjoe"!?!
As for your machine like (cut and paste) response to "MY" comment.
#1 "Many different incendiary devices are constantly being created in order to mislead fire investigators into thinking the fire is due to natural causes. Thanks to skilled fire investigators, experience and technological advances, the mystery of these devices and how they work is soon understood and exposed. In recent years the use of thermite reactions as incendiary devices has gained popularity with arsonists because they are easily ignited with a match, burn quickly and can generate a very intense heat in excess of 4000(F." http://www.materials-engr.com/ns96.html
#1 There’’s more:: NIIST,, Appendiix C:: “Unusual flame..” ”very bright flame.. which is generating a plume of white smoke” WTC2, a few minutes before collapse and found at the WTC was molten metal, yellow-hot and in large quantities… and analyses of previously molten metal and WTC dust, and of high-temperature sulfidation of WTC steel.
Note: white plume of “smoke” (metal oxide, not normal fire)!
The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified.”
http://www.fema.gov/library/wtcstudy.shtm FEMA, Appendix C
• http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf
• NY Times: "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation.“
Sulfur is used with thermite (called “thermate”) to cut fast through steel.
Electron microprobe data shows us that the previously molten metal has Manganese and
Fluorine in abundance. (where did Fluorine come from?)
Fluorine is present in an oxidizer using Polytetrafluoroethylene as its base, used in thermite charges.
http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/1344-QDsu ...
• Potassium Permanganate (KMnO4) is also commonly used as an oxidizer in thermite-reactants (aluminothermics).
• Hence, K, Mn and F are often present in thermite residue, suggesting they are part of a “thermite fingerprint” at WTC.
“When thermite reaction compounds are used to ignite a fire, they produce a characteristic burn
pattern [recall white ash, white-yellow how liquid metal, intense white reaction zone -- WTC 2!]
• and leave behind evidence. These compounds are rather unique in their chemical composition,
containing common elements such as copper, iron, calcium, silicon and aluminum, but also contain
more unusual elements, such as vanadium, titanium, tin, fluorine and manganese. While some of these elements are consumed in the fire, many are also left
behind in the residue.” http://www.materials-engr.com/ns96.html
- honestjoe, on 04/20/2008, -5/+16@theright
- theright, on 04/20/2008, -23/+12"You've seen tons of proof from links that have been posted but you choose to take the side of government propaganda. Like I said, if you can't see building 7 for what it is..."
- MrESaulved, on 04/20/2008, -5/+15You don't stand alone.
- LeRobot, on 04/20/2008, -19/+7This is exactly the kind of paranoid, vaguely threatening rant that I expect from truthers. Just keep sending your money to Alex Jones and hiding out in the basement with stacks of canned beans waiting for the apocalypse. One day you'll prove us all wrong!
- card51short, on 04/20/2008, -3/+14hahaah only fools would prepare for emergency when there are billboards all over every US town saying to do so and the homeland security director is warning of nuke attacks every other week.
Foolish, I tells ya!!!- LeRobot, on 04/20/2008, -12/+5You want to live in fear, go ahead. That's what Alex Jones wants you to do.
- MrESaulved, on 04/20/2008, -4/+12No, Alex Jones wants informed citizens actively involved in open government. Isn't that what you want, LeRobot?
- Herkimer56, on 04/20/2008, -14/+5No, he wants his followers scared out of what passes for their minds so he can sell them *****. If his intentions are so altruistic then why doesn't he pull all of the ads from his radio show and web sites and stop charging you cultists to view content that should be free? It's because he's doing this for the money.
- card51short, on 04/21/2008, -2/+11"If his intentions are so altruistic then why doesn't he pull all of the ads from his radio show and web sites and stop charging you cultists to view content that should be free?
BECAUSE IT COSTS HIM MONEY TO PUT THE STUFF UP THERE! HE'S NOT A MILLIONAIRE!!
He even encourages people to burn his CDs and spread the word and watch them for free on Google.
Pure evil. - LeRobot, on 04/21/2008, -9/+3So that's why he accepts ads from far right racist loons? To pay the bills?
Alex Jones is in it for the money. He needs to keep the audience entertained, and that requires new material. As a result, he is constantly ratcheting up the fear and panic. This week its suitcase nukes, next week its "bone crushing mega attacks". And the week after that its the NAU and the NWO takeover which is coming any day now and you need to know that... (the remainder of this program is for subscribers only. Join now for only $29.99 and get a free copy of Terrorstorm!) - BrapAllgood, on 04/21/2008, -1/+10"the remainder of this program is for subscribers only."
Actually, starting today, the whole 4 hours will be broadcast.
"Join now for only $29.99 and get a free copy of Terrorstorm!"
I must've missed this option when I joined for less than $6. - LeRobot, on 04/22/2008, -5/+0Did you get a free copy of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion with that?
- card51short, on 04/21/2008, -2/+12"You want to live in fear, go ahead. That's what Alex Jones wants you to do."
Is putting a seatbelt also living in fear according to you?
How about getting alarm systems installed into your house?
Paranoid fear?
What if most of the people during Katrina had an extra storage of food?
I guess it's not worth it living in fear.- LeRobot, on 04/21/2008, -10/+2And the people who listened to him when he told them the year 2000 bug was going to be used to bring in martial law and the new world order? Were they living in fear? Yes actually, they were.
- LeRobot, on 04/20/2008, -12/+5You want to live in fear, go ahead. That's what Alex Jones wants you to do.
- card51short, on 04/20/2008, -3/+14hahaah only fools would prepare for emergency when there are billboards all over every US town saying to do so and the homeland security director is warning of nuke attacks every other week.
- LoPhatt, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1If I were Building 7, I would have committed suicide too, all rigged up and no way to blow with United Airlines Flight 93 crashing in Shanksville.
- theright, on 04/19/2008, -27/+12A single shred of evidence supporting your brain-dead theory that WTC7 was a controlled demolition. "It looked like one! It fell downwards and everything!" doesn't count. Evidence of a controlled demolition. Shoot.
- dordnuuv8, on 04/20/2008, -7/+33Direct link here:
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCI ...- dordnuuv8, on 04/20/2008, -5/+21what kind of ahole would down digg the direct link? Someone afraid of people reading it for themselves and seeing if it's BS or not? That's your defense of the official 9/11 story?
- theright, on 04/20/2008, -13/+3Defense? The burden of proof is on the 9/11 deniers.
- card51short, on 04/20/2008, -2/+12the burden of proof is on those who said 19 hijackers did it...where's the evidence?
Can you provide one single piece of credible evidence?- honestjoe, on 04/21/2008, -2/+9Speaking of burden of proof I bet that not one debunker on here can tell me the names of the 9/11 hijackers. Do you hear that debunker's can you at least get the government story right and list the names of the hijackers for me?
I seriously doubt it but lets see if they can prove me wrong. I'll even give the boot licker's some clues as to the hijackers names by reminding them that Robert Bonner, the head of Customs and Border Protection, said under oath :»We ran passenger manifests through the system used by Customs—two were hits on our watch list of August 2001 (...) And by looking at the Arab names and their seat locations, ticket purchases and other passenger information, it didn’t take a lot to do a rudimentary link analysis. Customs officers were able to ID 19 probable hijackers within 45 minutes. (...) I saw the sheet by 11 a.m. And that analysis did indeed correctly identify the terrorists.”
“the names were those listed on the planes’ passenger manifests and investigators were certain that those were the names the hijackers used when they entered the United States.”
Using those names, dates of birth and etc. We find that 5 (FIVE) of the alleged hijackers had received military training in the U.S. for example Raw Story subject Al-Ghamdi had attended the Defense Language Institute at the Presidio in Monterey, Calif. He had listed the Naval Air Station in Pensacola, Florida as his permanent address on his driver's license and is connected to the base by other records as well as official statements such as;
Air Force spokesman Colonel Ken McClellan confirmed that Al-Ghamdi attended the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, California.
Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Steve Butler who had specific information regarding Al-Ghamdi was suspended from his post as Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs at the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, California, and is told he could face a court martial for writing a letter to a local newspaper calling President Bush a “joke” and accusing him of allowing the 9/11 attacks to happen.
Though U.S. officials have explained that his identity was stolen and latter used by the hijackers, the US military has never definitively denied that he and the others were the hijackers, stating that the alleged hijackers are “probably” not identical to the alumni of U.S. military courses.
On September 20, the London Times reported, “Five of the hijackers were using stolen identities, and investigators are studying the possibility that the entire suicide squad consisted of impostors.” Not surprisingly it was the same 5 (FIVE) that had received military training in the U.S.. Hamza Al-Ghamdi's family says the FBI photo “has no resemblance to him at all.”
Then CNN shows a picture of a Saudi pilot called Saeed Alghamdi and claims it is the hijacker of the same name. However, the pilot is alive and working in Tunisia. The FBI listed the hijacker’s possible residence as Delray Beach, Florida, where the pilot trained in 1998, 1999, and 2000, which may be why CNN uses a photograph of the wrong person. The pilot returns to Saudi Arabia to avoid problems and CNN apologises for the error.
Former CIA Director James Woolsey suspected foreign intelligence involvement in the case. "My judgment is that there's enough sophistication in this operation that it's likely that identify thefts were done," he said.
FBI Director Robert Mueller made it known that some of the hijackers may have stolen identities of innocent citizens. And just like the FBI has stated twice, (both over a year after 9/11) they have "no hard evidence linking bin Laden to 9/11", Mueller told CNN twice that there is "no legal proof to prove the identities of the suicidal hijackers."
During the Zacarias Moussaoui trial it was revealed that the FBI had indeed verified that at least six of the alleged hijackers were using fake identities and identification. (Strangely this had been omitted from the 9/11 commission report.) Some of the fake documents were purchased from Mohamed el-Atriss at his business in Paterson, New Jersey and who was sentenced to jail for selling the hijackers false USA ID cards three of wich had been purchased by Nawaf Alhazmi.
Nawaf Alhazmi’s USA ID card, Salem Alhazmi’s USA ID card, and Majed Moqed’s “Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Student Identity Card” (that is also fraudulent according to forensic examiners) were recovered from the Pentagon crash site. (the 9/11 Commission says that Salem Alhazmi was unable to produce a photo ID when check
- honestjoe, on 04/21/2008, -2/+9Speaking of burden of proof I bet that not one debunker on here can tell me the names of the 9/11 hijackers. Do you hear that debunker's can you at least get the government story right and list the names of the hijackers for me?
- dordnuuv8, on 04/20/2008, -5/+21what kind of ahole would down digg the direct link? Someone afraid of people reading it for themselves and seeing if it's BS or not? That's your defense of the official 9/11 story?
