176 Comments

• Digg
• Bury

theright 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."

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

You want to live in fear, go ahead. That's what Alex Jones wants you to do.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

@HortonThey 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.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

We'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?

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

For once your right. This paper is not based on a theory but on FACT that there are 14 huge contradiction in the NIST report making it clear to all, but the few who still have their head up their or the governments (employers) a**, that the NIST report is nothing more than a bad joke that does a disservice to those who died.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

@therightI 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.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

What's in a name? <a class="user" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteen_Points&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteen_Points&lt;/a&gt;

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

If 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.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

peer 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.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

wow... this link is dead.. whatever it was... it pissed someone off.. a coverup?

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

Who in their right mind would be against a new investigation into the attacks<a class="user" href="http://binhot.ru&quot;&gt;http://binhot.ru&lt;/a&gt;

• Reply