Title: 9/11 Truth: Steven Jones on WTC 7 and Controlled Demolition Source:
9/11 Truth conference URL Source:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pJQ2yZfTY0 Published:Feb 20, 2007 Author:Steven Jones Post Date:2007-02-20 00:41:08 by robin Ping List:*9-11*Subscribe to *9-11* Keywords:None Views:13517 Comments:230
From Halifaxion
Steven Jones speaks at the Chicago 9/11 Steven Jones speaks at the Chicago 9/11 Truth conference (June 2006) about World Trade Center Building 7 and the case for controlled demolition of all three towers. This is just ten minutes from a longer lecture that you can find in its entirety on Google Video here:
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: BeAChooser, Destro, Yertle Turtle, ++Official Govt Explanation of 911 Conspiracists++ (#0)
WTC7 ping!
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush (About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
#2. To: BeAChooser, Destro, Yertle Turtle, ++Official Govt Explanation of 911 Conspiracists++ (#1)
WTC7 ping!
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush (About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
Category: News & Opinion (Specific) Topic: Conspiracy: 9/11 - Alleged Coverups Synopsis: Structural engineering faculty of BYU repudiate Jones Source: Ira A. Fulton College News Published: November 1, 2005 Author: BYU College of Engineering and Technology For Education and Discussion Only. Not for Commercial Use.
Brigham Young University has a policy of academic freedom that supports the pursuit and dissemination of knowledge and ideas. Through the academic process, ideas should be advanced, challenged, and debated by peer-review in credible venues. We believe in the integrity of the academic review process and that, when it is followed properly, peer-review is valuable for evaluating the validity of ideas and conclusions.
The University is aware that Professor Steven Jones's hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones's department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review. The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones.
***************
Jones, btw, isn't the 1st to be silenced by this pack of blood thirsty pigs
First what? Sub-atomic particle physicist? ROTFLOL!
And by the way, he wasn't silenced. He resigned. Seemed quite happy about it. And he's still out there talking.
What else don't you know about Steven Jones, Jethro?
The BYU Engineering Dept. issued a statement to that effect at the time of Jones's release of his report. The Physics Dept. issued no such statement.
Thta's not the same thing as "the entire structural engineering department at BYU said..."
From the article I posted:
Professor Jones's department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review.
The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones.
By all means, angle, link us to the name of a member of the structural engineering department at BYU who has come out in support of Jones' theories.
For that matter, link us to the name of another professor of physics at BYU who has done that.
In fact, link to to ALL the names of structural engineers, physics professors, demolition experts and experts in fire, steel, impact and concrete who have come out in support of the assertions that Jones proclaims as established fact.
Did you watch this very short video? Did you watch the other very short videos that demonstrate to anyone who is not physically blind, the difference between a demolition and a collapsing building?
As I read the thread I see you have chosen to attack the credentials of Dr. Jones, rather than explain in your own words how this cannot be a demolition.
It's because you cannot. It was a demolition. A planned demolition. It is so obvious that MSM has refused to show the fall of WTC7.
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush (About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones.
shill....reading comprehension problem? BYUs statement is (they) "do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones." The statement makes no assertion as to it’s accuracy. Such argument might be cheered by your pal the human toothpick on LP, but not here.
There are very few, admittedly, who, having the courage of their convictions, would willing sacrifice their reputation and tenure after seeing what happened to Dr. Jones.
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
David L. Griscom, PhD – Research physicist, retired in 2001 from Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) in Washington, DC, after 33 years service. Fellow of the American Physical Society. Fulbright-García Robles Fellow at Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México in Mexico City (1997). Visiting professorships of research at the Universities of Paris and Saint-Etienne, France, and Tokyo Institute of Technology (2000 - 2003). Adjunct Professor of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Arizona (2004 - 2005). Winner of the 1993 N.F. Mott Award sponsored by the Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids, the 1995 Otto Schott Award offered by the Carl-Zeiss-Stiftung (Germany), a 1996 Outstanding Graduate School Alumnus Award at Brown University, and the 1997 Sigma Xi Pure Science Award at NRL. Principal author of 109 of his 185 published works, a body of work which is highly cited by his peers. Officially credited with largest number of papers (5) by any author on list of 100 most cited articles authored at NRL between 1973 and 1988.
... I implore my fellow physicists and engineers who may have the time, expertise, and (ideally) supercomputer access to get to work on the physics of the World Trade Center collapses and publish their findings in refereed journals like, say, the Journal of Applied Physics.
The issue of knowing who was really behind the 9/11 attacks is of paramount importance to the future of our country, because the “official” assumption that it was the work of 19 Arab amateurs (1) does not match the available facts and (2) has led directly to the deplorable Patriot Act, the illegal Iraq war, NSA spying on ordinary Americans, repudiation of the Geneva Conventions, and the repeal of habeas corpus (a fundamental point of law that has been with us since the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215).
Surely these Orwellian consequences of public ignorance constitute more than sufficient motivation for any patriotic American physicist or engineer to join the search for 9/11 Truth!" http://impactglassman
Member: Scholars for 9/11 Truth Association Statement: "Research proves the current administration has been dishonest about what happened in New York and Washington, D.C. The World Trade Center was almost certainly brought down by controlled demolitions and that the available relevant evidence casts grave doubt on the government's official story about the attack on the Pentagon."
Heikki Kurttila, PhD – Safety Engineer and Accident Analyst, National Safety Technology Authority (TUKES), Finland.
Analysis of the collapse of WTC Buidling 7, 11/18/05: "Conclusion: The observed collapse time of WTC 7 [570 feet tall, 47 stories, and not hit by an airplane] was 6.5 seconds. That is only half a second longer than it would have taken for the top of the building to fall to the ground in a vacuum, and half a second shorter than the falling time of an apple when air resistance is taken into account. ... The great speed of the collapse and the low value of the resistance factor strongly suggest controlled demolition." http://www.saunalahti.fi
Col. Robert Bowman, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Director of Advanced Space Programs Development under Presidents Ford and Carter. U.S. Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions. (PhD in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering, Cal Tech).
Video 9/11/04: "A lot of these pieces of information, taken together, prove that the official story, the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 is a bunch of hogwash. It’s impossible. … There’s a second group of facts having to do with the cover up. … Taken together these things prove that high levels of our government don’t want us to know what happened and who’s responsible.…
Who gained from 9/11? Who covered up crucial information about 9/11? And who put out the patently false stories about 9/11 in the first place? When you take those three things together, I think the case is pretty clear that it’s highly placed individuals in the administration with all roads passing through Dick Cheney.
I think the very kindest thing that we can say about George W. Bush and all the people in the U.S. Government that have been involved in this massive cover-up, the very kindest thing we can say is that they were aware of impending attacks and let them happen. Now some people will say that’s much too kind, however even that is high treason and conspiracy to commit murder." http://video.go
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush (About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
And then there are all the patriots who have served in some capacity with intelligence.
Capt. Gregory M. Zeigler, PhD, U.S. Army – Former U.S. Army Intelligence Officer
Statement to this website 9/19/06: "I knew from September 18, 2001, that the official story about 9/11 was false. ... [A]nomalies poured in rapidly: the hijackers' names appearing in none of the published flight passenger lists, BBC reports of stolen identities of the alleged hijackers or the alleged hijackers being found alive, the obvious demolitions of WTC 1 and 2 [each 1300+ feet tall, 110 stories], and WTC 7 [570 feet tall, 47 stories, and not hit by an airplane], the lack of identifiable Boeing 757 wreckage at the Pentagon ... Link to full statement
Capt. Eric H. May, U.S. Army (ret) – Former U.S. Army Intelligence Officer. Former inspector and interpreter for the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty team.
Essay 9/11 and Non-investigation: "As a former Army officer, my tendency immediately after 911 was to rally 'round the colors and defend the country against what I then thought was an insidious, malicious all-Arab entity called Al-Qaida. In fact, in April of 2002, I attempted to reactivate my then-retired commission to return to serve my country in its time of peril. ...
A) passive participation by the Bush White House through a deliberate stand-down of proper defense procedures that (if followed) would have led US air assets to a quick identification and confrontation of the passenger aircraft that impacted WTC 1 and WTC 2, or worse ...
B) active execution of a plot by rogue elements of government, starting with the White House itself, in creating a spectacle of destruction that would lead the United States into an invasion of the Middle East ..." http://mujca.com/captain.htm
Speech 11/11/06 : "After five years of talking to many individuals in the intelligence community, in the military, foreign intelligence agencies, and a whole host of other people, people from the air traffic control community, the FAA, I came to the conclusion that after five years what we saw happen on that morning of September 11, 2001, was the result of a highly-compartmentalized covert operation to bring about a fascist coup in this country. ...
These people need to be brought to justice, if not by our own Congress, then by an international tribunal in the Hague, in the Netherlands. Bush, Blair, Rumsfeld, Cheney should be sitting in the same dockets where Milosevic and the Croatia-Serbia war criminals sat." http://video.google.com
Raymond L. McGovern – Former Chairman, National Intelligence Estimates, CIA, responsible for preparing the President’ Daily Brief (PDB) for Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. 27-year CIA veteran. Former U.S. Army Intelligence Officer.
Video 7/22/06: "I think at simplest terms, there’s a cover-up. The 9/11 report is a joke. The question is: What’s being covered up? Is it gross malfeasance, gross negligence, misfeasance? … Now there are a whole bunch of unanswered questions. And the reason they’re unanswered is because this administration will not answer the questions. … I just want to reassert, what Scott [Ritter, former Major in the U.S. Marines Corps, former Chief Weapons Inspector for the United Nations Special Commission in Iraq] said and this is the bottom line for me, just as Hitler in 1933 cynically exploited the burning of the parliament building, the Reichstag, this is exactly what our President did in exploiting 9/11. The cynical way in which he played on our trauma, used it to justify attacking, making a war of aggression on a country that he knew had nothing to do with 9/11. That suffices for me, I think Scott is exactly right, that’s certainly an impeachable offense." http://video.google
Endorsement of 9/11 and American Empire (Vol I) – Intellectuals Speak Out: "It has long been clear that the Bush-Cheney administration cynically exploited the attacks of 9/11 to promote its imperial designs. But the present volume confronts us with compelling evidence for an even more disturbing conclusion: that the 9/11 attacks were themselves orchestrated by this administration precisely so they could be thus exploited. If this is true, it is not merely the case, as the Downing Street memos show, that the stated reason for attacking Iraq was a lie. It is also the case that the whole 'war on terror' was based on a prior deception." http://www.interlinkbooks.com
William Christison – Former National Intelligence Officer and Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis. 29-year CIA veteran.
Essay Stop Belittling the Theories About September 11 8/14/06: "I now think there is persuasive evidence that the events of September did not unfold as the Bush administration and the 9/11 Commission would have us believe. … An airliner almost certainly did not hit The Pentagon. … The North and South Towers of the World Trade Center almost certainly did not collapse and fall to earth because hijacked aircraft hit them." http://www.dissidentvoice.org
Article 9/7/06: "David Griffin believes this all was totally an inside job - I've got to say I think that it was too. … I have since decided that....at least some elements in this US government had contributed in some way or other to causing 9/11 to happen or at least allowing it to happen. … The reason that the two towers in New York actually collapsed and fell all the way to the ground was controlled explosions rather than just being hit by two airplanes. … All of the characteristics of these demolitions show that they almost had to have been controlled explosions." http://www.prisonplanet.com
Audio interview 9/29/06: "We very seriously need an entirely new very high level and truly independent investigation of the events of 9/11. I think you almost have to look at the 9/11 Commission Report as a joke and not a serious piece of analysis at all. It gave the administration what it wanted to support their official story on what happened on the date of September 11 and that's all they cared about. ... It's a monstrous crime. Absolutely a monstrous crime." http://www.electricpolitics.com
Robert David Steele (Vivas) – U.S. Marine Corps infantry and intelligence officer for twenty years. Second-ranking civilian (GS-14) in U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence from 1988 - 1992 and a member of the Adjunct Faculty of Marine Corps University. Also former clandestine services case officer with the CIA. 25-year U.S. military and intelligence career. Currently Founder and CEO of http://OSS.net and a proponent of Open Source Intelligence.
Essay 10/7/06: Review of Webster Tarpley's 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in the USA. "I am forced to conclude that 9/11 was at a minimum allowed to happen as a pretext for war, and I am forced to conclude that there is sufficient evidence to indict (not necessarily convict) Dick Cheney, Karl Rove and others of a neo-conservative neo-Nazi coup d'etat and kick-off of the clash of civilizations. ...
This is, without question, the most important modern reference on state-sponsored terrorism, and also the reference that most pointedly suggests that select rogue elements within the US Government, most likely led by Dick Cheney with the assistance of George Tenet, Buzzy Kronguard, and others close to the Wall Street gangs, are the most guilty of state-sponsored terrorism....
I sit here, a 54-year old, liberally educated, two graduate degrees, war college, a life overseas, 150 IQ or so, the number #1 Amazon reviewer for non-fiction, a former Marine Corps infantry officer, a former CIA clandestine case officer, founder of the Marine Corps Intelligence Center, and I have to tell anyone who cares to read this: I believe it. I believe it enough to want a full investigation that passes the smell test of the 9/11 families as well as objective outside observers." http://www.amazon.com
Article 10/27/06: "While Steele stopped short of saying 9/11 was a complete inside job, he agreed that the evidence points to the overwhelming complicity of the Bush administration.
"The U.S. government did not properly investigate this and there are more rocks to be turned over," said Steele adding, "I'm absolutely certain that WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolition and that as far as I'm concerned means that this case has not been properly investigated. There's no way that building could have come down without controlled demolition." http://www.prisonplanet
Bogdan Dzakovic – 14-year Counter-terrorism expert in the Security Division of the Federal Aviation Administration. Team Leader of the FAA's Red (Terrorism) Team, which conducted undercover tests on airport security through simulated terrorist attacks. Former Team Leader in the Federal Air Marshal program. Former Coast Guard officer. Witness before the 9/11 Commission.
Video transcript 8/21/05 : Regarding the 9/11 Commission "The best I could say about it is they really botched the job by not really going into the real failures. … At worst, I think the 9/11 Commission Report is treasonous." http://www.911report.com
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush (About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
I thought you might like to see an extensive list of "kooks" who don't believe the official story.
First, let us take a look at the 110 professors your site boasts about. What are the specialties of these professors?
Well the first 23 are all philosophers or they study/teach religion (or in one case, Islamic studies). I'm sure they know a lot about structures. You'd certainly think so given some of their comments.
Take James Fetzer, for instance, co-founder of the Scholars for 9/11 Truth organization. He's a philosopher. He claims, for instance, that the towers were designed to withstand the impacts of the planes that hit them. Untrue. While the mass of the design plane may be about the same, the velocity wasn't even close to that of the impacting planes. The WTC impacts had over seven times the energy and the design did not account for the effects of fire afterwards. He claims melting steel is part of NISTs theory for collapse of the towers. That is false. He claims that the fires were two low temperature and too brief to have caused the steel to weaken. False again. He claims there was no sagging or tilting before the collapse. A LIE. He claims there is not enough kinetic energy in the collapse of one floor to collapse the next lower floor. Nonsense. He claims the South Tower collapsed in 10 seconds and the North in 11 seconds. Demonstrably false. He claims "pools" of molten metal were found in the subbasement. He has NO evidence to support this claim. He claims the hole in the Pentagon was too small to accommodate Flight 77. Apparently, he never actually looked at pictures of the hole. He claim the kind of debris was wrong. False, as I'll prove shortly. Get the picture?
Take David Griffin, as another example. He's both a philosopher AND a theologian. Wow! He must really be an authority given how often his papers on 9/11 are cited (even by many of the professors in the list). But is he really an expert when it comes to structures, impact, fire or steel? He claims, for instance, that each WTC tower collapse occurred at virtually free-fall speed in approximately 10 seconds or less. But that has been shown to be untrue over and over. He claims the South Tower fires were small. False. And those are just two of many lies and distortions he spouts. Yet, many of the philosophers and theologians in the list cite Griffin as an expert on explosive demolition.
Now let's look at those listed under Mathematics, Science and Engineering.
************
A. K. Dewdney - computer science. He's a mathematician and environmentalist, who currently spends much of his professional and personal time pursuing and teaching environmental science. He says "debris found outside the Pentagon is inconsistent with the impact of a Boeing 757 or any aircraft of comparable dimensions." Well this is completely untrue as these sources easily prove:
Dewdney also says "there is no way to avoid the conclusion that the wings (and therefore the aircraft) were never present in the first place". Then how does he explain the downing of the lightpoles and the wingshaped damage on the outstide wall over 90 feet in width?
Clearly, Dewdney hasn't a clue what he is talking about.
************************
Hugo Bachmann - Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering. Swiss. Retired professor (after 30 year career). He is quoted saying that WTC7 was "with great probability, professionally demolished". But do they tell you this is based SOLELY on looking at a few video recordings presented to the professor by conspiracists during an interview? And according to http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/ “Bachmann could imagine that the perpetrators had installed explosives on key supports in a lower floor before the attack. If the perpetrators had rented office space, then these 'explosive tenants' could have calmly placed explosive charges on the vulnerable parts of the building without having anyone notice." Now is there documentary evidence to support the existance of these "explosive tenants"? No? And aren't there supposed to be bombs in the upper floors of WTC1 and WTC2? Ohhhh ... it turns out that Bachman wasn't talking about those towers when he mentioned his theory (despite what this 9/11 *Truth* implies). No, he was only referring to WTC7. As far as I can tell, Bachmann hasn't said anything about the two larger towers. Also unmentioned is that currently Bachmann seems to want nothing to do with questions about his comments. Hmmmmmm....
*****************
Joerg Schneider – Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering. Swiss. Agrees with Bachmann (in fact, he uses the same language in speaking about the event and happens to live in the same city as Bachmann). Note that he's 73. He's retired. And like Bachmann was only shown a small portion of the video and other evidence ... the part that conspiracists who interviewed him chose to show. His resume would indicate he focused on concrete structures and then, later, the safety and reliability of structures, with special emphasis on human error. And surely this expert has said more than the small quote attributed to him. Surely.
*****************
Jack Keller – Civil and Environmental Engineering. International advisor on water resources, development and agricultural water use. He is a specialist in agricultural and irrigation engineering, not structures. And he's VP of Westminster John Knox, the publisher of Griffin's book. He calls the nonsense that Griffin spouts about 9/11 “progressive stances on theological and social issues”. He's hardly qualified or a dispassionate observer.
******************
Steven Jones – physics. But that would be the physics of sub-atomic particles and cold fusion. That's ALL he's worked on for the last 30 years. Yet suddenly he is the 9/11 *Truth"'s movement principle expert on structures, steel, impact and fire. Does it get any funnier? ROTFLOL!
******************
David Griscom – research physicist. Loves Griffin. Notice that he studied at Brown (probably the most liberal school in the country). Worked at the Naval Research Laboratory for 33 years. But doing what? Working on structures? Steel? Fire? Demolition? No, he worked in the Optical Sciences Division. Researching the physics of silicon (for uses such as radiation shielding, waste management and fiber optics). Here are some of his papers and work product:
NONE of them have to do with structures or anything remotely connected to structures. But he considers himself an expert on those things, apparently. ROTFLOL!
******************
Bruce Henry - Mathematics and Computer Science. Guidance system engineer. Why that makes him eminently qualified to be an expert on controlled demolition. (sarcasm). ROTFLOL!
******************
John Cooper - chemistry. Admires Griffin. Papers are in the fields of chemical education and inorganic kinetics and structure (no, not the structure of buildings). I'll say this for him. He at least expresses no opinion with regard to what caused the damage at the WTC towers and Pentagon. Ooooops, I take it back. He asks "Why was there no evidence of a passenger jet debris at the Pentagon crash site?" Guess he hasn't bothered to read beyond anything Griffin wrote. ROTFLOL!
***************
Martin Walter - mathematics. Nothing in his resume to suggest any knowledge about buildings or steel or fire or impact or demolition. But there's something about solving a duality problem for groups. ROTFLOL!
***************
Robert Boyer - computer science. Yep. Just computer science.
***************
Joanna Rankin - physics and astronomy. An expert on pulsars. A real honest to gosh expert on pulsars. But not structures. Not impact. Not steel. Not fire. Not demolition. Just pulsars.
***************
Kenneth Kuttler - mathematics (what is it with mathematicians?). At BYU with Steve Jones. At least he's smart enough to stick to asking questions about WTC7. But seems to think he knows more about demolition than ... well ... demolition experts (like those at http://www.implosionworld.com ) who don't agree with him.
**************
Michael Elliot - said to have a teaching fellowship in either mathematics or physics in Belfast. It's not clear which, since I can't find much of anything else about this person. Bet he's a democrat given that he signed a petition complaining about the "huge sums" spent investigating Bill Clinton. Doesn't like Jim Hoffman. Claimed he worked for the NSA. But that doesn't appear to been true: http://911research.wtc7.net/re911/adhominem.html#elliot .
***************
Judy Woods - BS in civil engineering, MS and PHD in mechanical engineering. What they don't tell you about Judy is that she's an expert in dental structures. That's right ... DENTAL structures (and materials). Here's her own resume: http://www.ces.clemson.edu/me/mefaculty/pdfs/Wood1.pdf Notice the emphasis on biological materials and STATIC analysis/tests. NOTHING on buildings or fire or steel or concrete or dynamics or impact. Check out her research papers. ttp://www.ces.clemson.edu/me/mefaculty/Wood.html Here's a typical one "Mapping of tooth deformation caused by moisture change using moiré interferometry." , Dental Materials, Volume 19, Issue 3, Page 159. You won't find ANY on structures or buildings or impact problems of the sort that occurred in the WTC towers. But you will find plenty on DENTAL ISSUES. And oh yes, before you buy the nonsense at her http://janedoe0911.tripod.com website, read this: http://www.debunking911.com/jones.htm And, by the way, readers should know that she's on the outs with Steven Jones and now thinks that some sort of high-energy beam weapon destroyed the WTC towers. She's linked up with an economist to prove it. ROTFLOL!
***************
Joshua Mitteldorf - Researcher, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology. PHD in theoretical astrophysics. Need I say more? Well I guess I'll have to since it claims he was a former instructor of physics and math. His website says that in the past he's also worked in astrophysics, optical design, and energy conservation. Worked on computer simulations. And is a musician. A regular Renaissance Man. But in his statement on "physical model of WTC Collapse", he states with utter certainty that " that tall, slender objects will always fall to one side". But why can't any of the structural engineers and demolition experts of the world see that? I don't know of a single one who has made that claim. Yet it is so obvious (to a physicist). (sarcasm). He also makes the statement that the "maximum combustion temperature for jet fuel is 1000 Centigrade, far less than the melting point of steel. Paper, wood and other materials in the towers would have burned at yet lower temperatures." If that is true, why are there no REAL experts in fire saying that? In fact, how does Joshua explain temperatures of over 1000 C MEASURED at the Windsor Tower fire when that fire had no jet fuel ... just office furnishings to feed it?
******************
Gary Welz - mathematics (what is it with mathematicians?). His website says "He has over 20 years of experience in education and media as a teacher, writer, speaker, producer, consultant and journalist. He has special expertise in digital media production, digital asset management and digital content distribution.) Ahhhhhh ... he has a BA in Philosophy. That explains it. ROTFLOL!
******************
Ted Micceri - coordinator of institutional research. What sort of credential is that? He's a professor of statistical analysis. That's more like it. But still not a background that will tell one much about the expected behavior of structures during impacts and fire.
*****************
Kenneth Swoden - mathematics. Please, no more experts in math. Please.
*****************
Robert Stern - mathematics. I'm beginning to understand what drove Ted Kaczynski to madness.
*****************
Garry Anaquod - computer science and physics. Canada. What can we find out about him. Well this, http://www.innovationplace.com/html/newslttr/2003/jan03.htm " Garry Anaquod is the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Technology Officer of BeComm. With degrees in Computer Science and Physics, Anaquod has carried an IT vision for First Nations communities for many years as he spent 11 years instructing computer science students at the Saskatchewan Indian Federated College."
*****************
Well, that's the mathematicians, scientists and engineers.
What's left?
7 lawyers.
6 economists.
8 medical and biological sciences *experts*.
14 historians.
9 anthropology, psychology or social science *experts*.
19 *experts* in arts and humanities.
5 *experts* in education, leadership and management.
3 geographers, geologists and environmental science *experts*.
19 US Federal and State Government officials ... not one who is an scientist or engineer. But they do have Cynthia McKinney. ROTFLOL!
19 Military *experts*. But not they include Douglas Rokke (a liar at best). Not a very discriminating website.
1 U.S. Government scientist and researcher. Oooops, that's Griscom and we already counted him as a professor. And then we discounted him. ROTFLOL!
31 (if I counted right) US intelligence experts. But how intelligent can some of them be when they cite Scott Ritter, Griffin and www.prisonplanet .
17 international military, intelligence and government officials. They often cite Griffin ... and even worse, Thierry Meyssan. ROTFLOL!
6 - 9/11 commissionars and staff. Care to prove any believe something other than planes did the damage at the WTC and Pentagon?
Now you may think that is a bunch of folks qualified to speak about structures, impact, fire, steel, seismology, demolition and macro-world physics. But I don't. And I'm confident that most lurkers and visitors to this thread won't either.
Did you watch the other very short videos that demonstrate to anyone who is not physically blind, the difference between a demolition and a collapsing building?
Just curious robin. If it's that obvious, how do you explain that less than a handful of structural engineers, demolition experts and macro-world physicists in the whole world have come forward to support the notion of a demolition?
shill....reading comprehension problem? BYUs statement is (they) "do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones." The statement makes no assertion as to it’s accuracy. Such argument might be cheered by your pal the human toothpick on LP, but not here.
Go ahead. Give us the name of ONE structural engineer at BYU who supports Jone's theory. JUST ONE. Surely you can. ROTFLOL!
It takes courage to step forward and be a target of the most evil regime in our nation's history. It's easy to go along with the Bush Cabal.
Why doesn't MSM ever show the fall of WTC7?
Why would esteemed engineers and scientists and patriotic ex-Intel go against the official govt explanation (a far-fetched conspiracy in itself)? Why would they stick their necks out and become a target unless it was for a very good reason?
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush (About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
You've just proven your blatant dishonesty or ignorance or nacisissism or all combined by attacking the credentials of these scientists. It also shows you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about.
Congratulations, you've just proven your lack of authority to speak of these topic in a big way.
David L. Griscom, PhD – Research physicist, retired in 2001 from Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) in Washington, DC, after 33 years service. Fellow of the American Physical Society. Fulbright-García Robles Fellow at Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México in Mexico City (1997). Visiting professorships of research at the Universities of Paris and Saint-Etienne, France, and Tokyo Institute of Technology (2000 - 2003). Adjunct Professor of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Arizona (2004 - 2005). Winner of the 1993 N.F. Mott Award sponsored by the Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids, the 1995 Otto Schott Award offered by the Carl-Zeiss-Stiftung (Germany), a 1996 Outstanding Graduate School Alumnus Award at Brown University, and the 1997 Sigma Xi Pure Science Award at NRL. Principal author of 109 of his 185 published works, a body of work which is highly cited by his peers. Officially credited with largest number of papers (5) by any author on list of 100 most cited articles authored at NRL between 1973 and 1988.
Really dumb move attempting to discredit such people.
Such chutzpah is what will bring you and your ilk down.
Really dumb move attempting to discredit such people.
Such chutzpah is what will bring you and your ilk down.
Looking at the current state of affairs in the world is indicative of collective ignorance that encompasses all stratums of society. From the mindless mall waddlers to the philosophical PHD's clogging the Universities ... the evidence is overwhelming that ignorance rules.
BeAlooser typifies a mindset particular to an ethnicity that has demonstrated a parasitic propensity for thousands of years.
This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
#46. To: BeAChooser, robin, rowdee, SKYDRIFTER, Kamala, RickyJ, Red Jones, All (#24)
Professor Jones's department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review.
The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones.
In academia, private industry and especially govt research institutions, there is more than a little cut-throat activity among competing scientists, not to mention a strict protocol where one does not talk about certain things, they must tow the line or else. They often compare it to belonging to the communist party in that way.
THAT is why so few who are currently employed refuse to come out and testify, they know they will be ridiculed and most likely fired for doing so, along with having their reputation smeared, especially by envious peers who will be more than happy to take advantage of such a situation to further their own careers.
David Griscom – research physicist. Loves Griffin. Notice that he studied at Brown (probably the most liberal school in the country). Worked at the Naval Research Laboratory for 33 years. But doing what? Working on structures? Steel? Fire? Demolition? No, he worked in the Optical Sciences Division. Researching the physics of silicon (for uses such as radiation shielding, waste management and fiber optics).
What does Brown being a "liberal" university have to do with their science department? Can you tell us the difference between a liberal physics class and a conservative physics class? How about a liberal math class vs. conservative math class? Could you explain these differences?
Your arrogance is simply astounding.
By the way, what are YOUR credentials to be speaking so certainly on all this? Are you a world-renouned structural engineer?
You appear to claim one must be one in order to comment on this topic with any authority.
Doesn't exactly take an expert in structures to see that this is a demolition. BTW, what is your specialty BeAChooser? Or do you have one?
You're right, it doesn't.
And don't expect an answer from the shill. I've asked the exact same thing - and the answer I got is "I don't intend to answer your question. I'm content to rely on the expertise of the tens of thousands of professionals around the world who have designed and built the world we live in and all its marvels. Unlike you, I'm not claiming expertise."
Many people find it necessary to ridicule others who tell them things they do not understand. Since they do not have the knowledge to be able to figure things out for themselves, they simply rely upon others to do their thinking for them. BAC is content to say that a can of Pepsi has 12 ozs in it because that's what it says on the can - NOT because he can mathematically figure out the volume of a cylindrical container. That's why he vehemently attempts to discredit mathematicians concerning the collapses. Mathematical formulas exist to show freefall time of an object over a certain distance; as well as time of a fall considering the mass, resistance, gravitational pull, etc - thus mathematics are VERY relevant in the collapses, and mathematicians would have a HIGHLY RELEVANT level of expertise in uncovering the truth irrelevant of any other level of expertise they may have in the matter. Thus when a mathematician claims it is IMPOSSIBLE for the collapses to have happened in the time frame in which they did, under the circumstances of the "official story" - THAT CANNOT BE DISMISSED AS IRRELEVANT BECAUSE THEY AREN'T STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING EXPERTS!!!
BAC is incapable of thinking on his own. My theory is that he has a skull about 3½ inches thick all the way around which leaves room for a brain about the size of a walnut - roughly the size of a goose's...
No matter how noble the objectives of a government; if it blurs decency and kindness, cheapens human life, and breeds ill will and suspicion - it is an EVIL government. Eric Hoffer
Of course they don't, they don't want to lose their funding!
BINGO
No matter how noble the objectives of a government; if it blurs decency and kindness, cheapens human life, and breeds ill will and suspicion - it is an EVIL government. Eric Hoffer
THAT is why so few who are currently employed refuse to come out and testify, they know they will be ridiculed and most likely fired for doing so, along with having their reputation smeared, especially by envious peers who will be more than happy to take advantage of such a situation to further their own careers.
The politics in academia are hideous, good point.
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush (About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
But the videos explain it in a way a child could understand.
It takes less than high school physics to comprehend the free fall explanation that is available in detail.
But his argument is that since govt engineers ( who were bribed and blackmailed to ) say that the obvious is not what happened, that makes their explanation true.
What's the name of that guy who has an award going for anyone who can prove the govt's theory?
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush (About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
$100,000 reward: Prove "official" 9/11 story One man of means' attempt to set the record straight The details are still being worked out but you can tell anyone who believes boxcutter-wielding Arabs took down the Twin Towers, took out the Pentagon and crashed a plane over Pennsylvania that there's $100,000 waiting for them if they can support with facts and evidence the government explanation of 9/11. It's a good deal for 9/11 truth seekers because we know California millionaire Jimmie Walter will be able to keep his money; if publicized correctly it will be a bad deal for the Bush administration because enough people with credentials who believe the official will try, unsuccessfully to prove the Bush administration's "magic Arab" theory.
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush (About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
Yea, it blew my mind when I first found it, to see so many credentialed professionals from military, media and academia all either questioning the official story or flat out saying it was an inside job.
8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough 'jargon' and 'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one who knows', and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
You've just proven your blatant dishonesty or ignorance or nacisissism or all combined by attacking the credentials of these scientists. It also shows you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about.
Yea, it blew my mind when I first found it, to see so many credentialed professionals from military, media and academia all either questioning the official story or flat out saying it was an inside job.
Only a sub-70 IQ type would still buy the official story today.
We still don't have all the details of how things happened, but we do how things didn't happen.
The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones.
Of course they don't, they don't want to lose their funding!
Are you saying the structural engineers at BYU know that it was a controlled demolition that killed about 3000 Americans but aren't saying word one about that because of the all mighty dollar? Why that would make them truly EVIL, wouldn't it, Diana? Perhaps you should write them and tell them what you think of them.
Thus when a mathematician claims it is IMPOSSIBLE for the collapses to have happened in the time frame in which they did,
Given a bunch of assumptions about the resistance of the structure. Assumptions they aren't qualified to make. And by the way, except for their name, only ONE of the mathematicians in the list offers any details about what they actually believe concerning 9/11. How do you know they believe there were bombs in the towers?
BAC is incapable of thinking on his own. My theory is that he has a skull about 3½ inches thick all the way around which leaves room for a brain about the size of a walnut - roughly the size of a goose's...
Come on innieway ... is that the best you can come up with in defense of your patriot's list?
Maybe BAC can win the $1,000,000 reward I heard about for proving the official story.
I guess you didn't hear that the contest contains some rules and requirements that make it IMPOSSIBLE to win the reward. Here's one:
13) Entrants must prove how the trade towers steel structure was broken apart without explosives in 8.4 seconds.
That is a complete non-starter and THE REASON why it is a waste of time to enter that contest. Because the towers did not collapse in 8.4 seconds and therefore it is simply IMPOSSIBLE to prove this. Videos taken that day prove clearly that it took the upper floors of the towers as much as 15 seconds to reach ground level.
Would you like some more examples of how dishonest the authors of the contest were?
13) Entrants must prove how the trade towers steel structure was broken apart without explosives in 8.4 seconds.
Was broken apart, not reach ground level.
Try again.
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush (About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
Given a bunch of assumptions about the resistance of the structure.
Boy you (BAC) really are dumb aren't you.
(felt compelled to put his name in parenthesis to facilitate his limited intellect)
Look there was aprox. 440 tons of steel on each floor of the building and there is this little thing called inertia. In a pancake type fall the floors above would have to crash into the floors below. Prior to the crash the lower floor had a velocity of zero, so the upper floor's mass velocity would cause an acceleration of the lower floor from zero to a speed approaching that of the initial upper floor speed. This sequence of events would repeat 80 something times. Each successive acceleration of the lower floor would be greater due to the increased mass of the material falling on it until it reached the last floor. The repeated resistance (yes it does exist no matter how dumb you are) of 440 tons+ (plus all the other material involved)of inertial starting at zero velocity would slow the fall a hell of a lot more than free fall.
Get a life or a brain and maybe both but don't continue down this absurd path reasoning.
13) Entrants must prove how the trade towers steel structure was broken apart without explosives in 8.4 seconds.
Was broken apart, not reach ground level.
Try again.
Also from the contest rules:
The videos and seismic records show that the time of one structure's destruction was approximately 8.4 seconds though the complete settling of the building lasted slightly longer, perhaps as long as 12 seconds,
The towers took well in excess of 8.4 seconds to collapse to ground level. Photos taken ten seconds into the event show that alumimum cladding and sections of outer columns that are free falling outside the periphery of the towers have not yet reached the ground and are well ahead of the collapsing level of the tower. Videos also prove this.
You will never find the truth, robin, on a foundation of misinformation.
There were 3 buildings, the times are slightly different. They all fell close to free fall.
Give up supporting the liars, the truth will set you free.
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush (About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
The repeated resistance (yes it does exist no matter how dumb you are) of 440 tons+ (plus all the other material involved)of inertial starting at zero velocity would slow the fall a hell of a lot more than free fall.
WTC 1 and WTC 2 did not collapse at free fall rates.
You will never find the truth on a foundation of lies.
Are you saying the structural engineers at BYU know that it was a controlled demolition that killed about 3000 Americans but aren't saying word one about that because of the all mighty dollar? Why that would make them truly EVIL, wouldn't it, Diana?
Yes that would make them evil if they really thought that the towers were brought down with a explosives yet would not admit it. However it could be that they are not evil, but rather stupid. I think you give structural engineers way too much credit for being smart. The ones I know aren't exactly rocket scientists.
God is always good! "It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
There were 3 buildings, the times are slightly different. They all fell close to free fall.
That is untrue. WTC 1 and WTC 2 did NOT collapse at *close* to free fall velocity. In fact, at free fall velocities, towers more than twice as high could have collapsed in the same amount of time as the observed collapse.
You will never find the truth if you start with misinformation.
The exposives detonating are visible in small plumes of smoke from the sides of the buildings, just under the line of fall. There is a name for this in the demolition industry, that is so well acquainted with them.
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush (About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
So you have no specialty. What do you yo do all day, post propaganda for your evil masters?
You have shown very little ability to reason, you rely on idiots to think for you, and are quite frankly a bore. You can roll on the floor and laugh for your evil masters all day, maybe they will give you a treat.
God is always good! "It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush (About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
A pancake fall, each floor hitting the one under it, would have taken much longer than times recorded.
These building fell like a demolition, especially WTC7, which was never hit, and had only very small fires.
They look like a demolition, they have explosives going off, just under the line of fall, just like a demolition; they are demolitions.
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush (About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
The exposives detonating are visible in small plumes of smoke from the sides of the buildings, just under the line of fall.
No, what is visible is air, compressed by the collapse, blowing out windows below the line of fall. You do know that the building was 95 percent air? Where do you think that air went as the building collapsed, robin?
There is a name for this in the demolition industry, that is so well acquainted with them.
Curious that no demolition expert in the world says that WTC 1 and WTC 2 were controlled demolitions and many have said they weren't.
I tend to feel the same. That's why I enjoy his presence so much. We get to see first hand how the vermin work (I would say think, but we all know they are not allowed or are not capable of that luxury).
Curious that no demolition expert in the world says that WTC 1 and WTC 2 were controlled demolitions and many have said they weren't.
That's a lie.
Yes it is.
Start with this one:
Controlled Demolition Expert and WTC7 (original subtitles)
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush (About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
A pancake fall, each floor hitting the one under it, would have taken much longer than times recorded.
Based on your expertise?
These building fell like a demolition, especially WTC7, which was never hit, and had only very small fires.
Not true. The building was hit by debris and firement who were there said the fires were large and that they could tell early on that the structure was going to collapse.
They look like a demolition, they have explosives going off, just under the line of fall, just like a demolition; they are demolitions.
Then why hasn't a single demolition expert in the ENTIRE WORLD said this?
You're the liar BAC. Stop working for the traitors to this once great nation.
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush (About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
No, what is visible is air, compressed by the collapse, blowing out windows below the line of fall. You do know that the building was 95 percent air?
That’s why the separation between the puffs is so symmetrical (several windows unaffected between each puff) all the way down the building.
Yea, yea, that makes total sense. ;)
As the velocity of the building increases so does the build up of your so called pressure. So as the building got closer to the ground we should have seen less space between each puff and if your BS was reasonable it would happen at all the windows, not select spacing. Remember... The windows are of the same design, not several being thicker then a thin one, then several being thicker, then a thin one.
Curious that no demolition expert in the world says that WTC 1 and WTC 2 were controlled demolitions and many have said they weren't.
That's a lie.
Yes it is.
Start with this one:
Controlled Demolition Expert and WTC7 (original subtitles)
ROTFLOL! I hate to tell you, robin, but Mr Jowenko has specifically stated that the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2 were clearly NOT controlled demolitions.
And didn't you know that Jowenko based his opinion about WTC7 SOLELY on a video tape supplied by conspiracists and that he didn’t know that it happened on 9/11, didn’t know the building was on fire, and didn't know that firemen had observed the structure leaning long before the collapse and were sure it would collapse?
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush (About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
HE VERY CLEARLY STATES THAT WTC7 IS A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION!!!!!
WHY DO YOU IGNORE THAT!!!
He based his opinion on the videos alone. If he had all the evidence, of the explosions heard by the firefighters, for example, he would have a different explanation.
If just one of the buildings was a demolition, then it proves the government was involved. It takes weeks in advance to wire a building.
Can you deny that!?!?
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush (About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
Pure projection. No one has blocked my posts. How many have you on bozo now?
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush (About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
On Sept 14, a demolition expert who works for the Pentagon, professor Van Romero, said that upon his viewing of the collapse videos, he believed that it was a controlled demolition. Prof Romero later retracted his statement in mysterious circumstances, refusing to say why and refusing to offer any alternative scenario, simply saying that he wasn't prepared to say what did or didn't happen, and didn't want to talk about it anymore.
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush (About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
Asked about these spikes seismologist Arthur Lerner-Lam, director of Columbia University's Center for Hazards and Risk Research told the American Free Press, "This is an element of current research and discussion. It is still being investigated." According to Lerner-Lam, "The ground shaking that resulted from the collapse of the towers was extremely small."
A "sharp spike of short duration" is how seismologist Thorne Lay of Univ. of California at Santa Cruz told AFP an underground explosion appears on a seismograph. Another seismologist, Won-Young Kim, stated that the Palisades seismographs register daily underground explosions from a quarry 20 miles away. These blasts are caused by 80,000 lbs. of ammonium nitrate and cause local earthquakes between Magnitude 1 and 2.
Evidently, the energy source that shook the ground beneath the towers was many times more powerful than the total potential energy released by the falling mass of the huge towers.
------------
A call was placed to Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI) who arrived on the WTC site two days later and wrote the clean-up plan for the entire operation
American Free Press asked Loizeaux about the report of molten steel on the site. "Yes," he said, "hot spots of molten steel in the basements." These incredibly hot areas were found "at the bottoms of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven [basement] levels," Loizeaux said. The molten steel was found "three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed," Loizeaux said. He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon.
What could have caused those box columns of 4-inch thick steel to melt like this?
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush (About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
Did you notice the interviewer tell Jowenko that Silverstein said "pull it down"? That's untrue, isn't it, robin. Perhaps that's an indication that the interviewer wasn't entirely honest or forthcoming with Mr Jowenko?
Did you notice Jowenko estimate it would take 30 to 40 men to bring down WTC 7 in the time that was available (after the impact)? Any evidence at all that 30 or 40 men were there busy doing that? Any reports by ANYONE? Oh wait, a little later he says it was more work than 30 men. And then after being told the building was on fire says he doesn't know how long. How many, robin?
Did you notice Jowenko telling the interviewer that the smoke coming up from the bottom of WTC 7 were NOT charges? Oh well, there goes another conspiracy theory.
Did you notice Jowenko saying repeatedly, "I don't know the building"? Did you notice him saying he didn't follow the government reports (referring to FEMA's report on the WTC)?
Did you notice all the wild speculations by Jowenko about insurance companies and America?
Did you notice that the speculation here is that Silverstein brought down WTC 7 because it would be too expensive to fix. Not that it was part of some massive government conspiracy.
Did you notice Jowenko saying that Bush was actually rather brave to stand on the rubble at the WTC so soon after the collapse?
You will never find the truth on a foundation of disinformation, robin.
HE VERY CLEARLY STATES THAT WTC7 IS A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION!!!!!
WHY DO YOU IGNORE THAT!!!
And according to the link I supplied, he stated that WTC 1 and WTC 2 were NOT controlled demolitions.
Why do you ignore THAT?
Afterall, my challenge was for rickyj (and now you) to provide the name of one demolition expert who claims WTC 1 and WTC 2 were brought down by explosives. I said nothing about WTC 7. And you and ricky called me a liar to claim no demolition expert has said WTC1 and WTC2 are controlled demolitions. But you haven't provided the name of an expert who has said that. Do you have one or not? If not, you owe me an apology.
On Sept 14, a demolition expert who works for the Pentagon, professor Van Romero, said that upon his viewing of the collapse videos, he believed that it was a controlled demolition. Prof Romero later retracted his statement in mysterious circumstances, refusing to say why and refusing to offer any alternative scenario, simply saying that he wasn't prepared to say what did or didn't happen, and didn't want to talk about it anymore.
False. Romero stated quite clearly why he retracted his first impression that the destruction was a demolition. He said he changed his story after looking at more detailed videos and the rest of the information that was gathered.
Futhermore, Romero is NOT an demolition expert. Here is his resume:
Since 1997: Vice President for Research and Economic Development, New Mexico Tech., Serves as chief official of the Research and Economic Development Division responsible for the encouragement, leadership, and support of research at the Institute and for the administrative and policy making activities of the division; offers dynamic research and administrative leadership to stimulate, coordinate, and provide support for the research at New Mexico Tech; acts as advocate for research within the Institute; serves as director of the Geophysical Research Center; manages the research support functions of the Research Division; serves as the Institute's representative and on-campus administrator for the Waste-Management Education and Research Consortium; acts as an external advocate and representative for New Mexico Tech's research activities; serves as mentor to new faculty to help them establish their research programs at the Institute; strongly encourages diversity and affirmative action; identifies research opportunities and actively encourages development of interdisciplinary research at the institute; ensures that high quality proposals are submitted by the Institute."
Previous Experience
1995-1997: Director, Energetic Materials Research & Testing Center, Direct and manage a multi-disciplinary team of scientists, engineers, and staff involved in RDT&E programs in energetic materials. EMRTC provides a working laboratory for conducting research in support of both government and commercial programs in the areas of ordnance, explosives, propellants and other energetic materials. Facilities include over 30 separate test sites, gun ranges and research labs located within a 32 square mile field laboratory. Developed and implemented counter-terrorist program that benefits research and academic programs.
1994 - 1995: Senior Member Technical Staff, Sandia National Lab, Albuquerque, NM. Conducted Environmental Impact Assessment for Medical Isotope Production program. Program consisted of converting weapons program facility to produce radio-isotopes for medical usage.
1993 - 1994: Deputy Director of Environmental, Safety and Health Oversight; Manager, Hazardous Waste Programs, Superconducting Super Collider, Dallas, TX. Developed and implemented radiation protection policies compatible with DOE orders and CFR regulations, performed liaison activities with DOE, and provided technical direction to radiation and hazardous waste program. Responsible for the development and review of radiation transport calculations, shielding design, health physics procedures, mixed waste procedures, and environmental monitoring activities. Served as Chairman of the Laboratory's ALARA committee and member of DOE's R&D Laboratory Working Group (RADWG) Health Physics Procedures Committee. Responsible for RCRA compliance during project closure.
1979 - 1993: Manager, Thermal Hydraulic Programs, General Electric Knolls Atomic Power Lab, Schenectady, NY. Responsible for both the technical and personnel management of the group. Key participant in the long term planning and direction of both the research and the facilities construction and maintenance. Group responsibilities included thermodynamic and materials testing and analysis of fuel channels, steam generators, and in-core materials. This work determined the thermodynamic limits for the nuclear reactor which will power the next generation submarine scheduled for delivery at the turn of the century. In previous work as Lead Engineer, was responsible for the experimental fluid mechanics effort and developed LASER instrumentation and techniques for flow visualization and quantitative flow measurements. Additional experience includes the development, execution, and analysis of environmental impact testing of nuclear sub marines which includes radiation transport analysis, neutron detection, and gamma ray spectroscopy."
Current Funded Research Activities
* Experimental verification of the alpha-omega effect for galaxy formation with Los Alamos National Laboratories. * Develop groundwater activation model that can be used to optimize the design for acceleration production of tritium with DOE. * Seismic source investigation, modeling and characterization of currently deployed explosive sources, design and computational testing of improved explosive sources, experimental verification and validation of improved sources - Western Geophysical (students - recruiting, post-doc and graduate in Geophysics). * Resusable blast test fixture, investigate explosive impact on wide-body aircraft with FAA.
Courses Taught
* Graduate and undergraduate courses in Solid State Physics and Particle Physics for the Physics Department * Course in Explosives Surety for the Chemical Engineering Department
Patents Held
* Procedure to study Bubble Evolution by correcting scattered LASER light and dynamic pressure signals
**********
So we learn that at the time of 9/11 he wasn't even working in the field of explosives. We learn that for ONLY 2 or 3 years he ran a group that focused on ordnance, explosives and energetic materials ... and not so much the effects of them on structures but the characteristics of the explosives themselves. Certainly there is no mention of him or any organization he worked for working on explosive demolition of structures or buildings. And we learn that prior to 1995, he conducted Environmental Impact Assessments, implemented radiation protection policies and investigated thermodynamic limits for the nuclear reactors.
That's hardly the resume of the explosives, demolition and structures *expert* you want him to be. In fact take a look at his publications. You won't find one word about demolition or structures in those titles. And hardly a mention of explosives.
You seem to live in a world of misinformation, robin. Not a good foundation for finding the truth.
And according to the link I supplied, he stated that WTC 1 and WTC 2 were NOT controlled demolitions.
That proves nothing but that he is an idiot. Notice how shocked he was when it was pointed out to him that the building he just said was brought down with a controlled demolition was one that collapsed in New York on 9/11. You could literally see the fear in his eyes. He was clearly shaken up realizing he just made himself a target of the same people he was trying to avoid making mad. The perpetrators of 9/11. The guy is a coward and a idiot. Too dumb to know that WTC7 even collapsed on 9/11.
God is always good! "It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
But wait!!! I thought you folks have been telling us all along that they look just like other demolitions. ROTFLOL!
Asked about these spikes seismologist Arthur Lerner-Lam, director of Columbia University's Center for Hazards and Risk Research told the American Free Press, "This is an element of current research and discussion. It is still being investigated." According to Lerner-Lam, "The ground shaking that resulted from the collapse of the towers was extremely small."
Christopher Boyle, the hack journalist for AFP, lied and distorted the facts repeatedly in his articles about the WTC collapse and seismic data.
Would you like to see what Lerner-Lam believes, robin? Here is what he told Popular Mechanics:
"There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."
You will never find the true by quoting misinformation, robin.
A call was placed to Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc.
Now Mark Loizeaux is an honest to gosh demolition expert. And he says categorically that WTC 1 and WTC 2 were not controlled demolitions.
American Free Press asked Loizeaux about the report of molten steel on the site. "Yes," he said, "hot spots of molten steel in the basements." These incredibly hot areas were found "at the bottoms of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven [basement] levels," Loizeaux said. The molten steel was found "three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed," Loizeaux said. He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon.
"There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."
The guy is another idiot. You seem to love to quote idiots, I guess that makes you a super idiot.
God is always good! "It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
Come on innieway ... is that the best you can come up with in defense of your patriot's list?
I have told you several times the qualifications I have that allow me to speak with some reasonable sense concerning the topic. I may not have a degree in structural engineering, HOWEVER I have designed and built buildings which have proven to be far superior to elements in the area compared to ones designed by "structural engineers"...
I have qualifications in metalwork, including structural steel. I have gone back and made improvements on the designs of engineers (the likes of which you want to tout so highly.) Granted it may not have been the "structural engineers" involved in highrises; HOWEVER, according to you, ALL engineers are the shit concerning their field. REAL WORLD PROOF has shown to me this simply isn't the case.
ON THE OTHER HAND - what have you given in defense of your stance other than "the 'experts' say so"??? You REFUSE to tell us what your personal qualifications or experiences are concerning the matter. For all we know, you're nothing more than a "gofer" in some toilet paper factory.
Your drivel and ROTFLOL are tiresome, and as see-through as clean air. You come across as a meaningless shill devoid of the ability to think for yourself.
No matter how noble the objectives of a government; if it blurs decency and kindness, cheapens human life, and breeds ill will and suspicion - it is an EVIL government. Eric Hoffer
The demolitions WTC1 and WTC2 had enormous explosions with recorded seismic spikes. Weeks aferward there was hot molten steel, and evidence of thermite involved.
The goverment toadies must agree with the government explanation, or they lose their jobs like the govt demolition expert Romero, who on 9/14 said they were demolitions.
The only objectivity is found away from the Bush Cabal's govt, who has so much to hide.
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush (About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
Just the sort of credentials needed to pontificate authoritatively on what damaged the WTC and Pentagon.
ROTFLOL!
Let's take a look at his credentials, AGAIN:
David L. Griscom, PhD – Research physicist, retired in 2001 from Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) in Washington, DC, after 33 years service. Fellow of the American Physical Society. Fulbright-García Robles Fellow at Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México in Mexico City (1997). Visiting professorships of research at the Universities of Paris and Saint-Etienne, France, and Tokyo Institute of Technology (2000 - 2003) Adjunct Professor of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Arizona (2004 - 2005). Winner of the 1993 N.F. Mott Award sponsored by the Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids, the 1995 Otto Schott Award offered by the Carl-Zeiss-Stiftung (Germany), a 1996 Outstanding Graduate School Alumnus Award at Brown University, and the 1997 Sigma Xi Pure Science Award at NRL. Principal author of 109 of his 185 published works, a body of work which is highly cited by his peers. Officially credited with largest number of papers (5) by any author on list of 100 most cited articles authored at NRL between 1973 and 1988.
There were 3 buildings, the times are slightly different. They all fell close to free fall.
That is untrue. WTC 1 and WTC 2 did NOT collapse at *close* to free fall velocity. In fact, at free fall velocities, towers more than twice as high could have collapsed in the same amount of time as the observed collapse.
Let's dissect this right quick...
The claim was made that 3 buildings fell, all at close to free fall velocity. YOU claim this is a lie, citing 1 and 2 did NOT collapse at close to free fall velocity - BUT apparently do not dispute that building 7 did. If in fact 7 fell at close to free fall velocity - at a little less than half the height of the other 2, and at a time of roughly 7 seconds, that would put the free fall time of the other 2 at roughly 14 seconds (and by your own admissions elsewhere the time was about 15 seconds).
You then go on to claim that towers in pure free fall more than twice as tall could have collapsed in the same amount of time...
Apparently you didn't do so good in high school math did you?
No matter how noble the objectives of a government; if it blurs decency and kindness, cheapens human life, and breeds ill will and suspicion - it is an EVIL government. Eric Hoffer
You then go on to claim that towers in pure free fall more than twice as tall could have collapsed in the same amount of time...
Apparently you didn't do so good in high school math did you?
You are right he is wrong, but not by much. It would take approx. 16.31 seconds for a building as twice as tall as the WTC to freefall with no resistance to its fall.
God is always good! "It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
I have told you several times the qualifications I have that allow me to speak with some reasonable sense concerning the topic.
I don't find that very convincing given the number of times I have had to correct you about basic engineering principles and the facts in this case.
I have designed and built buildings which have proven to be far superior to elements in the area compared to ones designed by "structural engineers"...
Suuuuurrre, you have.
I have qualifications in metalwork, including structural steel.
Yet you appear to have thought the strength of steel structural elements in compression is higher than in tension. Go figure...
Then why is only one demolition expert on record saying that ... and only after being led by the nose by a dishonest conspiracist as we saw in that video?
The demolitions WTC1 and WTC2 had enormous explosions with recorded seismic spikes.
No they didn't. And the folks with the education and experience to interpret seismic records categorically state that the records don't show a controlled demolition.
Weeks aferward there was hot molten steel, and evidence of thermite involved.
If in fact 7 fell at close to free fall velocity - at a little less than half the height of the other 2, and at a time of roughly 7 seconds, that would put the free fall time of the other 2 at roughly 14 seconds (and by your own admissions elsewhere the time was about 15 seconds). You then go on to claim that towers in pure free fall more than twice as tall could have collapsed in the same amount of time... Apparently you didn't do so good in high school math did you?
innieway to BeAChooser - You then go on to claim that towers in pure free fall more than twice as tall could have collapsed in the same amount of time...
innieway to BeAChooser - Apparently you didn't do so good in high school math did you?
RickyJ to innieway - You are right he is wrong, but not by much. It would take approx. 16.31 seconds for a building as twice as tall as the WTC to freefall with no resistance to its fall.
Romero is a former director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center at Tech, which studies explosive materials and the effects of explosions on buildings, aircraft and other structures.
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush (About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
Romero is a former director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center at Tech, which studies explosive materials and the effects of explosions on buildings, aircraft and other structures.
Sure, the center does study those things. But Romero didn't. I posted HIS OWN resume, robin. Show me ANYWHERE in that resume experience in the effects of explosions on structures. You lose, try again.
By the way, you are only embarrassing yourself with this.
* Graduate and undergraduate courses in Solid State Physics and Particle Physics for the Physics Department
* Course in Explosives Surety for the Chemical Engineering Department
From your own info on Van Romero.
Obviously, if he teaches these courses, he is an expert.
You lose, try again.
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush (About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush (About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
New Mexico Tech Vice President Romero Named a Top Lobbyist
by George Zamora
SOCORRO, N.M., Dec. 18, 2003 – New Mexico Tech Vice President Van Romero has been tapped as one of “six lobbyists who made an impact in 2003” in an article featured in this month’s issue of Influence magazine.
Romero, who is in charge of research and economic development at the research university in Socorro, was profiled in “The Players,” a special year-end feature in the national magazine which identifies a handful of prominent Washington, D.C. lobbyists who made a mark in 2003.
“From his perch 2,000 miles outside of the Beltway, this physics Ph.D. understands exactly how Washington works,” the article states. “A major chunk of his job involves lobbying for federal government funding, and if the 2003 fiscal year was any indication, Romero is a superstar.”
Romero is credited in the article with being instrumental in procuring about $56 million worth of appropriations for New Mexico Tech for the current fiscal year. This notable achievement also recently caught the eye of editors at The Chronicle of Higher Education as they ranked the university first in the nation among institutions of higher education that receive federal earmarks.
In the article, Stephen Traver, a legislative aide for U.S. Senator Pete Domenici (R-N.M.), credits Romero’s success in Washington with his having adopted a lobbying approach where “he starts with a problem that the federal government has as a priority, and then looks for solutions to that problem.”
The article in Influence also points out that “Van Romero is proof that the client can be the best lobbyist.”
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
PM quotes Romero denying that his retraction was bought: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years."
PM fails to mention that Van Romero was named chairman of the Domestic Preparedness Consortium in January 2001, that his Institute received $15 million for an anti-terrorism program in 2002, or that Influence Magazine tapped him as one of six top lobbyists in 2003, having secured $56 million for New Mexico Tech. [19] [20] [21] [22]
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush (About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
* Ph.D., Physics, State University of New York, 1991 * M.S., Physics, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, 1979 * B.S., Physics, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, 1977
Here is a description of the class in Explosive Surety that Romero teaches:
ChE 475, Explosives Surety, 3 cr, 3 cl hrs Prerequisite: Upper-class standing or consent of instructor Offered spring semester An introduction to explosives and other energetic materials. The basic chemical compositions, properties and environmental effects of commercial, military, and improvised (terrorist) explosives and some pyrotechnics will be compared. The basic physics of shock waves and detonation. Explosive effects, blast detection, tagging and environmental issues. Case studies or recent bombings will be used to describe a variety of terrorist approaches. Safety in handling of explosive materials and classifications for transportation and storage.
You lose, try again.
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush (About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
Van Romero changed his mind real quick. He knows who pays his salary.
Steven Jones on the other hand is sticking to his story even after being effectively forced from his job. True patriots are few and far between, I think Jones is one of them.
God is always good! "It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
And Christopher Bollyn, who is being hounded, is not wavering.
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush (About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
I have designed and built buildings which have proven to be far superior to elements in the area compared to ones designed by "structural engineers"...
Suuuuurrre, you have.
Tell ya what. I'll design and build a building, and you design and build one. A real life practical building. I've done it. READY???????? (Don't forget, you get to build it too)
I have qualifications in metalwork, including structural steel.
Yet you appear to have thought the strength of steel structural elements in compression is higher than in tension. Go figure...
YOU have PAPER..... I have and work with steel everyday.
No matter how noble the objectives of a government; if it blurs decency and kindness, cheapens human life, and breeds ill will and suspicion - it is an EVIL government. Eric Hoffer
No BAC, you just goofed up there. Just like I goofed up in the first calculation I did. You were trying to make fun of my goof up yet goofed up in the same post to do that. Really pitiful.
God is always good! "It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
The semi-vacuum was created by the explosives clearing the way for the building to fall in the time it did. Both of the towers exploded from top down. There must of been tons of explosives in it. Not a normal controlled demolition at all. The show factor for the cameras they knew would be there was apparent.
God is always good! "It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
I'll mark you down as a vote for shill. (post #83)
I think it's quite possible that he is a shill, that we are supporting him with our tax dollars, although if that is the case I don't understand why they don't plant him at a larger forum such as democratic underground, though possibly one of his co-workers is already stationed there.
Or he could just be some weird guy, it's hard to say.
Are you saying you don't know the difference between a PhD in philosophy and a PhD in mathematics?
Not at all ... I'm saying from the dumbest to the smartest of our society ... ignorance rules the day.
This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
ROTFLOL! I hate to tell you, robin, but Mr Jowenko has specifically stated that the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2 were clearly NOT controlled demolitions. because Jowenko appears to have some rather kooky ideas.
because Jowenko appears to have some rather kooky ideas.
The guy then went on the record saying that he thinks that "due to the intelligence operations housed in that building it was brought down by a controlled demolition"
Sounds reasonable to me.
God is always good! "It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
Did your cohorts at ROFLOL! Command Center give YOU a little help with that??
My first thoughts when I read his post.
Perfect Diana!
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush (About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
#167. To: RickyJ, Critter Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#153)
The semi-vacuum was created by the explosives clearing the way for the building to fall in the time it did.
Not all floors were 'blown.' The falling floors would have - if anything - created a compressed air cushion below, slowing the collapse, add the physical resistance of the lower structure; particularly the outer shell.
Thus, only controlled demolition of the core 47 steel columns in each of the towers could have provided the documented free-fall rate.
WTC-7 is similar; requiring controlled demolition.
Thus, only controlled demolition of the core 47 steel columns in each of the towers could have provided the documented free-fall rate.
It almost feels silly arguing this anymore. It equates to arguing - Why do kids have to buy bigger clothes as they get older. Do the clothes shrink or do the kids get bigger?
It really is that obvious to any non-shill with an IQ above that of a moron.
Do you honestly think they'd pay anyone a living wage to worry about the nonsense spouted here at FD4UM?
Yes, I do believe our government which prints money at a furious pace now that M3 money supply is no longer being reported can afford to pay whatever it takes to help keep the lid on the truth of 9/11 from reaching the general population.
God is always good! "It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
Diana supposedly quoting me - ROTFLOL! I hate to tell you, robin, but Mr Jowenko has specifically stated that the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2 were clearly NOT controlled demolitions. because Jowenko appears to have some rather kooky ideas.
Why'd you leave out what I wrote between "demolitions." and "because"? When you leave out something you should probably note it with a "... skip ..." so folks don't get confused by your posts.
Yes, I do believe our government which prints money at a furious pace now that M3 money supply is no longer being reported can afford to pay whatever it takes to help keep the lid on the truth of 9/11 from reaching the general population.
Could explain why they have been printing so much money since 9/11.
They go into detail in the International Forecaster (Robert Chapman) on how M3 is no longer being reported and how much money the printing presses have been churning out.
War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength, Bush is President
because I was dealing with the case of a tower TWICE as tall as the WTC towers.
And you'll note that the answer demonstrates that RickyJ (who once labeled anyone who can't see that the WTC tower collapses are demolitions a moron) was wrong when he claimed it would take 16.31 seconds.
#184. To: intotheabyss, RickyJ, SKYDRIFTER, ALL (#168)
SKYDRIFTER - Thus, only controlled demolition of the core 47 steel columns in each of the towers could have provided the documented free-fall rate.
It really is that obvious to any non-shill with an IQ above that of a moron.
Ahhh ... another who, like RickyJ, must think that 99.99999 percent of the structural engineers, demolition experts and macro-world physicists in the world are morons. ROTFLOL!
#186. To: beachooser, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#184)
Ahhh ... another who, like RickyJ, must think that 99.99999 percent of the structural engineers, demolition experts and macro-world physicists in the world are morons. ROTFLOL!
No, Diana, real scientists and engineers know how to use the equations to get the answer right.
you didn't get my point obviously from the post above.
When you wrote 9.8 pertaining to gravity you didn't write m/s (meters per second) like tom007 did. One must always include units. Otherwise it's considered sloppy.
I think Diana has an extremely good point in 187. She knows a real scientist from a fake scientist. I happen to remember that she married a scientist. You BAC are NOT a scientist. you failed to put down the meters per second designation and without that designation it is meaningless and you are very sloppy.
This just about dis-proves everything you've said on these subjects once & 4all.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
HE VERY CLEARLY STATES THAT WTC7 IS A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION!!!!!
WHY DO YOU IGNORE THAT!!!
He based his opinion on the videos alone. If he had all the evidence, of the explosions heard by the firefighters, the seismic spikes before WTC1 and WTC2 fell, for example, he would have a different explanation.
If just one of the buildings was a demolition, then it proves the government was involved. It takes weeks in advance to wire a building.
Can you deny that!?!?
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush (About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
Sloppy is claiming to have an engineering degree and then claiming it would take an object, freefalling from the twice the height of the WTC, 16.31 seconds to reach the ground.
Sloppy is claiming an expertise in steel and then claiming steel structural members are stronger in compression than tension.
He based his opinion on the videos alone. If he had all the evidence, of the explosions heard by the firefighters, the seismic spikes before WTC1 and WTC2 fell, for example, he would have a different explanation.
If just one of the buildings was a demolition, then it proves the government was involved. It takes weeks in advance to wire a building.
Can you deny that!?!?
Let's try this again.
Mr Jowenko only watched the videos. How many times must this be repeated to you?
You can never accuse anyone of being overly selective with your posts again, you do it yourself.
There were NO seismic spikes before WTC1 and WTC2 fell (other than those associated with the aircraft impacts).
The Palisades seismic record shows that — as the collapses began — a huge seismic "spike" marked the moment the greatest energy went into the ground. The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before the falling debris struck the earth. These unexplained "spikes" in the seismic data lend credence to the theory that massive explosions at the base of the towers caused the collapses.
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush (About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
Who do think recorded that seismic data, robin? Lerner-Lam and his staff. And they state categorically that the seismic record does NOT show signs of a demolition. Let me repeat what he said again: "There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."
In fact, the raw seismic data is available to any seismologist around the world. And guess what? There isn't ONE who has come forward to say there is something in that record that doesn't jibe with NIST's explanation of the collapses.
The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses,
This is simply FALSE, robin. The seismic traces when looked at with a broader time scale rather than that compressed one you posted clearly show a gradually increasing amplitude, with the peak oscillations near the middle of the waveform, not at the beginning as your source wants folks to believe. ImplosionWorld, experts on demolition, is on the record
"In all cases where seismographs detected the collapses, waveform readings indicate a single, gradually ascending and descending level of ground vibrations during the event. At no point during 9/11 were sudden or independent vibration "spikes" documented by any seismograph, and we are unaware of any entity possessing such data. This evidence makes a compelling argument against explosive demolition. The laws of physics dictate that any detonation powerful enough to defeat steel columns would have transferred excess energy through those same columns into the ground, and would certainly have been detected by at least one of the monitors that were sensitive enough to record the structural collapses. However, a detailed analysis of all available data reveals no presense of any unusual or abnormal vibration events."
You simply don't know what you are talking about, robin, You are so eager to make the government bad guys, you will believe anything posted by conspiracists. It is sad.
Seismographs at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N.Y., 21 miles north of the WTC, recorded strange seismic activity on Sept. 11 that has still not been explained.
While the aircraft crashes caused minimal earth shaking, significant earthquakes with unusual spikes occurred at the beginning of each collapse.
The Palisades seismic data recorded a 2.1 magnitude earthquake during the 10-second collapse of the South Tower at 9:59:04 and a 2.3 quake during the 8-second collapse of the North Tower at 10:28:31.
However, the Palisades seismic record shows that-as the collapses began-a huge seismic "spike" marked the moment the greatest energy went into the ground. The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before the falling debris struck the Earth.
These unexplained "spikes" in the seismic data lend credence to the theory that massive explosions at the base of the towers caused the collapses.
A "sharp spike of short duration" is how seismologist Thorne Lay of University of California at Santa Cruz told AFP an underground nuclear explosion appears on a seismograph.
The two unexplained spikes are more than 20 times the amplitude of the other seismic waves associated with the collapses and occurred in the East-West seismic recording as the buildings began to fall.
Experts cannot explain why the seismic waves peaked before the towers actually hit the ground.
You still lose, try again
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush (About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
Citing a AFP article written by Christopher Bollyn is not very convincing, robin. Bollyn is one of those who has done just what Lerner-Lam complained about. Or worse. I happen to think he's an outright liar who made up quotes from people since quotes in his articles could not be corroborated even by going to the individuals quoted (such as Lerner-Lam).
Seismographs at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades,
Where do you think Lerner-Lam and his colleagues work, robin?
ROTFLOL!
While the aircraft crashes caused minimal earth shaking, significant earthquakes with unusual spikes occurred at the beginning of each collapse.
This is what I mean about Bollyn LYING, robin. There are no unusual spikes at the beginning of each collapse. Neither Lerner-Lam or any seismologist around the world has said there were. And I quoted ImplosionWorld (experts in demolotion) stating categorically this is not true. If you look at the waveforms with broader timescales you will see this. Or are you too lazy to go look?
The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses
This is absolutely untrue, robin.
You will not find truth by mindlessly regurgitating other's lies.
#197. To: beachooser, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#196)
A simple stopwatch says that all three buildings were brought down by controlled demolition - you can't get around that, BAC! You can manipulate and micro-manage information all you want; the harsh reality doesn't change.
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush (About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
When you wrote 9.8 pertaining to gravity you didn't write m/s (meters per second) like tom007 did. One must always include units. Otherwise it's considered sloppy.
BAC was so sloppy, or rather ignorant, he actually questioned why it was necessary to even have a calculation that proves the towers came down as the governemnt says. NIST made up fake computer models until they got the result they were looking for, but NIST didn't use that because they knew it was BS so they just said it was obvious from the video. LOL!
On top of that I see now BAC got the same equation wrong twice. Apparently he doesn't learn from past mistakes, or have a clue what it is that he is talking about in the first place. He has no credibility around here, I doubt he had much at LP either.
God is always good! "It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
No, robin, Bollyn was either taking things said by seismologists completely out of context or outright making up quotes and attributing them to them. He CLAIMED to cite what Lerner-Lam said but I showed you what Lerner-Lam actually said (with quotation marks). You can go directly to the reports put out by Lerner-Lam and his staff. They say NOTHING about spikes or seeing anything remotely related to bombs in the towers explosions in the seismic traces. They say and the seismic records clearly show that Bollyn's claim that the peak amplitudes are at the beginning of the collapse is FALSE. FALSE. The report issued by Lamont-Doherty includes various graphs showing the seismic readings produced by the planes crashing into the two towers as well as the later collapse of both buildings. Riviera, Bollyn and YOU used only one graph which shows the readings over a 30-minute time span, too long to see any real detail in the pulses. The truth is that Bollyn LIED, robin. And you appear to be gullible enough to believe those lies or because they conform to what you WANT to believe. Either is sad.
The South Tower collapse:
The North Tower collapse:
As to Thorne statement, I suggest you contact him to see if he thinks there is any indication of bombs in the seismic data traces:
Says the guy who told everyone that a tower twice as high as the WTC towers would take 16.31 seconds to collapse at freefall speed in a vacuum. ROTFLOL!
or rather ignorant,
Says the guy who claims all the structural engineers, demolition experts and macro-world physicists in the world are morons because they don't see that the WTC towers were obvious demolitions. ROTFLOL!
He has no credibility around here,
Then you should be able to just ignore me, Ricky ... as I go around demolishing every thread you folks try to start about bombs in the WTC towers and no Flight 77 at the Pentagon. ROTFLOL!
#211. To: beachooser, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#209)
BAC, you have a programmer for each thought you have. You're no one's math genius.
Common sense goes to the hard-core fact that the three buildings came down at free-fall rates (non-vacuum), not at anything which approached a "collapse."
All your spamming can't change that.
I don't know why so many go troll-feeding with you, in the first place.
{You disappeared - was that your Sabbath? 7th Day Adventist - right?}
That's a low blow BAC, he's been gone a few years now. It was a horrible thing what happened, affected a lot of people and i don't like it being brought up on this board.
And imagine ... I did it even without specifying the units.
That's fine, but still it's frowned upon not to use units, I didn't make those rules, but people who deal with that sort of thing on a regular basis know that.
NASA engineers figured this out the hard way when they didn't convert inches to meters and wasted a multi-million dollar probe to Mars.
My father was a scientist too and scribbled equations in the evenings, sort of as a hobby. He always used units and stressed the importance of doing so.
It would be too easy to mess up if a person, even a brilliant genius such as BeAChooser (!) neglected to include them, but I know you know that.
"Shortly before the first tower came down, I remember feeling the ground shaking. I heard a terrible noise, and then debris just started flying everywhere. ... By the time the debris settled from the first collapse, we started to walk back east, toward West Street, and a few minutes later ... we basically had the same thing: The ground shook again, and we heard another terrible noise and the next thing we knew the second tower was coming down." [EMS Lieutenant Bradley Mann]
I guess you missed this link I posted to you on the other thread.
Those are spikes that precede the fall of each tower.
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush (About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
That's a low blow BAC, he's been gone a few years now.
I'm sorry to hear that Diana. I didn't know. It's just that Red Jones said he remembered you married a scientist and I responded, with a ping to you, that "she should ask her husband who got the right answer in that calculation, RickyJ or I". You should have corrected me then. In anycase, I'm sorry for your loss. I'm sure you miss him.
So robin ... can you tell everyone the qualifications of Craig T. Furlong or Gordon Ross, authors of your linked article? Can you tell us anything about Craig Furlong, other than his name?
Here, let me help you. "Craig T Furlong" has indicated in various places on the web that he's from Huntington, California. He's listed on the Scholars for 9/11 *Truth* website as "Quantitative Methods, Business Administration." But not much else is provided anywhere in anything he posts.
Well, what do you know ... there is a Craig T. Furlong in Huntington Beach, CA. Here. According to this, Craig is a Chief Financial Officer of a non-profit charitable company that provides Medical, Counseling and Support Services. That fits the st911 description. That would sure qualify him to write an authoritative article on seismic data and its interpretation. ROTFLOL!
Now if I'm wrong about thinking Craig is this individual, by all means set me straight. Tell us, robin ... who is Craig T Furlong?
One more thing ... on various 9/11 forums, Craig makes some rather interesting assertions ... such as "anyone who sees a video of WTC7 KNOWS it was a controlled demolition." Now there's someone who didn't make up his mind until viewing all the data. Guess he's also a demolition expert. ROTFLOL!
And what about Gordon Ross? Isn't he the guy who also claims any initial collapse would have been arrested by the intact lower section of the buildings? Ah yes, that is the guy. The guy who holds degrees in both Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering and graduated from Liverpool John Moores University in 1984. The guy who is smarter than all the structural and demolition engineers in the world. Who is smarter than all the computer codes that have shown the collapse would have continued to the ground once it started. And who now is also smarter than all the seismologists in the world too.
Let's look at his analysis of the collapse I mentioned above. The following is from a discussion about it that I found on the web here: http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/06/17/18281125.php . "His analysis assumes that the columns in the floors being impacted will reconnect with something in the falling debris that will maximally resist the descent of all of the debris above. He states "Upon impact with the lower section the falling mass would deliver a force which would grow from zero, up to the failure load of the impacted storey columns, over a finite period of time and distance." That premise leads to this statement "The analysis shows that despite the assumptions made in favour of collapse continuation, vertical movement of the falling section would be arrested prior to completion of the 3% shortening phase of the impacted columns, and within 0.02 seconds after impact. A collapse driven only by gravity would not continue to progress beyond that point." But Ross assumes a perfect descent of the collapsing structure and perfect contact between the columns of the falling floors with the undamaged columns in the floors below. THIS IS AN ABSURD PREMISE."
Anyone know what Mr Ross has actually worked on during his engineering life? We wouldn't want him to be another, Professor Jones, who gets called a physicist but actually has only worked on sub-atomic particle physics for the last 30 years. Now since Mr Ross posts over at Liberty Forum, maybe he could be convinced to join us here to tell us a little more about his qualifications. You game to contact him, robin? Maybe you can get him to confirm Craig T. Furlong's qualifications while you are at it.
They show 2 seismic spikes before the towers hit the ground. Similar to the seismic spike when a gas station exploded a few years before.
That's the seismologists' interpretation.
That many patriots have posted this information on various websites does not change the facts.
You of course, have tried to. That's because you are not interested in facts. You are interested only in distortion and lies.
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush (About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush (About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
They show 2 seismic spikes before the towers hit the ground.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
That's the seismologists' interpretation.
FALSE. There is not one seismologist in the world who believes bombs brought down the WTC towers. You are believing the lies of a KOOK named Bollyn, robin.
You are interested only in distortion and lies.
You will NEVER find the truth on a foundation of lies, robin.
Seismologist Arthur Lerner-Lam of Columbia University
stated, “Only a small fraction of the energy from the collapsing towers was
converted into ground motion. The ground shaking that resulted from the
collapse of the towers was extremely small.” In other words, the
collapsing did not cause 2.1 and 2.3 magnitude earthquakes. Furthermore,
a ‘sharp spike of short duration’ is how underground nuclear explosions
register on seismographs. Underground explosions, where the steel columns meet
Manhattans granite would account for both the demolition-style implosions and
these ‘spikes’ on the seismograph. Another seismologist at the Palisades
observatory, Won Young Kim said the 1993 truck bomb did not even register on
their seismographs because the explosion was ‘not coupled’ to the ground.
Imagine the magnitude of explosions it would take to register the two
earthquakes, when the truck bomb didn’t even show up.
Have a pleasant Bushbot troll/shill life,
while you may. I will not be posting to you again.
Your refusal to answer
clear cut questions put to you 3 times, and continuance to lie about the
seismic spikes are all the work of a troll or paid shill.
Better report
back to ROTFLOL! Command Center.
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush (About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
Another seismologist at the Palisades observatory, Won Young Kim said
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/11/011116064642.htm "The Eos paper was written by 12 researchers at Lamont, including Kim, Lynn Sykes, Klaus Jacob, Paul Richards, and Arthur Lerner-Lam, director of Columbia's new Center for Hazards and Risk Research. Lerner-Lam explained what happened once the planes hit the World Trade Center and why they resulted in relatively small seismographic readings. "The energy contained in the amount of fuel combusted was equivalent to the energy released by 240 tons of TNT," said Lerner-Lam. "This energy was absorbed by the buildings and produced the observed fireballs, but did not immediately cause the collapse. During the collapse, most of the energy of the falling debris was absorbed by the towers and the neighboring structures, converting them into rubble and dust or causing other damagebut not causing significant ground shaking."
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_WTC/fact_sheet.htm "The seismic waves from the five World Trade Center events resemble those produced by the collapse of a salt mine south of Rochester, in 1994. ... snip ... For further information contact Won Young Kim wykim@ldeo.columbia.edu, Jeremiah Armitage jha@ldeo.columbia.edu, John Armbruster armb@ldeo.columbia.edu, Klaus Jacob jacob@ldeo.columbia.edu, Arthur Lerner-Lam lerner@ldeo.columbia.edu, Paul Richards richards@ldeo.columbia.edu, Lynn R. Sykes sykes@ldeo.columbia.edu, Jia-Kang Xie xie@ldeo.columbia.edu"
http://911research.com/wtc/analysis/collapses/concrete.html "Many observers have likened the Towers' destruction to volcanoes, noting that the Towers seemed to be transformed into columns of thick dust in the air. An article about seismic observations of events in New York City on 9/11/01, relates the observations of scientists Won-Young Kim, Lynn R. Sykes, J.H. Armitage: "The authors also noted that, as seen in television images, the fall of the towers was similar to a pyroclastic flow down a volcano, where hot dust and chunks of material descend at high temperatures. The collapse of the WTC generated such a flow, though without the high temperatures."
Have a pleasant Bushbot troll/shill life, while you may. I will not be posting to you again.
Yet another FD4UM poster who shows her/his true aversion to facts. It is staggering the number of FD4UM members who have elected to bozo themselves rather than face facts that challenge their world view.
Here's a question for you BAC, and hopefully you can answer it.
Let's say I'm a guy who owns a building the size and configuration of WTC 7. How long do you think it would take for a demolitions expert to set up the charges inside the building to ensure a nice, safe, and clean demolition?
How long does it take a demolition crew to set up explosives in a building like WTC7, because we do know from Larry Silverstein that it was demolished, and not because of terrorism.
HE VERY CLEARLY STATES THAT WTC7 IS A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION!!!!!
WHY DO YOU IGNORE THAT!!!
He based his opinion on the videos alone. If he had all the evidence, of the explosions heard by the firefighters, the seismic spikes before WTC1 and WTC2 fell, for example, he would have a different explanation.
If just one of the buildings was a demolition, then it proves the government was involved. It takes weeks in advance to wire a building.
Can you deny that!?!?
Along the same lines, I asked him the above 3 times. He refused to answer the very pertinent question. Instead he repeats lies about the seismic spikes. BAC is most likely a paid shill. He's not worth wasting any more time on, because he isn't interested in the truth; only Bush Cabal lies and treason.
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush (About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
#228. To: TommyTheMadArtist, robin, SKYDRIFTER (#225)
How long does it take a demolition crew to set up explosives in a building like WTC7, because we do know from Larry Silverstein that it was demolished, and not because of terrorism.
I glad you brought this up. I watched the documentary on pbs and Larry Silverstein says "they pulled the building".
Now if BAC still says it fell due to damage (the official conspiracy story) then we can be sure he is a shill through and through.
I sometimes wondered if he were a troll due to his inability to use logic very effectively. But due to the size of this site the PTB would not use a first string shill here that would be reserved for sites like free republic. He is probably a third string agent.
Truly a sad state of affairs to be that stupid or be a intellectual prostitute willing to sell out his fellow man for money or position.
War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength, Bush is President
Imagine the NYFD set up to do controlled demolition. 9-11 wasn't supposed to be a modified case of Fahrenheit 451; or so we're to believe.
OR; imagine anyone carrying explosives into a burning building.
RIGHT!
exactly
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush (About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
