The amazing denial of conspiracy kooks....

I honestly cannot decide whether I find Henry's identity shifting more
disgusting, or his sock puppeting.

 

Yes. Bush and cheney have done things that are impeachable.

He failed to prevent 9-11 by impeachable negligence.

 

You don't seem able to find your own ass with
both hands and a map, which is why you've
hit your poor keyboard with it.

Many people refuse to be fooled. You're just
one who prefers it instead.

Worse yet, you can't even muster the gumption
to want justice for the victims of 9/11.

 

You reckon that'd be why Bush and Cheney did all they
could to obstruct investigation of 9/11?

Whom do you claim profitted most from those crimes?

 

"Justice for the victims", whatever that means, does not require that
we believe that explosives were used to bring down the WTC towers.


http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2006/12/science-vs-bull.html

Thursday, December 21, 2006
Science Vs. Bull
Joseph Cannon

As mentioned in a comment below, my sympathies for conspiracy
theories evaporate when the subject switches from investigative
reporting to science. I'm all for tracking Lee Harvey Oswald's
spooky pals in Guy Banister's office; I'm all for telling the story
of what really went down in Allende's Chile; I'm all for sorting out
the ins and outs of the Litvinenko case; I'm all for tracking the
shadowy world inhabited by guys like Michael Ledeen and groups like
the Pinay Circle.

But when the subject turns to science, I advise extreme caution.

And that's when the conspiracy buffs become pluperfectly pissed off
with me, because many of them just love, love, love that
pseudoscience. From radionics to Roswell, they dig it.

A discursive example:

I can't tell you how many times I've argued with film-illiterate
conspiracy buffs who knew -- just bloody knew -- that subliminal
images appear in The Exorcist. Every time I encounter this claim, I
explain that, while quick cuts do exist in that movie, subliminals
are impossible. Film runs at 24 frames a second, and 1/24th of a
second is not subliminal; that's why you can see scratches and
splices in a bad print. 1/3000th of a second is subliminal, but to
flash an image so briefly requires a specialized piece of equipment
called a tachistiscope. (For the same reason, no subliminals can
ever appear on television, which has a 30 fps refresh rate.)

The usual response: "There must have been a tachisti-whatzit in the
theater!"

Actually, I've spoken with the projectionist who ran The Exorcist
during its first run at the National in Los Angeles back in '73. (In
those days, big films did not open wide.) There was no such device.

Point won? Nope. The ne'er-say-die conspiracy buff would invariably
accuse me of not knowing anything about movie technology (!) or of
being part of the conspiracy.

(Before you say it: Yes, I know all about Vicary's stunt in the
1950s. He used a tachistiscope, and his results had no scientific
value due to the lack of controls. And yes, I know about the
Silverman/Weinberger experiments of the 1980s, which have been
questioned due to some unsuccessful attempts at replication.)

All of which is my way of coming back to Dylan Avery, director of
Loose Change, the film which many controlled demolition believers
consider the Matrix-style "red pill" that awoke them to the
horrible, horrible truth of what really happened on 9/11. In a
recent comment, Dylan revealed that his film is a religious
enterprise, not an attempt at scientific inquiry.

The giveaway quotation comes from a debate between Dylan Avery,
partner Jason Bermas, and debunker Ronald Wieck. You can see the
debate here; a partial transcript is here.

The revelatory words:

Wieck: I want to ask both of you quickly, what would falsify your
beliefs? What would it take? What would we need to change your
mind about this?

Avery: There is nothing.

Nothing could falsify this belief? Then -- by definition -- we have
left the edifice of science and entered the realm of religion.

The existence of God is the most commonly-heard non-falsifiable
assertion. If you're as ancient as I am, you may recall this
exchange from an old Bill Cosby routine, which demonstrates the
principle:

Dad: Don't step out the bed. I've placed a dozen poisonous snakes
on the floor.

Young Bill: I don't see no snakes...

Dad: They're invisible!

What would falsify my assertion that controlled demolitions did not
take down those buildings? A commenter on the Screw Loose Change
blog offered some sensible suggestions:

- a consensus among structural engineers and demolition experts
that there was a demolition

- peer-reviewed research supporting twoofer claims

- whistleblowers from within the massive conspiracy

- a logical narrative would be nice too

Actually, I find it odd that we haven't yet had any putative
whistleblowers. The hard-core JFK buffs can name about a dozen guys
who, over the years, have made dubious "confessions" that they were
either one of the shooters or one of the mystery tramps.

Back to the main point. My standards for falsification are less
demanding. I'm not asking for a consensus of physicists -- a mere
twenty would be nice. When the CD-ers can count among their number a
certain number of demolition experts -- twenty? Fifteen? -- I will
listen respectfully. Right now, the number of demolition experts who
believe in the CD theory of 911 is an embarrassing zero.

The CD-ers claim that their writings have passed muster in a "peer
reviewed" journal, But that publication, The Journal of 911 Studies,
does not count among its peers a single person with professional
expertise in the area of controlled demolition. And yet it is
devoted to "proving" the controlled demolition hypothesis!

Why have the editors not recruited any experts in the very field
under discussion? Perhaps because those experts would say things
that the CD believers may not wish to hear.

The fact is, no pro-CD theories have appeared in any peer-reviewed
scientific periodical founded before the events in question
occurred. As far as I know, all articles published in actual science
journals have led readers in a very different direction.

Some conspiracists will counter: The editors of those journals must
have been paid to print lies! Welcome to the wonderful world of
non-falsifiability.

If dozens, hundreds of eyewitnesses see a commercial jet smashing
into the Pentagon, those witnesses stand damned as liars. Welcome to
the wonderful world of non-falsifiability.

"The buildings came down at free-fall speeds!" bleat the
CD-ers. That argument has been refuted more than once. See here and
here and here. Also see the Screw Loose Change video itself -- or
any video of the collapse, which shows rubble free-falling at a rate
faster than the building collapse.

Doesn't matter: Those rebuttals were written in bad faith, and any
video evidence that challenges the theory must have been
Photoshopped.

Welcome to the world of non-falsifiability.

Should we extend Avery and Bermas the excuse of youth? Could it be
that they did not know how the concept of falsifiability works in
science?

My High School Science teacher explained the basic principle to me,
just as yours probably told you. One can only hope that Avery and
Bermas had a similar instructor. Beyond that, everyone must admit
that Avery and Bermas are playing with the big boys now. They made a
film which spoke to millions about scientific questions, and (unlike
most actual scientists) they feel quite comfortable speaking in
terms of definitely instead of perhaps.

If they did not make it their business to learn the scientific
method, they deserve contempt.

 

It means investigation. It means catching those
who caused the crimes to occur.

You couldn't figure out even that much?

You don't seem able to find your own ass with
both hands and a map, which is why you've
hit your poor keyboard with it.

Many people refuse to be fooled. You're just
one who prefers it instead.

Worse yet, you can't even muster the gumption
to want justice for the victims of 9/11.

 

You haven't proved an "inside job" happened, let alone
layed the cause on anyone specific.

The "Truth Movement" has gotten even nuttier than the Weekly
Standard/WSJ crowd was about Clinton.

Bush is impeachable for things are on the record. I don't need to
Made Up Shit. It makes the impeachment process lose credibility, which
might be the point of the people that beat the "truth Movement" drum
the loudest.

 

Do try to pay attention, kooky kirb. Dykes said that a
controlled demolition won't cause a steel framed building
to fall faster than an undamaged steel framed building. I
would hope that even you can see the absurdity of that
claim - althoug I wouldn't expect you to be honest enough
to admit it.
He also metioned something about an edited quote without
showing us the quote or what was edited. Please learn how
to follow a thread.


http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/02/destruction-of-wtc-7.html


The Destruction of WTC 7
Latest updates:
5 Sept. 2006: NIST postpones its report until 2007, will consider if
explosions occurred
25 Sept. 2006: a demolition expert and two structural design professors
conclude WTC 7 was a controlled demolition
13 Dec.2006: Finnish Doctor of Engineering: WTC 7 fell even faster than
an object falling the same distance through air

World Trade Center 7 was a steel-framed skyscraper completed in 1985. It
was located 110 meters (350 feet) away from the closest of the Twin
Towers. The building's tenants included the CIA, the U.S. Securities &
Exchange Commission, the Internal Revenue Service, several banks, and
the Mayor's Office of Emergency Management.

No airplane hit WTC-7, but its south facade and southwest corner were
damaged by debris ejected from the North Tower, which collapsed at 10.30
am. It was reported on fire at 4.10 pm by CNN, although the fires seem
to have started hours earlier, evidently before noon. The fires were
detected on a number of floors, and the building collapsed at 5.20 pm.


A high-resolution video of the collapse is available here.


The Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, speculated that office
fires caused the collapse of the building. It, however, acknowledged in
its report in May 2002: "The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how
they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. [...]
the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence." Later in
2002, Larry Silverstein, the owner of WTC-7, gave in the America
Rebuilds TV program a famous "pull it" statement that has generally been
interpreted as meaning that the building was professionally demolished.

Did WTC-7 collapse as a result of office fires, or was it demolished
with explosives? The answer can be sought by examining the way in which
the building collapsed.

Collapse Speed


As one can observe from the videos of WTC-7's collapse, shortly
following the destruction of its penthouse structures, the building fell
to the ground in 6.5 seconds. This is a phenomenally short time: a stone
dropped from the top of the building would have reached the ground
(covering a distance of 174 meters) in 5.95 seconds – if there were no
air resistance! However, in principle the distance analyzed should be
that from the top of the building to the top of the debris pile, not to
the ground. As the exact height of the debris pile is not documented, it
is more useful to examine the early stages of the collapse, during which
the debris pile does not need to be taken into account.


According to the video analysis presented in the 9-11 Eyewitness
documentary, starting from the state of rest, WTC-7 fell 100 meters in
4.5 seconds. This results in an acceleration of 9.8 m/s2, corresponding
to a free fall.

To verify this, I examined the fall of a corner of the building in one
collapse video using Blaze Media Pro video editing software. The corner
fell 56 meters (=the distance between the Start and End lines in the
picture below) in 3.47 seconds. This results in an acceleration of 9.3
m/s2, which corresponds to a very low resistance factor of the
structural supports: only 5 percent of the force of gravity of the
building's falling upper section.

I also measured an acceleration of 8.5 m/s2 for the middle part of the
wide facade in the picture, which means that the force of resistance of
the structural supports was 13 percent of the force of gravity of the
falling upper section (see the calculation in more detail here).


My measurements therefore support the conclusion presented in 9-11
Eyewitness that the skyscraper fell virtually unimpeded. The lack of
structural resistance seems to be explainable only by the destruction of
the structural supports through the use of explosives.


WTC-7 fell on average 7 floors per second (47 / 6.5). One second after
the onset of the collapse, the speed of descent was almost 10
meters/second; after two seconds, almost 20 meters/second; and at the
end, about 60 meters/second (over 200 kilometers/hour).

Heikki Kurttila, a Finnish Doctor of Engineering and accident
researcher, has made detailed calculations about the collapse speed of
WTC-7. According to him, an apple dropped from the height of WTC 7's
roof would have taken 0.5 seconds longer to reach the ground than it
took WTC 7 to fall completely. Kurttila concludes that the short
collapse time and low structural resistance "strongly suggest controlled
demolition".

Structural Features of the Collapse

A striking feature in the collapse of WTC-7 is symmetry. The collapse
progressed evenly throughout the building, and the debris piled up
almost entirely within the foundations of the building.

The symmetry of WTC-7's collapse means that all of its steel supports –
25 central and 58 peripheral columns – were destroyed almost
simultaneously. Any asymmetry in the damage to structures would have led
to asymmetrical collapse. By contrast, a fully symmetrical collapse
without controlled use of explosives would not have followed the
principle of least resistance. Local fires could not have weakened all
the central and peripheral support structures in a way that would have
caused all of them to give up at the same moment.

A controlled demolition is also suggested by the drop of the center of
the skyscraper moments before the surrounding structures started to
fall, as well as by the fact that the outer walls were pulled inwards.
In a controlled demolition the collapse is caused by first destroying
the weight-carrying core of a building, which "pulls" the exterior walls
inwards ("implosion"). Although the lowest floor with fires was
reportedly the sixth floor, the building seems to have undergone a
traditional demolition, beginning from the bottom floor. An emergency
worker who witnessed the collapse of WTC-7 was interviewed on 9/11. He
described hearing what sounded like a "clap of thunder", followed by
what looked like "a shockwave ripping through the building", with
windows busting out, and "about a second later the bottom floor caved
out and the [rest of] the building followed after that".


At least one high-resolution video of the collapse of WTC-7 clearly
shows one more characteristic of controlled demolition: streamers of
dust emerging out of the building.


A Dutch demolition expert Danny Jowenko, who owns a demolition company
and has been in the business for 27 years, concluded in September 2006
that WTC 7 "is controlled demolition. [...] A team of experts did this.
This is professional work, without any doubt." Hugo Bachmann, a Swiss
professor emeritus for structural design and construction, said in
Tages-Anzeiger : "In my opinion WTC7 was with great probability brought
down by controlled demolition done by experts". In addition, Jörg
Schneider, another Swiss Professor emeritus for structural design and
construction, interprets the existing videos as indices that "WTC7 was
with great probability brought down by explosives".

Fire Endurance of Steel

Steel is very fire-resistant material. In tests conducted by Chorus
Construction in several countries, the fire endurance of steel-framed
parking garages was examined by feeding fires with hydrocarbon fuel.
Steel beams and pillars heated to a maximum of 360 degrees Celsius, and
the breaking of steel was not even close. In Cardington fire endurance
tests non-fireproofed steel was subjected to temperatures of up to 1150
degrees Celsius, but no collapse was observed. In the Windsor Building
in Madrid, a 24-hour intensive fire did not collapse the building.
Moreover, the fires in WTC-7 were insignificant compared to fires in
Windsor Building and all other skyscraper fires. Office fires have never
collapsed a single steel-framed highrise to the ground. In the picture
of WTC-7 to the right, the fires are limited to small areas, almost all
windows are intact, and no red heat indicative of temperatures capable
of softening steel is visible. The situation is the same in other
photographs taken of the building in late afternoon. In this video a
fair amount of smoke, but no flames, can be seen. By contrast, WTC-5,
which was badly damaged by the collapse of the North Tower next to it,
burned very powerfully: its floors were covered by a sea of flames and
all windows were broken. However, this building, despite the fact that
it had weaker support structures than WTC-7, did not collapse into a
debris pile, but remained standing.

Characteristics of the Debris


The debris of WTC-7 was extremely hot weeks after the collapse of the
building. Thermal imaging by NASA showed that the top of the debris pile
had a temperature of 730 degrees Celsius five days after the collapse.
Deeper, and immediately after the destruction, temperatures were
probably considerably higher. Residual temperatures like this cannot be
explained by office fires or by an ordinary, gravity-driven collapse.
When the potential energy of a building experiencing an ordinary
gravitational collapse turns into thermal energy, the result is only a
few degrees' average increase in temperature.

According to several reports, molten metal (also suggested by this video
footage) was found under the debris pile of WTC buildings. To melt
structural steel, temperatures exceeding 1500 degrees Celsius are
required. Such temperatures are never achieved in office fires. In
addition to molten metal, partly evaporated steel beams were found in
the debris of WTC-7. As professor Jonathan Barnett pointed out in a New
York Times interview, the fires in the building could not have produced
temperatures capable of evaporating steel. However, the use of
explosives like thermite can produce temperatures (even 3000 degrees
Celsius) that can melt and even evaporate steel.

FEMA's investigators were not allowed to work in the collapse zone
itself. They were allowed to examine the debris of WTC skyscrapers only
in landfill areas used as temporary storage for the steel debris before
its recycling. By May 2005, when FEMA finished its preliminary report
calling for further investigation, all the steel debris had been sold
and shipped into the Far East. Only 156 pieces of steel were chosen for
futher analysis, of which a ridiculous total of 4 were from WTC-7. Even
these four no longer seem to exist.


As WTC-7 was evacuated over six hours before its destruction, there were
no grounds for the rapid removal and recycling of the steel debris.
Quite the contrary: as WTC-7 was one of the three greatest building
collapses in recorded history (the other two being the North and South
Towers), the debris of the building should have been meticulously
examined. Many individuals and publications, such as the Fire
Engineering Magazine, protested strongly against the rapid destruction
of the evidence.


Final Words


Was WTC-7 destroyed as a result of controlled demolition? Everyone can
draw their own conclusions from the way in which the building was
destroyed and the temperatures produced in the destruction.

If and when the building was demolished, it must have been wired with
explosives before September 11th. An operation of that magnitude could
not have been accomplished during a couple of chaotic hours. This is why
the official hypotheses have not touched on the most obvious explanation
for the collapse of the skyscraper. It is revealing that the 9/11
Commission, which published its report in 2004, does not mention in a
single sentence the destruction of the third skyscraper resulting from
the terrorist attack in New York.


FEMA's work has been continued by the National Institute of Standards
and Technology, which has again postponed its report on WTC-7, this time
until 2007. NIST is now saying that it is also investigating the
hypothesis that explosions initiated the collapse. Interviewed in the
March 2006 issue of New York Magazine, Dr S. Shyam Sunder, NIST lead
investigator, summed up the present state of the investigation:


NIST did have "some preliminary hypotheses" on 7 WTC, Dr. Sunder said.
"We are studying the horizontal movement east to west, internal to the
structure, on the fifth to seventh floors." Then Dr. Sunder paused. "But
truthfully, I don't really know. We've had trouble getting a handle on
Building No. 7."

 

One tower of WTC was measured to fall at a rate very close to free
fall. If the entire undamaged lower part instanty disappeared, the
top would have fallen faster but by fractions of a second.

Explosive charges don't accelerate a hundred thousands of tons of
upper structure in any way, let alone down.

As far as citations go, look at the following URL from Prof Jones'
_Journal of 911 Studies_, alledgedly peer reviewed and representing
the highest standard of published research.

http://journalof911studies.com/Article_5_118Witnesses_WorldTradeCenter.pdf


And find the following text on page 70


Craig Carlsen, 9110505
South Tower:

I guess about three minutes later you just heard explosions coming
from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever,
but there were about ten explosions. At the time I didn't realize
what it was. We realized later after talking and finding out that
it was the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit. We then
realized the building started to come down. [p. 6]

North Tower:

The second one coming down, you knew the explosions. Now you're
very familiar with it. [p. 10]

***

Then look at the transcript that was taken from;


http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110505.PDF

(use acrobat search to find "second one")

"The second one coming down, you knew the explosions. Now you're
very familiar with it. Of course when I looked up, all I could see
was the antenna coming down. You pretty much just pick up and take
off. Everybody was on their own, I guess.

Q. All right. Thank you, Craig.

 

You haven't proved that slaughtering helpless innocent
Iraqis to steal from them would be justice for the victims
of 9/11, certainly. I deleted your mindless ad hominem.

It means investigation. It means catching those
who caused the crimes to occur.

You couldn't figure out even that much?

You don't seem able to find your own ass with
both hands and a map, which is why you've
hit your poor keyboard with it.

Many people refuse to be fooled. You're just
one who prefers it instead.

Worse yet, you can't even muster the gumption
to want justice for the victims of 9/11.

 

Yes.

 

Why can't I find any information or the names of the firefighters in
the above video? I've googled for the important words. It seems like
a "smoking gun" and the "Truth Movement" should be looking to follow
up on what is said.

The photos below don't add anything new. There is no question that the
pile was very hot, possibly hot enough to melt aluminum, but I can't
find a cited claim of "molton steel". (The people in the video,
below, don't mention steel.) As the pile was opoened up, hotspots
burst into flame when they got fresh oxygen.

Even if there is molon metel, it doesn't by itself, prove that
explosives or thermite was used to collapse the WTC towers.

 

You're complicit in supporting the crimes on
which you get off.

You haven't proved that slaughtering helpless innocent
Iraqis to steal from them would be justice for the victims
of 9/11, certainly. I deleted your mindless ad hominem.

It means investigation. It means catching those
who caused the crimes to occur.

You couldn't figure out even that much?

You don't seem able to find your own ass with
both hands and a map, which is why you've
hit your poor keyboard with it.

Many people refuse to be fooled. You're just
one who prefers it instead.

Worse yet, you can't even muster the gumption
to want justice for the victims of 9/11.

 

One symptom of "Loonacy" is the conflation of words from something
clear and specific to something vague and that nobody can say they
oppose and is repeated, endlessly. "justice for the victims of 9/11"
is just such a phrase.

You presume that "justice for the victims of 9/11." is identical to
the goals of the "911 Truth Movement".

Are there *any* of the several thousands of living victims of 911 that
have joined the "Truth Movement"? I ask this with trepidation knowing
that there is always *one* sad loon in a population that large.

None of the NJ Widows, that I know of have come out with any request
to "investigate" the kind of claims that the "Truth Movement" as
asserting. They want lots of things about 9-11, mostly the failure of
our intelligence services to react to the warnings we were getting
prior to 9-11.

I live in Staten Island, home of a disproportionate number of NY
firemen, and, by definition, anyone that was a NY fireman (or woman,
of course) on 9-11-2001 *is* a victim. I meet NY Firemen all the
time. I know a retired fireman that worked on the pile from the
afternoon of 9-11.

None of them think that explosives or thermite was used, or necessary,
to cause the collapse of WTC1/2/7.

None of the firemen I've talked to believe the kinds of things that
the "Truth Movement" wants to prove, happened.

Nobody with expertise in a relevant speciality thinks that explosives
or thermite was present on 9-11.

 

I see you like to avoid what you can't defend.

How about that anti-911 bowel movement site? The sure shot holes in
about 100% of your theories....

Time to reflect on why you wasted 5 years of your life on this....

Kirb

 

"9/11 Firefighters: Bombs and Explosions in the WTC"

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911_firefighters.html

You might have a better shot at learning the meanings
of words if you first learn how they are spelled.

If you don't question why Bush and Cheney did all they
could to prevent investigations of 9/11, then you aren't
working from a state of sanity.

You haven't proved that slaughtering helpless innocent
Iraqis to steal from them would be justice for the victims
of 9/11, certainly. I deleted your mindless ad hominem.

It means investigation. It means catching those
who caused the crimes to occur.

You couldn't figure out even that much?

You don't seem able to find your own ass with
both hands and a map, which is why you've
hit your poor keyboard with it.

Many people refuse to be fooled. You're just
one who prefers it instead.

Worse yet, you can't even muster the gumption
to want justice for the victims of 9/11.

 

Can you be more specific? What site and what about it?
Gullible kooks are predictable, but reading their "minds"
is still a guessing game. I prefer to deal with hard evidence,
science, physics, and facts.

 

Wrong. Both towers and WTC7 dropped at a rate virtually
equal to free fall speed.

So you agree that that the collapse time was about the
same as it would have been if the lower structures were
destroyed by demolition charges. Good.
Now, explain to us why you think that the collapse times
would not have increased dramatically or stopped all together
if the steel frames had not been been destroyed. Upright
steel columns can't fall through themselves. In fact, they
can and are driven deep into the earth via pile driving.
When steel columns are pile driven into the earth, they do
not suddenly disintegrate, shatter, explode, or melt. Tell
us what you think caused the massive undamaged central cores
to self destruct and fall through themselves at free fall
speed. Then tell us what you think caused the molten metal
observed deep in the rubble of all three demolition sites.

True, gravity does that once the structure is destroyed.
But since the massive steel frames were over engineered to
support several times the weight of the towers and were not
damaged below the jet impact zone, obviously, they couldn't
have fallen at any speed unless they were demolished via
demolition. That has been proved with physics. I notice that
neither you nor anyone else has refuted one word of Physicist
Gordon Ross.

Perhaps you should learn more about the extreme (2000%) reserve
strength designed into the steel frames of the towers. How was the
2000% reserve strength of the undamaged steel frame exceeded by only
the force of gravity, in your opinion? And how was it exceeded to such
an extreme degree that the undamaged steel frame with a 2000% reserve
strength capacity offered no measurable resistance with only the force
of gravity working against it?

From:
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060327100957690

"The Twin Towers and Why They Fell
It would help to begin with an accurate description of the WTC towers
in terms of quality of design and construction. In July of 1971, the
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) presented a national award
judging the buildings to be "the engineering project that demonstrates
the greatest engineering skills and represents the greatest
contribution to engineering progress and mankind."3 Others noted that
"the World Trade Center towers would have an inherent capacity to
resist unforeseen calamities." This capacity stemmed from the use of
special high-strength steels. In particular, the perimeter columns
were designed with tremendous reserve strength whereby "live loads on
these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs.

More on the incredible strength of the towers can be found here:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

"There is evidence that the Twin Towers were designed with an even
greater measure of reserve strength than typical large buildings.
According to the calculations of engineers who worked on the Towers'
design, all the columns on one side of a Tower could be cut, as well
as the two corners and some of the columns on each adjacent side, and
the building would still be strong enough to withstand a
100-mile-per-hour wind. 3"

The massive steel frames of the towers were far too strong to
collapse only under their own weight. That's been proved with
physics, and that's why no other steel framed buildings have ever
collapsed that way unless they were demolished. See Gordon Ross'
excellent paper on momentum transfer on this page:

http://worldtradecentertruth.com/

As common sense would dictate, even if all the perimeter and
core columns near the top of the tower were somehow destroyed
simultaneously so that the top 20 stories or so dropped onto the
remaining undamaged frame, after some bending and compression,
the collapse would have stopped, or the upper block would have
fallen off to the side. Gordon Ross proves that with physics.

To believe that the towers could fall through themselves at virtual
free fall speed and in perfect symmetry is comical nonsense. What you
are saying, is that falling directly =through= the massive undamaged
steel frames, including the 47 interconnected central core columns:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html

provided little more resistance than air. This is proved by the
fact that debris falling outside the towers hit the ground about the
same time as the debris falling through the towers. Making your
theory even more impossible, is the fact that the steel at the top
of the towers was many times lighter and thinner than the undamaged
steel in the lower section.

Look at the massive core column cross section in the
bottom photo.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html

Your magic fire theory says that crushing 47 of those bad boys,
all interconnected with even more steel, =and= destroying all the
perimeter columns, =and= "pancaking" all the floors, produced
about the same kinetic friction as falling though air. That's some
crazy, crazy, shit. It's amazing what some people can programmed
to believe.


Observe the rotating and disintegrating block on the South
Tower.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc2exp4.html

As the top section of that tower is rotating, the high strength, fire
resistant perimeter columns on one side of the building are being
compressed, and on the opposite side, they're being pulled apart. Why
do you think the steel perimeter frame with no weight above it is
exploding and collapsing at the same rate as the compressed side?
Seems more than a little odd, doesn't it? Here's some information
on the perimeter columns.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/perimeter.html

 

You're lucky to even see the video. The Bush regime destroyed
and confiscated key evidence, and firefighters were ordered not
to speak about what they saw.

There are many people who reported seeing molten metal, and
there are many other smoking guns. The 9-11 truth movement is
actively pursuing all of it in spite of the best efforts of the
corporate owned and censored media and the Bush regime to
suppress it.

They do for conspiracy kooks who deny the existence
of molten and glowing metal deep in the rubble pile
weeks after the demolitions.

Molten metal, technically. That's the result of a thermite
or thermate reaction with steel. There are many cited claims.
Use the search feature on Jim Hoffman's cite for irrefutable,
well documented hard evidence.

http://911research.wtc7.net

The testimony of all the people who saw, heard, and felt
multiple explosions is quite compelling, too.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/eyewitnesses.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/oralhistories/explosions.html

The molten metal is only one of many examples of hard evidence
that proves demolition. The previously molten metal has been
chemically analyzed by Dr. Steven Jones, and shown to contain
the residue of a thermate reaction. Analysis begins on page 22.

http://worldtradecentertruth.com/volume/200609/DrJonesTalksatISUPhysicsDepartment.pdf

What else could have caused molten metal, in your opinion?
Certainly, whatever remained of the low temperature oxygen
starved fires near the tops of the towers after the collapse
would have been near the top of the rubble, not the bottom.

 

If true, So what? There is no engineer or demolition expert that
thinks that explosive charges or thermite were necessary to explain
how the towers collapsed. You have not cited anyone with relevant
expertise that claims there is anyting unusual.

"about" is the key word. Free fall from 1300 ft would be 9.1
seconds. In the last second the velocity is about 400 ft/sec. Anyone
that rounds the number to "9" (or worse, "8" as some whacko cites
claim) is making at implied error of hundreds of ft in the
measurement.

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to
strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the
towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9
seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise
timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2)
ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that
also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times
from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Huh? That paragraph is incoherent.

When standing, WTC was mostly air. 95% air? I don't know an exact
number. There was no "core" that was to hold up the building. The
strength was in the dozens of vertical columns around the periphery
and they were not blown up in any way other than the ones hit by the
planes. No video shows beams being exploded or cut on all the floors
below the crash zone.

I can't find any first-hand documentation of anything like "molton
steel" found in the WTC pile. The best thing I can find is this, and
I've been asking for more information about it. Until I know who the
speakerss are and what the context is, it's not citable as a source.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3060923273573302287

Your Molten steel at "all three sites" is the grandest exaggeration
I've heard, yet. Do you make this shit up as you go?