Aug 21 - James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of NIST, has called for an independent review of NIST's investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11.
â€œI think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable,â€ explained Dr. Quintiere. â€œLet's look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Towers and how that relates to the official cause and what's the significance of one cause versus another.â€
Also a question I forgot in my list above: Why were none of the hijackers on the airline passenger lists?Comment Posted By Hans On 25.08.2007 @ 23:32
What a great discussion we're having. To everyone who thinks there's nothing suspicious about 9/11, who thinks the official conspiracy theory is true, just remember: you don't want to be the last one shouting, "the world is flat!" I've heard that 30% figure all over, I think Newsweak even said 30% is a lot of Americans. And the number seems to be growing.
I think about half the people haven't even heard about the controversy. I'm doing my part to spread the word.
In the small town I'm in, most of my friends say, of course the government had a hand in it. The redneck religious other half seems reluctant to think about it. The grocery store/ movie rental place owner didn't want any 9/11 DVDs when I offered, but the library now has them. I wrote a letter to the editor, opened a few minds I think.
To all you engineers, take a look at ae911truth.org - Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth. They have a great program where they take architects to lunch with an hour-long powerpoint presentation on the towers' demolition. Afterwards, about 90% agree that they were controlled demolitions, and 70%-80% sign their petition calling for an independent investigation.
Let's think about this with open minds, look at the big picture. I tried to convince people from a technical point of view, which is futile I see. But consider all the events of that day, all the parts of the story that are wrong, inconsistent, violate physics, are covered up. Why did Cheney stop our air defense? Why was it running so many exercises of hijacked planes and buildings? Why was there no plane in PA? Why did Silverstein "pull it"? - not the firefighters, there were never any firefighters in bldg7. Why were gas station and hotel security cameras at the Pentagon confiscated within minutes? Why were there no large airplane parts there? Why does that hole look like a missle hit? Why would buildings explode? Why do so many survivors speak of explosions?
I've heard many people insist that our government wouldn't kill its own people. People are expendable when you're at the top of the money/power pyramid. 9/11 served so many purposes: they needed a war, they needed to scare us, they needed oil, they needed legitimacy. (Why do a president's ratings go up after an attack? He failed us, shouldn't they go down?)
A big part of the reason I try to educate people is that another one is coming. It may be soon, it may be years, but let's recognize it when it happens. It'd be great to get a full independent review of 9/11, until then let's spread the word however we can.Comment Posted By Hans On 25.08.2007 @ 14:25
Sorry I got Wirth Walker's name wrong. It's Wirt D. Walker III. Google him and securacom.Comment Posted By Hans On 24.08.2007 @ 10:54
Frank IBC, "The planes that crashed into the towers were flying at 400 mph and over 500 mph, respectively." How do you know how fast the planes were going? The second one was going thru a curve, so we'd expect it to be slower. Also, it hit the corner of the tower, largely missing the core columns.
Gravity throws steel beams 500 feet sideways?
About the molten metal in the rubble: maybe it wasn't "molten" but what would explain it even being red-hot?
Bone fragments on adjacent skyscrapers isn't suspicious to you? It's hard to believe a gravity-driven collapse would do that.
TomB, no I can't definitively answer it, but I have some clues: in the days and weeks before 9/11, there were numerous security drills, including an unprecedented "powerdown". Bomb-sniffing dogs were removed. If you're "security" then you'd have full clearance to go wherever you want.
What's your evidence of fires capable of weakening steel? Would not 90% or more of the jet fuel burn off in the initial seconds-long fireball?Comment Posted By Hans On 24.08.2007 @ 10:47
Wirth Walker is the cousin.
"Good faith requires the admission of the possibility, however slight, that evidence might prove you mistaken." Good point.
Here's a good summary of why it looks like explosives were used:
1. Extremely rapid onset of â€œcollapseâ€
2. Sounds of explosions at plane impact zone â€” a full second prior to collapse (heard by 118 first responders as well as by media reporters)
3. Observations of flashes (seen by numerous professionals)
4. Squibs, or â€œmistimedâ€ explosions, 40 floors below the â€œcollapsingâ€ building seen in all the videos
5. Mid-air pulverization of all the 90,000 tons of concrete and steel decking, filing cabinets & 1000 people â€“ mostly to dust
6. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds
7. Vertical progression of full building perimeter demolition waves
8. Symmetrical collapse â€“ through the path of greatest resistance â€“ at free-fall speed â€” the columns gave no resistance
9. 1,400 foot diameter field of equally distributed debris â€“ outside of building footprint
10. Blast waves blew out windows in buildings 400 feet away
11. Lateral ejection of thousands of individual 20 - 50 ton steel beams up to 500 feet
12. Total destruction of the building down to individual structural steel elements â€“ obliterating the steel core structure.
13. Tons of molten metal found by FDNY under all 3 high-rises (no other possible source other than an incendiary cutting charge such as Thermate)
14. Chemical signature of Thermate (high tech incendiary) found in slag, solidified molten metal, and dust samples by Physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.
15. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples
16. More than 1000 Bodies are unaccounted for â€” 700 tiny bone fragments found on top of nearby buildings
And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.Comment Posted By Hans On 24.08.2007 @ 09:22
1. Slow onset with large visible deformations
2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)
3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never â€œcollapsedâ€
"The steel elements tore themselves apart in all directions?" You can believe what you want. The towers were designed to take multiple hits from planes that size. And what happened to building 7? This is a fun discussion, but frustrating. Our government had the motive - war, trillions in defense contracts, oil, military presence in the Middle East - and were the only ones with the means to stand down our air defense system. And Bush's brother and cousin were in charge of security at WTC. And there's the Sept. 2000 PNAC report calling for a "new Pearl Harbor." Please people pull your heads out of the sand, our government is not benign.Comment Posted By Hans On 23.08.2007 @ 23:06
TomB, yes I know static and dynamic loads. My point is that the the steel structure was designed to hold many times the static load. And "Once the floors started in motion, there was nothing to stop them" - well yes, there was the rest of the building below.
Frank IBC, I'm not assuming the concrete and steel stayed intact. I'm saying after five or ten scrunched floors you should have a significant mass of it, constraining to some degree the core column area.
"pancaking" - seems to be a big part of the official story, maybe a defender of the official story can explain it better. As I understand it, it's the floors crashing down, the 81st taking out the 80th, which both then take out the 79th, etc.
Yes some columns would be snapping/shattering in any direction. They would also to some degree be standing stiffly like they were designed to do.
And we still don't have an explanation of how this action all starts suddenly. What on a plane is dense enough to take out a core column? Engines and landing gear that I know of. How many of the 47 could they have cut?
A mesh of steel and concrete falls on a mesh of steel and concrete. Does the whole thing spontaneously crumble?Comment Posted By Hans On 23.08.2007 @ 21:47
Troll feeder, so with all that empty space the top 31 floors of latticed steel columns just moved around and past the steel structure below? It wouldn't hang up at all?
Frank IBC, yes of course the columns were composed of smaller pieces joined together.Comment Posted By Hans On 23.08.2007 @ 20:34
And some of them would undoubtedly buckle outward and snap. But wouldn't they be restrained to a large degree by the pancaking layers of concrete and steel around them?
Well, the core was massive metal columns and their braces. The falling structure would start occupying the same space as the top of the 79-story building. The columns wouldn't just slide past each other.Comment Posted By Hans On 23.08.2007 @ 19:25
I have a question for Troll feeder and any other engineers: let's say one whole floor vaporized. The 80th, say, so the top 30 suddenly fell 11 feet onto the lower 79. What would happen?
You'd have the weight, of course, plus whatever kinetic energy it would have picked up falling 11 feet.
The remaining 79-story structure is built to hold much more than the static weight of 31 top floors - twice as much? four? eight times as much? I don't know. Engineers, what's your estimate?
Here's what I picture: the joists and beams and concrete of the 79th and 81st collide and pulverize. The 47 core columns and their diagonal braces, meanwhile, are meshing and tangling, slowing things down. After a few floors of pancaking, there'd be be a huge knot of twisted metal in the core, stopping things up.
But it all just disappeared. How did that happen?
Who had the motive, who had the means? Please everyone, let's have open minds.Comment Posted By Hans On 23.08.2007 @ 18:45
Pages (2) :  2