March For Truth NYC '06
Greg Nixon | 23.01.2006 02:07
The phony 'Left wing" media are de facto Bush regime supporters since they refuse to talk about the massive
frameup on humanity in the name of the fraudulent "War On Terror". It is time to confront these 'gatekeepers'
who keep the reality of 9/11 from going mainstream. Come march for truth in NYC on February 20th to restore law and order to our Republic
frameup on humanity in the name of the fraudulent "War On Terror". It is time to confront these 'gatekeepers'
who keep the reality of 9/11 from going mainstream. Come march for truth in NYC on February 20th to restore law and order to our Republic
March for Truth N.Y.C. 2006
When? February 20th 2006
Where? “Ground Zero” New York City 10:00am
-On February 20th 2006, 9/11 Truth activists will convene at “Ground Zero” former site of the World Trade Center in lower Manhattan New York City to march against the U.S. Government’s mass murder of 2,986 Americans on September 11th 2001.
- Since our Government is a totally illegitimate criminal enterprise for perpetrating these attacks, we have chosen President’s Day as an appropriate
Occasion to march to restore the rule of law and order to our Republic.
We demand an international independent tribunal akin to the Nuremberg Trials to seek justice for the crimes committed on 9/11 2001 and for all crimes committed against humanity in its wake.
- Protesters will proceed to march to Attorney General Elliot Spitzer’s office with a letter demanding his resignation for his failure to investigate this crime committed in his jurisdiction despite overwhelming evidence.
-We will then confront the media organizations The Nation Magazine, Democracy Now, The New York Times, and A.N.S.W.E.R as symbolic targets of de facto complicity with their silence and neglect of journalistic duties in the face of the greatest crime of the 21st century on American soil –This despite an abundance of specific credible evidence for the Government’s role as the source of the attacks.
-The rally will conclude at the office of former N.Y.C. Mayor Giuliani in Times Square, where we will deliver citizen’s warrant for his arrest for his role in the attacks at The World Trade Center and criminal complicity in removing evidence from a crime scene. Civil disobedience will then be encouraged by protesters in an effort to call on fellow Americans to speak out against the colossal crimes being committed in the name of a fraudulent ‘War on Terror” and to demand the U.S. Government be arrested for treason and mass murder.
-We ask for all to come and march to uphold the moral principle that all human life deserves to live free from the tyranny of a rogue government, a government which committed mass murder on its very citizens for political expedience and financial enrichment. The weaponry in the hands of the forces of evil occupying our government has the capability of ending all life on this planet. It is therefore of the utmost imperative that this be dealt with over all other political concerns.
-Please spread the word to any and all to come to Ground Zero on February 20th and make their voice heard that this frame-up on humanity in the name of ‘The War on Terror” Ends now. March for Truth N.Y.C. 2006!
Contact: Greg Nixon:
nixongreg@msn.com
Attorney General Spitzer's office 120 Broadway
Democracy Now Productions Inc.- 87 Lafayette St,
Nation Magazine 33 Irving place
New York Times 229 W43rd
A.N.S.W.E.R.2295 Adam Clayton Powell Jr. Blvd
Giuliani Partners LLC 5 Times Square
-
When? February 20th 2006
Where? “Ground Zero” New York City 10:00am
-On February 20th 2006, 9/11 Truth activists will convene at “Ground Zero” former site of the World Trade Center in lower Manhattan New York City to march against the U.S. Government’s mass murder of 2,986 Americans on September 11th 2001.
- Since our Government is a totally illegitimate criminal enterprise for perpetrating these attacks, we have chosen President’s Day as an appropriate
Occasion to march to restore the rule of law and order to our Republic.
We demand an international independent tribunal akin to the Nuremberg Trials to seek justice for the crimes committed on 9/11 2001 and for all crimes committed against humanity in its wake.
- Protesters will proceed to march to Attorney General Elliot Spitzer’s office with a letter demanding his resignation for his failure to investigate this crime committed in his jurisdiction despite overwhelming evidence.
-We will then confront the media organizations The Nation Magazine, Democracy Now, The New York Times, and A.N.S.W.E.R as symbolic targets of de facto complicity with their silence and neglect of journalistic duties in the face of the greatest crime of the 21st century on American soil –This despite an abundance of specific credible evidence for the Government’s role as the source of the attacks.
-The rally will conclude at the office of former N.Y.C. Mayor Giuliani in Times Square, where we will deliver citizen’s warrant for his arrest for his role in the attacks at The World Trade Center and criminal complicity in removing evidence from a crime scene. Civil disobedience will then be encouraged by protesters in an effort to call on fellow Americans to speak out against the colossal crimes being committed in the name of a fraudulent ‘War on Terror” and to demand the U.S. Government be arrested for treason and mass murder.
-We ask for all to come and march to uphold the moral principle that all human life deserves to live free from the tyranny of a rogue government, a government which committed mass murder on its very citizens for political expedience and financial enrichment. The weaponry in the hands of the forces of evil occupying our government has the capability of ending all life on this planet. It is therefore of the utmost imperative that this be dealt with over all other political concerns.
-Please spread the word to any and all to come to Ground Zero on February 20th and make their voice heard that this frame-up on humanity in the name of ‘The War on Terror” Ends now. March for Truth N.Y.C. 2006!
Contact: Greg Nixon:
nixongreg@msn.com Attorney General Spitzer's office 120 Broadway
Democracy Now Productions Inc.- 87 Lafayette St,
Nation Magazine 33 Irving place
New York Times 229 W43rd
A.N.S.W.E.R.2295 Adam Clayton Powell Jr. Blvd
Giuliani Partners LLC 5 Times Square
-
Greg Nixon
e-mail:
nixongreg@msn.com
Comments
Hide the following 217 comments
The 9/11 conspiracy theories can easily be debunked
23.01.2006 17:24
Also a few months ago Channel 4 broadcast an in depth documentary on September 11th conspiracy theories and debunked everyone of them. It is also strange how most of these September 11th conspircacy theories only came about after the Iraq War started, not in the days weeks and months following the actual attack on World Trade Centre and Pentagon. And it is not surprising why as most people would have considered it most insulting to the dead of that terrorist attack to start peddling conspircacy theories immediatly after their deaths. But after two years conspiracy theories start to become more acceptable because the grief of the berieved has died down and the event itself has started to fade into history.
Concerned
Hmm, Well...
23.01.2006 22:40
Take my old favourite, the so-called melting steel. Show someone a science book with the melting point of steel and another giving the average temperature of a fire, and bingo! Looks like conspiracy. But those of us who work in construction know that steel can, and does, fail under fire loadings.
Likewise the controlled demolition one. Pancake collapse of concrete floors during construction is something we all know about in construction, and the puffs of "smoke" are failure of the facade glazing as the air begins to compress/structure moves. I've seen (but never participated in) explosive demolition and know how difficult it is - placing of explosives, amount required, etc. It would be almost impossible do to in an occupied building. Yet show the layman the puffs, and away goes the conspiracy....
I don't know how hard it is to fly a plane into a tower block. It takes years of training to be a pilot. Perhaps it is, as the conspiracists claim, impossible to manouevre the way the planes did but until I see a large number of credible flying experts question it, then I'm not going to believe someone with no credentials.
Likewise those that claim the USAF would/should have shot the jets down. I'd want to see information regarding the positioning of intercept aircraft, US policies on intercepting jets, and so on. But all I get are glib, unsubstantiated statements about "the most heavily defended airspace in the world". Yet again it appears to be a superficially attractive conspiracy proposition.
Then there was the one claiming the fires burn out in about half an hour, complete with photographs (touched-up?) of people standing at the impact sites 15 minutes or so after the blast. But come on, even your average house fire burns for hours and it doesn't have all that jet fuel to help it along. The people are always at the lowermost edge of the opening. Is it the impact site, or has the facade just collapsed to expose areas below the main impact? That kind of stuff is never properly explained.
There's probably some sort of interesting sociological question here - one about distrust of official information, the need to seek complex explanations, and so on - but that's not my field. I'll just finish with one thought. If there is a conspiracy, it isn't about the US or the Israelis or whoever blowing up the towers. Its about the way it was used as an excuse for war against folk like Iraq, who had hee-haw to do with it all.
Architect
The 9/11 Commission Report is the Dubunked Theory
24.01.2006 04:39
That 9/11 was a black op U.S. Military attack is pretty obvious at this point, Why don't you Brits look at the military false flag in London on 7/7? The same deal happend again.
Greg Nixon
e-mail:
nixongreg@msn.com
Please see what UK "Indymedia" does not want you to read
24.01.2006 14:25
Thanks for the comments "Architect" I love watching how seemingly 'educated' folk can be perfectly irrational and stick their heads in the sand in order to cling on to the last grasps of their shattering world view. Cognitive dissonance is the most interesting social phenomenon at this point in time.
If this is a 'debunked conspiracy' why can't UK "indy"media put it up for all to read?
Greg Nixon
e-mail:
nixongreg@msn.com
Okay, Greg, me old chum
24.01.2006 19:14
Have you any specialist academic or professional qualifications in the fields you talk about, are you just perusing things from a layman's perspective?
Are you saying I'm wrong on any of the points I've made, and if so can you clarify exactly how?
Why have no serious professionals or academics in fields such as structural mechanics, fire safety, or architecture ever questioned the basic premise of the collapse?
Architect
The FBI uses polygraphs to eliminate suspects
24.01.2006 21:25
David Howard
e-mail:
fiat@sofnet.com
For "architect" my best buddy ol' pal
25.01.2006 02:30
Bill Manning
Martin De Martini
Construction manager at WTC said a plane crashing into bldg. would be like a mosquito into a screen.
Kevin Ryan
Greg Nixon
e-mail:
nixongreg@msn.com
First things first ...
25.01.2006 09:57
For a start ... regarding the popular Mechanics article that is hauled out with alarming regularity and seemingly without recourse to its providence and eventual fate:
Did you know - for instance - that a one Benjamin Chertoff, 'Senior Researcher' for Popular Mechanics, is Homeland Security Director, Michael Chertoffs cousin?
Just another little coincidence to add to the million or so surrounding 911 ...
... a link to the most popular debunking of the debunkers!!! (gee what a tangled web ...)
... a more detailed rundown of the exact nature and dimensions of the PM debacle ...
... a really really detailed rundown of the exact nature and dimensions of the PM hoax propaganda
... something to take your mind of the PM article for a few minutes.
[PS why is it that you think you can monopolise sympathy and supportive sentiments for the victims of 911? Why does questioning events suddenly lead to "insulting the dead"? Rather to conveinient ... like everything else that comes out of the keyboard of arch zionist 'concerned' ... never let the facts interfer with a good story ... a direct quote from the original Hearst, now owners of Popular Mechanics. I mean, not only has this publications efforts in regard to 911 been ripped apart by former members of its own staff, not only have the tenticles of intelligence agencies been caught red handed in the Popular Mechanics cookie jar ... but even dumber, 'concerned' would have us believe that the 'conspiracy theories' only began post Iraqi invasion!
It is symptomatic of 'concerned's world veiw, and entirely consistant with zionist propaganda to only believe and disseminate views that support the idiological thinking behind their desires ... regardless of the factual nature, chronological order, logical consistancy and just plain old decency of the notion.
It is for this reason that 'concerened' is so amusing ... being absolutely transparent to any who care to look behind the smoke, mirrors and loud bluff offered up for serious attention]
******
Now, our resident magician and unassailable expert ...
Evoking your expertese is not answering issues, questions or even addressing [your] assumed problems with infomation that "might seem reasonable to the layman."
Actually, quote as much line and page of whatever regulations, guidelines and instructions as you want ... to be honest, this is not proof and anybody can do it. I could claim to be the worlds leading expert on concrete structures (under an assumed name of course - my ruse would be quickly uncovered, my postion laid bare and accusations would fly ... were I to attempt it in anonimity I might get away with it ... the point being that [one] must argue on the merits of the evidence and infomation to hand ... we will have no magic and high preist shinanigins here please)
Steel definately has a melting point. Steel definately has a point - reached before its melting point - where its structual integrity begins to fail. Steel is definately a good conductor of heat. Steel framed buildings are built massivly over engineered - in other words built to take loads and stress well outside of the expected norm. Yes - so far?
The claim that - unprecedented - the fires were so intense and/or the buildings fireproofing maintanance so poor and/or the structural load so overwhealming is one I find unreal. And in that, I am not even going to highlite the fact that WTC7 fell double quick without structual integrity breached and by [mysterious] fire alone. Whoops, I already did!
The evidence that people were seen right where these unprecendented intense fires were ment to be undermining the overengineered steel structure cannot be dismissed so lightly by reference to it being 'touched up?' (surely a conspiracy there!?!)
... some more analysis of the evidence:
... a detailed look at the 'missing construction evidence' of the WTC:
A Portuguese newspaper reports on an independent inquiry into 9/11 by a group of military and civilian US pilots that challenges the official version of events. The group's press statement says, “The so-called terrorist attack was in fact a superbly executed military operation carried out against the [US], requiring the utmost professional military skill in command, communications, and control. It was flawless in timing, in the choice of selected aircraft to be used as guided missiles and in the coordinated delivery of those missiles to their preselected targets.” A member of the inquiry team, a US Air Force officer who flew over 100 sorties during the Vietnam War, says: “Those birds (airliners) either had a crack fighter pilot in the left seat, or they were being maneuvered by remote control.” [Portugal News, 8/8/02]
This story (and many other 'pilot related) can be found here:
*****
No argument about the results of that day though, death and destruction rained down on those whose ability to protect themselves from the self titled 'greatest most technologically advanced military machine' was non existant ... 10-20,000 innocent Afghanis killed, many more injured, many many more left to suffer and (in all probability) die slowly. The country littered with powderised DU ammunition that will kill and maim for years to come (que idiot sceptic), the very useful (to the black operations of intelligence agencies) resurgence of heroin production ...
... and all on a country that offered up the intended prey ... one former[?] CIA operative called Tim ... to the international community through formal diplomatic channels.
No mention will be made of Unicol and its former employee (now running[sic] Afghanistan) nor the detailed plans formulated months ahead - years even - to "readjust"[sic sic sic] that countries fossil fuel arrangements.
No mention either of detailed plans (operation Northwoods) ...
No mention of the thousands of other coincidences that allow the official explanation to oblitorate common sense and deep instinct, no mention of the self serving fascism of the super rich leaders of the 'free' world and their Carlye groups.
No mention of the 10 000 word patriot act - all preprepared and ready for the senate to not read on the day, nor the anthrax attacks inexplicable hard linked to the anthrax supplies kept (against international law) at amerikan military facilities ... no attempt will be made to link that to the Reichstag moment that allowed Hitler to impose pre-drafted legislation and invade at will (perhaps some might make a note of the eventual fate of this buffon and consider the natural human instinct to resist tyrany).
...
Time for one more link I think, one that features an unusal timeline of events that stretch back a little further than memory should allow:
And, thats it for now ...
jackslucid
e-mail:
jackslucid@hotmail.com
Try Harder, Lads
25.01.2006 19:22
1. I'd like you to tell me what specialist qualifications relevant to structural mechanics or fire engineering please. Don't waste too much time looking at his CV on the web, because the answer is none. Zip. Squat.
2. The Bill Manning piece is quite interesting, but I don't think it actually supports your case. What appears to be the nub of the complaint concerns the failure of fire coatings, how fire was fought and fire service procedures. For example
"This high-rise collapse was no "fluke." The temperatures experienced and heat release rates achieved at the World Trade Center could be seen in future high-rise fires. "
"Modern sprayed-on steel "fireproofing" did not perform well at the World Trade Center. Haven't we always been leery about these materials? Why do many firefighters say that they would rather fight a high-rise fire in an old building than in a modern one? Isn't it because of the level of fire resistance provided? How much confidence do we have in the ASTM E-119 fire resistance test, whose test criteria were developed in the 1920s? ASTM E-119 is an antiquated test whose criteria for fire resistance do not replicate today's fires. "
And finaly his call for a panel "charged with creating a comprehensive report that examines a variety of topics including determining exactly how and why the towers collapsed, critiquing the building evacuation procedures and the means of egress, assessing the buildings' fire protection features (steel "fireproofing," fire protection systems, etc.), and reviewing the valiant firefighting procedures employed. In addition, the Panel should be charged with preparing a detailed set of recommendations, including the critical changes necessary to our building codes."
Love that last one - if he thought it was a fit up, why ask for a review of fire safety and construction codes.
3. Aha, our old pal Kevin. Sorry mate. Not a credible source. He makes statements and never backs them up. No references. No hard data. If you'd produced those kind of arguments for peer review or a postgrad dissertation you'd fail.
Are those the only ones you can produce? Its just that there are tens of thousands of construction academics and professionals out there. Surely you can do better? Or are even they all unwitting dupes?
Architect
are you dumb or something?
26.01.2006 00:03
Oh you fool, haven't we told you that your pathetic attempts to ingratiate yourself to ourselves is a wasted effort.
Stick to building phallic symbols instead of amature conjecture upon subjects you are ill advised to speak of.
Meta-analysis not ego-wank.
the illuminated ones
Enough spoon feeding "Architect"
26.01.2006 01:08
Steven Jones and D. R. Griffin wrote academic papers - read them and then write your rebuttal.
If you are an "architect" and know anything about buildings, watch the clip of the demolition of building 7. If you can watch that and honestly believe that a few small kerosene fires brought that building down symmetrically and at the rate of a free fall or less, there is no helping you.
Stop harping for authority figures and look at the evidence. Why don't you tell me why there were no flights 11 or 77 in the Gov's data base, the BTS? Or explain the radar analysis showing no flights or any stand ins arriving at their 'targets"
You have not studied this issue and you want us to spoon feed you, do your reading and get back to us. Class dismissed.
Greg Nixon
e-mail:
nixongreg@msn.com
Easier Still
26.01.2006 13:18
What you are exlicitly stating is that the aircraft impact, explosions, and consequent fires could not have caused structural failure. Indeed you have questioned the ability of fires to cause failure in steelwork full stop.
I have pointed out that the failure of steel in fires is universally acknowledged and supported in building regulations throughout the world. I have highlighted the failure of any credible structural, architectural, or fire engineering expert to question these aspects of the official findings. You have failed to provide anything to contradict this.
I put it to you that it is inconceivable that tens of thousands of construction professionals, experts, and professors worldwide - all educated to degree or postgraduate level - would all have failed to pick up such an inconsistency, had it really existed. That none one of them would have gone public, written a paper, or given a lecture.
I further put it to you that fire modelling supports the collapse hypothethis, and that pancacking of the floors is an entirely rational explanation. The article which you referred to in previous links does not, as you state, support your case but instead directly questions the performance of fire proofing and how such major disasters should be fought.
You in turn have responded by throwing the toys out of the pram. You fail to respond in any substantial basis. When your unfounded assertions are challenged, you immediately change to a different aspect of the "conspiracy".
Architect
... but much harder ...
26.01.2006 14:49
It seems you want [us] to conceed something, so here it is:
... it is within the realms of the possible that the 3 WTC buildings fell without any additional explosive help. It is noted, however, that this failure of the steel high rised structure is unprecedented.
Now let us examine these realms of possibility:
Were there experienced emergency proffessionals who reported multiple explosions?
Yes.
Are there extempory documents that record these observations?
Yes.
Are there methods of analysing the resultant steel remains/debris for conclusive information about their state upon failure and the reasons for this failure?
Yes.
Were these methods undertaken?
No.
Was the evidence preserved for future investigation?
No.
Is this the usual pattern of criminal investigation?
No.
Is there any other evidence available for scientific scrutiny?
Yes, relating to satillite images, seismic activity, background radiation, the remains of engines and other aircraft parts, the data from air traffic control centres, the data from NSA installations monitoring every conceivable electronic activity, the data from the US navy mointoring the eastern seaboard, DNA evidence and huge amounts of witness statements that can be cross referenced and profiled - as per normal criminal investigations.
Have any of these been scrutinised - either by court appointed experts or agenicies with critical oversight?
Possibly - but without public release nor inclusion in preliminary findings.
...
This is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to questions about the whole 911/war on Terra show ... but relate to [your] narrow focus on the physics and mechanics of tall building collapse.
As can be drawn from this small sample, the issue of the collapse of WTC 1&2 & WTC 3, can be explained away as an anomoulous/extreme event. It takes a special kind of dogmatic thinking to place this specific issue outside of the wider context and the statistically improbable coincidences.
Multiply the statistical probabilty of the multiple events of that day ... and you will get a number that not only suggests a highly unlikely coincidence but an unpronouncable one at that, running as it does to the billion trillions.
The wider context being the war on Terra and the pockets it lines ...
jackslucid
e-mail:
jackslucid@hotmail.com
9/11 Conspiracies long-since debunked.
27.01.2006 13:15
The 9/11 Denial Movement, as it is officially known, has thrown out objective reality and ignored every inconvenient fact in order to promote its political agenda. 9/11 Denial has become a religious doctrine and protected as one impervious to reason or criticism.
Mr. Nixon seems totally oblivious to the fact that his statement, "U.S. Government's mass murder of 2,986 Americans on September 11th 2001", will serve only to demonstrate to Americans how truly bizarre the 9/11 Denial Movement has become. If Mr. Nixon thinks that slapping those in the face that he is trying to attract is productive, he is terribly naive and his march will fail dismally.
S. King
e-mail:
skyking@scientist.com
S. King Agent or Moron?
27.01.2006 15:42
Why?
That 9/11 was a black op U.S. military attack is obvious, what is not obvious is why if someone like "S King" is not an agent, how can a seemingly 'educated' person be so completely stupid and buy the ridiculous story of the bogeyman in a cave with his minions coming to get us?
Greg Nixon
e-mail:
nixongreg@msn.com
"Free speech for thee, not for me."
27.01.2006 18:12
Having spent the last four years debunking 9/11 conspiracy myths like his, I find it important to promote reason and rationality in discussing 9/11. When you have people going around claiming, "That 9/11 was a black op U.S. military attack is obvious", they should be challenged to support their assertions with actual evidence, of which none is forthcoming from Mr. Nixon or any other member of the 9/11 Denial Movement.
Mr. Nixon will exercise his right to demonstrate and I will exercise my right to tell him he's mixed-up and irrational.
Perhaps a counter-demonstration is in order.
S. King
e-mail:
skyking@scientist.com
Erm, oops, sorry
27.01.2006 20:26
I was at a professional presentation/seminar this evening which included, amongst other things, video of some Glasgow tower blocks getting brought down by controlled explosion a couple of years ago. And do you know, it struck me just how unlike the twin tower collapse they were.
Of course they were a concrete panel system and the towers were a structural steel frame integral with the perimetric cladding, but the explosions at different levels were clearly visible as such as there was no change of confusing it with pancaking.
But what do I know? I'm just a dumb architect according to Gregg and apparently it's "obvious" that it's all a special ops thing. Of course if Gregg is right, at least we can look forward to the American Right Wing silencing him or somesuch.
Now, back to Jack's post....
Architect
Yes, Architect, steel does sometimes fail
28.01.2006 06:22
See pictues of the fire and aftermath here:
and here:
Yes, I know the interior columns in this building were concrete, but the interior columns in the WTC were very thick
(as seen here:
and the smoldering fires in the towers were about to go out -- after less than an hour in the case of the south tower.
There was an attempted controlled demolition in the Western US that made the news last fall. It was also unlike the "incident" at the WTC. This building fell a short distance and leaned slightly to the side but remained standing. The news people explained it by saying that it fell into it's basement and got stuck.
Its amazing that three buildings fell so straight by accident and on the same day.
Joe Sudol
e-mail:
JSudol1@aol.com
joe bloggs
28.01.2006 07:12
It cannot be overemphasized how damaging to the official theory is the removal/destruction of evidence/debris.
As already mentioned, fire has never caused the total collapse of steel framed buildings, never before or since:
Yet three modern buildings allegedly did that day - one of them not even being hit by a plane.
In the interests of public safety to gain an understanding of how such collapes could be prevented in future, this should have called for an intense investigation of that debris to determine why.
So when we see that the authorities removed/destoyed/recycled the debris without conducting any kind of investigation, even after fire departmen officers (Manning?) have blown the whistle on it,
we have to ask WHY? And who authorized all this?
joe bloggs
Not a good example...and here's why
28.01.2006 11:19
So the next question is why the Windsor building survived.
The answer lies in the link Joe Sodal provided. A concrete structural frame - including the floors - with steelwork restricted to the outer perimeter. Note also from the photographs that there are intermediate columns on each floor plate.
Concrete is inherrently fireproof; vulnerable steel reinforcement is well protected by the concrete encasement and because joints are formed in-situ they are more secure (precast, prefabricated systems aren't anything like as effective). Why don't we use it more? Weight and strength. As Louis Sullivan discovered in Chicago back in the early 20th century, the only way to go high sensibly is steel.
The twin towers, in contrast, employed steel at both inner and outer frames and had floors supported on trussed steel girders pin connected (that's bolts, folks) to the uprights.
It is important to remember at this point that floors (and roofs, in traditional structures) are a key element in maintining structural rigidity. It is usually also supplemented by additional cross-bracing (as at WTC).
The professionally accepted model of the collapse is that fire acted on the steel structure, particularly the floor girders, causing sag and failure (especially at the pin joints). I've really summarised there, because I can't be arsed reading the full reports for the quote. This was compounded by the loss of structural members caused by the impact, essentially preventing the safety margin or redundacy helping, and collapse occured.
That's all 2nd and 3rd year fire engineering/structures stuff. No rocket science. In fact the concrete link posted specifically states:
"This case study is an example of the excellent performance of a concrete frame designed using traditional methods and subjected to an intense fire. It also highlights the risks when active fire protection measures fail or are not included in steel frame construction."
But let me ask two question again. It arises from an amazingly ludicrous statement I see every now and again, especially in Whatreallyhappened.com.
If the structural frame was so strong that it could withstand 50% of the columns being trashed by the impact, why didn't the engineers save their clients a packet in the first place and put in the right amount? That's right, we overdesign structures - but not by 100%! It costs too damned much.
And secondly, why do people think a vertical collapse would be unusual. What are you expecting, a telegraph pole effect?
Architect
debunked, really?
28.01.2006 12:43
The official notion of 9-11 is that the attacks totally surprised the US security apparatus. 19 operatives -some instructed by the ringleaders shortly before the attacks- planned and executed a highly complex military style operation. These operatives are part of Al Qaeda network lead by Osama bin Laden from a cave in Afghanistan.
Evidence?
Not much. We have a 'confessment' tape, subtitled and distributed by the US government. The translation is highly disputed. German television reported key translations indicating confession were manipulated. For example 'We calculated in advance the building wouldn't collapse', was in reality 'I did not expect the building to callapse', a comment that could be made by someone only observing the attacks. Why these manipulations? Others claim even the video material itself is also partly manipulated.
Some of the alleged hijackers turned up to be alive.
It may be clear that without some miraculous divine intervention it's impossible these people were on board of those 4 planes. False identities must have been used, as earlier admitted by the FBI but now never mentioned anymore. Hijacker names (false or not) were also not present on the passenger lists.
What about the indications there was clear foreknowledge?
What about the the Odigo instant message that was send from Israel two hours before the attack and predicted it?
A clear voyant? Coincidence? Or forekwowledge somehow?
What about the 'dancing Israelis', arrested on 9-11, who turned out to be intelligence operatives on mission to document the attacks as admitted by one of them on Israeli television.
When were they given their orders to document the attacks? Possibly on a few hours notice like the Odigo message, but clearly a sign that specific foreknowledge existed and was taken seriously.
And what about the Presidential Daily Briefing under title Bin Laden determined to attack on US soil. Did the Bush regime just sit back and watch it happen?
There are many more signs that attacks were anticipated. Estalishment figures were advised not to fly commercially that week. Several foreign intelligence agencies are reported to have warned the US of impending attacks. Months before the 9-11 attacks western troops were being deployed in the Afghanistan region and threathening the Taliban with intervention. Later the US was unwilling to hand evidence of Bin Laden's involvement in the attacks in exchange for extradition to a third country as the Taliban offered. There may have been good reasons not to let the Taliban not in on Bush's secret evidence, but now after all these years there is no reason to withold it any longer from the American people.
WTF
Repeating Falsehoods
28.01.2006 13:14
1. "the smoldering fires in the towers were about to go out -- after less than an hour in the case of the south tower."
False: the fires were intense and burning uncontrolled until the collpase of each towers including WTC 7 which had substantial damage to its south side from the debris from the collpasing WTC 1. This is fully documented both in the NIST report and the thousands of amateur photos and videos available on the Internet.
2. "Its amazing that three buildings fell so straight by accident and on the same day."
False: In the case of each tower it would have been physically impossible for them to fall any other way then straght down. It is pure physics.
3. "As already mentioned, fire has never caused the total collapse of steel framed buildings, never before or since."
Irrelevant: Strawman argument. No other buildings built in the manner of WTC 1 and 2 suffered structural damage from aircraft impact and uncontrolled fires before. One cannot, as you do, compare apples with oranges. Furthermore, both towers survived the impact for a time and would likely have remained standing despite the structural damage had not the intense fires softened and deformed the structural members in the area of impact. Every physics student knows that once the upper block of each building gave way - 110,000 tons for WTC 2 and 40,000 tons for WTC 1 - progressive collpase was inevitable.
For a detailed analysis of the physics of the collapses, see:
4. "So when we see that the authorities removed/destoyed/recycled the debris without conducting any kind of investigation."
False. Urban legend: Every bit of debris was examined at Freshkills and sufficient samples were recovered for study.
S. King
e-mail:
skyking@scientist.com
Yes, it is a good example
28.01.2006 13:24
"This case study is an example of the excellent performance of a concrete frame designed using traditional methods and subjected to an intense fire. It also highlights the risks when active fire protection measures fail or are not included in steel frame construction."
The WTC was fitted with a sprinkler system after a previous fire broke out. It goes without saying that this fire did not cause the tower invovled to collapse.
Also the fires at the WTC were just not that hot and they were almost out. This is shown by this picture of a woman waving from the impact hole:
This woman can also be seen at the beginning of the video "Why the Towers Fell" which was produced by the PBS series Nova and the BBC, but nobody involved in the production "seems" to have noticed.
Joe Sudol
e-mail:
JSudol1@ol.com
Scholars Repudiate Official Version of 9/11
28.01.2006 14:57
Scholars claim government's account violates laws of physics and
engineering.
(PRWEB) January 27, 2006 -- An influential group of prominent experts and
scholars have joined together alleging that senior government officials have
covered up crucial facts about what really happened on 9/11. The members of
this new non-partisan association, "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" (S9/11T), are
convinced their research proves the current administration has been
dishonest with the nation about events in New York and Washington, D.C.
These experts contend that books and articles by members and associates have
established that the World Trade Center was almost certainly brought down by
controlled demolitions and that the available relevant evidence casts grave
doubt on the official story about the attack on the Pentagon. They believe
that the government not only permitted 9/11 to occur but may even have
orchestrated these events to facilitate its political agenda.
The society includes U.S. and international faculty and students of history,
science, military affairs, psychology, and even philosophy. According to its
spokesmen, S9/11T represents a concerted effort to uphold the standards of
truth and justice and to strengthen democracy in this nation, which has
taken a terrible hit in the aftermath of 9/11, when "everything changed."
Its function is to bring scientific rigor to the study of 9/11 phenomena....
Dr. Annoye
More debunked conspiracy info
28.01.2006 17:03
1. "The WTC was fitted with a sprinkler system after a previous fire broke out. It goes without saying that this fire did not cause the tower invovled to collapse."
The sprinkler systems were completely destroyed from the impact of each plane.
2. "Also the fires at the WTC were just not that hot and they were almost out. This is shown by this picture of a woman waving from the impact hole"
Irrelevant: There is also a picture of a man on the other side waving too. The fires were severe and raging around the impact area. The impact area was virtually devoid of anything to burn becuase of the impact.
This is fully documented and easily seen in all photos. See
Depending on the falsehoods of 9/11 conspiracy sites is not an intelligent idea.
S. King
e-mail:
skyking@scientist.com
re: Scholars claim government's account violates laws of physics
28.01.2006 17:10
As always, 9/11 conspiracists depend on strawman arguments, irrelevant data, and ignore the evidence inconvenient to their cause.
S. King
e-mail:
skyking@scientist.com
"overwhelming evidence of the factual evidence of 9/11"
28.01.2006 19:25
If the case is so clear to you, you must have exactly remembered what 'evidence' made you personally believe the official story. Or did you believe all along? And is maybe yourself that is ignoring information.
Personally I don't bother with the collapse theories, although especially the collapse of building 7 does strike me as strange. I would have never expected this symmetrical mode of collapse of a giant building from some minor structural damage and a leaking fuel line. But I will certainly not extract anything out of it that I would call evidence. Neither can you extract the evidence outof anything for the opposite. The most you can do is predict from some simplified model that under certain assumed conditions collapse could be possible, but that would absolutely not rule out what your opponents in debate are speculating about. (And to be clear: I keep far from)
back to the evidence..
What evidence was found in Afghanistan linking an organisation called Al Qaeda to the 9-11 attacks? Western domestic Golden Retriever dogs being gassed on a video? An Al Qaeda chem lab with labels in english? Pre Iraq war propaganda linking (then presented as chemical and biological weapons expert of Al Qaeda) Al Zarqawi as middleman to Al Qaeda linked Ansar al Islam and the Hussein regime? Al Zarqawi getting an amputation of his -in an Afghan battle- injured leg in a Baghdad hospital? The plane wreck in Iraq that was presented to us the 9-11 hijackers training ground? Al Zarqawi running the ricin cell ?
Even the so called Al Qaeda trainingcamp tapes were faked by the illusive Jonathan Jack Idema, who claimed in Afghan court that he had been in contact with Rumsfeld's office.
(just ignore, they attacked us because they hate our freedom, repeat three times for the extra indoctrination experience)
And what about the former head of Pakistani intelligence ISI ordering to transfer $100.000 to Mohammed Atta? How does that fit the official story?
Aren't these the same boys that helped the CIA setup, arm and train the Afghani Mujahedin and were later instrumental in forming the Taleban government?
WTF
Another Strawman
28.01.2006 20:48
"If the case is so clear to you, you must have exactly remembered what 'evidence' made you personally believe the official story. Or did you believe all along? And is maybe yourself that is ignoring information."
This is one of the most pervasive strawman arguments of the 9/11 Denial Movement: that there is an "official story" to be believed or not believed. It is also the most telling admission tha 9/11 Deniers know they are unable to refute any of the massive evidence at all.
What 9/11 Deniers will not admit is that the sources of the overwhelming evidence of what happened on 9/11 was never in control of the government to begin with. There is no more an "official story" than Alice and Wonderland is a record of the Titantic sinking. There is only massive evidence, available for analysis and independent review
The NIST Report - which 9/11 deniers like to dismiss as an "official story" and therefore dismiss it outright - centers on independent evidence, investigated by a combination of NIST employees and highly respected independent scientists, and subject to final vetting by a seperate, independent commission, a commission that came into existence because of Bush.
It's always amusing that the 9/11 Denial Movement has to hide the weakness of its case behind the "offical story" canard. The reason, of course, is obvious: the 9/11 Denial Movement has never once been able to refute the commission's evidence, methodology, or conclusions. And they have never been able to bring one single piece of evidence to the table to support their conspiracy theories, much less all of the evidence needed to refute the massive evidence against them.
But 9/11 Deniers, like Holocaust deniers before them, certainly like to rehash faulty data, debunked nonsense, and to ignore the massive inconvenient evidence against them, including the tens of thousands of structural engineers and forensic scientists who exist worldwide who do not challenge any of the conclusions.
"Personally I don't bother with the collapse theories, although especially the collapse of building 7 does strike me as strange. I would have never expected this symmetrical mode of collapse of a giant building from some minor structural damage and a leaking fuel line."
This is nothing more than repetition of debunked data. It has been known since the morning of 9/11/2001, documented by all of the firemen around WTC 7 and the subsequent investigation by NIST, that the south side of WTC 7 suffered MASSIVE structural damage from debris of the falling WTC 1; that massive fires burned uncontrolled and uncontained for 8 hours before collpase since the water lines had been severed by the collpase of WTC 1; that firmen knew from their own experience and the visible damage that it was more than likely that it would collapse many hours before it did; and that the collpase started inside the building pulling the penthouse and center sections down before the rest of the building came down.
So, it begs the question. Why would you believe things that are known to be wrong, some of it since the morning of 9/11, and ONLY repeated like a mantra on 9/11 conspiracy sites?
S. King
e-mail:
skyking@scientist.com
Here we go round again....
28.01.2006 21:25
WTF - I make no comment about how the attack was used by the US Goverment to go invading countries or whatever; just assume I have read and am in full agreement with Mr. Moore on the subject. But people exploiting the attack for their own end is quite different from a conspiracy which involved black-ops attacks on the tower, controlled explosions, or remote control pods.
Joe,Mr. King is on the nail.
Architect
I am moving on to activism
28.01.2006 22:17
i have no more time to respond to dishonest debaters like King who is a either a COINTLEPRO troll or very mentally unstable and a liar. his comment about WTC 7 is
a bold lie and he should know so. You keep harping about the steel. Again Respond to the published paper of Jones or Griffin with your own. I think the manner in which the steel was quickly shipped off and melted speaks for itself. I am trying to stave off armageddon, not
argue with trolls or morons who can't see the nose in front of their face. Good luck with your pursuits. I won't be back here again.
King I dare you to show your face in NYC to me.
Greg Nixon
e-mail:
nixongreg@msn.com
9/11 Reality Scam
28.01.2006 22:28
Dr Annoye
It's getting boring.. king
29.01.2006 00:53
A google search reveals he even equates 9-11 skepticism with holocaust denial. Personally I think that's kind of offensive, but it clearly shows he's emotionally involved. The collapsing of the buildings and the NIST report seem to be this obsessed debunker's major and only topic. I bet that's why he ignores everthing else and just plays out his own mantra, again and again and again, while he accuses others of doing th exact same thing.
Now king, don't get emotional about it here to. But you have repeated yourself now so many times without adding something new it's getting a kind of boring. You just use a lot of words while saying the same thing over and over.
I asked you what you considered to be evidence of the official story. I don't expect an answer because you only talk about the NIST report, and clearly have no idea what could be considered evidence in the 9-11 case. Many skeptics could however easily list video/audio material, articles of what is supposed to be the evidence.
It's like we are communicating on different wavelengths. Many people who are for whatever reason skeptic of what exactly happened on 9-11 don't talk about buildings collapsing. At least not me. Maybe I can advise you to study what your opponent in debat is really saying, so you make a chance of 'debunking' something. Not even knowing what he's saying makes you look so foolish while claiming to be debunking it all.
Now, sleep well and don't dream about bad Osama on flying carpets....
P.S. post us a link to pics that show the extensive damage on WTC 7. I've personally got an archive of thousands of 9-11 photos and everything I could collect from WTC 7 but I only know of pictures and footage showing minor damage.
WTF
Skepticism or Denial?
29.01.2006 04:05
I find it rather intereasting that you really didn't pay attention anyway, stating for all to see, "I asked you what you considered to be evidence of the official story" - after I explained the myth of the "offical story. That you now claim "It's like we are communicating on different wavelengths" is rather amusing since you doing just that.
It is quite clear that 9/11 Denial uses the same tactics as Holocaust denial. It's part and parcel of Denial as a means to a political end. That you would call Denial "skepticism" is disingenous; so do Holocaust deniers despite the evidence against them. It hardly is emotional; it's dealt with extensively in the true skeptic community as I indicated on my blog. There's no mystery there.
You are unhappy that I brought up NIST report as evidence. I can't help you there. It certainly is inconvenient evidence for the 9/11 Denial Movement.. As well, I am sure, as the earlier link I gave in this thread:
It's curious that you would not bother to do your own research as to what IS available to you as evidence as it is to everyone else. Since you did your search on me, and you "personally got an archive of thousands of 9-11 photos and everything I could collect from WTC 7", one would naturally assume, as a so-called "skeptic", that you would be conversant with all of the evidence that has been ought there for years. Why would you need me to teach you?
In the meantime, we see none of your so-called "skepticism" to posts from one Greg Nixon, leader of a confused fringe movement whose confused claims ought to wake you up.
You state: "P.S. post us a link to pics that show the extensive damage on WTC 7. I've personally got an archive of thousands of 9-11 photos and everything I could collect from WTC 7 but I only know of pictures and footage showing minor damage."
There are no known photos of the damage on the south side of WTC 7 posted on the Internet. Some of the damage can be seen at the SW corner here:
Of course, the standard 9/11 Denial Movement claim is that if there are no photos, it didn't happened, as is the case with most 9/11 Deniers with WTC 7 and the Pentagon. But there is plenty of evidence from the firemen on the scene, again something one would expect you to be conversant with:
Finally, the true skeptics are the ones, like me, who clearly see that 9/11 conspiracists can't support their claims with any substantive evidence, repeat what they know has been debunked, and ignore the evidence they don't like.
Do your own research.
S. King
e-mail:
skyking@scientist.com
Reality Check
29.01.2006 04:33
"i have no more time to respond to dishonest debaters like King who is a either a COINTLEPRO troll or very mentally unstable and a liar. his comment about WTC 7 is
a bold lie and he should know so."
You seem extremely nervous to be so vicious, Mr. Nixon. A "dishonest debater" because I rely on evidence while you make unsupported assertions? A "COINTLEPRO troll or very mentally unstable and a liar"? Obviously, you are upset that I challenge you on your outrageous and unsupported claims.
I stand by the vast amount of evidence from thousands of sources, hundreds of unconnected and disparate eyewitnesses, engineering studies done by qualified and reputable engineers and forensic scientists, the data, methodology, and conclusions available to all and unchallenged by their tens of thousands of peers.
And I challenge you members of the 9/11 Denial Movement to refute that evidence, and you can't; to bring to the table a vast amount of evidence to support your claims, and you can't. Instead, you DEMAND that we respond to "papers" by unqualified, politically motivated people, who like you, are not interested in any truth of the matter, but only to push your political agenda. Real evidence is irrelevant to you.
You state, "King I dare you to show your face in NYC to me."
Shall I take that as a threat? Anyway, I am not sure you'd recognize me in the crowd of counter-protestors.
I am one person exercising my right to free speech. I challenge 9/11 Deniers like you so that others can form an informed opinion. If you feel threatened by little lonely me, then you must realize that your whole effort is nothing more than a house of cards. I am sure rational people have formed an informed opinion of your "efforts."
S. King
e-mail:
skyking@scientist.com
Somebody is lying
29.01.2006 06:11
This is an insult.
We all saw the one plane hit the south tower and explode in a fireball, which was at its most impressive around the corner from the impact point beacause the plane hit at an angle. This is significant because it means that most of the jet fuel burned off in the air and outside the building. Also the core was not involved. Yet less than an hour later, the building was gone.
The north tower took a direct and most of the jet fuel burned inside the building and it burned longer -- about two hours. Even so, the fire in this buiding never approached the intensity of the fire in Madrid -- which, even after more than 24 hours, did not caused the Windsor building to collapse. Not even all the external steel columns.
The PBS/BBC production has a couple of other interesting bits, beside the waving woman.
There is a "expert" on "Why Buildings Fall Down" who says "So that fire caused steel to soften up. The columns in the interior of the core began to soften, buckle, fail and I saw that the building had really a good chance of collapsing at that point."
Then there are some firemen from Ladder Company 6 who say they were ordered to evacuate the north tower and had reached the fourth floor when it collapsed -- and lived.
In their words:
Mike Meldrum: "We heard somebody yelling on the radio 'It's time to start back down now.' "
Matt Komorowski: "We're trained to go and save people and go into dangerous situations and then when we're told to abandon our assignment, its a very odd thing." "I felt a incredible rush of air at my back."
Sal D'Agostino: "I remember hearing the boom of it , hear boom, you know, as the, as the floors are pancaking, I'm hearing that."
Mike Meldrum: "It was like standing between two heavy freight trains in a tunnel going by you." "[unintelligible] there's a light above us. I thought it was somebody with a flashlight, and I said "What is it?" And he said 'Mick, there's a beautiful blue sky above us' "
Sal D'Agostino: "Yeah"
Mike Meldrum: "And I say, 'Cap, there's a 105 story building above us.' He says 'No.' He says 'I think we are the top of the World Trade Center right now.' "
Sal D'Agostino: "Yeah"
What possessed these guys to say this?
The video made by the Naudet brothers doesn't have an "expert" on "Why Buildings Fall Down," but it does have some firemen who were in the north tower before it collapsed.
Here's what the guys from the Ladder Company 1 and Engine Company 7 have to say:
Captain Dennis Tardio: "I can't believe we all made it out. How did we make it out of that building? Thirty seconds? Another two fligts higher? Why am I alive? So many others are dead." ... "We got down to the lobby and saw that they abandoned the command post, we knew we were in trouble."
Unidentified Firefighter #1: "We came down, it was much worse than when we went up. Right? We went up, they had everything set up. We came down, it was desolate. It was like, Holy Shit, we're on our own."
Captain Dennis Tardio: "We came down to the lobby, it was like a fucking war zone. There was nbody there. What do we do? We made it outside, we made it about a block"
Unidentified Firefighter #1: "We made it at least two blocks and we started running. Floor by floor it started popping out."
Captain Dennis Tardio: "It was like, it was as if they had deton... deton..."
Unidentified Firefighter #1: "Yeah, detonators, yeah"
Captain Dennis Tardio: "planted to take down a building Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom."
Unidentified Firefighter #1: "All the way down. I was watching it and running
Unidentified Firefighter #2: "Just ran up West."
Unidentified Firefighter #1: "And then you just saw this cloud of shit chasing you down.
Unidentified Firefighter #3: "Where'd you go?"
Unidentified Firefighter #1: "Couldn't outrun it"
Unidentified Firefighter #3: "So what'd yo do?"
Unidentified Firefighter #1: "I jumped behind a battalion car. I hid under the car. I was waiting to die."
Which guys sound like they have any credibility?
PS I'd like to see a photo of the extensive damage to the south face of WTC 7 myself.
Joe Sudol
e-mail:
JSudol1@aol.com
Re: Repeating Falsehoods
29.01.2006 07:53
"No other buildings built in the manner of WTC 1 and 2 suffered structural damage from aircraft impact"
False:
The towers were designed to withstand the impact of Boeing 707s which are about the same size as Boeing 767s. Indeed, many survivors reported feeling the buildings sway a little and then settle back in on their axis, as all modern skyscrapers are designed to do.
"Every bit of debris was examined at Freshkills and sufficient samples were recovered for study."
False:
The official investigators found that they had less authority than the clean-up crews, which led the Science Committee of the House of Representatives to report that “the lack of authority of investigators to impound pieces of steel for examination before they were recycled led to the loss of important pieces of evidence”
Nearly all of it was sold to scrap dealers who put most of it on ships to Asia.
(Griffen, 2005 -
joe bloggs
Re: Not a good example...and here's why
29.01.2006 08:43
"The professionally accepted model of the collapse is that fire acted on the steel structure, particularly the floor girders, causing sag and failure (especially at the pin joints)"...
From Griffin, 2005 -
There was a series of experiments conducted in the U.K. in the mid-1990s..."to see what kind of damage could be done to steel-frame buildings by subjecting them to extremely hot, all-consuming fires that lasted for many hours. FEMA, having reviewed those experiments, said: “Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900°C (1,500-1,700°F) in three of the tests. . . , no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments” (FEMA :1988, Appendix A)."
Architect wrote:
"This was compounded by the loss of structural members caused by the impact, essentially preventing the safety margin or redundacy helping, and collapse occured."
But the towers were designed to withstand the impact of Boeing 707s which are about the same size as Boeing 767s. The structural damage was minmimal.
Which brings us back to the fire theory: But NIST's ..."own studies found no evidence that any of the core columns had reached temperatures of even 482°F (250˚C), so its theory involves a purely speculative addition of over 1350°F." (Griffin)
As well as this testimony by Dr. Jonathan Barnett, Professor of Fire Protection Engineering at Worcester Polytechnic Institute, ..."[f]ire and the structural damage . . . would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated.” (Griffin)
So many other things that fire wouldn't explain. So many that NIST had to alter the findings of its tests to fit the official theory (Prof. Steven Jones).
But there is one thing that explains everything: controlled demolition. As many testimonies about explosions and related phenomena describe:
..."firefighter Kenneth Rogers said, “there was an explosion in the south tower. . . . I kept watching. Floor after floor after floor. One floor under another after another . . . [I]t looked like a synchronized deliberate kind of thing" (NYT, Rogers, pp. 3-4)" ...
..."If all these firefighters and medical workers witnessed all these phenomena suggestive of controlled demolition, it might be wondered why the public does not know this. Part of the answer is provided by Auxiliary Lieutenant Fireman Paul Isaac. Having said that “there were definitely bombs in those buildings,” Isaac added that “many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings, but they’re afraid for their jobs to admit it because the ‘higher-ups’ forbid discussion of this fact” (Lavello, n.d.). Another part of the answer is that when a few people, like Isaac and William Rodriguez, have spoken out, the mainstream press has failed to report their statements."
(Griffin)
And, boy, look how concerned they were about destroying the evidence:
..."On Christmas day, 2001, the New York Times said: “The decision to rapidly recycle the steel columns, beams and trusses from the WTC in the days immediately after 9/11 means definitive answers may never be known....The next week, Fire Engineering magazine said: “We are literally treating the steel removed from the site like garbage, not like crucial fire scene evidence (Brannigan, Corbett, and Dunn, 2002). . . . The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately” (Manning, 2002)' (Griffin)
And that's just the tip of the iceberg...
joe bloggs
Laugh? I nearly paid my poll tax....
29.01.2006 14:54
The first question you have to ask is what professional expertise does he bring to the discussion. The answer is none. Zip. Squat. Hee-haw. He's a theologan, for heaven's sake. And Steve Jones (someone's bound to mention him soon) is little better.
Fire burned for a short time? Impossible. Many of us will have seen normal domestic house fires and know that even these can burn for many, many hours - withou the assistance of vast quantities of jet fuel. However to flesh this out a bit more:
Investigations of fires in other buildings built with steel have shown that fires don't usually even melt aluminum components, which melt around 1,200°F. In fact, most fires don't get above 900°F to 1,100°F. There is clear evidence that the World Trade Center fire did melt some of the aluminum in the aircraft and hence it probably got to 1,300°F or 1,400°F. That IS enough to weaken steel significantly.
It would be impossible for all the fuel to burn within a few moments. Oxygen is required to burn fuel. If a liquid is vaporised—as it must be in order for the oxygen to mix with the fuel and for combustion to occur—the vapour occupies about 500 times the volume of the liquid. If the jet fuel was consumed mostly in the first few moments, three things must be present. Firstly, there would have been a fireball of fuel 500 times as large as the liquid fuel multiplied by 5 times as much air as the oxygen required (because air is only 20 percent oxygen) or a fireball 2,500 times the volume of the liquid fuel that was consumed. While there was a fireball, it was not anywhere near this large. Secondly, there would need to be a source of the heat of vapourisation to vapourise the fuel. This is what limits the rate of burning of most liquids, i.e., the heat necessary to vapourise the unburnt fuel. Thirdly, the heat generated by this rapid burning would have to go someplace.
If you go back to A level chemistry and calculate the amount of energy contained in 10,000 U.S. gallons of jet fuel, it is a tremendous amount. This relates again to the size of the fireball, which was much too small to represent 10,000 U.S. gallons of fuel. In fact, the initial fireball probably was not more than ten percent of the available fuel.
Plus, what caused all the black smoke for the next few hours if all the fuel was consumed in the first few moments? No, scientifically, there was a great excess of fuel, and it burned for some considerable time after impact.
So what we had was a large-scale, fairly uniformly spread fire (thanks to the nature of the impact and vapourisation characteristics) acting on lightly protected structural steelwork over a period of several hours. It then understandably failed.
Now, some professional and academic links which support this:
www.americanscientist.org/template/ AssetDetail/assetid/18719?&print=yes
Fire doesn't plasticise steel sufficiently for collapse? Take a look at these:
Visible people waving ? Well in at least one photo we're looking at a collapsed section of facade two levels below the impact.
The "Scientific Panel Investigating 9-11" that others keep referring to as a group of experts are little better. The people who think the Bali bombing was a nuclear device (
If you were seriously ill, would you trust the advice of a surgeon or some bloke at the pub who watches Casualty on the TV? Or has a postgrad in (say) architecture? You'd go with the surgeon, because he's studied medicine for years and knows what he's talking about. It would be ludicrous to suggest that anyone could learn about medicine without such an education. And yet what we see on 9/11 conspiracist sites are views informed by (at best) an incomplete understanding of the actual issues. Experts who are patently no such thing.
I don't know about denial, but its certainly a bizarre suspension of intellectual rigour.
Architect
re: Somebody is Lying
29.01.2006 15:33
Yeah, somebody is lying, and it's the 9/11 Denial Movement.
First, in WTC 1, no one survived above the impact zone because all the staircases were destroyed. This is documented and you can look it up yourself.
Second, in WTC 2, no fireman got above the 78th floor. The uncontrolled fires were all burning ABOVE the 78th floor.
Third, the fires had less to do with the collapses than the structural damage done by the impact of the jets. You can read about the physics in the link I've already given here:
Remember that the Madrid circumstances and construction are completely different from that of WTC 1 and 2. One cannot compare apples and oranges.
There was a whole group of people who survived the collapse and the powerful surge blast within a stairwell near the ground.
You can read a whole account of the effects of the downblast from the collapses here by an expert on downblasts and surge physics in, "Ghosts of Vesuvius", by Charles Pellegrino, ISBN: 0-380-97310-3.
S. King
e-mail:
skyking@scientist.com
What 10,000 gallons?
29.01.2006 15:40
that crashed into the towers. Did you read the links in the original article?
Flight 11 DID NOT EXIST! The video of the Naudet (insiders) DOES NOT SHOW A JUMBO JET. Flight 175 DID NOT REACH THE WTC! You keep the focus only on your steel fixation
without knowing the slighest f---king idea of what your talking about in realtion to the overall day of 9/11. Do you your reading. Furthter, why would any "expert" come forward and support that "yep - the Gov. sure did it, they committed mass murder!!!" Remember Van Romero the demolition expert? The one who said yeah that WTC was a controlled demo? He then "changed his story" and is now getting millions for Homeland Security work for a town in N.M. that practices for "terrorism." If this really was a "terror attack" the Bush/Cheney junta would have a F--king musuem with the steel encased as holy shrine where all could come to see, NOT as paper clips in China.
DR Annoye
Re: Repeating Falsehoods
29.01.2006 15:52
---
S. King wrote:
"No other buildings built in the manner of WTC 1 and 2 suffered structural damage from aircraft impact"
False:
The towers were designed to withstand the impact of Boeing 707s which are about the same size as Boeing 767s. Indeed, many survivors reported feeling the buildings sway a little and then settle back in on their axis, as all modern skyscrapers are designed to do.
--
First, I was pointing out that no other building constructed like WTC 1 and 2 has suffered an aircraft impact and subsequent fire. Do you disagree?
Second, each building DID survive the impacts - initially. The original illustration of a 707 hitting the building never calculated the consequences of a fuel fire. And for good reason: they weren't designing the building for aircraft impacts and buildings are not designed for to this date. The 707 hitting was only used as an illustration of the strength of the building, not that it was designed with aircraft impacts as a consideration.
The steel samples:
---
EXPERIMENTAL/FIELD WORK TO SUPPORT THE INVESTIGATION
December 2003
Analysis of Recovered WTC Structural Steel
NIST has in its possession about 236 pieces of WTC steel, representing roughly 1/4 to 1/2 percent of the 200,000 tons of steel used in the WTC towers. Most of the pieces are of large size and include perimeter prefabricated column-spandrel panels, rectangular box beams, wide flange sections, bar joist floor sections, and channels. NIST also has in its possession several smaller pieces, such as bolts. NIST believes that this collection of steel from the WTC towers is adequate for purposes of the Investigation.
Regions of impact and fire damage were emphasized in the selection of steel for the Investigation. These pieces represent a small fraction of the enormous amount of steel examined at the various salvage yards where the steel was sent as the WTC site was cleared. In addition, NIST has examined additional steel stored by the Port Authority at JFK airport and has transported 12 of those specimens to NIST.
NIST has samples of all 14 grades of steel used in the exterior column-spandrel panels. It also has samples of two grades of steel used for the core columns (wide flange and built-up box columns) that represent steel used to fabricate 99 percent of the core columns. Further, it has samples of both strengths of steel that were specified for the floor joists; two strengths each for the rods and the angles that comprised the bar joists.
---
You can argue with NIST whether or not they has suffcient samples.
S. King
e-mail:
skyking@scientist.com
To Concerned. Popular Mechanic was itself debunked
29.01.2006 16:06
Was itseelf debunked. Read
Peace.
Ilyes
e-mail:
Ilyesl@hotmail.com
Controlled Demolition: the defense rests
29.01.2006 16:50
Dishonest debaters are ones who can watch this clip and say it was a kerosene fire.
You are either a moron or MI5 Troll or American equivalent like the NIST Troll King.
Greg Nixon
e-mail:
nixongreg@msn.com
re: What 10,000 gallons?
29.01.2006 16:58
I bet you didn't know that the existence of the Moon is nothing but a propaganda hoax, did you?
You'd better get on that case right away.
See:
S. King
e-mail:
skyking@scientist.com
Keep taking the pills, mate
29.01.2006 17:00
That's right. There were no 'planes. It was a remote control zebra with a pod strapped to the underside...wait, no, CGi....or martians......
Millions of New Yorkers are in on the scam too.
Wait..does New York really exist? I've only seen it on telly. Maybe its part of the conspiracy too......
David Icke, eat yer heart out.
Architect
This is getting better by the minute..
29.01.2006 17:08
This has one thing in common with all the other links; there is no properly reasoned, cogent, scientific rebuttal of the PM piece! I love the comparison to the Reichstag fire (hint to Rense, no-one seriously disputes it was the Nazis did that, you've piece is wrong to hint that it was just suspected).
Iles, mate, any chance you're going to bring your own thoughts to this thread or are you just going to go on what Rense says because it fits in with your world view?
Of course, maybe the structural mechanics I got taught, or the basic physics we all got taught at school, is part of the conspiracy too! Yak! Matrix! Yak!
Architect
Architect wants Physics? x=(gt^2)/2 violated
29.01.2006 18:32
I will not spend too much time giving thoughts on a subject that does not need much while everybody knows the US Government is made of a bunch of criminal liars, to say the least.
I just offered a list of links to everyone to read and ponder upon. I'm not saying everything in there is God's truth. But the US Goverment's fairytale stories are most probably much farther to truth than anything in there!
A building collapsing faster than it is allowed by the simplest Law of all x=(gt^2)/2 raises doubts abt the official garbage for sure! The 80th floor at... let's say for example 10 feet per floor needs 7 secs to get to the ground. And we're not even taking friction into consideration.
Regards.
Ilyes
9/11 Denier reveals motive.
29.01.2006 18:32
"I won't be back here again."
But, lo and behold, he didn't keep his promise, so wrote for all to see:
---
"Dishonest debaters are ones who can watch this clip and say it was a kerosene fire.
You are either a moron or MI5 Troll or American equivalent like the NIST Troll King."
As I explained earlier, the 9/11 Denial Movement is driven by political goals, not in any interest in the truth. This is evident in Mr. Nixon's reliance on a Left-Wing political web site, rather than on any scientific and engineering data freely available to all.
We should all note the necessity of 9/11 conspiracists to constantly repeat debunked data as if to illustrate the desperation of their cause. The long-since debunked canard of Mr. Silverstein supposedly ordering that WTC 7 be "pulled down" is a perfect illustration of this desperation.
Mr. Nixon should know better but, as he has demonstrated, the truth of the whole matter is entirely irrelevant.
I wonder how many will be gullible enough to attend his march in NYC next month.
S. King
e-mail:
skyking@scientist.com
Pardon?
29.01.2006 20:02
I think you've made a rather glaring error, friend. An object in free fall accelerates at 10m/s-2. So, say, an object falling for 10seconds will travel 500m. Of course this may reduce due to terminal velocity, friction, and other factors. The towers were around 400m tall, hence a collapse does not in fact breach any fundamental laws of physics.
But there's a more obvious error in your side swipe at me. It would still collapse at the same rate whether it had been explosively demolished or whatever. Gravity would act in exactly the same way!
Keep studying for the o-grades, mate.
Architect
Next you'll say Elvis faked the moon landings
29.01.2006 21:59
If your insurance company -- or public health service -- paid physician told you that you had a fatal condition but that there was nothing you could do about it, would you accept that as the final word?
To Mr. King - If Larry didn't pull the building, what did he pull? "Pull it" is in the public record and can't be retracted.
Joe Sudol
e-mail:
JSudol1@aol.com
Sorry Joe, But
29.01.2006 22:39
2. Sorry to sound parochial, but I live in a country where the insurance company or employer doesn't pay for my doctor, mate. You fed up with the American sites or something?
Architect
Prof. Steven Jones gets reinforcements
29.01.2006 22:41
By Elaine Jarvik
Deseret Morning News
Last fall, Brigham Young University physics professor Steven E. Jones made headlines when he charged that the World Trade Center collapsed because of "pre-positioned explosives." Now, along with a group that calls itself "Scholars for 9/11 Truth," he's upping the ante.
"We believe that senior government officials have covered up crucial facts about what really happened on 9/11," the group says in a statement released Friday announcing its formation. "We believe these events may have been orchestrated by the administration in order to manipulate the American people into supporting policies at home and abroad."
Headed by Jones and Jim Fetzer, University of Minnesota Duluth distinguished McKnight professor of philosophy, the group is made up of 50 academicians and others.
They include Robert M. Bowman, former director of the U.S. "Star Wars" space defense program, and Morgan Reynolds, former chief economist for the Department of Labor in President George W. Bush's first term. Most of the members are less well-known.
The group's Web site (www.ST911.org) includes an updated version of Jones's paper about the collapse of the Twin Towers and a paper by Fetzer that looks at conspiracy theories. The government's version of the events of 9/11 — that the plane's hijackers were tied to Osama bin Laden — is its own conspiracy theory, says Fetzer, who has studied the John F. Kennedy assassination since 1992.
"Did the Bush administration know in advance about the impending attacks that occurred on 9/11, and allow these to happen, to provoke pre-planned wars against Afghanistan and Iraq? These questions demand immediate answers," charges a paper written collectively by Scholars for 9/11 Truth. The group plans to write more papers, and present lectures and conferences.
"We have very limited resources and no subpoena powers," Fetzer said. "What you have is a bunch of serious scholars taking a look at this and discovering it didn't add up. We don't have a political ax to grind."
Continued at:
Prof Jones makes point of explaining the difference between free fall and the "Pancake Theory." In the Pancake Theory, fire weakened trusses supporting a concrete floor fail and the floor falls onto a lower floor, causing it to fall onto the next floor, etc. While this is possible, this theory is in conflict with the observed speed of the WTC's collapse because it fails to account for the fact that each time one floor impacts another, some of the moving floor's momentum is converted into the energy needed to break the lower floor free from it's supports. This lower floor then becomes subject to the law of gravity with an initial velocity of 0.
Joe Sudol
e-mail:
JSudol1@aol.com
And What Reinforcements They Are, General Custer...
30.01.2006 09:37
Victoria Ashley- Architecture and physiological psychology
Robert M. Bowman - Former Director of the U.S. "Star Wars" Space Defense Program
Len Bracken - Credentialed Journalist
Clare Brandabur- Assistant Pofessor of English Literature
Fred Burks - Language interpreter
Frank Carmen - Physics Ph.D., BYU
Erik Champenois - Student, BYU
Muhammad Columbo - Graduate Engineer Electronics
Scott Daniel - Physics and Astronomy, BYU
Lloyd DeMause - Director of The Institute for Psychohistory
Eric Douglas - Architect
James H. Fetzer - Professor of Philosophy
Don Jacobs - Professor of educational leadership
Wayne Madsen - Investigative Journalist (and prolific web-site article author)
Harry Stottle - Philosopher, Author, Computer Consultant, Inventor. Phew!
The list goes on in much the same vein.
Before anyone asks, although two of the members claim architecutral qualifications neither appears on the (admitedly rather cumbersome) AIA online register or indeed appears to have built anything as far as I can see from Google. In fact Ms. Ashley appears to style herself a 911 Trust staff member.
Now I ask you: if the cover up is as obvious as the conspiracy buffs suggest, if the collapse could not have happened the "official" way, then why can this panel - and the others such as SPINE - not come up with some more relevant expertise? There are literally thousands of senior academics and consultants who would smell a rat, and surely they can't all be in on the game!
I'll tell you why: Its because the controlled demolition theory doesn't hold sufficient water to convince REAL experts.
Architect
Re: Laugh? I nearly paid my poll tax....
30.01.2006 09:58
"No, scientifically, there was a great excess of fuel, and it burned for some considerable time after impact."
What so you call a considerable time? A few minutes or so, less than ten minutes?
"The jet fuel acted much like a matchstick. It was something that spread throughout the building in those affected floors and caused ignition of the fires. But the jet fuel itself burnt in a matter of minutes, within less than ten minutes. So what burned over the next hour, or hour and a half, was really the contents of the buildings, the everyday contents of the buildings."
- Dr. Shyam Sunder, Chief of the NIST Materials and Construction Systems Division
--
Architect wrote:
"So what we had was a large-scale, fairly uniformly spread fire (thanks to the nature of the impact and vapourisation characteristics) acting on lightly protected structural steelwork over a period of several hours. It then understandably failed."
Lightly protected structural steelwork? You mean the 47 massive steel columns that made up the core of each tower? Give us a break, puhleeeeze!
Over a period of several hours???? What are you talking about? The south tower collapsed 56 minutes after impact!
And I don't see why Griffin should be disparaged. As a scholar he is more than qualified to compile eyewitness testimonies, facts and other relevant data and thence point out weaknesses and downright falsehoods in the official story.
And Prof. Steven Jones is a professor of physics. Go and read his paper again and explain how fire burning 90 stories above can cause molten steel to be present in the basement. Molten steel which remained in that intensely hot state for weeks afterwards.
And let's hear you comment on some of the eyewitness and firemen's reports about explosions. In particular, William Rodriguez, the last person to be pulled from the rubble of the north tower, quoted by Prof. Jones, "I told the 9/11 Commission about the explosions and the events on the sub-basement on that day. They did not put it in the final report."
There are lots of things they didn't put in the report, as Griffin points out:
Like the fact that the Commission failed to even attempt to explain the strange collapse of WTC 7 and the omission of Larry Silverstein's statement that he and the fire department commander decided to "pull" it.
joe bloggs
Re: Repeating Falsehoods
30.01.2006 11:07
S. King wrote:
"they weren't designing the building for aircraft impacts and buildings are not designed for to this date. The 707 hitting was only used as an illustration of the strength of the building, not that it was designed with aircraft impacts as a consideration."
No, not an illustration.
Frank A. DeMartini, Manager, WTC Construction and Project Management, says that the WTC towers were designed to take multiple hits from airliners and not collapse.
"The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it, that was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building could probably sustain multiple impacts of jet liners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door - this intense grid - and the plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."
--
S. King wrote:
"NIST has in its possession about 236 pieces of WTC steel"
If that really is the case, than what are doing with them? Playing tiddleywinks? Given their track record of altering the findings of tests to fit the official theory (Prof. Steven Jones) then they simply cannot be trusted:
"World Trade Center disaster investigators [at NIST] are refusing to show computer visualizations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers...Visualisations of collapse mechanisms are routinely used to validate the type of finite element analysis model used by the [NIST] investigators...University of Manchester [U.K.] professor of structural engineering Colin Bailey said there was a lot to be gained from visualising the structural response. “NIST should really show the visualisations; otherwise the opportunity to correlate them back to the video evidence and identify any errors in the modeling will be lost,” he said…" (Jones)
Which is why Jones and others are caling for NIST to ..."release the 6,899 photographs and over 300 hours of video recordings – acquired mostly by private parties – which it admits to holding (NIST, 2005, p. 81)...Therefore, along with others, I call for the release of these and all relevant data for scrutiny by a cross-disciplinary, international team of researchers..."
joe bloggs
Another Popular Mechanics rebuttal
30.01.2006 11:09
joe bloggs
No, not everybody is in on it
30.01.2006 14:45
Now professional architects, engineers and demolition experts -- like Dr. Van D. Romero -- may have other reasons to remain silent. The paid professionals at the NIST were directly influenced by their employer, the US government. Other professionals may be afraid of open ridicule or a more subtle loss of opportunity.
Even so, I belive most humans want to do what's right and are averse to lying.
The PBS/BBC video "Why the Towers Fell" is a good example of this. Even as the firemen remain silent about any explosions and proclaim the "Pancake Theory," they claim to have been on the fourth floor of a 105 story building when it collapsed, in effect saying: Don't believe us.
Then there is the "computer visualization" of the "Pancake Effect." These floor trusses that alledgedly failed did not extend from the external columns on one side all the way to the external columns on the other. They extended up the central columns which supported the elevator banks in the middle of the building. The animation shows the floors collapsing around the central columns which remain standing even as the narrator says that this explains the total collapse of the towers, in effect saying: Don't believe us or, rather: Don't believe the "Pancake Theory."
This is why the Windsor building in Madrid is an excellent example.
The floors and external columns collapsed around the central columns which remained standing. This was after an intense fire that lasted over 24 hours and even then less than half of the floors collapsed.
The south WTC tower collapsed totally after a much cooler and very much less extensive fire burned for less than 1 hour.
Then there's Loose Lips Larry and WTC 7.
Joe Sudol
e-mail:
JSudol1@aol.com
Re: Next you'll say Elvis faked the moon landings
30.01.2006 15:52
Indeed, as should be evident to you from Hemel Hempstead's refinery blaze, unvaporized fuel burns slowly with lots of black smoke:
The term "pull it" or "pull" is not restricted to use in the demolition industry; it is a colloquialism used by others, including firemen. It was used by firemen on 9/11 as meaning "pull the firemen out of the building."
As I quoted firemen on Usenet in Nov 2005:
---
Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted
everybody away from number 7- did you have to get all of those people
out?
Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We
had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn't want to
come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn't even really
comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We
didn't know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back
probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going
to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o'clock or so, but we
had everybody backed away by then. At that point in time, it seemed
like a somewhat smaller event, but under any normal circumstances,
that's a major event, a 47-story building collapsing.
(There's "pull" used twice in the contect of pulling the firemen out)
[...]
Firehouse: Other people tell me that there were a lot of firefighters
in the street who were visible, and they put out traffic cones to mark
them off?
Hayden: Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There
were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to
get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the
afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of
the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still
standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would
collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between
floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty
sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a
visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5
o'clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon
we realized this thing was going to collapse.
Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, and that's probably why it stood for so
long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy
body of fire in there and then we didn't make any attempt to fight
it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were
concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were
worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing
of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back
after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the
surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were
concerned for their safety.
---
A little north of Vesey I said, we'll go down, let's see what's
going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what
was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see
what's going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7
it didn't look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked
on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the
building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the
building and it didn't look good.
But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the
sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then
we received an order from Fellini, we're going to make a move on 7.
That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the
building didn't look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe
systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn't really
keen on the idea. Then this other officer I'm standing next to said,
that building doesn't look straight. So I'm standing there. I'm
looking at the building. It didn't look right, but, well, we'll go
in, we'll see.
So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We
headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and
Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody's going
into 7, there's creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we
just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he
was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage
either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody
goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.
Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the
base of that side?
Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next
to it.
Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or
many?
Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout
there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of
it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said
nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we'll head back to the command
post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.
We ended up getting back to the command post at Broadway and Vesey. By
that time, there were probably 50 officers standing in a row. And I was
like, I'm not going to stand on another line like that. So we came
down with Fox. I knew Fox was somewhere. So we found out that Fox was
over at Cortlandt and Church. They were putting a tower ladder into
operation, so we made our way over to there. We ended up helping.
They had no pressure at all off of any of the hydrants from Broadway.
He was asking if there was any way that we could do anything at
Broadway or West. From Broadway to West westward toward Church Street
there was no pressure at all. We spotted one of the squads up on
Cortlandt over by Broadway and he was hooked up to a hydrant, and it
was running. There was nobody there. I don't know which squad it was,
but you know they were in there. We were just sitting there, so we
stretched the line off of him. We relayed it to 274, who relayed it to
another engine down the street and eventually we got more pressure. I
think it was 22 Truck on Church and Cortlandt and they were operating
to number 5.
We did that for a little while. It took a while to get the hose there
because there was a White Plains company helping us and they had some
different fittings. So we got water to 22, but then that's when they
said all right, number 7 is coming down, shut everything down. I
don't know what time that was. It was all just a blur.
Firehouse: Did they shut the tower lines and remove them from there?
Boyle: No, just left them. Everything was left where it was. Just shut
everything down, moved everybody back.
Firehouse: Could you see building 7 again from there?
Boyle: Seven, no. You got a half block away, you couldn't see it,
couldn't see a damn thing. All we heard was they were worried about
it coming down, everybody back away. We ran into the people running
around for water for the eyes because everybody's eyes were burned
and I don't know who they were. I think it was the doctor and some
other people. They were just running around, washing people's eyes
out.
We were there about an hour or so until number 7 came down and
everything was black again.
The events around WTC 7, the testimony of firemen about the fires and
damage, and the use of the word "pull" by firemen to "pull everybody
back" multiple times, argures against 9/11 conspiracists' canard that
WTC 7's collapse was a "controlled demolition."
S. King
e-mail:
skyking@scientist.com
Re: Prof. Steven Jones gets reinforcements.
30.01.2006 16:27
"Prof Jones makes point of explaining the difference between free fall and the "Pancake Theory." In the Pancake Theory, fire weakened trusses supporting a concrete floor fail and the floor falls onto a lower floor, causing it to fall onto the next floor, etc. While this is possible, this theory is in conflict with the observed speed of the WTC's collapse because it fails to account for the fact that each time one floor impacts another, some of the moving floor's momentum is converted into the energy needed to break the lower floor free from it's supports. This lower floor then becomes subject to the law of gravity with an initial velocity of 0."
Isn't it interesting that Prof. Jones did not bother to address the physics in the link I've provided twice here already, much less refute it, much less address all the other physics describing the collapses?
See:
The collapse times are perfectly consistent with floors pancaking without the need for explosives.
S. King
e-mail:
skyking@scientist.com
re: And What Reinforcements They Are, General Custer...
30.01.2006 16:40
Several of us spent from April until December 2005 challenging Columbo's assumptions, pointing out the contradictions and asking him to support his assertions with evidence. He was wholly unable to answer any of our questions intelligently. He asserted that his paper was the "one sole proof" of what happened on 9/11 and no one could refute it. He quickly became the house fool and, in October 2005, Muhammad Columbo's paper made this list of Cranks, Crackpots, Kooks, and Loons on the net:
Needless to say, I was quite surprised to find his name included with these so-called "scholars" and e-mailed Jim Fetzer (of the group) yesterday asking if they had bothered to do any due diligence on Columbo's credentials.
S. King
e-mail:
skyking@scientist.com
re: Re: Laugh? I nearly paid my poll tax....
30.01.2006 16:52
"And let's hear you comment on some of the eyewitness and firemen's reports about explosions. In particular, William Rodriguez, the last person to be pulled from the rubble of the north tower, quoted by Prof. Jones, "I told the 9/11 Commission about the explosions and the events on the sub-basement on that day. They did not put it in the final report."
Yes, they did. They determined that the explosions were the result of the fireball of fuel descending through the elevator shafts all the way to the basement. The accounts of what happened to people in the lobby of WTC 1 when this happened are availble on line.
There is no mystery here. Neither is it rocket science. Do you really think Griffin is not aware of this fact?
"There are lots of things they didn't put in the report, as Griffin points out:
"
"Like the fact that the Commission failed to even attempt to explain the strange collapse of WTC 7 and the omission of Larry Silverstein's statement that he and the fire department commander decided to "pull" it."
NIST is the responsble agency, has and is dealing with it and the canard of Silverstein supposedly meaning "pull the building down" has already been dealt with.
What this should be doing is setting off alarms in your head, Joe, as to why Griffin and Jones, et all, would leave out key data and evidence - evidence inconvenient to them. It never ceases to surprise me that so many people don't get this fundamental fact.
S. King
e-mail:
skyking@scientist.com
re: Re: Repeating Falsehoods
30.01.2006 17:00
"The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it, that was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building could probably sustain multiple impacts of jet liners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door - this intense grid - and the plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."
Unfortunately, there is no documetation that supports the *intentional* design of the building to survive a hit by a 707, only that it could, and no documentation of considering the fuel has ever been found.
Irregardless, as I have already said, the buildings DID survive the impacts - for awhile, and to the credit of the design long enough for the majority of those who could escape to do so.
S. King
e-mail:
skyking@scientist.com
No, conspiracy theories don't hold up, do they?
30.01.2006 17:09
"Even as the firemen remain silent about any explosions and proclaim the "Pancake Theory," they claim to have been on the fourth floor of a 105 story building when it collapsed, in effect saying: Don't believe us."
Many people survived in the stairwell and heard the pop-pop-pop of the pancaking floors.
"Then there is the "computer visualization" of the "Pancake Effect." These floor trusses that alledgedly failed did not extend from the external columns on one side all the way to the external columns on the other. They extended up the central columns which supported the elevator banks in the middle of the building."
Of course, this is what gave the building it's rigidity.
"The animation shows the floors collapsing around the central columns which remain standing even as the narrator says that this explains the total collapse of the towers, in effect saying: Don't believe us or, rather: Don't believe the "Pancake Theory."
Without the floor trusses connecting the outer walls to the inner core, the building could NOT stand on its own. Neither the core nor the outside walls could stand on their own without the connecting floor trusses. Really, this is not rocket science!
"This is why the Windsor building in Madrid is an excellent example."
It is already clear that there is no similiarity between Madrid and the WTC towers. You may as well give up that canard.
"The floors and external columns collapsed around the central columns which remained standing. This was after an intense fire that lasted over 24 hours and even then less than half of the floors collapsed."
But, as we know, completely irrelevant to the WTC collapses.
"The south WTC tower collapsed totally after a much cooler and very much less extensive fire burned for less than 1 hour."
Like WTC 1, the damage from the aircraft crashes was the main cause of the collapses.
So much for any comaprison to Madrid.
Then there's Loose Lips Larry and WTC 7.
S. King
e-mail:
skyling@scientist.com
Ahem
30.01.2006 23:07
And what is your point? Does that magically qualify him on structural mechanics? Fire Engineering? Explosive demolition of buildings?
But Joe, tell me - what do YOU believe happened on 11th September?
Architect
"Pull back" is not "pull it"
31.01.2006 01:35
You don't argue, you just keep repeating assertions as if they are the Revealed Truth from on High and you have no sense of humor.
Joe Sudol
e-mail:
JSudol1@aol.com
Walk towards the Light
31.01.2006 01:37
And everything -- the PNAC's call for a "new Pearl Harbor", the ignored warnings from foreign governments and FBI agents, the cheering Israelis, the pipeline being built in Afghanistan, etc. -- seems to point in that direction, doesn't it?
Joe Sudol
e-mail:
JSudol1@aol.com
"Pull it" is not "Pull the building down"
31.01.2006 02:43
"Mr. King, I'm not going to read or respond to your rants anymore."
Translation: Joe is unable to address my responses to his posts.
I'm afraid you are going to have to develop some evidence that would support Mr. Silverstein meaning "Pull the building down" since he clearly said no such thing.
You would have to explain why Mr. Silverstein would mean "pull the building down" and admit it on a television documentary if he meant to hide the fact. Would you agree that would be kind of nutty? You would have to explain why the interviewer did not react instantly with surprise at such a revelation.
Then you would have to explain how it was all done, why Silverstein wasn't arrested, and all those myriad details that extend from such a belief.
Did you bother to think of the implications, Joe?
S. King
e-mail:
skyking@scientist.com
Mr King's Secular religion: the BS of 9/11
31.01.2006 03:18
I did say I would not be back but it pains me to see
you pollute my post with your irrational deluded rantings. you are a poseur who has offered
up NOTHING except saying all has been debunked. you seem to be the cantankerous type
that is overly impressed by your own high estimation of your mental powers - and you refuse to let go of the fact that you have been DUPED. Your irrationality is your constant harping that there is a rational reason that everything we propose is irrational. I saw the demolition squibs in building 7 - I saw the building quickly collapse into its footprints. I don't need some
"expert" that anal retentive "Architect" can finally agree is qualified to pass judgement. I saw the explosive rip through the building. case closed. Rant on for twenty more posts for all I care. Your denial at this stage is comical. Get some mental help soon. Cognitive dissonance has overwhelmed you.
This post was for an announcement for action in NYC. I had to post at UK Indymedia because NY "indy"media censored it within a minute! this post was NOT meant as a forum
to endlessly argue with the mentally deficient. 9/11 was a black op U.S. military attack. Onto stopping Fascism in its wake!
Greg Nixon
e-mail:
nixongreg@msn.com
Re: Repeating Falsehoods
31.01.2006 06:50
"there is no documetation that supports the *intentional* design of the building to survive a hit by a 707, only that it could, and no documentation of considering the fuel has ever been found."
It probably exists somewhere, as a subpoena would reveal if we were to have a real investigation instead of the sham that was the 9/11 Commission.
"The blueprints to the Twin Towers and Building 7 remain off-limits to the public three years after the attack, despite the fact that the buildings were built with public money and that the engineering drawings of public buildings are supposed to be public information. Incredibly, FEMA's team that investigated the collapses lacked access to the buildings' blueprints -- access which has been the subject of legal battles."
joe bloggs
Re: Ahem
31.01.2006 06:52
"And what is your point? Does that magically qualify him on structural mechanics? Fire Engineering?
Explosive demolition of buildings?"
Don't you think he's more than qualified to bring attention to the lies, distortions and coverups in the official story?
Which of the points that he raises do you have a problem with?
joe bloggs
The truss theory is absurd
31.01.2006 06:57
'Without the floor trusses connecting the outer walls to the inner core, the building could NOT stand on its own. Neither the core nor the outside walls could stand on their own without the connecting floor trusses."
Would a 1/4 mile high building which relied solely on the integrity of weak trusses and 5/8" bolts have stood for thirty years?
"Construction photographs show that the core columns were connected to each other at each floor by large square girders and I-beams about two feet deep."
NOT trusses.
More lies from the 9/11 Commission:
"Establishing the true nature of the core structures is of great importance given that the most widely read document on the World Trade Center attack -- the 9/11 Commission Report -- denies their very existence, claiming the towers' cores were "hollow steel shaft[s]:"
joe bloggs
What's wrong with the Windsor example?
31.01.2006 06:59
"The Windsor Building has central support columns in its core section, which is similar to the construction of the twin towers."
joe bloggs
Re: Next you'll say Elvis faked the moon landings
31.01.2006 08:18
"the use of the word "pull" by firemen to "pull everybody back"
Not the same as in "pull it", different entirely.
Context is everything. Silverstein's exact words:
'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.'
Also, the whole episode was so convenient and incredibly profitable for Silverstein:
"The World Trade Center complex came under the control of a private owner for the first time only in mid-2001, having been built and managed by the Port Authority as a public resource. The complex was leased to a partnership of Silverstein Properties and Westfield America. The new controllers acquired a handsome insurance policy for the complex including a clause that would prove extremely valuable: in the event of a terrorist attack, the partnership could collect the insured value of the property, and be released from their obligations under the 99-year lease.
"In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties' estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. So: This building's collapse resulted in a profit of about $500 million."
Coincidence? Like so many others on that day.
"To put these events in perspective, imagine that a person leases an expensive house, and immediately takes out an insurance policy covering the entire value of the house and specifically covering bomb attacks. Six weeks later two bombs go off in the house, separated by an hour. The house burns down, and the lessor immediately sues the insurance company to pay him twice the value of the house, and ultimately wins. The lessor also gets the city to dispose of the wreckage, excavate the site, and help him build a new house on the site."
joe bloggs
Re: Next you'll say Elvis faked the moon landings
31.01.2006 12:34
"Context is everything. Silverstein's exact words:
'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.'
See my response to Joe Sudol above and get to work. I would like a full explanation.
"The house burns down, and the lessor immediately sues the insurance company to pay him twice the value of the house, and ultimately wins. The lessor also gets the city to dispose of the wreckage, excavate the site, and help him build a new house on the site."
One of the things about 9/11 conspiracy theories is the propensity for proponents to not understand what they're dealing with.
Silverstein did not immediately sue the insurance companies. It was a legitimate legal question as to whether the two strikes constituted one event, as the insurance companies claimed, or two events. It went through due process in the courts and Silverstein ultimately won the case.
Now, here's some more homework for you, Joe. Mr. Silverstein intends to rebuild. He has a lease with the New York Port Authority which requires that he pay them rent. Please calculate the costs to rebuild. You think he made a quick profit?
You better read up a little more carefully rather than demsonstrate how gullible you are from believing all thos 9/11 conspiracy sites you rely on so heavily.
S. King
e-mail:
skyking@scientist.com
re: The truss theory is absurd
31.01.2006 12:41
You really don't know anything about the construction of the WTC towers and you've demonstrated clearly that you have no interest in knowing.
When you are actually willing to discuss things intelligently, after doing your own research on data not from conspiracy sites, get back to me.
It's all out there including the site I already gave you that you are avoiding so diligently.
S. King
e-mail:
skyking@scientist.com
re: Mr King's Secular religion: the BS of 9/11
31.01.2006 12:45
"This post was for an announcement for action in NYC. I had to post at UK Indymedia because NY "indy"media censored it within a minute!"
From your posts, we've all come to learn what NYC Indymedia already knew about you, Greg.
S. King
e-mail:
skyking@scientist.com
re: The truss theory is absurd
31.01.2006 14:09
S. King wrote:
"You really don't know anything about the construction of the WTC towers and you've demonstrated clearly that you have no interest in knowing."
How can anybody, including you, gain a knowledge of it when they won't release the blueprints? Why won't they release them?
Why does the 9/11 Commission deny the structure of the towers by claiming the cores were "hollow steel shafts" ?
One thing I do know is this: the jet fuel burned up in a few minutes (NIST).
So what effectively was left burning was office furnishings, carpeting and other office odds and ends, on the few floors that made up the area of impact. This small fire is then claimed to, about an hour later, have caused the total collapse of the towers, including the solid central core.
If you cannot see how absurd that claim is, especially considering other towering infernos (Madrid, for one) over the years which didn't cause such collapses, then you have been completely hoodwinked. You have swallowed probably the most outrageous conspiracy theory of all time.
joe bloggs
Re: Next you'll say Elvis faked the moon landings
31.01.2006 14:47
"See my response to Joe Sudol above and get to work. I would like a full explanation."
It seems that Hayden's account is contadicted by the other firemen. All this would come out if we were to have a proper investigation.
Back to Silverstein:
"We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.'
Pull what? What could he have been referring to if not WTC 7 itself?
Again, if we were to have a proper investigation, one that was helped instead of hindered by the authorities, then he would be put on the stand and asked to explain that comment.
The 9/11 Commission made NO attempt to either explain the collapse of Building 7 or to understand Silverstein's comment. Why not? Why not have a real investigation?
---
S. King wrote:
"Now, here's some more homework for you, Joe. Mr. Silverstein intends to rebuild. He has a lease with the New York Port Authority which requires that he pay them rent. Please calculate the costs to rebuild. You think he made a quick profit?...You better read up a little more carefully"
You're the one that needs to read. First paragraph:
"The new controllers acquired a handsome insurance policy for the complex including a clause that would prove extremely valuable: in the event of a terrorist attack, the partnership could collect the insured value of the property, and be released from their obligations under the 99-year lease"
- ref ( New York Times, 9/12/01, page C6)
So much for, as you put it, the " lease with the New York Port Authority which requires that he pay them rent."
--
"thos 9/11 conspiracy sites"
According to you, every site that tries to understand the puzzling events of that day is a "conspiracy" site and should immediately be dismissed as bunkum. Well, what other choice have we when the media and the government's own bodies (NIST, 9/11 Commission, etc) fail to address these issues.
Having said that, there are some pretty wild conspiracy theories out there. I don't buy the pod one, for example.
But, if you look at the word "conspiracy", then you see that even the government's story is a conspiracy theory, as it requires the coming together of several Muslims (breathing the same air while planning the attack - con -"spire" as in respire, ie, breathe - conspire literally means to breathe together).
And it remains a theory as nothing has been proven beyond reasonable doubt, and no one has been tried or found guilty.
So it all comes down to what conspiracy theory you want to believe. As I said, there are some wild ones around.
But definitely the wildest must be the one about 19 Saudi hijackers outfoxing the entire zillion-dollar U.S. military/intelligence/police apparatus and planning the whole thing from some cave in Afghanistan!
joe bloggs
re:The truss theory is absurd
31.01.2006 17:56
"How can anybody, including you, gain a knowledge of it when they won't release the blueprints? "
NIST knows all about the construction. You've just confirmed that you haven't read the NIST Report, much less refuted any of it.
"One thing I do know is this: the jet fuel burned up in a few minutes (NIST). "
"So what effectively was left burning was office furnishings, carpeting and other office odds and ends, on the few floors that made up the area of impact. This small fire is then claimed to, about an hour later, have caused the total collapse of the towers, including the solid central core."
Let's see:
WTC 1:
"However, buildings were not (and still are not) required by the building
codes or designed to withstand the impact of a fuel-laden jetliner.
Although the impact of a Boeing 707 was stated by the Port Authority to
have been considered in the original design of the towers, only one
three-page document, in a format typically used for talking points was
found that addressed the issue. This document stated that such a collision
would result in only local damage and could not cause collapse or
substantial damage to the building. NIST was unable to locate any evidence
to indicate consideration of the extent of impactinduced structural damage
or the size of a fire that could be created by thousands of gallons of jet
fuel."
[...]
"Less than 15 percent of the jet fuel burned in the spray cloud inside the
building. A roughly comparable amount was consumed in the fireballs
outside the building. Thus, well over half of the jet fuel remained in the
building, unburned in the initial fires. Some splashed onto the office
furnishings and combustibles from the aircraft that lodged on the impacted
floors, there to ignite (immediately or later) the fires that would
continue to burn for the remaining life of the building. Some of the
burning fuel shot up and down the elevator shafts, blowing out doors and
walls on other floors all the way down to the basement. Flash fires in the
lobby blew out many of the plate glass windows. Fortunately, there were
not enough combustibles near the elevators for major fires to start on the
lower floors."
[...]
"And so the fires continued to spread, likely aided by as-yet unburned jet
fuel that had soaked into some of the furnishings and flooring."
WTC 2:
"As in WTC 1, less than 15 percent of the jet fuel burned in the spray
cloud inside the building. Roughly 10 percent to 25 percent was consumed
in the fireballs outside the building. Thus, well over half of the jet
fuel remained after the initial fireballs."
I would recommend that you acutally read the NIST report.
"It seems that Hayden's account is contadicted by the other firemen. All this would come out if we were to have a proper investigation."
We've has a proper investigation, independently reviewed, and only challenged by a handful of 9/11 Deniers.
"Pull what? What could he have been referring to if not WTC 7 itself?"
The firemen as explained to you earlier. You are unable to see the absurdity of Silverstein meaning the building.
"Again, if we were to have a proper investigation, one that was helped instead of hindered by the authorities, then he would be put on the stand and asked to explain that comment."
It needs no explanation since no evidence exists that the building suffered from explosive demolition. It's collapse is consistent with the evidence from the damage inflicted on it and no credible structural engineer or forensic scientist has come forward with any reason to doubt the physics and cause of the collapse.
"The 9/11 Commission made NO attempt to either explain the collapse of Building 7 or to understand Silverstein's comment. Why not? Why not have a real investigation?"
Classic strawman. NIST is responsible for the investigation and there is no evidence of explosives. That you can't understand why Silverstein did not mean "pull the building down" is a problem in reasoning only you can solve - if you really were after the truth.
"The new controllers acquired a handsome insurance policy for the complex including a clause that would prove extremely valuable: in the event of a terrorist attack, the partnership could collect the insured value of the property, and be released from their obligations under the 99-year lease"
- ref ( New York Times, 9/12/01, page C6)
In 2004:
"Silverstein Properties and the Port Authority continue to be guided by a lease each signed six weeks before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The lease stipulates that should the complex be destroyed, Silverstein must continue to pay the $120 million a year rent in order to maintain the right to rebuild. Mr. Silverstein has tried to persuade the Port Authority that his closely held company is capable of rebuilding while meeting its massive rent payments. The rent is currently being paid from insurance proceeds, draining the amount available for rebuilding."
And how much did you say it was going to cost to rebuild, joe?
"According to you, every site that tries to understand the puzzling events of that day is a "conspiracy" site and should immediately be dismissed as bunkum. Well, what other choice have we when the media and the government's own bodies (NIST, 9/11 Commission, etc) fail to address these issues."
No, on the contrary. They already HAVE been debunked. Just like you using an outdated NYT report from the day after 9/11 as your crutch. This is one of the frauds of 9/11 conspiracists: the deliberate use of innacurate, outdated data with no regard to the truth of the matter to push their political agenda.
Why you keep falling for it is the question you should be asking yourself. Take the time to do your OWN research.
I'm off to NYC for a week or so, so won't be here for awhile, which I'm confident suits some of you just fine.
S. King
e-mail:
skyking@scientist.com
Oh Greg
31.01.2006 22:21
It must be terribly frustrating for you, to have all these better qualified and knowledgable people carefully sift through evidence, look at different options, and completely disprove it.
You're doing yourself so much damage that I can't really believe you're not some sort of bizarre government plant.
And Joe, you've got me puzzled.
See I've explained it terms any A level (that's an English exam qualification, Greg) physics or chemistry student will understand why it is impossible for the fuel to have burnt off in a few seconds. This is backed up by the officiel report which you misquote. Perhaps you could tell me where the mistake in the calc is?
Likewise we know that even normal domestic housefires burn for hours. Could you tell me why you think WTC would burn-out so quickly?
Why is Griffin or Jones magically qualified to consider in depth complex structural and fire engineering issues despite no expertise in the field? Is there anything else a degree in physics permits them to consider with authority - heart surgery? dentistry? Why do you place so much faith in them, despite (or is it because) this lack of knowledge?
Madrid seems to give you some problems. Please flesh out where I have mis-stated or misunderstood the difference in fire performance of steel and concrete.
But best of all I love your theory of the core structure of WTC1 and 2. Could you clarify this - do you mean that the core columns were capable of standing, as a free-standing structure, without the floor girders?
Architect
Sorry "Architect"
01.02.2006 02:39
Yep! with builiding 7 for sure!
Again, This has been hashed over for years, and i didn't post here at UK Indymedia to REHASH it all over again. What the globalist perps want us to do is have endless discussions and NOT DO ANYTHING TO STOP THEM. So nice try "Architect" or whoever you really are. If this "debate" is not progressing to your standard or liking - stick where the sun doesn't shine. I DONT NEED YOU TO AGREE. You are a time waster. I am an activist who posted an action plan. You want to debate structural mechanics of 9/11 write to someone WHO GIVES TWO SHITS like Kevin Ryan or Griffin or Jones or any of the others perviously mentioned. That I don't want to argue this ad infinitum does not mean that I can't - I just don't see the point. To any thinking person, it has been shown 9/11 was NOT A TERRORIST ATTACK! toodooloo "Architect"
Greg Nixon
e-mail:
nixongreg@msn.com
Flyer for 2/20 NYC
01.02.2006 02:56
Greg Nixon
e-mail:
nixongreg@msn.com
re:The truss theory is absurd
01.02.2006 12:55
"NIST knows all about the construction. You've just confirmed that you haven't read the NIST Report, much less refuted any of it."
No, I've read it, but only once. However, I will study it again when time allows.
But please tell me how NIST arrived at the conclusion that, "half of the jet fuel remained in the building, unburned in the initial fires", when Dr. Shyam Sunder had already gone on record as saying, ..."the jet fuel itself burnt in a matter of minutes, within less than ten minutes. So what burned over the next hour, or hour and a half, was really the contents of the buildings"...?
And as you're placing so much faith in NIST, please answer the questions that I have already asked:
Why did NIST alter the findings of its tests to fit the official story?
Why does NIST refuse to release the blueprints of the buildings?
Why does NIST refuse to address the issue of the presence of molten steel in the basements?
-
S. King wrote:
"Classic strawman. NIST is responsible for the investigation and there is no evidence of explosives."
NIST stated that they found no evidence of explosives in the collapse of WTC 7. Yet they do not say how they reached this conclusion. A noteable ommission considering that the collapse showed several features (around ten) suggestive of a controlled demolition. Or do you disagree with that?
-
S. King wrote:
..."you using an outdated NYT report from the day after 9/11 as your crutch."
Initial reports, as any criminal investigator knows, can be very revealing. Many similar reports have since dissappeared, like the early report of many jet fighters stationed at Andrews Air Force base on 9/11...
-
..."to push their political agenda."
Seeking the truth is not pushing one's political agenda. That is a similar tactic that Nixon used when he wanted no Watergate investigation.
joe bloggs
cognative dissonance
01.02.2006 12:57
Congrats to all concerned ...
How is YOUR life going?
What are YOU doing to make it better?
To all those engaged in theorising and dry dusty expostulations ... any idea what a wood looks like [hint: you might try to see past the trees]
The global fascist elite/banking cartel/military industrial complex has struck. It then dangled its actions in front of your noses ... unicol/Tim Osman CIA man/halliburton/ZOG/ ...
... and yet the issue remains "proving" that the tens of thousands of necessary coincidences that made up the 911/reichstag moment were just that, rather than [another] deliberate profit squeezing exercise by those who extended their control over you and me ...
... my "I told you so" teeshirt is in tatters, having been worn out by repeated outings ... from the expectations of the "bush mob" appropriation of elections ... through the [announced, written and called for] "new pearl harbor" ... to the introduction of "emergency legislation" designed to protect us ...
... feel safer?
Problem-reaction-solution.
Who do you trust? Someone with a lot of letters attatched to their name tag; someone who kisses babies for the cameras; smiling war politicians with investments in 'blind trusts'; exponants of 45 minute threats; recipients of oil profits ...
... this is a philosophical problem ... do not drown yourselves in scientific uncertaintity ... look up from your papers, your screens and gaze upon the masters of the world ...
... have they changed ... changed their spots ... found god and mercy ... renounced thir trillions?
... do they even produce reasonable circumstances for the new slaves of globalism?
Cognative dissonance is a weapon in the right hands ... 60 years of research in advertising and propaganda have produced ... what? ... Nothing?
Yeah ... and your fingers and ears were designed to fit together (works best if you hum loudly).
Overwhealm the senses and replace with message ... resistance is futile ...
911 was a planned exercise in global advancement and entrenchment for the 4th reich ... directly related to the 3rd one in membership, methods and goals ... do you really think that all the money spent on war is squandered?
Do you think it dissapears?
Read the threads on this site where small hippy communities are thrown off the land they bought because they have no planning permission for their straw houses ...
Read the threads on this site where grandmothers are arrested under "terrorism" leglislation for greiving the dead ...
Read the threads on this site where grassroot indigenious peoples movements are attacked, broken up and/or killed for resisting the dictats of global capitalism ...
FORDISM ... you can have any freedoms you want as long as they are meaningless and temporary ... the freedom to produce violent pornography, but not informative literature about global food cartels ... the freedom to drink yourself stupid on alcho-pops ... but not to illuminate your mind with exotic herbs that have been used for THOUSANDS of years to acheive great art and advancement of spirit and body ... the freedom to grow gentically modified pigs shot full of growth hormones and anti-biotics ... but not to grow hemp for food, fuel, building materials, clothing, SMOKING!!!
Yeah ... they hate "our freedoms" alright ... and so do I.
Nevermind, nature is sending us back to mud huts and turnips soon enough, life expectancy will be reduced by the magnificent efforts of those MEN in white coats and their 'special' techniques for replacing women, nature and life with test tubes, phallic towers and death ...
... '911 is a joke' ... Ta Chuck D.
DON'T QUESTION MY AUTHORITY.
jackslucid
e-mail:
jackslucid@hotmail.com
Re: Oh Greg
01.02.2006 13:19
Architect wrote:
"Why is Griffin or Jones magically qualified"...
One example:
"Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1000°C by a process similar to making a “blacksmith’s weld” in a hand forge. (Barnett, 2001)"
Jones then asks:
"How were these ~1000°C temperatures in the steel beam achieved? As noted above in the quotation from Eagar, it is difficult to reach temperatures above 650°C in the type of diffuse hydrocarbon fires evident in the WTC buildings, let alone in the steel beams where heat is transported away by the enormous heat sink of the steel structure. So the high temperatures deduced by Barnett, Biederman and Sisson are remarkable although not impossible.
"Then there is the rather mysterious sulfidation of the steel reported in this paper -- What is the origin of this sulfur? No solid answer is given in any of the official reports.
"Of course, there is a straightforward way to achieve 1000°C temperatures (and well above) in the presence of sulfur, and that is to use thermate (or a similar variation of thermite). Thermate combines aluminum/iron oxide (thermite) with barium nitrate (29%) and sulfur (typically 2% although more sulfur could be added). The thermate reaction proceeds rapidly and is much faster than thermite in degrading steel leading to structural failure. Thus, both the unusually high temperatures and the extraordinary observation of steel-sulfidation (Barnett, 2001) can be accounted for - if the use of thermate is admitted in the discussion...sulfidation was observed in structural steel samples found from both WTC7 and one of the WTC Towers, as reported in Appendix C in the FEMA report."
The above points out different properties of steel, sulfur, etc. As a physicist he is rightly qualified to comment on this and draw conclusions based on this observation:
"The evidence for the use of some variant of thermite such as sulfur-containing thermate in the destruction of the WTC Towers and building 7 is sufficiently compelling to warrant serious investigation."
Your continual dismissal of his scientific expertise in pointing out serious incongruities
in this regard is typical.
Why don't you try rebutting just a few of the points he's raised? If we are to believe you that he's talking through his hat then it should be very easy for you.
Here's his paper again:
joe bloggs
Dear Greg
01.02.2006 14:01
... Tremendous thanks for your energy, input and optimism. If I were over there, I would be there.
To the others who post here ... ignore calls for qualifications, don't sweat about science you are not interested in/can absorb ... all positive energy is positive ... the support you can give to those hard at the wheel is valuable.
Architect et al, I don't know what you game is - I don't trust it ... too much ego, too much convience and distraction ... magic don't work on me ... substitute white coats for black capes, handfulls of papers for magic wands ... you are still as duff as David Copperfield on a saturday nite TV slot.
Prepare yourselves for change ... nature and life is change ... love harder, stronger longer today ... tommorow we die.
jackslucid
e-mail:
jackslucid@hotmail.com
The 9/11 Denial Movement is unable to respond
06.02.2006 01:36
Maybe you'd be so kind to let us know when we should expect it, joe, ok?
Sky King
e-mail:
skyking@scientist.com
Greg Nixon's Faux Protest Causes Laughs in NYC
06.02.2006 01:51
First, Greg is regarded by most as a loose cannon, as I think most here agree from his nonsensical rants above, and someone who discredits the anti-war movement. This is not a surprise to most of us nor why Indymedia NYC is distancing themselves from his march.
Second, there's not much interest in protesting his march - no one knows anyone who would actually participate, anyway - nor giving it any publicity whatsoever. Some say they may stage a counter-protest, a "Laugh-In" to highlight "Nixon's Nonsense", comparing him to Richard Nixon. That would be amusing.
In sum, no one expects anyone to really take notice of this fringe element.
Sky King
e-mail:
skyking@scientist.com
Dr Greening's BS
07.02.2006 05:25
Basically he came to the conclusion that Greening used an erroneous and exaggerated value for overall mass which of course falsifies the results of his conclusions.
Funny thing is when we approached Greening with this on email he replied and didn't deny it! He said he got his figures for mass from Eager, Bazant & Kausel and admitted that he doesn't know if they are correct! Go figure.
Here i s my friend's rather involved explanation (that frankly I don't understand). I know you are probably busy but if you decide you want to check it out here it is:
"Dr. Greenings paper did provide a scientific look into the collapse of the buildings by providing detailed calculations and referenceces. However here's where he went wrong....Those of you that may not understand chemistry nor physics or math for that matter would take his word as bond due to his qualifications. And that is normal as this is the man's life and it is what he does. However having carefully looked over his paper on the collapses, I noticed a fundemental flaw...He made a major assumtion that bascially ended up with missrepresented results.
Searching for the actual values of the twin tower masses, you'll get 500, 000, 000Kg from many sites. However, none of these sites tell you where this figure was taken from. If you were to rea d the 2002 fema and nist reports, you would get 200, 000, 000kg for each tower. So I ask the question...where does Greening and others that support his position get this figure from?
Before i go into the more acurate figures I wanna point something out to each of you. There are buildings taller than wtc....made of concrete and steel that do not even weigh in 500, 000 tonnes.
Empire State Building, NYC = 365, 000, 000 kg
Woolworth Building, NYC = 223, 000, 000 kg
John Hancock Tower, Chicago = 384, 000, 000 kg
Sears Tower Chicago = 440, 000, 000 kg.
Taipei 101 = 700, 000, 000 kg.
Petronas Twin Towers = 350, 000, 000 kg. (each)
Both twin towers were built to be as light yet rigid as possible so as to withstand the extreme forces of the 100 + mphs. The buildings load was carried 60% by it's core and 40% by it's perimiter steel columns. The perimiter carried the lateral load to resist the wind where as the core carried the gravity load.
Now check this....the weight of structural steel used in each Tower is generally reported to be 96, 000, 000 kg and the weight of concrete is said to be 48, 000, 000 kg per Tower.
The Aluminium panels were reported at 2 million kg
The wallboards were at 8 million kg
Adding those together the skeletal structure clocked in at 154 million kg per tower.
More mass is added to the figure when you factor in the utilities, and other fixtures.
Because there is no actual report that fema nor nist gave for these figures the only thing we can really do is take a guess at it.
Plumbing, electrical and telecom would each add about 5 million kg giving us additional 15 million kg. Adding that to our structure we get a figure of 169 million kg which constitutes as the buildings dead load.
When we populate the buildign with office furniture, supplies and people then more mass is a dded.
As you can see this 169 million is only a 1/3 of the reported total weight of the building. Factoring the live load of people, office furniture and other objects in the buildings...the live load will rise dramatically and the building could top out to over 300 million kg. but it's still 200 million shy of the 500 million.
The sears tower was larger and taller than either tower and it is also a tube within a tube steel building yet it weighs less?
John Hancock is 100 stories and is built as tube within a tube just like the twin towers composing, of steel, aluminium and glass, yet it clocks in at 384, 000, 000kg. (live load included). And the building was not built of light weight steel like the twin towers so it was in fact heavier.
WTC is similar to John Hancock in terms of it's concept so it's fair to consider the two buildigns will be close in mass value. In any mathematicaly equation if one variable is off by just a mere fraction this throw s ur result off. Greening was off by 200 million kgs....so his values for the k.e. and g.p.e. would undoubtedly give us those high values with such a large mass.
What upsets me guys is not enough detailed information on the towers construction is widely distributed....and the only figures we can really work from are fema and nist....because the buildings plans and structural elements are deamed national security. If they have nothing to hide then why can't independent scientists get copies of the buildings designs? They are already destroyed and they won't be used again so why the secrecy?
here is greenings direct reply:
1. "You make some very good points and I will try to address them as best I can. First let me say that the article you are quoting was written a while back and I have done some other stuff since then that adds and expands on my original work. That original work was therefore a first attempt to see if the Towers could theoretically have fallen by a pancake collapse. The answer appeared to be YES! But as I looked at more videos and read some of the stuff I am sure you have also read, I now say that the collapse of both Towers was more complex than my simple model, as I will explain in a moment. First, on the mass of the Twin Towers, I have recently done some checking into that and I see quite a spread in values.... Some references simply give the potential energy, which implies a mass through the equation 1/2Mgh, (factor of 1/2 because average height fallen is h/2)...... For example, FEMA give the PE of one Tower as 4 x 10^11 J which implies a mass of 196, 000, 000 kg, but the May 2002 issue of Civil Engineering Magazine to be found at ASCE.ORG gives the PE as 3 x 10^12 J implying a mass of 1, 472, 000, 000 kg! The figure I used, and I think it was similar to the value quoted by Profs Eager, Bazant and Kausel ( all engineering profs who have written articles on 9-11) is somewhere between the FEMA and the ASCE.ORG number, let's say about 500, 000, 000 kg....... But I would really like to see a detailed breakdown of the mass, because I am not sure if any of these numbers are correct!"
(so he backs away from his own conclusions by calling them "old"......admits he is not sure about the mass and that GQ makes good points......and then admits that he is "adding" to this flawed paper instead of revising it!)
And then GQ continues to debunk in greater detail:
Jim Hoffman stated that 1.5kwh are required to pulverize concrete.
Guess what.....with the actual mass of the building at live load it does not come to 1.5kwh.
This is what i got.
Ti= 1/2 (330, 000, 000/110) x (8.5)2 = 108, 375, 000 J that is 59, 693, 181.82 J less than the figure Greening got!!!
If we use the dead load this is what we get: 55, 501, 136.36 J!!!! That's less than the difference in energy of the live load vs Greenings magic number!!!
KE for the combined floors: Ta = 1/2 (330, 000, 000/110) x (8.5/2)2 = 27, 093, 750 Joules
Now let's calculate that energy for the floor collapse.
The KE before impact is show below
T1 (wtc) = 14 X 1, 083, 750, 000 = 1, 517, 250, 000 J
T2 (wtc) = 29 x 1, 083, 750, 000 = 3, 142, 875, 000 J
The KE lost as heat is calculated as follows
Q (WTC 1) = 1/(1 + N) x Ti (WTC 1) = 14/15 x 1, 083, 750, 000 J = 101, 150, 000 J
Q (WTC 2) = 1/(1 + N) x Ti (WTC 2) = 29/30 x 1, 083, 750, 000 J = 104, 762, 500 J
The precent of energy lost as heat for each tower:
Tower 1 = Q/T1 x 100 = 6.67 percent
Tower 2 = Q/T2 x 100 = 3.33 percent
One thing Greening forgot to mention was how much energy was also lost as sound and that is something that can't really be calculated unless decible readings were taken, then we can calculate the energy lost to sound as well.
OH before I forget to mention it....t he weight of one floor is NOT 4, 360, 000kG!!! It is in fact 3, 000, 000Kg. and that is our live load!!!! the dead load is actually 1.56 million Kg per floor.
Moving on.....
If we now assume, as previously
discussed, that the yield strength of the core columns is about 6.7 times higher than the
yield strength of the exterior columns, we estimate that an additional 3.60 ? 108 J are
required to collapse the 47 core columns supporting each floor. Thus, based on T.
Wierzbicki et al. calculation, we estimate a total of 6.29 ? 108 J of impact energy was
required to collapse one WTC floor, a value that is remarkably clo se to Baants estimate
of 5.0 ? 108 J for the plastic energy dissipated by the collapse of one floor.
Greening says 62, 900, 000, 000 J is required to collapse one floor of the WTC Towers....
Now as you can see from my calculations.....it isn't even close to that!!!
The maximum kinetic energy of each WTC tower collapse occurred at the end of
the 1st stage of the two-stage collapse. At this point in time the falling material, consisting
of at least 80 floors weighing about 370, 900, 000 kg, was moving at about 50 m/s. We will therefore assume that each tower had a maximum kinetic energy of
x 370, 900, 000 x (50)2 J or 4.6 ? 1011 J.
Again because his mass is wrong....this throws everything off again...
80 floors equates to 72.2% of the building....so we multiply that by the mass of the building and we get the weight of the 80 floors.
The fig ure we get is 240, 000, 000Kg!!! Which is about 130, 900, 000 KG difference!!!!
so let's do the kinetic energy
1/2 x 240, 000, 000 x (50)2 = 30, 000, 000, 000 J.
Greening Got 46, 000, 000, 000 J so we have a difference 16, 000, 000, 000 J of energy here!!!
From photos of the debris pile produced by each WTC tower collapse it is evident
that steel columns and trusses, aluminum fasciae, glass windows, gypsum wallboards and
other construction materials were all fractured and pulverized to varying degrees during
the collapse events. Thus only a fraction, f, of the 4.6 ? 1011 J of kinetic energy, was
available to crush the WTC concrete. For the present calculation we will assume a value
for f of ~ 0.75, giving 3.5 ? 1011 J of available kinetic energy.
Lets consider the beginning of the 1st sage of the collapse of each tower. For
WTC 1 we will take as an example 14 floors, and for WTC 2, 29 floors impacting the
floor below with a maximum velocity of 8.6 m/s. It follows that the kinetic energy on
impact was ? 1 4 ? (510, 000, 000/110) ? (8.6)2 joules = 2.4 ? 109 J for WTC 1, and the
K.E. was ? 29 ? (510, 000, 000/110) ? (8.6)2 joules = 5.0 ? 109 J for WTC 2. If we
assume 50 % of this energy was available to crush concrete, we have 1.2 ? 109 J available
for WTC 1, and 2.5 ? 109 J available for WTC 2. This is sufficient to crush the concrete
on the impacted floor to 175 ?m particles.
Some have suggested that even if Greening used an incorrect value for mass that his calculations still hold true and that a smaller mass would still lead to a collapse. This is not true as demonstrated here:
Tower 1: X 14 ? (510, 000, 000/110) ? (8.6)2 joules = 2.4 ? 109 J for WTC 1, (Greening)
1/2 x 14 x (330, 000, 000/110) x (8.6)2 = 1, 517, 250 , 000 J Almost 1.5 billion J Difference!!!!
Tower 2: x 29 x (510, 000, 000/110) x (8.6)2 joules = 5.0 x 109 J for WTC 2. (Greening)
As a scientist Greening should know that rounding off numbers skews your results...in fact the correct figure for that calculation is 4, 857, 170, 455 J
1/2 x 29 x (330, 000, 000/110) x (8.6)2 = 3, 142, 875, 000 J
a difference of 1, 714, 295, 455 J!!!!!
Now if 50% of the energy is required to crush the concrete this is what we'll get for both towers:
Tower 1: 1/2 x 1, 517, 250, 000 J = 758, 600, 000 J
Tower 2: 1/2 x 3, 142, 875, 000 J = 1, 571, 437, 500 J
Consider now the newly formed mass of (14 + 1) floors of WTC 1, and (29 + 1)
floors of WTC 2, impacting on the floor below. Because of momentum transfer, the
impact velocities are slightly lower than the 8.6 m/s impact speed for the first floors hit:
8.1 m/s for WTC 1, and 8.3 m/s for WTC 2. The maximum kinetic energy prior to impact
is x 15 x (510, 000, 000/110) x (8.1)2 joules = 2.3 x 109 J for WTC 1, and x 30 x (510, 000, 000/110) ? (8.3)2 joules = 4.8 ? 109 J for WTC 2.
This is essentially the same result as the previous impact calculation and the kinetic energy released is therefore also sufficient to crush the concrete on the impacted floor to 175 ?m particles.
This is where he goes wrong!!!! HE says it requires 190, 000, 000, 000 J to crush concrete to 100 micro metre particles!!! Guess what; we don't have that enery!!!!
Let's do it using his 15 and 30 floor results
for 15 floors I got: 1, 625, 625, 000 J
for 30 floors I got: 3, 251, 250, 000 J
Greening got: 2, 300, 000, 000 J for 15 floors and 4, 800, 000, 000 J for 30 Floors.
See the big mistake!!!!
Frank Greening:
"Finally, we will cal culate the energy needed to crush all the concrete in a single
WTC tower (= 48, 000, 000 kg) to particles of a specified size. As we have noted before,
the energy required to crush all of the concrete in one tower to 60 ?m particles = 3.2 ?
1011 J which is only slightly less than the 4.6 ? 1011 J of energy available. However, the
energy required to crush concrete to 100 ?m particles is 1.9 ? 1011 J, which is well within
the crushing c apacity of the available energy. Hence it is theoretically possible for the
WTC collapse events to have crushed more than 90 % of the floor concrete to particles
well within the observed particle size range.'
WRONG!!!! WRONG!!! WRONG!!!!
Dr Annoye
re: Dr. Greening
07.02.2006 16:30
Dr. Greening should be applauded for acknowleging that he was using mass figures that may be grossly erroneous. You should also be aware of his other paper, the one you characterize as "'adding' to this flawed paper instead of revising it!" In that paper, "A DISCUSSION OF THE FINAL NIST REPORT ON THE COLLAPSE OF WTC BUILDINGS 1 AND 2," written in November 2005, Dr. Greening concludes:
"Clearly, if NIST’s computer model is essentially correct, the Twin Towers collapsed (or
fell over!) at ridiculously small downward displacements and tilt angles, and were
inherently unstable as soon as they were struck by aircraft. This raises serious questions
about the design and construction of the Twin Towers. However, a more reasonable
assessment would be that NIST’s computer model is highly inaccurate, and therefore of
no value in explaining the demise of the Twin Towers."
I had already sent Prof. Jones Dr. Greening's paper for comment and have not heard back. I don't expect to hear back since they took offense that I alerted them that they should have vetted one of their listed members, one Muhammad Columbo, a Usenet troll who was unable to defend his own thesis despite months of pointing out his erroneous assertions and contradictions by many different participants.
So much for credibility as a standard for our group of "scholars", eh? Perhaps the 9/11 Denial Movement will understand why the honesty and transparency of a Dr. Greening will trump those who have no scruples about picking any so-and-so who agrees with its political motives.
I note your friend makes the very revealing statement: "What upsets me guys is not enough detailed information on the towers construction is widely distributed....and the only figures we can really work from are fema and nist....because the buildings plans and structural elements are deamed national security. If they have nothing to hide then why can't independent scientists get copies of the buildings designs? They are already destroyed and they won't be used again so why the secrecy?"
A valid question, one that exonerates Dr. Greening and takes out the wind from your enthusiasm, but, more importantly begs the question:
What does Prof. Jones use for the mass of each tower in his calculations? Read that again to let the implications sink in.
Could you or anyone reveal what calculations Prof. Jones uses to DISPROVE that the towers could have fallen as a result of the airplane crashes and fires? I've seen no physics calculations from Prof. Jones or ANY of his team revealed to us mortals, much less what figures for mass are used. Have you, Dr. Annoye?
If not, should not we and the scientific community have access to these calulations, just as Dr. Greening, as a proper scienctist, has made available to us, revealing the flaws for all his peers to analyze? Particularly since no one seems to know the correct figure for the mass of each WTC tower?
Finally, given the above, how should we take this definitive assertion prominantly displayed on the "Scholars for Truth's" website?:
"Physics research establishes that only controlled demolitions are consistent with the near-gravity speed of fall and virtually symmetrical collapse of all three of the WTC buildings."
Oh?
I know how I take it, given no physics to back it up - with a healthy dose of skepticism. Under the circumstances, shouldn't everybody, Dr. Annoye?
Sky King
e-mail:
skyking@scientist.com
More support....breaking news
08.02.2006 13:17
Former Reagan Treasury Secretary Questions Twin Towers Collapse
A former Wall Street Journal editor and a man credited with the success of 'Reaganomics' has finally broken ranks and brought into question the unexplained collapse of the twin towers and WTC building 7.
joe bloggs
re: More support....breaking news
09.02.2006 01:18
You're speaking of Paul Graig Roberts, unabashed Reagan conservative who became a radicalized Libertarian by his increasing hatred for Bush, calling for his impeachment a year ago. The Nazi and Brownshirt comparions have been flowing readily. One only has to read his columns since 2001.
So it should be of no surprise that he joined the "scholars" who agree with his political agenda.
And it should be of no surprise why Roberts forgot what he wrote in 2002:
"There have always been liars, but until recent years liars were rare among scientists and scholars. The only agenda scientists and scholars had was truth. They didn't always succeed in finding truth, but it was their goal. In recent years, we have seen the advent of a new breed of scientist and scholar to whom ideological or political agendas are more important than truth."
And for evidence of his forgetfullness we hear Roberts repeat the very same unsupported assertion, the mantra of the "Scholars Who Need No Evidence": "They challenge me to explain why three World Trade Center buildings on one day collapsed into their own footprints at free fall speed, an event outside the laws of physics except under conditions of controlled demolition."
There's that "law of physics" again, the evidence of which remains a closely guarded secret by our "scholars." See my post above, as yet unaddressed, for details.
Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose, n'est pas?
S. King
e-mail:
skyking@scientist.com
Re: More support....breaking news
09.02.2006 15:04
S. King wrote:
"And it should be of no surprise why Roberts forgot what he wrote in 2002:
"... In recent years, we have seen the advent of a new breed of scientist and scholar to whom ideological or political agendas are more important than truth."
Well, obviously he was talking about the scientists and scholars who were so quick to defend the official story, wasn't he?
But I'm still waiting for answers to these questions:
Why did NIST alter the findings of its tests to fit the official story?
Why does NIST refuse to release the blueprints of the buildings?
Why does NIST refuse to address the issue of the presence of molten steel in the basements?
joe bloggs
Re: More support....breaking news
09.02.2006 18:49
"Well, obviously he was talking about the scientists and scholars who were so quick to defend the official story, wasn't he?"
No. Just read his columns on the Right Wing sites,
"Why does NIST refuse to address the issue of the presence of molten steel in the basements?"
Perhaps you should ask Prof. Jones et al why they don't address this:
S. King
e-mail:
skyking@scientist.com
Re: More support....breaking news
11.02.2006 13:50
S. King wrote:
"Perhaps you should ask Prof. Jones et al why they don't address this:"
I will. I'll forward him the link.
But one easy way to settle the issue is to test for explosives. All this would be done if we had a proper and fully independent investigation.
As stated before, the building collapses are just the tip of the iceberg.
joe bloggs
Re: More support....breaking news
12.02.2006 15:13
> S. King wrote:
> "Perhaps you should ask Prof. Jones et al why they don't address this:"
>
"I will. I'll forward him the link."
Good. The more people who challenge Jones et all to face and deal with alternative explanations, the better.
"But one easy way to settle the issue is to test for explosives."
What makes you think they didn't given?
S. King
e-mail:
skyking@scientist.com
No engineers / Windsor Building
12.02.2006 21:21
The so called "academic papers" that support such theories are really bad jokes, they are written by PhDs far outside their areas of expertise. One must also look at their sources usually about half or more are not other academic works and confirmed sources but rather the works of even less qualified CTists like Hufschit and Avery. Many of the lead CT’s believe in other strange notions. Hufschit and Bollyn are a Holocaust deniers, Hufschit, Fetzer and Jack White doubt we went to the moon, Jones backed “cold fusion” and believes a resurrected Jesus visited Mesoamerica.
Also as far as I know, no WTC survivors have said publicly they believe the towers were felled with explosives either.
Many CTs make much of the Windsor Tower fire, but in reality it does not help their case. While it's true the building had a somewhat similar structure to the Twin Towers -it used a very strong central core and perimeter columns, there was an important difference. The WTC tower's cores were steel-frame structures and the Spanish building's core was made from reinforced concrete. In fact this concrete core was the only part of the building above a saftey floor that did not collapse. They also ignore the obvious that the Windsor Tower had not suffered severe structural damage nor had much of it’s fireproofing dislodged or damaged prior to the fire.
LenBrazil
If USG did it, saying so should not be taken as an affront
15.02.2006 05:34
Ray Ubinger
(exposing the Naudet-FDNY mock-you-drama since 2004)
Ray Ubinger
re: If USG did it, saying so should not be taken as an affront
15.02.2006 13:56
S. King
e-mail:
skyking@scientist.com
Don't knock 'em
15.02.2006 22:33
Architect
Who does your intelligence say launched the missile-thing into T1, if not USG?
15.02.2006 23:24
Ray Ubinger
re: Who does your intelligence say launched the missile-thing into T1...
16.02.2006 00:53
S. King
e-mail:
skyking@scientist.com
woolly thinking and downright guilability? Hah!
16.02.2006 02:58
Paranoid Fantasies About 9-11 Detract From Real Issues
Gerard Holmgren
February 13, 2006
Astute observers of history are aware that for every notable event there will usually be at least one, often several, wild conspiracy theories which spring up around it. "The CIA killed Hendrix", "The Pope had John Lennon murdered ", "Hitler was half Werewolf", "Space aliens replaced Nixon with a clone", etc, etc. The bigger the event, the more ridiculous and more numerous are the fanciful rantings which circulate in relation to it.
So it's hardly surprising that the events of Sept 11 2001 have spawned their fair share of these ludicrous fairy tales. And as always, there is sadly a small but gullible percentage of the population eager to lap up these tall tales, regardless of facts or rational analysis.
One of the wilder stories circulating about Sept 11, and one that has attracted something of a cult following amongst conspiracy buffs is that it was carried out by 19 fanatical Arab hijackers, masterminded by an evil genius named Osama bin Laden, with no apparent motivation other than that they "hate our freedoms."
Never a group of people to be bothered by facts, the perpetrators of this cartoon fantasy have constructed an elaborately woven web of delusions and unsubstantiated hearsay in order to promote this garbage across the internet and the media to the extent that a number of otherwise rational people have actually fallen under its spell. Normally I don't even bother debunking this kind of junk, but the effect that this paranoid myth is beginning to have requires a little rational analysis, in order to consign it to the same rubbish bin as all such silly conspiracy theories.
These crackpots even contend that the extremist Bush regime was caught unawares by the attacks, had no hand in organizing them, and actually would have stopped them if it had been able. Blindly ignoring the stand-down of the US Air Force, the insider trading on airline stocks — linked to the CIA, the complicit behavior of Bush on the morning of the attacks, the controlled demolition of the WTC, the firing of a missile into the Pentagon and a host of other documented proofs that the Bush regime was behind the attacks, the conspiracy theorists stick doggedly to a silly story about 19 Arab hijackers somehow managing to commandeer 4 planes simultaneously and fly them around US airspace for nearly 2 hours, crashing them into important buildings, without the US intelligence services having any idea that it was coming, and without the Air Force knowing what to do.
The huge difficulties with such a stupid story force them to invent even more preposterous stories to distract from its core silliness, and thus the tale has escalated into a mythic fantasy of truly gargantuan proportions.
It's difficult to apply rational analysis to such unmitigated stupidity, but that is the task which I take on in this article. However, it should be noted that one of the curious characteristics of conspiracy theorists is that they effortlessly change their so-called evidence in response to each aspect which is debunked. As soon as one delusion is unmasked, they simply invent another to replace it, and deny that the first ever existed. Eventually, when they have turned full circle through this endlessly changing fantasy fog, they then re-invent the original delusion and deny that you ever debunked it, thus beginning the circle once more. This technique is known as "the fruit loop" and saves the conspiracy theorist from ever having to see any of their ideas through to their (ill)logical conclusions.
According to the practitioners of the fruit loop, 19 Arabs took over the 4 planes by subduing the passengers and crew through the use of guns, knives, box cutters and gas, and then used electronic guidance systems which they had smuggled on board to fly the planes to their targets.
The suspension of disbelief required for this outrageous concoction is only for the hard-core conspiracy theorist. For a start, they conveniently skip over the awkward fact that there weren't any Arabs on the planes. If there were, one must speculate that they somehow got on board without being filmed by any of the security cameras and without being registered on the passenger lists. But the curly question of how they are supposed to have got on board is all too mundane for the exciting world of the conspiracy theorist. With vague mumblings that they must have been using false ID (but never specifying which IDs they are alleged to have used, or how these were traced to their real identities), they quickly bypass this problem, to relate exciting and sinister tales about how some of the fictitious fiends were actually searched before boarding because they looked suspicious. However, as inevitably happens with any web of lies, this simply paints them into an even more difficult corner. How are they supposed to have got on board with all that stuff if they were searched? And if they used gas in a confined space, they would have been affected themselves unless they also had masks in their luggage.
"Excuse me sir, why do you have a box cutter, a gun, a container of gas, a gas mask and an electronic guidance unit in your luggage?" "A present for your grandmother? Very well sir, on you get." "Very strange", thinks the security officer. "That's the fourth Arab man without an Arabic name who just got on board with a knife, gun or box cutter and gas mask. And why does that security camera keep flicking off every time one of these characters shows up? Must be one of those days I guess..."
Asking any of these basic questions to a conspiracy theorist is likely to cause a sudden leap to the claim that we know that they were on board because they left a credit card trail for the tickets they had purchased and cars they had rented. So if they used credit cards that identified them, how does that reconcile with the claim that they used false IDs to get on to the plane? But by this time the fruit loop is in full swing, as the conspiracy theorist tries to stay one jump ahead of this annoying and awkward rational analysis. They will allege that the hijackers' passports were found at the crash scenes. "So there!" they exalt triumphantly, their fanatical faces lighting up with that deranged look of one who has just a revelation of questionable sanity. Hmm? So they got on board with false IDs but took their real passports with them? However, by this time the fruit loop has been completely circumnavigated, and the conspiracy theorist exclaims impatiently, "Who said anything about false IDs? We know what seats they were sitting in! Their presence is well documented!" And so the whole loop starts again. "Well, why aren't they on the passenger lists?" "You numbskull! They assumed the identities of other passengers!" And so on...
Finally, out of sheer fascination with this circular method of creative delusion, the rational skeptic will allow them to get away with this loop, in order to move on to the next question, and see what further delights await us in the unraveling of this marvelously stupid story. "Uh, how come their passports survived fiery crashes that completely incinerated the planes and all the passengers?" The answer of course is that it's just one of those strange co-incidences, those little quirks of fate that do happen from time to time. You know, like the same person winning the lottery four weeks in a row. The odds are astronomical, but these things do happen...
This is another favorite deductive method of the conspiracy theorist. The "improbability drive", in which they decide upon a conclusion without any evidence whatsoever to support it, and then continually speculate a series of wildly improbable events and unbelievable co-incidences to support it, shrugging off the implausibility of each event with the vague assertion that sometimes the impossible happens (just about all the time in their world). There is a principle called "Occam's Razor" which suggests that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the simplest explanation is most likely to be correct. Conspiracy theorists hate Occam's razor.
Having for the sake of amusement, allowed them to get away with the silly story of the 19 invisible Arabs, we move on to the question of how they are supposed to have taken over the planes. Hijacking a plane is not an easy thing to do. Hijacking it without the pilot being able to alert ground control is nearly impossible. The pilot has only to punch in a four-digit code to alert ground control to a hijacking. Unconcerned with the awkward question of plausibility, the conspiracy buffs maintain that on that Sept 11, the invisible hijackers took over the plane by the rather crude method of threatening people with box cutters and knives, and spraying gas (after they had attached their masks, obviously), but somehow took control of the plane without the crew first getting a chance to punch in the hijacking code. Not just on one plane, but on all four. At this point in the tale, the conspiracy theorist is again forced to call upon the services of the improbability drive.
So now that our incredibly lucky hijackers have taken control of the planes, all four pilots fly them with breath-taking skill and certainty to their fiery end, all four pilots unflinching in their steely resolve for a swift meeting with Allah. Apart from their psychotic hatred of "our freedoms", it was their fanatical devotion to Islam which enabled them to summon up the iron will to do this. Which is strange, because according to another piece of hearsay peddled by the conspiracy buffs, these guys actually went out drinking and womanizing the night before their great martyrdom, even leaving their Korans in the bar — really impeccable Islamic behavior — and then got up at 5 am the next morning to pull off the greatest covert operation in history. This also requires us to believe that they were even clear-headed enough to learn how to fly the huge planes by reading flight manuals in Arabic in the car on the way to the airport. We know this because they supposedly left the flight manuals there for us to find.
It gets better. Their practical training had allegedly been limited to Cessnas and flight simulators, but this was no barrier to the unflinching certainty with which they took over the planes and skillfully guided them to their doom. If they are supposed to have done their flight training with these tools, which would be available just about anywhere in the world, it's not clear why they would have decided to risk blowing their cover to US intelligence services by doing the training in Florida, rather than somewhere in the Middle East, but such reasoning is foreign to the foggy world of the conspiracy theorist, too trapped in the constant rotation of the mental fruit loop to make their unsubstantiated fabrications seem even semi-believable.
Having triumphantly established a circular delusion in support of the mythical Arabs, the conspiracy theorist now confronts the difficult question of why there's nothing left of the planes. Anybody who has seen the endlessly-replayed footage of the second plane going into the WTC will realize that the plane was packed with explosives. Planes do not and cannot blow up into nothing in that manner when they crash.
Did the mythical Arabs also haul a huge heap of explosives on board, and manage to deploy them in such a manner that they went off in the exact instant of the crash, completely vaporizing the plane? This is a little difficult even for the conspiracy theorist, who at this point decides that it's easier to invent new laws of physics in order to keep the delusion rolling along.
There weren't any explosives. It wasn't an inside job. The plane blew up into nothing from its exploding fuel load! Remarkable! Sluggishly combustible jet fuel which is basically kerosine, and which burns at a maximum temperature of around 800°C has suddenly taken on the qualities of a ferociously explosive demolition agent, vaporizing 65 tons of aircraft into a puff of smoke. Never mind that a plane of that size contains around 15 tons of steel and titanium, of which even the melting points are about double that of the maximum combustion temperature of kerosene — let alone the boiling point — which is what would be required to vaporize a plane. And then there's about 50 tons of aluminum to be accounted for. In excess of 15 lbs of metal for each gallon of kerosene.
For the conspiracy theorist, such inconvenient facts are vaguely dismissed as "mumbo jumbo". This convenient little phrase is their answer to just about anything factual or logical. Like a conjurer pulling a rabbit out of a hat, they suddenly become fanatically insistent about the devastating explosive qualities of kerosene, something hitherto completely unknown to science, but just discovered by them, this very minute. Blissfully ignoring the fact that never before or since in aviation history has a plane vaporized into nothing from an exploding fuel load, the conspiracy theorist relies upon Hollywood images, where the effects are always larger than life, and certainly larger than the intellects of these cretins. "It’s a well known fact that planes blow up into nothing on impact." they state with pompous certainty. "Watch any Bruce Willis movie." Care to provide any documented examples? If it's a well-known fact, then presumably this well-known fact springs from some kind of documentation — other than Bruce Willis movies?
At this point the mad but cunning eyes of the conspiracy theorist will narrow as they sense the corner that they have backed themselves into, and plan their escape by means of another stunning back flip.
"Ah, but planes have never crashed into buildings before, so there's no way of telling." they counter with a sly grin.
Well, actually planes have crashed into buildings before and since, and not vaporized into nothing.
"But not big planes, with that much fuel ", they shriek in hysterical denial. Or that much metal to vaporize. "Yes but not hijacked planes!"
Are you suggesting that whether the crash is deliberate or accidental affects the combustion qualities of the fuel?
"Now you're just being silly".
Although collisions with buildings are rare, planes frequently crash into mountains, streets, other aircraft, nosedive into the ground, or have bombs planted aboard them, and don't vaporize into nothing. What's so special about a tower that's mostly glass? But by now, the conspiracy theorist has once again sailed happily around the fruit loop. "It’s a well-documented fact that planes explode into nothing on impact."
Effortlessly weaving back and forth between the position that it's a "well-known fact" and that "it's never happened before, so we have nothing to compare it to", the conspiracy theorist has now convinced himself (if not too many other people) that the WTC plane was not loaded with explosives, and that the instant vaporization of the plane in a massive fireball was the same as any other plane crash you might care to mention. Round and round the fruit loop...
But the hurdles which confront the conspiracy theorist are many, and they are now forced to implement even more creative uses for the newly-discovered shockingly destructive qualities of kerosene. They have to explain how the Arabs also engineered the elegant vertical collapse of both the WTC towers, and for this awkward fact the easiest counter is to simply deny that it was a controlled demolition, and claim that the buildings collapsed from fire caused by the burning kerosene.
For this, it's necessary to sweep aside the second law of thermodynamics and propose kerosene which is not only impossibly destructive, but also recycles itself for a second burning in violation of the law of degradation of energy. You see, the kerosene not only consumed itself in a sudden catastrophic fireball, vaporizing a 65 ton plane into nothing, but then came back for a second go, burning at 2000°C for another hour at the impact point, melting the skyscraper's steel like butter. And while it was doing all this it also poured down the elevator shafts, starting fires all through the building. When I was at school there was a little thing called the entropy law which suggests that a given portion of fuel can only burn once, something which is readily observable in the real world, even for those who didn't make it to junior high school science. But this is no problem for the conspiracy theorist. Gleefully, they claim that a few thousand gallons of kerosene is enough to:
o completely vaporize a 65 ton aircraft
o have enough left over to burn ferociously enough for over an hour at the impact point to melt steel (melting point about double the maximum combustion temperature of the fuel) and
o still have enough left over to pour down the elevator shafts and start similarly destructive fires all through the building.
This kerosene really is remarkable stuff! How chilling to realize that those kerosene heaters we had in the house when I was a kid were deadly bombs, just waiting to go off. One false move and the entire street might have been vaporized. And never again will I take kerosene lamps out camping. One moment you're there innocently holding the lamp — the next — kapow! Vaporized into nothing along with the rest of the camp site, and still leaving enough of the deadly stuff to start a massive forest fire.
These whackos are actually claiming that the raging inferno allegedly created by the miraculously recycling, and impossibly hot burning kerosene melted or at least softened the steel supports of the skyscraper. Oblivious to the fact that the smoke coming from the WTC was black, which indicates an oxygen-starved fire — therefore, not particularly hot, they trumpet an alleged temperature in the building of 2000°C, without a shred of evidence to support this curious suspension of the laws of physics.
Not content with this ludicrous garbage, they then contend that as the steel frames softened, they came straight down instead of buckling and twisting and falling sideways.
Since they've already re-engineered the combustion qualities of jet fuel, violated the second law of thermodynamics, and re-defined the structural properties of steel, why let a little thing like the laws of gravity get in the way?
The tower fell in a time almost identical to that of a free-falling object, dropped from that height, meaning that it's physically impossible for it to have collapsed by the method of the top floors smashing through the lower floors. But according to the conspiracy theorists, the laws of gravity were temporarily suspended on the morning of Sept 11. It appears that the evil psychic power of those dreadful Arabs knew no bounds. Even after they were dead, they were able, by the power of their evil spirits, to force down the tower at a speed physically impossible under the laws of gravity, had it been meeting any resistance from fireproofed steel structures originally designed to resist many tons of hurricane force wind as well as the impact of a Boeing passenger jet straying off course.
Clearly, these conspiracy nuts never did their science homework at school, but did become extremely adept at inventing tall tales for why. "Muslim terrorists stole my notes, sir" "No miss, the kerosene heater blew up and vaporized everything in the street, except for my passport." "You see sir; the school bus was hijacked by Arabs who destroyed my homework because they hate our freedoms." Or perhaps they misunderstood the term "creative science" and mistakenly thought that coming up with such rubbish was, in fact, their science homework.
The ferocious heat generated by this ghastly kerosene was, according to the conspiracy theorists, the reason why so many of the WTC victims can't be identified. DNA is destroyed by heat. (Although 2000°C isn't really required, 100°C will generally do the job.) This is quite remarkable, because according to the conspiracy theorist, the nature of DNA suddenly changes if you go to a different city. That's right! If you are killed by an Arab terrorist in New York, your DNA will be destroyed by such temperatures. But if you are killed by an Arab terrorist in Washington DC, your DNA will be so robust that it can survive temperatures which completely vaporize a 65 ton aircraft.
You see, these loonies have somehow concocted the idea that the missile which hit the pentagon was not a missile at all, but one of the hijacked planes. And to prove this unlikely premise, they point to a propaganda statement from the Bush regime, which rather stupidly claims that all but one of the people aboard the plane were identified from the site by DNA testing, even though nothing remains of the plane. The plane was vaporized by the fuel tank explosion maintain these space loonies, but the people inside it were all but one identified by DNA testing.
So there we have it. The qualities of DNA are different, depending upon which city you're in, or perhaps depending upon which fairy story you're trying to sell at any particular time.
This concoction about one of the hijacked planes hitting the Pentagon really is a howler. For those not familiar with the layout of the Pentagon, it consists of 5 rings of building, each with a space in-between. Each ring of building is about 30 to 35 ft deep, with a similar amount of open space between it and the next ring. The object which penetrated the Pentagon went in at about a 45-degree angle, punching a neat circular hole of about a 12-foot diameter through three rings (six walls). A little later a section of wall about 65 ft wide collapsed in the outer ring. Since the plane which the conspiracy theorists claim to be responsible for the impact had a wing span of 125 ft and a length of 155 ft, and there was no wreckage of the plane, either inside or outside the building, and the lawns outside were still smooth and green enough to play golf on, this crazy delusion is clearly physically impossible.
But hey, we've already disregarded the combustion qualities of jet fuel, the normal properties of common building materials, the properties of DNA, the laws of gravity and the second law of thermodynamics, so what the hell — why not throw in a little spatial impossibility as well? I would have thought that the observation that a solid object cannot pass through another solid object without leaving a hole at least as big as itself is reasonably sound science. But to the conspiracy theorist, this is "mumbo jumbo". It conflicts with the delusion that they're hooked on, so it "must be wrong" although trying to get then to explain exactly how it could be wrong is a futile endeavor.
Conspiracy theorists fly into a curious panic whenever the Pentagon missile is mentioned. They nervously maintain that the plane was vaporized by its exploding fuel load and point to the WTC crash as evidence of this behavior. (That's a wonderful fruit loop.) Like an insect which has just been sprayed, running back and forth in its last mad death throes, they first argue that the reason the hole is so small is that plane never entered the wall, having blown up outside, and then suddenly back flip to explain the 250 ft deep missile hole by saying that the plane disappeared all the way into the building, and then blew up inside the building (even though the building shows no sign of such damage). As for what happened to the wings — here's where they get really creative. The wings snapped off and folded into the fuselage which then carried them into the building, which then closed up behind the plane like a piece of meat.
When it suits them, they'll also claim that the plane slid in on its belly (ignoring the undamaged lawn) while at the same time citing alleged witnesses to the plane diving steeply into the building from an "irrecoverable angle." How they reconcile these two scenarios as being compatible is truly a study in stupidity.
Once they get desperate enough, you can be sure that the UFO conspiracy stuff will make an appearance. The Arabs are in league with the Martians. Space aliens snatched the remains of the Pentagon plane and fixed most of the hole in the wall, just to confuse people. They gave the Arabs invisibility pills to help get them onto the planes. Little green men were seen were seen talking to Bin Laden a few weeks prior to the attacks.
As the nation gears up to impeach the traitor Bush, and stop his perpetual oil war, it's not helpful to have these idiots distracting from the process by spreading silly conspiracy theories about mythical Arabs, stories which do nothing but play into the hands of the extremist Bush regime.
At a less serious time, we might tolerate such crackpots with amused detachment, but they need to understand that the treachery that was perpetrated on Sept 11, and the subsequent war crimes committed in "retaliation", is far too serious for us to allow such frivolous self-indulgence to go unchallenged.
Those who are truly addicted to conspiracy delusions should find a more appropriate outlet for their paranoia.
It's time to stop loony conspiracy theories about Sept 11.
Fair Use Statement
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 of US Copyright Law, this attributed work is provided via Thomas Paine’s Corner on a non-profit basis to facilitate understanding, research, education, and the advancement of human rights and social justice.
Greg Nixon
e-mail:
nixongreg@msn.com
Why is it affrontery to say USG did it but not to say a fairy did it?
16.02.2006 11:29
Ray Ubinger
Sinister clues of inside info and deep deception lurk in Emmy-winning S11 "documentary" by the Naudet "brothers."
Ray Ubinger
re: Gerard Holmgren's Wooly Thinking
16.02.2006 11:41
You're three years behind the time. See Comments Section of this:
S. King
e-mail:
skyking@scientist.com
I love yer Greg!
16.02.2006 11:43
Ta very much.
jackslucid
e-mail:
jackslucid@hotmail.com
British 9/11 truth site
16.02.2006 23:51
I wish you luck next week.
It's good to see 9/11 truth generating such interest on Indymedia UK and I'm pleased the moderators are letting this run.
Those who have an interest in 9/11 or support the call for a further investigation may want to know about this British forum and network of grassroots campaigners. Just to clarify the position of the network "The campaign recognizes that there is a diverse range of opinion amongst 9/11 truth campaigners. The campaign does not endorse any one position. What we do say is when taken in totality the evidence overwhelmingly supports the need to reopen 9/11"
www.nineeleven.co.uk
Can I just check with Architect and S King, do you accept the 9/11 commission report completely? Are there any areas of the official account that you question? How do you explain the numerous reports of explosions as catelogued on the Loose Change 2 DVD for example?
Ian Neal
e-mail:
ianneal@fastmail.fm
911 Eyewitness
17.02.2006 00:57
No other arguments
Anyone wanting a clear disc, please contact
dh
e-mail:
dwightheet@yahoo.com
re" British 9/11 Truth Site
17.02.2006 04:57
"Can I just check with Architect and S King, do you accept the 9/11 commission report completely? Are there any areas of the official account that you question? How do you explain the numerous reports of explosions as catelogued on the Loose Change 2 DVD for example? "
I don't except anything unsupported by solid evidence, including claims that ignore existing evidence, claims that have been debunked, and claims that refuse to consider inconvenient evidence.
As far as repeated claims of "explosions" goes, nothing that takes account of ALL of the evidence has shown one iota of evidence for intentionally-planned "demolition explosives" nor refuted ALL of the evidence showing NO evidence of demolition explosives.
My area of interest is the acknowledged foundation of most 9/11 conspiracy theories: the collpase of the three WTC tower in New York and the Pentagon attack in Washington and the claims that what happened could not have happened. Having spent 4 years on that, I can say that no 9/11 conmspiracy theorist has successfully defended their claims either with irrefutable evidence or by refuting acknowledged evidence. I limit myself pretty much to that since that's where my interest and knowledge is.
But my concern is greater in that with the advent of the Internet and the explosion of information, human nature is such that people are easily susceptible into believing what they "think" is correct without the necessary skills (through no fault of their own) to evaluate claims rationally. 9/11 conspiracists believe that those who believe events happened as represented since 9/11 are blind, ignorant, "sheeple." But they are vehemently incensed at the suggestion that they may have had the wool pulled over their own eyes by a huge assortment of snake oil salesmen. My dormant blog was meant to address this and I recommend several books at the bottom of the page here:
I believe this "tension" is soon coming to a head with the creation of the "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" who are representing themselves as "credible" sources of 9/11 "truth." And people are flocking to them as "experts." Unfortunately for them, many of us see through them and are pressuring them to to deal with alternative explanations, in this case, real science. I firmly believe, given their own representations, that they have set themselves up for a fall, a rather hard one at that, that will illuminate the faulty science they are peddling. I can't predict when, of course.
S. King
e-mail:
skyking@scientist.com
911 Eyewitness
17.02.2006 05:04
"Absolute smoking gun footage of the detonations bringing down the towers."
Unfortunately for you, absolutley no proof of intentionally-set "controlled demolitions."
Old stuff - dealt with.
S. King
e-mail:
skyking@scientist.com
Oh Ian
18.02.2006 00:25
I've said more than once, that my interest in this arose from the claims that the crashes could not have caused the collapse of the towers. Working on the perspective of someone who's actually been trained and thereafter worked extensively on tall building design, the hypotheses put forward by the conspiracists in this sphere just don't hold water. In fact, there is no serious debate about this in construction circles.
Do I accept the official 911 report? Well, yes and no. The Arups team I've linked on previous posts make some rather good points about the exact mechanism of collapse, although the underlying theory is supported (for those who think the "mistake" identified in the original design by Arup is inconceivable, remember the Citicorp tower). On the other hand the Cantebury and BRE fire modelling data does indeed support the level of structural deformation required for collapse.
However these professional discussions are based on solid, sound evidence by some of the most repsected people in the field. SPINE, Jones, and co. are not experts. Their hypotheses in respect of structural mechanics and fire engineering are full of holes. I suspect that their theories about other aspects might be just as poor, but am not qualified to comment on these fields.
If there is a scandal or conspiracy here, it is not in the destruction of the towers but in how the Americans used the whole affair to steamroller invasions on what might be loosely called dubious grounds. That is where activists' thoughts should lie, and one where they have the greatest sympathy from the wider public.
And turning to our other friends, no - that video is not absolute proof of explosive demolition. I think you'll find that "proof" doesn't mean what you are thinking it is meaning.
Just as a final aside, I remember standing with the other architects in the office on 11-9, watching a very slow and clearly much over-subscribed website of the impact and fires. One of us (can't remember who) said "That's going to come down". Know what? We all knew he was right. And he was.
Architect
S. King "refutes" photos by ignoring them, because magical beings create them?
18.02.2006 04:47
"[N]o 9/11 conspiracy theorist has successfully defended their claims either with irrefutable evidence or by refuting acknowledged evidence."
I would agree there's no evidence that S11 was a conspiracy of 19 hijackers. Nor is there evidence for your bizarre pet theory that the missile-like thing which was filmed diving into Tower 1
was launched by a magical fairy. That makes about as much sense as saying an Asian caveman on dialysis launched it.
Here's a comparison pair of images by Marcus Icke,
on the left, a PHOTO of the actual thing,
on the right, a *CGI* of what a 767 WOULD have looked like in the same frame:
Ray Ubinger
NAUDET 911: EMMY-WINNING SNUFF FILM
Ray Ubinger
The Perps Knew
18.02.2006 06:23
In message 111, some creepy perp says "One of us (can't remember who) said "That's going to come down". Know what? We all knew he was right. And he was."
The only reason they would "know" that the building was going to come down is because they were among the ones planning it.
Only perps could keep going on with such high-falutin meaningless yipyap .
The Perp-Speak technique is pure intimidation. They make stuff up and attribute it to you. But not 100% fiction. It’s always a gross twisting of whatever you’ve actually said, so that’s able to have a veneer of being somehow related to the truth.
Then they just keep relentlessly repeating it, and it doesn’t matter how often or how clearly you explain what you are actually saying, this daisy gang acts as if you haven’t spoken.
If you actually manage to make their position totally untenable, instantly it switches to a completely different position with an air of having made no switch at all and starts a new hounding.
Imagine yourself sitting at the desk, in the senses deprived room, handcuffed, the light in the eyes,tired, and this guy leaning over the desk saying “now lets go through this again…”
That’s their background.
The conversation would go something like
Earlier you told me that …”
“No that’s not what I said, I said …”
“So now you’ve changed your story?”
“No I haven’t changed the story. What I told you before is the same as what I’m telling you now.”
PerpSpeak technique depends upon exploiting our inherinet fairness. If someone asks us a question we like to answer it as honestly and as fully as we can.
If someone can create any doubt about any point of our argument, we like to admit that doubt and examine it openly.
If we say something wrong we like to correct or qualify it.
We are concerned about any perception that we might not be living up to these standards.
Therefore, these enemies of humanity constantly allude to such alleged shortcomings. Although we know that his allusions are unfair, we feel obligated to address them and demonstrate that, in case others have not realized.
Because we are decent people we have trouble remembering that there are skin-wearing humans behind every lie and every plot.
I may have identified Sky King on break:
How people could become such monsters:
Interview with Kay Griggs wife of Colonel Griggs head of NATO Psychological Operations
The Webfairy
e-mail:
webfairy@thewebfairy.com
Homepage:
http://thewebfairy.com/911
Web Fairy? Airy Fairy More LIke
18.02.2006 09:10
Stop with the tired, unsubstantiated insults and tell me where I've made a mistake in my calculations. Or where the academic, peer, and professional links I've posted are wrong. On you go. And remeber to back it up with hard caluclations and evidence.
2-1 days you change topic, just like all the other conspiracists. Mention the flying pod again, on you go....
Architect
Loony conspiracy theorists
18.02.2006 13:39
The sheer volume of posting here is what Architect hides behind hoping that no one will notice the glaring errors and dishonesty in his pathetic drivel..Bad luck, Architect. Someone did notice.
Architects second post is titled
“Okay, Greg, me old chum
24.01.2006 19:14”
And contains the following.
[[Are you saying I'm wrong on any of the points I've made, and if so can you clarify exactly how? ]]
What exactly are the points made by Architect in his first post , entitled
Hmm, Well...
23.01.2006 22:40
Absolutely nothing. Read it again for yourself.
Only vague opinions with no documentation and no specifics. For example. (I’ve edited out the worst of the drivel and included the closest things I can find to substance.)
[[steel can, and does, fail under fire loadings.]]
An 8 word theory on how the buildings collapsed. Well, full marks for brevity if nothing else. Of course , if Architect thinks that I’ve selectively quoted and omitted the real substance of his post , then he can quote the important bit that I left out . Please do ! (Snigger!)
Next “point” [[Pancake collapse of concrete floors during construction is something we all know about in construction,]]
Really ? Note the rigorous documentation and reference to previous examples as well as the solid documentation of his own expertise – not to mention relevance to the topic at hand. I didn’t realize that people who work in construction commonly engineer pancake collapses. I thought construction was making buildings stand up. Perhaps, architect isn't very good at it and designs a lot of buildings which fall down.
The fact that it’s possible for a building to collpase during construction somehow proves that WTC wasn’t demolished after all? Huh ?
Following this logic, the fact [[we all know about controlled demolitions in the explosives industry]] proves that it was demolished.
But Architect has only started on the meticulous documentation. He continues.
[[puffs of "smoke" are failure of the facade glazing as the air begins to compress/structure moves]]
Well, that settles the question ! The scientific breadth and depth is incredible ! The plethora of comparable examples. Not to mention the reams of documentation.
But he is relentless. He continues.
[[I've seen (but never participated in) explosive demolition and know how difficult it is - placing of explosives, amount required, etc. It would be almost impossible do to in an occupied building.]]
An expert at something he’s never done ! This is true science! Architect has watched TV, or stood in the crowd with everyone else when a building was demolished and therefore knows all the logistics of the operation that he’s [[never participated in]]. Perhaps he even picked something up about it from subscribing to “boys own”.
But hang on ! Architect just admitted that it is actually possible to demolish a building. Doesn’t this prove that this is what actually happened ? After all, earlier he claimed that because its possible for a building to pancake during construction, that proves that the WTC pancaked.
[[I don't know how hard it is to fly a plane into a tower block. ]]
Well there’s an expert for you !
Having given us a riveting scientific argument for no demolition (Architect, please *do * quote anything of siginficance which I which I dishonestly left out of the “points” you made in your first post ( snigger!) it's obvious that the reason greg didn’t rebut them is because there wasn’t anything to rebut. Hee hee ! Architect’s “argument” is that because its possible for a building to pancake during contruction that proved that the WTC pancaked.
You see, this is why we call them conspiracy nuts and space loonies…
Architect then goes on to his next area of expertise. Aviation security.
[[Likewise those that claim the USAF would/should have shot the jets down]]
Sorry, Architect. No one has even raised the question of shooting down. The question was interception. It’s not the same thing. lwet me try to explain in terms that even you might understand.
An excellent series of research articles was published on this between Nov 2001 and Jan 2002 by www.tenc.net.
Let me quote you an extract from the one of the articles.
Mr. Cheney's Cover-up
Part 2 of 'Guilty for 9-11: Bush, Rumsfeld, Myers'
(discussing a Cheney press conference on sept 16 200, in which Cheney tries to explain why nothing was scrambled until after the pentagon was hit, even though Andrews air base, just 10 miles from the pentagon had two squadrons of fighter jets available.)
[[Note that Mr. Cheney has performed a sleight of hand here.
First he says, "the toughest decision was...whether we would intercept incoming commercial aircraft."
Later he says, "The president made the decision... that if the plane would not divert as a last resort, our pilots were authorized to take them out..." that is, "shoot it down."
But "intercept": and "shoot it down" do not mean the same thing.
"in•ter•cept
• "in•ter•cept (în´ter-sèpt¹) verb, transitive
in•ter•cept•ed, in•ter•cept•ing, in•ter•cepts
"1. a. To stop, deflect, or interrupt the progress or intended course of"
--'American Heritage Dictionary'
"shoot•down
• "shoot•down (sh¡t¹doun´) noun
"Destruction of a flying aircraft by a missile attack or gunfire."
--'American Heritage Dictionary'
Mr. Cheney deliberately confused these terms to stop people from asking: why weren't any of the hijacked planes intercepted?
Since "stopping, deflecting, or interrupting the progress or intended course of" a hijacked airplane does not necessarily involve violence, there could be no moral obstacle to scrambling fighter jets to intercept Flight 77. Therefore Mr. Cheney shifted quickly to the morally charged question of whether to shoot down "an airplane full of American citizens". By creating this emotional link between interception (not necessarily violent) and shooting down a commercial jet (very violent), Cheney hoped to create sympathy for a President forced to make this "horrendous" choice: to intercept or not to intercept… Mr. Cheney attempted to hide the jump from "intercept" to "shoot down" by means of the following connecting sentence:
"It doesn't do any good to put up a combat air patrol if you don't give them instructions to act, if, in fact, they feel it's appropriate."
This is disinformation. Mr. Cheney was treating his viewers like fools.
First, as anyone with a computer and basic knowledge of the Internet can find out, Air Traffic Controllers request military jets to intercept commercial aircraft on a routine basis. ]]
The article then details - with meticulous documentation – (something Architect wouldn’t understand ) the FAA procedures for *intercepting* stray aircraft and then comments
[[Now, let us return to Mr. Cheney and his interview on 'Meet the Press.'
As you will recall, he said:
"It doesn't do any good to put up a combat air patrol if you don't give them instructions to act, if, in fact, they feel it's appropriate."
Mr. Cheney is attempting to misinform by pretending that intercept pilots need 'instructions' from the President, when he knows perfectly well that clear instructions and a whole organizational network exist to handle intercept emergencies.
Moreover, Mr. Cheney's implicit argument - that there is no point in sending up an escort unless the pilot has clearance to shoot down a commercial jet - is absurd. Why would such a decision have to be made in advance of scrambling the escort? Even if an airliner has been taken over by a terrorist with a suicide mission, how could Mr. Cheney, Mr. Bush or anyone else other than God Himself possibly predict how the hijacker would respond to an intercept by military jets? Even if a hijacker were ready to die for the glory of crashing into the Pentagon, does that mean he would also be ready to die for the glory of ignoring a military pilot's order to land?
So even if the military had no authority to shoot down Flight 77, why not send up escorts planes? Isn't that in fact how police and the military routinely handle hijack situations - by mobilizing a potentially overwhelming force in the hope of getting the hijacker to surrender?
Why, as Mr. Cheney claims, would there have been "no point" in trying this tactic in the case of Flight 77? Weren't many human lives at stake? Isn't that "a point"?]]
In a nutshell – the more difficult question of whether the aircraft should have or could been shot down, is completely irrelevant to the question of why the air force didn’t do the first part of its job. Routine interception, something which is activated whenever a plane goes off course regardless of any concerns of hostile intent , a procedure which had been used 67 times in the previous 10 months.
Architect doesn’t even understand the difference between “intercepting” and “shooting down”.
Perhaps his post had to be authorized by Cheney’s office, since Cheney is also somewhat confused about the difference.
[[I'd want to see information regarding the positioning of intercept aircraft]]
Two squadrons of fighter jets in a state of permanent readiness at Andrews airbase, only 10 miles form the pentagon, for the specific purpose of protecting DC and surrounding areas, according to the US military’s own website.
Neaqrly an hour’s warning and they all stayed on the ground. Architect actually doesn’t want to see this information.
[[But all I get are glib, unsubstantiated statements about "the most heavily defended airspace in the world".]]
No, that’s architects little conspiracy theory. Here is the tightest research one could ask for on this question. The source is the US military’s own website ! Along with FAA regulations. All the sources are provided in the following series of articles.
Guilty For 9-11:Part 1. Bush, Rumsfeld, Myers, by Illarion Bykov and Jared
Israel, 14 Nov 2001
Guilty for 9/11 Mr. Cheney's Cover up -- Part 2 of Guilty For 9-11, 20 Nov
2001
9-ll:Ho hum, nothing urgent, by George Szamuely, Research & documentation
by Illarion Bykov and Jared Israel, Jan 2002
Frequently asked questions on 9/11
Planes "did scramble " on 9/11,they just " arrived late "
Scrambled Messages, by George Szamuely, 12 Dec 2001
Russian Air Force chief says official 9/11 story impossible
Scrambling of fighter jets to intercept stray aircraft is a routine procedure.
Here's an example of how routine it is.
Jet Sent to probe Fla. Gov. Plane. Netscape news. May 15 2003.
The procedures were already in place before Sept 11 2001.
They were implememnted 67 times in the 10 months between September 2000 and June 2001.
CBS News. Scrambling to prevent another 9/11 Aug 14 2002
ABC News Jets on high Alert. Aug 13 2002.
Military now notified immediately of unusual air traffic events. Aug 12 2002
Since this research has been in the public domain for more than four years, Architect is a little slow on the uptake – or else really not interested at all.
Architect then completes the post by returning to his area of scientific expertise, the WTC demolition
[[But come on, even your average house fire burns for hours and it doesn't have all that jet fuel to help it along.]]
Since it didn’t take “hours” for either of the buildings to come down, this comment is about as relevant as
[[I don't know how hard it is to fly a plane into a tower block. ]]
So, these were the “points” made in Architects first post.
What exactly did he expect Greg to respond to ? This is drivel of the lowest order.
Nevertheless, I’ve stooped to responding to it now, because this kind of racist conspiracy theory drivel about mad Arabs with their wild eyes and tiny little knives coming to kill us all is all too common from brain dead morons who don’t even know the difference between interception and shooting down. Do you watch a lot of cartoons, by any chance, Architect ?
Now that we’ve see Architects own meticulous standards of documentation, he snipes.
[[Aha, our old pal Kevin [Ryan]. Sorry mate. Not a credible source. He makes statements and never backs them up. No references. No hard data.]]
Now I’ve just counted up the total number of [[references]] in Architects posts. In this thread. Architect has made 17 posts. The total number of references supplied for any of his statements are zero, nil, naught, zip, nothing, zilch, bugger all, a big fat donut.
There’s a few links which purport to support his conspiracy theory about the collpase, but when you look at them they are nothing to do with it.
In fact lets have a look at his references. It’s quite a laugh. Boasting of “experts” he gives us this link.
What a scream ! Here is a quote from the idiot cited by Architect as an “expert.”
[[ "The fire wasn't hot enough to melt the steel"
There has never been a claim that the steel melted in the fire before the buildings collapsed,]]
Oh really ? For an “expert “ he is remarkably ill-informed on the state of the debate.
For example.
On Sept 12 2001, the Arizona Daily Wildcat reported in an article titled “Intense heat melted steel supports in Trade Center”
[[Richard Ebeltoft, a structural engineer and University of Arizona architecture lecturer, speculated that flames fueled by thousands of gallons of aviation fuel melted the buildings steel supports.]]
On Sept 13, the BBC agreed
[[the towers' ultimate collapse was inevitable, as the steel cores inside them reached temperatures of 800C...
Temperatures at 800C
But as fires raged in the towers, driven by aviation fuel, the steel cores in each building would have eventually reached 800C - hot enough to start buckling and collapsing...
... "It was the fire that killed the buildings. There's nothing on earth that could survive those temperatures with that amount of fuel burning," said structural engineer Chris Wise.
"The columns would have melted, the floors would have melted and eventually they would have collapsed one on top of each other."
The buildings' construction manager, Hyman Brown, agreed that nothing could have saved them from the inferno... steel melts, and 24,000 gallons (91,000 litres) of aviation fluid melted the steel. Nothing is designed or will be designed to withstand that fire."
Once the steel frame on one floor had melted, it collapsed downwards, inflicting massive forces on the already-weakened floor below. ]]
In Oct 2002, the tribune of India claimed
[["The explosion on account of the aviation fuel resulted in fires which created extremely high temperatures, as high as 2000°C, which resulted in melting of the steel and sagging and breaking down of the reinforced concrete floors. The molten steel resembled lava and started flowing down."]]
So – “There has never been a claim that the steel melted in the fire before the buildings collapsed”
This is the kind of crap that Architect posts as “expert opinion”.
At this point it is instructive to quote an observation about how conspiracy theorists operate -from my previously posted article “Watch out for mad conspiracy theories”
“one of the curious characteristics of conspiracy theorists is that they effortlessly change their so called evidence in response to each aspect which is debunked. As soon as one delusion is unmasked, they simply invent another to replace it, and deny that the first ever existed.
"We never said that the steel melted ! We never claimed that ! "
Lets have a look at the next piece of drivel linked by architect as a “reference”.
This is about the sum total of it’s “substance”.
"Once high temperatures weakened the towers' supporting steel structures, it was only a matter of time until the mass of the stories above initiated a rapid sequence 'pancaking' phenomena in which floor after floor was instantly crushed and then sent into near free fall to the ground below. In general, the panalists agreed that as the structure warped and weakened at the top of each tower, the frame, along with the concrete slabs, furniture, file cabinets and other materials, became an enormous consolidated weight that eventually crushed the lower portions of the structure below."
Yes, we all know what the stupid conspiracy theory is. Simply repeating the claim doesn’t make it true. Hee hee ! This is what Architect calls a scientific paper.
Now, Architect, if you believe that I have dishonestly omitted anything of significance from that link, which would elevate the drivel above to anything other than unsubstantiated opinon, please do quote it. (Snigger).
How about the next link ?
Page not found.
How about the next link ?
Page not found.
How about the next link ?
Bear in mind that this link was cited by architect with the following words
[[So what we had was a large-scale, fairly uniformly spread fire (thanks to the nature of the impact and vapourisation characteristics) acting on lightly protected structural steelwork over a period of several hours. It then understandably failed.
Now, some professional and academic links which support this:]]
And yet what does it say on page 8 in the introduction to this linked report ?
“The purpose of this report is not to describe the causes of the collapse of the World Trade center, but rather to describe the general damage that was observed at ground zero.”
Hee hee ! Scrathcing around for “expert opinions, eh Archtitect ? So desperate that you linked a report which was nothing to do with the issue in dispute and fraudulently presented it as relevant.
How about the next link ?
It also doesn’t involve any assessment of collaopse methods. There’s the usual 1 paragraph of drivel, saying it crushed itself. No substance at all.
This is what the conspiracy theorists call “documentation.” Just other conspiracy theorists repeating the same garbage.
Because they do not have a shred of evidence to support their racist cartoon fantasy, they just spam the comments column with sheer volume and throw down some links – chosen almost at random - that have nothing to do with the issue at hand – to try to cre4ate the superficial impression thatthey’ve presented documentation.
The results are always amusing when you actually open thier links.
Compare that with the series of TENC articles linked above, where everything is meticulously referenced- and relevant.
Apart from this drivel, Architects 17 posts contain a total of two links. One is a Rense article , which he links so that he can laugh at it, and the other is the list of the “Scholars for truth” members, so that he can laugh at them.
This of course does not count as [[hard data]] or a [[credible source]] for any of the things which Architect might decide to make up and [[never backs them up]].
Lets take a look at what passes for a [[credible source]] for Architect over the course of 17 pieces of drivel. The [[credible source]] is …himself.
[[But those of us who work in construction know that steel can… I've seen (but never participated in) explosive demolition and know how difficult it is… I was at a professional presentation/seminar this evening which included, amongst other things, video of some Glasgow tower blocks getting brought down by controlled explosion a couple of years ago. And do you know, it struck me just how unlike the twin tower collapse they were... But what do I know? I'm just a dumb architect… I only comment on the structural/fire engineering aspects because that's where my professional knowledge lies… Of course, maybe the structural mechanics I got taught… Working on the perspective of someone who's actually been trained and thereafter worked extensively on tall building design… Just as a final aside, I remember standing with the other architects in the office on 11-9, watching a very slow and clearly much over-subscribed website of the impact and fires. One of us (can't remember who) said "That's going to come down". Know what? We all knew he was right. And he was…]]
Well ! There’s [[hard data]] for you ! There’s a [[credible source]] This isn’t someone who just makes stuff up and [[never backs it up]]. How we do know. ? Because he’s an expert. And how do we know that? Because any anonymous IMC troll hiding behind the nom de plume of “Architect” who fraudulently presents links which have nothing to do with the debate and tries to pretend that they qualify as documentation must telling the truth. If he says he’s an expert, then he is.
I have news for you Architect. I saw the Loch ness monster. And since I am a qualified herpetologist, I can verify that it’s real. So that’s that question settled. After all, no one in the comments column wiould IMC would just make stuff up like [[I was at a professional presentation/seminar this evening which included, amongst other things, video of some Glasgow tower blocks getting brought down by controlled explosion ]], would they ?
This is how conspiracy theorists set their "documentation standards." They hide hide annonymity and then just make stuff up while boasting about being experts and claiming “I know these things because I know more than you”
And then think that anyone is going to be stupid enough to believe that this idiot actually knows anyuthing about structural issues.
And clearly Architect doesn’t know diddly squat about science. Let’s have a good laugh at his next clanger.
[[I think you've made a rather glaring error, friend. An object in free fall accelerates at 10m/s-2. So, say, an object falling for 10seconds will travel 500m. Of course this may reduce due to terminal velocity, friction, and other factors. The towers were around 400m tall, hence a collapse does not in fact breach any fundamental laws of physics.
But there's a more obvious error in your side swipe at me. It would still collapse at the same rate whether it had been explosively demolished or whatever. Gravity would act in exactly the same way!
Keep studying for the o-grades, mate.]]
Dear oh, dear ! Gravity is not 10m/sec2 but 9.81m/sec2
Physics for beginners.
"The actual acceleration is 9.81 (m/sec)/sec"
And that’s in a vacuum. For the benefit of “architect” a “vacuum means - apart from his cranIal cavity - no air to provide resistance –so in the real world the rate is a little slower.
The tower was not 400 m.
The shorter of the two towers was 1362 ft
Which is 412.7 m
So using the correct figure for gravity – which Architect could have obtained from the “Physics for beginners” site, an object falling for 10 secs would travel actually travel 490 m – a bit less due to air resistance.
This is obtained by the formula d= 1/2gtsq, where d = distance, g = 9.81, t = time.
So the extra 77m between the tower height and how far something could fall in a vaccum was dishionestly fudged to 100m by Archtitect , through overstating the speed of gravitational accelaration and understating the height of the tower.
But his dishonesty on that point is incidental. Here's the main point.
The extra 77 m might sound like a lot, but the reason that architect has expressed it this way is to create a false impression. This is because the speed of a free falling object keeps increasing, which means that just a little more time will result in a lot more distance. For example, using the formula t = sq/root of 2gd/g, where t= time and d = distance and g = gravity (9.81m/s)., we see that an object falling 412.7 m in vacuum would take 9.17 secs, wheras double this distance – 825 m - would only take 12.97 secs. So its absolutely meaningless to measure it the way that architect did.
A far more honest way is to measure how long a free fall in a vaccum would take for the height of the building in question - 412.7m.
It's 9.17 secs.
Since it fell in about 11 secs, this means that if the building was smashing through its own structure, only about 1.8 seconds of total time was added for resistance. An average of about 0.018 second for each floor. Yeah, right !.
Think about that for a moment. Under the ridiculous pancake theory, the higher floor falls on to the lower floor and smashes it. The gravitational acceleration is interrupted by two factors.
One -is the fact that even if the lower floor miracuilously detached itself just before being hit, so there was zero structural resitance, you still have the slowing effect of the moving mass colliding with a stationary mass. This is extremely singificant. For example, in theory, the speed of collpase would be halved when the first collision occured, then reduced by 1/3 in the next collision, then by a quarter in the next collision, etc. The reason that the slowing effect becomes less with each progressive pancake is that the mass of falling material is becoming larger compared to the mass of struck material.
Of course, in a real situation it wouldn't be as simple as one monolithic slab colliding with another, but this gives us some kind of idea of how significantly the acceleration would be slowed at each pancake.
And this is assuming *zero* structural resistance ! One you factor that in too, then the idea of each pancake only increasing the fall time an average of 0.018 secs is as bad a cartoon as the mythical plane into pentagon.
If each pancake added just 0.1 second on average, that gives us a total fall time of around 20 secs. Anyone who wants to argue about this is a complete loony.
So they fell in effectively the same time as a free fall, which simply ends the argument, about the ludicrous pancake theory. By definition, it can’t pancake without resistance, since the whole idea is that the floors above smash the floors below. And there was effectively no resistance. And in addition, if there was no resistance, what made, the huge clouds of dust that came pouring out during the collpase? I see, it fell with no resitance, while at the same time creating so much resistance that much of the concrete was ground into fine dust on the way down? Movinf right along...
Forget the engineering arguments. The pancake theory is impossible under the laws of gravity.
But here’s the really funny part.
[[But there's a more obvious error in your side swipe at me. It would still collapse at the same rate whether it had been explosively demolished or whatever. Gravity would act in exactly the same way!
Keep studying for the o-grades, mate.]]
Hee hee heee ! Ha ha haa haa ! Architect “thinks” that a building smashing through it own structure – steel and concrete - falls at the same speed as something falling through air! Hee hee ! Ha hah ha !
Now tell me architect. That cornflakes packet where you got your science brain out of… I sure hope that the cornflakes tasted good . Because the science brain wasn’t worth the cost of the packet – even if they were giving them away.
Have you considered a lobotomy ? being unable to form any thoughts at all would be a considerable step up from this hilarity.
A building, smashing through its own structure at the same speed as falling through air. Hee hee hee !
Moron ! If the govt is paying you guys anything at all, then they are wasting their money.
Here’s a little experiment for you, architect. Drop yourself on your head from a height of 412 m and measure the time taken. Then do it again, this time smashing your way through bricks and concrete etc, all the way down and see if the second time only takes 1.8 secs longer. The reason that I have suggested you for this experiment is that you could clearly do this to your head without causing any damage.
[[So what we had was a large-scale, fairly uniformly spread fire (thanks to the nature of the impact and vapourisation characteristics) acting on lightly protected structural steelwork over a period of several hours. It then understandably failed.]]
“Over a period of several hours “ That’s funny. Because the Sth tower went down 56 minutes after being hit, and the Nth tower 1 hr and 43 minutes.
Do conspiracy theorists work on different time definitions? This might explain how they manage to work out that a building smashing through its own structure will fall at the same speed as if falling through air.
This might explain why they use funny figures for gravitational acceleration. They don’t have 60 minutes in the hour. They work on conspiracy time.
This pure drivel demonstrates the utter stupidity of the racist, cartoon fantasy about the Arab boogie man with his tiny knife coming to a flight near you.
Hey Architect ! Did someone with a turban frighten you when you were little ?
Gerard Holmgren
e-mail:
holmgren@iinet.net.au
Homepage:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren
More stupidity from Architect
18.02.2006 13:57
[[Mention the flying pod again, on you go.... ]]
Earlier we saw that after all this controversy , Architerct doesn;t even know the difference between interception and shooting down.
He's also too stupid to know the difference between a Plane with a "pod" and no plane.
The pod theory is crap. It's almost as stupid as the mad Arab hijacker conspiricaty theory.
Although not as stupid as the idea that a building crushing itself by smashing through its own structure falls at the same speed as as if falling through air.
Hee hee heee! You still sticking to that one, Architect ? Ha haa ha !
Just as he falsely calimed docuimentation which had nothing to do with his "argument", Architect now falsely attributes to WF the ridiculous pod theory.
This is the sitaution. The video of the Nth tower hit shows quite clearly that the object is not a large passenger jet, and not a conventional plane of any sort.
The Sth tower hit superficially looks like a large jet, but it is a faked video. There is nop real plane there. The real object is masked by the animated plane.
We can't prove what the object is because we can;t see it, but it seems reasonable to assume that it's the same thng which hit the Nth tower.
For those who haven;t seen this evidence, much of it is complied here
Also, here is official documentation that there were no such flights as AA11 and 77 that day.
Also, independent of the above evidence, here is proof that the media published fabricated passenger lists for the mythical AA 11.
Gerard Holmgren
e-mail:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren
Re: Gerard Holmgren - For the Record: Can he refute Dr. Greening's Papers?
18.02.2006 16:15
#22 - "Repeating Falsehoods" - Dated 28.01.2006
#33 - "Skepticism or Denial?" - 29.01.2006
#39 - "re: Somebody is Lying" - 29.01.2006
#59 - "Re: Prof. Steven Jones gets reinforcements" - 30.01.2006
#87 - "The 9/11 Denial Movement is unable to respond" - 06.02.2006
#90 - "re: Dr. Greening 07.02.2006, plus Dr. Annoye's extensive discussion in #89
#92 - "Re: More support....breaking news - 09.02.2006
Why do I list these posts? Because, today, 18.02.06, Gerard Holmgrem appears on this with this statement "I’ve been quietly observing this debate for a while."
On 13.02.06, I replied to a post mentioning Gerard Holmgren here:
--------
Gerard wrote
"Only a controlled demolition explains both. As I said before, this isn’t open to argument. When you find proof you have a right to state it as such."
[Gerard]
There's just one problem with Gerard's claims - it isn't true.
Of course his claims are open to argument! There are alternative explanations that explain the collapse of the towers without the need of introducing explosive demolitions.
For instance there are these papers:
There are also numerous papers on the chemsitry of the dust and debris that show no evidence of explosives. A sampling:
Unfortunately, Gerard Holmgren has often resorted to making unfounded assertions like something "isn’t open to argument." As someone unqualified in the science of physics, chemistry, structural engineering, and forensics science, Gerard has made mistake after mistake in his papers on the subject of 9/11 since he started writing four years ago.
His habit of making such assertions and ignoring inconvenient evidence was demonstrated in 2002 when he was unable to address crucial questions questionning specifics of his paper on the Pentagon attack. Instead of addressing them - as any scientist would - he simply asserted he was right and terminated the conversation.
On top of his lack of qualifications, his dodging serves only to discredit his papers.
You may pass on my links to Gerard and ask if he will concede that his claims are still not open to argument.
Gerard, of course, is welcome - if not obligated - to address the papers on the collapses I've linked to above and either refute them or demonstrate scientifically why they are wrong.
--------
On 14.02.06 I e-mailed Gerard Holmgren this:
Just a heads-up that you have your work cut out for you:
Good luck.
S. King
------
Gerard Holmgren's response?
"So you think the law of gravity doesn’t exist ?"
My reply? "You're on the line for having to deal with Dr. Greening's papers and actual physics, Gerard. As much as you will now try to evade it.
"You no longer can run away from the laws of gravity - or physics, chemistry, structural engineering, or forensic science. Or evidence."
During the next several days of exchange, Gerard Holmgren responded repeatedly thusly:
"Can you quote the exact text of Dr Greening which deals with the near speed of gravity collapse issue ?
"His papers don’t address the near free-fall collapse issue. That’s why there’s nothing to refute. Of course, if you claim that they do address that issue, you could quote the section that I’ve missed, couldn’t you?
"Quote the section and give the page number of the relevant then."
"Tell me which paper, on what page, and give me the link and I’ll look at it."
"There is a link to several papers. The first link doesn’t open. The others I looked at and they don’t address the free fall issue.
"You claim that they do. So just in case I missed something and just in case you are telling the truth for a change, I’ve asked you tell me which of those papers specifically addresses it and on what page, and I’ll have a look."
"If your next email does not contain the information I asked for, I will block your address."
"It isn’t - as I just explained. So I have now blocked your address.
"So Kris [?], we are at the road’s end. If you lie too outrageously about what transpired in this conversation, I will publish the entire exchange – word for word - on my site. Salter made the mistake of lying in public about our email exchange and finished up the loser for it when I posted the entire exchange word for word. So be careful."
(Who Kris is, I have not a clue.)
---
This after repeatedly pointing out that he had the links to Dr. Greenings paper and didn't need me to quote what was there for him to refute directly.
So why is Holmgren's statement, "I’ve been quietly observing this debate for a while," so interesting? Obviously, he has known about Dr.Greening's papers from this site alone "for a while."
So we can fairly ask this question of Holmgren's claims here: "His papers don’t address the near free-fall collapse issue. That’s why there’s nothing to refute."
Is there REALLY nothing for Gerard Holmgren to refute in Dr. Greening's papers, particularly since he is attacking Architect on the very issues Dr. Greening deals with in his papers?
S. King
e-mail:
skyking@scientist.com
re: The Perps Knew
18.02.2006 16:36
"Because we are decent people we have trouble remembering that there are skin-wearing humans behind every lie and every plot. I may have identified Sky King on break:
Your fairy-tale website speaks for itself, webfairy. It's one of the more amusing of the 9/11 Denial Movement sites.
That you can't actually deal with physics, structural engiennering, chemsitry, forensic science, identifying aircraft, or any knowledge of video certainly propels you to make puerile statements like the one above.
I'll make sure to nominate your site for inclusion on CrankDotNet's site of "cranks, crackpots, kooks & loons on the net" here:
You'll be right at home with Gerard Holmgren, Peter Meyer, Muhammad Columbo, and all the prime kooks of the 9/11 Denial Movement.
Cheers
S. King
e-mail:
skyking@scientist.com
re: Magic Photoshop Planes
18.02.2006 17:37
"Here's a comparison pair of images by Marcus Icke, on the left, a PHOTO of the actual thing, on the right, a *CGI* of what a 767 WOULD have looked like in the same frame:
That's an old one. You're way behind the times
There are lots of people claiming what a 767 "would have looked like", including this one which refutes yours:
But real investigators aren't interested in amateurs playing with photoshop. They know that that videos and photo are only a small part of evidence. They are interested in ALL the physical evidence which the 9/11 Denial Movement is having a tough time refuting.
Just like your failure to make a case above, Ray.
S. King
e-mail:
skyking@scientist.com
SkyKing PerpSpeak
18.02.2006 20:59
The Salters took refuge in CostaRica once their Perpspeak subterfuge was exposed.
Click "Salter Debates" to watch these rollicking funsters declare that planes can look whatever size they feel like, and disappear like Cheshire Cats too.
Perspective is a Law of Nature.
No amount of bluster or intimidation changes the simple fact that objects look bigger when they are closer and appear to get smaller as they recede into the distance.
"Experts" lost in a cartoon world where big and little switch values for political convenience are experts at wanking and not much else.
If there had been a plane in the first hit footage, it would never have looked smaller than the plane shape hole.
All agree that the Plane Shape Hole is the size and even the shape of a 767.
The building is the most distant point shown, so if it had been in the footage at all, the plane would have appeared larger than the plane shape hole every frame of the way.
Video forensics is not "speculative." It is the sort of time proven evidence that has been admissible in court as PROOF since it was invented. It is the same stuff folks watch during their football games after a big play.
Nobody ever says the pixels fell off the football, and the real ball was invisable, but the other team caught it. The sort of nonsense illogic has been applied to the 911 videos all along, just because they don't show what you want to see, or expect to see.
They are the final proof you were lied to.
Noticing you were lied to takes five minutes.
Living with the lies unchallenged takes your whole life.
When the fate of humanity rests on trauma conditioned schnookiedupes who think they saw Network Cartoons in real life, we are really doomed, and the only comfort left is you are just as doomed as anybody else.
You're invited to play "Find The Plane"
The images are 1/60th of a second apart, from DVD footage of known provenance.
Get the Naudet 911 Directors cut DVD and use the slow motion / stop action/ zoom controls to double check my work.
Rosalee Grable
e-mail:
webfairy@thewebfairy.com
Homepage:
http://thewebfairy.com/911
In the loony land of Sky Cretin's conspiracy theory
18.02.2006 21:18
Like his fellow conspiracy theorist Architect, Sky Cretin also thinks that a building crushing itself from the top down falls at the same speed as if falling through air.
Oooh hoo hooo ! Hee hee ! Haa ha haa !
Sky Cretin - your handlers are on the phone. And they're not happy !
I sympathize, I really do. A conspiracy theory advocate in your position wold be quite justified is complaining to the boss
"Well what do expect, when you give us such a crappy story to defend ? You seriously expect us to say something sensible?"
But I guess its one of life's little injustices that you have to bite your tongue, and say "Sorry sir, I promise it wont happen again."
But it may be too late. Fixing you with a steely stare, the boss says "we do not tolerate failure" , and opens the trapdoor that goes into the sharkpit.
"Sky Cretin replacement, step forward ! "
"Yes sir ! "
Do better than that moron who preceeded you ."
"Yes sir!"
So tell us Sky Cretin. Are you still the same one as before ? What's the average life expetency before being trapdoored into to the shark pit ?
Do you also think that gravity is 10m/sec2 ? (Snigger )
Do you also think that the building was only 400m tall? (snigger)
Do you also think that they burned for "several hours" before collpasing ? Was there some kind of time warp on the day, so that "several hours" took place inside 56 minutes? (snigger)
Do you also nobody ever claimed that fire melted the steel ? (snigger)
Are you also too stupid to know the difference between interception and shooting down ? (snigger)
Are you also so ill-informed that you didn;t even know about Andrews air base, just 10 mmiles from the pentagon with two squadrons of fighter jets available on Sept 11 - that being documented from the US military's own website ?
This has to be the dumbest conspiracy theory ever concocted.
Back in 2002, there was another piece of hilarity from one of the previous Sky Cretins which probably also led to the shark pit.
I pointed out that the mythical plane which the conspiracy loonies think hit the pentagon had a wingspan of 125 ft - to make a hole 16 ft wide, had a tail height of 40 ft, to make a hole about 20 ft high, and was 155 ft long but was supposed to squeeze into a space about 65 ft deep - and didn't leave any wreckage outside.
Sky Cretin claimed it happend anyway - because Bush and Cheney told him it did.
So I asked him if he acknowledged that a plane of that dimesion couldn't fit into a hole of that dimension. He twisted and turned and slithered and slid, shrilly demanding to know my level of science qualifications to able to make such a calculation.
Heee heee hee ! What level of science qualifications is needed to know that 125 ft doesn't fit into 16 ? Most people have worked this out with their kindergarten building blocks.
Perhaps Sky Cretin -missed that of his education - he was too busy reading racist conspiracy theory literature and bullying the Arabic kids at the kindergarten.
Anyway, after much desperate evasion from the Sky Cretin creature, I suggested that he build himself a small scale model and test it himself, trying to fit the model plane into the hole made to scale.
Here's what the idiot replied. He said that he ackolwedged that in a small scale model, the plane wouldnt fit but if you enlarrged the model in proprtion it would fit, once it reached real world scale.
Hee hee ! Haa haaa !
Needless to say, that particular version of the Sky Cretin creature has long been gone to the shark pit.
Now we have buildings which crush themselves from above at the same speed as if they are falling through air !
Ooh hooo hoo ! Haa haa !
What science school did they teach this at Sky Cretin ? Was it the same one which taught you that gravity is 10m/sec2 ? (snigger)
Gerard Holmgren
e-mail:
holmgfen@iinet.net.au
Homepage:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren
Brief Comment on Current Debate
18.02.2006 23:31
IMC Mods, is this thread really appropriate on a news site?
Amused
Name Calling ?
19.02.2006 07:24
Such an unattractive phrase...I can't think wehere I picked it up from.
Already the spooks are crying and yammering and wailing and whinging and whining and begging and pleading for "moderation" - read "censorship".
They dish out the ad hominen, the lies, the distortions the misattributions, the name calling ,with scant regard for protocol but as soon as they run out of meaningless drivel and start losing the debate , they run off blubbering, complaing that it's not fair that they should have to drink their own medicine, and demanding protection through censorship.
Boo hoo ! Did I make the little conspiwacy thoewist cwy then ?
Back to the main point.
This is why you should go to Greg's march if you can and spread the news to others.
What really happened on sept 11
Summary article
Detailed research and documetation
Other articles
Dinsinfo with the "truth" movement
Gerard Holmgren
e-mail:
holmgren@iinet.net.au
Homepage:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren
Aye, Right
19.02.2006 10:48
Now the first thing that I think we would all acknowledge is that the technical issues are indeed very complex. To put this in perspective, in the UK it takes at least 7 years of undergraduate and postgraduate study to become an architect, with training in fields such as structural mechanics and fire engineering a compulsory component. Likewise structural engineering - a minimum of 5 years. And these are just the basics - anyone specialising in -say - fire engineering, tall or historic buildings will go through significant further training.
Now these courses are not so long because everyone is down the Union having beers 24/7. It's because there is a lot of complex, interalted information to observe and understand. Plastic and elastic design of structures, for example (don't laugh at the titles) have markedly different approaches.
So the first issue we have to consider is the straightforward credibility of the sources commenting on the causes of collapse. Are these people likely to have a sufficient understanding of the issues involved in order to comment meaningfully?
If we look at the likes of Gerald's site, what we find - at best - are partly educated laymen and at worst DIY structures. Whilst there may be a few genius' out there who haver managed to self educate themselves to even undergraduate level, they are few and far between. That is not to say that they are necessarily incorrect, but rather that their evidence must be treated with the greatest caution.
Now lets take a look at some of those "experts" which those in the pro-conspiracy camp found upon: (
Victoria Ashley- Architecture and physiological psychology
Robert M. Bowman - Former Director of the U.S. "Star Wars" Space Defense Program
Len Bracken - Credentialed Journalist
Clare Brandabur- Assistant Pofessor of English Literature
Fred Burks - Language interpreter
Frank Carmen - Physics Ph.D., BYU
Erik Champenois - Student, BYU
Muhammad Columbo - Graduate Engineer Electronics
Scott Daniel - Physics and Astronomy, BYU
Lloyd DeMause - Director of The Institute for Psychohistory
Eric Douglas - Architect
James H. Fetzer - Professor of Philosophy
Don Jacobs - Professor of educational leadership
Wayne Madsen - Investigative Journalist (and prolific web-site article author)
Harry Stottle - Philosopher, Author, Computer Consultant, Inventor. Phew!
Interesting list of "expert" qualifications, eh?
Victora Ashley and Eric Douglas don't appear on the AIA online register, nor do they flag up on Google or normal architectural sites as having built anything (especially tall structures), so don't get too excited about them yet.
On the other hand, what do the professionals bring to the field?
Well, for example, we have Dave Scott at Arup's USA office. Chairman of " the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, an international body and leading independent authority on planning, design, construction and operation of tall buildings and urban areas". Moving away from the States to here in the UK, David has a London-based team dealing with a wide range of buildings from Glasgow to Hong Kong.
Now if I want an expert on high buildings, that's who I'm going to listed to. And indeed, his London team are doin the structural work on 2 buildings for me at the moment.
The only broadly source which any of you on the pro-conspiracy side of things have managed to come up with is Dr. Jonathan Barnett (thanks, Joe). Jonathon is interesting because he was actually part of the Building Performance Assessment Team organised by the American Society of Civil Engineers for FEMA during the investigation (
There are approximately 31,000 trained architects in the UK alone (www.arb.org.uk), all of whom will have studied for at least seven years. The Institute of Civil Engineers has 77,000 members whilst the Institute of Structural Engineers has over 20,000. One might expect comparable numbers per head of population in other developed countries.
So before we start tackling Gerald and Gregg's straw man arguments, lets ask ourselves another simple question. Just how has the "offical conspiracy" managed to dupe all these drained professionals and qualified academics? If it is so "obvious" that the collapse is "impossible" then where is the professional dissent?
Architect
Back to Business Part II
19.02.2006 16:47
Gerald has, neverthless, set himself up as an expert and I think it only fair that we subject his paper up to the same level of scrutiny as we would expect of an academic or professional aspect.
Lets look at some of Gerald's pet hypotheses.
1. Severe fires have burnt in other tower blocks before, without wholesale structural collapse.
This is correct, however the comparison is not helpful. Before we can draw any serious conclusions from this soundbite, we would need to see much more back up.No information is given as to the nature of the fires or the form and structure of the buildings. What structural damage occured at each? Is Gerald suggesting that each was structurally intact?
The same problem occurs with the Windsor built, oft-quoted as a comparator. Yet the Windsor building was concrete framed with intermediate columns on the main floor plate. Concrete is much more fire resistant, and in fact those of you in Manchester will see one of my projects crawling up the skyline every day. Incidentally steel was used at Windsor, on the exteriors, and it did partially collapse.
In any event, none of the other tall buildings that went on fire had a pile of their structure taken out by an impacting aircraft.
2. Fires are not sufficiently hot to weaken steel to the point of collapse.
This is wholly incorrect, in fact is culpably reckless, and I've rattled on at length before on this very point. Nevertheless lets cover the same tired old ground. First of all, lets look at some building regulations the world over.
The Scottish Regs, section D, are a bit detailed -
In England, Part B of the Regs flags up a similar position - its not available on-line free but Corus (who do know a thing about steel) have a useful and relatively non-technical summary at
The Canadian Regs aren't available on-line free either, but their national buildings institute flags up across all their documents the risk posed by fire and the need for protection - see, by way of example,
The New Zealand and Australian steel codes, (SNZ, 1997 and SAA 1990) are very
similar to each other. The NZ regs section C4 requires....wait for it......structural protection of steel in fire (
Now what is required to protect steel against even a domestic fire for, say, half an hour. British Gypsum give us a useful summary, but similar advice permeats construction advice around the globe:
Further afield, a lot of bodies and firms focus on the fire performance of steel:
Then we have this helpful thesis by an engineer in NZ:
Note in particular the strength/temperature/yield grading charts
This UK paper is rather illuminating. Note that the example they use does not in fact collapse due to a normal - lets stress that - fire loadings but does deform significantly. The summary does also flag up the need to consider the impact of fire after an explosion, I would suggest for fairly obvious reasons.
Now if Gerald is right, and fire cannot cause structural failure in steel structures, then you've got to hand it to these Neo-Con dudes - they've managed to dupe the entire construction industry the world over! Years in advance! Draw your own conclusions.
3. A pancake collapse in 11 seconds is impossible because of resistance as each floor hits the next, hence it has to be a controlled explosion acting uniformly on the structure at the same time.
There are a number of major problems with these statements. First and foremost, Gerald himself can't tell us how long a pancake collapse would take to occur because "there are too many variables to calculate the exact minimum time possible". Aye, nice one mate.
But lets consider how a pancake collapse occurs. If it were just one floor of structure moving, then there is a chance that the structure below might just be able to take it, given dead load safety factors and the like. However there wasn't just one floor moving downwards...instead we had hundreds of tonnes of concrete steel, and fittings accelerating at 10ms-2 (oops 9.81 ms-2, sorry Gerald). That's a lot of momentum. Oh the first few floors might arrest the fall marginally, but after that it's not even going to break stride.
Of course, Gerald's listed sources don't believe in pancake collapse at all. Unlike the construction industry, or those who work in earthquake zones. Or the residents of Ronan Point, presumably.
Then look at alternative. Explosive demolition of every floor at the exect same moment, in order that the structure goes straight into free fall. Wow. Well Gerald, I've not had to specify explosive demolition but unlike you I have had the advantage of seeing the work it takes first hand. Tell me - how did government "contractors" get access to every significant floor plate, structural column, and joint necessary all without anyone noticing? How long did this take? What PROOF have you got that such a thing ever took place?
Gerald's "evidence" is full of this kind of wooly, unsupported tosh.
Architect
Keystone conspiracy theorists.
19.02.2006 21:09
[[ It would still collapse at the same rate whether it had been explosively demolished or whatever. Gravity would act in exactly the same way! ]]
Haa haa haa ! Buildings which smash through their own structure at the same speed as falling through air ! Heee heee heee !
Tell me architect, in all those years of painstaking study, did they ever teach you about something called the law of conservation energy ? Heee heee !
I see that architect has finally learned the correct figure for gravitation acceleration.
Perhaps he went to the "Physics for beginners site" as I recommended to check it. I recommend that he spend a lot more time on that site.
It might explain the law of conservation of energy on there, although most people have worked this out in the real world by about the age of 5.
Architect actually admitted that most of his structures don't even stand up, since most of his time in the "construction" industry is spent thinking about the projects which fall down.I'd be curious to know how he keeps getting jobs with a record like that.
Anyway, enough on the demolition of the WTC. The conspiracy theorists have been well beaten on that. Lets move on to some different aspects of.
Architect accidentally said something almost true. He has spent a fair bit of time dissing the "Scholars for truth" as if the proof for Sept 11 being a frame up depended on that bunch of johnny-come -lately idiots. In fact, some of them are working for the same people as Sky Cretin and archtitect.
See my demolition of the pompous self styled " Scholars for truth" here.
911 Scholars for plagiarism and disinformation.
Since none of them did any original research on Sep 11 and most of them don;t even understand the research which has been done, why are they even part opf the discussion ?
Architect has failed to address the proof that no planes hit any buildings that day.
Some of that work in relation to the WTC is detailed here.
In fact lets look at architect's rigrous examination of this issue, thus far. Quoted in total, not a word missing or changed.
[[Mention the flying pod again, on you go.... ]]
Rivetting stuff, to be sure. A thorough and meticulous deconstruction! Except - opps - he weasn;even attacking the right work.
Since we're actually saying that the pod theory is a load of crap, that it's actually an animation, then Architect is off to a bad start. He didn;t even know what he was disagreeing with. I'll do him a favour. Like a Keystone cop who has to be turned around in the right direction to see which bad guy he's supposed to chase after, I'll now point him in the right direction, where he can already see his buddy Sky Cretin sprawled falt on his face after just 1 step into the chase.
Lets start with the pentagon. Lets repeat Sky Cretins claim in relation to that. I can supply the link if Sky cretin wants to dispute that this is his poition, but here I'll paraphrase, by means of repeating my previous summary, which I note that sky Cretin has failed to dispute thus far.
"I pointed out that the mythical plane which the conspiracy loonies think hit the pentagon had a wingspan of 125 ft - to make a hole 16 ft wide, had a tail height of 40 ft, to make a hole about 20 ft high, and was 155 ft long but was supposed to squeeze into a space about 65 ft deep - and didn't leave any wreckage outside.
Sky Cretin claimed it happened anyway - because Bush and Cheney told him it did.
So I asked him if he acknowledged that a plane of that dimension couldn't fit into a hole of that dimension. He twisted and turned and slithered and slid, shrilly demanding to know my level of science qualifications to able to make such a calculation.
Heee heee hee ! What level of science qualifications is needed to know that 125 ft doesn't fit into 16 ? Most people have worked this out with their kindergarten building blocks.
Perhaps Sky Cretin -missed that of his education - he was too busy reading racist conspiracy theory literature and bullying the Arabic kids at the kindergarten.
Anyway, after much desperate evasion from the Sky Cretin creature, I suggested that he build himself a small scale model and test it himself, trying to fit the model plane into the hole made to scale.
Here's what the idiot replied. He said that he acknolwedged that in a small scale model, the plane wouldn't fit but if you enlarged the model in proportion it would fit, once it reached real world scale.
Hee hee ! Haa haaa ! "
Now architect, pehaps you'd like to tell us why you think Sky Cretin is correct in the above piece of colourful lunacy ?
Perhaps we can have a vote on the best peiece of stupidity invented by the conspiracy theorists. The buildings crushing themselves at the same speed as falling through air, or the magic plane, which fits into a hole many times smaller than itself ? Perhaps it went to Narnia ?
You know, perhaps these guys are actually paid comedians - like the fixed wrestling. Everyone knows that it's not for real, but the laughs are in pretending that it's supposed to be.
Gerard Holmgren
e-mail:
holmgen@iinet.net.ay
Homepage:
http://holmgren@iinet.net.au
Pictures of the Devastation
19.02.2006 21:11
Here are a series of pictures taken by one of the cleanup contractors.
These are pictures taken 6 months after the event.
The PerpSpeak gang and their tenured wankers want us to believe that Elitist Ivory Tower smoke and mirror "Experts" need no common sense, just hoary degrees There are a lot of them out there, chained to their supperdish and howling at the moon.
They yank people by their imagination, cos they can't conceive of the reality captured in the pictures:
That is why the PerpSpeakers have to so pointedly ignore forensics and physical evidence.
Their paid wankers go silent or hum, hiding behind orwellized words like "distinguished" when they can't even distinguish whether gravity works consistantly or not.
None of their excuses can explain the unexplainables from Relics From the Rubble.
This is a clip of the *only* filing cabinet found in the rubble, protected by having been on the basement level.
Notice it has been reduced to the size of a basketball, while unburned paper clings to it.
The calder sculpture outside Building 7 seems to have melted.
It took months to find a single shard of the granite fountain dedicated to the 1993 attack.
It was in a central courtyard, well away from any buildings.
This humungous beam got bent like a horseshoe.
This one folded like paper
Yet this lady's purse fell 100 stories intact.
The antenna off the top of the tower, last seen falling straight down, survived fairly intact as well.
No Plane means no plane. Several separate explosions that co-mingle to create a plane shape hole, but no plane in sight.
Most people just fill in the missing plane with their imagination, and go on like there was nothing wrong.
They can't tell the border between reality and their own imagination, or think that their imagination creates reality like they are little gods.
The Webfairy
e-mail:
webfairy@thewebfairy.com
Homepage:
http://missilegate.com
The information you want to see - but don't really want to see.
19.02.2006 22:02
In my previous post, I left architect and Sky cretin to explain how a plane fits through a hole many times smaller than itself despite leaving no wreckage outside, proving that no large plane hit the pentagon. Perhaps Sky Cretin is now regretting not spending more time with his building blocks at kindergarten instead of reading racist conspiracy theory literature and beating up the Arabic kids.
And perhaps Architect has had a sudden flash of insight about why so many of his buildings are falling down. "I just realized - I know bugger all about the most basic levels of physics and motion ! "
However, while these two ponder the vexing problem of the mythical pentagon plane, lets revisit another aspect of that event, for the moment hypothetically conceding the impossible claim that the mythical AA77 actually hit the pentagon. Why was the (mythical ) plane not intercepted by the USAF - with nearly an hours' warning?
Earlier(in his very first post), Architect pleaded interest in the question claiming
[[I'd want to see information regarding the positioning of intercept aircraft, US policies on intercepting jets, and so on.]]
I've since referred him to a series of articles which contains direct links to the US militaty's own ocumentation that on Sept 11 it had two squadrons of fighter jets at Andrews air base just 10 miles from the pentagon, but didn;t scramble anything until after the pentagon was hit. And also the FAA regulations for intercepting stray jets. As well the historical frequency of such events.
It seems that architect didn't actually weant to know. He was thinking that people would simply forget that he ever actually asked this question, just losing it in the volume of conspiracy drivel that he keeps pumping out.
Bad luck Architect !
By the way , are also still claiming that
[[There has never been a claim that the steel melted in the fire before the buildings collapsed.]] ?
Gerard Holmgren
e-mail:
holmgren@iinet.net.au
Homepage:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren
Re: For the record: Gerard Holmgren evades refuting Dr. Greening's Papers?
20.02.2006 00:15
It's instructive that Gerard Holmgren, when caught in an unteanable position agai, resorts to the same evasions he did when I argued with him in 2002 about his inability to support his claims that no 757 hit the Pentagon and her ran away from a host of questions he SHOULD have been able to anwser easily.
Of course, as is obvious to everyone here, Gerard Holmgren cannot answer any questions whatsoever about his fallacious theories.
Gerard brings out a statement from my thrashing of him in 2002:
"So I [Gerard] asked him if he acknowledged that a plane of that dimension couldn't fit into a hole of that dimension. He twisted and turned and slithered and slid, shrilly demanding to know my level of science qualifications to able to make such a calculation.
"Heee heee hee ! What level of science qualifications is needed to know that 125 ft doesn't fit into 16 ? Most people have worked this out with their kindergarten building blocks.
Well, let's take a look at the exchange to refesh Gerard's memory :
---
"Now, Sky King, if you failed junoir high school geometry, just tell
us."
Actually, I'm proud to say I excelled in geometry. Amongst other
things. But my accomplishments are irrelevant to the conversation.
But what is relevant is physics, is it not? I'm good at that too.
And you?
"I'm sure you're good at something else, but if you cant understand
these simple mathematical concepts, then show some respect by not
arguing out of your depth."
Let's analyze that. I ask you a question to clarify your position
and you respond defensively that I am arguing out of my depth and
not, in fact, asking the question that is on record here of me
having asked. Curious. Are you nervous about your "evidence" or
something, Gerard?
"Cut yourself a cardbaord model of 757 dimensions. 155 mm long,
crossed at 90 degrees with a 125 mm length. Build youself a
cardboard rectangular box 65 mm wide by 65 mm deep by 77 mm high.
And then try to figure out a way to fit the other model inside it.
So go away and play with that for a few months. When you're finally
ready to come back and concede that its physically impossible, we
can work on the explosion question."
I will readily concede that fitting such a cardboard model of a 757
through the hole of another cardboard of the dimensions you specify
won't work. And I don't even have to build one or think about it for
more than a few nanoseconds.
But, dear Gerard, will you concede that we actually in the real
world? That, after all, is the question you are avoiding.
I also note, with interest, that you have not answered my most
important questions. Please do so now so we can proceed with youir
"evidence."
I repeat: Also, could you provide your background in physics,
engineering, or air disaster investigations. Do you have credentials
in these areas or is strictly an amateur endeavor?
Also, have you submitted your paper for review by any recognized
authority in physics, engineering, or air disasters? If not, do you
intend to?
Once I have your answers, I'll rephrase your argument in standard
form.
We haver a lot to cover here, including your evasion of the Purdue
simulation data.
---
Gerard, knowing he was over his head, responded with his classic evasionevasion:
---
I rest my case
by gerard Holmgren Friday, Nov. 01, 2002 at 7:32 PM
"Sky King refuses to admit that an object cannot fit through a hole smaller than itself. No amount of twisting ,turning , wriggling or smoke and mirrors double talk can conceal this. The assumptions, methodology, calcualtions and resultant logic chain in the article are clearly spelled out, but Sky King continues to pretend that he does niot understand.Because Sky King knows that there is no rational rebuttal to it, he continues to try distract from the core argument.
"This debate has passed its use by date.
"Build yourself a full scale model if you want, Sky King, you'll discover that it delivers the same result as a small scale model.
"Over and out. Doubtless you'll make sure that you have the last word. go for it!"
---
But then thinking it over a little more, Gerard responded:
---
[[But, dear Gerard, will you concede that we actually in the real
world? ]]
"Interesting. You think that a small scale model is not part of the real word ? It's subject to different laws of geometry? Lets get this straight. A 155mm long object crossed at 90 degrees by a section measuring 125 mm will not fit into a box 65mm by 65mm by 77 mm. You concede this? But then you think that if we change the measurement to ft instread of mm, that now it will fit ?
"Is that what you're saying? Yes or no? "
---
My response:
"Actually, a scale model in cardboard made to actual dimesnions would
be structurally unsound and fall apart from gravity. Physics 101."
>It's subject to different laws of geometry?
It's subject to laws of physics, no?
[...]
"What I am saying is quite clear. Obviously, you are not simply
dealing with geometry; you are dealing with physics (motion,
different structural materials, fuel ignition, energy, and so on.)"
---
Gerard Holmgren, realizing he hadn't considered that it is irrelevant that a cardboard model not fitting his Pentagon "hole" because he failed to consider the materials and kinetic energy of a real aircraft hitting the Pentagon, thus demonstrating conclusively that Holmgren has not a CLUE about physics, got very, VERY nervous:
He responded:
"Here are Sky kings physics/mathematics credentials. He concedes that a small scale model of the plane cannot fit into a small scale model of the hole in the wall, but claims that if you enlarge the dimensions, then the relationship changes and that now it will fit.
Really... 0 out of 100 for that one Sky king. Repeat the class next year. Have you taken an IQ test lately?"
---
Of course it doesn't take a rocket science to see Gerard's deliberate evasion of physics in his comments.
Finally, when confronted with these questions:
---
Would you provide your background in physics, engineering, or air
disaster investigations. Do you have credentials in these areas or is
strictly an amateur endeavor?
Also, have you submitted your paper for review by any recognized
authority in physics, engineering, or air disasters? If not, do you
intend to?
Those questions are straightforward and entirely relevant to this
subject. You would not expect a student to enroll in a class without
knowing the qualifications of the teacher. Since you have decided to
publish this on the Internet (curiously only on several Indymedia
sites), you need to establish your credentials, if any, publicly.
After you have done that, there are several areas you need to
address:
1. I see no testimony from the hundreds of professional rescuers,
firefighters, FEMA personnel, Red Cross volunteers, and anyone else
who was on the sight, contradicting the common wisdom of a 757 crash.
Why does such testimony not exist? Have you interviewed any of them?
2. I see no argument from you against the established fact of the
burial of Charles Burlingame, pilot of AA77, at Arlington cemetary
(much less any other identified victim of AA77). Where did his body
come from?
3. I see no references from *anyone*, much less those who are in a
position to know and are qualified, challenging the fact that AA77
crashed into the Pentagon, other than a handful of amateur conspiracy
buffs such as yourself. Do you not find that fact strange?
4. Why have you not addressed this news conference of Sept 15, 2001?
Is it not relevant? Do you challenge it? Why or why not?
5. Why have you not dealt with the destroyed lamp poles? Is this not
relevant to the size of the aircraft? See:
respond.
6. Play with this model and report your conclusions:
You have your work cut out for you and will have to reconcile it with
your "argument."
---
Well, do you think Gerard could answer those questions?
Here is Gerard Holmgren's final evasion before he ran away knowing he was over his head:
--
"Case closed Sky King. Over and out. I'm off to pick the snails out of the garden ,which will enable me to have a more intelligent conversation that I can get out of you.
"By the way, I hear there's a special on lobotomies available this week, you might be pick up some bits of discarded brain to cram into your skull. They'd have to work better than what you've got now.
"Bye."
---
Entire thread available here:
Four years later, Gerard Holmgren is STILL unable to answer those simple questions!
So, Gerard, once again I have caught you deliberately evading refuting Dr. Greening's papers, unable to answer simple questions, relyingon a strawaman arguemnt about "cardboard" models to get out of having top support your phony "theories", and demonstrated that you are not even up to the task, that you, as always, don't know what you are talking about.
Let's remind everyone also, that your "theory" that AA 11 and UA 175 did NOT crash into the WTC towers is just as phony and laughable. You have no respect for the truth, Gerard Holmgren.
-----------
"Facts inform opinions and opinions, inspired by different interests and passions, can differ widely and still be legitimate as long as they respect factual truth. Freedom of opinion is a farce unless factual information is guaranteed and the facts themselves are not in dispute."
- Hannah Arendt, "Truth and Politics"
S. King
e-mail:
skyking@scientist.com
Stick to the Guitar, Mate
20.02.2006 00:16
1. Take a look at my first post, or indeed previous threads. Always said I'd be sticking to the stuff I was qualified to talk about, hence no comments on (for example) the turning abilities of passenger jets. So you can't sensibly take a pot shot at me there - we can't all be the Renaissance man you are Gerald, what with that postraduate-level knowledge of so many different and very complex fields (but without the benfit of a formal education - wow).
2. Amazing, isn't it, that neither Gerald or his sources - by their own admission can actually come up with a meaningful calculation on the effects of the intact lower floors on collapse time but seem awfully sure that it's much different from free fall, eh? Must be that Renaissance man thing again.
I'll tell you why you can't, Gerald. It's because you'd have to look at a range of complex issues such as the weight of the upper floors when movement began. Then you'd calculate the impact forces on the floor and uprights below. You'd then have to calculate the resistance provided before they failed. Then take a view on fail times. Then you'd have to repeat it for each floor all the way down, given that the load increases for each additional floor (less material that escapes sideways or is pulverised).
But you can't do that, Gerry, can you? You don't know how. You don't understand how to do load/shear calculations on complex ultra tall building frames, do you?
And yet you criticise me.
3. Yes, in construction we learn how buildings work. And how they fail. This is called education.
4. So SPINE are nuts. Noted. Pot = kettle, I'm sure. Perhaps you think they're part of the great government web, eh?
5. As for the Pod, Gerry, I think it's you that has been on record as saying that the second plane had " a strange anomaly in the shape of the belly." You also suggest it didn't really exist, though, so you can't really get on at other people if we have trouble following your ramblings.
6. It's a bit rich posting twice in an hour or so, then complaining that people haven't responded. Did you not know that the posts are timed when they appear?
7. Mad arabs with tiny knifes? They were stanley knifes, mate. Take a look at the knife crime statistics for, say, Glasgow or Manchester subdivided by weapon and see how many of the serious ones - including a few deaths - are done by stanleys (sharpened screwdrivers figure too, incidentally). I especially love the American conspiracists who call them stanley knifes "box cutters", so as to suggest it's a glorified razor blade.
8. You seem to be in a twist over the melting steel. In fact, several of the sources you quote take great delight in explaining why steel doesn't melt in fire loadings and therefore the buildings should still be standing. It's a corner stone of the conspiracists' case. All I've done is point out, with (gasp) references and sources, that this is bollocks. Feel free to tell me what your position is, and where you think the mistake(s) in my references is/are.
9. Gone a bit quiet on the Pancake collapse thing, eh? Trawling google as we speak no doubt.
Webfairy - sorry, you just keep digging that hole. Don't you think you should by trying to respond to what looked (to the untrained eye) like a rather nice demolition of your MPEG enhancement techniques linked by Sky King, rather than having a wee strop?
Gerry and co., I'll be at the office actually designing tall buildings tomorrow and having a chuckel at your expense. Let's make a deal - don't tell me how to do my job, and I won't come back in the evening and tell you how to sweep up.
ps Gerry, apart from play the guitar and have longish hair, what are your qualifications and/or expertise?
Architect
Cospiracy theorist "Architect" again puts foot in mouth
20.02.2006 00:37
[[after reading a day's worth of poorly argued tosh on Gerald's homepage.]]
Really ? I think Archtect was more likely reading the latest law suit over his his most recently collapsed building, because the above statement indicates that he actually hasn't read anything on my site at all.
For example if you go to my "homepage"
You wont see anything at all about sept 11, except a link to where you can find it.
What you'll see is a picture of me, and some links to my involvement with music, a contact address and a link which says "writing and research - exposing the Sept 11 scam".
Hmm... is this the "poorly argued tosh" which took a whole day to read,according to architect ?
Architect may have an intellect equvalent to the remains of a squashed cockroache, but we have established that he has sufficient levels of literacy to not take a whole day to read the phrase
"writing and research, exposing the sept 11 scam".
So that's what's on my "homepage."
So what happens if you click the link in question ?
You come to an article called "Manufactured terrorism. The truth about Sept 11"
Is this the "poorly argued tosh" which took a whole day to read, according Architect ?
No. For a start, the article will take about 20 minutes to read. Secondly this article does not present what can seriously be called "arguments" because it is an introductory summary.
It is designed to give people an overview of the evidence which will be coverered in the rest of the Sept 11 section of my site. It clearly states this in the very first two sentences of the article.
"This article presents a summary of the evidence that entire event was planned and carried out by the US govt and its agencies. The research and documentation to support the charges made in this article can be found here"
The word "here" is hyperlinked - obviously to the where one can find the research and documentation.
So, if we give Architect the benefit of the doubt and assume that he incorrectly but accidently labelled the *introductory summary* article to the Sept 11 section of my site as my "homepage", his statement is still exposed as a lie.
1) Because, theres no way that the article takes even an hour to read, let alone a "day".
2) because it doesn't even claim to present any "argument", it's merely a summary of what arguments are presented throughout the rest of the site, making that absolutely clear in the first two sentences of the article and repeating it in the concluding 3 sentences.
''This is only a brief summary of the evidence. Much material had to be left out due to space constraints. I encourage all readers not to uncritically accept this at face value , but to avail themselves of the full documentation for this summary."
The word "documentation is hyperlinked.
It leads to a
- the same page as the hyperlinked word "here" in the second sentence of the article leads to. And this is where we get into the real documentation.
So now we are two clicks away from the "homepage" , removing any possiblity of an accidental attribution of the title "homepage" to where the real arguments are detailed.
This section - of four pages in length - contains links to about 150 articles and documents accompanied by brief introductory comments for each article or document, to give the interested reader some quick refence points for what aspect of evidence they are most interested in, since few people are going to read everything, and most will want to make decisions about thier priorty areas of interest.
It is divided into three major sections.
1) LIHOP. Evidence which assumes the official conspiracy theory about mad arabs to be basically true but shows that if it were, then the Govt must have had prior knowledge and deliberatly allowed it to happen.
2) Evidence demonstrating that none of the conspiracy theory is true anyway because there weren't any Arab hijackers or any hijacked planes and that the buildings were deliberately demolished.
3) General historical and political background, for example the 1962 CIA "Northwoods" plot to use a Sept 11 style frameup as an excuse to invade Cuba.
A few of these articles are my own. but most of them are from a variety of other authors, and some of it is simply pure original documentation, such as BBC reports that some of those named as the alleged hijackers are still alive and proclaiming their innocence - or a 1999 book which claimed that the Twin towers were a prepacked "ruin" from the time they were built or aJuly 2000 technology magazine article about real time live video manipulation techology.
And this four page compilation also links (Labelled "Index of Sept 11 articles") to a page which contains links to my own research aticles.
So if this either of these are claimed to be the "poorly argued tosh" to which Architect is referring, then why was it claimed as being on the "homepage" when neither of them are anywhere near anything which could be conceivabvly be mistaken as the "homepage " ?
Because once again, Architect is lying. He hasn't read anything on my site at all.He hasn't even looked at it. Otherwise he wouldn't have made such a stupid glaring error in attribution.
But there's further proof that architect is lying about having read anything on my site.
In his very first post, Architect claimed
[[I'd want to see information regarding the positioning of intercept aircraft, US policies on intercepting jets, and so on.]]
In fact the *very first* article in the evidence kit compilation,an article entitled
Guilty For 9-11:Part 1. Bush, Rumsfeld, Myers, by Illarion Bykov and Jared
Israel, 14 Nov 2001
provides part of this information, and the *very next* linked article
Guilty for 9/11 Mr. Cheney's Cover up -- Part 2 of Guilty For 9-11, 20 Nov
2001
provides the rest of it.
So if Architect spent a whole day reading, how did he manage to miss this - in the *very first* two articles, when they addressed the very question in which which had previously claimed interest ?
Once again the answer is obvious. Architect is lying. He hasn't read even looked my site. Or if he has, then he quite consciously lying in a premeditated manner about what it contains.
This should come as no surprise.
Earlier Architect was caught lying with this statement.
[[So what we had was a large-scale, fairly uniformly spread fire (thanks to the nature of the impact and vapourisation characteristics) acting on lightly protected structural steelwork over a period of several hours. It then understandably failed.
Now, some professional and academic links which support this:]]
And included in the links which supposedly supported this
which in its introduction on page 8 states
[[The purpose of this report is not to describe the causes of the collapse of the World Trade center, but rather to describe the general damage that was observed at ground zero.]]
This is how conspiracy theorists work. Mostly they just make stuff up without even any pretence of supporting documntation, but occasionally, they throw in some links which have nothing to do with their spurious fabrications, just to give the causl reader the superficial impression that they are providing documentation.
Caught clumsily lying again Architect. Tsk, tsk.
The shark pit must be looming very close ! Unless of course "Architect" version - whatever number- the- last- one- was has already been thrown in and we are now dealing with his equally short lived replacement.
Gerard Holmgren
e-mail:
holmgren@iinet.net.au
Homepage:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren
Webfairies and Denial: The assault on Truth
20.02.2006 00:54
"Denialist Perpspeakers are down to using refuted nonsense, as if a cascade of big words can hide the fact that there is no plane in the first hit footage."
Sorry, Rosalee, AA 11, a Boeing 767, hit WTC 1. You can't hide behind the canard of the "offical story." ALL of the evidence points to that conclusion. You should take the time to educate yourself on ALL of the evidence. Of course, your website demonstrates that inconvenient evidence is discarded on purpose. You know that; we know that.
"They are the final proof you were lied to."
You've been lying all along - unless you are SO incredibly naive and stupid. I see right through you. But I also have an advantage of knowing a friend who has worked for AA for over 25 years. She was assigned during that period to AA 11 and flew the flight on Monday, Sept. 10, 2001. Tuesday, Sept 11, 2001 was her day off. She went into seclusion and mourning for her friends with her husband and when American Airlines started flying again, she picked herself up and went back to work. She won't talk about it and we NEVER bring it up. I would NEVER have the audacity to tell her that there are actual human beings like you, Ray, and Gerard Holmgren that claim AA 11 did not hit WTC 1 or any tower and claim it without being able to refute ALL of the evidence that it did.
So remember this, Rosalee: if you are going to claim that AA 11 did not hit WTC 1, you'd better be able to look yourself in the mirror and imagine yourself talking to my friend and say honestly, forcefully, looking her in the eyes, and say that you have irrefutable evidence that it AA 11 did not hit WTC 1.
Because if you can't, then you're put yourself in the position no different than a Holocaust denier claiming no Jews were exterminated during WW II.
The choice is yours, Rosalee Grable.
----
"Facts inform opinions and opinions, inspired by different interests and passions, can differ widely and still be legitimate as long as they respect factual truth. Freedom of opinion is a farce unless factual information is guaranteed and the facts are not in dispute."
- Hannah Arendt, "Truth and Politics"
S. King
e-mail:
skyking@scientist.com
re: Pictures of the Devastation
20.02.2006 01:15
"That is why the PerpSpeakers have to so pointedly ignore forensics and physical evidence.
Their paid wankers go silent or hum, hiding behind orwellized words like "distinguished" when they can't even distinguish whether gravity works consistantly or not.
"None of their excuses can explain the unexplainables from Relics From the Rubble."
No one needs excuses or to hide behind the "official story" canard as much as you do, webfairies!
Your lexamples are easily explained - and have been - by the science of downblasts, surge physics, and pyrochlastic flows. Why you would deliberately ignore this is indicative of the methodology of "Denial." Simply amazing.
For the rest of us who are interested in the science of the subject, one needs only read this fascinating account by the recognized expert in the field, Charles Pellegrino, "Ghosts of Vesuvius", ISBN: 0-380-97310-3.
The "webfairies" don't want to bring that to your attention for obvious reasons.
Just another reason why your website and the irrationality behind it is destined for the trashbin of history, webfairies.
S. King
e-mail:
skyking@scientist.com
We Went to War Over Cartoons
20.02.2006 01:16
Less than 10 words.
The evidence is simple and direct.
Supposedly it is "confusing" to look at pictures of real planes, and then look at Blob 11 and Cartoon 175 and notice the difference.
It takes no special training or degree.
I have particular interest in this, since covering up the power of the video evidence involved more than three years of slime attacks against me and my abilities.
My attackers would like you to simultaneously believe I am elderly and suffer alzheimers, and at the same time have some sort of magical power to replace all the video on every server, including CNN's own archives, with video that I hoaxed myself.
I don't care what anybody believes about me anymore. My ability to feel pain about the situation is entirely dulled. If you don't like my archive
I suggest
Generally, whatever foul characterization was made of me actually fits the character of my attacker.
Of the infinity of potential insults, people tend to look at what's darkest in their own soul, and call me that.
But even that aside, the video record of the event tells it's own truth.
The fierce attacks on the visual evidence have all been repelled, and the evidence stands strong.
The visual evidence contradicts many of the Stories that have been sold like soap.
The Salters unwittingly provided much of my best evidence.
The missilegate site started with imagery provided by the Salters.
I was wrong in some of my commentary, but they gave me my start.
Then they provided the Stabilized Ghostplane frames
And then they topped all that by providing the Saltergate Cartoon
This previously unseen second hit "live shot" was animated at a different rate than previous second hit cartoons, but still featuring the fishtail effect caused by a motion blur algorithm gone awry.
The videos show that all, and I do mean ALL, of the videos that perport to show the second hit are animations, simulations, cartoons, made with commercially available technology, and projected on TELEVISION.
We have still not found an unbiased witness who actually SAW the second hit.
A lot of people saw explosions. A helicopter flying in the direction the "plane" allegedly came from didn't see no plane.
No reporter on the ground saw a plane. They were reporting explosions. They saw the Plane on TV and inserted it into their imaginations just like everybody else.
The "planes" were cooked up in Flight Simulator, and then the simulations imported into a more sophisticated graphics program.
In flight simulator one can dial up any angle, using any plane.
The wings vanish from the Ghostplane because the reflection is one of the colors removed in bluescreening the sucker.
*only* the World Trade Center and the World Financial Towers allow the Butterplane effect of "planes" vanishing into buildings (and emerging from the other side)
has a simulation of what the "plane" flying long and low would have actually looked like passing over the first hit crime scene.
Of course, no real plane Butterplanes just cos certain cartoons can.
The Webfairy
e-mail:
webfairy@thewebfairy.com
Homepage:
http://thewebfairy.com/911
I think the record's stuck
20.02.2006 01:16
"“one of the curious characteristics of conspiracy theorists is that they effortlessly change their so called evidence in response to each aspect which is debunked. As soon as one delusion is unmasked, they simply invent another to replace it, and deny that the first ever existed."
So, architect you are still satnding by your claim that
[[There has never been a claim that the steel melted in the fire before the buildings collapsed,]] ?
Yes or no ?
I've shown with direct quotes supported with reference links, that this is lie in my earlier post
Loony conspiracy theorists
18.02.2006 13:39
So Architect was caught lying. Now, as descibed in the "fruit loop" meachanism, he's desperately avoiding expliaing why he lied about this. Soon he'll be claiming that he never even told thgis lie. But unfortunately for him, its in black and white on this thread.
Perhaps this is because the previous version of Archtitect has already been thrown into the shark pit, and the new version hasn't yet read up on all the lies of his predecessor, and is thus unable to keep the lies consistent.
How about this one ?
[[It would still collapse at the same rate whether it had been explosively demolished or whatever. Gravity would act in exactly the same way! ]]
Hee hee ! Haa haa ! Buidling which crush their own structure from the top down at the same speed as falling through air ! Oooh hoo hoo ! My aching sides !
Now Architect is also desperately trying to pretend tohat he never claimed this. He's now suddenly decided that there would be some resistance after all. Just worked that now, did you Architect . Hee hee !
But it gets better. Having suddenly friut looped to the position that yes, well...there would be some resistance, but not enough to add more than 1.8 secs to the total fall of time - architect is now faced with having to explain how there could be an average of just 0.018 secs of time added for the resistance in each floor. Hee hee !.
Again see my post "Loony Cosnpiracy theories" for a more detailed response.
How about this one from his first post ?
[[I'd want to see information regarding the positioning of intercept aircraft]]
Oops ! Now that it's been provided, architect suddenly *doesn't* want to see it. he was never even interested ! From his last post.
[[Always said I'd be sticking to the stuff I was qualified to talk about, hence no comments on (for example) the turning abilities of passenger jets. So you can't sensibly take a pot shot at me there...]]
Fruit loop warning!
"We never claimed the steel melted ! We didn;t ! Nobody ever said that ! "
"I never said that I was interested in any othjer aspects of the evidence 1 I never said it ! "
Earlier I asked Architect if someone with a turban frightened him when he was little. This is actually a serious question, as I am interested in the theory that early child hood trauma can lead to the fixiation with racist conspiracy theories in later life.
I also asked Architect another question which he refuses to answer.
On what grounds does he support Sky Cretins assertion that although a 125 mm wingspan can't fit through a 16 mm hole in a small scale model that if you enlarge the proprtions to full scale (125 ft fitting through 16 ft) then it can.
Hee ! Haa haaa !
Gerard Holmgren
e-mail:
holmgren@iinet.net.au
Homepage:
http://members.iinet.net.au
Perhaps they're actually programmed robots ?
20.02.2006 01:38
You see, it doesn;t matter how often or how clearly you explain your position, they just keep asking the same stupid questions as if you never answered and making the same stupid claims as if you never debunked them and refusing to answer baic questions themselves, no matter how many times you ask them.
At first I thought that on the other end of the keyboard was someone who simply doesn't listen. Then I figured that maybe the replacement for the one who had just been thrown into the shark pit hadn't properly read through the failures of his recently eaten predecessor.
But perhaps thery are just programmed robots with a limited ability to keep churning out the same drivel regardless of the rest of the conversation going on about them.
For example in 2002, the Sky Cretin robot wanted to know my scientific qualifications to be able to work out that 125 ft doesn't fit in 16 ft. Four years later he's still asking.
The program is also asking for scientific qualifications to know basic gravitation formula which is taught to junior high school students and can be found on web sites like "Physics for beginners" - a site to which the Architect robot recently had to refer to learn that Gravity is not 10 m/sec2 - which does indicatate some limited learning ability -although I don't think the Architect robot has yet picked up on the law of conservation of energy.
The robots also keep asking for my scientific qualifications to be able divide 1.8 secs by 100 and get 0.018 secs - which would be the approximate average time added to the collapse for the resistance of each floor if a pancake collpase were possible in 11 secs - since the fall involves approximately 100 floors and that 1.8 secs is the approximate difference between a free fall in a vaccuum and the time that the tower actually too to fall.
They also want to know my sience qualifications to be able to divide 130,000 lbs (the approx empty weight of a 757) by 10,000 gallons (the approximate fuel load )and wok out that it means that each gallon of fuel would have to account for about 13 lbs of plane.
So I'm going to test out how versatile the robot's programming is.
For the information of the Robots I am now informaing them that none of this requires any qualifications beyond the intellect and normal education of normal 14 year old. There is a certain body of commonly accepted human knowledge which doesn;t require any specific specialist qualifications.
Let's see if either of the Robots have sophisticated enough programming to be able to respond to this.
Will they just keep asking for the professional qualifications neeeded ro answer these questions, or is their programming sophisticated enough to be able to understand the answer and ask a more intelligent question.
This may give some indication on how far the agencies have progressed with AI
Gerard Holmgren
e-mail:
holmgren@iinet.net.net.au
Homepage:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren
I offer forensic quality crime scene video
20.02.2006 03:02
No Plane At All
It's not my fault perps with foreknowledge
had cameras all set up in advance to catch dramatic footage of the first attack on the World Trade Center.
Jules Naudet's 9/11 Film was Staged
I made it slower and bigger.
Some people have tried palming off a little divebombing thingie as "the plane" since it was the only object in the sky, even tho the reports claimed the plane was flying long and low.
For a plane, the divebombing object is impossible.
It isn't big enough.
A zillion excuses have been offered, but none can change the fact that something close up is going to look bigger than the same object farther away.
The resulting plane shape hole is 3/4 the width of the building, so if there had been a plane there, it would have been larger than that.
At that size, it wouldn't have mattered if it was fuzzy or not, because it would have literally dominated the scene, sort of like the simulation
except that in real life the "plane" did not vanish into the building like a butterplane.
The Webfairy
e-mail:
webfairy@thewebfairy.com
Homepage:
http://thewebfairy.com/911/flyingpig
re: The Webfairies Cartoons
20.02.2006 03:27
"Supposedly it is "confusing" to look at pictures of real planes, and then look at Blob 11 and Cartoon 175 and notice the difference. It takes no special training or degree."
Nothing is confusing about the evidence at all.
Really.
I'm terribly sorry you have such a HUGE problem, webfairies. I feel your pain.
S. King
e-mail:
skyking@scientist.com
re: Truth and Denial. The Case of Gerard Holmgren
20.02.2006 03:39
....actually nothing at all. We all see the desperation in his posts as he realizes the end of the road for his irrational conspiracy theories was reached a long time ago.
Gerard is evading the issue by engaging in nonsensical rhetoric hoping to bore people to death so he doesn't have to admit he is incapable of engaging in a rational discussion. I showed that easily in 2002 as many have since then.
Gerard, the record shows that Frank Greening has easily refuted you and you are incapable of responding.
S. King
e-mail:
skyking@scientist.com
Conspiracy theorists standards of documentation
20.02.2006 03:56
To back up this conspiracy garbage, the Sky Cretin robot has been programmed with the latest meticulous documentation.
[[I also have an advantage of knowing a friend who has worked for AA for over 25 years. She was assigned during that period to AA 11 and flew the flight on Monday, Sept. 10, 2001. Tuesday, Sept 11, 2001 was her day off.]]
Hee hee ! And I have the advantage of knowing someone who saw Bin laden himself with a stinger missile aiming at the pentagon. It relies completely on gullible readers believing it siomply because I say so - but isn't that what conspiracy theories are all about?
They just make stuff up and expect you to believe it.
Real researchers use more reliable documentation like the actual video of the strike which is verified in the public domain and does not show a large passenger jet or anything like it.
They also use offfical sources like the US Bureau of Tranportation flight logs which say that there was no such flight as A11 on Sept 11 2001.
They also use mainstream media reports availabe in the publiuc domain to prove that the media published fabricated passenger lists for the alleged flight.
Media published fake passenger lists for American Airlines flight 11
Heh ! Unless the Sky Cretin Robot is programmed to believe that all 95 of the 87 innocent victims were actually on the flight, including the four who also died on UA 175.
And on the subject of UA 175, never mind the fact that the plane which flew that flight (N612UA) was still registed as valid in the FAA aircraft registry for more than four years after we were shown a cartoon on TV of what purported to be that plane hitting the WTC.
Go to the FAA aircraft registry
and do an "n number" search
But conspiracy theorists are not interested in documentation. They just make stuff up.
Like
"The steel melted at 800C" (snigger)
And then once people pointed out that the melting point of steel is about double that
"Nobody ever claimed that the steel melted ! We never said that ! " (snigger)
" Although 125 mm can not fit into 16mm , 125 ft can fit into 16 ft" (snigger)
The Sky Cretin robot hasn't yet had this clanger erased from the program. It's still playing it over and over. Hee hee !
Tests to see if the Sky Cretin robot has been reprogrammed to understand that dividing 130,000 by 10,000 doesnt require any specialist qualifications are still pending.
Although we now have evidence that the Architect robot has been reprogrammed to learn that gravity is 9.81 m/sec2 not 10m/sec2, further tests are required to see if it's yet been able to understand the concept of conservation of energy, or whether it's still claiming that a building crushing itself from the top down will fall at the same speed as if falling through air.
The evidence so far is that the Sky Cretin robot at least, hasn't yet had its program updated on this one.
Hee hee hee !
Gerard Holmgren
e-mail:
holmgren@iinet.net.au
Homepage:
http://members,iinet.net.au
Robot Planehuggers
20.02.2006 03:57
In any other filming of a plane, since cameras were invented, no plane's wings vanished while leaving other parts of the plane visable.
Your Chechire Cat scenario is NOT possible. It was a clear day, and supposedly the "plane" was flying overhead.
If this were true, it would have dominated the footage up to the point of impact.
It would have resembled Marcus Icke's flight simulator simulation
Instead it is missing from the crime scene, while the explosions develop independently from fuel air "bombs" which were electrostatically charged by the flash frame.
The PLANE is missing.
It is never seen.
No Plane makes an appearance
Instead there is a much smaller object at a divebombing pose.
If there had been a plane in the footage, it would have looked LARGER than the resulting Plane Shape Hole, because objects closer to the camera look bigger, and seem to recede into the distance .
If there had been a plane there, it would have looked the same size as the plane shape hole as it exploded, instead of being imaginary and invisable and retarded by 40 frames of blowing smoke.
HOlmgren's cheap camera manages to record planes, and these planes are visable in every frame, no matter what the weather conditions or the angle of the plane.
It does get confusing, since there were two hits, and by now I can say with great assurance that every inch of the second hit footage is cartoon.
The "live shots" of a hippity hopping "plane" showing evidence of film emulsion bleed are using a technique pioneered by Princeton Video Technology, a now bankrupt startup that could fly a "goodyear blimp" above the stadium digitally, and/or make all the billboards in the stadium appear to advertise the television sponsor's products. They also had a technology that could lock the camera on the ball and keep it visable.
several files detailing the work of princeton video are here, saved from web.archive.org
their techniques were responsible for
the Krash Kartoon
and the Saltergate Second Hit.
which appeared, previously unknown, when Salter tried to make the point that so many different footages show the same thing.
This means they all featured the same origin, not that they were actually "real."
The first hit footage captures the authentic object.
I hope I've make that absolutely clear by now.
We are lucky their placement of charges to make the plane shape hole worked so well, so they did not cover the action with some cartooned addition.
If you imagine the "plane" not there on the second hit Ghostplane, you see the same sequence of events even including a triangular persistant white thingie, and a black spot which Marcus Icke turned onto the butt of his X11 fighter.
The explosions taking on stubbywinged personna Marcus photoshopped into the images using the existing clouds of gray chemicals.
The video is not "doctored" except I do believe that some frames have
been clipped out to make the thing-in-the-air
and the thing-in-front-of-the-building sequences pass quicker.
You can tell because in some frames the continuity of motion is all but nonexistant.
Sped up, the planeshape clouds make a planeshape explosion and viola,
telling people they were seeing the "plane" was plenty to make people
believe they were seeing a plane.
However, the law of perspective, which is a natural law, says that the same object is going to look larger when closer than it is from farther away.
Therefore, the "plane" if it had been an existant plane, would have looked LARGER than the Plane shape hole when it was closer to the camera than the plane shape hole is.
If there had been a "plane" it would have been overwhelmingly large as it passed long and low over the crime scene as we are told.
See Marcus Icke's flashie of what a low plane overhead would have looked like, at least up until the time the model butterplanes itself into the building just like the Ghostplane
I used to believe it was holograms because I couldn't understand how the same preposterousness would have been drawn from so many angles. But it turns out that Flight Simulator can dial up any angle it wants, and any plane it wants. Planes will "Butterplane" ONLY on the World Trade Center and the World Financial Towers. Under other circumstances they either stop with their nose against the building, or else crash the simulation.
Flight Simulator Files can be imported into more sophisticated 3D rendering programs in order to replace the background with a panned still up until the point it iis merged with live action. Scott Myer, the alleged "amateur photographer" of the Ghostplane Footage, just happens to be a 3D artist for NIST. It may be that, since Hoffman's expertise is in Graphics, with his MFA degree, he could have been involved with the creation of the cartoons as well.
If ERic Salter turns out to have been real and not just a fictional sockpuppet for his "Brother" Brian Salter -- then his video production company may have been involved in the creation of the cartoons as well.
But that is the second hit.
For the first hit, we have clear and unaltered footage of very small
(car size) drone aircraft.
To pretend these little divebombing objects are a big plane flying long and low just shows how blindly suggestable people get.
I have spent years studying these images, halfway hoping that it would be a planes, so people would quit picking on me and calling me names and throwing slime at me.
But it's not.
It's little objects which show bloomyness from their reflections, being too small themselves to be clearly recorded in the low resolution medium of video.
While video is and is supposed to be low resolution, it's value and virtue is that it adds the extra dimention of passage through time.
Unfamiliar is the same thing as nonexisting to Robots?
webfairy@thewebfairy.com
e-mail:
webfairy@thewebfairy.com
Homepage:
http://missilegate.com
The Robot theory just got stronger
20.02.2006 04:24
The Sky Cretin Robot is still spewing out the Greening program.
Greening didn't write anything on the free fall issue, but the Sky Cretin robot has been programmed to say that he did. However, because the alleged writing is ficticious,and therefore cannot be programmed in, if you ask for the specific link and page number, the program goes into a bit of a feedback loop and claims that it's already told you.
You watch. The next post from the Sky Cretin robot will claim that the information has already been provided. Unless they've managed to update it with one which sends a bogus link.
We'll wait to see which one happens.
I wonder if Greening also doesn't know the correct height of the towers and the correct speed of gravity ? (snigger).
But perhaps Greening has the necessary specialist qualifications to divide 1.8 secs by 100 (snigger).
Hey Sky Cretin - didn't they program you guys with an inbuilt calculator ? Or maybe it takes an IT expert to make the program active, which is why you also keep asking for the specialist qualifications needed to divide 130,000 by 10,000 (snigger).
Or to work out why 125 doesn't fit into 16 if you talking in mm , but does if you're talking in ft. (Snigger)
Sky Cretin's response will move us a step closer to either confirming the Robot theory or otherwise.
Will he/it again claim that it's already supplied the specific information about Greening, or will he/it learn to develop the situation and send a bogus link ?
Or will it simply revert to the 2002 program ?
Stay tuned.
Gerard Hiolmgren
e-mail:
holmgren@iinet.net.au
Homepage:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren
FairyTale Planes for a FairyTale Apocalypse.
20.02.2006 04:34
show little drones, who's
existance is well documented
and even bragged about.
People who believe in FairyTale Planes are gonna get a FairyTale Apocalypse.
It was set up that way intentionally, knowing people would believe
whatever the media told them.
"Insiders" do speak out, they just keep huffing lies to hold their
outrageous coverup together
"Skyking" and "Architect" seem to be professional interrogation
specialists, expert at psychological intimidation and twisty lies to
fool the schnookiedupes.
It would be nice if Scott Myers, the alleged "amateur photographer" of
the Ghostplane footage
would come clean. He is a contractor for NIST tho.
This is research Nico Haupt dug up about him:
What Scott Myers 'filmed' is a big joke.
He is Software Development Consultant at NIST.
And this guy should be credible?
...and who is Desktop Labratories (NA)
Fax:
12 John Street DP12
New York, NY 10038-4000 ??
Scott Myers DeskTop Laboratories 12 John Street DP12
New York
...well, he's working on "3D motion capture, graphing
and trial management" since 1996!!!
u wanna see his pre-9/11 twin tower??
It's here:
A re-produced simulation of Marcus Icke shows almost
exactly the same NON-impact butter entry.
If we talk about physics, then this has to be included
too. No wings are breaking apart, the explosion comes
too fast, exit entry too fast, color of fireball
points on no kerosene, no shadows etc....
This isn't 'junk science', it's a catalog of
scientific questions, which had been sabotaged and i
believe, on purpose.
A new team will work now on timecodes, google earth
comparisons to make their point.
I personally wanna dig on all cameramen, which got
involved. This is a tough job, coz almost no names are
mentioned.
If we want to get rid of all deceptions, we have to
talk about media deception first. After all these
networks are the same who presented for us FAKE BIN
LADEN VIDEOS, FAKE DATING SHOWS and FAKE NEWS!
"...Motion capture equipment from Ascension'
Technologies provides accurate, fast position and
orientation information....."
...and here is info about Scott Myers' software:
virtual reality techniques are now commonly used in
real-world applications, especially in the design,
visualization and simulation of complex vehicles in
the automotive, aerospace and oil/gas industries. They
are also used in augmented reality systems in which
head tracking is used to overlay pictorial data on
actual parts, components and assemblies.
Launched in 1986, Ascension has accelerated to the
forefront of the motion tracking industry.
Real-time Visualization
"...The key feature of the decision to use LED over
cube projection was the high brightness allowing the
large wall to operate in a very bright
environment...."
Visualization for life-critical decision making
Air traffic control
Avionics
Barco provides innovative visualization and display
solutions for broadcast applications such as outdoor
marquee, indoor lobby, TV show studio, news studio,
broadcast and distribution monitoring room, screening
or training room and post production.
Barco is a military contractor and just 1 of 15
partners of ascension-tech:
Barco is active in the markets of traffic,
surveillance, broadcasting, presentation, simulation
and virtual reality, edutainment, events, media,
digital cinema, air traffic control, defense &
security, medical imaging, avionics, and textiles....
Rosalee Grable
e-mail:
webfairy@thewebfairy.com
Homepage:
http://thewebfairy.com/911/butterplanes
Empty bluster and insult from our Antipodean friend
20.02.2006 08:44
I'm lambasted for reading for actually trawling through Gerald's web site, which (according to him is no such thing). Lets take a look at it:
I really can't believe I blew a good part of a day reading the tosh he had written, but there you go.
Anyway, if Gerald refuses to accept that he has a home page, despite the evidence to the contrary (read it yourself folks) then what faith should you have on his interpretation of the much more complex evidence before him regarding 911?
I
Architect
Call the techinician Architect - you have scrambled circuit board
20.02.2006 10:41
Back to Business Part II
19.02.2006 16:47 - note the date and time Feb 19, 16.47
The Architect robot wrote
[[after reading a day's worth of poorly argued tosh on Gerald's homepage ]]
(without any specific comment on *anything* encountered during this day's reading )
About 8 hours later, I proved that this statement was a lie in this post
"Cospiracy theorist "Architect" again puts foot in mouth
20.02.2006 00:37" Note the date and time - Feb 20 00.37.
Read the post again. But in summary, my homepage contains exactly 8 words on the sept 11 subject - a hyperlink to the section of my site which deals with it.
If you click on the link you come to a summary article takes about 20 minutes to read.
You have to go to another link to get anything anywhere near " a day's reading" and anything which actually contains any documentation and detailed argument.
So either Architect hadn't even looked at my site or else he/it has quite conciously lied about it's content.
If Robots get red faces, then I'm not sure that Architects face could get any redder than it already was after the expose of all his previous lies and clangers, but if it is possible, then the shade just deepened.
I think this blew a cucuit.
Because then -* 8 hours* after I had exposed this lie on Architects part - 8 hours after, mind you - Architect writes back saying "Idid read his site ! did , I did ! And here's some links from it to prove it ! "
Empty bluster and insult from our Antipodean friend
20.02.2006 08:44 - note the date and time - 08.44 - more than 8 hours *after* the post which proved that he lied about having done a "day's reading onmy site.
Dear oh dear, architect, you should have thought to do that when you first commented on the site. Hurried pasting of a few links from it - *8 hours after* I showed that you didn;t have the faintest idea what was on the site, you come back with a few pasted links from it to try to cover up.
I wonder if they throw robots into the sharkpit sometimes, if they stuff up badly enough ?
With it's circuit board clearly smoking from the stress, Architect then tried to claim that I denied ever having a homepage. Huh ?
Here's what the idiot said.In the most recent post.
[[I'm lambasted for reading for actually trawling through Gerald's web site, which (according to him is no such thing]]
In fact he/it was lambasted for having *pretended* to have done such a thing when he/it obviously had not.
This is what I had 8 hours previously
[[For example if you go to my "homepage"
You wont see anything at all about sept 11, except a link to where you can find it. ]]
I am fascinated to know how thisstatement is interpreted as me denying that I have a website. Especially as the hompage URL has been linked on every one of my posts.
I think the language comprehension circuit is scrambled too. Perhaps they did acually trapdoor the Architect robot into the shark pit in a fit of frustration at his clanger about claiming that that a building crushing itself from the top down will fall at the same speed as if falling through air, because gravity is always the same speed regardless oif any resistance encountered.
Or perhaps it was the claim that although 125mm will not fit into 16 mm, that 125 ft will fit into 16 ft.
So although the robot may have been repaired after the shark mauling, it's now sustained irrepairable damage to it's language comprehension circuits. For example, the scrambled program then spews out this gibberish.
[[Anyway, if Gerald refuses to accept that he has a home page, despite the evidence to the contrary (read it yourself folks) ]]
Lets look again to what he he was responding. Not only the fact I've voluntarily posted my hiomepage on everypost I made, but also , 8 hours earlier I had written
[[For example if you go to my "homepage"
The reason that hompage is in commas, is that I'm reminding people that it the hompage where the conspiracy theorist robot had claimed to have spent an hour reading about Sept 11.
Nevertheless, this scrambled circuitry could work in Arcgitects failure is I get sucked into correcting too many of the protocol lies, because this distracts from what the debate ias actually about.
This is a common tactic of conspiracy theorists. Once they start getting thrashed too badly, then they abandon even the pretence of presenting an argument and post direct lies about you've said. this leaves you with two choices.
You can ignore it and let them get away with the lie. Or you can correct it. If yo correct then they start an argument about you really said, and when you correct that they tell another lie, and before too long it's
"No, you said that the link which I posted was the same as the link which you that I said that you posted in response to when you said that I said that you claimed that I had said that you posted a link in response to the link that i said that you said..."
The idea of this is bore and confuse everyone and get them to give up, and to make their opnent look petty and quibbling for buying into such nonsense. And of course if you don't, then they get away with the lies.
Perhaps this program has now been invoked.
The "you said that I said that you said..." program
Let's see if the Architect robot continues to run it in the next post.
Meanwhile back to more relavant matters.
You'll recall that in Architects very first post, written about 4 weeks ago now, he/it wrote
[[I'd want to see information regarding the positioning of intercept aircraft, US policies on intercepting jets, and so on.]]
Now since that the *very first* two articles in the first page on my site which actually contains
substantive documentation
actually deal specifically with this question, I'm wondering whether in "trawling through" my site, the Architect robot actually managed by some incredibe stroke of good fortune to come across what he interested in and to read it, especially, as I'd already especially mentioned these two articles in two previous posts before Architect told the latest load of whoppers.
Guilty For 9-11:Part 1. Bush, Rumsfeld, Myers, by Illarion Bykov and Jared
Israel, 14 Nov 2001
Guilty for 9/11 Mr. Cheney's Cover up -- Part 2 of Guilty For 9-11, 20 Nov
2001
Not so interested after all now , Architect ?
[[Come on Gerald,... is a flame war the best you can manage? ]]
Hmm, getting a bit hot for you Architct ? Hot enough to melt your steel frame ?
When it happens, perhaps some one will explain how you collpased straight down into your own robotic boots at the same seped as falling through air.
Gerard Holmgren
e-mail:
holmgren@iinet.net.au
Expert wankers and liars
20.02.2006 11:54
All of this idiocy has been smokescreened by frenzied and almost random references to "experts" the definition of which appears to be anybody else who is stupid enough to believe these things.
Since the Sky Cretin robot and the architect robot are clearly primitive prototypes with extremely limited learning abilities, their main program at the moment is to repeat the word "expert" and "qualifications" with great rrrequency at random intervals, which is somehow supposed to pass as an argument for some lunatic racist consopiracy theory about mad ,wild eyed Arabs with tiny knives coming to a flight near you, so we'd better nuke the lot of them before they blow us all up.
It bears a remarkable similarity to the communist bogey which was - by an *extraordinary* coincidence - retired from the cospiracy theorist repetoire about the same time as the Arab phobia was added.
Just as the German Nazis had their "experts" declaring the science which was conveninet for their racially based slaughter, the current crop of US nazi's has managed to find plenty willing to do the same.
Architect, who knows diddly squat about anything resembling science - objects fall at the same speed regardless of what resistance they are encountering haa ! haa ! heee ! heee ! - keeps spewing out a program telling us to "trust " any" expert" which indulges this racist conspiracy theory.
Their faith in these experts knows no bounds. You have to be an "expert to know that gravity is 9.81 m/sec2. This is because neither Sky Cretin nor Architect knew this basic fact , so for them it's "expert" stuff. The rest of us learned it at about 14.
You have to be an "expert" to divide 130,000 by 10,000. This is because neither Sky Cretin nor Archite4ct had been programmed with this either, whereas most of us learned it at about 7.
You have to be an "expert" to know that 125 ft can't fit into 16 ft. Most of us had that figured out by about 5. Architect, I hope they don't have you designing aircraft hangars. All those sheds 20 ft wide and 30 ft high and 80 ft deep for the 757 fleet. Shark pit warning !
So having demonstrated that they know less about space and physics and motion than the average 5 year old, it's not suprising that the Sky Cretin and Architect robots hide sqeaking behind the skirts of "experts" even when these experts don't actually say anything related to the current argument in their program cicuits.
Lets not forget that Architect supplied a link purportedly in support of the ludicrous pancake delusion which actually said in its introduction that it purpose was not to examine the cause of the WTC collapse !
Anyway lets have a look a few "experts"
Chris Wise for example. An architect. His CV is very impressive.
This from the Imperail college of London.
And more
You get the picture. Chris is not just an "expert". He's distinguished expert. His word is gospel. We bow down before the magnificance of his scientific knowledge.
So disitnguished in fact that when it comes to the WTC demolition, he doesn't even know the melting point of steel. Here he is , claiming it to be 800C, something which would get him a fail in a junior high school exam.
But Chris Wise isn't the only expert who suddenly and inexplicably got very confused about the melting point of steel after sept 11. In the same article, an expert no less than the buildings' construction manager, Hyman Brown, was also insistent that steel melts at 800c.
Following this, Architect's expert identifiaction program spewed out a link to Tim Wilkinson from Sydeny Uni as another expert. According to Wilkinson:
[[There has never been a claim that the steel melted in the fire before the buildings collapsed]]
Hmm, what pile of rubble has Wilkison been hiding under ?
The Sky Cretin Robot has a endelssly looping "Greening " prgram , even though Greening has actually admitted that his work is crap and has gone back to work on it to see if he can get the figures somewhere near accurate. In fact Sky Cretin lauded Greening for having the honesty to admit that his work was crap, and therefore still quotes it as expert material.
Apparently an expert is also someone who writes crap but is honest enough to admit that it's crap, once someone points it out to them.
Let's see if the conspiriacy theorist program can handle this one, without blowing a circuit board.
Sky Cretin andArchitect: Given that two distinguished experts have said that Steel melts at 800C, is this the correct figure ? If not, can you tell us how close they were to the correct figure ?
Given that three distinguished experts claimed in the wake of Sept 11 that the fire in the buildings melted the steel, and another - cited by Architect as an expert - said that nobody had ever claimed that the steel melted - which of them knows more about the issue ?
Since we've heard so much about "experts" in this debate, and I've been so disrespectfully dismissive of them, I have now seen the error of my ways and wait with bated breath for the expert answers to these questions, answers which surely cannot be found by the ordinary person with a junior high school education or by a simpe google search.
I am also desperate for an expert opinion on whether 125 ft can fit through 16 ft. This problem has been vexing me for years and I would swoon at help from someone like Grrening or Wise .
I also humbly beseech you to call up one of your experts to check my calulation that 1.8 secs divided by 100 is 0.018 sec and that 130,000 lbs of plane divided by 10,000 gallons of jet fuel neams 13lbs of plane for evey gallon of kero.
I realize that this advanced mathemetaics was presumtous of me to take on and humbly beseech that you have an expert verify them.
If they're not careful back at troll central, they'll electrocute the sharks !
Gerard Holmgren
e-mail:
holmgren@iinet.net.au
Homepage:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren
Another day and more desperate Holmgren-Webfairies' denial.
20.02.2006 13:21
Gerard wrote for all to see:
"Greening didn't write anything on the free fall issue,..."
As we all know, there is no "free-fall issue." Gerard knows that, too.
Which leaves Gerard esperately trying to run away from Greening's collapse times.
As I have always said, one can never underestimate the intelligence of the 9/11 Denial Movement, of which Gerard is one of the founders.
S. King
e-mail:
skyking@scientist.com
Holmgren stuck in the mud
20.02.2006 13:25
"Sky Cretin andArchitect: Given that two distinguished experts have said that Steel melts at 800C, is this the correct figure ? If not, can you tell us how close they were to the correct figure ? "
Given that NIST says NO melting occurred, that leaves you flapping in the breeze with your pants down, Gerard.
How stupid can you be, Gerard?!
S. King
e-mail:
skyking@scientist.com
Gerard Holmgren's refusal to deal with WTC collapse times
20.02.2006 13:46
Gerard Holmgren's refusal to deal with the WTC collapse times is well know. Frank Greening has easily refuted Holmgren.
Sorry, Gerard.
S. King
e-mail:
skyking@scientist.com
Tch Tch
20.02.2006 14:09
This focus on sematnics rather substance would also explain why you get all hett up about the way I rounded of acceleration under gravity to 10 m/s-2, I suppose. Ah well. You'd better check your own posting though - you used to think it was 8000 gallons of jet fuel, now its 10,000. What's wrong? Can't follow your own figures? Does not compute?
But at the end of the day Gerry, you do have a site which includes a vast array of articles (from several authors) claiming that (for example) steel wouldn't fail in the fire, or that the collapse is impossible. And we have you, avoiding answering the points and launching vitriolic attacks.
Is it perhaps that empty bluster and rhetoric are easier for you than susbstantive answers?
Lets try again:
1. Do you accept that structural steelwork fails under fire loadings, or not?
2. If not, can you explain to me about all those steelwork/fire protection links I posted above?
3. Can you come up with any serious, competent construction professionals or academics who cast doubt upon the general collapse mechanisms?
4. If not, can you explain to me how over 120,000 construction professionals and academics - all qualified to university level and many with postgraduate degrees - have been "duped" or "kept quiet? And what's with Chris Smith - are you having a go at him too, now?
5. Can you tell me what specialist training you have to comment meaningfully on subjects such as structural mechanics or fire engineering?
6. Are you saying that pancake collapses are not a recognised structural issue? Are you denying they exist, or perhaps just that they're possible? What do you base this on - hard facts now?
7. You talk grandly of collapse times. Right, let's see your calculations please. Remember to include the information on shear forces, effects of arrestation at intermediate floors, and so on.
8. Likewise can you please flesh out for me just how you image all that explosive was concealed within the building to collapse each and every floor simultaneously? Proof would be a nice touch, rather than unsubstantiated opinion.
You know Gerry, it doesn't make a blind bit of difference what we say to you. You're not interested in discussion. You KNOW the "truth" and nothing like pesky evidence or gaping holes in your (at best) shaky understanding of key issues is going to get in the way.
Architect
Ho Hum
20.02.2006 14:27
1. "Achitect, who knows diddly squat about anything resembling science - objects fall at the same speed regardless of what resistance they are encountering haa ! haa ! heee ! heee ! "
and
"ee hee ! Haa haa ! Buidling which crush their own structure from the top down at the same speed as falling through air ! Oooh hoo hoo ! My aching sides ! "
Actual quote I used: "instead we had hundreds of tonnes of concrete steel, and fittings accelerating at 10ms-2 (oops 9.81 ms-2, sorry Gerald). That's a lot of momentum. Oh the first few floors might arrest the fall marginally, but after that it's not even going to break stride".
Hmm. Try reading the text, Gerry.
Now, let's see your own calculations of how the collapse happened.
2 "What science school did they teach this at Sky Cretin ? Was it the same one which taught you that gravity is 10m/sec2 "
So rounding off is a crime, eh? No-one told me all figures had to be that precise for a general discussion. Well you'd better be specific yourself then. Acceleration under gravity is nominally 9.80665m/s-2 but this is in fact just an average, as it varies worldwide.
And your pals over at 911blimp.net have rounded it off to 32ft/s-2 which is only 9.7536 m/s-2 by the way. You going to go and shout at them too?
3. How come you're the only (uneducated) genius who's spotted these glaring flaws in the official story then, eh?
Architect Again
The Hidden Enemy: Rationalism
20.02.2006 16:35
The philosophy of Rationalism has deeply invaded the academic culture, so deeply it is not recognized as a particular philosophy of thought, or held up to examination.
The foundation of their "reason" is what is intuitively known inside their head. Experience, that which happens outside one's internal logic, is discounted severely. Rationalist "Truth" is a pendulum swing's worth of possibility, the zero point being what ever they already know, independent of physical evidence.
"Seeing Things" outside the Pendulum Swing that passes for Logical is impossible for a committed rationalist. Seeing things is equated with imagining things. Using their eyes as a judgment tool means "seeing things" to them, leaving them logically blindsided to anything not previously accepted by the pendulum swing of rational thought.
Rationalism is a form of brainwashing paid for by the victims, the same way Scientology victims are brainwashed at their own expense. The biggest difference is that Rationalists see themselves merely as Educated, unaware that a mind-control straightjacket left them blind and deaf to anything that contradicts presupposed notions previously intuited as true.
Rosalee Grable
e-mail:
webfairy@thewebfairy.com
Homepage:
http://thewebfairy.com/911
The Planeless footage
20.02.2006 17:26
The quality is just fine.
There is just no plane in it.
The "thousands of witnesses" turns out to be as bogus as the rest of the horror show.
It shows how suggestible people are, period.
The second hit is the one that supposedly had "thousands of witnesses" -- nada.
We have witnesses to explosions.
The ones who actually saw a "plane" were newsbunnies in their studios who watched the animation hop across their CNN feed on a monitor. They had the job of telling their reporters, who did NOT see a plane and there was no plane noise in their open mikes either, that it had been a plane.
An eyewitness saying "no plane, it was a missile" was blown off by a reporter who also demonstrates foreknowledge of the 7 Demoliton.
The second hit footage was pre-prepared from staged angles where a camera would be pre-positioned to blend the animation with the "live" footage. This technique isn't even secret, but used to change the signage on stadiums, and fly a blimp over a stadium for the television audience.
This was a truly, truly sick frameup. Today's dose of Cartoon Puppet Osama is all folks can expect when they are so farking blind that they no longer believe in perspective or gravity or conservation of energy so that they can believe the lies of a media that is owned by Defense Contractors who want perpetual war.
The only people who "saw" the first hit were working for the coup.
There were firemen waiting in line to come to Manhattan when the tower was hit. They passed off this footage with a coverstory a couple years later.
The Naudet DVD, from a known source with known lineage shows that the first hit tower was attacked by a a squad of UAV drones similar to the ones they admitted to using over Pakistan.
The same DVD shows the murder of Father Judge, and it looks like they murdered a newbie
fireman earlier just to add plot interest.
The perps laugh at us.
The first hit doesn't have a plane in it.
A real plane would have been visable in every frame, larger than the building as it was on it's relentless course with destiny.
Except it's not there.
Instead of a plane, we have little drone thingies blowing chemical clouds which explode.
The entire crimescene video laid out in 1/60th of a second increments so you can see the development of the plane shape hole with no plane in sight.
People are eager to swallow every childish excuse. They don't have to make sense anymore.
This is why they can confidently pass off a speech written in English as "Bin Ladin" and follow it up with mythical Al Zarqwai, all purpose boogieman.
Characters playing for the media coverup want you to think the media is trustworthy.
Knowing that fake phony flight simulator/photoshop cartoons of planes were used to sell excuses for perpetual war is a message that ought to be able to reach people, whether you want to keep the official stories buffed up or not.
We already know about fake WMD, those teenagers blown up in Iran, their bodies posed with weapons instead of their soccer ball, the Halloween terrorist named Pearlman
and all the other media hoaxes that have been sprung on us since.
We can look backward at Pearl Harbor, and Remember the Maine for more instances of media perfidity on behalf of war.
Gulf on Tonkin, another clinker.
Then the government goes ahead and acts on whatever the media has projected as true, and the people nod and cheer cos they fall for the hoax too.
No more hoaxes. NO more liars lies nodded for in exchange for getting your lies nodded at too.
We could have an entirely different world if we looked at things honestly, and measured our imaginings against reality instead of expecting to created it by our thoughts and beliefs.
Rosalee Grable
e-mail:
webfairy@thewebfairy.com
Homepage:
http://missilegate.com
Anti-Reason makes a hit with the Webfairies
20.02.2006 19:07
....a bunch of nonsense and anti-intellectual gibberish.
There's really no point in writing gibberish, Rosalee. You've already embarrassed yourself enough here.
S. King
e-mail:
skyking@scientist.com
Fairies
20.02.2006 19:48
Webfairy believes that their were soldiers disguised as firemen
Webfairy believes that that thousands of witnesses are either deluded or US government stooges
Perhaps Webfairy believes in fairies too?
Amused
Their logic circuits are extremely primitive
20.02.2006 19:50
Question asked by Human. (after supplying full documentation for the three “experts” who said that the kero melted the steel, and the one who then said that nobody ever claimed that)
From my post
Expert wankers and liars
20.02.2006 11:54
“Sky Cretin and Architect: Given that two distinguished experts have said that Steel melts at 800C, is this the correct figure ? If not, can you tell us how close they were to the correct figure ?
Given that three distinguished experts claimed in the wake of Sept 11 that the fire in the buildings melted the steel, and another - cited by Architect as an expert - said that nobody had ever claimed that the steel melted - which of them knows more about the issue ? “
Programmed response by Cointelpro Robots
[[Given that NIST says NO melting occurred, that leaves you flapping in the breeze with your pants down, Gerard.
How stupid can you be, Gerard?! ]]
It’s like those voice recognition telephone systems, where you say
“G Smith. 17 Emington Rd Gladesville”
And the machine replies “Did you say – 14 buckets of horse manure at the mill ? “
gerard Holmgren
e-mail:
holmgren@iinet.net.au
Homepage:
http://members.iinet.net.au
So much for Holmgren's belief in the "official" record.
20.02.2006 20:37
"Given that two distinguished experts have said that Steel melts at 800C, is this the correct figure?"
But the 'official' NIST Report says NO melting occurred. DO catch up, Gerard.
Not only is Gerard and his pants flapping in the breeze, but Gerard has failed once again to refute Dr. Greening's papers.
S. King
e-mail:
skyking@scientist.com
Poor, Poor Gerald
20.02.2006 22:20
You seem to be encountering some difficulties responding cogently to the points put to you, indeed you even seem to have run out of humourous insults. Lets try again (and again):
1. Do you accept that structural steelwork fails under fire loadings, or not? If not, can you explain to me about all those steelwork/fire protection links I posted above?
2. Can you come up with any serious, competent construction professionals or academics who cast doubt upon the general collapse mechanisms?
3. Can you explain to me how over 120,000 construction professionals and academics in the UK alone have been "duped" or "kept quiet?
4. Can you tell me what specialist training you have to comment meaningfully on subjects such as structural mechanics or fire engineering? Why should I prefer your evidence to recognised experts?
5. Clarify your views on pancake collapses. Are you denying they exist, or perhaps just that they're possible? What do you base this on - hard facts now?
6. You talk grandly of collapse times. Let's see your calculations please. Remember to include the information on shear forces, effects of arrestation at intermediate floors, and so on.
7. And a critique of where Frank Greening goes wrong in his interesting paper on the subject, please.
8. Likewise can you please flesh out for me just how you image all that explosive was concealed within the building to collapse each and every floor simultaneously?
9. Can you tell the readers at home why you deliberately and culpably misquote continually in an effort to undermine those who argue, viz (by way of example):
Achitect, who knows diddly squat about anything resembling science - objects fall at the same speed regardless of what resistance they are encountering haa ! haa ! heee ! heee ! "
or
"ee hee ! Haa haa ! Buidling which crush their own structure from the top down at the same speed as falling through air ! Oooh hoo hoo ! My aching sides ! "
when the actual quote I used: "instead we had hundreds of tonnes of concrete steel, and fittings accelerating at 10ms-2 (oops 9.81 ms-2, sorry Gerald). That's a lot of momentum. Oh the first few floors might arrest the fall marginally, but after that it's not even going to break stride".
10. And just to round it off, tell us why you spend over 20 lines decrying that there's an absolute pile of consipracy articles and links on YOUR website, just because you object to the term "homepage". Incidentally, Wiki defines a homepage as
The start page or main web page of a website
The website of a group or individual
The page that is displayed when you enter only a domain name as URL (e.g.
The URL or local file that is automatically loaded when a web browser starts
But perhaps you have problems with Wiki too?
I look forward to your verbose and doubtless viscous response. At least I can rest easy knowing that it's keeping your from spreading your particular brand of half-truth and downright lies amongst the wider population. I used to live in Kelvin Grive and had a soft spot for our antipodean friends which means I would want to spare them the grief.
Architect
Greening debunked - with ease !
20.02.2006 23:41
[[Frank Greening has provided a new update to his paper on the WTC collapses here:
Gerard Holmgren's refusal to deal with the WTC collapse times is well know. Frank Greening has easily refuted Holmgren.]]
Finally, I’ve been given the specific paper.
Heh! I’m very glad that Sky Cretin provided this, because it shows that greening the intellect of squashed apricot.
Firstly, Greening is quibbling over 1 or 2 seconds using data which admits to large margins of error. Secondly, rather than looking at what the actual collapse time was, he’s trying to fudge all of the figures up as much as can and then assuming the collapse to time to be whatever he’s worked would have been possible.
Thirdly – which is even worse , he claims that what he describes as stage 2 of the collapse to be free of *any* resistance. That is, he assumes a stage 1 collapse, which follows my model, except that he considers it to be the total number of floors above the impact point falling as one on to the floors below the impact point, and pancaking to the ground, with the top section still intact.
That may be a reasonable model, pending closer examination of the videos. Then he postulates a stage 2 collapse where the floors below the impact point are finished being crushed, and we have the still intact upper section atop them, now starting to crush itself.
For some unexplained reason, he considers stage 2 to be exempt from *any* resistance. The top section just free falls. So , for that part of the tower he’s invoking the ridiculous architect claim that a structure crushing itself from the top down falls at the same speed as through air.
This way , he manages to fudge a bit of time off the minimum possible total collapse time, although I haven’t yet had time to figure out how much.
Even with this fudging he still only manages to get it down to 12.6 secs for WTC 1 and 11.5 secs for WTC 2. These times are calculated as the minimum possible – excluding any resistance other than that of a stationary mass obstructing the acceleration of a moving mass. That is, it’s not actually a pancake collapse. It’s a staggered free fall, with each floor being hit from above offering zero structural resistance.
This is the same model I used, apart from the two stage innovation.
When I calculated this , I got 14.7 secs, but my model was simpler – just 110 floors collapsing from the top down one at a time. Greening’s model of a stage 2 collapse is probably a better model – with one qualification. It doesn’t necessarily mean that this 2 stage collapse is what actually happened. But if you’re trying to work out a theoretical model for how it *might* have been possible, trying to weight everything in favour of the official story as much as is scientifically possible, then it’s a better model than mine.
The problem is, I explained before, he fudges some time off the end result by assuming no velocity loss through momentum transfer for the top section. So the end result, once this fudging is removed is not going to be all that much different from what I got, although it will take time to do the exact calculations.
So even without any structural resistance, and with Greening fudging the figures for stage 2 of the collapse, the minimum possible times are already exceeding the actual collapse times. Stretching things to the limit, Greening observes that these times are about what we observe.
Which leaves nothing left over for structural resistance. Nothing.
So up to this point, Greenings paper completely agrees with my work. The stage 1 and 2 collapse is a better model , but doesn’t significantly change the result.
Greening then has the good sense to admit that calculating the structural resistance is extremely complex, even for one floor. So complex that he refuses to attempt it.
This of course is why I didn’t attempt it either. What I did was weight the situation ridiculously in favour of the official conspiracy theory by assuming no structural resistance at all. So I wasn’t even calculating a pancake collapse , but a staggered free fall – and *still * couldn’t fit it into the observed collapse time. By fudging out 14 storeys from WTC 1 and 29 storeys from WTC 2, Greening has just managed to squeeze the staggered free fall model into the upper limit of what the observable collapse times might be.
Since Greening , like me, had the good sense not to attempt a calculation of structural resistance, it’s worth taking a look at this ill informed swipe made earlier by Architect.
[[Gerald himself can't tell us how long a pancake collapse would take to occur because "there are too many variables to calculate the exact minimum time possible". Aye, nice one mate… Amazing, isn't it, that neither Gerald or his sources - by their own admission can actually come up with a meaningful calculation on the effects of the intact lower floors on collapse time but seem awfully sure that it's much different from free fall, eh? Must be that Renaissance man thing again. I'll tell you why you can't, Gerald. It's because you'd have to look at a range of complex issues such as the weight of the upper floors when movement began. Then you'd calculate the impact forces on the floor and uprights below. You'd then have to calculate the resistance provided before they failed. Then take a view on fail times. Then you'd have to repeat it for each floor all the way down, given that the load increases for each additional floor (less material that escapes sideways or is pulverised).
But you can't do that, Gerry, can you? You don't know how. You don't understand how to do load/shear calculations on complex ultra tall building frames, do you?]]
Nice one, Architect ! Because the drivel above also applies exactly to Greening. And to everyone else. Greening therefore tires to handball this problem to others. Rather than doing his own structural resistance calculations, he admits that its too complex and refers to others who attenpted it. But they all made a hash of it.
He mentions Bazant’s estimates, but observes
“unfortunately Bazant et al, do not give a detailed exposition on how E1 was derived, stating only that it was based on “approximate design calculations for one WTC tower.”
Hee hee ! There’s wanker expert gobbildigook for you. (Not Greening in this case, but Bazant).
Bazant just made something up and tried to legitmize it with the popmpous term “based on approximate design calculations”
Wisely, Greening decides to move on from those charlatans and looks at the estimates of G.C. Lee et al. Same story.
He also observes that Lee give “no computational details”.
In other words, its just conspiracy theorists making stuff up and thinking that they can get away with it, because they call themselves experts.
Greening goes on to say that Lee’s conclusions are based on “very rough estimates of the energies involved, so that the level of agreement with Bazant’s estimates is as good as might be expected in view of the approximations involved”.
Hmm, how about you have a go , architect ? Now that you finally learned the correct figure for gravity, I’m sure that you could show these dullards how to do it.
So Greening moves on again, and tries someone else’s estimate. And here he performs a slight of hand. Having given himself an air of credibility by rejecting Bazant and Lee as too uncertain he enthusiastically endorses the next methid.
And guess how this guy worked it out. By calculating the energy needed for a wing of a plane to cut through the support columns and then extrapolating that amount of energy in whatever form to what it would take for a column to fail.
Hee hee ! An aluminium wing cutting through steel support columns. Oh my aching sides ! Just remember that ! The next time you go to a hardware store to buy a steel cutting tool , make sure that you ask for one with an aluminium blade ! Forget tungsten. Forget Cobalt ! Make mine aluminium !
Now here’s a litte test for the conspiracy theorists. There are lots of sites on the web of firms which sell equipment for cutting heavy steel. Do find me one which boasts of an aluminium cutting edge. Rigourously tested at the WTC ! Haa haa haa !
On that point, see my article
WTC forensics
which provides a forensic proof to supplement the video proof that no big planes hit the WTC.
But back to Greening. This is where he goes completely loony.
Greening seizes on this on this idea and uses the ludicrous idea of a plane wing slicing a steel support column to extrapolate his own calculations of structural resistance.
In doing so ,Greening deals a devastating blow to the plane delusion by observing that it is “remarkable” how easily the planes entered the towers, but how little came out the other side . Greening then sensibly observes that this indicates that the exterior walls were extremly “soft” so the core of the building must have been a “hard target” which brought the aircraft to a rapid stop.
But here’s what the idiot forgot to mention. If the core stopped the plane, then more than half of it would have been hanging out of the building. The wings would not have even made it in.
A Boeing 767 is 160 ft long. The WTC towers were 208 ft a side. This means that there’s only a total of 48 ft of spare space with the *entire aircraft* inside the building. 24 ft each side if its exactly in the middle. 48 ft on one side and nothing on the other is the other extreme. But that’s without considering the core “brought the aircraft to a rapid halt according to Greening)
“Each tower was 208 x 208 ft with a column-free interior between the outer walls and the 79-ft x 139-ft core.”
. This leaves a total core free space (including both sides of the core) of 129 ft by 69 ft. Which means that on each side the core free space was 65 ft by 35 ft
Lets assume that the mythical plane entered through the larger core free space. So 65 ft of the mythical plane entered the building before being brought to a rapid halt by the core, says Greening.
Which leaves 95 ft of plane still hanging out of the building. Which means that wings wouldn’t have even entered the building.
And yet Greening says that they cut 36 columns.
Just another loony conspiracy theorist who can’t even work out that 160 doesn’t fit into 65.
Duh ! This is why we call them wankers instead of experts.
Greening then goes on to calculate the energy required to collapse each floor – based on the energy assumptions of a plane wing cutting a steel support column.
As a result he figures that the structural resistance would be just 0.2 of a second for WTC 1 and point 0.1 sec for WTC 2.
Obviously I haven’t yet had time to go through the actual calculations yet to see if he’s fudged them, the way that he fudged the time for the Stage 2 collapse, but the basic premise is flawed, even if the calculations built from them are honest.
For a start there wasn’t any plane. “Experts” who cant even work out that 160 does not fit into less than a 65 !.
Duh ! This is as good as Sky Cretins assertion that a plane 125 by 40 by 155 fitted into a hole 16 by 20 by 65 at the pentagon.
Not only that, but the aluminium wing of the plane sliced the steel support cores. Isn’t it funny that nobody ever thought of making aluminium blades for cutting steel ?
Here I’m going to do a little plagiarism from an excellent piece of writing by j McMicheal back in Oct 2001, when the conspiriacy theorists were still claiming that the kero melted the steel.
First I’ll quote McMichael.
[[Using jet fuel to melt steel is an amazing discovery, really. It is also amazing that until now, no one had been able to get it to work, and that proves the terrorists were not stupid people. Ironworkers fool with acetylene torches, bottled oxygen, electric arcs from generators, electric furnaces, and other elaborate tricks, but what did these brilliant terrorists use? Jet fuel, costing maybe 80 cents a gallon on the open market.]]
Now for Greenings benefit.
Using aluminium plane wings to cut heavy construction steel is an amazing discovery, really. It is also amazing that until now, no one had been able to get it to work, and that proves the terrorists were not stupid people. Manufacturers fool with precision sharpened and toothed blades with tungsten and cobalt cutting edges and other elaborate tricks, but what did these brilliant terrorists use? Aluminium, cheap and light.
Greening could make a lot of money patenting this discovery. I wonder why no-ones done it yet ? (Snigger)
In summary.
So what we see is that Greening’s times for the minimum possible collapse without structural resistance, entirely agree with my work, once we remove his fudging of the top 14 and 29 storeys from the equation.
I will come back with an exact comparison , once I’ve worked out exactly how much he fudged it by.
He then calculates the structural resistance - not by anything even remotely connected to a structural engineering assessment - which he admitted was too difficult for him or for anyone to do. He assumed a mythical plane wing (mounted on the cockpit perhaps) slicing steel support beams, worked out much energy it would take, concluded that the amount of energy needed to break a beam would be the same, regardless of what form it was delivered in, and then extrapolated that figure to the rest of the building collapse to conclude his final figure of how much energy was needed to overcome structural resistance and then converted that to the amount of time added.
I haven’t yet had time to see if he fudged the actual calculations themselves that were built on this numbskull assumption.
Hee hee hee ! No wonder that sky Cretin has been desperately avoiding specifying the actual Greening paper which I was supposed to debunk ! No wonder he didn’t want to actually be able to read what the idiot wrote.
Any more “experts” you two ?
gerard Holmgren
e-mail:
holmgren@iinet.net.au
Homepage:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren
It's the shark pit for Greening
21.02.2006 00:11
Poor, poor conspiracy theorists ! All this trouble and strife, all these people being thrown into the shark pit and all these diode burnouts, just to try to prove that a accidental collpase is of *equal probablity* to a controlled demolition.
That's the really funny thing about this. All of this effort on the part of the conspiracy theorists , even if successful would only bring the question to a 50/50 proposition.
Here's why. there's a baisic reason flaw in the conspiracy theorists fiounding assumptions about the starting pioint of the debate.
There seems to be an unspoken assumption at the
beginning of any such discussion that the default truth is that the building
were not demolished and that the demolition proposition is subjected to the
cliché of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof".
This founding assumption for the debate is fundamentally flawed.
In an honestly weighted discussion,we begin by laying all conceivable ideas
on the table. In terms of why the building collapsed, we have two such
conceivable ideas.
1) The buildings fell down by accident.
2) They were deliberately demolished.
Is there anything which rules out either idea immediately as an obvious
impossibility ?
No. We know that it is possible for a building to be demolished and possible
for a building to fall down accidentally.
So at the first stage of our analysis the two competing theories are equal
in probability.
Supporters of the official story seem to claim the right to a founding
assumption that there is something inherently improbable about a building
being demolished.
If such a claim were to be made, it is made purely on the basis of perceived
politics and logistics, not science. There are a number of dishonesties in
the way in which this is presented.
1) If objections are to be made of means , motive and opportunity , then
they should be clearly compartmentalized into that aspect of the argument,
not inserted into the scientific aspect, because they have nothing to do
with science.
2) Such arguments are circumstantial, and as such should only be considered
if the scientific argument proves inconclusive.
3) If such arguments are to be used,(that a demolition is politically and
logistically inconceivable) then they should be argued properly on their own
terms, not inserted suddenly as defaul truth in order to rebut some
other aspect of the discussion.
For example, simply saying "it would have too difficult to get away with"
does not make it so. One must properly discuss such an assertion in the light
of all available evidence.
In fact, if one is to ignore the scientific aspect and concentrate on the
more circumstantial aspect of means , motive and opportunity, one finds a
compelling case that the towers were demolished, something which I can go
into if necessary. However, when we are talking science, lets talk science
alone, and see if it becomes necessary to resort to circumstantial evidence
relating to means , motive and opportunity in the absence of a conclusive
scientific result.
At the very first stage of our enquiry, we find a 50% probability of each
theory on the basis of science. If at this stage, one wanted to quit the
scientific debate and discuss means , motive and opportunity, then we have a
blank sheet. Both possibilities are still equally on the table.
So you can't then just assume a default victory on the basis of means,
motive and opportunity without discussing it. That means that no evidence at
all has been discussed. No science, and no circumstantial evidence. And yet,
this is the most common slight of hand used to claim the non demolition
theory.
So, to return to the science. At this stage, both theories are possible. So
now start to take an overview of probability.
Do deliberately demolished buildings characteristically fall straight down ?
Yes. This is the whole idea of demolition. Is there anything in the fall of
the building which is inconsistent with the way in which a demolished
building would fall ? No.
Do accidentally collapsing buildings characteristically fall straight down.
No. Tall objects topple sideways. This is in fact why we have demolition
experts. To apply sophisticated engineering to induce a building to fall in
a manner in which it would not, if left to its own devices. In fact, no one
can show me a documented example of a tall building which has fallen
accidentally - straight down. Is there anything in the fall of the building
which is inconsistent with how a building , collapsing accidentally from
asymmetrical and unpredictable damage, characteristically falls ? Yes.
So immediately, we have a significant although unquantifiable probability
advantage in favour of demolition. The demolition theory requires only a
routine repletion of what is done as a matter of course, by demolition
companies in carrying out their business.
The non demolition theory on the other hand, requires two instances of
something which has never happened before. And something which is
acknowledged as so improbable that it takes highly trained experts to
engineer it.
So which side bears the burden of demonstrating proof ? Not the demolition
theory. It's the non demolition theory.
Now we get to another logical fallacy. As I demonstrated with the time of
collapse argument, the demolition theory enjoys unassailable scientific
proof. But let's just suppose that someone found a hole in this argument.
What would they have proved ? That the building fell by accident ?
No, what they would have proved is that you can't *prove* it was demolition,
and that therefore both options are still on the table. Let's just suppose
that that someone could prove that a non demolition was scientifically
possible. If so, that does not prove that it was an accidental collapse.
Proving that something is possible doesn't prove that it happened.
If it did, then the demolition argument would also be scientifically proven,
because it is also possible as discussed above. And shouldn't both theories
be afforded the same standards of proof ? Obviously two mutually
contradictory theories can't both enjoy proof, and you can't apply more
generous standards of proof to one than the other. So the question would
still be open.
If someone can prove that an accidental collapse was possible, then how
probable is it ? Has it ever been observed to occur in the real world, or is
it merely a theory about what *could* conceivably happen?
The latter. So even if you prove that an accidental collapse is possible,
then the demolition is still way out ahead in probability terms , because it
is observable by precedent as a routine event, and does not require the
acceptance of any new theory, still untested in the real world by practical
and repeatable experiment.
But lets go further, and suppose that someone came up with a very strong
scientific argument that an accidental collapse was extremely probable. So
probable that it restores the 50/50 rating. It can't exceed that, because
everything about the collapse is already completely consistent with what we
see in controlled demolitions. There is nothing to suggest any anomaly in
terms of that scenario.
So the very best one could hypothetically do with a scientific argument is
demonstrate the same in relation to an accidental collapse.
So , even the most stunning scientific counter argument from the supporters
of the official story, would do nothing more than create an inconclusive
verdict with equal probability on both sides.
If this were to be achieved, the argument would resort to the more
circumstantial aspect of means, motive and opportunity, which I claim still
presents a compelling argument for demolition.
You see the hidden philosophical dishonesty which underlines the general
debate on this issue ?
Using dubious science to make weak arguments that it *might* just be
possible for the buildings to have fallen by accident, the conspiracy theorists then make a wild leap of logic to claim that they have *proved*
that they did fall by accident. This is done on the basis of an assumption
of default truth on their side in relation to the means, motive and
opportunity question. This is followed by a failure to weigh the strength of
that alleged victory against any examination of the scientific probabilities
in.
In fact, the logical fallacy goes further. There is an unspoken assumption
that proving the an accidental collapse was *possible* proved that a
demolition is *impossible*.
If its to be asserted that scientific proof has been achieved, then why
discuss means, motive and opportunity at all ?
So we see that defence of the conspiracy theory requires not only belief in the
in the scientifically impossible. That belief is then used to launch an
argument which is flawed in logic at every turn - even if one were to accept
the scientific absurdity on which it is based.
Gerard Holmgren
e-mail:
holmgren@iinet.net.net.au
Homepage:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren
Photos speak for themselves, but first your eyes have to work
21.02.2006 00:11
S. King writes:
> There are lots of people claiming what a 767 "would have looked like", including this one which refutes yours:
That author has gone into hiding, or at least isn't here, so I'm asking you. Do YOU seriously claim a Boeing 767 at 7/10ths of a mile in broad daylight looks like J.Naudet's photo on the left, rather than like M.Icke's CGI on the right?
> But real investigators aren't interested in amateurs playing with photoshop.
What is deficient about Icke's 767 CGI? How does it not look like a 767 to you? What difference would there be between a professional photoshopper's 767 CGI and Icke's 767 CGI? You're saying Marcus's CGI iis the obvious NON-767, between the two images in the Icke comparison pair??
Ray Ubinger
63 "coincidences" that enabled Jules Naudet's world-famous footage.
by Les Raphael of the UK (as is Marcus Icke)
Ray Ubinger
Does Sky Cretin know the melting point of steel ?
21.02.2006 00:23
Hee hee ! he thinks it's about 800C !
For your database diode, Sky Cretin, its about double that.
Sky Cretin is still forced to admit that the the mythical kero couldn;t melt the steel , even when halving the melting point.
But his program actually tells him that it's 800 C!
You know wht y Sky Cretin believes this whopper. Because the building construction mamager of teh WTC said so. And Chris Wise, a renowned architect said so.
You see, if you're an 'expert" you can just make stuff up and idiots like Sky Cretin bleieve it.
So tell me architect. Do you know what the melting point of steel is ? 800C ? (snigger)
Gerard Holmgren
e-mail:
holmgfen@iinet.net.au
Homepage:
http://m,embers.iinet.net.au/~holmgren
More idiocy from Greening
21.02.2006 01:05
On the one hand he asserted that a 160 ft plane was "brought to a rapid halt" only a maximum of 65 ft into the building.
This means that the wings cannot have entered. And yet he went into some kind of double think delusion to then imagine a wing slicing through teh steel support columns.
Perhaps he thinks it flew off the suddenly halted plane and motored forward by itself ?
Having glossed over this fatal contradiction, he then built his entire calculation of structural resistance on the basis the energy needed to break steel columns by assuming that the force applied by the imaginary wing was the required figure.
But just for the moment lets pretend to be a conspiracy kook and just smile and nod at this lunacy and agree that 767s have their wings mounted on the cockpit, so that 65 ft of entry was enough for them to slice through the columns.
Even allowing this, there is another ftal flaw in Greening's assumtpions.
Because from there, Greening, having calculated the energy imparted by the wing to the steel, takes that as the energy also required to be imparted by the falling floors to break the columns below.
For a start, there are huge margins of error in how fast the mythical plane might have been moving. So how can you make any meaningful estimate of it's total energy payload, sufficient for such precise calculations?
Secondly, to achieve a result requires not only the application of quantities of energy but also how efficiently its applied to a given task. For example, a pointed object like an arrow applies its kinetic energy far more efficiently for the purpose of breaking something than does a flat ended object. Because the energy is being applied over a smaller area. A flat ended object impacting a target may do the same amount of total work as a sharp object, but the real wrold result of that work will be very different, leading to different results of exactly what breaks and where.
So loads falling from above are going to impart their energy with quite different results from something cutting from the side.
Greening made no attempt to address this.He simply lookwed at total quantity of energy and made no effort to asses the peculiarties of its method of application.
By the way, even if the wings were mounted on the cockpit, Greening also forgot that the wings on a 767 are raked back at 30 degrees, so they wouldn't have cutting like an axe as he implies. They would have been sawing at an angle.
The world has descended into total loonyland when this kind of crud is labelled as "expert".
Like the two experts who didn't even know the melting point of steel.
This is institutionalized academic fraud.
gerard Holmgren
e-mail:
holmgren@iinet.net.au
Homepage:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren
No "Thousands of Witnesses".
21.02.2006 01:19
There are no "Thousands of Witnesses".
Not even hundreds or dozens or one.
There's liars, some absolutely transparent actors, and a whole lot of people who "see the plane" on the bellyscreen of their imagination == their INNER EYE has a plane blazed on it from the trauma conditioning.
This does not mean they saw a plane in real life.
We heard from a "plane seer" who was actually in bed, asleep, and woken by the explosion sound.
He swears he "saw the plane" which is of course absurd.
He was in his bedroom with the shades drawn.
From The Hidden Enemy: Rationalism
" The foundation of their "reason" is what is intuitively known inside their head. "
The trauma conditioning, with three days of endless cartoon footage of planes hitting buildings was fed into his brain at a very fundamental level. The cartoonyness of the second hit footage, the way it plays with perspective, is meant to reach the small child who watched too many cartoons buried inside most everybody of our generation.
There were lots of things in the air over the scene.
When Scott Loughrey of
There were witnesses to a gray plane with no windows, and
has footage of a plane flying past the building, but it's flying past, not into.
Believing in thousands of witnesses was why I used to think they bluebeamed us.
htp://google.com/search?q=bluebeam
But it turned out to be animated cartoons of flight simulator origin.
The Webfairy
e-mail:
webfairy@thewebfairy.com
Homepage:
http://missilegate.com/blob11
Poor poor Architect
21.02.2006 01:42
This is a predicatable conspiracy theorist response when they get desperate. They tell straight out lies about who said what and force you into a convoluted argument to correct the record, to bore everyone and distract from the thrashing they are getting.
Lets follow this one through.
I have titled, dated and numbered the relevant posts so that they’re easy to find. Check for yourself. Note the post numbers.
In post 49 "Pardon?" 29.01.2006 20:02
Architect wrote.
[[But there's a more obvious error in your side swipe at me. It would still collapse at the same rate whether it had been explosively demolished or whatever. Gravity would act in exactly the same way! ]]
In post 115 "Loony conspiracy theorists" 18.02.2006 13:39
I responded thus (Architects original quote is bracketed)
[[But there's a more obvious error in your side swipe at me. It would still collapse at the same rate whether it had been explosively demolished or whatever. Gravity would act in exactly the same way!
Keep studying for the o-grades, mate.]]
Hee hee heee ! Ha ha haa haa ! Architect “thinks” that a building smashing through it own structure – steel and concrete - falls at the same speed as something falling through air! Hee hee ! Ha hah ha !
In post 158 "Poor, Poor Gerald "
20.02.2006 22:20
Architect lied about the exchange thus.
Can you tell the readers at home why you deliberately and culpably misquote continually in an effort to undermine those who argue, viz (by way of example):
Achitect, who knows diddly squat about anything resembling science - objects fall at the same speed regardless of what resistance they are encountering haa ! haa ! heee ! heee ! "
or
"ee hee ! Haa haa ! Buidling which crush their own structure from the top down at the same speed as falling through air ! Oooh hoo hoo ! My aching sides ! "
when the actual quote I used: "instead we had hundreds of tonnes of concrete steel, and fittings accelerating at 10ms-2 (oops 9.81 ms-2, sorry Gerald). That's a lot of momentum. Oh the first few floors might arrest the fall marginally, but after that it's not even going to break stride".
So we see that architect is lying about the quote I responded to. He came up with that new quote later to try to fight off the ridicule he was getting for the first one. In post 158 he fraudulently represents it as his original quote.
Now we'll see how Architect lies again in order to prolong this "you said that i said that you said nonsense.
The quote which he pleads was his actual comment was made well after my response, in a dexsperate effort to backpedal from his earlier clanger.
He will try to present that as his *original * position. But he wont tell you the post number. Because that will make it easy for you to confirm that his backflip quote occurred well after post 115, in desperation at the ridicule that he had been suffering for his post 49 clanger.
So this was architects position - which he only ran off from after getting a thrashinhg over it.
[[It would still collapse at the same rate whether it had been explosively demolished or whatever. Gravity would act in exactly the same way! ]]
To which I again say:
Hee hee heee ! Ha ha haa haa ! Architect “thinks” that a building smashing through it own structure – steel and concrete - falls at the same speed as something falling through air! Hee hee ! Ha hah ha !
gerard Holmgren
e-mail:
holmgren@iinet.net
Homepage:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren
Answers for Architect - on one condition
21.02.2006 02:03
I am more than happy to answer all of these questions - on one condition.
Conspiracy theorists think that questions are a one way deal. That they can ask as many as they like but they don't have to answer any.
So this is the deal. I will answer whichever question Architect's program chooses as the first question.
Then I get to ask a question. After Architect's primitive logic circuits have generated a standard evasion, then its Architects turn again.
Architect may then ask either ask a follow up question resulting from my answer to his previous question, or declare that question the satisactorily answered - and ask a new question- whichever his primitive logic circuits choose.
Then it's my turn again. I can either ask a follow up , continuing on from Architects previous evasion, or start a new question.
So its all fair and above board and level playing field. Those are my conditions for answering your first question., Architect. Do you accept ?
Gerard Holmgren
e-mail:
iinet.net.au/~holmgren
Homepage:
http://members.
Gerard Holmgren caught in more lies
21.02.2006 02:41
"Finally, I’ve been given the specific paper."
[...]
"No wonder that sky Cretin has been desperately avoiding specifying the actual Greening paper which I was supposed to debunk ! "
Imagine that Gerard Holmgren had to lie all this time!
You can't even admit you were given it first on 14.02.06 and many times since right on this thread, here for all to see.
Isn't that correct, Gerard?
Now you will have to face Dr. Greening diectly, Gerard Holmgren.
S. King
e-mail:
skyking@scientist.com
Note to the Webfairies
21.02.2006 02:46
"Do YOU seriously claim a Boeing 767 at 7/10ths of a mile in broad daylight looks like J.Naudet's photo on the left, rather than like M.Icke's CGI on the right?
Do you have a problem understanding that your fantasises are irrelevant in the face of ALL the evidence that AA11 and UA175 hit the WTC towers, Ray?
Would you like it explained to you what "ALL the evidence" means, or will you try to make the effort yourself.
Are you capable of doing that, Ray?
S. King
e-mail:
skyking@scientist.com
More desperation from Gerard "The Groaning Liar" Holmgren
21.02.2006 02:52
"So now Sky Cretin has also re-engineered that the melting point of steel."
Poor Gerard is going to find the reference to any such statement as SOON as he can forge it.
As I always say, one can never undersetimate the intelligence of the 9/11 Denial Movement, of which Gerard Holmgren is a co-founder.
Poor Gerard.
S. King
e-mail:
skyking@scientist.com
Gerard Holmgren to apologize for lying.
21.02.2006 03:09
"Firstly, Greening is quibbling over 1 or 2 seconds using data which admits to large margins of error."
So much for Gerard Holmgren's claim of a free-fall collapse.
In another post, Gerard Holmgren wrote
"Architect lied about the exchange thus."
While, as noted above Gerard Holmgren lied about not knowing of Greening's papers' link.
You will apologize for lying to all of us, won't you, Gerard Holmgren?
S. King
e-mail:
skyking@scientist.com
Now - for once - Sky Cretin can answer a question (As if ! )
21.02.2006 03:13
Isn't it about Sky Cretin's turn to answer a question ?
It's a simple one.
According to Greening, the plane "came to a rapid halt" when it hit the core of the building.
A Boeing 767 is 160 ft long. The building was 208 ft by 208 ft.
The Core was 79 ft by 139 ft.
If the plane entered through the larger of the two core free spaces, then it was entering thorugh a space of 1/2(208 -79) ft = 1/2 x 129 ft = 64.5 ft.
Therefore - according to Greening's own assumptions, when the plane came to "a rapid halt", 64.5 ft was inside the building, which means that 95.5 ft was still outside the building.
Can you then explain how that remaining 95.5 ft entered the building - after the plane had "come to a rapid halt" ?
Can you explain how the wings, which root from approximately the half way point of the plane - 80 ft - and thus still 15.5 ft outside the building , when the plane came to "a rapid halt" - and swept back at 30 degrees -entered the building at all, let alone at a velocity necessary to chop throguh 36 steel support columns even though they would not strike flush but would have to saw across the steel columns at a 30 degree angle?
Greening isn't here to explain it, and isn;t here for you to hide behind. So perhaps your primitive logic circuit can invent it's own answer for a change instead of shrieking for some expert to come to the rescue.
I've answered your question. Now answer mine.
Gerard Holmgren
e-mail:
holmgren@iinet.net.net.au
Homepage:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren
Webfairies, 9/11 Deniers,and the Attack on Reason
21.02.2006 03:42
"There are no 'Thousands of Witnesses'.
Not even hundreds or dozens or one.
There's liars, some absolutely transparent actors, and a whole lot of people who "see the plane" on the bellyscreen of their imagination == their INNER EYE has a plane blazed on it from the trauma conditioning."
Fortunately, we have the evidence which long-since refuted you and Gerard Holmgren. And thousands of witnesses, too.
It is the nature of the 9/11 Denial Movement to ignore inconvenient facts as much as you do, to deny reality, and spit on reason.
Your nutty nonsense will end up in the trashbin of history and you and Gerard Holmgren will be apologizing to all of us, that's for sure.
S. King
e-mail:
skyking@scientist.com
Gerard Holmgren will now apologize for lying.
21.02.2006 04:20
S. King's the name. Can't you read yet, Gerard?
First, I need your apology for lying about not having the link to Greening's paper.
Once I have that, it will be my greatest pleasure to address your....well, let's us say, attempt to debunk Dr. Greening.
So, get on with it, Gerard. A sincere apology from you for lying is needed.
S. King
e-mail:
skyking@scientist.com
Lose the angry pills Sky Cretin - it's bad for your oil pressure.
21.02.2006 04:28
My emabarrassment of Greening has obviously triggered a primitive "anger " program - probably modelled from the neuroliogy of a crocodile when you steal it's food.
Back at troll central, the technicians are running around in a panic as the diodes explode, and the robotic eyes flash a baleful red, and the metallic clawed arms are lashing out wildly at anyone who comes near.
Buit there was a semi-coherent question in amongst the mechical dummy spitting which I will answer.
Sky Cretin wrote
[[Poor Gerard, flummoxed, dissembles....
"So now Sky Cretin has also re-engineered that the melting point of steel."
Poor Gerard is going to find the reference to any such statement as SOON as he can forge it. ]]
This was the exchange I was referring to.
In an earlier post I presented some documentation about two "experts" who claimed not only that the kero melted the steel, but claimed that it only needed 800C to do it.
I then provided documentation from another "expert" - actually I sourced it from a link provided by architect, thanks mate - denying that anybody had ever claimed such a thing.
I followed that with a question to Architect and Sky Cretin
This is what I wrote
"lets have a look a few "experts"
Chris Wise for example. An architect. His CV is very impressive.
This from the Imperail college of London.
And more
You get the picture. Chris is not just an "expert". He's distinguished expert. His word is gospel. We bow down before the magnificance of his scientific knowledge.
So disitnguished in fact that when it comes to the WTC demolition, he doesn't even know the melting point of steel. Here he is , claiming it to be 800C, something which would get him a fail in a junior high school exam.
But Chris Wise isn't the only expert who suddenly and inexplicably got very confused about the melting point of steel after sept 11. In the same article, an expert no less than the buildings' construction manager, Hyman Brown, was also insistent that steel melts at 800c.
Following this, Architect's expert identifiction program spewed out a link to Tim Wilkinson from Sydeny Uni as another expert. According to Wilkinson:
[[There has never been a claim that the steel melted in the fire before the buildings collapsed]]
Hmm, what pile of rubble has Wilkinson been hiding under ?
The Sky Cretin Robot has an endelssly looping "Greening " prgram , even though Greening has actually admitted that his work is crap and has gone back to work on it to see if he can get the figures somewhere near accurate. In fact Sky Cretin lauded Greening for having the honesty to admit that his work was crap, and therefore still quotes it as expert material.
Apparently an expert is also someone who writes crap but is honest enough to admit that it's crap, once someone points it out to them.
Let's see if the conspiriacy theorist program can handle this one, without blowing a circuit board.
Sky Cretin andArchitect: Given that two distinguished experts have said that Steel melts at 800C, is this the correct figure ? If not, can you tell us how close they were to the correct figure ?
Given that three distinguished experts claimed in the wake of Sept 11 that the fire in the buildings melted the steel, and another - cited by Architect as an expert - said that nobody had ever claimed that the steel melted - which of them knows more about the issue ? "
In response I got the usual evasive drivel from the conspiracy theorists. They drivelled on that NIST never said the steel melted. Huh ? That's all very well, but it's not remotely connected to the question.
Of course they can add any new observation they want, and that's fine, but it has nothing to with what I was asking.
What I was asking was whether Chris Wise and Hyman Brown were correct in asserting that steel melts at 800C. And I was asking who was the better informed out of Wise and Hyman, who made this claim, or Wilkison who denied that anyboody had ever claimed that kero melted the steel.
In usual fashion the conspiracy theorists simply refused to answer. So I took their silence to mean that they agreed with Wise and Hyman that the melting point of Steel is 800C.
Now, if they wont answer a direct question with a direct answer, then i am entitled - indeed obligated - to draw the most logical conclusion from that refusal to answer.
Of course, if they don;t like the conclusion I drew, they are entitled to clear it up with a direct answer.
So - the conclusion I drew from the refusal to answer this question was that both Architect and Sky Cretin have been programmed to believe that steel melts at 800C.
If they give a direct statement that this is not their belief, that its actually about double that and that Wise and Hyman were therefore talking complete crap, then of course I will respect that and no longer attribute to them the misconception that steel melts at 800 C.
So Sky Cretin and Architerct - does steel melt at 800C ? Yes or no ?
It's a very simple question and if you refuse to answer, I give niotice that I will continue to atrtribute to you a belief that steel melts at 800C. So if that is not your belief then, even your primitive logic circuits should be able to muster a response such as
"Wise and Hyman were way out. Of course it's not 800C."
Should you respond thus, then of course I will withdraw my attribution to you of a belief in 800C. Should you fail to do so, the attribution will continue.
I am giving you notice now, that a failure to respond will be taken as a statement that you think steel melts at 800C.
So the ball is in your court.
Gerard Holmgren
e-mail:
holmgren@iinet.net.au
Homepage:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren
Unanswered questions for Sky Cretin
21.02.2006 04:42
[[And thousands of witnesses, too. ]]
Sky Cretin, does this ambitious claim refer to witnesses to large jet hitting either of the WTC towers ?
Since you have thousands, 10 will do for a start. With documentation please.
Also , please answer my question.
Do you or do you not believe the melting point of steel to be 800C.
Yes or no ?
And please explain, as I asked before, how a 160 ft plane can go 65 ft into the WTC , and then come to a "rapid halt" as asserted by Greening, and still go completely inside the building.
You have been running and hiding for long enough. Now you will answer my questions.
Gerard Holmgren
e-mail:
holmgren@iinet.net.au
Homepage:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren
Have a discussion
21.02.2006 04:52
> Do you have a problem understanding that your fantasises are irrelevant in the face of ALL the evidence that AA11 and UA175 hit the WTC towers, Ray?
Which of these two images looks more to you like a 767 at 7/10ths of a mile in broad daylight?
The photo on the left or the CGI on the right?
Ray Ubinger
Ray Ubinger
Rational Rationalists Rationalize Rationally
21.02.2006 05:37
Marcus's Fake Plane
These rationalist tellytubbies can only see what's on their bellyscreen.
It's extremely doubtful they could tell the subtle difference between an honest view of the first hit object and Marcus Icke's subtle fake.
It is NOT the right size for a Boeing 767. That's just a label.
Marcus thinks that labeling something makes it real.
It is too small to be a 767, even if it was more than photoshopped artwork.
Close things always look bigger.
It is shown at about the size of the plane shape hole, but it's still 20 frames from "hitting the building." It ought to be significantly larger, like Marcus's version of what the "plane" would have looked like flying overhead and toward the building.
Rosalee Grable
e-mail:
webfairy@thewebfairy.com
Homepage:
http://thewebfairy.com/chaos
Another Day, Another Flummoxing of Gerard Holmgren
21.02.2006 12:07
Sky Cretin wrote
[[Poor Gerard, flummoxed, dissembles....
"So now Sky Cretin has also re-engineered that the melting point of steel."
Poor Gerard is going to find the reference to any such statement as SOON as he can forge it. ]]
C'mon, Gerard, where is this alleged statement I was supposed to have made?
Cat caught your tongue? Forgot to check your facts again?
Of course you did!
I wrote for all to see earlier, knowing what I'm talking about, "Given that NIST says NO melting occurred, that leaves you flapping in the breeze with your pants down, Gerard."
So here is what NIST, the "offical" report as Gerard likes to call it:
Structural steels do not need to melt to lose strength. Their melting
points are about 1,600 ºC, well above the 1,100 ºC typical peak value
reached by fires of common building combustibles. Page 29.
"None of the recovered steel samples showed evidence of exposure to
temperatutures above 600 degrees centigade [1,112 degrees fahrenheit] for
as long as 15 min. This was based on NIST annealing studies that
established the set of time and temperature conditions necessary to alter
steel microstructure." P. 180
"In the simulations, none of the columns with intact insulation reached
temperatures over 300 °C. Only a few isolated truss members with intact
insulation were heated to temperatures over 400 °C in the WTC 1
simulations and to temperatures over 500 °C in the WTC 2 simulations. In
WTC 1, if the fires had been allowed to continue past the time of building
collapse, complete burnout would likely have occurred within a short time
since the fires had already traversed around the entire floor, and most
of the combustibles would already have been consumed. In WTC 2, if the
fire simulation were extended for 2 hours past the time of building
collapse with all windows broken, the temperatures in the truss steel on
the west side of the building (where the insulation was undamaged) would
likely have increased for about 40 min before falling off rapidly as the
combustibles were consumed. Temperatures of 700 °C to 760 °C were reached
over approximately 15 percent of the west floor area for less than 10 min.
Approximately 60 percent of the floor steel had temperatures between 600
°C and 700 °C for about 15 min. Approximately 70 percent of the floor
steel had temperatures that exceeded 500 °C for about 45 min. At these
temperatures, the floors would be expected to sag and then recover a
portion of the sag as the steel began to cool. The temperatures of the
insulated exterior and core columns would not have increased to the point
where they would have experienced significant loss of strength or
stiffness." P. 184
Structural Response and Collapse Analysis
"The core columns were weakened significantly by the aircraft impact
damage and thermal effects. Thermal effects dominated the weakening of WTC
1. As the fires moved from the north to the south side of the core, the
core was weakened over time by significant creep strains on the south side
of the core. Aircraft impact damage dominated the weakening of WTC 2. With
the impact damage, the core subsystem leaned to the southeast and was
supported by the south and east perimeter walls via the hat truss and
floors. As the core weakened, it redistributed loads to the perimeter
walls through the hat truss and floors. Additional axial loads
redistributed to the exterior columns from the core were not significant
(only about 20 percent to 25 percent on average) as the exterior columns
were loaded to approximately 20 percent of their capacity before the
aircraft impact." P. 185
Final Report on theCollapse of the World Trade Center Towers September
2005
---
Gerard goes on, foot in mouth:
"Should you respond thus, then of course I will withdraw my attribution to you of a belief in 800C. Should you fail to do so, the attribution will continue."
Since you can't attribute any such statement to me, you'll just have to retract it, Gerard .
So the ball is in your court, Gerard. Let's have that apology you owe me for lying.
S. King
e-mail:
skyking@scientist.com
The Ball is in Holmgren's Court - Again
21.02.2006 12:12
"And please explain, as I asked before, how a 160 ft plane can go 65 ft into the WTC , and then come to a "rapid halt" as asserted by Greening, and still go completely inside the building."
Do I have to remind you of an easily-understood English statement, Gerard? Let's try again and see if you can get it this time:
"First, I need your apology for lying about not having the link to Greening's paper.
"Once I have that, it will be my greatest pleasure to address your....well, let's us say, attempt to debunk Dr. Greening.
"So, get on with it, Gerard. A sincere apology from you for lying is needed."
S. King
e-mail:
skyking@scientist.com
Communicating with the Webfairies
21.02.2006 12:19
Let's try again. Pay attention:
"Do you have a problem understanding that your fantasises are irrelevant in the face of ALL the evidence that AA11 and UA175 hit the WTC towers, Ray?"
S. King
e-mail:
skyking@scientist.com
Sky Cretin has a software glitch.
21.02.2006 17:27
Does steel melt at 800 C ?
How does a 160 ft plane which has come to a “rapid halt” 65 ft into a building, completely disappear inside the building?
Does a building smashing through its own structure fall to the ground at the same speed as if falling through air ?
Does the law of perspective exist – or was it abolished on Sept 11 ?
Is aluminium considered a suitable material with which to saw heavy construction steel ?
These questions are raised by the fact that throughout this debate Sky Cretin has either stated or strongly implied that he has been programmed to believe this ridiculous junk.
His latest tirade indicates that he has not yet been programmed to back off from his apparent assertion that steel melts at 800 C.
In fact it seems that the program is jammed and unable to update. Obviously, even stupid robots can suffer severe trauma under some circumstances, and the severe thrashing being handed out to the racist conspiracy theories of the 9/11 denial robots has clearly triggered a major malfunction.
When Sky Cretin tries to update the program now he gets an error message.
“This program cannot be updated until robotic vengeance is extracted for a Holmgren lie. You must find the Holmgren lie before proceeding with the update.”
But when his program searches for the lie, he gets
“error 404. This lie cannot be found. Please check your debate archives. Your standard program will recommence in 20 seconds.”
Of course, the technicians back at troll central are desperately working on this program – or rather they’d like to be, but nobody can get near this highly traumatized robot which is now showing signs of uncontrolled anger.
The technicians have called for some soothing footage of US warplanes bombing Afghan villages in “retaliation” for the Sept 11 frame up. They believe that some photos of dead and maimed children from the bombing raids may bring some pleasure to Sky Cretin and settle his behavior enough for them to attend to his rising oil pressure.
Gerard Holmgren
e-mail:
holmgren@iinet.net.au
Homepage:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren
The Pseudo Science of Gerard Holmgren
21.02.2006 18:10
Gerard Holmgren, who is incapable of apologizing for lying, wants us to believe the following:
1) 800 degrees centigrade is 1,600 degrees centigrade.
2) Boeing 767s are so strong that when flying into the WTC towers they would come to a halt and their tail would stick out of the building. This is just as loony as when he claimed that Boeing 757 could not penetrate into the Pentsgon because a scale model of a 757 made of cardboard can't fit through a hole smaller than the 757. Gerard was easily debunked on his Pentagon paper 4 years ago, but still claims 757s are made like cardboard and move really, really slow.
3) Contradicting himself on #2 above, Gerard then claims that a 767 is so fragile that its wings could not penetrate the very thin perimeter walls of the WTC towers!
It must make Gerard happy to live in his fantasy world of made-up physics and planes made of cardboard.
S. King
e-mail:
skyking@scientist.com
Walking Contradictions
21.02.2006 19:41
I'm having trouble following this statement. The only way a falling object could accelerate faster than gravity would be if additional force were applied. An example would be a rocket, pointing downwards. So how could a staggering free fall somehow go faster? Could Mr. Holmgreen please explain?
Amused
Clarifications from me - and still unaswered questions from Sky Cretin
21.02.2006 20:16
[[1) 800 degrees centigrade is 1,600 degrees centigrade.]]
Actually, the second figure is the approximate melting point of steel.
The first figure is what the 9/11 denial conspiracy theorists falsely claimed it to be , immediately after Sept 11, when they were still claiming that burning kero from the mythical plane melted the steel in the WTC.
This ridiculous claim is documented here.
Sky Cretin is now blustering that nobody ever claimed that the steel melted. This is a lie as can be found not only from the above link but also from other early claims by 9/11 denial conspiracy theorists.
Curiously, although Sky Cretin is now furiously denying that his 9/11 denial movement ever claimed that the steel melted, he is still apparently insisting that the melting point is in fact 800C. His attempt to ridicule my insistence that its about double that was clumsily expressed in the quote above – apparently an attempt at wit.
[[2) Boeing 767s are so strong that when flying into the WTC towers they would come to a halt ]]
Actually, I’ve never claimed this. The claim in fact was made by Frank Greening, someone whom Sky Cretin was previously lauding as an “expert”. See my post above “Greening debunked – with ease” Sky Cretin is apparently now so embarrassed by Greening’s garbage, that he’s suddenly trying to attribute it to me. Just as the 9/11 denial movement conspiracy theorists are now desperately pleading “We never said that the steel melted ! We never claimed that ! “, Sky Cretin, who only a few days again was grovelling at the feet of Greening as an expert is now trying to attribute Greening’s mistakes to me.
[[and their tail would stick out of the building.]]
Greening made the claim that a 767 entered the tower as far as 65 ft and then was “rapidly halted” by collision with core of the building. *If* this were to happen as claimed by Greening then obviously at the moment of being “rapidly halted “ , 95 ft of the plane would still be outside the building at the time that it was . From that point on, obviously the plane would smash up with unpredictable results. Sky Cretin apparently believes that it would just sit there in one piece with it’s tail sticking out .
[[This is just as loony as when he claimed that Boeing 757 could not penetrate into the Pentsgon because a scale model of a 757 made of cardboard can't fit through a hole smaller than the 757. Gerard was easily debunked on his Pentagon paper 4 years ago, but still claims 757s are made like cardboard and move really, really slow.]]
Actually, my article on the pentagon
takes a step by step approach to analyzing what could have happened to the wreckage had the mythical plane hit the building. Sky Cretin’s misattribution above is because his primitive logic circuits never got past Step 1.
I will explain the steps which the article goes through.
Supposing that a plane crashed into a building, there are only three things which can happen to the wreckage.
1) It can finish up inside the building
2) It finish up outside the building
3) It can be disintegrated beyond identification.
I examined every conceivable aspect each of thee three possibilities individually before putting the whole picture together.
In examining whether it were possible for all of the wreckage to be inside the building, I pointed out that the hole is too big for the plane to have fitted through, so that obviously rules out that option. I then went on to examine the other options.
But Sky Cretin’s primitive logic circuit is still struggling with the concept that a plane 125 by 40 by 155 can’t fit into a hole 16 by 20 by 65. This is the geometrical aspect of point 1.
Unable to understand the geometry, Sky Cretin is also unable to understand that it’s only one part of the analysis. I think the geometrical problem severely overloads his primitive logic circuit.
So I tried to help him out by isolating the geometrical aspect and suggesting that he build himself a small scale model of the plane and hole, so that he could actually play around trying to fit the model into hole someway. I speculated that the direct experience of not being able to fit the plane into the hole might help him to understand the geometrical aspects of point 1. Obviously , when dealing only with the geometrical aspects, it is irrelevant what material the model is made out of, so I suggested the cheapest , easiest and most accessible material – cardboard . I also figured that cardboard would be a particularly convenient material for a robot with the built in cutter claws on the mechanical hands.
Unfortunately, this helpful suggestion also only served to further overload the primitive logic circuit. Sky Cretin was unable to understand the concept of temporarily separating the geometrical aspects for isolated analysis and started to load programs analyzing the probable physical effects of a cardboard plane on a cardboard building.
The technicians have not found any way to remove these programs, which is why they still get generated at seemingly random intervals. Perhaps because the circuit is so overloaded with the cardboard analysis programs, Sky Cretin has made only partial progress with the geometry. He has worked out that in a small scale model, the plane won’t fit into the hole, but is unable to extrapolate this to a real size analysis. He believes that the geometrical relationships change if you enlarge it in proportion.
Unless someone finds a way to remove the cardboard analysis program which is obviously clogging up his processing power, I fear the only way that Sky Cretin may be able to come to terms with this problem is to build a full scale model.
This problem has prevented Sky Cretin from moving on to the rest of the points raised in my article, and this fixation with the first point has resulted in the misconception that it’s my entire argument.
[[3) Contradicting himself on #2 above, Gerard then claims that a 767 is so fragile that its wings could not penetrate the very thin perimeter walls of the WTC towers!]]
There’s several problem’s with this statement. Firstly we see that what it contradicts is the BS put forward by Greening, which
Sky Cretin is now desperately trying to unload on to me.
If Sky Cretin really believes that aluminium is a tool for cutting steel, then he should be very afraid as it makes him extremely vulnerable to attack from aluminium objects. Just having a drink can thrown at him might chop both of his legs from under him , causing him to collapse into a pancake demolition. Even worse if was full of kero, as this would obviously melt him
Secondly, if the mythical plane only penetrated 65 feet of the building and came to a “rapid halt” as claimed by Greening, then the wings would even reach the tower. But then, as we’ve already seen , simple geometry – the kind that most people have worked out by the age of 5 - is not Sky Cretin’s strong point.
So I’m glad to have clarified any misconceptions about my position.
Now its Sky Cretin’s turn.
In addition to my questions above, I now ask that he back up his wild, reckless unsubstantiated statement of “thousands of witnesses to a large plane hitting the WTC.
10 will do for a start. With documentation please.
Gerard Holmgren
e-mail:
holmgren@iinet.net.au
Homepage:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren
Explanation of "staggered free fall"
21.02.2006 21:00
What I’m saying is that it’s faster than would have been physically possible considering that it was supposed to have been meeting resistance on the way down.
A free fall in a vaccuum from the shorter of the two towers is 9.17 secs. It collapsed in about 11 secs. This means that just 1.8 secs is being added to the total fall time to account for the resistance encountered in supposedly crushing itself. Supposedly the building collapsed by each falling floor smashing the next one. This means that at every step of the way, the gravitational acceleration is being interrupted.
But in a sense you could say that the Arab conspiracy theory requires that the building fell faster than gravity . If you were to accept that it was a pancake collapse. That’s why it’s impossible for it to have been pancake collapse. Because it violates the law of gravity.
So you are correct in saying that "additional force was applied". Not in the sense of directly propelling the building downwards, but in the sense of force used to disembody the building and thus clear the way for it to have a gravity driven fall unimpeded by having to destroy itself on the way down.
What does not violate the law of gravity is the conclusion that the entire structure was suddenly disembodied in a coordinated manner, meaning that there was negligle resistance as it fell.
What I meant by “staggered free fall” (it’s probably not a good term, but I haven’t thought of a better one yet is this.
In a pancake collapse, the falling section would encounter resistance in two ways. The first is the obstruction of a falling object by a stationary object.
For example, suppose two objects of equal mass are falling, one above the other. The first, having already been falling for a while has built up a speed of 10m/sec. The second, which is just at the instant of starting, has a speed of zero. The first object hits the second, and they merge, so to speak and become effectively one falling body. The instant after collision they will have a speed of 5 m/sec.
But this is not the only resistance encountered in a pancake collapse. There is also loss of energy, and therefore speed, required to tear the recently struck section free from the structure. This is the part which is very difficult – if not impossible - to quantify with any precision, made more difficult because part of the building had been damaged, in a way which was not able to be properly documented.
So in my analysis – and Greening did the same for stage one of his analysis, I assumed rather than a pancake collapse, what I’ve somewhat clumsily labeled a “staggered free fall”.
What I mean by this is each floor, rather than having to be dislodged by the falling mass above, miraculously dislodged itself a nanosecond before impact from above, meaning that it was effectively a free falling object with a speed of zero at the moment it was struck.
In this model, what you have is a succession of floors all spontaneously dislodging themselves into free fall, one after the other – thus the term “staggered free fall”. The purpose of this is to be able to then calculate the minimum possible time under the law of gravity that the building could fall, given the slowing effect described by one freefalling object striking another which has a current speed of zero.
Although there are still variables with this, it can be calculated with a far greater degree of accuracy than than the slowing caused by structural resistance.
So what I did was use the staggered free fall model and noticed that even this would take longer than what the buildings actually took. Which proves that the building was meeting negligible resistance from its own structure. Which means that it can’t have crushed itself. Which means that it was a controlled demolition.
What Greening did was also do a staggered free fall analysis and then attempt to calculate structural resistance as well to add to the staggered free fall figure.
Gerard Holmgren
e-mail:
holmgren@iinet.net.au
Homepage:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren
Keep Going, Keep Going....
21.02.2006 23:03
Lets look at them again:
1. Do you accept that structural steelwork fails under fire loadings or not, Gerald? You're strangely silent on this point, unlike some of your contemporaries.
2. Can you come up with any serious, competent construction professionals or academics who cast doubt upon the general collapse mechanisms? Or are we to prefer your uneducated opinion to recognised experts?
3. Can you explain to me how over 120,000 construction professionals and academics in the UK alone - and a much, much larger number worldwide - have been "duped" or "kept quiet? Whereas your uneducated self has managed to identify these obvious errors? Let me guess - you think outside the box? Not blinded by convention?
4. Can you tell me what specialist training you have to comment meaningfully on subjects such as structural mechanics or fire engineering? Why should I prefer your evidence to recognised experts?
5. Clarify your views on pancake collapses. Are you denying they exist, or perhaps just that they're possible? What do you base this on - hard facts now?
6-7. You talk grandly of collapse times and Frank Greening. But at least we're getting near a response on this. As far as I can tell from your alst couple of posts, your key specific objections are:
- You disagree with the column/aeroplane shear loadings as an indicator of general structural resistance
- The size of the plane in relation to the floorplate and thus number of structural columns damaged by the impact
- That (and I quote here) two objects of equal mass are falling, one above the other. The first, having already been falling for a while has built up a speed of 10m/sec. The second, which is just at the instant of starting, has a speed of zero. The first object hits the second, and they merge, so to speak and become effectively one falling body. The instant after collision they will have a speed of 5 m/sec. In other words, you're suggesting that the kinetic energy is halfed at every floor-floor impact.
Is this fair? Is there anything else you'd like to add to the list, missing out the bile and polemic you normally attach? It's just that you keep moving the goalposts, and I'd like to know the target.
8. I'm still waiting for you please flesh out for me just how you image all that explosive was concealed within the building to collapse each and every floor simultaneously? How much explosive? Where is it placed? How the hell do they get in there? Do you have ANY evidence for it>
9. Can you tell all the readers at home (actually I think its just the 4 or 5 or 6 of us debating this one, now) why you deliberately and culpably misquote continually in an effort to undermine those who argue, viz (by way of example):
Achitect, who knows diddly squat about anything resembling science - objects fall at the same speed regardless of what resistance they are encountering haa ! haa ! heee ! heee ! "
or
"ee hee ! Haa haa ! Buidling which crush their own structure from the top down at the same speed as falling through air ! Oooh hoo hoo ! My aching sides ! "
when the actual quote I used: "instead we had hundreds of tonnes of concrete steel, and fittings accelerating at 10ms-2 (oops 9.81 ms-2, sorry Gerald). That's a lot of momentum. Oh the first few floors might arrest the fall marginally, but after that it's not even going to break stride".
10. And in a similar vein, tell us why you spend over 20 lines decrying that there's an absolute pile of consipracy articles and links on YOUR website, just because you object to the term "homepage". Incidentally, Wiki defines a homepage as
The start page or main web page of a website
The website of a group or individual
The page that is displayed when you enter only a domain name as URL (e.g.
The URL or local file that is automatically loaded when a web browser starts
So, erm, um, there was nothing wrong with my terminology.
And now I'm going to add something, in response to a point you've just raised:
11. "Tall objects topple sideways". Clarify that: Are you suggesting that it should have gone like a telegraph pole? Or just shuffled sideways a bit? What examples do you have?
Architect
Questions are a one-way street for the hijacker-conspiracy theorists
22.02.2006 00:36
Okay S. King, so you insist it's pure fantasy for me to assert that 767s look like the CGI on the right instead of like the photo on the left.
You must think I'm really poor-sighted, or inexperienced in seeing airplanes, to think airliners are shaped like a straight-lined x or t instead of like a blobby half-sideways u. So there's simply no more rational discussion possible on this point. You unalterably think airliners 7/10ths of a mile away in broad daylight look like blobby half-sideways u's, and I unalterably think they look like straight-edged x's or t's.
Now would you please give an example of some of the other evidence you're talking about, regarding what hit the Towers? Do you mean for instance the stalked tan-gray mushroom cloud that came out of each impact side? Or the way the supposedly aluminum, airliner-looking thing in every 2nd Hit impact video vanishes into the steel Tower 2 like a ghost, without breaking or even bending? Or the tiny bits of wreckage that happened to land inside areas that had already been marked off with yellow caution tape?
Oops there I go asking questions again. Time for S. King to get busy responding with something besides answers.
Ray Ubinger
Ray Ubinger
Architect requestions Holmgren while still not committing to answering in return
22.02.2006 00:47
Ray Ubinger
Ray Ubinger
Gerard Holmgren Dissembling Update
22.02.2006 00:56
"Sky Cretin is now blustering that nobody ever claimed that the steel melted."
"he is still apparently insisting that the melting point is in fact 800C"
False. Sky King wrote for all to see: "Given that NIST says NO melting occurred, that leaves you flapping in the breeze with your pants down, Gerard.
"So here is what NIST, the "offical" report as Gerard likes to call it:
"Structural steels do not need to melt to lose strength. Their melting
points are about 1,600 ºC, well above the 1,100 ºC typical peak value
reached by fires of common building combustibles. Page 29. "
---
Gerard failed to keep his promise (why are we not surprised?):
"Should you respond thus, then of course I will withdraw my attribution to you of a belief in 800C. Should you fail to do so, the attribution will continue."
Since you can't attribute any such statement to me, you'll just have to retract it, Gerard .
-------
Gerard continues dissembling....
[[2) Boeing 767s are so strong that when flying into the WTC towers they would come to a halt ]]
"Actually, I’ve never claimed this. The claim in fact was made by Frank Greening, someone whom Sky Cretin was previously lauding as an 'expert'”.
Sure you have, good buddy! Let's take a close look, why don't we?:
[[and their tail would stick out of the building.]]
"Greening made the claim that a 767 entered the tower as far as 65 ft and then was “rapidly halted” by collision with core of the building. *If* this were to happen as claimed by Greening then obviously at the moment of being “rapidly halted “ , 95 ft of the plane would still be outside the building at the time that it was ."
"How does a 160 ft plane which has come to a “rapid halt” 65 ft into a building, completely disappear inside the building?
"But here’s what the idiot forgot to mention. If the core stopped the plane, then more than half of it would have been hanging out of the building. The wings would not have even made it in. "
"Therefore - according to Greening's own assumptions, when the plane came to "a rapid halt", 64.5 ft was inside the building, which means that 95.5 ft was still outside the building."
"Can you then explain how that remaining 95.5 ft entered the building - after the plane had "come to a rapid halt" ? "
"And please explain, as I asked before, how a 160 ft plane can go 65 ft into the WTC , and then come to a "rapid halt" as asserted by Greening, and still go completely inside the building."
"How does a 160 ft plane which has come to a “rapid halt” 65 ft into a building, completely disappear inside the building?
----
Let's take a look at what Dr. Greening actually wrote:
"These observations indicate that the outer perimeter wall of the twin towers offered a relatively “soft target” to the impacting aircraft wings and fuselage while the inner core of the
building represented a “hard target” that rapidly brought the aircraft to a complete stop."
Got that, Gerard? "...rapidly brought the aircraft to a complete stop."
Going on, Dr. Greening writes:
"Let us now consider a Boeing 767 aircraft moving at 218.5 m/s that has
penetrated the perimeter wall of a WTC tower and impacts the inner core
wall. A Boeing 767 aircraft is 49 meters long and the average distance
from the perimeter wall to the core wall is 17 meters. This implies that
the rear end of the impacting aircraft must have traveled 32 meters in
order to completely penetrate the tower in the manner observed. We will
assume that the striking aircraft was brought to a full stop in this
distance. The average velocity during this period of deceleration is ½ of
218.5 m/s or 109.25 m/s and the impact time is therefore 0.293 seconds. If
we consider the core wall to be completely rigid and that the impacting
aircraft is subject to a constant reaction load Fa, the deceleration of
the aircraft is simply (218.5/0.293) m.s?2= 746 m.s?2 equivalent to 76
g’s. From Newton’s Law we then infer that,
"Fa = 124,000 ? 746 Newtons = 92.5 MN J.
"D. Riera, in his classic paper on aircraft impact into rigid structures,
Ref /7/, has estimated that the maximum buckling load necessary to crush
the fuselage of a large commercial aircraft is less than 10 MN, so we have
more than enough force to crush a Boeing 767. In a more recent assessment
of Riera’s approach, A. K. Kar (Ref /8/) has estimated that a Boeing 707
weighing 91,000 kg impacting a rigid structure at 104 m/s would be subject
to a peak load of 92 MN. To model the WTC aircraft impacts along the lines
used by Riera and Kar we will assume that for crushing up to the mid-point
of the aircraft the buckling load exerted on the Boeing 767 obeys Hooke’s
law so that Fa = k ? x, where k is the spring constant and x is the length
of aircraft crushed. We also assume that at x =24.5 meters, Fa is at a
maximum value of 100 MN giving k = 4.08 MN/m. For crushing beyond x = 24.5
meters we assume that Fa declines in a linear fashion with k = ? 4.08
MN/m. It follows that the total energy dissipated in crushing a Boeing 767
aircraft is 4.08 ? (24.5)2 ? 106 J = 2.45 ? 109 J. This value is
consistent with the other energies involved in the aircraft impacts on the
WTC towers as discussed above. "
Quite a penetrating analysis, wouldn't you agree, Gerard?
Unfortunately for you, Gerard, that leaves only YOU who has made the claim that when the plane came to a complete halt, "it's tail would be sticking out, so how did the tail get into the building?"
It's rather amusing that you would shoot yourself in the foot, so badly, Gerard, the one not already stuck in your mouth. And we note that you have been completely unable to refute Dr. Greening.
---
Continuing to hid the skids, Gerard writes....
"So I tried to help him out by isolating the geometrical aspect and suggesting that he build himself a small scale model of the plane and hole, so that he could actually play around trying to fit the model into hole someway. I speculated that the direct experience of not being able to fit the plane into the hole might help him to understand the geometrical aspects of point 1. Obviously , when dealing only with the geometrical aspects, it is irrelevant what material the model is made out of, so I suggested the cheapest , easiest and most accessible material – cardboard ."
Correct - cardboard. A cardboard object, A, will never fit through a hole in another cardboard object, B, when the hole is smaller than object A.
What Gerard never reveals is that it is irrelevant to whether a 757 hit the Pentagon or not. Instead, Gerard must use it in his analysis of working backwards from the conclusion he wanted - that no 757 could have hit the Pentagon - to make the "facts" fit the conclusion.
So, from there, Gerard goes to his statement to make it all "fit."
---
Supposing that a plane crashed into a building, there are only three things which can happen to the wreckage.
1) It can finish up inside the building
2) It finish up outside the building
3) It can be disintegrated beyond identification.
I examined every conceivable aspect each of the three possibilities individually before putting the whole picture together.
---
After 4 years, Gerard is still peddling his debunked "theory" even though I showed him in 2002 that he ran away from some easily verified evidence that he knew quite clearly could trash his fallacious argument. See my post #129 above.
What we all now is that hundreds of rescue and recovery personnel were on the scene in the minutes, hours, and days after AA 77 crashed into the Pentagon. They were from many different local fire departments and rescue services and they walked through, saw, and recovered the wreakage and remains of human beings during those early days.
Hundreds of normal people.
The question I asked Gerard Holmgren then was simple and staright forward:
"1. I see no testimony from the hundreds of professional rescuers, firefighters, FEMA personnel, Red Cross volunteers, and anyone else who was on the site, contradicting the common wisdom of a 757 crash.
"Why does such testimony not exist? Have you interviewed any of them?"
That was the clincher that sent Gerard running for the woods. He dared not consider the implications of answering that question, realizing that it may result in a crash of Gerard Holmgren. To this day, a full 4 years later, Gerard Holmgren has never answered that question.
Neither has any other 9/11 Denial Movement member I have asked since then - dozens of them. A simple question of evidence flummoxes them all.
----
Finally, Gerard takes the final plunge into nonsensical mumbling....
"[[3) Contradicting himself on #2 above, Gerard then claims that a 767 is so fragile that its wings could not penetrate the very thin perimeter walls of the WTC towers!]]
"There’s several problem’s with this statement. Firstly we see that what it contradicts is the BS put forward by Greening, which Sky Cretin is now desperately trying to unload on to me."
Well, we can all see that Dr. Greening has not been refuted by you as you claim, Gerard. Let's see why:
"A much better estimate for E1, and one that is based on a very detailed analysis of
the aircraft impact events, may be derived from a paper published by T. Wierzbicki et al.
at MIT /5/. These authors have calculated the energy dissipated by the wing of a Boeing
767 cutting through the exterior columns of a WTC tower and report a value equal
to1.139 106 J per column."
[...]
"5. T. Wierzbicki et al. “How the Airplane Wing Cut Through the Exterior Columns of the
World Trade Center” International J. of Impact Eng. 28, 604, (2003)"
We note that in your dissembling, Gerard, nowhere do you address Dr. Greening's actual statement nor the source of his data.
Quite interesting, isn't that, Gerard.
So, along with revealing your strawman "cardboard" airplanes, we have you despererately making the claim, "If Sky Cretin really believes that aluminium is a tool for cutting steel, then he should be very afraid as it makes him extremely vulnerable to attack from aluminium objects."
What a hoot!
So, in the end, Gerard Holmgren has confirmed for the record that he hasn't a clue about physics, structural engineering, energy, or airplane structure.
Making a fool of himself as if by design, Gerard Holmgren continues to lie about the record, completely and intentionaaly misrepresents Dr. Frank Greening; believes that a 767 is strong enough that it should have had it's tail sticking outside the WTC tower when "it" came to a complete halt; but claims that it is too weak for an aluminum wing of a fast-moving aircraft to penetrate the very, VERY thin steel plating of the tower's perimeter wall.
With Gerard unable to refute Dr. Greening, lying and misreprenting data, facts, and his debunkers, I believe we are witnessing the final denouement in the career of a prime 9/11 Denial Movement co-founder - Gerard Holmgren.
S. King
e-mail:
skyking@scientist.com
Call the technician - Architect's language circuits need an update
22.02.2006 01:26
Architect writes
[[Architect has not asked you ten questions - architect has summarised 10 points that you have failed to answer in a mixture of bluster, insult, and straightforward change of subject (mention the Pentagon again, on you go).]]
Architect,
The 11 “points” contain a total of 16 question marks – which makes them questions.
Nevertheless, I realize that both Artificial Intelligence and Artificial Stupidity programs have less sophistication than human language, so we need to make some allowances for the conspiracy theorists. Until such time as your programmers supply you with comprehension files for the word "questions" ,you are perfectly welcome to substitute the word “points” in the proposed discussion if you wish. No need to quibble.
So as I said before…
Architects primitive logic circuit has generated a list of 10 questions for me.
I am more than happy to answer all of these questions - on one condition.
Conspiracy theorists think that questions are a one way deal. That they can ask as many as they like but they don't have to answer any.
So this is the deal. I will answer whichever question Architect's program chooses as the first question.
Then I get to ask a question. After Architect's primitive logic circuits have generated a standard evasion, then its Architects turn again.
Architect may then ask either ask a follow up question resulting from my answer to his previous question, or declare that question satisfactorily answered - and ask a new question- whichever his primitive logic circuits choose.
Then it's my turn again. I can either ask a follow up , continuing on from Architects previous evasion, or start a new question.
So its all fair and above board and level playing field. Those are my conditions for answering your first question., Architect. Do you accept ?
Gerard Holmgren
e-mail:
holmgren@iinet.net.au
Homepage:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren
What else do you expect from someone who thinks blades for cutting heavy steel ?
22.02.2006 02:25
Not only that, it smashed completely through the core so that it could get completely inside the building –while at the same time squeezing itself against the core like an accordion. But at the same time keeping it’s shape so intact that it made a cartoon type shape in the building.
And then the building stayed standing , even though the core had just been demolished, and the planes wings were slicing the top of the building like a loaf of bread.
Or perhaps they’re saying that it went through the core but kept the core intact at the same time?
And even though it started sharply decelerating several metres before the wings got anyway near the columns, they still sawed away merrily, like any precision unsharpened aluminium edged blade you buy for cutting heavy construction steel.
Not only that but the tail sliced clean though as well, even though the plane would have barely moving by the time the tail made contact. Unless you’re now going to tell us that you’ve suddenly discovered that pieces of the tail were found on the street. (Snigger)
In the loony land of conspiracy theorists anything’s possible.
Heee hee ! What cornflakes packet did these guys get their science degrees out of ?
Gerard Holmgren
e-mail:
holmgren@iinet.net.au
Homepage:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren
Times up Sky Cretin !
22.02.2006 02:36
on the physical analysis of the pentagon strike in 2002
and ran screaming from my article on the pentagon witnesses a few months before that
You still refuse to address the work of Jared Israel, Webfairy, Gary North, J McMichael, Jeff King, Ray Ubinger and many others.
Where is your detailed critique of any such research ?
Terrified of subjecting your racist conspiracy theories and cartoon science to any critical examination, you sneak around the net, spreading 9/11 denial theories, which makes you no better than those who tried to deny the crimes in Vietnam or Chile or the atrocities of the Soviet and Nazi regimes.
Now you will address the work which you have been running away from for so long. Now you will provide - point by point – the evidence for your 9/11 denial theories or be cast into the same trashbin of history as those who denied the Nazi atrocities.
Millions of people died under the Nazis because of people like those who program your primitive logic circuits, Sky Cretin.
Those who spread hateful racist conspiracy theories about Jews, while covering up for the Govt which was committing genocide.
Exactly as your 9/11 denial movement is now doing – the only difference being that this time the target of hatred and the frame up is Arabs/Muslims.
How long can you keep running, Sky Cretin ?
Once again you failed to present a single point of evidence for your 9/11 denial theories and once again you have failed to address a single point of the proof of the established facts about Sept 11 from established researchers.
During your terrified evasions, you have trotted out such ludicrous garbage (all of it refuted in my previous posts, and in many other places) as
: No one ever claimed that fire melted the steel in the buildings
:The melting point of steel is 800C.
A gravitational fall is the same speed regardless of what resistance is being encountered.
An object 125 by 40 by 155 can fit into a hole 16 by 20 by 65.
Aluminium blades are used for cutting heavy construction steel.
The ludicrous claim that planes hit the WTC towers.
The ludicrous claim that a plane hit the pentagon.
The ludicrous claim that a plane crashed in PA.
The ludicrous claim that you can produce “thousands of witnesses” to something which never happened – a big jet flying into the WTC. Current total – zero.
The ludicrous claim that four hijacked planes could have flown around US airspace for nearly two hours crashing into important buildings – including the pentagon – without the USAF scrambling a single fighter jet to intercept anything.
Mad conspiracy theories are the stuff of genocide, Sky Cretin.
But I guess your programmers don’t care.
For four years you’ve been running around spreading this stuff and running away from me.
Now answer my questions.
Gerard Holmgren
e-mail:
holmgren@iinet.net.au
Homepage:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren
Programming priorities
22.02.2006 04:15
Sky Cretin is still asserting that a plane measuring 125 by 40 by 155 can fit into a hole which is 16 by 20 by 65.
Did Sky Cretin come to this conclusion through a faulty geometric calculation ? Not exactly. No geometry was actually involved. Sky Cretin’s intensive conspiracy theory programming enabled him to completely bypass the difficult maths
Because all conspiracy theorists have to do to make something true is make it up. Here’s what Sky Cretin made up.
[[What we all now is that hundreds of rescue and recovery personnel were on the scene in the minutes, hours, and days after AA 77 crashed into the Pentagon. They were from many different local fire departments and rescue services and they walked through, saw, and recovered the wreackage and remains of human beings during those early days.]]
Of course, no source was provided. Having established this a “fact”, Sky Cretin’s primitive logic circuit, then makes the following leap. The crash was “common wisdom” ( because of what Sky Cretin just made up) and therefore a plane measuring 125 by 40 by 155 can fit into a hole which is 16 by 20 by 65.
The crash of the mythical plane was not “common wisdom” to CNN reporter Jamie McIntrye who is actually documented as having been on the spot and said
“From my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon.”
You can watch the entire video at the above link, where Mcintrye makes more emphatic comments that no plane crashed there.
However, for conspiracy theorists, witness evidence which can be documented doesn’t count.
Sky Cretin simply makes up this, [[and they walked through, saw, and recovered the wreckage and remains of human beings during those early days.]]
and from there solves his little geometry problem.
Tell me Sky Cretin, have your programmers managed to uninstall the program which was working on cardboard planes and cardboard buildings yet ? Has it freed up some processing power ?
Or are you still struggling with concept of isolating the geometrical aspects from the other aspects for the purpose of analysis ?
You see what I mean ? After 4 years, Sky Cretin still hasn’t answered the very first point in my article. The article is about 50 pages long. But somehow it never occurs to Sky Cretin that the reason it’s 50 pages long is because the geometry that he’s struggling with is only one of many points in my article.
Once his primitive logic circuit is actually able to process this question, then it might be interesting to work out how many hundred years it would take him to get through the entire article.
Gerard Holmgren
e-mail:
holmgren@iinet.net.au
Homepage:
http://members.iinet.au/~holmgren
The complete writings of Sky Cretin
22.02.2006 04:20
Could you please refer us to your complete body of published articles on Sept 11 ?
Obviously, I don;t mean blogging comments and email correspondences, and forum debates, but actual published articles, where you set out your case in a fully thought out form with full documentation.
I'm sure that you will only be too happy to put it forward for review, as the rest of us have done with our work.
Gerard Holmgren
e-mail:
holmgren@iinet.net.au
Homepage:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren
So - what temperature does steel melt at ?
22.02.2006 04:49
Sky Cretin replied
[["So here is what NIST, the "offical" report as Gerard likes to call it:
"Structural steels do not need to melt to lose strength. Their melting
points are about 1,600 ºC, well above the 1,100 ºC typical peak value
reached by fires of common building combustibles. Page 29. " ]]
Yes Sky Cretin, but renowned architect Chris Wise and WTC building contruction manager Hyman Brown both say that it's 800 C.
So now I want *your * opinion on who is right and who is wrong. Do you even know ?
Are you telling us that bioth claims are true ?
Gerard Holmgren
e-mail:
holmgren@iinet.net.au
Homepage:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren
At last we're getting somewhere
22.02.2006 06:58
Because Gerry's unwillingness - or I suspect inability - to respond to substantive points put to him speaks volumes for his credibility.
Instead all we see are bluster and insults.
Gerry, I really can't recall if you were one of the people who called for a public inquiry, but I've done PI work and you wouldn't last 5 minutes under professional cross examination. A place where you *have* to answer questions in a cogent, sensible manner.
Architect
Never let a robot design a building
22.02.2006 07:12
Straining the processing power of his primitive logic circuits tro the full, to try to understand why an object meeting resistance falls slower than an object not meeting resistance, his program generates this question
[[That (and I quote here) two objects of equal mass are falling, one above the other. The first, having already been falling for a while has built up a speed of 10m/sec. The second, which is just at the instant of starting, has a speed of zero. The first object hits the second, and they merge, so to speak and become effectively one falling body. The instant after collision they will have a speed of 5 m/sec. In other words, you're suggesting that the kinetic energy is halfed at every floor-floor impact. ]]
Take another look at the last sentence for a good belly laugh.
No, Architect - it's onl;y halved if the mass of the two objects is equal. If the mass of the striking object is double that of the struck object , then speed is redfuced by 1/3. If the mass of the striking object is triple that of the struck object then the speed is reduced by 1/4.
Even Greening could work that out. As far as that part of the analysis went, his work was identical to mine.
Here's the formula. Where V1 = the velocity of the striking object the instant before colliding with the struck object (which has a velocity of 0 ) and V2 = the velocity of the combined falling mass the instant after collision, and N = the total number of floors now falling - assuming the mass of all floors to be equal - then
V2 = V1 x N-1/N
Example: Three floors are falling at 10 m/sec at the instant before they strike the fourth floor.
The instant after the collision, speed will be 10 x 3/4 = 7.5 m/sec.
Can your primitive logic circuit handle that concept ?
Gerard Holmgren
e-mail:
holmgren@iinet.net.au
Homepage:
http://htpp://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren
That's one question, Architect
22.02.2006 07:23
Fair's fair.
Gerard Holmgren
e-mail:
holmgren@iinet.net.au
Homepage:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren
The symetrical collapse of three buildings is not the whole case for complicity
22.02.2006 07:26
By WERTHER
The events of September 11, 2001 evoke painful memories, tinged with a powerful nostalgia for the way of life before it happened. The immediate tragedy caused a disorientation sufficient to distort the critical faculties in the direction of retrospectively predictable responses: bureaucratic adaptation, opportunism, profiteering, kitsch sentiment, and mindless sloganeering.
As 9/11, and the report of the commission charged to investigate it, fade into history like the Warren Commission that preceded it, the questions, gaps, and anomalies raised by the report have created an entire cottage industry of amateur speculation--as did the omissions and distortions of the Warren Report four decades ago. How could it not?
While initially received as definitive by a rapturous official press, the 9/11 Report has been overtaken by reality, not only because of unsatisfying content--like all "independent" government reports, it is fundamentally an apology and a coverup masquerading as an exposé--but because we now know more: more about the feckless invasion of Iraq, more about the occupation of Afghanistan and the purported hunt for Osama bin Laden, more about the post-9/11 stampede to repeal elements of the Bill of Rights, more about the rush to create the Department of Homeland Security, an agency to "prevent another 9/11," which, in retrospect, is plainly about cronyism, contracts, and Congressional boodle.
Many of the amateur sleuths of the 9/11 mystery have based their investigations on microscopic forensics regarding the publicly released video footage, or speculations into the physics of impacting aircraft or collapsing buildings. But staring too closely at the recorded traces of subatomic phenomena involved in a one-time event can deceive us into finding the answer we are looking for, as Professor Heisenberg once postulated. Over 40 years on, the Magic Bullet is still the Magic Bullet: improbable, yes, but not outside the realm of the possible.
But there is surprisingly little discussion of the basic higher-order political factors surrounding 9/11, factors that do not require knowledge of the melting point of girder steel or the unknowable piloting abilities of the presumed perpetrators. Let us proceed, then, in a spirit of detached scientific inquiry, to ask questions the 9/11 Commission was unprepared to ask.
1. Who is Osama bin Laden, and where did he come from?
On this point, the report retreats into obfuscation. While acknowledging that he had something to do with resisting the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, the report suggests, without explicitly so stating, that the links between Osama and the United States were practically nonexistent. This will not parse: until the present Global War on Terrorism, the CIA's operation against the Red Army in Afghanistan was the biggest and most expensive covert operation in the agency's history. The 9/11 Report provides no convincing documented refutation of Osama's links with the CIA, given that the agency was running a major war in which he was a participant. Similarly, the report's authors did not plumb the informal U.S. government connections with the same Saudi government whose links with the bin Laden family could have provided a cut-out for any CIA-Osama relationship. [1]
2. When were Osama's last non-hostile links with the U.S. government?
Consistent with its view of Osama's relationship with the CIA during the anti-Soviet enterprise, the 9/11 Report ignores the possibility that he may have had a continuing relationship with the U.S. government, particularly with its intelligence services. The report brushes this hypothesis aside with a footnote to the effect that both the CIA and purported second-ranking al Qaeda figure Ayman al Zawahiri deny a relationship. [2]
One may doubt the veracity of Langley's denials of a relationship with Osama bin Laden and his associates, given the lack of truthfulness of its earlier statement to the Warren Commission about not having had a relationship with Lee Harvey Oswald. Or in alleging that an employee named "Mr. George Bush" whom the agency cited in its reporting of the events of 22 November 1963 was a completely different person from the George Bush who subsequently became the 41st U.S. president, after serving as Director of Central Intelligence.
Likewise, Mr. Zawahiri's assertion of not having received a penny of CIA funds deserves the searchlight of skeptical scrutiny. What the report describes as Zawahiri's "memoir" is actually a broadside published in a London-based newspaper in December 2001, i.e., after the events of 9/11. It was obviously intended as a call to the Muslim faithful for a holy war against the infidel desecrator of the holy places; would such a person, conscious of the need to gain recruits in a war of pure faith against the Great Satan, have confirmed having been on the payroll of his principal enemy? It is no more likely than for the current President of the United States, in drawing parallels between the war in Iraq and World War II, to advert to the fact that his grandfather's bank was seized by the U.S. government in 1942 for illicit trading with the Third Reich.
Indeed, U.S. intelligence agencies have had, purely as a function of their charters, relationships with most of the world's scoundrels, con-men, and psychopaths of the last 70 years: from Lucky Luciano and the Gambino Mob, to Reinhard Gehlen and Timothy Leary, to the perpetrators of the massacre of 500,000 people in Indonesia in 1965, to the Cuban exiles who blew up an airliner in 1976 [3], to such shady characters as Ahmed Chalabi and his friend "Curveball." Among such a gallery of murderous kooks, bin Laden and his cohorts do not especially stand out.
More dispositive than these speculations, however, are the very real connections between Washington and Islamic jihadists in the Balkans throughout the 1990s. The report hints at this relationship by mentioning the presence of charity fronts of bin Laden's "network" in Zagreb and Sarajevo. In fact, the U.S. government engaged in a massive covert operation to infiltrate Islamic fighters, many of them veterans of the Afghan war, into the Balkans for the purpose of undermining the Milosevic government. The "arms embargo," enforced by the U.S. military, was a cover for this activity (i.e., using military force to keep prying eyes from seeing what was going on).
A key Washington fixer for the Muslim government of Bosnia was the law firm of Feith and Zell. Yes, Douglas Feith, one of the principal conspirators involved in launching the Iraq war under the banner of opposing Islamic terrorism, was a proponent of introducing Islamic terrorists into South Eastern Europe. Do the "Islamofascists" of pseudo-conservative demonology accordingly seem less like satanic enemies and more like puppets dangling from an unseen hand? Or perhaps the analogy is incorrect: more like a Frankenstein's Monster that has slipped the control of its creator.
3. How did the President of United States React to the August 6 2001 Presidential Daily Brief?
Although the August 6 PBD had been mentioned in the foreign press since 2002, it did not come to the attention of official Washington until then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice impaled herself upon the hook of 9/11 Commission member Richard Ben Veniste's artful line of questioning in mid-2004. Blurting out the title of the PBD, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.," she let the cat out of the bag--or perhaps not. Having opened Pandora's Box, the commissioners displayed no troublesome curiosity about its contents.
What concrete measures did the president take after receiving perhaps the most significant strategic warning that any head of state could have hoped to receive about an impending attack on his country? Did he alert the intelligence agencies, law enforcement, the Border patrol, the Federal Aviation Administration, to comb through their current information and increase their alert rates? Did the threat warning of the PBD (granted that it did not reveal the tail numbers of the aircraft to be hijacked), in combination with the numerous threat warnings from other sources [4] elicit feverish activity to "protect the American people?" Not that we can observe.
So what was the actual response of the U.S. government? Here the 9/11 Report exhibits autism. As nearly as we can determine from contemporaneous bulletins, the president massacred whole hecatombs of mesquite bushes and large-mouthed bass, perfected his golf swing, and hosted various captains of industry in the rustic repose of Crawford, Texas. In other words, he presided over the most egregious example of Constitutional nonfeasance since the administration of James Buchanan allowed Southern secessionists to take possession of the arms in several federal arsenals. The 9/11 Commission's silence on this point is an abundant demonstration of its role as an apologist, rather than a dispassionate truth-teller.
The testimony of federal officials about what they did up to and during the attacks is telling, in so far as the false and misleading statements of witnesses provide clues. Ms. Rice, her tremulous voice betraying nervousness, averred, against the plain evidence of the public record and common sense, that a PBD stating that Osama bin Laden was determined to strike within the borders of the United States was too ambiguous to take any action.
Likewise, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft may have perjured himself when he denied under oath that acting FBI Director Thomas Pickard came to him on July 5, 2001 with information of terrorist plots--information that the Attorney General "did not want to hear about anymore," as NBC News reported on June 22, 2004. It might be considered a matter of Ashcroft's word against Pickering's, except for the fact that Pickering had a corroborating witness.
4. Who wrote the script for the rhetorical response to 9/11?
The smoke was still rising from the rubble of the World Trade Center complex and the Pentagon when the unanimous and universal cry erupted in government circles, and was relentlessly amplified by the media, that this was "war," not a criminal act of terrorism. How very convenient that this war, declared against a diffuse and stateless entity, would trigger long-sought legal authorities and constitutional loopholes which would not apply in the case of a criminal act. [5] Torture, domestic spying, selective suspension of habeas corpus, all the unconstitutional monsters whose implications are only clear four years after the event, all slipped into immediate usage with the rhetorical invocation of war.
This was not merely war, it was unlimited war, both in the sense of total war meant by General Ludendorff (civilian rights being trivial), and in the sense of lacking a comprehensible time span. "A war that will not end in our lifetimes," said Vice President Cheney on Meet the Press on the very Sunday following the attacks. How could he be so sure during the fog of uncertainty following the strike?
If bin Laden and his followers were merely a limited number of fanatics living in Afghan caves, as we were assured at the time, why did the Bush administration relentlessly advance the meme that a decades-long war was inevitable? Could not a concerted intelligence, law-enforcement, and diplomatic campaign, embracing all sovereign countries, have effectively shut down "al Qaeda" within a reasonable period of time--say, within the period it took to fight World War II between Pearl Harbor and the Japanese surrender?
Four years on, Vice President Cheney, doing a plausible imitation of the radio voice of The Shadow, continues to publicly mutter, in menacing tones of the lower octaves, that the war on terrorism [6] is a conflict that will last for decades. [7] This at the same time as the junior partner of the ruling dyarchy, the sitting president, is giving upbeat speeches promising victory in the war on terrorism (i.e., Iraq, the Central Front on the War on Terrorism) against a papier maché backdrop containing the printed slogan "Strategy for Victory."
It is curious that no one--not the watchdogs of the supposedly adversary media, nor the nominal opposition party in Washington, nor otherwise intelligent observers--has remarked on this seeming contradiction: victory is just around the corner, yet the war will last for decades. Quite in the manner of the war between Eastasia and Oceania in 1984.
In earlier times, this contradiction would have seemed newsworthy, if not scandalous. Suppose President Roosevelt had opined at the Teheran Conference that the Axis would be defeated in two years. Then suppose his vice president had at the same time traveled about the United States telling his audiences that the Axis would not be defeated for decades. An American public not yet conditioned by television would at least have noticed, and demanded some explanation.
So question number 4 concludes with a question: why does the U.S. government hive so firmly to the notion of a long, drawn-out, indeterminate war, when Occam's Razor would suggest the desirability of presenting a clear-cut victory within the span of imagination of the average impatient American--a couple of years at most? Or is endless war the point?
5. Why did the mysterious anthrax attacks come and go like a wraith?
For those in immediate proximity to the events, the September 11attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were frightening in the extreme, but they had not the slow accumulation of dread that the anthrax scare of October 2001 presented. Far more than any anomaly concerning 9/11 itself, the anthrax mystery is the undecoded Rosetta Stone of recent years.
The anthrax attacks were the most anomalous terrorist attacks in history: clever, successful, unpunished, causing five deaths and a billion dollars' damage. Yet never repeated. This alone makes them remarkable in the annals of criminal activity, but there is more--the intended victims (at least those with an official position) were warned in writing of their peril in sufficient detail that they could take steps to administer an antidote. Is this characteristic of terrorist attacks by "al Qaeda," or by any known Middle Eastern terrorist group?
Except for the ambiguous first attack (which killed a National Enquirer photo editor), all the deaths resulting from the anthrax plot were incidental--mail handlers and innocent recipients of mail which had been contaminated by proximity to the threat letters. Evidently the West Jefferson anthrax strain was more powerful and had greater accidental effects than the plotters had intended.
But what did the plotters intend, if they did not will the deaths of the addressees of their anthrax letters? It was pure coincidence, perhaps, that the anthrax scare was at its height, producing psychosomatic illness symptoms among members of Congress and staffers, just as the USA PATRIOT Act was wending its way through the legislative process. This measure, which originated among the same Justice Department lawyers who legally opined that torture was wholesome, was rammed through the Congress after enactment of the authorization of the use of force in Afghanistan. Why is this sequence significant?
The then-majority leader of the U.S. Senate, Tom Daschle, wrote a curious op-ed in the Washington Post four years after the events just described. [8]. In attempting to refute the administration's allegation that it had been granted plenary wiretap powers in the Afghanistan authorization, he stated that he and his Senatorial confreres explicitly rejected an administration proposal to authorize an effective state of war within the borders of the United States itself.
Given the administration's repeatedly demonstrated refusal to accept any limitation on its powers, it is logical that the rebuff on the war powers authorization was followed by the prompt submittal of the Justice Department's draft of the PATRIOT Act, containing many of the domestic authorities the Bush White House had sought in the use of force legislation. How doubly coincidental that two of the limited number of addressees of the threat letters should have been the offices of Daschle himself, and Sen. Patrick Leahy, then-chairman of the committee of jurisdiction over the PATRIOT Act.
Needless to say, the measure was passed by an even more comfortable margin than that enjoyed by the 1933 Enabling Law in the Reichstag. [9] Notwithstanding buyer's remorse exhibited by many members of Congress, and current efforts to amend its more onerous provisions, it appears we are saddled with the main burdens of its edicts in perpetuity.
How the government placed this perpetual burden on its citizens is bound up with the mysterious anthrax scare of October 2001, an outrage that, unlike 9/11, does not even merit an official explanation. No one has been charged.
6. Why did Osama bin Laden escape?
"Wanted, dead or alive!" "We'll smoke 'em out of their caves!" All Americans know the feeling of righteous retribution that attended the hunt for Osama bin Laden in the autumn and winter of 2001. Yet, suddenly, it fizzled out and became subsumed in attacking Iraq and its oilfields.
We know the explanation. Somehow, bin Laden escaped in the battle of Tora Bora, because "the back door was open." Only after the invasion of Iraq, more than a year later, was there general acknowledgement that resources intended for Afghanistan had been diverted to the buildup for Iraq. The public was lead to believe that supplemental appropriations for Afghanistan were siphoned into the Iraq project beginning about mid-2002.
But the strange apathy about Osama's whereabouts began sooner than that. In a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, then-Senate Intelligence Committee Bob Graham states the following:
"I was asked by one of the senior commanders of Central Command to go into his office [this presumably means the CENTCOM Commander, GEN Tommy Franks. Underlings do not summon senior Senators into their offices]. We did, the door was closed, and he turned to me, and he said, 'Senator, we have stopped fighting the war on terror in Afghanistan. We are moving military and intelligence personnel and resources out of Afghanistan to get ready for a future war in Iraq.' This is February of 2002 [emphasis added]. 'Senator, what we are engaged in now is a manhunt not a war, and we are not trained to conduct a manhunt.'"
Senator Graham elaborates on this matter in his book, Intelligence Matters, on page 125:
"At that point, General Franks asked for an additional word with me in his office. When I walked in, he closed the door. Looking troubled, he said, 'Senator, we are not engaged in a war in Afghanistan.'
"'Excuse me?" I asked.
"'Military and intelligence personnel are being redeployed to prepare for an action in Iraq,' he continued. 'The Predators are being relocated. What we are doing is a manhunt. We have wrapped ourselves too much in trailing Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar. We're better at being a meat axe than finding a needle in a haystack. That's not our mission, and that's not what we are trained or prepared to do.'"
In the first excerpt, the military officer might be ambivalent about the change in mission, merely saying that the U.S. military is supposedly not trained for conducting manhunts. The second excerpt provides more substance, suggesting that Franks himself agrees that looking for Osama bin Laden is a mug's game ("We have wrapped ourselves too much in trailing Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar.")
There we have it: as early as February 2002, the U.S. government was pulling the plug. Or was it even earlier? Gary Berntsen, a former CIA officer, says in his book Jawbreaker that his paramilitary team tracked bin Laden to the Tora Bora region late in 2001 and could have killed or captured him if his superiors had agreed to his request for an additional force of about 800 U.S. troops. But the administration was already gearing up for war with Iraq and troops were never sent, allowing bin Laden to escape.
Now, Berntsen is a typical Langley boy scout who buys into most of the flummery about the war on terrorism; but it is precisely for that reason that his testimony is worthwhile. Here is no ideological critic of the Bush administration and its foreign policies--on the contrary, he shares many of its assumptions. Like fellow Agency alumnus Michael Scheuer, he has experienced the cognitive dissonance of dealing with the administration's policies at first hand, and wishes to report on his findings.
Is it plausible that the United States Military, disposing of 1.4 million active duty troops and a million reservists, could not scare up 800 additional troops to capture what was then characterized as a fiend in human form? Perhaps the then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Richard Myers, explained it best in a CNN interview on 6 April 2002, well after the hunt for bin Laden had apparently been concluded:
"Well, if you remember, if we go back to the beginning of this segment, the goal has never been to get bin Laden." [10]
What can one conclude from this series of questions? If the 9/11 mystery is like other great, mysterious events--such as the Kennedy assassination--the course is probable. For a year or two, raw emotion over the event forecloses inquiry; for the next several years after that, the public's attention wanes, and the desire to forget the painful memory predominates.
In a decade or so, though, some debunker will bring new facts into the public arena for the edification of those Americans, then in late middle age, who will view 9/11 as an intellectual puzzle: far from the urgent concerns of their daily lives.
Many people may, by that time, accept that the official explanation is bunk, and suspect that the government had once again tricked the American public, those ever-willing foils in the eternal Punch-and-Judy show. But the majority will neither know nor care about obscure international relationships during a bygone era.
In 1939, the English author Eric Ambler wrote a brilliant and now-disregarded novel whose theme was that the political events culminating in World War II were indistinguishable from the squalid doings of ordinary criminals. Let us quote from that novel, The Mask of Dimitrios:
"A writer of plays said that there are some situations that one cannot use on the stage; situations in which the audience can feel neither approval, sympathy, nor antipathy; situations out of which there is no possible way that is not humiliating or distressing and from which there is no truth, however bitter, to be extracted. . . . All I know is that while might is right, while chaos and anarchy masquerade as order and enlightenment, these conditions will obtain."
Werther is the pen name of a Northern Virginia-based defense analyst. Werther can be reached at:
[1] Bob Woodward's 1987 book Veil describes the informal connections between personages in the U.S. government and the Saudi government, including the ubiquitous Prince Bandar. A tête á tête between CIA director William Casey and the Prince supposedly resulted in a false-flag "terrorist" bombing in Beirut to retaliate against the bombing of the Marine barracks there in 1983. Regrettably, the dead were mainly civilians.
[2] 9/11 Commission Report, 23rd footnote to chapter two, page 467.
[3] This is the case of Cuban "freedom fighter" Luis Posada Carriles, who is suspected of sending the jet-borne Cuban Olympic fencing team to Valhalla in order to express his opposition to Fidel Castro. The incumbent administration, otherwise so steadfastly opposed to international terrorism, has been resistant to extraditing Mr. Posada --no doubt the administration is casting an eye on Florida's electoral votes.
[4] To include the Phoenix Memo, FBI agent Colleen Rowley's urgent bulletins from Minnesota, tips from foreign intelligence agencies, warnings from the Federal government to its high-ranking government placemen not to fly by commercial airliner, the contemporaneously noted presence of art students-cum-Mossad agents within two blocks of 9/11 operative Mohammed Atta, and other indicators.
[5] Long sought by Messrs. Cheney and Rumsfeld, whose formative and traumatic experiences in the executive branch were shaped by their revulsion against attempts by Congress, the federal bench, and the American people, to restrain Richard M. Nixon's assertion that the Constitution does not apply to a sitting president.
[6] The phrase "war on terrorism" is, as many people have commented, a somewhat hazy conception, being a war on a tactic, much as if FDR had declared war on naval aviation after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Significantly, the popular mind has contracted this phrase into "the war on terror," an even more illogical coinage. If the U.S. government is truly at war against a mental state that gives rise to ill-defined dread, it should disestablish itself forthwith, to the benefit of our rights, our bank balances, and our physical safety.
[7] "Cheney Warns of Decades of War," BBC, 6 October 2005.
[8] "Power We Didn't Grant," by Sen. Tom Daschle, Washington Post, 23 December 2005.
[9] The Enabling Law passed the Reichstag by a vote of 444-94, whereas the PATRIOT Act passed the House by a margin of 357-66, and the Senate by a vote of 98-1. Curiously, the Enabling Law was supposed to sunset in four years: on April Fool's Day, 1937, precisely paralleling the four-year expiration of many of the PATRIOT Act's provisions. Perhaps the eerie similarity reflects the influence of Nazi legal scholar Carl Schmitt on neoconservative lawyers of the Bush administration like David S. Addington, John Yoo, and Viet Dinh.
[10] News transcript: Gen. Myers Interview with CNN TV,
Lex Argentina
This is Great Fun!
22.02.2006 20:59
"According to the deal I offered, it's my turn to ask a question now Architect "
Now your powers of observation appear to have failed you again. You answered only a teeny wee bit of a question. In fact the original points I put to you were this:
"Question 6. You talk grandly of collapse times. Let's see your calculations please. Remember to include the information on shear forces, effects of arrestation at intermediate floors, and so on.
Question 7. And a critique of where Frank Greening goes wrong in his interesting paper on the subject, please. "
Later, when you attempted a half-arsed answer, I then made this a little simpler for you:
"Question 6-7. You talk grandly of collapse times and Frank Greening. But at least we're getting near a response on this. As far as I can tell from your last couple of posts, your key specific objections are:
- You disagree with the column/aeroplane shear loadings as an indicator of general structural resistance
- The size of the plane in relation to the floorplate and thus number of structural columns damaged by the impact
- That (and I quote here) two objects of equal mass are falling, one above the other. The first, having already been falling for a while has built up a speed of 10m/sec. The second, which is just at the instant of starting, has a speed of zero. The first object hits the second, and they merge, so to speak and become effectively one falling body. The instant after collision they will have a speed of 5 m/sec. In other words, you're suggesting that the kinetic energy is halfed at every floor-floor impact.
Is this fair? Is there anything else you'd like to add to the list, missing out the bile and polemic you normally attach? It's just that you keep moving the goalposts, and I'd like to know the target. "
Now all you've done is get upset about a *literal* interpretation of the cut and post of your own piece! Tell me Gerry, are we not meant to interpret what you say *literally*?
And even in your explanation, you've mucked it up again. You've over simplified! Or are we not to take it literally either?
Lets assume - and I must stress I'm just using round numbers here, to make it easier, that in fact 20 floors collapse initially. Then the speed of the conjoined mass after impact will in fact be reduced by only 1/21of the original. Now keep working out the numbers. By the time 40 floors have collapsed, the impact on speed is only 1/41 at the next. By the time we reach 80, its 1/81...and so on.
Now call me pernickety, but (say) a reduction in speed of 1/41 or 1/81 really isn't going to make a difference now, is it. Not really. In fact, my earlier comment about hardly breaking stride does rather spring to mind.
And even then you make another cock-up. See there are two forces at work. There is, as you say, the momentum issue. But onto this must be added the additional resistance provided by the supporting structure below the impact floor. You have a go at other for attempting to calculate the shear factors prior to collapse, but can't do so yourself! Fantastic.
So I tell you what, Gerry, you actually think about going and answering the question put to you - none of your tangents, insults, or bluster now - and I'll worry about living up to the "deal" you've offered. Tell you what, why not choose an easier one, like the "homepage" attack. That shouldn't be beyond you.
Architect
Aircraft engineering standards
22.02.2006 23:51
Architect refuses the deal I offered in post 190. Why are you afraid to answer questions Architect ? You’re getting awfully nervous !
The deal I offered is that we ask questions to each other in turn, but Architect thinks that it is the inevitable and inalienable right of consiracy theorists to ask as many questions as they like and not answer any in return. Even going first wasn’t good enough for him.
Were you by any chance spoilt when you were a little baby robot, Architect ? The type that used to turn on the crying circuit whenever the technicians tried to oil the joints of anyone else ?
The drivel above from architect simply pretends that most of what I’ve posted on this thread doesn’t even exist. I refer readers to my previous posts.
Well, Architect, things are done a little differently around here. The technician doesn’t drop the oil can and come running with the diode cream as soon as you start rattling your antennae on the side of the cot.
Now you will answer one of my questions before I take any more notice of you.
On the question of Greening. You will remember (I am addressing human readers now, Architect and Sky Cretin's memory circuits erase everything which is inconvenient to them) that Greening’s founding assumption which formed the basis for his minimum possible collapse times is dependent upon uncritical acceptance of the following.
That a Boeing 767, the fuselage of which was being compacted like an accordion , simultaneously had its aluminum wings attached so firmly and so strongly that they were slicing through steel support columns – by sawing across them at a 30 degree angle – this process beginning , more than 15 ft of travel after the compacting process had started. It also requires uncritical acceptance of the assertion that the tail of the imaginary 767 remained intact throughout this entire process and also burst clean through the wall, even though the plane would have almost stopped by now, having less than another 50 ft to travel.
Is Greening aware of the maximum stress loads which wings are designed to take ?
The required engineering standard is that
“After completing “limit load” tests (ie the maximum loads likely to experienced by the aircraft during normal service), progressively greater loads have been applied to the specimen towards the required 1.5 times the limit load.”
Has Greening calculated the wing stress which would be experienced by a 767 in his imaginary situation ?
Has he checked to see by how many times it would exceed the levels at which it’s considered acceptable for aircraft wings to break off ?
Does he have enough zeroes available on his calculator ?
Heee heee ! Lets review. The fuselage is being squashed, crumpled , like a tin can being trodden on, like an accordion being squeezed. But the wings stay attached. Even though the thing that they are attached to effectively doesn’t exist any more in any organized form. Destroying the fuselage that the wings are attached to is apparently within the 1.5 times the load of the wings experience during “normal service. Haa haaa !
Since wings roots are attached horizontially to the fuselage which is being accorioned, then I really like the idea of the wings retaining their strucural integrity when the attachment points turn into a zig zag pattern.
But it gets better. The strees being experience must be a *long way* inside the maximum allowable stress limits. It fact this would have to represent almost negligible load, because desopite the newly aquired zig zag shape of the wing roots, there’s still enough headroom left in the wings capacity for stress that they can now start sawing through steel columns which are used for helping to hold up the world’s largest building – and still be within 1.5 times the stress limits experienced by wings during “normal service” - remember that aircraft are built such that it's considered OK for them to break above that level.
Haaa haa ! hee hee ! Architect accidentally said something true, and because this is such a momentous occasion, I’ll quote it.
[[This is fun ! ]]
Now, here’s a video of what happens to wings on a C 130 – during a successful landing mind you. So it’s travelling quite slowly compared to Greening’s mythical plane, and actually lands as planned. The only thing it does wrong is that it tries to pull up too quickly. This causes it to skew to the side a bit, the fuselage lurches, rolls a bit, one of the wing tips touches the ground and “snap ! “ – just what architect used to do his baby robot toys when throwing a tantrum because it was some other bot’s turn.
Play the video entitled
C-130 SuperSTOL Test Gone Bad -- An example of what not to do when trying to stop short.
And as for the tail. You know -the tail which stayed beautifully intact to smash clean through the building - even after the entire fuselage had been turned into what Sky Cretin and Architects handlers are planning to do to them after this miserable performance. We have a fuselage which effectively no longer exists, and hasn’t for quite some time, but somehow, the tail is still attached to it and has no trouble bursting through a wall.
Has Greening calculated the stress loads on the tail to see by many times this would exceed the standards to which aircraft are built ? Haa haa !
Are there enough zeroes on his calculator ?
Noramlly a tail is attached to a sleekly engineered construction of continuous metal. In Greenings imaginary scenario, it is now attached to something which is distorted into a wildy variable zig zag shape - thats what happens when more or less straight metal things get squashed - as Sky Cretin and Architect will soon personally(?) experience.
From the link above, here’s another video of a hard landing. That’s right ! A successful landing. It’s just too hard. And guess what happens. The tail breaks off. Just snaps like what Architect used to do to the necks of other baby robots who were getting more attention than him..
Play the video called
Hard Landing! -- Ever seen an airliner land so hard that the tail breaks off? You have now! (This was an early DC-9/MD-80 certification test. After this demonstration they beefed up the tail section -- for obvious reasons!)
As you will note, they strengthened the tail section after this test, but considering that they had previously considered it to be close enough that it was worth testing, it doesn’t take much to work out that real aircraft tails are not built to stand up to the stress of having the entire fuselage destroyed – with sufficient strength still in reserve to barge their way through a building.
Haaa haaa !
And how about Flight 587 which Crashed in NY In Nov 2001 ? A 767 if I remember correctly. The tail just fell off. Let’s assume that no foul play was involved and that the reasons that the tail fell off are as explained to us by officialdom.
Of course, if Sky Cretin and Architect want to assert that foul play was involved, they are welcome to do so and explain themselves, but until such time as they do so, I will assume that they support the official story.
As some may recall, the official story is that the plane took off too soon after another plane and suffered excessive tubulence as a result. This snapped of it’s tail.
Now since Sky Cretin and Architect presumably accept this explanation, can they please explain how excessive turbulence on take off makes a 767 tail just snap off, but having the entire fuselage destroyed still leaves it robust enough to burst its way through a wall ?
Gerard Holmgren
e-mail:
holmgren@iinet.net.au
Homepage:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren
See how they run !
23.02.2006 00:21
The evidence is a policy to refuse to answer any questions in relation to it.
Sky Cretin has been running from me for four years , refusing to admit to even the very first point of debate in a 50 page article – that an object 125 by 40 by 155 doesn’t fit into 16 by 20 by 65, and claiming that he’s addressed the entire article in refusing to debate this single point.
Does he assert that i just wriote that point over and over for 50 pages ? That there was nothing else in the article? The reason he's been running from me is because heknows that if he answers that point, then I'll move to the next, and then the next and then the next - until we go through the whole article.
Then we have an argument. Sky Cretin is too scared too even start the process. One very anxious and stressed robot.
Architect openly admits that its not policy to discuss any of the evidence – “no questions folks !”
Okay robots, you are on the line to tell us how the stresses of having the fuselage crumple *and* the wings sawing through steel columns is only 1.5 times that experienced in “normal service” and how the stresses on a tail section trying to barge through a building while (somehow still) attached to a totally destroyed fuselage are less than a bit of turbulence.
See how they run ! Listen to the defining silence ! They wont answer. Because they can’t. Because there is no answer.
All we’ll get is empty bluster and meaningless insults, sarcastic sideswipes and childlike name calling, covered up by verbose drivel which does anything but answer the question. Scared weird little robots programmed by scared weird CIA trolls.
Gerard Holmgren
e-mail:
holmgren@iinet.net.au/~holmgren
Homepage:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren
Gerard Holmgren Admits to Not Having Completed His Pentagon Investigation.
23.02.2006 00:22
GH: “Conspiracy theorists think that questions are a one way deal. That they can ask as many as they like but they don't have to answer any.”
At least you recognize what I have been saying for 4 years about you and the 9/11 Denial Movement, Gerard. It’s NO surprise that you never answered my questions.
GH: “You’re right Sky Cretin I missed that bit. It’s even better. Planes which turn into accordion’s ! Hee hee ! And still manage to saw through steel columns with their wings while they’re being squeezed !”
You’re having problems deciding which of your “physics” applies, Gerard. First you claim that Boeing 767s are much too hard and their tails would stick outside the buildings. Then you claim that 767s are much too soft so their aluminum wings could not even cut through the very thin steel plating of the WTC towers. Now you claim that, yes indeed, 767’s can cut through the very thin plating of the outer columns, but would squish like an “accordion” when they hit the cores.
No wonder you are so confused and claim that no planes hit the WTC towers, Gerard.
In the meantime, while you sweat through your dissembling, none of us rational guys have a bit of problem with Dr. Greening’s physics, which you haven’t been able to refute, nor the uncontested findings of NIST which demonstrated how the planes disintegrated as they entered the tower and which, of course, you have never been able to contest either.
See:
[…]
GH: “And even though it started sharply decelerating several metres before the wings got anyway near the columns, they still sawed away merrily, like any precision unsharpened aluminium edged blade you buy for cutting heavy construction steel.”
Just how thick is this “heavy construction steel” you claim a fast-moving aircraft could not possibly penetrate, Gerard? Since you’ve demonstrated you know nothing about physics, we can only wonder how thick you imagine “heavy construction steel” to be.
GH: “In the loony land of conspiracy theorists anything’s possible.”
I’ve said it for years and you are proofing it to us every day, Gerard. It’s better than a circus watching you go loony.
GH: “It’s time to face up now, Sky Cretin. For four years you’ve been running and hiding from me, ever since you failed to refute my article on the physical analysis of the pentagon strike in 2002”
GH: “
Yes, as I already showed, you ran away from my questions in 2002, Gerard. There’s no mystery there.
GH: “
Yes, the funny one in which you stated, “So I set out to find every eyewitness account, if possible, and subject them to close scrutiny,…”
Just as I have already told everyone, Gerard, not a SINGLE interview of any - much less a few dozen - of the hundreds of rescue and recovery personnel who were on the scene at the Pentagon, in the minutes, hours, and days after AA 77 crashed into the Pentagon, and who walked through and recovered the wreckage. Not one.
GH: “My conclusion is that there is no eyewitness evidence to support the theory that F77 hit the Pentagon, unless my search has missed something very significant.”
Of course you have missed a LOT of significant things, Gerard, including the very necessary interviews of those who handled the wreckage. It is no surprise to anyone that you would deliberately not do so, knowing for a FULL four years the requirement to interview those people.
GH: “You still refuse to address the work of Jared Israel, Webfairy, Gary North, J McMichael, Jeff King, Ray Ubinger and many others.”
That ploy doesn’t work, Gerard; I am questioning YOUR work and you are evading the fact that you can’t support it in any way.
GH: “During your terrified evasions, you have trotted out such ludicrous garbage (all of it refuted in my previous posts, and in many other places) as
GH: “No one ever claimed that fire melted the steel in the buildings”
Yet you can’t produce a cite of me saying any such thing, can you, Gerard?
GH: “The melting point of steel is 800C.”
Despite asking you, you can’t produce a cite of me saying any such thing, can you, Gerard?
GH: “A gravitational fall is the same speed regardless of what resistance is being encountered.”
Yet you can’t produce a cite of me saying any such thing, can you, Gerard?
GH: “An object 125 by 40 by 155 can fit into a hole 16 by 20 by 65.”
AA77, a Boeing 757, crashed into the Pentagon. You don’t even dare interview the recovery personnel!
GH: “Aluminium blades are used for cutting heavy construction steel.”
An aluminum wing of a 767 traveling at high speed can easily cut through very thin steel. Too bad you are unable to provide a single piece of evidence to the contrary, refute NIST, or refute Dr. Greening on the subject, isn’t it, Gerard.”
GH: “The ludicrous claim that planes hit the WTC towers.”
GH: “The ludicrous claim that a plane hit the pentagon.”
GH: “The ludicrous claim that a plane crashed in PA. “
GH: “The ludicrous claim that you can produce “thousands of witnesses” to something which never happened – a big jet flying into the WTC. Current total – zero.”
GH: “The ludicrous claim that four hijacked planes could have flown around US airspace for nearly two hours crashing into important buildings – including the pentagon – without the USAF scrambling a single fighter jet to intercept anything.”
Since you’ve never believed in evidence inconvenient for you, nor ever having to present any that you can support, we understand why you have such delusions, Gerard Holmgren. At this point, rational people, knowing how irrational you are in such denials, will give up and you will just continue to spew nonsense.
Happiness to you, Gerard, is never having to be accountable to reason or reality. Isn’t that correct, Gerard Holmgren?
GH: “ [[What we all know is that hundreds of rescue and recovery personnel were on the scene in the minutes, hours, and days after AA 77 crashed into the Pentagon. They were from many different local fire departments and rescue services and they walked through, saw, and recovered the wreckage and remains of human beings during those early days.]]”
GH: “Of course, no source was provided. Having established this a “fact”, Sky Cretin’s primitive logic circuit, then makes the following leap. The crash was “common wisdom” ( because of what Sky Cretin just made up) and therefore a plane measuring 125 by 40 by 155 can fit into a hole which is 16 by 20 by 65.”
This is a good example of Gerard quaking nervously in his Jackboots. For all can see that the question I asked Gerard four years – stated in other posts here – is quite clear about Gerard’s responsibility:
----
The question I asked Gerard Holmgren then was simple and straight forward:
"1. I see no testimony from the hundreds of professional rescuers, firefighters, FEMA personnel, Red Cross volunteers, and anyone else who was on the site, contradicting the common wisdom of a 757 crash.
"Why does such testimony not exist? Have you interviewed any of them?"
So, Gerard, you’re caught again. Despite claiming, “So I set out to find every eyewitness account, if possible, and subject them to close scrutiny,…”, Gerard has never bothered to do just that.
GH: “Sky Cretin simply makes up this, [[and they walked through, saw, and recovered the wreckage and remains of human beings during those early days.]] “
Since you’ve never interviewed any of those recovery personnel by your own admission, you’d better to get to work, Gerard.
So, let me give you the contact information again for just a handful of those rescue and recovery personnel who were at the Pentagon you’ve been SO scared to interview since 2002 – 4 years ago!
Here they are again:
Arlinton County Fire Dept
Phone: 703-228-3362
Alexandria Fire Department
703-706-3940 x218
Fort Myer Fire Department
703-696-3483
Fairfax County Fire and Rescue Department
703-815-5523
703-246-2126
Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority
(703) 417-8370
Virginia State Police, Virginia Department of Emergency Management, the
FBI, FEMA, National Medical Response Team, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
and Firearms.
So, you’ve got your work cut out for you, Gerard. Get with it, man! Stop running!
GH: “You see what I mean ? After 4 years, Sky Cretin still hasn’t answered the very first point in my article. The article is about 50 pages long. But somehow it never occurs to Sky Cretin that the reason it’s 50 pages long is because the geometry that he’s struggling with is only one of many points in my article.
GH:
You’ve admitted that you haven’t done the necessary work of a credible investigator, so yes, it’s just as easy now as it was four years ago to show you ran away from being able to support your paper. And you can’t even debunk Dr. Greening or NIST!
As I always say, one can never underestimate the intelligence of members of the 9/11 Denial Movement like Gerard Holmgren!
GH: “[["So here is what NIST, the "offical" report as Gerard likes to call it:
"Structural steels do not need to melt to lose strength. Their melting
points are about 1,600 ºC, well above the 1,100 ºC typical peak value
reached by fires of common building combustibles. Page 29. " ]]
GH: “Yes Sky Cretin, but renowned architect Chris Wise and WTC building construction manager Hyman Brown both say that it's 800 C”.
Who gives a crap? We know otherwise as NIST and I have made clear to you repeatedly, Gerard.
Duh.
S. King
e-mail:
skyking@scientist.com
I think the oil just boiled
23.02.2006 01:08
For a while, it looked like he might have settled down. That would have after they showed him soothing pictures of US troops massacring people in Afghanistan.
But robot memories are short, and it looks he’s reached for the angry juice again. Warning ! Warning!
gerard Holmgren
e-mail:
holmgren@iinet.net.net.au
Homepage:
http://mermbers.iinet.net.au/~holmgren
Running with the diode cream
23.02.2006 01:13
So just to save everybody's ears from this bawling brat, I'll answer yet another question even though this will probably just encourage more tantrums in future.
Throughout this thread, Architects program has been spewing out the stupid question "do I believe that steel can fail as a result of fire? "
Duh ! *Anything* will eventually fail from fire if its hot enough for long enough. Didn't they program you with any knowledge at all Architect ? You seriously have to ask people that to find out ? Duh ?
The questions are
a)how much heat is required ?
b)was sufficient heat present ?
c)what was the degree of failure ?
d) if such failure has been established , exactly how would the structure react? Eg,how much, if any of it would fall, in what direction etc.
But all Architect does is light up his deranged eyes with the look of one who has just had a revelation of questionable sanity and mumble over and over in an idiot chant "fire can make steel fail. Therefore Sept 11 was an Arab conspiracy ,fire can make steel fail. therefore Sept 11 was an Arab conspiracy fire can make steel fail. Therefore Sept 11 was an Arab conspiracy ..."
At robot school they made the litttle robtots write this out 100 times every day.
So, since Architect openly declared himself aloft from having to answer any questions, I've already answered two of his anyway. But you watch, as soon as I turn away from the cot, he'll start squealing again - at 12khz this time.
Now let me predict his reply. He''ll seize on this message and claim that I didn' really answer the question properly, shreiking hysterically that I've avoided it - as an excuse for him to avoid the awkward and embarrising questions detailed in the post about aircraft engineering standards.
The we'll see another screaming tantrum with little robot fists beating on the edge of his cot, and wailing "Bwaahhh. You didn't answer my qwestion. Bwaaaa..."
Pehaps we can start a betting ring on this. What will be architects next post be about ?
A serious answer to the aircraft engineering standards question ?
(Snigger)
And on the quetion of failing steel, a significant question is what temperature it actually melts at, So let me repeat the question which Sky Creitn won't answer.
Sky Cretin in a previous evasion wrote.
[["So here is what NIST, the "offical" report as Gerard likes to call it:
"Structural steels do not need to melt to lose strength. Their melting
points are about 1,600 ºC, well above the 1,100 ºC typical peak value
reached by fires of common building combustibles. Page 29. " ]]
GH:
Yes Sky Cretin, but renowned architect Chris Wise and WTC building contruction manager Hyman Brown both say that it's 800 C.
So now I want *your * opinion on who is right and who is wrong. Do you even know ?
Are you telling us that bioth claims are true ? ]]
The last time I asked this question, Sky Cretin's evasion program spewed out response 419.
"Who gives a crap ?"
I give a crap Sky Cretin. And I'm the one asking the question. So please answer it.
Nevertheless, Sky Cretin has just admitted that he "doesn't give a crap" whether the NIST report is correct on even basic techincal details.
That was the question. Were Chris Wise and Hyman Brown talking bullshit, or was NIST tralking bullshit.
Sky Cretin just said that he doesn't give a crap which one of them talking bullshit.
Hee hee ! Sky Cretin is running around promoting NIST like a bible , but now admits that he "doesn't give a crap" whether anything it says is true.
So there we have it.
Gerard Holmgren
e-mail:
holmgren@iinet.net.au
Homepage:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren
Run robots run !
23.02.2006 01:25
No I didn’t think so.
And here’s another question Sky Cretin wont answer. Since it is he who is attempting to make the case for the conspiracy theory , I think it’s only fair that he submit his writings to us. You know, his published research articles.
But he won’t. Neither will Architect. This is indeed curious. These two idiots are attempting to convince the world of an outrageous conspiracy theory and they refuse to publicly reveal any their research or writing and refise to answer any questions about what they wont tell us anyway.
Occasionally, Sky Cretin has claimed that all we need to do is read a conspiracy theory by someone else - namely NIST - while at the same time, declaring that he “doesn’t give a crap” whether the NIST report is accurate about anything.
Gerard Holmgren
e-mail:
holmgren@iinet.net.au/~holmgren
Homepage:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren
Gerard Holmgren loses more altitude with emabrrassing comment.
23.02.2006 02:10
"Is Greening aware of the maximum stress loads which wings are designed to take ?"
I'm sure he knows as well as I do.
"The required engineering standard is that
“After completing “limit load” tests (ie the maximum loads likely to experienced by the aircraft during normal service), progressively greater loads have been applied to the specimen towards the required 1.5 times the limit load.”
Gerard Holmgren has never seen the "limit load" test, otherwise he would not have ever made an ass of himself as he just has.
S. Kin
e-mail:
skyking@scientist.com
Pay attention, Gerard Holmgren.
23.02.2006 03:26
So, let me give you the contact information again for just a handful of those rescue and recovery personnel who were at the Pentagon you’ve been SO scared to interview since 2002 – 4 years ago!
Here they are again:
Arlinton County Fire Dept
Phone: 703-228-3362
Alexandria Fire Department
703-706-3940 x218
Fort Myer Fire Department
703-696-3483
Fairfax County Fire and Rescue Department
703-815-5523
703-246-2126
Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority
(703) 417-8370
Virginia State Police, Virginia Department of Emergency Management, the
FBI, FEMA, National Medical Response Team, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
and Firearms.
So, you’ve got your work cut out for you, Gerard. Get with it, man! Stop running!
S. King
e-mail:
skyking@scientist
Watch out ! Now he's really mad !
23.02.2006 03:49
The fuselage has been turned into an accordion *and* the wings are sawing at steel support beams, but the wings are still within 1.5 times the level of stress encountered in normal service?
A tail can fall off through air turbulence, but not through being rammed into a wall after having the entire fuselage destroyed ?
Oh my aching sides!
I wonder if Sky Cretin even watched the video of the C130 which landed correctly by tried to stop too quickly, dipped it’s wing on the runway and snapped it right off ?
Or the one where the DC9 tail broke clean off, after a successful bu heavy landing
How about this 737 accident?
25 May 1982; PP-SMY, 737-200 Adv, 20970/376, Del 4/10/74, VASP; Brasilia, Brazil:
"The aircraft landed heavily in a rainstorm and broke in two. One report stated that "the pilots misuse of rain repellent caused an optical illusion". The crash killed two of the 112 passengers.
How about the recent crash of a C130 into building in Tehran ? You can see one wing of the plane lying at the foot of the building.
A conspiracy theory based on cartoons and a report which is promoted like a bible, and yet the promoter “doesn’t give a crap” whether it’s accurate ?"
Gerard Holmgren
e-mail:
holmgren@iinet.net.au
Homepage:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren
Obviously a major malfunction
23.02.2006 04:12
Perhaps that’s why Sky Cretin’s position on NIST is that he doesn’t care if it’s full of bullshit, he’ll still promote it anyway.
And he *still* can’t figure out that 125 by 40 by 155 doesn’t fit into 16 by 20 by 65.
Sky Cretin, when your handlers lose patience, do they give you the accordion treatment ? Or do they sprinkle kero over you and vaporize you ?
Lets see, a 130 lb robot , that should only take 10 gallons of kero at 13 lbs of machine for every gallon of kero – which is what the would have had to happen at the pentagon to vapourize the 757 – ah but then you never got that far into my article did you ?
You’re still grappling with geometrical problem.
Still no documentation for Sky Cretin’s claim that people found bodies and wreckage at the pentagon.
All there was a list of phone numbers of goct departments who will apparently give me the same spin if I ring them.
‘Hello. I’m calling from Australia to ask if any if of your personel found wreckage and bodies at the pentagon on Sept 11.”
‘Yes they did”
“Oh, well I’m so glad that’s cleared up then “.
Documentation please, Sky Cretin. You won’t. Because you can’t. Because you just made it up.
Sky Cretin has also admitted that he has no intention of addressing any Sept 11 research except for mine. No Jared Israel, no Ray Ubinger, No Webfairy, No Gary North, no Jeff King, etc.
Sky Cretin, don’t you realize that you have to address ALL the evidence ? Since you haven’t even addressed mine yet…
Speaking of that , Sky Cretin, where are your own writings, that I’ve asked for umpteen times ?
Scared to submit them for review. Running away. As always.
Now Sky Cretin, why don’t you sit back and cheer your self up and watch some really funny movies of Nazi war atrocities and torture in Iraq and limbless children in Afghanistan, and napalm victims in Vietnam ? I believe that this is the material you keep in the comedy section back at troll central. I suppose you miss the good times in Chile under Pinochet, huh ?
Gerard Holmgren
e-mail:
holmgren@iinet.net.au
Homepage:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren
Assuming that he's made out of steel...
23.02.2006 04:41
Since you're obviously working a fair head of boiling oil there, can you terll me what temperature you melt at ?
Or don't you give a crap about that either ?
Gerard Holmgren
e-mail:
iinet.net.au/~holmgren
Homepage:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren
Robot self immolates at troll central
23.02.2006 05:03
Apparently the 13 lb robot doused itself with a gallon of kerosene which immediately ignited to due to a smoking embarrassment circuit.
The robot melted almost immediately.
Experts said that the robot had no chance of survival. Temperatures of up to 800c would have melted it’s steel frame.
“"It was the fire that killed that robot. There's nothing on earth that could survive those temperatures with that amount of fuel burning," said structural engineer Chris Wise.
"The head would have melted, the shoulders would have melted and eventually they would have collapsed one on top of each other."
The robot’s construction manager, Hyman Brown, agreed that nothing could have saved it from the inferno...
... "steel melts, and a gallon of kerosene melted the steel. Nothing is designed or will be designed to withstand that fire."
Once the head had melted, it collapsed downwards, inflicting massive forces on the already-weakened structure below.
The coroners report however disagreed.
“Structural steels do not need to melt to lose strength. Their melting points are about 1,600 ºC, well above the 1,100 ºC typical peak value reached by fires in common robot immolations.”
However, the Robot’s family and friends said they “didn’t give a crap” which report was true.
In fact they’re both true, said a close friend, known only as “A”.
Gerard Holmgren
e-mail:
holmgren@iinet.net.au
Homepage:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren
Where could they have hidden all that explosive?
23.02.2006 05:52
"8. Likewise can you please flesh out for me just how you image all that explosive was concealed within the building to collapse each and every floor simultaneously? Proof would be a nice touch, rather than unsubstantiated opinion."
Above the suspended ceiling (like in the hotel in Jordan) would be my guess.
Giles Goatboy
Self-outing
23.02.2006 07:11
S. King
mail e-mail: skyking@scientist
Many observers might wonder, why the batteries of "Skyking" never run out, or respond in
irregular or too frequent times and actually do not respond clearly to any question at
all?
The answer is simple:
"Troll" Skyking aka
by various persons.
This 'system', which is designed of doing so, is actually a team of many different
operators, which are using allegedly the same email address, and they're also not
necessarily even using the same IP address, to confront anyone at all with constructive
feedback.
This kind of troll system is called "Daisy Committee", a title which is inspired by a
"committee of the Law Society of Newfoundland and Labrador whose mandate is the
preservation of Newfoundland and Labrador's legal heritage, including the history of law,
the courts, the lawyers and the Law Society...
...The Project Daisy committee work to date includes taping and transcribing oral
histories of senior members of the Bench and Bar..."
A committee is therefore represented by the same name ("Daisy"), but in reality,
different persons 'take over' to continue either a credible investigation or in this
case, to follow an argument which has only one logical principle:
The argument is not logic at all and its contradictions within the argument are designed
on purpose to keep the responders busy, make them angry, drive into frustration or
-insane.
In other words, it is a psyOP (psychological operation) to distract from the actual
point.
Patience or hyper intelligence (as seen here by Gerard Holmgren) are occasionally
effective, but the Daisy Committee will never give up.
By showing evidence that "skyking" is indeed a Daisy Committee however also doesn't win
the argument.
Skyking could argue that he indeed shares the same email address with some buddies, which
have nothing better to do than to spread their own conspiracy theories in the name of
freedom of speech.
However it has to be asked, since these kind of daisy committees do exist also on other
political boards, on which argue about the 'truth' on 9/11, what is the purpose of these
Daisy Committees?
Who runs them and why do they never increase their own profile by at least running an own
website or showing up at public events to actually confront their 'opponents' in person??
One could argue, because they work for the government with the only purpose to oppose
24/7. But does that mean, that they're less credible, because they work for the (US, add
others!) Government?
Not necessarily.
However the identity and credibility of these daisy committees, is extremely challenged.
Often "Daisy Committees" also do not care, if one reveals them as less credible, a fake
individual or in reality 'run' by multiple persons.
The committee can continue, because the argument still exists.
Their 'character change' or 'debunking' is also part of the troll system.
Just for fun and another 'waste of time', i looked into the alleged 'personality' of
Skyking, which is impostered by 'myself', and "i am" strangely interested to appear in
forums with competing purpose. Why it is really me, skyking?
Because i say so. Therefore it must be true :)
But to limit the confusion, i will continue to speak about "me" as "he".
He aka skyking, who is able to find any old correspondence since 2001 within minutes, is
in the alt.impeach forum asalso active in a conspiracy forum, often at the same time:
f64af77f2e97?hl=en#7e11f64af77f2e97
From: Sky King - view profile
Date: Fri, Feb 10 2006 9:40 pm
Email: Sky King
Groups: alt.impeach.bush, alt.politics.bush, alt.conspiracy,
alt.true-crime
Not yet rated
Rating:
show options
After writing his message at 9:40 PM, Skyking is fresh enough, in his secondary window,
he might point out, to write another message within 3 minutes:
a34a89d965e?hl=en#ff361a34a89d965e
From: Sky King - view profile
Date: Fri, Feb 10 2006 9:42 pm
Email: Sky King
Groups: alt.conspiracy, alt.politics.bush, alt.activism,
alt.impeach.bush, talk.politics.misc
Not yet rated
Rating:
show options
Skyking does not give up posting multiple postings at almost the same time.
His "Fight" against the enemy let him appear next day at 9:14 and 9:17 AM
7e9f3909e7c5?hl=en#87027e9f3909e7c5
From: Sky King - view profile
Date: Sat, Feb 11 2006 9:14 am
c591dacd5c9?hl=en#0241ac591dacd5c9
From: Sky King - view profile
Date: Sat, Feb 11 2006 9:17 am
"Skyking"'s Daisy Committee at this point will already have a plausible explanation for
it.
But what is his response on a simple email trace, which does not point on United Kingdom
as his "origin" but Fremont, CA, USA:
64.71.166.197
(C:...\eMailTrackerPro\reports\report-20060223-0046-0.html )
Is it the address of his "Internet service provider", scientist.com?
No, because scientist.com is actually a domain host, which sits in Piscataway, NJ 08854.
Also, "skyking" does not log in via scientist.com, he only bought the email address at
them some years ago.
So what about 64.71.166.197 then, everyone might ask?
And why does daisy committee "
England, if his computer IP does point on Fremont, CA?
Here are the last 3 hops of "
216.218.254.205 pos3-3.gsr12416.pao.he.net Fremont, CA, USA
216.218.229.33 pos5-0.gsr12416.fmt.he.net Fremont, CA, USA
66.220.20.138 pos10-0.gsr12012.fmt.he.net Fremont, CA, USA
At this point, the daisy committee of Skyking will now respond that it isn't actually his
own IP, but spoofed, which will make 'him' even less credible, but in his logic, he will
win the argument.
What happens is the router then takes the external IP given to you by your ISP and then
clones your computer's address (allowing the company to only see your computer.) which
allows the router to be seen as your computer (though you know that it's your router.).
Now what happens now is the router is now assigned what ip and subnet mask settings your
ip has assigned you, and will now act as your DHCP server (if you have enabled this
option) and gateway. So now everyone you connect to the router will now get a internal ip
(normally 192.168.0 1 - 192.168.0.255, though it varies from company to company) will now
have access to an internal ip via the router internal network and resources as well as
access to the internet.
It will also not help, that the Network Owner information points on Hong Kong:
RTechHandle: ZH17-ARIN
RTechName: Hurricane Electric
RTechPhone: +1-510-580-4100
RTechEmail:
Registrant Info:
Outblaze Limited
Unit 106-1108 Cyberport 2
100 Cyberport Road
Hong Kong,
HK
Phone: +852.25341222
Fax..: 852 2534 9020
"skyking" will argue it is his personal right to support networks from Hongkong.
Daisy Committees are therefore prepared on any response.
That's the purpose of their 'program'.
I expect a very complex answer, copying and pasting some UNIX chapters or other
distractive computer innuendo.
I promise, we have to expect at least 6-8 endless paragraphs, followed by a plausible
character assassination of myself, then followed by a distraction.
Wait, now since i promised this, "skyking" will question my credibility, IQ, rationality
or slang of language and instead post 2 or 20 paragraphs and further inane repetitive
assertions and other drivel.
The committee therefore "found" a 'mistake' in my response, which does not have to make
any sense at all, just to continue with the only purpose to continue at all....
Later committee "skyking" will refer to this 1:1 communication, which will not take
place, because i will not respond back.
He will then continue to insult the responder until i come back or find some 'very nasty'
stuff in unrelated articles of mine, which will then keep other responders busy or
himself.
It's therefore impossible to win against daisy committees but it produces occasionally
some valuable input by some responders.
In this case by Gerard Holmgren.
I forgot to mention that the only way to escape from these debates is none.
Once a thread is too long, another one is open in time.
Daisy Committees will follow you like roaches or just sit where they had been installed
and never leave. See also 'LARED', democratic underground, one of the most successful
daisy committees "against" the 9/11 truthling movement.
out.
Just for curiousity i leave it out. Let the fake identities figure it out anyway and
continue with their drivel. Let them find their best insult or character assassination
they could come up with.
It's occasionally entertaining, if anyone has a minute...
S. King
e-mail:
skyking@scientist.com
911myths??
23.02.2006 14:20
However there remain serious flaws within the assumptions made and these are having the effect of rendering the conclusions almost worthless.
The main flaw in this report, regarding the collapse is contained within the authors derivation and use of the strain energy requirements to collapse a single floor.
This flaw has as its source the assumptions implied within the bottom paragraph of page 19. The author states, “As noted in Section 4.2 the 236 perimeter and 47 core support columns have an effective cross sectional area of …..10.15 m^2.………we conclude that the supports at a given floor would fail if the downward compressive load exceeded about 4000MN.”
The author then goes on to compute a “collapse safety factor of about 3” for that storey.
The author is stating that the same amount of force would be required to produce failure in any of the storeys. This is plainly wrong since the upper storeys were made of relatively light material section and in some portions, I-section columns, whereas the bottom storeys comprised relatively heavy section box columns.
The author seems to apply a belief that the tower support structures were of the same cross sectional area throughout the height of the tower.
A similar flaw occurs when the author discusses strain energy. Firstly and most importantly he uses the same value, 600MJ, for each of the storeys within the structure. There is no way this can be true and the values would lie over a wide range. For instance the 100th storey normally carries the ten storeys and the hat truss above and would be built with this in mind. The tenth floor would carry 100 upper storeys and the hat truss, so its geometry would reflect this. The author’s use of a constant value for this strain energy requirement does not reflect the situation which actually did exist.
Neither does the author take regard of the elastic strain energy absorbed by storeys other than the topmost storey of the lower section. To be able to cause a failure in those storey columns a force would have to be exerted by the falling upper section and this force would also act on all of the storeys below the impact and also on those above the impact point. The initial impact force exerted and thus the force required to cause buckling failure at the upper levels would not be sufficient to cause these failures at lower levels, but the effect of the force would still be some elastic deflection of all other storeys. The size of the deflection caused would vary from storey to storey and would be in the same ratios as the static load ratios for each storey. The energy requirement for this energy would vary dependent upon the number of storeys remaining but would always be a prerequisite to continued collapse.
The effect of ignoring this phenomenon is to ignore a large energy requirement that has to be satisfied before the collapse can continue. The energy ignored would be the difference between the average of the applied load over one storey’s resultant elastic deflection, and the average of the applied load over all storeys resultant elastic deflection.
The author examines the distance over which the failure load would act and these figures he gives are around 0.11 metres (p31)from a storey height of 3.7m. So he contends that after less than 3% of its length the columns would thereafter offer no further resistance to the falling mass. This contradicts accepted theory most notably contained within BZ that a minimum 3% vertical deflection would be required to even initiate buckling points. BZ show that the required force reduces from that point but it does not at any time fall below 25% of the initial failure value.
The author justifies his use of these small values of deflection by stating that actual failure occurred in the fixings between column sections rather than column failure itself . But this cannot be the case because we know from BZ that buckling points would only appear after 3% vertical deflection. There would be no buckle points at the vertical deflections used by the authors. Buckle points or a horizontal deflection of the column midpoint are necessary for the downward acting mass force to be able to gain a moment through which to apply a force on the fixings.
No buckling=> no moment=> no force=> no failure.
The author at one point suggests he is using compressive failure modes. Again the contention that total and catastrophic failure, resulting in an inability to transmit any force whatsoever, would occur after a deflection of only 3% is contradictory to accepted knowledge of compressive failures, which exhibit deformations of up to 40% with varying load requirements before ultimate failure results in an inability to carry any load whatsoever.
Neither do his own figures tie together
His figure of a failure load for storey 80 was 4000MN.(p19) This force acting over a distance of 0.11 metres would give a maximum energy requirement of 440MJ. But this is in contradiction to his figure for energy requirements to collapse one storey, being 600 MJ.
For these two figures to be satisfied it would be required that the force acted over a distance of a minimum of 0.15metres and in actuality a greater distance than this since the load would be zero at time = 0 rising to a maximum. The author gives no reason for this discrepancy.
Let us now examine the actual value of strain energy requirement for collapse. The author has identified the strain energy requirement for the first 3% of the vertical deflection of the buckling columns. We know from BZ that the remaining 97% of the vertical deflection will require a further energy input of some ten times this amount. So using a very rough approximation we can argue that the energy requirement is of the order of some ten times greater than the value used by the author. Even if we included a factor to allow a pessimistic view of early fracture and did this by allowing that only half of this additional requirement has to be met, we can see that the new value would still be of the order of some five times greater than the value used by the author.
To demonstrate the relative size of the energies involved let us assume for the moment that the aircraft was travelling slightly faster than the author has assumed, and let that assumption be that the velocity was 240ms^-1 rather than the 220ms^-1. This is not an absurd suggestion since it reflects the velocity given by the NIST report. We now see that the aircraft impact energy would be increased from the 3.0 x 10^9 J which the author uses to about 3.6 x 10^9 J. Thus an additional 600MJ would be available and according to the authors figures this would be sufficient to take out all of the perimeter columns and all the core columns on one entire storey. This would be in addition to the damage which we did witness being caused. Is this realistic? The aircraft velocity increased by a mere 20ms^-1, now has the energy to destroy an additional entire storey? This in itself casts doubt upon the relative size of these figures.
So what can be salvaged from this report? The author has demonstrated that the collapse times which were actually observed on the day, were consistent with a value of strain energy requirement to collapse each floor of around 600 - 800 MJ. Thus it can be shown that only by application of strain energy requirements of this order could the observed collapse times have been achieved. Since the values of strain energy were demonstrably higher than those used by the author we must conclude that since the observed collapse times were achieved then some mechanism must have applied in order for the energy requirements to be reduced to the levels used by the author. Without the removal of that ability the collapse times could not have been achieved.
Gordon Ross 23rd February 2006
gordon ross
e-mail:
gordonjross@yahoo.com
Sky Cretin Full Headers
23.02.2006 17:43
-------- Original Message --------
From: - Thu Feb 23 11:17:38 2006
X-Account-Key: account2
X-UIDL: &/*"!B8R!!+C^!!JA
Received: from webmail-outgoing.us4.outblaze.com (webmail-outgoing2.us4.outblaze.com [205.158.62.67]) by thewebfairy.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id k1NHGPgY021278 for ; Thu, 23 Feb 2006 12:16:25 -0500
Received: from unknown (unknown [192.168.9.180]) by webmail-outgoing.us4.outblaze.com (Postfix) with QMQP id 0BD5E180053D for ; Thu, 23 Feb 2006 17:16:20 +0000 (GMT)
X-OB-Received: from unknown (205.158.62.49) by wfilter.us4.outblaze.com; 23 Feb 2006 17:16:14 -0000
Received: by ws1-1.us4.outblaze.com (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 9263983C05; Thu, 23 Feb 2006 17:16:17 +0000 (GMT)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_----------=_1140714975106820"
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: S. King
To: Gerard Holmgren
Cc:
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 12:16:14 -0500
Subject: Spectacualr crash landing, Gerard
Received: from [68.68.42.183] by ws1-1.us4.outblaze.com with http for
X-Originating-Ip: 68.68.42.183
X-Originating-Server: ws1-1.us4.outblaze.com
Message-Id:
X-UIDL: &/*"!B8R!!+C^!!JA<"!
Nice going, Gerard. You got yourself kicked off UK Indymedia for unbeliveably bizarre behavior. You even had to resort to forging my name.
But we have on record your spectacular crash landing marking the end of your career as a leader of the 9/11 Denial Movement, and the inevitable discrediting of all those like you who are detemine to deny the truth. You've also taken the Webfairies down with you. I am sure not even they knew what a bizarre ally they had chosen to align themselves with. But you'll all get to see your names in lights now, somewhat like David Irving has.
I'll make sure everyone gets to witness your crash and how easy it was to debunk you over and over, Gerard.
Cheers,
S. King
Rosalee Grable
e-mail:
webfairy@thewebfairy.com
Homepage:
http://webfairy.org
Its not really me ?
23.02.2006 18:08
Hmm, Ithen I guess this is just someone pretending to me.
Gerard Holmgren
e-mail:
holmgren@iinet.net.au
Homepage:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren