National Academy of Sciences Member Calls for 9/11 Investigation

It is interesting that this groundswell of doubt is gaining momentum. I wonder if this will inspire a second "attack" on US soil, and the passing of martial law that has already been signed into the Federation's statutes. On other sites, many Americans appear to be quite concerned about the imminent future, many doubting that there will be a next election. Perhaps they are paranoid. Perhaps they can smell something in the wind?

Let's face it, when it comes to this entire War of Terror, there are a lot of things that stink, and yet few people here want to connect the dots between 9/11, 7/7, Iraq, Afghanistan, Kelly, all of the changes in American and British laws, the Haliburton "immigration containment" centres across the States, increased pressure on DNA databases in the UK, the ASBO as a back-door to criminalisation, SOCPA, FOT, and now Iran. This is a festering pot of deceits and manipulation that only succeeds in manoeuvring the common person into the jaws of a trap for containment. It is now already far more difficult for people to engage in what might be thought legitimate protest. More and more people are talking about taking to the streets. Perhaps it is time that we define the terrain.

'The National Academy of Sciences membership is comprised of approximately 2,100 members and 350 foreign associates.'

Congratulations. After 6 years, you've convinced one out of 2100. Only 2099 to go.

I notice Dr Margulis' speciality is biology.

What "peptics" doesn't appear to realise is that regardless of one's scientific speciality, there is amongst scientists an ingrained methodology of investigation, the so-called scientific method. This method involves reasonably laborious processes of sceptical investigation for the validity and reliability of someone's claims, and the attempt to refute those claims should they fail to be reproduced elsewhere by other people using the same methods, or in which they can be said to have failed standardised tests of parsimony and internal validity.

For this honourable professor (unless "peptics" wishes to dispute this too?) to have reached her conclusions after reviewing the literature available against the official conspiracy theory (sorry, "official narrative") would suggest that she has done so after having brought her considerable scientific acumen to bear on the topic, because she is risking ridicule, etc., by going public if she hadn't checked her facts first.

But, if this wasn't enough, there are now some 162 architects and engineers who are also calling for a re-inquiry, suggesting that they do not believe the official con either. See  http://www.ae911truth.org/joinus.php for the list of members: these are not lightweights.

As noted before - there is a groundswell of challenge to the official con. For people like "peptics" to use the rather disingenuous idea that Dr. Margulis is but one and there are only 2099 to go is little more than a sleight of hand. But, I wonder if "peptics" uses the same arguments against climate change as well, refusing to buy the concept until everyone has signed up.

Oh well ... the joys of free speech (well, what little remains of that poor largely eviscerated ideal anyway!!).

Wow! There are probably only about a million qualified architects and engineers in the USA, so that's .... 0.0162%. Way to go!

Those are the people who have spoken out publicly. There is a lot of fear within the scientific community about the repurcussions of making such public statements, even if they are popular sentiments.

The Trolls just don't want to concede anything because they know that they can't support the Bush/PNAC Conspiracy Theory with evidence, while contradictory evidence refutes their version of events, necessitating a real investigation.

"It is interesting that this groundswell of doubt is gaining momentum."

Indeed, but after six whole years, the evidence against Bush/PNAC keeps piling up, while they fail to provide the evidence which would exist - and be forthcoming - if their Conspiracy Theory was true.

And I think that as people see what sick monsters these Neo-Fascists are, the plausibility of their staging of an attack on their own increases greatly.

"I wonder if this will inspire a second "attack" on US soil"

I think all of their failures, and the lack of support, as well as their plots for further Acts of Aggression will lead to another False Flag, unless they can be removed from power before they get the chance. Given that they were never elected in the first place, and the betrayal of the electorate by the other side of the RepubliCrat Party however, I don't see this happening.

The unwarranted statements from senior Neo-Cons about the imminence of another attack smacks of a desperate Regime attempting to prepare the public for something they know waaaay too much about.

"few people here want to connect the dots between 9/11, 7/7, Iraq, Afghanistan, Kelly, all of the changes in American and British laws, the Haliburton "immigration containment" centres across the States, increased pressure on DNA databases in the UK, the ASBO as a back-door to criminalisation, SOCPA, FOT, and now Iran."

A lot of people HERE, on IMC, do just that. That's why we've seen such a marked increase in Troll activity these past few months.

"This is a festering pot of deceits and manipulation that only succeeds in manoeuvring the common person into the jaws of a trap for containment."

I love the way you put that. This really exposes the desperation of these criminals, their fear of the growing Resistance to their schemes, and shows us what's at stake.

This should serve as a call to greater action and resistance, but many seem to have lost the will. We must redouble our efforts.

"It is now already far more difficult for people to engage in what might be thought legitimate protest."

But not really. I think people simply have to begin standing up to these new, illegitimate measures. Remember, everything Hitler did was 'legal', too, remember? We have to set a limit on the Government's powers, and challenge these new ones, which stifle the rights of the people.

"More and more people are talking about taking to the streets. Perhaps it is time that we define the terrain."

Perhaps we just get out there ...

Oh yes? And your evidence?

Most structural engineers and architects are not part of the 'scientific community'.

And in addition to those in the United States, there asre quite a few qualified engineers and architects in Canada, South America, Britain, Europe, Australia, Asia ... there would be no 'repercussions' for them if they 'spoke out'. And the number doing so?

To put my cards on the table - I have no particular interest in convincing you one way nor the other, and it appears as if you have your own mind made up, and so be it. Perhaps you have concluded that the official narrative (which, again to be blunt, is what *I* would refer to as a conspiracy theory for numerous reasons that we could both argue until we're blue in the face) is the God's honest truth. Perhaps you've concluded that the official narrative of events is so water-tight a description of events as they actually happened that anyone questioning that must either be divorced from reality, or trouble-makers, or just plain wrong. Perhaps sometimes you might even be right about that. But you will believe what you have been told by the governments, and for you, that sounds very much like the end of the issue. Finito.

Or, perhaps "peptics" you have swallowed the official line and want desperately to believe that governments would not knowingly sacrifice several thousand countrymen and women to achieve some kind of twisted totalitarian strategy for resource acquisition and "Full Spectrum Dominance" (PNAC "Rebuilding America's defenses"). Letting go of everything you have been taught to believe about the people you supposedly elected into power to represent you, the ordinary little fellow ... man, that will really hurt, because then your own reality starts to twist. You lose your bearings, not sure who or what to believe anymore. Maybe if they can allow that to happen (some say *cause* it to happen, but we'll only go down the rabbit hole a little bit right now) then just how much of whatever else they are saying is also not to be trusted? That is a Royal Pandora's box to open! It really is best not to go there if you have a weak stomach and a strong desire to be infantalised into a tapestry of reassurances and blurred boundaries ... that all will be okay in the end. They've told us so.

Or, perhaps "peptics", as your moniker might suggest, you could be one of a group of "[s]*eptics" who don't quite swallow the whole enchilada, but enough to not want their world rocked by such controversy. Y'know, tempus fugit and all of that, time to move on. We've got bigger fish to fry rather than deal with this kind of thing. That expression is quite typically expressed here in good ol' IMC-World and the archives are replete with examples. In which case, you could go either way. Maybe you are just waiting for your own tipping point ... that one piece of something-or-the-other that will finally convince you, a critical mass. Maybe for you it is the numbers game. You won't start questioning the narrative seriously until 51% of the world's scientists and whoever-holds-the-most-esteem have started to question the official narrative. Maybe you were always a follower at school ... going with the path of least resistance, shuffling along to whatever beat the others marched to. If so, I certainly recognise how easy it is for that to happen, and then one day you wake up and its a habit ... and seemingly unbreakable. But man, you got to admit - what a waste of a lifetime that is: never thinking for yourself, making your own mind up, figuring out what beat your drummer invited you to march to. This could be your chance to start listening to that beat? No-one would have to know until you got used to the changes in your life.

Or, perhaps "peptic" you are merely a troll. One of those sad, lonely insects seen scurrying off into the dark corners of the Net, little "lurkers" who scuttle out to disrupt things, a sort of "community" (used broadly) jammer without any particular agenda or thought processes involved. You know, kind of like a vandal. If it wasn't this thread, perhaps it would be another. Who knows. Things for you are random, until you find a challenge, and then you hunker on down, drooling at your keyboards in an adolescent fantasy encounter. Well, you've no doubt heard this phrase before, but it's said that one should "not feed the trolls". Perhaps I breach Netiquette with this. My bad.

Or perhaps "peptic", when all is said and done, you really honestly do believe the official narrative and aren't really into a discussion about it, the holes in the story, the questions that just don't go away, the way that an increasing number of professionals in their fields are beginning to step forward and declare "This Emperor has no clothes". Deal with it or engage with it. It's not going away just because you cannot distinguish between popular culture measured in the numeric quantity of adherents and serious deconstructive discourse measured by different values, such as expertise, justice, reason, and truth.

No matter. The groundswell remains undeniable.

Has anyone read this yet?

 https://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/09/380640.html

Probably.

The fact that Bush/PNAC has been incapable of supporting its own Conspiracy Theory in six whole years, coupled with the growing volume of contradictory evidence, necessitates an investigation which will not 'fix the facts', but try to ascertain what actually happened, and most importantly, who was responsible.

Against this, debates about minutae are useless.

 http://www.911truth.org

Exactly! Spot on!

Hank - it doesn't doesn't matter what I think, or you think, but what those who are qualified to judge think. In other words, I take medical advice from a doctor, legal advice from a lawyer, and advice on collapsing buildings from structural engineers. Now, find me the structural engineers who back your case.

Is that all? I am genuinely surprised.

The charity 'MIND' has conducted research that suggests that between 4 and 6% of all healthy adults will develop some kind of mental illness or suffer some kind of breakdown during their life. Yet we have only 1??

Perhaps the Illuminati silenced all the others?

162 architects and engineers for architectural and structural stuff
Pilots for truth regarding the manipulation of passenger jets
Scientists (physicists, etc.) regarding the scientific rigour of the official narrative
Fire fighters for the peculiarities of the official accounts in how fires destroy buildings, plus explosions, etc.


Just a partial list of experts in their own fields who think that the official accounts stink.

You can, I'm sure, look the sites up yourself. Yours is not much of an argument "peptics". Do the research, follow up on the readings. The experts are all there - pick your field and there are experts to challenge the official narrative. The resistance is yours, it is not the absence of doubting experts.

You say: 'The experts are all there' - but what you don't say is: 'All the experts are there'.

As with doctors - you may go for a second opinion. But when you are on doctor number 2099, you're getting a wee bit desperate.

Big Lizard exlaimed - "Yet we have only 1??"

Its like looking at how many people are against the war - and how many people have taken action against the war, and opining that only the second group are against the war. Its as shit as the science you castigate "the other side" for using.

Most architects are reactionary middle class twats. The fact that more aren't sticking their necks out may just prove that, rather than prove that 99% of architects support the official story.

How do you sceptics get away with asking all these questions?

Questions seem to disappear off threads on other topics. Something about being "non news" or something like like that.

How nice to know that our lives depend on these people every time we step into a skyscraper.

So - are architects in Russia middle class twats? Architects in Shanghai? In India? They too can read, you know, and they'll all have read the reports on the WTC, since that's what their job is. Now we can either believe people like you, who obviously despises the profession, or we can believe the people whose livelihood depends on building these things. Guess which I'd choose.

What class do you think they are peptics?

Come on, astound us with your amazing class analysis.

As to thinking that all architects have read the reports, are you some kind of crazyman?

And is this news?

Architects will be 'middle class', but does that automatically make them twats, or unable to make any sensible decisions? Since when did being 'working class' - which you presumably approve of - make you the font of all wisdom?

The 'news' was that 1 out of 2100 NAS members has called for an investigation of 9/11, with the subtext that having such an authorative [and presumably middle class] figure make this declaration is 'leading to a groundswell of doubt'.

This can be described in two words: wishful thinking.

"The 'news' was that 1 out of 2100 NAS members has called for an investigation of 9/11, with the subtext that having such an authorative [and presumably middle class] figure make this declaration is 'leading to a groundswell of doubt'."

It probably is news that someone who has received prestigious prizes and been named as one of the " 20th Century's 100 Most Important Inspirational Leaders", is prepared to go on record, using her own name to argue that the official 911 story is not gospel.

It isn't news that anyone who is prepared to stick their head above the parapets and dispute the official 911 gospel is going to be called a lunatic by obsessional, one track, one dimensional anonymous trolls on the internet - such as peptics/citpecs/sceptic/skeptic.

Nor do any of your posts on this thread appear to be news - just a whole bunch of strawman arguments:

"Congratulations. After 6 years, you've convinced one out of 2100. Only 2099 to go."
Until you produce evidence that all 2099 support the official story, its proof of nothing.

"There are probably only about a million qualified architects and engineers in the USA, so that's .... 0.0162%. Way to go!"
Again, wheres the evidence that all the rest support the official 911 story?

"And in addition to those in the United States, there asre quite a few qualified engineers and architects in Canada, South America, Britain, Europe, Australia, Asia ... there would be no 'repercussions' for them if they 'spoke out'. And the number doing so?"
For starters, any architect who spoke out in Britain would be hounded to death by your obsessional, one track one dimensional anonymous trolling - that seems like a repurcussion to me. Furthermore, I very much doubt you've read every foreign language architectural website, so how do you know that more haven't expressed doubts? Its also not news that the majority of people don't speak out when its likely to cause them grief - those who rely on government contracts have an investment in keeping themselves 'uncontroversial'.

"Now, find me the structural engineers who back your case."
Follow the link from the original post and you'll find Professor Judy Wood -
"Judy Wood is a Professor of Mechanical Engineering who has advanced degrees: Ph.D. in Materials Engineering Science, from the Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics, Virginia Tech, 1992 M.S. Engineering Mechanics, Virginia Tech, 1983, B.S. Civil Engineering (Structural Engineering), Virginia Tech, 1981"
Didn't take to long.

"You say: 'The experts are all there' - but what you don't say is: 'All the experts are there'."
Another strawman - until you produce evidence that they disagree with Lynn Margulis and support the 911 official story.

"They too can read, you know, and they'll all have read the reports on the WTC, since that's what their job is."
I bet most architects haven't read the report - hardly any design skyscrapers. And the idea that architects in other places have a different agenda is yet another bit of strawman fuckwittery. Heres some middle class reactionary twattery for you:

"World trade means world peace and consequently the World Trade Center buildings in New York ... had a bigger purpose than just to provide room for tenants. The World Trade Center is a living symbol of man's dedication to world peace ..."
Minoru Yamasaki - WTC architect

Its fairly damn clear that world trade means domination of the many by the few.

Your strawman arguments are tedious and most definitely not news.

Go find a bulletin board which is prepared to put up with your rah rah for the empire and leave this newswire alone ffs.

Straw men arguments - pot and kettle.

Here's a straw man argument for you - that an architect would be frightened to speak out because of my 'obsessional, one track one dimensional anonymous trolling'. [speaking of anonymous, isn't posting under the moniker of R Sole just that?].

The idea that architects just aren't interested in one of the major building collapses of the last hundred years also seems to be somewhat straw like too.

Those who do design skyscrapers - there must, after all, be one or two around, given the skyline of modern cities - would, I submit, have read the reports with some close attention to detail. How many peer reviewed papers have you seen in architectural journals querying aspects of the reports? Given the way 'obsessional, one track one dimensional anonymous trolling' posters on the subject of 9/11 seize on every crumb, there can't be many. If any.

"Here's a straw man argument for you - that an architect would be frightened to speak out because of my 'obsessional, one track one dimensional anonymous trolling'. [speaking of anonymous, isn't posting under the moniker of R Sole just that?]."

See, I didn't actually say that.

You made it up and then used it as "proof"

Now - post news or fuck off

'For starters, any architect who spoke out in Britain would be hounded to death by your obsessional, one track one dimensional anonymous trolling - that seems like a repurcussion to me'

Your words, unaltered. Nothing made up.

Oh, and by the way - these are 'quick comments on this article'.

A couple of quotes from "peptics", the disinformation troll:

"So - are architects in Russia middle class twats? Architects in Shanghai? In India? They too can read, you know, and they'll all have read the reports on the WTC, since that's what their job is."

"Those who do design skyscrapers - there must, after all, be one or two around, given the skyline of modern cities - would, I submit, have read the reports with some close attention to detail."

Architects and Engineers around the world won't have read the FEMA or NIST reports in any number, if you want to claim this supply some evidence. You don't. They haven't. I know, I have worked with these people.

In any case if they had then there would probably be more doubting the official story, take WTC7, FEMA said the most likely cause of structural faliure was fire damage but also said this "best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence" and that "the building imploded".

The preliminary report into the collapse from NIST suggests that the failure of three columns (79, 80 and 81) out of 24 triggered the structural failure of the entire building. When Dr Sunder of NIST was asked why WTC7 and the fate of the building was barely mentioned in their report, he admitted that they have "had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7." The 9/11 Commission Report didn't mention WTC7 and NIST has now contracted out the investigation into the collapse to a private company, Applied Research Associates. The latest word from them is that "NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements."

The idea that the failure of 3 columns in a building of this nature would lead to a near-free fall total collapse into the path of most resistance is absurd -- this was a huge, modern, highly secure, skyscraper not a house of cards.

Listen to Richard Gauge on Guns and Butter last week -- when he does presentations to architectural firms about the collapse of the 3 skyscrapers he convinces them all that the official story isn't true.

 https://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/09/380427.html

The reason that so few architects and engineers are questioning the official story is that very few have been presented with an alternative to the (contractictory) official stories. When they are they are won over.

The majority of us accept as fact that the current administration manipulates science for political ends. Few were surprised to hear experts from industry challenge overwhelming evidence of man-made climate change. Frustration within the scientific community had grown so much that by Dec. 2006 more than 10,000 scientists, including 52 Nobel laureates and 63 recipients of the National Medal of Science, had signed a statement accusing the Bush administration of "distortion of scientific knowledge for partisan political ends".

Scientific integrity within the administration has often not been rewarded. Recently fired US surgeon general Richard Carmona said after leaving, "In public health, as in a democracy, there is nothing worse than ignoring science, or marginalizing the voice of science for reasons driven by changing political winds."

Truth, even when grounded in strong scientific evidence, is the first casualty of war, and the US is at war.

The pattern is clear, and it affects us all.

On September 11th the whole world watched as jetliners crashed into the World Trade Center. These heinous crimes were labeled as acts of war. However, scientific principles show much more happened that day than we were told. The most striking feature of these World Trade Center collapses is that each came down within a few mere seconds of the time it would have taken a brick dropped from the buildings' tops to hit the ground. Through the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Committee Studies our government told us that the damage from the planes hitting the buildings and the resulting fires caused them to collapse at near freefall speed.

What we were told is physically impossible without additional forces to bring the buildings down.

We were told that the undamaged towers below the impact zone offered very little resistance -- effectively little more than air -- resulting in the complete destruction by the accelerating mass of the smaller top sections cascading downwards. But principles of physics starting with Sir Isaac Newton's Laws of Motion show that what we were told happened by the NIST Commission's Reports is not possible. Principles like Newton's Laws of Motion are facts that cannot be dismissed. The NIST Reports absurdly failed to carefully consider these physics principles when it told us the damage and subsequent collapse was caused by fires from the jet fuel. The swift collapse we witnessed, in fact, could not have been caused by the fires or any other damage from the planes.

Applying 2 basic principles, conservation of energy and conservation of momentum, the government explanation quickly unravels. NIST conspicuously ignored these principles in their Reports. NIST also ignored the observed twisting of the top 34 floors of the South Tower before it toppled down. This twisting clearly violates the conservation of both linear and angular momentum unless a large external force caused it. Where the massive amounts of energy came from that were needed to cause the complete collapse of the intact parts below for each Tower, when their tops were in virtual free fall, is not answered in NIST's numerous volumes of study.

The only explanation supported by the physics is multiple explosions in both Towers. Without an additional energy source to blow the lower floor support structure out of the way of the falling upper mass, the observed fall speeds were unachievable. Any true scientific model must take into account the fact that that the kinetic energy of falling material would continually be dissipated to break more structural energy of parts of the remaining building unless explosions have already done the job. Thus, without explosions this mandatory expenditure would continually decrease the fall velocity through all the levels. In other words,

the top portions of the buildings as they came down would be significantly slowed down by the undamaged parts of the buildings below.

Even if the fires had gutted the entire building, causing universal structural weakening, the fall times would still be about 2-3 times longer than the fall time observed. In reality, the North Tower had 92 floors and the South Tower had 77 floors of intact structure designed to withstand major adverse damage below the impact zone and fires. If the planes and fires did more minor damage to the buildings before setting off the supposed critical fall, either building would take 3-10 times as long for complete collapse than was observed, even if complete collapse could occur and even then if it occurred all at once.

Is there proof of how the buildings came down? Examining the more technical details of the collapse shows direct evidence that explosives caused the collapse. Videos and photos taken clearly show the very-quick appearance of rapidly growing dust clouds in the collapse of the both Towers. These clouds expanded much faster than the gravitational pull could produce, clearly indicating that explosive heat energy caused that expansion. Multiple squibs (material ejecting horizontally from high-pressure regions) traveling over 160 feet a second were observed in both towers, and could only be generated by explosions. Several parallel squibs came out of the South Tower just a floor or 2 below where the plane hit less than an hour before, and these explosions that caused the twisting of the top 34 floors that initiated the collapse of that tower. Multiple squibs were also seen at the times of collapse of building 7, which collapsed later that day and was not hit by any plane. The appearance of these squibs in all 3 cases came within seconds of the time each building started to collapse.

These squibs provide clear direct evidence of explosions, as simple math elaborates. Data taken from a photograph by KTLA channel 5 news shows a streaming clear line of ejecting material which is similar to several other squibs photographed that day. This stream is mostly made up of bits of material large enough that air resistance is small compared to the ejection force, and after ejection from the North Tower it has traveled nearly 70 feet in a horizontal direction, whereas the distance it has descended because of gravitational pull is small. If we estimate that the front end of the ejecting material has fallen about 3 feet, then, for material for which air friction is small (e.g. a 3-inch piece of glass or 1-inch piece of steel) we find it has been just under 0.5 sec since the front end first ejected from the building. The material in that squib is traveling horizontally at over 160 feet/sec.

Defenders of the NIST Reports have tried use to explain these squibs as compressed air and gasses coming out of the collapsing buildings, but that cannot begin to account for the energetic focused horizontal blasts observed. Explosions produced those extremely high speeds, making the ejecting material into a swath of bullets shooting out of the buildings.

So where does this squib hit the ground? Assuming the height of ejection is about 1300 feet (400 m), gravitational descent of that ejection to the ground lasts for 9 seconds if air resistance is negligible. In 9 seconds that squib has shot out almost 1300 feet, or about 1/4 mile away from the building. There is unmistakable evidence of damage from this high-speed material away from the Towers. Pictures on the Web show remains of hundreds of autos that were broadsided and severely damaged by such streaming material for blocks from the collapsing buildings. Many such explosions were necessary to produce these devastations scattered around over the 40 acres of the site.

The evidence is mounting and accredited scholars are coming out every day questioning the NIST Studies. In recent weeks alone, former NIST scientist James Quintiere has declared that he no longer accepts NIST's work and has called for a new investigation. World-renowned scientist Lynn Margulis strongly rejected the NIST Studies, suggesting that "the glaringly erroneous official account of 911 be dismissed...".. These are some of the finest scientists in the world. Can the mainstream press catch on? Reporters and pundits selectively use science to support less controversial issues but is this an inconvenient science. The rapidly expanding huge concrete dust clouds from the towers, the very-quick appearance of multiple squibs on all 3 collapsing buildings, and the destruction of hundreds of autos for several blocks around the World Trade Center from these squibs, are some of the dramatic examples clearly pointing to explosions. Scientific methods imply these were the cause of our greatest destruction in the 21st century.

---------------------------------------------

Crockett Grabbe is an applied physicist engaged in research at the University of Iowa who received his Ph.D. from Caltech. He has been profiled multiple times in Who's Who in Science and Engineering.

Lenny Charles is the creator and producer of the International News Net World Report, one of only 2 daily alternative national televised news programs in America.

As to your claim that you haven't misquoted me, nowhere have I said that "that an architect would be frightened to speak out because of [your] 'obsessional, one track one dimensional anonymous trolling'

You just made it up.

What I did was dispute the claim that any architect in Britain could speak out without repurcussion.

Your "quick comments" are more suitable to a bulletin board.

" Additions and comments are subject to the same Editorial Guidelines as newswire articles, and comments which do not meet the guidelines may be hidden."

So, quick comments need to be news - or useful. Circular strawman arguments are a waste of everybodies time.

I repeat - your trolling of the threads wouldn't be tolerated on other topics.

Following is a spot-on comment from the long thread following the above article on Information Clearing House:

The trolls here have a general function as well as a specific and 'crucial' function.

Generally, they are targeting new, fly-by visitors to ICH in an attempt to give to such people the impression that the obvious case for "9/11 as inside job + treasonous mass murder"
is murky or ill-founded or outrageous.

Specifically, the attempt is to slow down the ever-increasing focus on the controlled demolition of the three skyscrapers. The widespread recognition of WTC controlled demolition is (forgive me) utterly explosive: Not only does it shout out INSIDE JOB, it prompts questions that immediately narrow down the list of possible suspects: who had the technical capability; access; authority? Furthermore, the heart wrenching collectively traumatic spectre of the collapses - people leaping hand in hand out of the WTC,etc - is transposed into murder most foul: to put it mildly, a politically/culturally potent re-cognition.

Robert Snefjella | 09.09.07 - 9:35 pm

'This twisting clearly violates the conservation of both linear and angular momentum unless a large external force caused it'

No, for several reasons. 1. What has twisting to do with linear momentum? 2. There are several large external forces - one's called gravity; the others come from the upward forces exerted by the structural members. 3. If it were a closed system, then you can consider conservation of momentum. But it's not a closed system. If a car hits a brick wall, its momentum appears to have 'disappeared'. In fact, it's gone to the Earth. In the same way, unless you bring the Earth into the system, then any discussion of conservation of momentum is meaningless.

'Without an additional energy source to blow the lower floor support structure out of the way of the falling upper mass, the observed fall speeds were unachievable.'
Now watch any film or video of a true controlled demolition, and you'll see it behaves exactly the same as the WTC did. In both cases, the structural members of a floor are taken out, and down it comes.
There is a second snag here. Not only have we to fit explosives to the floor which collapsed, we have to fix explosives to every other floor. How many tons of explosive are we talking about now? Perhaps ten tons per floor? How many floors? How many hundreds of tons? And still no one notices?
Third snag. We take out the floor which the aircraft hit using explosives. That floor has been soaked in burning aviation fuel for an hour - and the explosives still survive?

The squibs. A skyscraper is mainly empty space. So where does the air go, if not out of the windows? Secondly, as it collapses, the girders buckle violently. Their cladding is going to be thrown off at high speed - look, there's stuff flying off the side.

'Even if the fires had gutted the entire building, causing universal structural weakening, the fall times would still be about 2-3 times longer than the fall time observed.'
Assertion without evidence or any calculation.

peptics What absolute bollocks you spout!

"There are several large external forces - one's called gravity; the others come from the upward forces exerted by the structural members. "

One main external force Gravity - The other upward forces are in opposition to the main large external force -Gravity (why the tower doesn't fall down) Imagine it's in space i.e. no Gravity - no other upward or any other directional forces. Gravity the single main large force. If you disagree with this then you disagree with NIST, FEMA, BPAT et-al i.e this is a gravity driven collapse according to the official report writers.

So you're saying the official collapse hypothesis is wrong! Maybe you should contact the liar John Gross at NIST and tell him about your great discovery of "other external forces" looks like the sceptical anagram has shot itself in the foot!

The other force that acts on the building is sheer, from wind (but I think there's some tablets you can get for that). Sheer stresses were low on 11.9.2001 about 11 Kts of wind. The towers were built to with stand 120 Kt gusts. They were capable of having all the exterior columns removed from one face and then some more round the corners, on one floor and still withstand cross winds in excess of 90 Kts. That's what they were designed for as well as being designed to survive "multiple impacts by jets"


"3. If it were a closed system, then you can consider conservation of momentum. But it's not a closed system. If a car hits a brick wall, its momentum appears to have 'disappeared'. In fact, it's gone to the Earth. In the same way, unless you bring the Earth into the system, then any discussion of conservation of momentum is meaningless."

Not meaningless

The important thing to realise is what happens to your hypothetical car when it hits the wall. What happens to it's acceleration as the momentum is transferred to the earth? i.e. it slams to an instant halt (relative to the earth!). compare this with the falling block of floors as it continues to accelerate at 98% Gravity for at least the first two floors drop 25 feet through millions of kilos of concrete and steel as if they're not there. So to use your car analogy - the car hits the wall and continues accelerating! How?


"There is a second snag here. Not only have we to fit explosives to the floor which collapsed, we have to fix explosives to every other floor. How many tons of explosive are we talking about now? Perhaps ten tons per floor? How many floors? How many hundreds of tons? And still no one notices?"

4000 lbs of explosives is one estimate made with reference to a controlled demolition expert- lbs not tons. You forget that in the art of controlled demolition the falling mass contributes energy to the destruction of the structure.

"Third snag. We take out the floor which the aircraft hit using explosives. That floor has been soaked in burning aviation fuel for an hour - and the explosives still survive?"

Wrong the aviation fuel burned off very quickly less than 10 mins and mostly outside the building. Setting off those explosives to coincide with the impact of the jet is well within the realm of possibility. Just watch the timing on any hollywierd action movie pyro sequence. (And it looks a lot like the impacts of those planes).

"The squibs. A skyscraper is mainly empty space. So where does the air go, if not out of the windows? Secondly, as it collapses, the girders buckle violently. Their cladding is going to be thrown off at high speed - look, there's stuff flying off the side."
"
To say "A skyscraper is mainly empty space" is deliberately misleading - if you average out the mass of the structure over its volume you come out with an equally misleading figure of a density close to that of wood. A wood on the soft side of hard - so now we can say ... A skyscraper is mainly empty space with an average density of wood. Yeah really helpful (sarcasm). Maybe you could e-mail that liar John Gross at NIST with our new insight into the mechanics of those collapses. I know NIST are clutching at straws at the moment so he/they might find this one useful.

So how do the squibs blow out symmetrically from single central windows 30 floors and more below the collapse front and at speeds in excess of 100 feet per second? especially regarding the floor layout of this revolutionary design.

As for violently buckling girders and high speed ejection of cladding! Ha! where's your evidence? Why are you being so selective? Why no mention of the 30 ton pieces of core column found 500 feet away embeded into the sides of buildings?
Why no mention of the pyroclastic rapidly expanding pulverised dust clouds? Why no mention of the hundreds of tiny splinters of human bone found hundreds of feet away on the roofs of adjacent buildings?.

Peace Truth and Justice