Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by El Topo, Oct 6, 2008.
Bush science for the Bushtards
I don't really want to join this debate, however - Science is the examination of the world. It is impractical for any scientific solution to lie without a 'frame of reference'.
Therefore, in Shagbots point of view, it is impossible for steel to melt from jetfuel. (Scientific fact of the day: Steel at room temperature is frozen.) However, since it is impossible to reproduce the physics of the plane hitting the building, we fall back on what we may or may not know to be true (within a frame of reference).
Science lies because Fox news says so. (Joke, Fox news never lies, unless it is about science.)
So now you result to personal attacks sweet. Your an old whiney fuck who I am tired of listening to whine on the board and in vent on how your vagina is full of sand and shit. So go take your meds you worthless old fuck. Go /gquit some more over gold spammers. And just so you understand it has alot to do with it. If you've ever worked for a big company you'd understand the top dictates what the underlings will and will not do. And I never said the government did it, I said the group that people are holding responsible are the ones involved in the Drug Trades.. kthanx learn to read
Science should be just about an examination of the world, however; it doesn't work out that way. In reality, science is more about twisting facts to support your view of the world while shouting down opposing ideas, kind of like this thread. For examples see Newton and super gravity vs. string theory.
If it makes you feel better, I should have said, "Science can be wrong and used to mislead," instead of saying science lies. A good example of this is saying jet fuel can't melt steel so 9/11 was an inside job.
This is just a straw man argument, since you don't need melt steel in order to bring a building down. Metal weakens as it gets hotter. Any blacksmith could tell you that you don't need to get metal to its melting point to be able to shape it.
So what's crazier here, hot metal + lots of weight + airplane damage bringing the buildings down or government conspiracy. It's not like the buildings needed to come down as a reason to go to war. The hijackings alone would be reason enough to go invade a country. Hell, we really didn't even need that as a reason.
504 architectural and engineering professionals
and 2565 other supporters including A&E students
have signed the petition demanding of Congress
a truly independent investigation.
The Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all the characteristics of destruction by explosions: (and some non-standard characteristics)
1. Extremely rapid onset of “collapse”
2. Sounds of explosions and flashes of light witnessed near the beginning of the "collapse" by over 100 first responders
3. "Squibs", or focused explosions, 40 floors below the “collapsing” building seen in all the videos
4. Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete and steel decking, filing cabinets & 1000 people – mostly to dust
5. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds
6. Vertical progression of full building perimeter demolition waves
7. Symmetrical collapse – through the path of greatest resistance – at nearly free-fall speed — the columns gave no resistance
8. 1,400 foot diameter field of equally distributed debris – outside of building footprint
9. Blast waves blew out windows in buildings 400 feet away
10. Lateral ejection of thousands of individual 4 - 20 ton steel beams up to 500 feet
11. Total destruction of the building down to individual structural steel elements – obliterating the steel core structure
12. Tons of molten metal found by FDNY and numerous other experts under all 3 high-rises
13. Chemical signature of Thermate (high tech incendiary) found in slag, solidified molten metal, and dust samples by Physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.
14. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples
15. More than 1000 Bodies are unaccounted for — 700 tiny bone fragments found on top of nearby buildings
And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.
1. Slow onset with large visible deformations
2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)
3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”
I believe in SCIENCE!
504! 504! Really 504! Well I must be wrong about this whole thing!
So not being quite that gullible, I went and checked out these 504. It turns out that there are a lot of software engineers on the list. In fact, the vast majority of that list don't have work experience in this area. They do have several architects, but only seven have high-rise experience. Should I turn to the guy that designed my McDonald's as the high authority on this issue?
There were ten people with some experience in metallurgy. These I took seriously, since knowledge about steel is important here. It appears that they all fell for the same straw man argument. Every last one of these people had problems with fire not being hot enough to melt steel. The trouble is that you don't need to melt the steel to cause the collapse. Since they are operating under false assumptions, I can't really take them seriously.
There was one strange thing I found though. The head guy of the site Richard Gage, AIA) you linked is all over the Internet. Everywhere you see him (Richard Gage, AIA) you see him with AIA after his name. This guy sure is proud to be one of the 83,000 members of the American Institute of Architects. The twist comes with that the AIA doesn't think 9/11 was a conspiracy.
Is Richard Gage, AIA going around with the AIA after his name to try to make people think that the AIA is with him on this? I had to check to make sure he wasn't their spokesman, since it sure looked like it.
I might try to explain the rest of the post you got there, but I am a bit worn out on this conspiracy stuff at the moment with having checked out those 504.
Edit: I forgot to comment on the 2565 others. I could start a web petition to have Farscape put back on the air and I would have 20k signatures tomorrow.
Lets not refer to this as "conspiracy stuff", we all believe there was a "conspiracy" that day, you believe the official conspiracy theory and I reject it. It adds nothing to the discussion, it's really just a means to avoid the issues, like the 15 points for controlled demolition you conveniently ignored. Unless you are an engineer, your opinion on the subject is as meaningless as mine. Knowing this you immediately try to discredit the names you could google, hmm attack the people instead of discussing the information, works for FOX news. To the best of my knowledge, Richard Gage has never implied that AIA supports his beliefs, so I'm not sure what your problem is there. I am a member of the loacal board of REALTORS tm, does that mean all realtors support all of my beliefs? Is this really the best you can do?
As far as the temperatures go:
"...This is because the results of physical tests performed by NIST's own Frank Gayle proved this theory to be a ridiculous exaggeration, as some people already knew. The temperatures seen by the few steel samples saved, only about 500 F, were far too low to soften, let alone melt, even un-fireproofed steel."
"In August 2004, Underwriters Laboratories evaluated the Pancake Theory by testing models of the floor assemblies used in the WTC buildings. Despite all the previous expert testimony, the floor models did not collapse. NIST reported this in its October 2004 update, in a table of results that clearly showed that the floors did not fail and that, therefore, pancaking was not possible.14 NIST more succinctly stated this again in its June 2005 draft report, saying: "The results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11th."
Tell me, why didn't the floor models collapse? (oh by the way, that was written by Kevin Ryan, he was fired from UL for asking why the floor models didn't fail, and here I'll save you the trouble of answering my question, GOOGLE "Kevin Ryan debunked", since you only seem to want to look at information that supports the official fairy tale.)
I have limited ability to comment on this thread because I am still under a NDA (commercial, not governmental) because of a project I helped on, but I thought I throw some pieces in that are clearly in the public realm.
First, tons of molten steel were not found and nothing inconsistent with the energies involved with the collapse of a large building were indicated.
Second, the characteristics of the collapse's do _not_ match that of demolitions.
Third, the actual temperatures that the support columns were exposed to was in excess of 600 degrees (NIST studies suggest higher temps, but those were not conclusively demonstrated to have contacted the steel members).
First: Here are eyewitness reports of molten steel at ground zero (along with John Gross from NIST denying it), some are firefighters. Do you mean to tell me a firefighter doesn't know molten steel when he sees it? Most evidence can be spun, you can't spin molten steel so it must be denied.
Second: The characteristics don't match controlled demolition? You offer no rebuttal to the 15 points, just because you proclaim it doesn't make that a fact. Building 7 looks EXACTLY like a controlled demolition.
Third: The paper you referred me to uses it's own authors work as a reference, heres a footnote:
Bažant, Z. P. 2001. “Why did the World Trade Center collapse?” SIAM
News Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 348, 1–3.
Note the date of his own report here is given as 2001, a little investigating finds that his original paper was written on September 13, 2001. So it took NIST 7 years to figure out how building 7 fell, and yet this guy had 1 & 2 figured out in 2 days while the rest of us were in shock and mourning, and still had time to write a paper on EXACTLY how the towers collapsed. I've got a bridge for sale, its on some land in Florida, interested?
Here's a rebuttal of your article: http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/experts/articles/bazant_jem/bazant_zhou.html
how much for the bridge?
$2.99 is the current bid.
Other than not believing in what the media is saying, it's seems to show us that how we are attached to such institutions and should break away from. However to deem money a religion on what people want and base their lives on seems backlashing to the broad term and meaning behind money. Money often leads to corruption and seems to be the downfall of our simple society, but money is just a means to establish a common trade to spread goods and prompt trade not to go replace anything else.
The video is correct on how the money is made and process and people need to understand that saying "$700 billion bailout plan" was to go into effect the video explained it quite well on what goes on. From this people should just accept responsibility for their actions. People put dependence on others and expect others to do or pay for what they've done ex: credit debt. simple put people put responsibility on others and don't accept their own.
I do understand the video and makes complete sense to how our system works but it's the most successful one in comparison to other societies and it's the mechanics of capitalism it's not perfect and no one said it was there has to be a negative to every positive other wise "equilibrium" would be off like the video states many times.
I fucking told you I didn't go though your list because I was tired of this wacko conspiracy stuff. Should my life revolve around disputing the "facts" in crazy land? Should I breathlessly hit f5 as I await the next installment of "the truth," then gleefully run all over the Internet, run my own experiments, just to come to the conclusion that this is indeed, just another whack-job conspiracy theory.
If I did go though every point you bring up in every post, I will be here a long time. By the time I was done, I would have written a book on the subject.
Even if I did, I would have just wasted my time. God could come down from the heavens and tell you that you got it all wrong, and you would yell out, "You're part of the conspiracy!"
Should I also prove we went to the moon, that bigfoot doesn't exist, that people aren't being probed my space aliens, and that there are not lizard men living under the earth? No, 9/11 conspiracy theorists are not on the same level. They are lower. Even the bigfoot guys look down on you.
I am going to go ahead and do number one of your holy points, just for fun.
1. Extremely rapid onset of “collapse”
There are two things going on here. First, you have the upper floors acting as a giant sledge hammer. The force of these floors striking the floors below them travels faster than sound though air, faster than free fall. The building's structure would have transmitted the force all the way to the ground.
This alone could have caused the towers to collapse at free fall speeds, if it compromised the right stress points (the same stress points that would have been blown up in your conspiracy theory.) On top of that, you have momentum from the upper floors. Once you get this amount of mass moving, it takes a very large force to stop it. In this case that force was the ground.
You can re-create this event at home, if you want. Just get several decks of cards and build yourself a hi-rise of cards and take out a couple floors. You may not always get the effect, if you build the lower levels strong enough; but if you get it just once, it's a proof of concept. It shouldn't be too hard for you to reproduce though, there is a saying "fell like a house of cards" for a reason.
WOW nice use of ninja!!!
Last post on this thread from me.
First, I didn't say that no melted metal was found, but are you really basing your case on the idea that a first responder under incredibly stressful conditions can be mistaken? Really? Did the firefighter test the metal to determine it's composition? Were tests done afterwards? How much exactly was there? You said "tons" earlier, who weighed it? Firefighters are neither structural engineers nor metallurgists. Exactly how many other metals do think were present in quantity under the rubble. Lets think for a moment about the amount of copper wiring, copper plumbing (given the age there most likely was a great deal), galvanized piping for sprinkler systems, desks, computers, chairs, and the plethora of other (non-steel) metal items in that building. Any metal buried under that mass of material had exactly 0% chance of being pure steel and there is damn little chance that any of the contaminating metals would create an alloy that didn't have a lower melting point than normal steel. All of the images and video I have seen from clean up after the fact show red hot, but not molten, metal.
Second, it's not surprising at all that some melting occurred and that is not in any way shape or form an indication of anything other than a damn big building caught on fire and collapsed. If you take all of the materials that were present at the time of the collapse, add jet fuel, and allow them to collapse into a huge mass you've basically created a huge kiln to trap the generated heat. This is exactly how people first created steel.
No, it doesn't, it takes longer and lacks most of the distinguishing characteristics of a controlled demolition.
Referencing your own PEER REVIEWED work is not problematic in any scientific or engineering field.
People in caves could not carry out the attack.
* This racist comment ignores the education and training of the terrorists. Bin Laden graduated from college a civil engineer and some of the terrorists are out of college
* You don't need government help or a university degree to scare passengers into thinking you have a bomb onboard.
* You don't need government help to turn off an airliner transponder and hide among hundreds of other airliners in the area
It's the first time in history a steel frame high-rise collapsed
* It is not the first time a steel structure collapsed by fire
* It's also the first time in history an airliner rammed into a steel hi-rise building built like the towers (Tube in a Tube design)
* It's the first time in history a steel framed building built like Building 7 (Con Ed substation in the lower floors and a cantilever column core) was hit by another steel framed building.
* unprotected steel collapsed within 2 1/2 hours in Madrid fire without being hit by anything
They collapsed into their own footprint
* The floors of the towers fell straight down while the perimeter columns leaned out
* These buildings could not collapse any other way due to the design of the building. It was not a solid block.
Explosives were placed in the building during weekend power downs
* Controlled demolition of much smaller buildings take months.
* The power down can not be verified by any reliable source.
A fireman said there were only two small fires in the towers
* The fireman was on the 78th floor, the lowest of the impact floors on fire.
* A wingtip was the only part of the airliner which entered the 78th floor.
* The 78th floor is a skylobby which wouldn't have much to burn
* The fires above the 78th floor had heavier fires which followed the fuel/combustibles.
* If there were only two small fires on the 78th floor just before collapse, it only agrees with the NIST report. Cooling trusses contracted and pulled the columns in because the fires moved to other areas.
The Madrid and Caracas tower fires lasted much longer yet those steel framed buildings never collapsed completely
* Neither building had the tube in a tube design used at the WTC
* Unlike the towers, both buildings had their steel columns encased in concrete
* The steel which was not protected with concrete in the Madrid towers also collapsed early on just like in the towers
The towers were built to withstand more than one airliner impact
* The NIST never said the impact collapsed the towers
* The towers DID withstand the impact. It was a combination of fire, impact damage and lack of fireproofing over the steel in the impact levels which collapsed the towers.
Ex UL employee (Underwriters Laboratory) Kevin Ryan says UL certified the steel of the towers which did not fail during testing for the NIST
* UL does not certify steel. They certify assemblies which included fireproofing on the steel
* Kevin Ryan worked as a water tester and did not have anything to do with the collapse investigation
* Mr. Ryan was let go from UL because he was making false statements about the company
* The steel assembly with 1/2 inch fireproofing was rated for only 45 minutes.
* UL never tested steel assemblies without fireproofing
The towers lease owner was being forced to remove asbestos from the towers. It would have cost him billions of dollars to remove it all.
* The towers only had asbestos up to the 38th floor of one building.
* Asbestos does not need to be removed, only sealed with a spray on sealer.
The towers were white elephants and never reached full occupancy
* The towers were at full occupancy at least since February of 2001. It was at 90% in 1998.
The photos and videos of the bowed columns were due to light refraction
* Light refracts differently in different angles. It would be impossible for light to bend in refraction in exactly the same way on every camera and video lens regardless of angle
* The bow was only on one side of each building. Why didn't it refract around the whole building if it was a product of heat?
* Videos show the violent pull in of the columns at the beginning of global collapse. It would be impossible for it to be refracted light
The NIST changed their mind and said the buildings did not pancake
* The NIST never said pancaking caused the global collapse
* The NIST was talking about what they investigated which was the collapse initiation. The collapse did not start by pancaking
* There is photographic evidence of pancaking on ground zero which happened after collapse initiation
Silverstein said he "pulled" building 7. Pull is demolition terminology for blowing up the building
* "Pull" is not demolition terminology for blowing up buildings.
* Building 6 was literally pulled with cables which is why they said "We're about to pull building 6" in a PBS special.
* Silverstein say "they" made the decision and not Silverstein
* They made the decision to pull the rescue operation out.
* The fire commander's statements agree with Silverstein's statement
* Many firefighters said they were pulled away from building 7 because they feared the building would collapse
Building 7 only had a few small fires.
* Building 7's south side was covered by smoke for most of the event.
* Firefighters said the building's south side showed fires on multiple floors
* Firemen said the building was "fully involved"
Building 7 had no or little structural damage
* The firefighters put a transit on the building and concluded the building was going to collapse
* There was a very large gash in the building which ran from the top floor to at least the tenth floor
* Firemen said there was a 10 story hole in the middle of the building
The towers fell at free fall/near free fall speed
* In every video and photo you can see the perimeter columns far outpacing the collapse.
* The building took over 12-16 seconds to completely collapse. The actual event was covered by debris so no one can say for sure. One rare video has the south tower collapsing at about 22 seconds.
* Conspiracy theorists cut their videos out when the perimeter columns hit the ground and not the building.
Molten Steel found weeks after the collapse indicates the use of thermite.
* No one has scientifically proven the molten substance was steel. Can even be molten glass coating steel or an aluminum mixed with something else
* Steel can burn/oxidize and would explain red hot steel
* The photo of firemen over a glowing hole in the ground cannot be molten steel. The heat would have been too great for the firemen
* Thermite cannot cut columns without large canisters all around the column
* No demolition in history ever had steel glow for weeks
* Thermite needs another primary charge to set it off. It would have exploded during impact explosion
* The amount of thermite needed to collapse the tower would have been massive. (Tons) Impossible to hide.
A Thermite reaction is seen flowing from a window in the south tower before it collapsed.
* The size of the flow would mean tons of thermite was in that corner of the building. Impossible to hide
* The flow turned grayish as it fell to the ground, more like aluminum
* The flow was seen only from one window which happen to be where the majority of the aluminum plane would have come to rest
* The molten flow changed its direction with the sagging floor. Thermite doesn't walk
* A UPS system on the 81st floor can account for the molten flow
Squibs were seen coming from the buildings
* Because of the 'tube in a tube' design, each tower was about 95% air. Each story had an acre worth of floor space. The air from each story was compressed during the collapse. The air had to go someplace; out the window space, in staircases, down elevator shafts or other mechanical conduits. The compressed air is called "overpressure".
* Firemen who survived the collapse in the buildings core felt the overpressure strong enough to push them down the stairs. They called it a "hurricane wind".
* None of the so called "Squibs" could be seen before the collapse, which is evidence the collapse caused the effect.
* Other very heavy equipment could have fallen down open elevator shafts (Elevators and motors, etc...) and rammed into floors blowing out windows on the floors and expelling ceiling tile debris.
* The amount of these so called squibs are much smaller than would be expected in a controlled demolition, where charges are used on almost every floor.
* Videos show squibs working in reverse from an explosive blast. The amount of ejected debris increases as the collapse progresses. Explosives don't work that way. Energy in an explosive is released almost instantly and would not get stronger over time.
* What some say are squibs as building 7 collapses is nothing more than previously damaged exterior panels flapping about on a poor resolution internet video.
People heard explosions indicating explosives were used
* Each floor had about an acre of 3" - 4 " concrete flooring. The sound of that plus office furniture and equipment collapsing on an office below would make a very loud boom.
* Steel snapping under tension would make a very loud boom.
* Large transformers exploding in the building would make a very loud boom.
* Large oil filled transformers exploding from the fire in WTC 7 could account for explosions heard in the building before collapsing
* Many of the people who said they heard explosions also said they realized it was the building collapsing causing the sound.
* Even bodies hitting the ground sounded like explosions to some people.
* Some say "It was like" before saying what they heard.
* People generally try to describe something hard to describe by saying it's like something most people know. Like the sound of a hurricane is often described as a freight train by survivors.
* You would expect a few people who are under attack by terrorists to think a loud boom is an explosive going off.
"Scholars" say the collapse of the towers is impossible
* None of the conspiracy "scholars" have passed a peer reviewed paper in a respected scientific journal saying the collapse of the towers was impossible.
* Many peer reviewed papers have been passed in respected scientific journals saying the towers collapsed from impact and fire alone.
* The few scholars who say they are structural engineers and are conspiracy theorists are not working in the field.
* Dr. Fetzer wrote books on JFK and moon landing conspiracies.
* Prof. Jones was a physicist who worked on cold fusion and not structural or civil engineering.
* Prof. Judy Woods was a dental engineer and did not have a job in structural engineering.
* Gordon Ross is not a structural engineer. None of his so called "papers" have passed peer review by a respected scientific journal. He hasn't made a single attempt in a respected journal.
* The scholars for 9/11 truth created their own journal which has no impact to the scientific community and is created by and for the conspiracy theorist community.
* Conspiracy theorists haven't tried to pass a peer reviewed paper in a respected scientific journal. This proves they have little faith in their own work.
* Structural engineers in Jones own university call his hypothesis "very unreliable".
Dr. Steven Jones says he found evidence of controlled demolition on Ground Zero in the form of Sulfur and Iron Spheres in the dust sample.
* Sulfur is found in gypsum board
* Iron Spheres come from flyash found in structural concrete, magnetic printer toner, torch-cutting of steel beams as part of the cleanup, aircraft impact, collapse,
* The iron-rich content of all dust samples was between 0.1 and 1.3%. Not high enough to suggest it came from large amounts of melted steel.
* Could have been there before collapse created during the construction of of one of the many buildings in NY.
* Iron Spheres could be created by oxidation or chemical reactions during moderate office fires.
They would only need a handful of people to pull it off
* They would have needed thousands for the conspiracy story to be true
A large portion of the American population believe the government planned 9/11
* The polls are worded in a way to conflate the government hiding their incompetence with government involvement in 9/11.
* Only 4.2% believe the government blew up the towers. 26.5% believe the government let Bin Laden fly planes into the building. That number is well below the 34% who believe in UFO's
* If a large percentage of people believe the conspiracy story then why doesn't it show when they interrupt live events? Why no sympathy from the vast majority in attendance?
The paper... http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
Ross B. Corotis, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., NAE, University of Colorado, Boulder
Younane Abousleiman, Ph.D., University of Oklahoma http://mpge.ou.edu/faculty_staff/faculty.html
Ching S. Chang, Ph.D., P.E., University of Massachusetts http://www.ecs.umass.edu/cee/faculty/chang.html
Joel P. Conte, Ph.D., P.E., University of California, San Diego
Henri Gavin, Duke University
Bojan B. Guzina, University of Minnesota
Christian Hellmich, Dr.Tech., Vienna University of Technology
Lambros Katafygiotis, Ph.D., Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
Nik Katopodes, Ph.D., University of Michigan
Nicos Makris, University of Patras
Robert J. Martinuzzi, P.E., University of Calgary
Arif Masud, Ph.D., University of Illinois, Chicago
Arvid Naess, Ph.D., Norwegian University of Science and Technology
Khaled W. Shahwan, Daimler Chrysler Corporation
George Voyiadjis, Ph.D., EIT, Louisiana State University
Yunping Xi, Ph.D., University of Colorado
Engineering Mechanics Division Executive Committee
Alexander D. Cheng, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Chair
James L. Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE
Roger G. Ghanem, Ph.D., M.ASCE
Wilfred D. Iwan, M.ASCE
Chiang C. Mei, M.ASCE
Verna L. Jameson, ASCE Staff Contact
Journal of Engineering Mechanics
More links to civil engineering papers and other information concerning the WTC collapse...
Bazant, Z.P., & Zhou, Y.
"Addendum to 'Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? - Simple Analysis" (pdf)
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 3, (2002): 369-370.
"WTC: Lightweight Steel and High-Rise Buildings"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 4, (2002): 145-150.
Clifton, Charles G.
Elaboration on Aspects of the Postulated Collapse of the World Trade Centre Twin Towers
HERA: Innovation in Metals. 2001. 13 December 2001.
"Construction and Collapse Factors"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002): 106-108.
"Learning and Applying the Lessons of the WTC Disaster"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002.): 133-135.
"Dissecting the Collapses"
Civil Engineering ASCE v. 72, no. 5, (2002): 36-46.
Eagar, T.W., & Musso, C.
"Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation"
JOM v. 53, no. 12, (2001): 8-12.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Therese McAllister, report editor.
World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations
(also available on-line)
Gabrielson, T.B., Poese, M.E., & Atchley, A.A.
"Acoustic and Vibration Background Noise in the Collapsed Structure of the World Trade Center"
The Journal of Acoustical Society of America v. 113, no. 1, (2003): 45-48.
Fire Engineering v. 155, no. 10, (2002): 97-103
"TMS Hot Topic Symposium Examines WTC Collapse and Building Engineering"
JOM, v. 54, no. 4, (2002): 13-17.
"World Trade Center Collapse-Civil Engineering Considerations"
Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction v. 7, no. 3, (2002): 134-135.
Newland, D.E., & Cebon, D.
"Could the World Trade Center Have Been Modified to Prevent Its Collapse?"
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 7, (2002):795-800.
National Instititue of Stamdards and Technology: Congressional and Legislative Affairs
“Learning from 9/11: Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center”
Statement of Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., before Committee of Science House of Representatives, United States Congress on March 6, 2002.
Pinsker, Lisa, M.
"Applying Geology at the World Trade Center Site"
Geotimes v. 46, no. 11, (2001).
The print copy has 3-D images.
Public Broadcasting Station (PBS)
Why the Towers Fell: A Companion Website to the Television Documentary.
NOVA (Science Programming On Air and Online)
"No Code Changes Recommended in World Trade Center Report"
ENR v. 248, no. 14, (2002): 14.
"Study Absolves Twin Tower Trusses, Fireproofing"
ENR v. 249, no. 19, (2002): 12-14.
The University of Sydney, Department of Civil Engineering
World Trade Center - Some Engineering Aspects
A resource site.
"WTC Engineers Credit Design in Saving Thousands of Lives"
ENR v. 247, no. 16, (2001): 12.
took me about 2 hours, but that read from thors post was better than the video IMO.
"First, I didn't say that no melted metal was found, but are you really basing your case on the idea that a first responder under incredibly stressful conditions can be mistaken? Really? Did the firefighter test the metal to determine it's composition? Were tests done afterwards?"
Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer for the WTC also reported "molten steel". Was he also "traumatized"? Did you even watch the video???
"No, it doesn't, it takes longer and lacks most of the distinguishing characteristics of a controlled demolition."
According to the firefighter testimonies, 80% of the firefighters on the scene reported hearing explosions: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ4dVo5QgYg
More proof of explosives: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw&feature=related
The Journal of 911 Studies also has 2 peer reviewed papers:
Two refereed papers have already been published in mainstream peer-reviewed journals: Fourteen Points...[Bentham] and Environmental Anomalies at the World Trade Center: Evidence for energetic materials [SpringerLink].
I'm not going to waste my time and debunk a wall of text that has already been thoroughly discredited (See Debunking 911 Debunking, by David Ray Griffin) when you obviously didn't take 7 minutes to watch a simple video. Many things stated are not even backed up with a source such as:
* Firemen said the building was "fully involved"
Source??? Quote with a name??? You mean to tell me a 47 story building was fully involved with flames and fire and theres not 1 video or picture of it??? GUESS WE"LL JUST HAVE TO TAKE YOUR WEBSITES WORD FOR IT!! I could make a website and say "Bush admitted to planting bombs in WTC!!!" Without a source, it's drivel.
Honestly I'm surprised it took this long for that disinfo site to makes its appearence on this thread, grats on holding out this long.
ROFL yes your a tard verm guess thorizidins post owns your simpleton ass later...
You originally had begun the attacks as usual you cant take it you fucking pussy..Im laughing inside at your simpleton ass.