I am a meteorologist with a background in physics and math

I can also state that the physics doesn't work in the offiicial story; the energy required to pulverize the concrete and eject large sections  of buildings (one weighing as much as the 767's that crashed ) over 400 feet sideways into  other buildings; AND the near free-fall speed of 'collapse' all require energies much higher than what would be produced by a gravitational collapse; add into that the many, many reports from reporters of  a series of explosions prior to the collapses, and the official story is really the 'conspiracy theory'.

by wxman2001 (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 10 diaries, 108 comments) on Friday, December 21, 2007 at 9:30:17 PM
 

Actually You Don't Have to Be a Physicist to See thru the Of

Actually You Don't Have to Be a Physicist to See thru the Official story.  Once I read the physics points from Prof. Jones and Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth . . . I never saw the WTC collapses the same.

Anyone who looks at the WTC collapses, after learning of the massive 47 box steel column structures of the WTCs, can see that they were felled in a controlled demolition.

80 plus floors of solid concrete and massive steel cores . . . do not melt out of the way of a disintegrating few floors, at nearly the speed of free fall.

Of course when you look at WTC 7 it is obvious that a controlled demolition brought that building down.

To deny that requires an enormous effort in denial of obvious reality.

The physics insights of ae911truth and Professor Steven Jones, breaks the hypnotic spell 9/11 put many under.

However, once that spell is broken, you can never again look at those towers collapse and fool yourself into believing that that global collapse was caused by a dwindling limited fire on 2 or 3 floors.

by Bill Douglas (68 articles, 2 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 434 comments) on Friday, December 21, 2007 at 10:04:26 PM
 

You Don't Have to Be or Have

You don't have to be a specialist, a scientist, engineer or even a Doctor to see through the offical theory. Why, even a blind man could "see" something was wrong. As we flash back to that day...

a colleague called across the office room - "an aeroplane just crashed into the World Trade Center". "Aeroplane" because that's precisely the word he used.

"probably some drunken idiot pilot so tired of life he decided to throw it away in a spectacular manner" one said.

"let's see if we can get a webcam on it" another said.

we did find a live NYC webcam but it didn't show the towers and shortly thereafter the server was overloaded.

"get some radio on" our boss said. He's from NYC so he was very keen on hearing more. We abandoned our work and worked at getting more info.

"another aeroplane just hit the other tower!"

"holy shit!"

"WTF is going on? Two idiot pilots ? No way José!"

We were able to get a few short video clips of the planes crashing into the towers...CNN I believe. Is it any wonder ?

With 4 p.m. approaching, we shut our PCs down and hit the streetcar enroute to the main station. Once there, I stood at the back of a large crowd of people. We were watching live scenes from NYC. Smoke pooring out of both towers.  Then we saw how the first tower collapsed. People looked around at each other almost if they were each looking for confirmation in each others eyes that this not real....it can't be true. These thing just don't happen like this. I had to leave the crowd to board my train. Sitting in the train, with a good hour of zero info on the unfolding story, all I could do was to go through what I had just seen and heard during the past few hours. "This can't be true" was all I could come up with. The usual chit chat on the train wasn't there that evening. People were shocked and trying to digest what they too had seen and heard. Once I got home, I rushed into the living room to turn the TV on. It was then that I saw a clip (possibly a recording) of the second tower coming down in the very same fashion as the first. It was right there and then that I said out loud..."this is not real" ..."buildings don't just fall down like this". 

I'm a nobody, with no college degree at all. Maybe that's to my advantage. Although I did spend a lot of time researching details, the general picture of what happened is the most dominant in my mind. When CNN flashed pictures of what they said were the people who did it, I knew straight off it was a plot. And I claim that even a blind man could have seen it.

But GW touches upon Ms. Edmonds - An Iranian-born American citizen, the linguistics expert.

She had been hired in late 2001 to translate a backlog of pre-9/11 wiretaps.

I don't know about you but, I am dying to learn to know what Edmonds knows. 

by Tony Forest (4 articles, 14 quicklinks, 127 diaries, 1154 comments) on Saturday, December 22, 2007 at 4:26:17 AM
 

Physics

As Richard Gage, AIA said when we interviewed him in his home a few weeks ago,

"It's sixth grade Physics!" 

I use his quote, which I think is brilliant, as a sig line on blogs now!

by Cheri Roberts-Piper (16 articles, 15 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 430 comments) on Saturday, December 22, 2007 at 10:48:20 AM
 

Again - I state and respectfully request...(3rd request)

Very impressive collection of other 911Truthers who (from their titles alone) suggest a likelihood of "knowing" about the scientifc method.  As to their application of it, that's what scientific journals are for, isn't it?

Therefore, could you please provide me (a) link(s) to where the identified people have passed peer-reviewed papers in to a respected scientific journal saying the collapse of the towers was impossible? 

I'd be greatly interested in reading them.  I'm still interested if it's only an abstract reference that requires a fee for the full article. 

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 3 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 1467 comments) on Saturday, December 22, 2007 at 7:23:58 PM
 

here are some articles

here are some about the dust produced by the 'collapse' of the buildings.

by Env Health Perspectives: http://www.ehponline.org/members/2002/110p703-714lioy/lioy-full.html

The USGS:

by wxman2001 (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 10 diaries, 108 comments) on Saturday, December 22, 2007 at 7:48:42 PM
 

Hmmm

There is no file at the referenced link.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 3 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 1467 comments) on Saturday, December 22, 2007 at 9:55:31 PM
 

links dont seem to show up

every time I include a .link in the comment, it disappears. check out www.journalof911studies.com for 42 articles. also this one (add http://) 911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/volumev4.html

by wxman2001 (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 10 diaries, 108 comments) on Saturday, December 22, 2007 at 10:40:18 PM
 

One article - and it supports the NIST report

OK, I just dropped the ending stuff from the URL to bring me back to the actual .html.  I recall reading this papera few years ago. 

You do know, though, that there is nothing in here that demonstrates a collapse mechanism other than that present in the NIST report?  In fact, the recommend conclusion is exactly what has been done to date:

"The types of PAHs detected in these initial samples are similar to the PAHs detected in air samples 3 weeks after the attack. The fires continued at Ground Zero until 14 December 2001, resulting in the need for longer exposure characterization for products of incomplete combustion. The levels of dioxin and PCBs are similar to those found in the general environment."

Do you have anything else to offer?

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 3 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 1467 comments) on Saturday, December 22, 2007 at 10:10:54 PM
 

usgs link

see www.journalof911studies.com. The USGS paper has anomolous findings, such as elevated tritium levels in the dust. add http:// to pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/chem1/index.html

by wxman2001 (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 10 diaries, 108 comments) on Saturday, December 22, 2007 at 10:43:49 PM
 

And...?

I say no reference to tritium in the USGS paper on the analysis of WTC dust samples.  There was titanium that was posulated to have an origin associated with paint coverings, which makes sense.  The paper recommnds additional sampling, but raises no significant anomolies.

Regardless, what does this have to do with a peer-reviewed paper regarding the impossibility of collapse sequence for the WTC structures as detailed by NIST?

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 3 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 1467 comments) on Sunday, December 23, 2007 at 11:33:50 PM
 

main point im making

The main thing is that the energy required to pulverize over 90% of the concrete, asbestos and internal furnishings to a fine dust is orders of magnitude more energy than the gravitational potential energy of the standing building coming down in a collapse,  even at freefall speed.

by wxman2001 (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 10 diaries, 108 comments) on Saturday, December 22, 2007 at 10:46:30 PM
 

Mr. Murphy

Respectfully, defenders of the official story keep moving the goal posts.

For example, previously it was "no structural engineers question 9/11".

Now that many structural engineers question 9/11, it is "published in a journal" That WILL happen.  After it does, what will the defenders of the official story say? . . . "Yes, but [fill in the blank] "

by George Washington (67 articles, 18 quicklinks, 130 diaries, 174 comments) on Sunday, December 23, 2007 at 12:11:26 PM
 

President Washington - sink or swim?

There is no movement of goal posts with my request for a peer-reviewed paper in a reputable scientific journal that proposes why it's impossible for the towers to have fallen in a manner detailed within NIST's report.  This is how science works.  To take the words of someone such as Richard Gage, who has an impressive CV and slick presentation, without his assertions being thoroughly reviewed by his peers (and not JUST his 911Truthers peers but by scientific peers), is silly. 

It's not a question of the quantity of nay sayers, but the quality.  I can compile a list of pro-NIST report supports, but what would that accomplish?  Not much other than increase the "perception" that many people support NIST's collapse initiation sequence.  Truthfully, this is the only thing you're plying when you compile the lists of 9/11 nay sayers that have been published - with minor changes - elsewhere.

What the argument for "truth" comes down to within the scientific community (and NOT the court of public opinion which is as soft as shit in a sneaker on a summer's day) is the support of other scientists FOLLOWING a peer review that lessens the reluctance of a reputable (i.e., established and objective and not the "Journal of 9/11 Truth") scientific journal to publish the paper.  If you can't point to such an article that demonstrates the impossibilty of the collapse occurring as NIST revealed, then the 911Truther community should stay away from harsh rhetoric that speaks in absolutes of biased insincerety - and please avoid the claim that the scientific journals are in on the scam and refuse to carry Truther nonsense because of their complicity.

Now is the chance to sink or swim.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 3 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 1467 comments) on Sunday, December 23, 2007 at 11:24:01 PM