And thanks to Herr Professor's non-experimental pseudo-science hogwash we now have a perfect explanation as to how WTC7 went down to its  roots at gravitational velocity without being hit by an airplane. His drivel also make us understand why the Pentagon hole is so small. Thank you Herr Professor for having made an a**hole of yourself. We will reward you with The Medal Of Perversity And Dishonesty.

by ramsheyi (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 793 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jul 23, 2008 at 3:17:48 PM

  (0+)

911 is so full of wholes, that they know amnesia is their best defense.

by John Hanks (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1762 comments [39 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jul 23, 2008 at 8:29:02 PM

  (0+)

The energy Density of gasoline is ranges from 44 to 47 MJ/kg.

The energy density of Jet fuels range from 42 to 46  MJ/kg.

I'm just saying, ya, know? 

by Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 350 comments) on Wednesday, Jul 23, 2008 at 8:43:40 PM

  (0+)

These interviews are no accident, of course, they well know there are a lot of people out there who question the official conspiracy theory, but who also are kind of fence riding because they don't really want to believe their government could possibly be quite that evil, all other evidence notwithstanding, so stuff like this is put out to try to pull them away from understanding what evil b**tards are really running their country. And it's effective, as well, esp when delivered by someone from a place like MIT that at one time could be trusted. This guy, and others like him, will, in the fullness of time and exposure of history, be on the same page as guys like Albert Speer and Propagandameister Goebbels. If anyone is reading here who would like an answer to his pseudo-scientific crap, have a look at A" target="_blank">click here 911 Thought Experiment, which tries to add a bit of context to the fuel and what it did - context you will never see the OCT propagandists talk about, as it makes their fairy tales sound like the blatant bs they are. 

by siamdave (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 85 comments [3 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jul 23, 2008 at 10:13:47 PM

  (0+)

Nice post. Impressive scholarship on the author's part in debunking these claims.

I personally believe that the Neocons orchestrated the whole pageant of 911, although there is no way for me to distinguish that scenario from one where they became aware of a plan to do the same and chose to allow it to happen. What is impossible to accept is that primitive people with limited resources and access caused 911 without being discovered in advance, resisted in the air, or having multiple accomplices subsequently identified and exposed like Terry Nichols in Oklahoma City or Ted Kaczynski in Montana. How many terrorists would be needed to pull off 911 even if they had all of the access that they needed to supplies, intelligence, documents and the like? At least several on the ground for every one in the air. But all we have are 19 patsies who, like Oswald, can never speak for themselves. Signature American M.O.

But do you know what? I have no doubt that if somebody provided the gift of 911 to the Neocons, that they would welcome it and stand down in response if not facilitate it actively. Is there anybody with a modicum of analytic ability who believes that Bush or Cheney, if they were aware that 911 was in the works, would have any reason to prevent it? That seems obvious and indisputable to me, and that is what is relevant. That is, is there any practical difference between somebody who would do such a thing and somebody who didn't think of it, but discovered the plan in advance and didn’t attempt to prevent it? Even those who refuse to accept complicity theories should be able to say that if Bush or Cheney had known, that they would not have intervened. Even conspiracy theory haters and administration apologists like the professor here must, if they were honest, agree with this.

This may not seem like an important consideration, but change the crime to a domestic equivalent. A plan to murder a married man is uncovered before it can be implemented, but it cannot be determined whether his wife was partly or completely responsible, or uninvolved. These are two very different situations from the husband’s perspective, and it is vitally important if possible to distinguish between them. It determines what he should do - continue his marriage or end it. It determines whether he should love and trust her or the opposite.

But add this fact. He has good reason to believe that even if she had nothing to do with the plot and didn't know about it, that had she discovered it, she definitely would not have tried to prevent his murder. If somehow he knew that was not only capable of permitting his murder but that she almost certainly would choose to allow it to come to pass, now, it only matters to the police whether she was the perp, a co-conspirator or neither. To the husband, there is no longer a problem. His next move is clear either way. He needs another wife, and he doesn't love her or support her any longer.

That is what we Americans face conspiracy or not. Of course there was a conspiracy, but the important point is that even if the naysayers were correct about the administrations innocence, we can never be convinced that they would have cheered and supported the conspiracy rather than attempt to prevent its execution, and that is just as damning. This is my answer to  those who ridicule others who accept or accept provisionally that  the administration was the perp, or at a minimum, a co-conspirator, that even I can concede the point without having to modify my assesment of Bush and Cheney, because I cannot be convinced by any argument that they would not gladly let it happen to benefit themselves (at it did), an outcome that would be easy to predict, and that would require a conscience or at least some regard for life or the law to take action.

by Yaybob (12 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 174 comments) on Wednesday, Jul 23, 2008 at 10:33:33 PM

  (0+)

No one denies the jet fuel had energy. Enough to lift an airliner several thousand feet into the air and carry it across the continent against aerodynamic drag. The figures given by Roark Howard seem reasonable (fan of Ayn Rand?)

The reason TNT is an explosive is that it releases its energy over a short period of time. Energy can manifest itself as either a large force exerted over a short distance, or a relatively small force over a large distance. Fuel can release its energy rapidly when mixed with oxygen in the right proportions, while explosives are self-contained, with their own oxygen supply. But, as is frequently pointed out, the fires in the WTC are clearly oxygen-starved. There isn't any evidence of widespread vapor, particularly when the buildings collapsed, when most of it would have dispersed.

I have to say the argument that the explosive force couldn't be as much as the professor says, otherwise the tops would have blown off the buildings, isn't very convincing. A more productive line of reasoning is this: while we have no other instances of implosions of buildings due to fires to study, there have been plenty of jet liner crashes, usually with most or all life aboard lost. Why, though, do they not typically explode with enough force to level a skyscraper?

I agree that the professor's thesis that gasoline-fueled terrorist attacks are something we need to be vigilent of is bogus fear-mongering.

by Maxwell (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 409 comments [85 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Jul 24, 2008 at 10:34:02 AM

  (0+)

Troll Maxwell,

How about WTC7 ? Is free-falling a contagious disease transmetted through heat waves?

What abour molten steel at 10 000 degrees centigrade two months after the initial explosions? Can jet fuel do that ? Mini-nukes would for sure.

You are a brand new agent of the criminal Establishment doing your best to throw confusion into the debate. Others before you have tried and failed.

We are uncheatable and undupable.

We don't need your explanations and theories and commentaries aimed at whitewashing through absurd rhetoric. 

Just go away or we will chase you out

by ramsheyi (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 793 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Jul 24, 2008 at 12:43:31 PM

  (0+)

"What abour molten steel at 10 000 degrees centigrade two months after the initial explosions?"

 What a load of crap.   ROFLMAO

by Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 350 comments) on Thursday, Jul 24, 2008 at 7:07:46 PM

  (0+)

"Just go away or we will chase you out"

by Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 350 comments) on Thursday, Jul 24, 2008 at 7:09:34 PM

  (0+)

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/fae.htm

by Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 350 comments) on Thursday, Jul 24, 2008 at 7:05:06 PM

  (0+)

Ph.D can mean nothing more than piled high and deep; after receiving my Ph.D. I became a full, tenured engineering professor at a major university, so listen up:

When something with potential energy burns it is NOT the same thing as exploding.  Explosions mean a sudden release of energy.  Jet fuel burning is NOT an explosion.  The cited professor said a complete load of bullshit.

I have studied the WTC buildings collapse (all three buildings) and totally support the view that they did NOT collapse because of the airplanes and their fuel.

Follow the money: and you would surely learn that the cited professor has lived off of federal money.

by Joel S. Hirschhorn (141 articles, 50 quicklinks, 65 diaries, 546 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Jul 26, 2008 at 2:29:01 PM

  (0+)

How much energy would be released by the combustion of 5,000 gallons of jet fuel plus a typical office environment fire load after say 1 hour?

by Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 350 comments) on Sunday, Jul 27, 2008 at 10:31:19 AM

  (0+)