"With publication in an established civil engineering journal..."

Sooo, an online journal that's been in existence for a whopping 10 months is "established"?  What was it at six-months - "liberating"?  Dr. Jones and others need to look more closely at the publication and its origin and admit that it's (a) VERY new to the publishing world (it's only published a total of 10 articles in 10 months of existence), (b) regards research papers and opinion letters as essentially the same, and (c) fails to ackowledge perecived conflicts of interest between its publishing staff and article content.

Continuing to promote the letter as something it isn't (a validation of Truther science in a peer-reviewed paper) is ONLY self-deceiving.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Apr 23, 2008 at 9:12:20 AM

  (0+)

Pardon me while I point out the obvioius:

Things are on a

WHOLe NUTHa LEVULL

with publication in a mainstream, peer-reviewed, scientific engineering journal- as i replied before, Tom- it remains to be seen whether bentham.org - online at least since 2000 according to Archive.org - will go down a laughingstock- or whether the NIST & FEMA reports will prompt criminal investigations.

So, Tom, while you've been chasing my dumb ass all over these dinky diaries while working on your 14 point rebuttal to be published here, I and the rest of the Truth Movement have been posting links all over the Web.

So, while I look forward to reading your rebuttal here at the great OpEdNews.com, kim, it's not a peer-reviewed journal, and my opinion doesn't mean anything- except you, apparently

Thanks for posting, as always, Tom! 

by Better World Order (4 articles, 568 quicklinks, 39 diaries, 1111 comments [56 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Wednesday, Apr 23, 2008 at 9:36:35 AM

  (0+)

Tom, if you’re not a real COINTELPRO agent, please visit this MoFo’s 5th column and unleash one of your worst attacks- I’ll be checking the thread later to see if you did. If you want to know why so many in the 9/11 Truth Movement have disowned him, read the Hey, Hot-Shot article and comments

Hey, Hot-Shot - GeorgeWashington's Blog at 911Blogger.com

TheMemoryHole.org Senator Graham Admits

Complete 9/11 Timeline - CooperativeResearch.org aka HistoryCommons.org

AMERICANS SLAM NEWS MEDIA ON BELIEVABILITY

The Indictment of Markos C.A. Moulitsas ZÚÑIGA by Justice and History (Updated with Additional Information and Counts)

Bin Laden: Key enabler of “imperial mobilization"

by Better World Order (4 articles, 568 quicklinks, 39 diaries, 1111 comments [56 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Wednesday, Apr 23, 2008 at 10:37:48 AM

  (0+)

"Things are on a... WHOLe NUTHa LEVULL."

My repeated comments on the publisher address this very point. The paper does NOT bring the 9/11 Truth Movement and/or debate to a different level. The engineering community does NOT regard The Online Civil Engineering Journal as a reputable publication. The web site is too new and employs the open access method of information dissemination.

YOU and others may post links to your heart's delight and utter contentment. But where the links to this letter are confined mostly Truther or Truther-friendly web sites, how does this advance your cause? This is like telling the milk men that milk really does come from cows. The milk men already knew that and the cows remain oblivious.

The Online Civil Engineering Journal (heck, just call it Bob's Journal) is one of 200+ similar-styled journals that have been created by Bentham Science Publishers – since May 2007 - http://www.bentham.org/News/2.htm . This publisher does not represent a mainstream journal – period. BWO, you can call the letter and its publisher whatever you want, but it doesn't legitimize further the claims made by the Movement.

I don't need to post a rebuttal in a "peer-reviewed journal" when these papers exist:

http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf ;

http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/ ;

click here ;

click here ;

click here ;

click here ;

click here ;

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml ;

click here ;

Enjoy!

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Apr 23, 2008 at 11:11:27 AM

  (0+)

i suppose, to give you the benefit of the doubt, chum- but i'm an idiot, so what do i know? 

Which is why my point, again, last time, is; we shall see- there will be a response from many in the scientific community, if rebuttals actually can pass a peer review, that is- so I'm just gonna publicize the hell out of this, along with everyone else in the 9/11 TRUTH movement, so the truth can come out, on this new level, whatever the truth is.

I want to see the public discussion and the free debate

You yourself said you like open access in a previous diary on this same subject, where i made the same points- you go find the link- you had such a lengthy and brilliant replies, after all.

c ya

Anyone else want to weigh in? 

by Better World Order (4 articles, 568 quicklinks, 39 diaries, 1111 comments [56 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Wednesday, Apr 23, 2008 at 12:03:34 PM

  (0+)

Mr. Murphy:

I gather you are enjoying the fascism and tyranny?  

Have you yet seen this video http://youtube.com/watch?v=1jMfhR3ueOA ? Please make certain to watch all four parts. You might just learn something. There was molten metal beneath all three buildings and isn't it amazing though that the jet fuel only burned at 800° to 1500°F, not nearly hot enough to create this molten steel (2750°F). How could that be, Mr. Murphy?

by Munich (1 articles, 86 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 1125 comments [86 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Wednesday, Apr 23, 2008 at 1:10:57 PM

  (0+)

got to go- look for Open Letter to the People & Google- what do you think of the 14 points and the historic event of publication in a so-called peer-reviewed open access journal?

by Better World Order (4 articles, 568 quicklinks, 39 diaries, 1111 comments [56 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Wednesday, Apr 23, 2008 at 4:27:33 PM

  (0+)

"I gather you are enjoying the fascism and tyranny?"

München, if you truly believe that America today is a home for fascism and tyranny, then you seem to have lived a sheltered life. There are locales on this globe that DO represent your claims, but I KNOW that America is NOT one of them. Your concerns are misplaced given the threats facing not just the nation but the world today.

However, it is certainly your right (as well as others) to chase that "nth" degree of democracy in the hopes of a utopian goal being fulfilled, claim infringement of your rights if the threat assessment is raised and liquid containers are banned from air travel, assert that 9/11 is THE TRUTH that'll set us free in the 21st century, and demand that President Bush be impeached because it's the "sexy" thing to do among progressives. At day's end, though, I'm pretty certain that your expectations haven't been met, you remain frustrated at the lack of action, and yoru anger at the government flares up whenever you hear a sound bite from Bush or Cheney.

No offense, but THAT sort of life is not for me. You may THINK that you are the patriot, but there'll always be the unvoiced questions of "what if we're all wrong about this?" that linger in the mind's darker shadows. The occasional Truther meeting will, though, beat done the fears, angers, resentments like a Step Meeting in AA. After all, a problem shared is a problem halved is it not?

As to the video, I have seen it previously and quite frankly, I fail to grasp the obsession that Truthers have with molten metal. If you're alleging that it's a by-product of a thermite/thermate reaction that lasted for weeks, then you need to review the characteristics of exothermic reactions... again. I will say that Mr. Gage gives good face for the camera but the Infowars production of the video parts is a turn off for me. I have very little regard for Alex Jones and his "artistically shrill" propaganda pieces.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Apr 23, 2008 at 9:10:26 PM

  (0+)

Mr. Murphy:

I never once mentioned thermite/thermate. I am asking, what do you believed caused the molten metal that was founds at the base of each of the three buildings and which lasted for weeks? It wasn't the jet fuel. So what was it?

Mr. Murphy have you ever been down at the base of high-rise building during it's construction?  The steel is huge and it is very, very thick and it is also quite strong! An impressive and rather humbling sight, looking at this raw material that will support what will eventually be a fifty floor office building that will occupy many business's and people.  I've been there and done that.

So what I'm thinking is that in order to bring down any structure that big, it is imperative that you first get to those base columns which are located almost a hundred feet below the Earths surface. The other reason you take out these massive columns is to accommodate the steel above which would come crashing down in nicely cut pieces, making the clean up a bit easier.

I understand that you are a "faither" however, something other than the jet fuel brought down those Trade Towers. The Police and Fireman all heard explosions and then seen the Towers begin to plummet. What were all of those explosions Mr. Murphy? I want to know!

I have a challenge for you Mr. Murphy. If there is nothing to hide, then let us have another investigation into 9/11. A public investigation with real hearings into what brought down those Trade Towers. Can you handle this? If there is nothing to hide then demand such an investigation. If you truly love your country then you would agree to such a challenge so we can clear the air. If you don't, then it tells me one thing.  

by Munich (1 articles, 86 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 1125 comments [86 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Wednesday, Apr 23, 2008 at 10:38:44 PM

  (0+)

"I never once mentioned thermite/thermate. I am asking, what do you believed caused the molten metal that was founds at the base of each of the three buildings and which lasted for weeks? It wasn't the jet fuel. So what was it?"

I mentioned thermite/thermate because that's the presumed cause of the molten metal among a majority of Truthers. I believe, and mentioned in the cut and pastes below, that the molten metal was most likely the result of the heat of compression associated with the collapses, followed by the slow but sustained burning of combustibles buried within the debris piles.

When you take a 110-story building and condense it into a 10-story pile, you're going to have a lot of waste heat generated. The thickness of the debris piles acts as insulation and the reduced oxygen within the pile but abundant source of combustible materials permit the sustained burning. Eventually, the heat retained by the insulated debris cap will reach temperatures where aluminum could melt (660 degrees C) but not steel (about 1,500 degrees C). And there was much aluminum mixed in amongst the debris because of the exterior covering on the towers.

"Mr. Murphy have you ever been down at the base of high-rise building during its construction? The steel is huge and it is very, very thick and it is also quite strong!"

The senses can be deceived – period. Given the masses and forces that were in play during the collapses, the thickness and size of the structural members was relative. Under static conditions, the steel framework performed flawlessly – and did so for several decades. But... under a rapidly changing and dynamic load, the steel structure was overwhelmed. This is Physics 101 – honestly!

"The Police and Fireman all heard explosions and then seen the Towers begin to plummet. What were all of those explosions Mr. Murphy? I want to know!"

I've commented previously at length on the sounds of explosions. Overloaded equipment (e.g., electric transformers), changing structural loads (e.g., a 20-foot tower sway and transfer of load from the core to the perimeter columns), and believe it or not falling bodies all made sounds that could best be described as "explosions". Again, don't let your senses be deceived. Just because you hear the sound of an explosion – in person or on audio – doesn't mean that the explsion was caused by explosives.

"I have a challenge for you Mr. Murphy. If there is nothing to hide, then let us have another investigation into 9/11. A public investigation with real hearings into what brought down those Trade Towers. Can you handle this? If there is nothing to hide then demand such an investigation. If you truly love your country then you would agree to such a challenge so we can clear the air. If you don't, then it tells me one thing."

There IS nothing to hide. If you and other Truthers want another investigation, then by all means continue to pursue one. For me, though, I am satisfied (mostly) with the reports that have been presented.

Therefore, I am not compelled to seek or demand another investigation that starts at square one (e.g., the Ramsey Clark Commission or HCSA for the JFK assassination). I'd find such an investigation counterproductive, wasteful of taxpayers' money, and psychologically scarring to a nation that's working on a collective closure of the attacks of 9/11.

Now, an investigation that supplements the reports released thus far makes more sense to me.

Love of country has nothing to do with the investigation into the attacks of 9/11. You and other Truthers may reference this and couch it in terms of being "true" patriots, but that's done to reassure your convictions and assuage any doubts you may have in calling for an investigation. From my perspective, the air is okey-dokey, but I understand that Truthers do not think so. And that is why I encourage them to seek another investigation, but please don't expect me to support your cause – it's just not my cause.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Apr 24, 2008 at 8:54:21 AM

  (0+)

"When you take a 110-story building and condense it into a 10-story pile, you're going to have a lot of waste heat generated. The thickness of the debris piles acts as insulation and the reduced oxygen within the pile but abundant source of combustible materials permit the sustained burning."

....huh? Did I miss something in Physics 101? Since when does "reduced oxygen within the pile...permit the sustained burning"? What a load of absolute codswallop!

"Eventually, the heat retained by the insulated debris cap will reach temperatures where aluminum could melt (660 degrees C) but not steel (about 1,500 degrees C). And there was much aluminum mixed in amongst the debris because of the exterior covering on the towers."

More codswallop! Paper fires will not burn at 660 degrees C in the open air and they certainly won't burn at all under piles of steel and concrete with no oxygen.

You're a complete fraud.

by ken (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 96 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Apr 24, 2008 at 9:30:15 AM

  (0+)

thanks, Ken, you just made my day

by Better World Order (4 articles, 568 quicklinks, 39 diaries, 1111 comments [56 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Thursday, Apr 24, 2008 at 10:53:49 AM

  (0+)

The elevated temperatures (600 degrees C or more) were present at the time the debris piles were formed due to the heat of compression - not unlike the manner of operation for a diesel engine.

As to the fuel and oxygen sources that contrinute to a sustained burn, I suggest you read about subsurface landfill fires:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landfill_fire

click here

click here

Codswallop, indeed!

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Apr 24, 2008 at 12:18:08 PM

  (0+)

Underground coal seam fires commonly reach very high temperatures with almost no oxygen input!

by Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 350 comments) on Thursday, Apr 24, 2008 at 1:44:37 PM

  (0+)

None of the three links you give indicate temperatures rising to 600 degrees C as a result of landfill and none of them mention temperatures that would be sufficient to melt steel or aluminium. You have provided no evidence that the ground temperature at the WTC following 911 reached 600 C or that it occurred as a result of landfill compression. Only one link mentions 315 degrees C as a temperature at which wood spontaneously combusts. However, even they felt no need to state the obvious -- that such combustion can still only occur where there is available oxygen. Carbon materials, even heated ones, need oxygen to burn. Let me remind you of your previous statement:

"reduced oxygen within the pile...permit the sustained burning"

Utter nonsense.

by ken (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 96 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Apr 24, 2008 at 1:53:32 PM

  (0+)

"None of the three links you give indicate temperatures rising to 600 degrees C as a result of landfill and none of them mention temperatures that would be sufficient to melt steel or aluminium."

You are correct, ken. What I referenced was the fact the fires DO burn within buried piles of trash. The low oxygen concentration sustains the burning of combustibles over a prolonged time period, as opposed to an oxygen-rich but quick burn. And roark also detailed that similar fires occur in buried coal seams. Thank you roark!

The initial heat of 600 degrees C or more was present once the debris piles were created. The heat input came from the compression of the debris as a result of the massive release of kinetic energy associated with the towers' collapses. In fact, the elevated heat caused the surrounding material to combust immediately resulting in temperatures that approached 1,300 degrees F several days after the collapses - click here .

NASA/JPL, at the request of the EPA and USGS, collected temperature readings on the debris piles on September 16, 18, 22, and 23, 2001 using an Infrared Imaging Spectrometer (IRIS). The data from September 18 and 22 were discarded due to cloud cover. The results if the September 16 IRIS imaging revealed that temperature within the debris piles ranged between 700 and 1,020 Kelvin (about 425-725 degrees C). Where aluminum melts at 660 degrees C, it's quite possible that the molten metal at the base of the debris piles was aluminum and NOT steel.

"You have provided no evidence that the ground temperature at the WTC following 911 reached 600 C..."

Happy now?

By the way, I agree that your intellectual laziness, as you've brilliantly displayed in just a handul of comments here, is... utter nonsense!

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Apr 24, 2008 at 8:57:52 PM

  (0+)

"Love of country has nothing to do with the investigation into the attacks of 9/11."

No Mr. Murphy, you are wrong! And you wear the uniform?

You are a deluded individual, and it is quite apparent that you are afraid of the Truth of what really occured on 9/11. I have no more time for either you or your ilk.

by Munich (1 articles, 86 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 1125 comments [86 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Thursday, Apr 24, 2008 at 11:00:08 AM

  (0+)

"No Mr. Murphy, you are wrong!"

That is your opinion to which you are entitled.  My opinion, to which I'm entitled, differs from yours.

Move out and receive fire, troopie!

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Apr 24, 2008 at 12:20:28 PM

  (0+)

Go over to scholars for 911 Truth and read any of the articles about the FEMA or NIST reports. Or just google. I could give you a list of articles and detailed chapter and verse arguments but there is no point. Others on this page are already doing so, it has been done at length elsewhere and you are only on this blog to get the last word in anyway.

The facts are of no consequence to you. You and your fellow graduate from clown school, Howard Roark, never miss a chance to throw out baloney science. When your BS is confronted you quickly bring out further "explanations" all of which contain errors of fact or unreasonable judgements which have to be rebutted. Frankly, it's like a pet dog bringing the next piece of junk in from the yard. Not much point to it.

What's more, you and Roark run away every time someone does a detailed debunking of you. If the topic is not to your liking you simply run away.

Readers will note that neither you nor Howard Roark operate in good faith. If you did then you would be calling Senator Bob Graham and demanding to know the names of foreign government officials who assisted the 911 terrorists. You would be calling for a new 911 Inquiry. A man who won't even do that much is not someone to be respected.

"What I referenced was the fact the fires DO burn within buried piles of trash. The low oxygen concentration sustains the burning of combustibles over a prolonged time period, as opposed to an oxygen-rich but quick burn. And roark also detailed that similar fires occur in buried coal seams. Thank you roark!"

But whether in coal seams or carbon based trash landfills the fires can only burn according to the amount of available oxygen. Low oxygen, low fires...high oxygen, larger fires. In coal seams oxygen often seeps in from the cracks to the surface, via porous soil, or from low levels of oxygen stored in the coal itself. The debris at the WTC was mostly concrete and debris. It was not carbon based landfill that could be expected to decompose. The WTC debris was mostly inert and would not form part of any exothermic (heat-giving) reaction in any case.

And as for the charge that I am intellectually lazy:

Who died and made you God? You'd like nothing better than to have critics of the official 911 story run around fetching for you. It's not going to happen with me buddy. I'll answer whatever of your questions I want to and I'll ignore the rest exactly as I choose.

The former Fire Chief of NIST, James Quintiere, thinks the official NIST report sucks.

Ray McGovern, Former Chairman of the National Intelligence Estimates who provided daily Intelligence briefings to Pres.Bush Snr had this to say:

"I think at simplest terms, there’s a cover-up. The 9/11 report is a joke. The question is: What’s being covered up? Is it gross malfeasance, gross negligence? Now there are a whole bunch of unanswered questions. And the reason they’re unanswered is because this administration will not answer the questions. This is the bottom line for me; just as Hitler in 1933 cynically exploited the burning of the parliament building, the Reichstag, this is exactly what our President did in exploiting 9/11. The cynical way in which he played on our trauma, used it to justify attacking, making a war of aggression on a country that he knew had nothing to do with 9/11. That suffices for me. That’s certainly an impeachable offense."

The public are awaking up to the facts of 911. They don't need Sgt.Major Tom or his ineffectual side kick.

by ken (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 96 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Apr 24, 2008 at 10:38:03 PM

  (0+)

"What's more, you and Roark run away every time someone does a detailed debunking of you. If the topic is not to your liking you simply run away."

I had to chuckle when I read this one.  While I can't speak for roark, I'll ask that you provide examples of when I ran away every time someone has done a detailed debunking of me.  I know you'll probably respnd by saying, "Do your own homework," or something similarly lazy.  But I'm not the one making the accusatiion; you are.  

I think you can ask anyone here as to whether or not I "run away".  I'd be curious to see the responses.

Sometimes I do stop the thread because (a) the exchanges are mostly personal in nature or (b) the exchanges are only going to result in a stalemate.  But this certainly does not mean I "ran away".  Unlike you, ken, if I'm asked a question or requested to provide information, I make a point of trying to answer or submit.  A failure on my part to do so would render my comments essentially void.

So... you can "think" I run away when you (or others) hit me with that hard-charging and irrefutable PROOF that Truthers always seem to have in their hidden bags.  But reality (and my many posts) say otherwise.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Apr 25, 2008 at 9:41:34 AM

  (0+)

 Q.E.D.

by ken (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 96 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Apr 25, 2008 at 8:47:04 PM

  (0+)

The former Fire Chief of NIST, James Quintiere, thinks the official NIST report sucks.

you say nothing..more Q.E.D.

by ken (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 96 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Apr 25, 2008 at 8:52:17 PM

  (0+)

Tom Murphy, the free psychotherapy is a conceit. The facts are simple. The 911 Commission was a superficial job designed to market a story line without worrying about the facts. The Commissioners were all compromised before they started by their financial and political links. Other advanced democracies all hold regular inquiries into events of national significance: corruption, tanker spills, major disasters. Such countries at least make an effort to install recognizably independent commissioners or judges because they understand that democracy is imperilled if you allow the executive of the day to appoint compromised stooges. It's not rocket science and it is only America, with its partisan politics entrenched at all levels of public life, that permits such blatantly political appointments. FEMA, NIST, the CIA, FBI -- the whole lot of them -- have been compromised in this way. We also know that the FEMA and NIST Reports have gaping holes in their methodology, their handling of evidence and the soundness of their conclusions. There's plenty of evidence for that. If you and others think that 26 volumes were needed for the Warren Commission but that today's public deserves one facile and fabricated, error-ridden volume to explain the murder of 3,000 Americans in broad daylight then you should take off that uniform you parade in and go find another country. The American public deserve a hell of a lot better than the crap they have been given so far.  

Whether the official story is correct or not, whether they buildings fell or were imploded, is secondary. What is fundamental is the people's right to have have honest inquiries, professionally conducted, that are committed to the truth. Any real American would support that. And anyone else is talking out their ass. You either believe in the people's right to know or you believe that they should just accept any old garbage. Do you understand that the rest of the world can't make up it's mind whether to laugh or cry over what's happening in America right now? 3,000 American's are dead and you are prepared to accept one disgusting little volume riddled with falsehoods. Shame on you. Even of you believe in the official explanation you should be screaming for a new inquiry just to clear America's besmirched name.

by ken (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 96 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Apr 24, 2008 at 9:19:37 AM

  (0+)

First Class

by Better World Order (4 articles, 568 quicklinks, 39 diaries, 1111 comments [56 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Thursday, Apr 24, 2008 at 10:57:09 AM

  (0+)

"We also know that the FEMA and NIST Reports have gaping holes in their methodology, their handling of evidence and the soundness of their conclusions. There's plenty of evidence for that."

Please provide, then, ten examples of these "gaping holes".  Of course, if you don't, I'll just presume intellectual laziness on your part.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Apr 24, 2008 at 12:07:44 PM

  (0+)

It's all out there for you to read if you choose to. I don't actually write for you. I consider you a third rate waste of time, a man dressed up in the suit of patriot who is prepared to spruik for official government reports that conceal the circumstances under which 3,000 fellow Americans died. You don't get it, do you pal? I don't recognize you as possessing any moral or legal authority deserving of any respect from me at all. None. Zip. Nada. The fact that you are in uniform means nothing to me (in fact, I consider it an insult to dead Americans that you would not honor them with the truth, or at least an impartial inquiry). The 911 critics who write here only want what they are legally and morally entitled to -- a recognizably independent inquiry. Why would you be against that? Why would anybody? The UK is currently conducting its 3rd or 4th high level inquiry into the death of weapons inspector David Kay. Every time new evidence emerges they get at it again because they don't like the idea of key public officials dying under suspicious circumstances. That's what happens in a real democracy. But you're happy to accept bullshit and spruik for it. You hang about on blogs and write extensively defending the indefensible. You're a useless waste of time.

And just for the record, fraudster, let me fill you in on my background. I've not been in the military. But my mother was in British Intelligence in WW2, my father fought the Japanese in the Pacific, one aunt was on an ack-ack gun in London at 16, an uncle of mine spent three years taking Lend Lease stuff to the icy waters of Murmansk in the dead of winter (he was 15). My sister spent 5 years in Naval Intelligence and my brother fought in Vietnam and was captured by the Viet Cong. He is only alive because some buddies and a group of Koreans ignored standing orders, stole a helicopter and fought their way in to get him out.

You belong on the bottom of my boot, pal. Now take a hike.

by ken (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 96 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Apr 24, 2008 at 12:56:30 PM

  (0+)

"Find your own way home."

Although I read your post, all that you said after the sentence above is irrelevant, ken.  You're showing (yet again) your intellectual laziness when it comes to 9/11 and the science behind the towers' collapses.

Let me know if you ever want to try and run with the big dogs again and we can think about it.  Until then, stay on the porch; I hear the view's fine from there.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Apr 24, 2008 at 9:05:47 PM

  (0+)

<i>"the jet fuel only burned at 800° to 1500°F"</i>

What proof do you have that the jet fuel only reached this temperature?  did you measure it?

by Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 350 comments) on Thursday, Apr 24, 2008 at 1:42:32 PM

  (0+)

the laws of physics were suspended on 9/11 at ground zero; otherwise, how could jet fuel have burned at higher temps? Look it up.

Also, how could enormous skyscrapers have turned into dustclouds without explosives? And don't tell me mini-nukes, space beams, or Gin Fizzle

Read this- it doesn't mention explosives, it's just 14 Points of Agreement between the authors and the NIST & FEMA reports

 Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction

by Better World Order (4 articles, 568 quicklinks, 39 diaries, 1111 comments [56 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Thursday, Apr 24, 2008 at 2:56:17 PM

  (0+)

Did you meet with Mohammed Atta when he was in Florida?
Did you actually see him taking flying lessons?
Did you actually talk with Hani Hanjour?
Were you there to see he actually boarded Fl 77?
Did you actually check to see that there was jet fuel on all four planes?
What did the FBI say to you when you spoke with them at Shanksville?
When did you meet the 911 Commissioners and what did they tell you?
Did bin Laden phone you after 911 and tell you that it had all gone as planned?
Do you do environmental tests at all four impact sites?
What did the debris look like when you carried it from the Pentagon?
....
blah...
blah...
blah...

How can you believe the official theory if you haven't done these things Roark?
You are so full of it, sport.

by ken (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 96 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Apr 25, 2008 at 5:10:31 AM

  (0+)

Kudos to the editors and journal reviewers. It took courage to publish the paper knowing they are butting up against the official story and a very complex web of misinformation, mistakes and cover-ups. And they will of course be criticized for buying into conspiracy theory.

Now that the paper has been published, let's hope others in the scientific community step forward courageously and help get all the questions answered.

by Kathlyn Stone (46 articles, 227 quicklinks, 27 diaries, 690 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Apr 23, 2008 at 9:17:24 AM

  (0+)

personally, i've steered clear of a lot of the CD debating here, except to make it obvious now and then that i'm one of the 67% who think the 9/11 Commission should've investigated the collapse (didn't mention the collapse in their report- but reported on other things about WTC7). 

Now we can all stop the debating for awhile (cept Tom) and wait for the scientific community to publish rebuttals or confirmations in other peer-reviewed Journals

(hope to see your name in one as an author, Tom Murphy- if these Truther nuts can get published, i'm sure you can!!!) 

by Better World Order (4 articles, 568 quicklinks, 39 diaries, 1111 comments [56 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Wednesday, Apr 23, 2008 at 9:40:52 AM

  (0+)

Actually, I seldom read 911 stuff. And I'm so busy lately that I'm reading less than usual progressive news items. But I did notice the promotion of this "paper" on FlybyNews. I downloaded the PDF and read pretty much the whole thing.

I thought the paper sounded in parts a bit too much like cut-and-paste BBS posts to be honest. I did like the way the paper argued the need for fair analysis in order to solve an engineering mystery and thus potentially save lives.

But the tone was too opinionated, even sarcastic, in several sections. I don't know who these guys were using for an editor. I can understand them writing it as they did because they are involved in the truth movement, but they should have had the good sense to have some friends comb it for friendly consumption by media savvy detractors.

Regardless of this, I also applaud this "first step" into the world of peer-reviewed literature. To let the official account of 911 stand as is is ridiculous. They haven't even properly explained where the jet interceptors were all morning, and no one has even been demoted over this horrendous collapse of basic protocol. (I guess the official story is represented by United 93 or something.)

I also applaud the structure of the paper, using the official 911 report's own statements to point out how myths have already replaced truth on this issue.

Overall, I thought it was a good read. One and a half thumbs up. 

PS - Tom, you need to get out more. Ask your doctor for a prescription. C'mon, 3 of 4 sets of Arabs with box cutters? Little or no air resonse? ("Would you want to be the one to INTERCEPT and airliner full of innocent passengers?" I would.)

PPS - I thought it all seemed pretty fishy about 10 seconds after I realized what I was watching on TV was real, and that was well before the second plane hit, which I saw live as far as I know. 

PPPS - That's about all I have to say on 911. 

by Peter Dearman (10 articles, 32 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 144 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Apr 23, 2008 at 1:55:16 PM

  (0+)

"PS - Tom, you need to get out more. Ask your doctor for a prescription. C'mon, 3 of 4 sets of Arabs with box cutters? Little or no air resonse [sic]? ('Would you want to be the one to INTERCEPT and airliner full of innocent passengers?' I would.)"

At the heart of the psychology behind any conspiracy theory is the fear that seemingly small and innocuous events can have such an enormous and damaging impact on our sense of serenity and security often associated with our everyday lives. Conspiracy theorists believe that such small events (e.g., 19 hijackers lead by a man in a cave) could NOT have been the cause behind such a world-changing event. Clearly, there MUST have been something equally huge and damaging (e.g., the U.S. government planned and executed the 9/11 attacks flawlessly) as the cause or force behind the attacks.

Your statement, Mr. Dearman, is a textbook example of this thinking. "Conspiracy theories are very tempting. 'I know something the rest of you don't know'. It's a childish impulse that some people carry over into adulthood. It makes people feel special and, in the case of 9/11 conspiracies, safe..." - http://www.alarmingnews.com/archives/006649.html . To the eyes-closed Truther, "[A] world in which tiny causes can have huge consequences feels scary and unreliable. Therefore a grand disaster like Sept. 11 needs a grand conspiracy behind it," - click here .

Little people such as militant Muslims can achieve great things such as the death of 3,000+ Americans in just a few hours.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Apr 23, 2008 at 2:52:39 PM

  (0+)

Link: CIA intentionally impeded Sept. 11 inquiry, officials say

Funny how you're not the least bit concerned by truths such as this. It's like you don't want the truth to come out.

I suppose the International Herald Tribune is now "too old" or "too big" or "too global" to be reputable.

You crack me up, Tom. If you're not an operative you really should be!

by Kathlyn Stone (46 articles, 227 quicklinks, 27 diaries, 690 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Apr 23, 2008 at 4:44:10 PM

  (0+)

it's good to have laughs at the Troll's expense

by Better World Order (4 articles, 568 quicklinks, 39 diaries, 1111 comments [56 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Wednesday, Apr 23, 2008 at 9:15:58 PM

  (0+)

I do have concerns about the CIA's evidence destruction and think it a disservice to the nation.  I expressed the same previously here at OpEdNews.com - http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=5153 and http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/link.php?id=47237 .

I'm glad I make you laugh; humor IS important and often overlooked here.  But for the record, I am not COINTELPRO.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Apr 23, 2008 at 9:20:59 PM

  (0+)

Gin Fizzle, and believe me, i suspect that you're who you say you are

But then, I'm an idiot, and I don't trust anyone online anyway 

by Better World Order (4 articles, 568 quicklinks, 39 diaries, 1111 comments [56 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Thursday, Apr 24, 2008 at 2:58:18 PM

  (0+)

Clearly, there MUST have been something equally huge and damaging (e.g., the U.S. government planned and executed the 9/11 attacks flawlessly) as the cause or force behind the attacks.

The point is, tom that they did not plan and execute the 9/11 attacks flawlessly!!

There are too many anomaliees and unanswered questions that someone must have have been complicit in it, in some way, even if it was just looking the other way. 

by ibrahim turner (26 articles, 32 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 184 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Apr 23, 2008 at 7:01:01 PM

  (0+)

Mr. Turner, when I tried previously to assert the Administration's incompetence here at OpEdNews.com, I was resoundly smacked down - http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/link.php?id=43938 .  Truthers CANNOT have it both ways.  But I think your comment juxtaposed against Mr. Smith's and gravity32's is enlightening as to the confusion within the Movement.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Apr 23, 2008 at 9:36:43 PM

  (0+)

His job was to sit there like an idiot for 7 minutes after they claim they realized the nation was under attack. 

It was the Secret Service's job to leave him in his publicized location for a HALF HOUR after they admitted they knew the nation was under attack.

And it was the pilot's job to fly his dumb ass all over the country while Cheney ran Washington.

So, what are your causes, Tom? 

by Better World Order (4 articles, 568 quicklinks, 39 diaries, 1111 comments [56 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Thursday, Apr 24, 2008 at 7:14:30 PM

  (0+)

BWO... you're getting your attention with this article.  There's no need to get "silly" with it now.  I think the majority of readers that have read the article have probably read the letter by now.  Mission accomplished.  Good luck with the Week of... Whatever you have coming up!

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Apr 24, 2008 at 9:10:40 PM

  (0+)

and i will be keeping an eye out for your diary with the 14 point rebuttal

by Better World Order (4 articles, 568 quicklinks, 39 diaries, 1111 comments [56 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Thursday, Apr 24, 2008 at 11:16:10 PM

  (0+)

for ourselves and comment on it as much as we like- including getting published in a peer-reviewed journal like Tom Murphy's diary here at the great OpENews.com

by Better World Order (4 articles, 568 quicklinks, 39 diaries, 1111 comments [56 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Wednesday, Apr 23, 2008 at 4:29:40 PM

  (0+)

Yes to all that, but I loved the paper- good idea about being polite and diplomatic 

Passenger Lists Victims Lists, Passenger Manifests, and the Alleged Hijackers

I don't know what to make of all this- that's why I'm an advocate for a real investigation, not a whitewash- perhaps  a truth and reconciliation commission- but it will have to include the Federal Reserve, election integrity, campaign finance reform, media reform, etc. Search the Complete 9/11 Timeline- link above

9/11 Family Steering Commitee Review of the 9/11 Commission Report

by Better World Order (4 articles, 568 quicklinks, 39 diaries, 1111 comments [56 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Wednesday, Apr 23, 2008 at 9:13:16 PM

  (0+)

Noted architect Richard Gage - WTC 7 Controlled Demolition - Video Link CLICK HERE http://www.stoplying.ca/video/richard_gage_wtc7.htm

Massive steel core columns cut with molten slag (think thermite) present Link CLICK HERE http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/thermiteonwtccolumns.jpg

Send your Letter Fax to federal and state officials to commence scientific investigations of the 9-11 implosions of all 3 world trade center buildings at Link CLICK HERE http://www.freedomspeaks.com/letter/101038/wtc-7-not-mentioned-in-official-9-11-report Please carefully consider that scientific facts once officially revealed to the nation can free the American people, their Congress, and their President, from the constant fear and terror generated by and since 9-11.

by Gene Cappa (43 articles, 28 quicklinks, 113 diaries, 347 comments [33 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Apr 23, 2008 at 4:45:14 PM

  (0+)

here are peer reviewed articles that deal with the WTC; two about the composition of the dust clouds (one by the USGS) in which it can be seen that most oif not all of the contents of these buildings...glass, office electronics, asbestos were turned to a fine flour like dist, that also contained very small solidified 'drops' of metal. How does a gravitational collapse have nearly the energy required to turn EVERYTHING' to dust? here is the one by the USGS about the thermal hot spots under the debris:

click here

here is the other one about the dust, published in "environmental health perspectives" : click here

the next is a non peer reviewed article, but important in that it points out the energy needed to power the expansion of the dust cloud was an order of magnitude greater than the available potential energy of the weight of the building falling down.

click here

by Brad Griffeth (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 138 comments [12 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Apr 23, 2008 at 6:50:32 PM

  (0+)

here is USGS dust report that did not show up in previous comment:

  click here

by Brad Griffeth (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 138 comments [12 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Apr 23, 2008 at 6:54:18 PM

  (0+)

I am not particularly computer savvy but none of your links worked for me.

Sorry. 

by ibrahim turner (26 articles, 32 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 184 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Apr 23, 2008 at 7:11:52 PM

  (0+)

the links dont FRAKKIN work when i insert them with the stupoud insert link command, or cut and paste them into the text

 click here study on thermal hot spots

 click here is the one on the difference in energy of the dust cloud expansion and potential  energy of the buildings collapse

 click here is a cached copy of the USGS dust study 

 click here

by Brad Griffeth (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 138 comments [12 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Apr 23, 2008 at 8:00:31 PM

  (0+)

I frakkin give up....the links just wont appear as they are as shown when I insert them....

look on 911research.wtc7.net/papers/ for most of these, or cached copies of them, or search "USGS dust and WTC" for the stupid things to actually come up

by Brad Griffeth (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 138 comments [12 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Apr 23, 2008 at 8:04:04 PM

  (0+)

that should do it

by Better World Order (4 articles, 568 quicklinks, 39 diaries, 1111 comments [56 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Wednesday, Apr 23, 2008 at 9:20:21 PM

  (0+)

I'll ck later

by Better World Order (4 articles, 568 quicklinks, 39 diaries, 1111 comments [56 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Wednesday, Apr 23, 2008 at 9:28:05 PM

  (0+)

BWO,

Excellent scientific article. A must read

by ramsheyi (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 793 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Apr 23, 2008 at 5:50:57 PM

  (0+)

Proof OKC Was FBI/ATF Bombing Special Operation

By Dr Bill Deagle MD

As Exit Medical Examiner at CCOM, St. Francis Hospital, I personally examined all five Special Ops Bomb Forensics Military Officers…

Leads to questions about 9/11 – read the article at

http://www.fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/government/fraud/us_government/news.php?q=1208975752

Just because it feels good to express it..! I'd rather act a little paranoid, than to act like a hemorrhoid (you know who you are!)

by boomerang (0 articles, 7 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 556 comments [215 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Wednesday, Apr 23, 2008 at 7:53:50 PM

  (0+)

imho 2, an excellent, must read scientific article. This event of publication of an article on 14 points that, to me, seem to prove lies of the NIST and FEMA reports, is historic. I'm eagerly awaiting the debate in the world and the scientific community. Actually, in the world it's already going on this thread- please forward the links and discuss this with your friends and family. Are Dr. Jones and bentham.org going to be the laughing stock, or NIST, FEMA and the Bush Administration?

And if the latter, i think it may lead to criminal investigations.

I've got my popcorn out. 

by Better World Order (4 articles, 568 quicklinks, 39 diaries, 1111 comments [56 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Wednesday, Apr 23, 2008 at 9:26:17 PM

  (0+)

i'll check it out later

I want to thank everyone for posting on the release of

Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction

i will not be able to keep up with this thread 

by Better World Order (4 articles, 568 quicklinks, 39 diaries, 1111 comments [56 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Wednesday, Apr 23, 2008 at 9:30:29 PM

  (0+)

It is interesting that the Tom Murphys of this world do not address point 5 of the "14 Points" paper. They attack the authors, the paper, the style of writing and even the fact that the public can access the paper free.

But what about point 5, Tom et al? The buildings come down with an initial acceleration so close to free fall that even NIST itself had to admit that the fall was "close to free fall as shown in videos".

If the top of the north tower hit the lower undamaged section and caused it to collapse, as the official story says, the top would have been slowed a little by the impact. Then when the next floor was hit it would have been slowed a little more, and so on. If one makes the absurd assumption that the steel had no strength whatsoever, and that pulverizing the concrete took no energy at all, one finds that the tower would still have taken a little longer to come down than observed. This calculation is based on the indisputable law of "conservation of momentum". Once you allow that the steel and concrete would have absorbed energy the fall time must lengthen and the idea that explosives were not used is seen to be farcical.

And that's not all. If you look at the videos you will see that the top did not fall as a block or hammer to hit the lower undamaged section, it largely collapsed before the lower section showed any signs of giving way. As the "hammer" was much lighter and softer than the official story claims the fall time will have to be lengthened even further, if it fell at all. The near free fall collapse destroys the official story.

So come on Tom, let's debate the science, not the messenger. 

by gravity32 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 201 comments [38 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Apr 23, 2008 at 8:20:59 PM

  (0+)

that blew me away, i quoted that and point WTC 7 in my first blog on the subject

by Better World Order (4 articles, 568 quicklinks, 39 diaries, 1111 comments [56 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Wednesday, Apr 23, 2008 at 9:31:57 PM

  (0+)

"It is interesting that the Tom Murphys of this world do not address point 5 of the "14 Points" paper. They attack the authors, the paper, the style of writing and even the fact that the public can access the paper free."

Truthers deny so much, so frequently that they can't kept the denials straight! This is the now-patented "eye blink, deep breathe, reassert response" inherent with a Truther.  It's totally Pavlovian, I tell you!

I have addressed "5. Essentially in Free Fall" ad nauseum here at OpEdNews.com. Here are the links, if you are "moved" to read or re-read - http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=6559 ; http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=6149 , and click here .

But in the event of intellectual laziness, I've cut and pasted the more applicable comments below that detail the mass balance, free fall speeds, and Conservation of Momentum issues. Enjoy, Truthers!

----------

Go back to Truther U, meremark, and get it right

"How do you balance the Energy Equation?"

All better? If I understand correctly your "Mrs. Sweeny 11th Grade Physics" analysis, you're essentially saying, "The building go boom and fall down," - much like the two-year old you showed yourself to be (at least from a maturity perspective). So, you're claiming it's about the energy balance and the Law of Conservation and Energy - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy ?

While I agree that the energy in a closed system should balance, I disagree with the focus of your approach being on energy balance. Energy balance works fine for describing a non-elastic collision in a closed system, but mass balance - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_balance - is a better approach in detailing the collapses.

Mass balance focuses more so on the conservation of mass. "The mass that enters a system must, by conservation of mass, either leave the system or accumulate within the system," - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_balance#Introduction . For the WTC complex, the mass input includes the towers and impacted aircrafts, as well as the contents of both. The mass output includes the observed debris, dust clouds, and consumption via fire of combustibles.

Your... total rant... describes a non-elastic Newtonian collision between two objects or bodies in a closed system. But the collapse of both WTC 1 and 2 (and also WTC 7) was governed by elastic forces that affected the momentum transfer between one floor and the next – not the falling upper part and the remaining lower part. Where you allege the collapses (as observed) could only have occurred in one stage via controlled demolition and the absence of resistance, I'm arguing that a gravity-driven collapse that occurred was divided into five, separate stages. These stages, though, appeared continuous to the typical observer - http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf and http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf .

The stages deal with how the energy from the upper part was transferred to the lower part of the tower – one floor at a time. The collapses were caused by the dynamic consequence of the prolonged heating of the steel columns to very high temperature. The heating lowered the yield strength of the horizontal trusses and vertical columns, causing creep buckling ( click here ) of primarily the perimeter columns (inwards) and secondly the core columns (downwards) of the tower.

Stage 1: The aircraft's impact causes significant mechanical damage to primarily vertical and some horizontal structural members, severing a number of perimeter and core columns and blasting the protective fire proofing from remaining structural members in the impact zone.

The kinetic energy (KE) associated with the aircraft's collision may be calculated as follows:

Eq. 1. KE = one half * mass * velocity squared or ½mv^2

Aircraft mass: 124,000 kilograms (kg)
Aircraft velocity (at impact): 220 meters per second (m/s)

With this mass and velocity, the aircraft impact kinetic energy is equal to

KE = ½ * 124,000 kg * (220 m/s)^2 = 3.0 * 10^9 m^2kgs^-2 or Joules (J)
KE = 3.0 * 10^9 J * 2.8 * 10^-7 J/kWH = 840 kWH

While some of this energy is dissipated in the sway of the towers (about 2.18 * 10^6 or 0.6 kWH), the overwhelming majority (2.45 * 10^9 or 686 kWH) is inputted into the upper part of the towers in the form of the aircraft's destruction. The remaining energy (about 5.5 * 10^8 or 154 kWH) is dissipated in the resulting fireball as heat with about 75 percent of this energy released exterior to the tower (i.e, 38.5 kWH interior) - http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf .

The fire that results from the dispersion and immediate ignition of the aircraft's fuel into the structure (particularly in the impact zone) causes the structural steel of the perimeter and core columns to be exposed to sustained temperatures exceeding 600 degrees C. The rate of heating is accelerated by the loss of the protective fire proofing during the initial impact.

At these temperatures, the yield strength of the structural steel is adversely impacted and a significant increase of deformation under sustained load occurs as the metal expands. This is especially true for the horizontal floor trusses that are located within the "ceiling area" for each floor where the heated gases of combustion accumulate.

Stage 2: This deforming or sagging of the horizontal floor trusses lead to "creep buckling" of perimeter columns, which then compromises the vertical connection capacity of the affected floor(s). The affected perimeter walls begin to bow inwards near the floor most impacted by the fire and its associated heat release.

Stage 3: (aka "Go for Throttle Up" Stage) After a sufficient number of columns associated with the (critical) floor that is heated most suffers creep buckling, the weight of the upper stories of the tower - above this floor - can no longer be supported. The upper stories, now as a unified upper part of the tower, begin to fall down vertically at freefall speed onto the remaining stories or lower part of the tower.

The fall starts immediately below the critical floor and accelerates (albeit in far less than a second) until it impacts the lower part at its topmost floor, which is about 3.7 m below the critical floor.

The total KE released in the Upper Part of WTC 1 that impacts the topmost floor:

Eq. 2. KE = one half mass * velocity squared or ½mv^2

Upper part mass: 510,000,000 kgs / 10 flrs = 4,636,000 kgs/flr
4,636,000 kg/flr * 14 flrs = 64,904,000 kgs
Distance between floors: 3.7 m
Upper part velocity (initial): v = √{2gh)
v = √{2 * 9.8 m/s^2 * 3.7 m/s) = 8.5 m/s

With this mass and velocity, the upper part's impact kinetic energy is equal to

KE = ½ * 64,904,000 kgs * (8.5 m/s)^2 = 2.3 * 10^9 J
KE = ( 2.3 * 10^9 J * 2.8 * 10^-7 J/kWH ) + 724.5 kWH (See Eq. 1) = 1,368.5 kWH

Stage 4: Upon impact with the topmost floor, the upper part has acquired a massive amount of kinetic energy (1,368.5 kWH) and a significant downward velocity (8.5 m/s). The impact of the upper part's mass onto the topmost floor of the lower part results in a massive and dynamic loading on the underlying structure, far exceeding the topmost floor's load carrying capacity – regardless of whether or not the carry capacity has been impacted due to heating from the surrounding fires.

The energy needed to collapse the topmost floor of WTC 1:

Eq. 3. kWH = vert. con. Cap. (kgs) * 9.807 Nm or J * 2.8 * 10^-7 J/kWH* 3.35 PF

Where vert. conn. cap: 63,800,000 kgs

kWH = 6.38 * 10^7 kgs * 9.807 Nm or J * 2.8 * 10^-7 J/kWH * 3.35 PF = 544 kWH

Thus, the initial kinetic energy released from the upper part (i.e., 1,368.5 kWH as detailed in Eq. 2 is more than adequate to overcome the energy needed (i.e., 544 kWH) to collapse the topmost floor of the lower part by a factor of a bit more than 2 - http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_12_2007.htm (for vertical connection capacity per floor) and click here (for protection factor). The referenced NIST document corroborates the factor of 2 conclusions.

The excess energy (i.e., 824.5 kWH) is dissipated largely in the form of heat from the compression of the upper part into the floor.

The failure of the topmost floor moves the now increased mass of the upper part (by one floor) to the subsequent floor. The result is the progressive failure of the remaining floors of the lower part of the tower. Where this downward boundary of the upper part's mass is dynamic (i.e., non-uniform), the failure of underlying floor trusses and buckling of the perimeter and core columns is occurring on multiple floors simultaneously.

Stage 5: While this buckling on the topmost floors was plastic in nature (i.e., the columns were bent peeled downward), the increasing mass and velocity of the upper part begins to shear and fracture the perimeter columns first, followed later by most of the core columns.

While there are other issues that have not been detailed (e.g. pulverization of concrete, pressure wave created by the collapse, and impact of the upper part atop the collapsed lower part - to name a few), their energies are included in the equations above. The use of mass balance demonstrates that mass plays an important role in how the energies are focused that results in the total collapse of the towers.

I do not claim to be an engineer, but I have re-checked the calculations and confirmed their results to that of other published and peer-reviewed papers (as referenced). Any errors or omissions are mine to own. But, meremark, you need to look beyond the high school physics you spewed vehemently as if it were Truther gospel and understand that you're dealing with an elastic collision that resides with an open system. You need to look beyond your silly Truther web sites.

by Tom Murphy (2 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1108 comments) on Tuesday, March 11, 2008 at 11:37:56 PM

----------

"Fools rush in where angels fear to tread..."

To quote another from here previously, "You're an angry little elf, aren't you?"

Using WTC 1 as the reference, the following TOTAL potential energy (PE) was stored in the tower:

Eq. 4. PE = mass * gravity * height or mgh

Where mass: 510,000,000 kilograms (kgs)
Where gravity: 9.8 meters per second squared (m/^2)
Where height: 415 meters (m)

PE = 510,000,000 kgs * 9.8 m/^2 * 415 m = 2.1 x 10^12 Joules (J)
PE = 2.1 x 10^12 J * 2.8 * 10^-7 J/kWH = 588,000 kWH

As each floor collapses and its PE is transferred into kinetic energy (KE), the KE acting upon the next subsequent floor is increased. So, at the halfway point, the following KE is present:

Eq. 5. KE = one half mass * velocity squared or ½mv^2

Upper part mass (55 flrs): 510,000,000 kgs / 10 flrs = 4,636,000 kgs/flr
4,636,000 kg/flr * 55 flrs = 254,980,000 kgs
Distance between Flrs 55 and 110: 203.5 m
Upper part velocity (at Flr 55): v = √{2gh)
v = √{2 * 9.8 m/s^2 * 203.5 m/s) = 63.2 m/s

With this mass and velocity, the upper part's impact kinetic energy at Floor 55 (the half-way point) is equal to:

KE = ½ * 254,980,000 kgs * (63.2 m/s)^2 = 5.1 * 10^11 J
KE = 5.1 * 10^11 J * 2.8 * 10^-7 J/kWH = 142,580 kWH

Now, what PE is stored within the remaining half of the building?

Eq. 6. Remaining PE = Total PE – KE of Upper Part (Realized)

Remaining PE = 588,000 kWH – 142,580 kWH = 445,420 = kWH or 76% of Total PE

Seems like a lot left at the halfway mark of the collapse; 76% of the Total PE is stored within the remaining half. But look at the rate of descent 63.2 m/s, which has increased from an initial 8.5 m/s! Do you want to calculate what the pressure wave traveling before the falling debris was like? I'll bet it could have forced debris laterally away from the falling structure – rather than the planting of high-velocity explosives (NOT thermite which is a slow velocity explosive).

Now, recall as each floor collapses, its potential energy is transferred in the kinetic energy of the upper part. While the PE from each floor remains essentially unchanged just prior to collapse, the increasing velocity of the falling upper part directly increases the KE realized. This is NOT claiming that "new" energy is created, but the energy realized IS affected by the increasing velocity.

If you have trouble visualizing this, meremark (it seems you DO have trouble with many things), just image a baseball thrown at you by a pitcher. It it hits you at 90+ mph, the ball will sting. That same ball, same mass fired from a cannon is going to kill you. Get it? The velocity matters!

But, hey! Just for kicks (and to demonstrate who is the REAL idiot here), what's the remaining PE at Ground Zero at the completion of this collapse?

Eq. 7. KE = one half mass * velocity squared or ½mv^2

Upper part mass (110 flrs): 510,000,000 kgs / 10 flrs = 4,636,000 kgs/flr
4,636,000 kg/flr * 110 flrs = 510,000,000 kgs – Freaky!
Distance between Flrs 0 and 110: 415 m
Upper part velocity (at Flr 1): v = √{2gh)
v = √{2 * 9.8 m/s^2 * 415 m/s) = 90.2 m/s

With this mass and velocity, the upper part's impact kinetic energy at Floor 1 (Ground Zero) is equal to:

KE = ½ * 510,000,000 kgs * (90.2 m/s)^2 = 4.1 * 10^12 J
KE = 4.1 * 10^12 J * 2.8 * 10^-7 J/kWH = 580,910 kWH

Now, what PE is stored within the remains of the building at Ground Zero?

Eq. 8. Remaining PE = Total PE – KE of Upper Part (Realized)

Remaining PE = 588,000 kWH – 580,910 kWH = 7.090 = kWH or 1.2% of Total PE

Now, unless you want to quibble about 1.2% (which could be attributable to the margin of error), I suggest you take a look at your calculations again. Some of the remaining PE could was probably stored in the 10-story debris pile at Ground Zero and was ultimately converted to KE upon removal of the debris.

Anyway, where are you getting your reference values – on the back of a Bazooka Joe comic, or as I suspect, a Truther web site?

by Tom Murphy (2 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1108 comments) on Wednesday, March 12, 2008 at 8:53:30 AM

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Apr 23, 2008 at 10:08:37 PM

  (0+)

Yawn...

by boomerang (0 articles, 7 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 556 comments [215 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Wednesday, Apr 23, 2008 at 10:56:09 PM

  (0+)

scrolling thru that

But thanks for letting us know you care, Tom! 

by Better World Order (4 articles, 568 quicklinks, 39 diaries, 1111 comments [56 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Thursday, Apr 24, 2008 at 11:00:26 AM

  (0+)

This from a guy who believes paper can burn underground without oxygen.... Brrraaaaawwwwhhhh!!

And you have such pretty equations too.

Pity that FEMA admits that the temperatures never got high enough to produce the kind of metal sagging your analysis relies upon. According to the engineers that built the WTC you could pull out the supporting columns on one whole side of the WTC and it would still stay up. The metal frame was a heat sink taking heat away from the impact zone.

"The fire that results from the dispersion and immediate ignition of the aircraft's fuel into the structure (particularly in the impact zone) causes the structural steel of the perimeter and core columns to be exposed to sustained temperatures exceeding 600 degrees C." --  wrong.  FEMA never claimed this.

"The rate of heating is accelerated by the loss of the protective fire proofing during the initial impact." -- yes, and FEMA provided no evidence that such a process took place. They merely assumed that it occurred otherwise their computer modelling wouldn't work. That's not science, that's manufactured explanations, conjecture, baloney.

Tell me again about the paper burning underground....

by ken (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 96 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Apr 24, 2008 at 10:24:11 AM

  (0+)

Why are you referencing the admittedly older and incomplete FEMA report?  The NIST report addressed this issues, Ken.  Keep up with the times, shall we?

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Apr 24, 2008 at 12:23:16 PM

  (0+)

If elements of our government were involved in making 9/11 happen, wouldn't you want to know? 

Just a simple yes or no will suffice. 

We, the ultimate patriots, truthfully, see there's been a cover-up and we want to know why, don't you?

by Betsy (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 19 comments) on Wednesday, Apr 23, 2008 at 11:51:07 PM

  (0+)

Yes, I would want to know.  However, I do not believe there's been a cover-up that supports either a MIHOP or LIHOP role by the government.  Therefore, I do not see the necessity of another investigation that starts at square one.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Apr 24, 2008 at 8:56:40 AM

  (0+)

We can all disagree about how the WTC buildings fell down. Or whether they got the names of the hijackers right. But there is one thing we can be very clear about:

9/11 was not carried out by 19 sole hijackers acting under the direction of Osama bin Laden.

We know this because the leading US investigator officially appointed to examine 9/11 has said explicitly that other people were involved.

A senior US Government official has admitted that a foreign nation has been identified as complicit in the events of 911.

Senator Bob Graham, Head of the 911 Joint Congressional Inquiry from Feb - Dec 2002, was interviewed on the PBS Lehrer Hour in 2002:

"I was surprised at the evidence that there were foreign governments involved in facilitating the activities of at least some of the terrorists in the United States.... I think there is very compelling evidence that at least some of the terrorists were assisted not just in financing -- although that was part of it -- by a sovereign foreign government ... It will become public at some point when it's turned over to the archives, but that's 20 or 30 years from now." (see here and here)

The implications of this claim are quite profound. It means that the 19 hijackers were not operating in isolation. There was a support base, and others - beside the 19 terrorists - who were aware of the impending attacks.

There it is, folks.... a person who should know what he is talking about is telling anyone who cares to listen that there were a lot more people than the 19 terrorists behind 9/11 going right up to the leadership of a sovereign foreign government.

Those are his words, not mine.

No, it's not Iraq and it's not Iran. There's evidence for Pakistan and Saudi involvement.

So you do want to bring these foreign officials, these culprits, to justice, don't you, Tom? You are wearing that uniform to defend "against all enemies, foreign and domestic"? You're not just playing dress ups, are you? So get on that phone and demand the name of that country that helped make 9/11 happen! You are going to ring, aren't you Tom? You are going to bring bin Laden's supporters to justice, aren't you?

Now tell me gain how all these conspiracy theorists have got it wrong.

by ken (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 96 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Apr 24, 2008 at 10:00:00 AM

  (0+)

put your rants on the controlled demo aside for 1 second- I've asked you about Sen. Graham's statement at least 6 times- and you've never replied- quick comment please, then go back to ranting about controlled demolition- which the Fourteen Points paper doesn't even mention, btw

by Better World Order (4 articles, 568 quicklinks, 39 diaries, 1111 comments [56 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Thursday, Apr 24, 2008 at 11:08:16 AM

  (0+)

BWO, where the published letter discusses the WTC events specifically, I request that we keep the thread discussions to all things WTC.  If you want to discuss other matters, diary entry it or submit an article.  Where you folks are confusing enough when discussing one subject, I tremble at the thought of discussing two disparate subjects simultaneously with you.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Apr 24, 2008 at 9:18:31 PM

  (0+)

Yeah, I have a lot of trouble following logical arguments. I guess that must be because my two degrees --in maths and philosophy-- failed to teach me properly. Hopefully, you'll be there to correct me, Gruppenfuehrer.

by ken (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 96 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Apr 25, 2008 at 5:05:11 AM

  (0+)

dude

by Better World Order (4 articles, 568 quicklinks, 39 diaries, 1111 comments [56 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Friday, Apr 25, 2008 at 11:04:08 AM

  (0+)

Hi Tom,

You wrote that you do not see the need for another investigation that starts at square one. 

From this statement I take it that you believe an investigation does need to start, just not at square one.

At what stage do you think the investigation needs to start?  

by Barbara Peterson (73 articles, 109 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 541 comments [98 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 27, 2008 at 11:27:47 AM

  (0+)

I want to know- and I vote, produce value and spend money- i'm extremely concerned that the release of this report is not major news- i hope some celebrities will give READING

Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction (dang html- link in the press release) 

 their endorsement.

by Better World Order (4 articles, 568 quicklinks, 39 diaries, 1111 comments [56 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Thursday, Apr 24, 2008 at 11:05:34 AM

  (0+)

by Munich (1 articles, 86 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 1125 comments [86 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Wednesday, Apr 23, 2008 at 11:55:29 PM

  (0+)

"How could that be Mr. Murphy? How in the heck could that be!"

The difference and what makes the WTC collapses possible lies with the structural designs. All buildings are not designed (or constructed) equally but this point is lost to Truthers. The lack of concrete-reinforced core columns in WTC 1 and 2 playing a significant role, along with the truss seat welds and bolts. Also, the other and more obvious difference was the significant damage done to the towers by the aircraft impacts.

You cannot compare the two events (i.e., Meridian and WTC) as similar events or even remotely claim that they are apples to apples. The WTC collapses were unique having never occurred before 9/11 nor after them – chiefly because no one has plowed a Boeing 757 into a high structure since 9/11.

"You know what I think? OPedNews will eventually incorporate an ignore feature so that I don't have to read this demented (creep buckling) bunk which you post."

Yeah... that's really, really wild stuff! Munich, like Mr. Sashine and meremark, you have the option of taking the childish but effective stance of "I'm not speaking to you ever again!" If you don't want me to correspond with you – publicly or privately – just let me know, and I'll put you on the "Do Not Call" listing. However, I cannot make or prevent you from reading a post. That action has to come from you and your will to enforce a self-imposed ignorance.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Apr 24, 2008 at 8:12:42 AM

  (0+)

no personal experience like Munich, but once I watched videos of the collapses- no way plane damage and jet fuel can turn hundreds of thousands of tons of steel and concrete into rapidly inflating dustclouds and 10 stories of rubble in less than 20 seconds- but explosives, could, easily. 

Mass murder for profit and socio-political power

by Better World Order (4 articles, 568 quicklinks, 39 diaries, 1111 comments [56 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Thursday, Apr 24, 2008 at 11:14:30 AM

  (0+)

And once I watched this video, I believed in UFOs too - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvIAGAKBbEU !

BWO, now you're just letting your ignorance blaze forth...  What gives?

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Apr 24, 2008 at 12:27:13 PM

  (0+)

checking out all the comments on here supportive of the public debate and a full, open, public investigation of ALL the relevant facts. 

Read the 9/11 Commission Report without rose colored glasses if you want evidence of a cover up.

I'm not qualified to understand most of what the NIST and FEMA reports say- but i can understand their admission that the twin towers came down "essentially in free fall" 

by Better World Order (4 articles, 568 quicklinks, 39 diaries, 1111 comments [56 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Thursday, Apr 24, 2008 at 3:04:42 PM

  (0+)

"...[C]hecking out all the comments on here supportive of the public debate and a full, open, public investigation of ALL the relevant facts. "

Ah... you ARE aware (aren't you?) that OpEd News.com is a progressive web site?  Therefore, did you REALLY think the support would not be present?  Let's be honest in our response, BWO.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Apr 24, 2008 at 10:31:09 PM

  (0+)

1. CONSPIRACY

Quite often the phrase "conspiracy theory" is invoked with a wink and a nudge in order to disarm legitimate arguments – meaning, of course, that a person who contemplates nefarious motives behind something must be a nut.

First, a large percentage of people incarcerated in US jails and prisons are there because they’ve been convicted of some sort of conspiracy – to commit robbery, fraud, murder, etc. So clearly a lot of cops and DAs successfully presented their conspiracy theories to a lot of judges and juries. Conspiracies do happen.

Second, conspiracy is often confused with institutional behavior. People will usually say and do whatever they perceive to be in their best interests – it might not be in their best interests, but as long as they perceive it so, then away they go. So the cop who intimidates a voter in Florida doesn’t need to conspire with the election official who throws a box of ballots in the Ohio River. They both perceive that their actions, although illegal, are in their best interests. No conspiracy.

A lot of things that happened during 9/11 don’t add up, and I don’t know why some things happened the way they did. But I think that we shouldn’t be afraid to ask questions. And I think that those who sling accusations like "conspiracy theory" around are foolish.

2. PEER REVIEW

Clearly one cannot compare scientific journals like Nature and Science with this young OCEJ journal. (Incidentally, I don't beleive Scientific American is a peer review journal - it is meerly a heavily edited popular magazine). Peer review doesn't mean that the editors of OCEJ sit around amongst themselves and review the paper. It means that the paper is sent out to experts in the field for their reviews and recommendations. Typically three reviewers are used, sometimes more, seldom less. So it's unfair to criticize the journal because it is young. It would only be fair if those who reviewed the paper were unqualified or had a conflict of interest.

I've read this 14 point paper and veiw it as innocuous overall - it makes no allegations but attempst to frame the scientific argument. As for reporting opinion and observations as the same thing, how would someone know this is what they did? By the references? Of course. Then what the authors have done is fine. They report opinion and reference those who do the opining. They report the facts, and reference those who describe the facts.

I am glad to see this paper and I would bet that it is cited hundreds of times in the future.

by Houston Radical (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 82 comments) on Thursday, Apr 24, 2008 at 1:39:57 AM

  (0+)

nice comments

by Better World Order (4 articles, 568 quicklinks, 39 diaries, 1111 comments [56 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Thursday, Apr 24, 2008 at 1:51:45 AM

  (0+)

You're right about one thing Tom, you have written at length on the rapid collapse of the towers. About the only thing I can see in all that material that is different from the argument set out above about point 5 is that you say the collisions of the floors were not inelastic but elastic.

Well of course they would be a little elastic. but how elastic is a block of concrete when it is hit hard enough to pulverize? Not very.

But even if it was, think it through. The first impact of the top on the bottom might throw the bottom down a little faster if elasticity were allowed, but to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction - the upper block would be bounced back and then fall a little bit slower than in the inelastic theory. It would take a little bit longer to get on with its job of hitting the floor below. Not only that, it would not arrive at the same time as the floor it had just knocked out so ther would not be the accumulation of mass that conservation of momentum calculation relies on to get the minimum fall time. If properly worked out the tower should take longer to come down that way.

But forget all that - just look at the video. The top block does not fall as a block, it turns into rubble and flies out in all directions. The hammer is very much lighter and the rigidity is very much reduced. The collapse time must be extended dramatically. How do you answer that?

There is a gif in this Powerpoint which shows clearly how the top collapses before the bottom gives way. Look for the one labelled "9-11 Post Sydney". This Powerpoint is good for many other things as well. Worth a look. 

You talk about laziness. Let's see if you take the trouble to look.  

by gravity32 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 201 comments [38 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Apr 24, 2008 at 2:43:42 AM

  (0+)

"Well of course they would be a little elastic. but how elastic is a block of concrete when it is hit hard enough to pulverize? Not very."

Is a "little elastic" similar to being a "little pregnant"? These sentences are anecdotal and not accurate.  Two points, though, on this comment overall. First, when describing the collapse initiation, Truthers most often reference the physics of a closed and inelastic system. This, quite simply, was not the case with the WTC collapses.

And second, did you take a good look at the numbers associated with the equations? How often has humanity encountered the collapse of a 510,000,000 kilogram structure? The masses and forces involved in the collapses have NEVER been encountered before with respect to an engineered, high-rise structure of 110 stories. With this in mind, the collapses redefined the "book end" for worst-case scenario regarding high-rise disasters. Why, then, would you continue to ascribe inadequate assumptions to the collapses, when you should be thinking outside the box at the "get go"?

"But even if it was, think it through."

Ah... I thought I did think it through in the series of equations that I posted. Do you have your own equations that you'd like to offer that support your thoughts?

"The first impact of the top on the bottom might throw the bottom down a little faster if elasticity were allowed, but to every action there is an equal and opposite...."

You are detailing an inelastic collapse here that fails to account for the increased mass associated with the upper part as each floor collapses and is assimilated into the upper part - make no bones about it. Although your paying lip service to the difference between inelastic/elastic collisions by stating, "...[T]he upper block would be bounced back and then fall a little bit slower than in the inelastic theory," you're still arguing an inelastic collision.

Again, do you have the equations that demonstrate the velocity at Floor "N" when you claim the fall would be "a little bit slower" or that there'd even be a "bounce back"?

"If properly worked out the tower should take longer to come down that way."

Show me the equations that detail a "properly worked out" tower collapse, PLEASE!

"But forget all that - just look at the video. The top block does not fall as a block, it turns into rubble and flies out in all directions. The hammer is very much lighter and the rigidity is very much reduced."

Forget all that... What? The science? Instead, you want me to use my senses...!?!

The senses can be, and often - on a daily basis - are, deceived. The videos limit your ability to appreciate the true magnitude of the collapses because they create an artificial scale for the structures. When dealing with the masses associated with the collapses, rigidity has little to do with the energy released. It's not about the shape or rigidity of the upper or lower part (although friction in the form of resistance plays a part); instead, it's about the mass and velocity that result in the energy. That falling pile of rubble has mass, although you may think it light and fluffy. And that mass is CONSIDERABLE at 65,000,000 kilograms at collapse initiation!

"The collapse time must be extended dramatically."

Why and how?!?

"You talk about laziness."

Yes, I do. And no offense, gravity32, but your comment here demonstrates such laziness. "Look at the video", "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction", "just think it through" – these are slogans for you and demonstrate a wholly unscientific approach to reviewing the collapses. You make some pointed claims about velocities being different, rigidity playing a role, and 65,000,000 kilograms is "light". And yet, you offer not one equation or even a referenced paper that supports your claims. This, gravity32, is what I mean when I assert "intellectual laziness".

Now, let's see if you'll take the "trouble" to respond appropriately, or will you, like many others before you, zing back a tart retort that references fecal matter?

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Apr 24, 2008 at 8:00:20 AM

  (0+)

Encarta Dictionary:  English (North America)

Plausible   (i.e. reasonable, believable, credible, probable, conceivable, likely, possible)  Antonym -- implausible

Denial   (refutation -- rejection, rebuff, contradiction, disagreement, defiance, denunciation, dissent, disclaimer / refusal – repudiation, rebuttal, rejection, veto, turning down)

Very succinct.   No beating around the bUSH.  Like so many “thinkers”, i.e. observers (not “Truthers”; this denigrating term is slung around like fecal matter from a monkey to exorcise a specific grouping of individuals not willing to buy the party line), Betsy wants to know what the heck has been going on.  Loading her up with equations, and demands for more science is a wicked way of poisoning the waters.  

The issues encompass manipulation of Constitutional Laws, illegal political gamesmanship at the highest levels, murder, collusion,  gross financial fraud, cronyism, weaponized economic policies, government and civilian agency mismanagement and subversion, etc., etc.  

People see that most of what’s on TV is crap.  They don’t need science to tell them.  They don’t want statistics to prove or attempt to disprove what they can plainly see.  We can come back here in 3 months, and some people will still be honed in on what made the WTC buildings fall, implode, melt, pulverize, whatever… Uncovering the truth IS IMPERATIVE.  The WTC buildings are a "part" of a mass of implausible events, and the WHOLE must be investigated adequately. 

The facts and reality “surrounding” ALL the events of 9/11 are NOT reasonable, believable, credible, probable, conceivable, likely, or possible.  Remaining in Denial, straining to disavow, acting in defiance to common sense, logic and reason is futile in the face of MORE & MORE PATRIOTS LIKE BETSY WANTING TO KNOW THE TRUTH BEHIND WHAT THEY SEE AND PERCEIVE TO BE DEVIOUS.  (I apologize – I don’t have the statistics, haven’t taken a poll, or run the numbers to scientifically, mathematically, statistically PROVE accurate the phrase “MORE & MORE PATRIOTS”…BE ASSURED, IT IS A BIG ROUND NUMBER!

It’s my day off – gotta go.  There are other things to do like go outside and enjoy myself and family…

by boomerang (0 articles, 7 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 556 comments [215 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Thursday, Apr 24, 2008 at 9:36:38 AM

  (0+)

"Betsy wants to know what the heck has been going on.  Loading her up with equations, and demands for more science is a wicked way of poisoning the waters."

So, you're saying Betsy's a McDonald's kind of girl who wants her info and explanations fast and tasty?  Okay, so why do you turn around and feed her this behemoth?

"The issues encompass manipulation of Constitutional Laws, illegal political gamesmanship at the highest levels, murder, collusion,  gross financial fraud, cronyism, weaponized economic policies, government and civilian agency mismanagement and subversion, etc., etc."

Think, please, before you type the next time you respond to one of my posts.  It'll make you appear that much more intelligent, boomerang.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Apr 24, 2008 at 12:36:09 PM

  (0+)

You missed the point...so simple, you couldn't see it.

O' flatulent one.

by boomerang (0 articles, 7 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 556 comments [215 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Thursday, Apr 24, 2008 at 6:59:46 PM

  (0+)

The elasticity of concrete is similar to the elasticity of all rocks - it is the property that allows seismic waves to propagate.

Think of silly putty: it can be molded into shapes easily enough, but when thrown against a wall it bounces without being deformed.

Rocks behave much the same way: over long periods of time, say millions of years, rocks can be deformed into folded layers, or in the case of crystalline rocks beneath the sedimentary section, can intrude into overlying sedimentary rocks to form giant batholiths, dykes, and sills.

But when an earthquake occurs, the energy travels through the rocks and the deformation is in turn instantaneous and non-permanent. The same way the energy from throwing silly puddy against a wall causes it to bounce but not deform.

Seismic velocity is directly related to rock elasticity: clastic sedimentary rocks (sandstone & shale mostly) typically have velocities ranging from < 2 km/s to about 4.5 km/s depending on how deep they might be buried. Cyrstalline rocks that make up the Earth's crust vary from > 4.7 km/s to nearly 7.8 km/s depending on whether they are oceanic or continental. The upper mantle and deeper velocities > 8 km/s

I just looked around and I see that Vp (compressional velocity) of concrete varies from 3 km/s to 5 km/s, which makes sense to me because the concreted itself would be like a sedimentary rock, but steel reinforcement would increase it's strength and possible affect ifs velocity.

Hope this helps.

by Houston Radical (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 82 comments) on Thursday, Apr 24, 2008 at 9:26:11 AM

  (0+)

Yes, this does help.  Thanks!

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Apr 24, 2008 at 12:36:58 PM

  (0+)

Eh, again we have the pshrink quackery that tries to deflect the facts of 9/11 with 5-cent analysis of "conspiracy nuts".....We got that talking point in spades in that recent History Channel show about 9/11 ; now it is being used again several comments above. But the premise that those who believe that there is a terrible problem with the official story are doing so out of mental fear or bewilderment, self-centered self-aggrandizement, or as a way  for "little minds" to explain momentous events; is completely flawed... And frankly, a weak attempt to allay the minds of those who are still following the herd. 

To accept the compelling evidence that one's own eyes clearly see... To watch Bldg. 7 fall in under 7 seconds, to look at all the facts and realize that there is no possible way that the official story could be right... And to then understand the consequence and underlying meaning of it all, is to move into a cold and dark place that is not at all comforting or welcoming. It is distressing, and many have pulled back from that mental abyss in horror. It is not a construct to "make us feel better".... It is a cold dunking into reality that leaves most of us shivering at the extent of man's inhumanity to man.... Wishing we never heard of it.

For it would be so much easier to believe the lies... That some bad man wearing a turban, like something out of a History Channel documentary on Nostrodamus' predictions, is behind it all. But we did learn the truth, thanks to the Internet... And no thanks to our tightly-controlled mainstream media who are mostly ignoring, and denigrating when they cannot ignore.

Since we have heard it and seen for ourselves, then those with conscience must act or face a moral dilemma like we have never known before in our sheltered lives.The real conspiracy theory is the one that the government spins, and it is the one designed to elicit powerful mental responses (like the phony Palestinian scene of enemies dancing in the streets with joy at our loss).

And the ones who are feeling smugly superior are not the ones standing in the wilderness calling for Justice... They are the ones who lower horns and bellow at their "crazy" fellows, the ones who are standing outside of the herd and not following: The "bad cows".

The bad cow "crazies" on the periphery are yelling that the herd is heading for a cliff; and we must stop following the leaders who will run us all off of that cliff. Some listen, but the herd mentality is too strong for most to easily change their minds and go against the herd. The Herd is saying the dissenters are crazy. It is telling us to refuse to believe anything related to 9/11 Truth. There is the real childish behavior: Putting hands over eyes and muttering loudly to block out the noise… "Make it go away!" 

This is a moral question. Can we allow our government to do as it pleases no matter how evil, as long as we can retain our own personal positions and (false) sense of security? But there is major a problem with that: You cannot be left alone no matter what. Like the cliff edge, or a black asteroid heading to crash into the planet, the consequences of 9/11 are relentlessly coming at us. No psycho-babble will stop it, and no amount of debunking will either.

It's time to make a choice: Follow the herd into certain oblivion, or take your chances in the scary wilderness.  

by Steve Windisch (jibbguy) (17 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 360 comments [54 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Apr 24, 2008 at 8:22:29 AM

  (0+)

Q:  When is a door not a door?  A:  When it's a jar.

The senses can be deceived - collectively even - because the mind wants them to be deceived.  It's trying to structure massive amounts of empiracle data into a an organizational construct that explains what's been observed.  Unfortunately, this process of the mind is heavily influence by our established thoughts and draws upon our historical references - be they expansive or limited.

The psychology of conspiracy theory deals with compartmentalization and cognitive dissonance.  With these applied process, the mind can tell a lie and believe it to be true - at the same time.  This result is not limited to 9/11 Truthers but is common to all types of conspiracy theorists.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Apr 24, 2008 at 9:05:33 AM

  (0+)

The question is, If the door is on fire, was it arson or an accident?

And I posed this above - pay attention

CONSPIRACY

Quite often the phrase "conspiracy theory" is invoked with a wink and a nudge in order to disarm legitimate arguments – meaning, of course, that a person who contemplates nefarious motives behind something must be a nut.

First, a large percentage of people incarcerated in US jails and prisons are there because they’ve been convicted of some sort of conspiracy – to commit robbery, fraud, murder, etc. So clearly a lot of cops and DAs successfully presented their conspiracy theories to a lot of judges and juries. Conspiracies do happen.

Second, conspiracy is often confused with institutional behavior. People will usually say and do whatever they perceive to be in their best interests – it might not be in their best interests, but as long as they perceive it so, then away they go. So the cop who intimidates a voter in Florida doesn’t need to conspire with the election official who throws a box of ballots in the Ohio River. They both perceive that their actions, although illegal, are in their best interests. No conspiracy.

by Houston Radical (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 82 comments) on Thursday, Apr 24, 2008 at 9:34:30 AM

  (0+)

Q: Why must there always be pyscho-related problems associated with the Truthers.... ?

A: Because the Big Straw Man on the 20 foot screen says so ;)  He knows that the way to buck-up his troops, keep them from listening with an open mind, and to change the subject from the actual facts.... Is to denegrate the opposition.

But thx for proving my above point, hehehe.

If there is a psych-related common point among the Truthers it is that we are possibly getting more paranoid as time goes on (or is it just in reaction to real worries?).

Paranoia can be a healthy response to real danger. In fact it could be instinctual in nature and not actually psychological. But where is that line? Dunno ;) .... But when I see a helicopter flying around my neighborhood, I'm not assuming they are coming for me.... Yet anyway, lol.

Let's look at the probability of real danger that would justify "paranoia" (or responsible worry, if that is the case): If even half of what we Truthers believe is true..... Then we are faced with a government that has absolutely no interest in the sanctity of human lives, except only as a means of protecting itself against exposure as "murderers". So if this is the case..... Then what they could do next would certainly be worthy of worry.

by Steve Windisch (jibbguy) (17 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 360 comments [54 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Apr 24, 2008 at 9:51:30 AM

  (0+)

For cognitive dissonance you mean like when people believe that a plane 125' wide can fit into a hole in the ground only 75' wide? That kind of cognitive dissonance?

You are so full of it, pal.

by ken (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 96 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Apr 24, 2008 at 10:34:15 AM

  (0+)

www.oilempire.us/pentagon.html

www.911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/

by Better World Order (4 articles, 568 quicklinks, 39 diaries, 1111 comments [56 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Thursday, Apr 24, 2008 at 11:22:13 AM

  (0+)

Colonel Tom, you have previously enlightened us all on making cell phone calls from planes at 30,000 feet (keep trying!) and you have solved completely the "accounting error" for the missing Pentagon $2.3 trillion. Today, you explain the complexities of building engineering and provide free psychotheraphy to the confused. There seems to be no end to your wisdom. But what I really wanted to know is what are the ingredients in your recipe of secret herbs and spices?

by ken (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 96 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Apr 24, 2008 at 12:19:17 PM

  (0+)

Does that include the 67% that think the 9/11 Omission Report should've dealt with the COLLAPSE of WTC 7???

by Better World Order (4 articles, 568 quicklinks, 39 diaries, 1111 comments [56 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Thursday, Apr 24, 2008 at 4:37:19 PM

  (0+)

I feel more comfortable in the not so scary wilderness.

by Bob Gormley (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 1094 comments [65 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Apr 24, 2008 at 8:57:18 AM

  (0+)

Well said Jibbguy.

Tom, here is a paper you must have seen but have apparently forgotten. In it Frank Greening calculates the time it would take for the collapse of the north tower to occur if certain simplifying assumptions are made:

1. The steel supports are assumed to have no strength whatsoever.

2. The concrete pulverization is assumed to be magically achieved and takes no energy.

3. The initiating floor totally and instantly disappears, allowing the upper block to fall freely to hit the lower undamaged portion of the tower at full free fall speed.

4. The concrete does not fly out of the falling material but remains solid and compact to provide mass and rigidty.

The time he gets is 12.6 seconds. See page 5.

In the following paper you will find a calculation showing that the fall time for the roof to the ground would have been 10.5 seconds if the initial acceleration had been maintained. Fall time

Now the figure for the fall time of 12.6 was based on a hypothetical impossible situation. You must add on time for every one of the simplifying assumptions above.

Tom, you will no doubt ask by how much would these increase the fall time. But 12.6 is already longer than 10.5, so why does that matter.

It is obvious from the video that these simplifying assumptions are not small. The fact that the top falls many storeys before the bottom starts to move tells us that there was an entirely different mechanism operating.

If you look at the second paper referred to above you will see that the acceleration of the roof downward was uniform right from the start and as long as it could be seen before disappearing in the dust. There is no trace of a reduction in acceleration that would be inevitable if the top struck the bottom with the sort of force the official story depends on.

In his calculation of fall time Greening makes the simplifying assumption that the collisions are inelastic. For reasons stated above any elasticity can only increase the fall time. The reason for this is that the power of the falling top block is a function of its mass and if elasticity is assumed the floors will tend to separate as they fall thus diminishing the impact by spreading the impacts out over a period of time.

Furthermore if you look at this paper you will see that the sudden collapse of the initiating storey was impossible, which means that the second stage, which depends on the impact from that initial collape, could not occur.

Tom, it is time for you to have the courage to leave the herd.

by gravity32 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 201 comments [38 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Apr 24, 2008 at 9:28:17 AM

  (0+)

TM stated:

“The psychology of conspiracy theory deals with compartmentalization and cognitive dissonance.  With these applied process, the mind can tell a lie and believe it to be true - at the same time.  This result is not limited to 9/11 Truthers but is common to all types of conspiracy theorists.”

Unfortunately, Tom’s example is backwards to the reality of 911 truth. I cannot recall one 911 truth advocate who did not start out as a person generally believing in the official, well-accepted views about American government’s, structure, goals and activities. Becoming aware of and accepting the reality of the obvious falseness of the the government’s official conspiracy theory required overcoming cognitive dissonance. Certainly because such an epiphany also entails the dawning comprehension that much, if not most of what one had been ‘taught’ to believe about our so-called ‘democratic republic’ was false. (and this fact has been demonstrably proven numerous times by numerous historians and analysts.)

Rather, it is Tom who embodies and personifies the action of cognitive dissonance.… and whose “mind can tell a lie and believe it to be true - at the same time.” 

by richard (0 articles, 5 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 1359 comments [400 recommended, 8 rejected]) on Thursday, Apr 24, 2008 at 9:49:11 AM

  (0+)

richard, let's review the defintions:

compartmentalization: "isolation or splitting off of part of the personality or mind with lack of communication and consistency between the parts" - http://medical.merriam-webster.com/medical/compartmentalise .  This is the equivalent of living a real life that enjoys restoring older cars, going for long drives, and discussing life's pursuits, but this same person has - as was mentioned previously - intense fear, anger, and resentments toward the government for killing 3,000 Americans on 9/11.

cognitive dissonance: "psychological conflict resulting from simultaneously held incongruous beliefs and attitudes (as a fondness for smoking and a belief that it is harmful)" - http://medical.merriam-webster.com/medical/cognitive%20dissonance .  In the case of 9/11, this takes many forms one of which is that President Bush & Company are totally incompetent with everything they touch EXCEPT for the MIHOP of 9/11.  Everything was peachie keeno boss on that day.  It's only the questioning of Truthers that revealed the "real story".

There is no need, richard, to defend a chicken before the egg, cause and effect approacg because it's immaterial.  And for the record, the Truth Movement was born long before the 9/11 Commission issued its report.  As usual, richard, your deflecting, twisiting, and overall silliness only results in a little wasted time but no great insight into...the "truth".

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Apr 24, 2008 at 10:01:48 PM

  (0+)

the complete 9/11 timeline at cooperativeresearch.org

the surgical strikes on Iraq could be compared; clean on TV, messy in Baghdad- even when they get the target, sometimes there's still some collateral damage- but that can be edited out and then it's time to go to a commercial break and remind Americans of our patriotic duty to drive gas guzzling cars so we can fund the terrorists, destroy the environment and set our nation back 10 or 20 years with a grab for control of a geopolitically strategic resource that will be economically obsolete within 50 years, while demand is growing worldwide at the same time supplies are peaking, while Europe and Asia rise, China growing as a military power and big competitor for oil while our military got broken over lies about WMD.

Our nation could instead be investing in People, green energy, solar, nanotechnology, robotics, a nationalized and publicly controlled monetary system- we might not even need the IRS- what about 0% interest home loans? All that money could be going back into the economy instead of the pockets and corrupt investments of corrupt bankers. Why are we paying interest to private banks for the use of money backed by public debt; when the Constitution authorizes Congress to COIN money? Cuz it serves the interests of families like the Rockefellers and Morgans? Tom, have you read the Creature from Jekyll Island? Are you a conservative or a neocon or what are you?

A tricked, betrayed and treasonous Congress and weak Prez Wilson brought the Fed into life and now the dollar is worth 10% of what it was, even as the tax payers bailed out numerous irresponsibly managed banks that were sucking blood from babies and grandmothers while making huge profits from their economic shell games

by Better World Order (4 articles, 568 quicklinks, 39 diaries, 1111 comments [56 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Thursday, Apr 24, 2008 at 11:44:09 PM

  (0+)

"Are you a conservative or a neocon or what are you?"

For the record and as I've mentioned previously, I consider myself a classical conservative. "What the heck is that?" is what you're probably asking. "It sounds like a cover for 'neocon'!"

Nope! The two ARE different. Classical conservativism is a political philosophy that emphasizes slow change in government rather than sudden innovation and implementation - or even revolution (that's a foul word). The end result isn't (necessarily) as important as the orderly law-abiding process it took to get there- click here .

Mind you, I'm not a "hardcore" classical conservative, but I think the label fits well enough to distinguish me from a neo-conservative who tends to dabble overly so in foreign policy and utters sentiments such as, "My country, right or wrong!"

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Apr 25, 2008 at 8:36:03 AM

  (0+)

Did you say, "an orderly law-abiding process to get here?"  I think you did.  And it certainly has been anything but that! 

Are you paying attention to the world around you?  There's a disconnect here -- specifically, the law-abiding part...

by boomerang (0 articles, 7 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 556 comments [215 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Friday, Apr 25, 2008 at 8:24:51 PM