 |
|
Add to My Group
|
January 26, 2008 at 20:24:31
How I Came To Distrust the Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory by Stephen Demetriou Page 1 of 1 page(s) |
|
|
From 2001 through most of 2007, I didn't think much about this subject. I had casually wondered if the fires could actually be responsible for bringing the towers down, thinking about the heat and thermodynamics necessary to weaken the steel columns. I have an undergraduate degree in chemistry, and find thermodynamics very interesting. The idea that fires fueled by office materials and jet fuel (enhanced kerosene) could weaken steel beams, resulting in total failure of the entire structure seemed vaguely unlikely. After all, there have been other large steel-structured office building fires that had not resulted in complete, catastrophic collapse, but I didn’t dwell on my vague doubts. I have since learned there have been no complete, catastrophic collapses of steel-framed buildings due to fire recorded, ever, like these. There have been partial collapses, involving a few floors, and considerable damage due to fire, but no complete collapses ever of steel-framed buildings. On 9/11, we are given to believe there were three. In September of last year I read an article on "conspiracy theories" about 9/11, and I learned of the website I wrote about this past October, www.patriotsquestion911.com. This site is nothing more than a compilation of names of people who have publicly questioned the official account, and their statements. It is not an organization, or membership association; the people on the list are not necessarily associated with one another in any way, except for having doubts about 9/11 and having made public statements to that effect. Names on the list include Louis Freeh, former FBI director, Wesley Clark, Ron Paul, Paul Craig Roberts, a former Assistant Sec. Of the Treasury, Curt Weldon, Mary Shiavo, former Inspector General US Dept of Transportation, Col. Robert Bowman, Dennis Kucinich, Morgan Reynolds, former Chief Economist in the Bush Labor Department, with about one thousand other people who have doubts about the official explanation of the 9/11 attacks. A quick look at this list will give you a sense of the caliber and qualifications of those who have spoken out in one way or another about these events. Two other names on this list are men I have read extensively in the past four months: Dr. David Ray Griffin, and Dr. Steven E. Jones. Dr. Griffin is a PhD professor emeritus of religion and philosophy at Claremont College in Calif. Dr. Steven Jones is a PhD physicist formerly with Brigham Young. Both have long established academic careers, have published numerous books or articles, and are respected intellectuals in their fields.
Dr. Jones has well established academic and research credentials for his work with metal-catalyzed fusion. His work has been reproduced and confirmed by independent labs in a couple of countries. Overcoming initial controversy to his findings, his fusion results are now considered the basis for further work. Examining evidence taken from the World Trade Center site he employs the accepted forensic techniques of analysis arson investigators use. He has confirmed a “eutectic” of sulfur in once-molten steel, which a FEMA analysis also found but did not explain, and confirmed the presence of once-molten iron spheres the USGS discovered in dust samples. These samples contain evidence suggestive of explosives: sulfur, aluminum, barium, manganese, with other compounds, in unusually high concentrations.
Dr. Griffin has exhaustively examined the 9/11 Commission report. Comparing known reports gathered from the news media, from authors, academics, government documents, Dr. Griffin has written extensively on the evidence the Commission focused on in great detail, and the evidence it inexplicably omits. And the devil really is in those details. Many people hold the Commission report in high regard as the most complete investigation of the events of 9/11. Dr. Griffin’s books convincingly show that the evidence in support of the official conspiracy theory received special treatment, while witnesses who brought contrary testimony, along with those who came forward but were ignored, are inexcusably rejected or marginalized, their evidence unreported.
Scant mention is made in the Commission report of the documented meetings of the chief of Pakistani intelligence at the time, General Mahmoud Ahmad, with CIA director Tenet, officials from the Pentagon, the State Department, and National Security Agency from Sept 4 through Sept. 13, 2001. The report completely denies what the Times of India discovered, and which the Wall Street Journal editorialized, “…US authorities sought [Ahmad’s] removal after confirming the fact that $100,000 were wired to WTC hijacker Mohammed Atta from Pakistan by Ahmad Umar Sheikh at the instance of Gen. Mahmoud…” Instead the Commission report states, “…we have seen no evidence that any foreign government – or foreign government official – supplied any funding.”
The back-stories of halted FBI investigations, credible whistleblowers silenced by federal gag orders, FBI field agents’ reports of suspicious behavior ignored, or requests for warrants altered or denied, all make compelling arguments for foreknowledge and complicity by some in the administration. But all these are difficult to prove to the satisfaction of a court of law.
The science, though, is compelling. Pools of flowing molten iron were found under the rubble of the three World Trade Center buildings. They persisted for 100 days. Office material fires simply cannot produce heat to melt steel or iron. Both the National Institute of Standards and Technology and FEMA studies clearly state that fact in their reports, and neither study so much as attempted to answer the question of what caused those pools of molten metal. And then there is Building 7. Not hit by a plane, not substantially damaged by the other collapses, Building 7 fell straight down in the exact same manner as if by controlled demolition. To this day, no official explanation has been issued explaining how this happened.
I no longer have vague doubts. I have important questions. Nearly 3000 people were murdered on September 11, 2001, and even the accused perpetrators have not been brought to justice. I am one of many calling for a new, independent investigation into 9/11. The elaborate cover up we have now is an utter disgrace to this country, and the basis for what many scholars consider near tyranny.
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
|
|
| 51 comments |
|
Very Interesting
I think it deserves a better title to attract more hits because you're making a really good point and your title offers an oppinion, but your article delivers way way more! Thank you. by Jeanette Doney (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 307 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Jan 26, 2008 at 11:51:41 PM  (0+)
|
|
Who Set Up The "Truth Movement"
The 9/11 attacks, the 9/11 cover up, and the 9/11 "truth movement" by CB Brooklyn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 465 comments [18 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Sunday, Jan 27, 2008 at 3:49:12 AM (0+)
|
|
Are you guys retarded?
It was a bunch off pissed-off Muslims! LOL by Sha Llel (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 90 comments) on Sunday, Jan 27, 2008 at 1:10:46 PM (0+)
|
|
Their is a uncovered aspect of 9-11
How did it happen? I am a retired military and know that no hijack could take place without being challenged by the Air Force within a short time. Why wasn't it? Sounds like someone had to prevent a normal respoce. If so that means someone high up in the administration committed treason. Yep we need a new and honest examination of what happened. by Robert N Smith (15 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 152 comments [3 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Jan 27, 2008 at 1:38:50 PM (0+)
|
|
9/11 conspiracies
Check out "The Shell Game" The Deception of a Nation by Steve Alten, NY Times best-selling author. by Ramon Puga (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 30 comments) on Sunday, Jan 27, 2008 at 2:47:38 PM (0+)
|
|
wow, you just NOW have started to question it?
better late than never i guess... welcome to the real world. by lev kabalkin (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Sunday, Jan 27, 2008 at 10:27:05 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Better late than never...
True, and I also am trying to write this in such a way that I am not simply preaching to the choir and could maybe tip the balance for someone who is teetering on the question of what is the truth about 9/11. Converts are needed. by Stephen Demetriou (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 183 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Jan 28, 2008 at 8:31:17 AM (0+)
|
|
I never believed it in the first place
I worked on jets too long as a Naval Aviation Electrician to believe the official line of crud. First of all, jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to vaporize steel beams, otherwise the hot section of the engines would melt. How does an asymmetrical force cause buildings to collapse symmetrically and not just once but twice? The third tower which didn't incur any external forces just collapsed on its own, perhaps as a sympathetic response (yeah right!). Nor do I believe that a twin engine transport hit the Pentagon, as there was insufficient debris on the lawn to indicate such an event. One thing to note was among the debris found was a compressor stage from an engine that matched a BQM-34 Firebee target drone, but not much else. That little bit of debris could have been planted for all anybody knows. The video that would show anything flying low towards the pentagon has never been released and by now it may have been destroyed. Whatever actually took place was permitted to happen to make it appear it was just done by a group of terrorists. One problem with the official story was the guy who was supposed to have flown the 757 into the pentagon couldn't even fly a Cessna 150. What about those Mossad agents on the other side of the river in NJ who were laughing and dancing? Legally the Mossad is not supposed to be operating in this country, but I suspect they may have been the ones to set the charges in the buildings or just passed bogus information, but than their motto is "by way of deception, thou shalt do war". Whatever it was they actually did, you can bet it was to get the US to attack Iraq for them. Read anything by Viktor Ostrovsky, who had been a Mossad case worker for 2 years. by Dave Kisor (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 310 comments [40 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Jan 28, 2008 at 1:34:50 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Jet engines are steel?
I though that they were titanium. :) - - - Yawn, the same old truther B.S. by Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 350 comments) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 2:04:42 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: One more question
Legally the Mossad is not supposed to be operating in this country, but I suspect they may have been the ones to set the charges in the buildings Just how did they go about this? Did they use "hush-a-boom?" by Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 350 comments) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 2:09:33 PM (0+)
|
|
Prescott Sheldon Bush
President George W Bush is probably carrying out the wishes of his Grandfather Prescott Sheldon Bush. by Anton Grambihler (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 314 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Jan 28, 2008 at 2:49:45 PM (0+)
|
|
Thanks, Stephen
After studying the Oklahoma City bombing and its cover-up (especially well documented in Jayna Davis' book The Third Terrorist), and the Waco Branch Davidian massacre, I was fully convinced that the government was acting in a criminal capacity and inflicting domestic terrorism on citizens. However, perhaps because I was tired of being the "nut" in my family and social circle, I didn't want to exacerbate things by even looking at this 911 truth stuff. by Ingrid (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 142 comments [20 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 11:59:07 AM (0+)
|
|
BTW, Stephan. . .
Your claim that building 7 was Not hit by a plane, not substantially damaged by the other collapses, is a bald faced, out and out lie. Are you calling the FDNY firefighters who were thier that day and witnessed the destruction and damage first hand liars? well are you? by Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 350 comments) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 2:07:50 PM (0+)
|
|
Fire and steel
Stephan: The idea that fires fueled by office materials and jet fuel (enhanced kerosene) could weaken steel beams, resulting in total failure of the entire structure seemed vaguely unlikely. So, obviously to you, the fireproofing industry is just a big mulit-million dollar a year scam, is that right? Get a clue please. by Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 350 comments) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 2:12:19 PM (0+)
|
|
But is he a strucutral engineer?
Dr. Jones has well established academic and research credentials for his work with metal-catalyzed fusion No, he is not. by Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 350 comments) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 2:14:24 PM (0+)
|
|
Another expert . . .
Dr. Griffin has exhaustively examined the 9/11 Commission report. Did he find any theological flaws in the report? That's his specialty, right? Please don't appeal to authority unless that authority has some basis in the subject at hand. Hell, don't appeal to authority at all if you can help it. by Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 350 comments) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 2:17:49 PM (0+)
|
|
From the OP
I have since learned there have been no complete, catastrophic collapses of steel-framed buildings due to fire recorded, ever, like these. So, just how many steel frame buildings with severe strucutral damage and engulfed in fire have been recorded? by Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 350 comments) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 2:57:25 PM (0+)
|
|
Mr. Howard, your questions in order...
Building 7 was not hit by a plane... 3 of 24 core columns were damaged by the North Tower collapse, as well as 9 of 57 perimeter columns, all on the south side of the building. Any weakening of the columns by fires in all probability would have precipitated an asymmetrical collapse in the direction of the damage that the building did sustain. That did not happen. It fell straight down in a symmetrical collapse into its own footprint, in the exact manner a controlled demolition would do. Commentators who witnessed the collapse live commented on this very appearance. The firemen... according to Graeme McQueen examining the FDNY oral histories: (1) In the FDNY oral histories, there are about 60 FDNY members who report hearing warnings of Seven’s collapse. (2) Of these 60 cases, only two have an unknown degree of certainty. Thirty-one cases qualify as “definite” (Seven is thought definitely to be coming down), while 27 qualify as “indefinite” (Seven might come down). (3) In 27 cases time could not be determined. Of the remaining cases, 17 warnings were received less than two hours before collapse, while ten were received two or more hours before collapse and six appear to have been received four or more hours before collapse. (4) In five cases it is unknown who ascertained that the building was headed for possible or certain collapse. Of the remaining cases, seven FDNY members personally ascertained or affirmed the possible or definite collapse, while in 50 cases this judgment was made by others, typically official superiors. (There are two cases where the judgment was made on the basis of both self and other—hence the failure of these numbers to add up to the correct total.) (5) In 38 cases no cause of collapse is given. Of the remaining cases, no member gives other (non-fire) damage as sole cause of collapse; 15 members give fire alone as cause of collapse; and seven members give a combination of fire and other damage as cause of collapse. In other words, the number of firemen who made a determination WTC 7 was coming down was actually a rather small number, and their statements, it appears, over the hours of the day, influenced the opinions of others. It is also significant to note that there was at least one or more official type person, who a fireman described as “some engineer type person” was advising a group of firemen prior to ANY of the collapses that this person thought significant damage had been done to the buildings and “they felt that the north tower was in danger of a near imminent collapse.” How did they know that? Whoever this person or people were, they displayed foreknowledge of the collapses less than one hour into the event, as the first tower to collapse did so in less than one hour after being struck. Again, how did they know that? A fireman on the 78 floor reported TWO pockets of fire, that could, he said, be easily knocked down with two lines. The building collapsed on this fellow shortly after. For a more complete look at McQueen’s excellent analysis: http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200701/MacQueenWaitingforSeven.pdf In short, no, I don’t think the firemen were liars. Influenced by others, perhaps. I see no evidence there was strong consensus among a large group of firemen that WTC 7 was in danger of imminent collapse due to the damage. A look at photos of WTC 4,5,6 show massive fires, with windows missing and engulfing flames on all floors, as well as significant damage to the structure. Those buildings did not collapse in any manner at all similar to WTC 7. In fact, they had to be brought down by controlled demolition several days after 9/11 during the clean up. FIRE AND STEEL A clue to the efficacy of the fireproofing comes from Kevin Ryan, UL supervisor who was well aware of the testing the steel for the towers had undergone prior to building. The size and duration of the fires were well within limits expected. MIT Prof Eagan said of the fires, “The fire is the most misunderstood part of the WTC collapse. Even today, the media report (and Many scientists believe) that the steel melted. This is not true… The temperature of the fires at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel.” The faulty computer simulations NIST did to try to model the initiation of collapse DID NOT get the result they expected, collapse of the buildings, when they input realistic data of the temperatures involved. They had to input unrealistic data in order to get a simulation that led to collapse. Mr. Howard, you appear to place too much emphasis on the fireproofing. Yes, it is rightly mandated, but the fire in these towers were not hot enough to cause COMPLETE failure of the buildings. The steel was tested under higher stress loads for longer periods of time than the less than one hour it took for the first tower to fall. Dr. Steven Jones is a PhD physicist with over 40 peer reviewed journal articles to his credit. No, he is not a structural engineer. Gordon Ross is however. http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id2.html ANOTHER EXPERT Dr. Griffin applies straight-forward comparisons of the public record to the fabrications in the 9/11 Commission report. If you have particular beefs with that analysis, by all means, lay it out, sir. Be glad to entertain your opinions. I can read a report in the Wall Street Journal just as well as the next bloke. Having a little problem with the messenger? Not liking the message? by Stephen Demetriou (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 183 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 6:06:08 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Building 7 was not hit by a plane...
3 of 24 core columns were damaged by the North Tower collapse, as well as 9 of 57 perimeter columns, all on the south side of the building. The exact extent of the damage is not known for sure. But at least you are acknowledging that the building received severe structural damage from the collapse of WTC 1 Any weakening of the columns by fires in all probability would have precipitated an asymmetrical collapse in the direction of the damage that the building did sustain. ”In all probability?” Based on whose opinion? Yours? Forensic Structural engineers? That did not happen. It fell straight down in a symmetrical collapse into its own footprint, in the exact manner a controlled demolition would do. So? Based on whose opinion that it should not have happened that way? It looked like a controlled demolition, because controlled demolitions look like collapses from other causes. by Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 350 comments) on Wednesday, Jan 30, 2008 at 7:50:31 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: forensic structural engineers
Yes, in fact. by Stephen Demetriou (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 183 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 30, 2008 at 8:53:26 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: No, in fact not.
Gage's list of pretend engineers doesn't count. by Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 350 comments) on Wednesday, Jan 30, 2008 at 12:05:51 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: FDNY
In other words, the number of firemen who made a determination WTC 7 was coming down was actually a rather small number, and their statements, it appears, over the hours of the day, influenced the opinions of others. That's called "Command Structure." That is what happens when the senior ranks with the training and experience to make these kind of assessments do so. by Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 350 comments) on Wednesday, Jan 30, 2008 at 7:58:38 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Fire and steel
A clue to the efficacy of the fireproofing comes from Kevin Ryan, UL supervisor who was well aware of the testing the steel for the towers had undergone prior to building. The size and duration of the fires were well within limits expected. MIT Prof Eagan said of the fires, “The fire is the most misunderstood part of the WTC collapse. Even today, the media report (and Many scientists believe) that the steel melted. This is not true… The temperature of the fires at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel.” The faulty computer simulations NIST did to try to model the initiation of collapse DID NOT get the result they expected, collapse of the buildings, when they input realistic data of the temperatures involved. They had to input unrealistic data in order to get a simulation that led to collapse. Kevin Ryan was the manager of a water testing lab and has no formal training or experience in evaluating any data related to steel and fire. Please look at this report click here on how fire would have affected the floor trusses of the building. by Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 350 comments) on Wednesday, Jan 30, 2008 at 8:05:25 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: broken link
and you have yet to address anything I have said. Shooting the messenger doesn't address the issue contained in the message. by Stephen Demetriou (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 183 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 30, 2008 at 8:43:06 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: cheap arguments, sir.
Address the issues at hand, if you can. Shooting the messenger but ignoring the message is really rather weak. From Ryan's letter to Frank Gayle working for NIST: "There continues to be a number of "experts" making public claims about how the WTC buildings fell. One such person, Dr. Hyman Brown from the WTC construction crew, claims that the buildings collapsed due to fires at 2000F melting the steel (1). He states "What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuel . . . burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor area melts." Additionally, the newspaper that quotes him says "Just-released preliminary findings from a National Institute of Standards and Technology study of the World Trade Center collapse support Brown's theory." "We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all." Dispute these facts, if you can. by Stephen Demetriou (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 183 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 30, 2008 at 8:50:32 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Did you know?
We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. Actually it was not. NIST ran tests after the fact, on a reduced sized assembly with the proper amount of fireproofing on it. This was to establish a baseline performance level. However, the fireproofing in the towers was anything but intact. Did you know that even before 9/11 it was determined that the fireproofing in the building was falling off or completely missing throughout the buildings? That's what happens when you let the mob do your subcontracting work for you. by Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 350 comments) on Wednesday, Jan 30, 2008 at 6:19:21 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Link
http://fire-research.group.shef.ac.uk/Downloads/SC_Baltimore.pdf by Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 350 comments) on Wednesday, Jan 30, 2008 at 12:03:49 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: An answer for you
Please answer this question for me, how many steel frame buildings have completely collapsed after being on fire less than one hour? The answer is that there have been no other tall steel framed buildings of a comprable design that have been struck by an airplane, so your question is meaninless. by Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 350 comments) on Wednesday, Jan 30, 2008 at 8:10:53 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Designed for strikes of that very nature
And not only that, they showed quite convincingly that they withstood the very thing they were designed to withstand. Answer the question. The NIST study clearly says the fires did not melt steel, and the study itself was commissioned to examine ONLY the sequence of the initiation of collapse, not the collapse itself. There was no explanation as to why the buildings fell at near free fall speed. The upper mass of the buildings falling through the path of MOST resistance at nearly the same speed it would take a brick to fall the same distance is a physical impossibility in a gravity-induced collapse. Conservation of momentum and energy dictate that. The use of explosives to remove the building out from under the collapsing mass does satisfy conservation of momentum and energy. Answer the question and do your "skeptic" title some justice. by Stephen Demetriou (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 183 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 30, 2008 at 8:39:06 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: back at you
Designed for strikes of that very nature The above statement tell me that you have a poor understanding of the building design and engineering process. There were no design criteria for the towers that involved making them safe from an aircraft strike. No design decisions in the engineering process were based on the effect of that decision on the buildings ability to withstand an aircraft impact. Stating that the buildings were designed to withstand that sort of strike is akin to stating that a lamp post makes a good bike rack because you can lean your bike up against it. As Leslie Robertson himself said: “One of my jobs was to look at all of the possible events that might take place in a highrise building. And of course there had been in New York two incidences of aircraft impact, the most famous one of course being on the Empire State Building. Now, we were looking at an aircraft not unlike the Mitchell bomber that ran into the Empire State Building. We were looking at aircraft that was lost in the fog, trying to land. It was a low-flying, slow-flying 707, which was the largest aircraft of its time. And so we made calculations, not anywhere near the level of sophistication that we could today. But inside of our ability, we made calculations of what happened when the airplane goes in and it takes out a huge section of the outside wall of the building. And we concluded that it would stand. It would suffer but it would stand. And the outside wall would have a big hole in it, and the building would be in place. What we didn't look at is what happens to all that fuel. And perhaps we could be faulted for that, for not doing so. But for whatever reason we didn't look at that question of what would happen to the fuel.“ It is clear from the above, that the calculations were highly limited and conducted well after all the major design decisions had already been made. And not only that, they showed quite convincingly that they withstood the very thing they were designed to withstand. They withstood the impact alone, they might have been able to withstand the fires alone, but they were unable to withstand both combined. (see the above quote). Answer the question. I will if you ask one The NIST study clearly says the fires did not melt steel, and the study itself was commissioned to examine ONLY the sequence of the initiation of collapse, not the collapse itself. Because it is impossible and impractical to model a chaotic system like a building collapse. You only need to understand what initiated it. There was no explanation as to why the buildings fell at near free fall speed. And no truthers have ever provided a reasonable and accurate estimate of what the difference should have been from “near free fall speed” to what they think it should have been. (Yes, Judy Woo Woo Woods tried, but her explanation is full of errors and mis-representations and out and out insanity) The upper mass of the buildings falling through the path of MOST resistance at nearly the same speed it would take a brick to fall the same distance is a physical impossibility in a gravity-induced collapse. Actually, the path of the most resistance would have been to the side as this would have required enormous sideways force. Conservation of momentum and energy dictate that. Please provide the calculations to support this contention. The use of explosives to remove the building out from under the collapsing mass does satisfy conservation of momentum and energy. See the above comment by me. How come there is not video or audio records of these explosives. They should have been quite loud and distinct. Answer the question and do your "skeptic" title some justice. You keep stating that, but you did ask any questions in that post by Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 350 comments) on Wednesday, Jan 30, 2008 at 12:49:21 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Nice attempt at dodging the question
The question I would like you to answer is: How many steel-framed buildings have completely collapsed after less than one hour of fire? Not included in the original question, but I add now, after one hour of a diffuse fire as explained by MIT prof Thomas Eagar, on steel columns FEMA admits did not see temperatures much higher than 500C? The calculations for conservation of momentum and energy are in the links I provided above in Gordon Ross's analysis. An analysis by the firm Worthington, Skilling, Helle, and Jackson, John Skilling being one of the principals, whom Robertson worked for, not as an equal partner, states: "The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707-DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact." As Eagan also said, the highly redundant core structure would quickly recalibrate to take up the loss from damaged columns, stablizing the building. That is what we saw after the planes struck the buildings. The architectural firm Emery Roth and Sons said of the design: THE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS CARRIED OUT BY THE FIRM OF WORTHINGTON, SKILLING, HELLE & JACKSON IS THE MOST COMPLETE AND DETAILED OF ANY EVER MADE FOR ANY BUILDING STRUCTURE. THE PRELIMINARY CALCULATIONS ALONE COVER 1,200 PAGES AND INVOLVE OVER 100 DETAILED DRAWINGS. John Skilling in an interview to the venerable publication Engineering News Record, "live loads on these [perimeter] columns can be increased more than 2000% before failure occurs." The path of MOST resistance may have been in trying to tip the towers over sideways, but that is a red herring, as the impact of the planes did no such thing. The buildings responded to the planes as designed. And the official explanation, which your dodging attempts at justifying, would have us believe the towers' collapses were gravity-induced and the natural consequence of the upper mass falling through the rest of the structure. The NIST FAQ's say, nonsensically: "In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass." The ridiculousness of their statement ignores conservation of momentum and energy in an asymmetrical drop of the upper masses of about 9 ft. The calculations, again, are in Ross's analysis. As the Skilling quote shows, the floor trusses were not designed only to hold the static weight of the floors above, but were designed to withstand significantly more live load. Regarding explosions, there are at least 118 eyewitness reports of explosions throughout the buildings, some well before the collapses initiated. And they do show up in video and audio. I would suggest you educate yourself with Gordon Ross's papers, his rebuttal of F. Greening's attempts to debunk Ross, and to look at www.ae911truth.org for the architects and structural engineers who have no reason to believe the towers came down due to fire and gravity. And dodging issues is no way to win an argument. Sometimes it is the only way to save face, but I am more interested in converting you than putting you down. Good luck with your studies. by Stephen Demetriou (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 183 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 30, 2008 at 1:37:25 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Nice attempt to move the goal posts.
How many steel-framed buildings have completely collapsed after less than one hour of fire? Not included in the original question, but I add now, after one hour of a diffuse fire as explained by MIT prof Thomas Eagar, on steel columns FEMA admits did not see temperatures much higher than 500C? Do you really think the fire only reached temperatures of 500 C? Did you know that a bunk bed fire can raise the temperature of the gas layer near the ceiling to over 1000C by Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 350 comments) on Wednesday, Jan 30, 2008 at 6:09:42 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: movable goal posts...
Sorry, but you still haven't answered even the basic question. And the qualifiers are certainly valid as both references support the official conspiracy, not my view. You should be happy with the clarification. Refines the issue, as Eagar and FEMA are presumably credible sources from your skeptical POV. If you can't address that question, let's explore a slightly different one. How many steel framed buildings have completely collapsed into their own footprint after seven hours of fire? That should be simpler for you. Live load v static load... Seems you are trying to put words in my mouth. Skillings clearly stated the design capabilities were much more than the normal load the perimeter columns and trusses carried. The Roth review supports that view. Which is, what I also stated. Smarmy insults are also telling of your insecurity... just a thought. by Stephen Demetriou (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 183 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Jan 31, 2008 at 8:03:49 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: loads
Live load v static load... Seems you are trying to put words in my mouth. Skillings clearly stated the design capabilities were much more than the normal load the perimeter columns and trusses carried. The Roth review supports that view. Which is, what I also stated. For any given column, there is a value called the critical buckling load. This value is dependant on a number of factors, including the modulus of elasticity, the geometry and the column length. The formula to calculate this value is called Euler’s law. The interesting thing is that, all other things being equal, the critical buckling load is proportional to the inverse square of the column length (i.e. it is an inverse square law). This means that if you double the effective column length, the critical buckling load is reduced by a factor of 4, or to 25% of its original value. If you triple the effective column length, the critical buckling load is reduced by a factor of 9, or to 11 % of its original value. In the WTC towers, the effective length of the columns were defined by the connections to the floor slabs. Once the floors became disconnected, or began to sag, the critical buckling load of the columns was reduced accordingly. by Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 350 comments) on Thursday, Jan 31, 2008 at 1:18:31 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Loads
Thanks. Actually if you read through the entire thread you pointed out, starting with Newtons Bit, on page 5 or 6 your cohorts make a pretty good argument why Euler's Law is not applicable in this case. Perhaps if you look at the whole building, but at just the core columns, no. Had to do with the structure of the columns, not being long, skinny, and one piece, I believe. There is another calculation that was talked about which I don't recall exactly. The whole thread was very interesting, although I have not yet been swayed against the controlled demo hypothesis. I am a commercial photographer with a chemistry background, so the calculations were outlines to me. I am not qualified to debate the relative merits of Eulers' vs some other formula. But I did follow the basic discussion and know enough about physics to make some judgments. by Stephen Demetriou (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 183 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Jan 31, 2008 at 1:36:04 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Wow
This is the most increadibly stupid thing you have said so far As the Skilling quote shows, the floor trusses were not designed only to hold the static weight of the floors above, but were designed to withstand significantly more live load. Do you really thing that the live loads were greater than the static loads? by Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 350 comments) on Wednesday, Jan 30, 2008 at 6:28:17 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: WTC 7
was not struck by an airplane. Answer the question, if you can. by Stephen Demetriou (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 183 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 30, 2008 at 8:58:39 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: I did, You did.
It was struck by pieces of WTC q when that building collapsed. There is verifiable evidence of structural damage. Neither you, nor anyone else in the truth movement is qualified to say that that damage, plus the subsequent 7 hour, unfought fire was insufficient to cause the collapse. Period, end of the discussion. by Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 350 comments) on Wednesday, Jan 30, 2008 at 12:02:17 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: huh?
Oh well, you really proved your point, didn't you? As a skeptic, I would have expected alittle more than that... by Stephen Demetriou (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 183 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 30, 2008 at 12:16:29 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Not my job
You are the skeptic here. May I remind you of the title to your article? How I Came To Distrust the Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory It is up to you, not me to prove you points. Provide the calculations and the proof that the structural damage and fires were insufficient to cause the collapse of WTC 7. It is your job to provide the proof, not mine. by Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 350 comments) on Wednesday, Jan 30, 2008 at 12:53:20 PM (0+)
|
|
Gordon Ross is an idiot
Debunking the idiot: by Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 350 comments) on Wednesday, Jan 30, 2008 at 6:24:31 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Newton's Bit
Interesting paper, but not convincing to me. I think the crux of my disagreement might be found in his statement: "A question might still remain for some readers as to why so much of the concrete in the tower was turned into a fine particulate dust. The answer to that question lies not in the impact of one floor against another floor, but in the eventual impact of the entire structure into the ground. At that point, almost all of the available kinetic energy will be converted into internal energies." Observing vast billowing dust clouds immediately at the very first visible signs of movement in the upper mass indicates a significant amount of energy went directly and immediately into pulverization of concrete. The observation of large sections of debris being thrown laterally IMMEDIATELY after initiation of collapse also necessitates a large loss of potential and kinetic energy bearing on the structure below. Ross mentions this effect, though due to the chaotic nature doesn't include it in his calculations, if I understand his method correctly. Not including it favors your Newt's argument, but still Ross shows energies in the upper mass are not sufficient to overcome the resistance from below. The tipping of the upper stories seen in the first collapse, and the IMMEDIATE billowing of dust, presumably from compression and ejection, is nonsensical if only gravitational forces are at work. There would be a relieving of tension in the area the mass is tipping away from. Instead we see a great billowing of dust and debris, exemplary of explosive effects, not compression of floors and ejection of dust. Nice try, but I don't buy it. by Stephen Demetriou (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 183 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Jan 31, 2008 at 8:22:39 AM (0+)
|
|
One more note about Dr. Steven Jones
Dr. Jones has . . .confirmed the presence of once-molten iron spheres the USGS discovered in dust samples. These samples contain evidence suggestive of explosives: sulfur, aluminum, barium, manganese, with other compounds, in unusually high concentrations. Here are a couple of interesting critiques (peer reviews, if you will) of Jones latest paper. Anyway, that's the nuts and bolts of it. Jones has done an excellent job of writing a report that gives the appearance of scientific validity with absolutely no science to back it up. He has utterly neglected standardized analysis methods, ignored forensic evidence gathering techniques, and has based his argument on nothing more than his personal opinion. There is absolutely no reason to accept any of Jones's conclusions or results This dancing around about thermite residues in the WTC dust samples is really pathetic! by Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 350 comments) on Wednesday, Jan 30, 2008 at 8:43:14 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: his high temperatures mean NOTHING!
Except there is the problem of where did the energy come from that created not one, but three generalized areas of flowing molten iron and steel, flowing like lava as the first responders said, in that basements and that persisted for 100 days. Maybe Newt has an opinion on that. Or yourself perhaps, Roark? by Stephen Demetriou (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 183 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Jan 31, 2008 at 8:35:17 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: WRONG
The problem is, there were no "pools' or rivers of flowing, molten iron. Certainly not 100 days later. There were areas of extremely hot, smoldering fires that persisted under the rubble. There is nothing unusual about that. by Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 350 comments) on Thursday, Jan 31, 2008 at 11:31:43 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: no molten metal
except there was. That is the crux of your arguments. Of course there can be no molten metal, you have no way to explain it. But here are several sources that say differently: A report by Waste Age describes New York Sanitation Department workers moving "everything from molten steel beams to human remains." 2 A report on the Government Computer News website quotes Greg Fuchek, vice president of sales for LinksPoint Inc. as stating: A Messenger-Inquirer report recounts the experiences of Bronx firefighter "Toolie" O'Toole, who stated that some of the beams lifted from deep within the catacombs of Ground Zero by cranes were "dripping from the molten steel." 4 A transcription of an audio interview of Ground Zero chaplain Herb Trimpe contains the following passage: A report in the Johns Hopkins Public Health Magazine about recovery work in late October quotes Alison Geyh, Ph.D., as stating: A publication by the National Environmental Health Association quotes Ron Burger, a public health advisor at the National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, who arrived at Ground Zero on the evening of September 12th. Burger stated: An article in The Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah describing an speaking appearance by Leslie Robertson (structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center) contains this passage: A member of the New York Air National Guard's 109th Air Wing was at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6. He kept a journal on which an article containing the following passage is based. The book American Ground, which contains detailed descriptions of conditions at Ground Zero, contains this passage: A review of of the documentary Collateral Damage in the New York Post describes firemen at Ground Zero recalling "heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel." 11 1. Fire Power: It Took Three Lawyers to Stop the Destruction of CDI Inc., The Daily Record, 10/7/00 Not all of these links may still be active, but you get the idea. Well documented. And again, of course, you have to deny it. It makes a shambles of your story. The Lawrance Berkeley labs estimated several million gallons of water were used on the resulting molten mass and fires. https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/241096.pdf by Stephen Demetriou (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 183 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Jan 31, 2008 at 12:07:30 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Except there wasn't
The molten metal evidence was fabricated to lead people down the wrong path. See here for a full analysis of the evidence: by CB Brooklyn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 465 comments [18 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Sunday, Feb 3, 2008 at 10:24:22 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: many words signifying nothing...
Doctored photos because of "intensity" adjustments...? I am a commercial photographer with 10 years experience working in Photoshop and "doctoring" photos for use in print advertisements. The claims made on the site you reference are ridiculous and meaningless. They are cheap attacks on something the authors no very little about. The photo of a group of firefigthers huddled around an intense glow has been adjusted digitally to correct the white balance. The second photo of the same scene looks more natural colorwise because the values have been neutralized to more closely resemble natural light spectrum. The claims of the press being manipulated to create an impression of molten metal in the basements is a classic... That tactic of defamation is usually ascribed to the truth movement, not to the official conspiracy supporters. Nice try, but completely unconvincing... by Stephen Demetriou (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 183 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Feb 4, 2008 at 7:00:25 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: fireman's huddle
Is is inconsistent to remove a photo if a legitimate concern can be raised about it's authenticity? Is that a sign of deception or of integrity? by Stephen Demetriou (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 183 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Feb 4, 2008 at 7:47:57 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Get with the program, man...
Pitting one independent investigator of the cover up against another doesn't help your, or my, cause. by Stephen Demetriou (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 183 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Feb 4, 2008 at 7:50:38 AM (0+)
|
|
Thanks, Roark
Always good to hear what the young turks at Randi.org are fumbling around with. "the appearance of scientific validity with absolutely no science to back it up..." I guess the journal that has accepted a companion paper of the same content will have to sort that one out. by Stephen Demetriou (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 183 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Jan 31, 2008 at 7:37:53 AM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
