911 Pentagon Video Released

[kilo39]

oh Prometheus that is the best yet. !!! (Suck my rocket dirtwad!!)

Sane People: 0 Kooks: 3

 

[Highflyer_GP]

Two fantasies in one line! Where is kilo to research this gf consipracy?

My my, just because you don't get laid and have to resort to name-calling people on a forum, doesn't mean you need to take out your frustrations on me I can see why you're not getting any attention from the opposite sex judging by your general attitude on this thread.

Anyway back on topic, and as promised. If you're going to say that this is too long to read then stop right here and don't post any further because nobody wants to read your retarded one-sided views without you taking into account the views of others.

I refer you to a paper by Prof. Steven E. Jones, physicist at Brigham Young University.
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
Note that this paper has been peer reviewed, and everything stated therein is approached from a scientific angle. One can therefore rest assured that it's a credible source of information. If anybody has anything to say on the contrary, then please disprove anything stated using an equally scientific approach. None of that "Prof at MIT said it so I believe him" crap.
Firstly:

Molten Metal: Flowing and in Pools

There are several published observations of molten metal in the basements of all three buildings, WTC 1, 2 (“Twin Towers”) and 7. For example, Dr. Keith Eaton toured Ground Zero and stated in The Structural Engineer,

‘They showed us many fascinating slides’ [Eaton] continued, ‘ranging from molten metal which was still red hot weeks after the event, to 4-inch thick steel plates sheared and bent in the disaster’. (Structural Engineer, September 3, 2002, p. 6; emphasis added.)

The government reports admit that the building fires were insufficient to melt steel beams -- then where did the molten metal pools come from? Metals expert Dr. Frank Gayle (working with NIST) stated:

Your gut reaction would be the jet fuel is what made the fire so very intense, a lot of people figured that's what melted the steel. Indeed it did not, the steel did not melt. (Field, 2005; emphasis added.)

None of the official reports tackles this mystery. Yet this is evidently a significant clue to what caused the Towers and WTC 7 to collapse. So an analysis of the composition of the previously-molten metal is required by a qualified scientific panel. This could well become an experiment crucis.

Prof. Thomas Eagar explained in 2001 that the WTC fires would NOT melt steel:
"The fire is the most misunderstood part of the WTC collapse. Even today, the media report (and many scientists believe) that the steel melted. It is argued that the jet fuel burns very hot, especially with so much fuel present. This is not true.... The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel.

In combustion science, there are three basic types of flames, namely, a jet burner, a pre-mixed flame, and a diffuse flame.... In a diffuse flame, the fuel and the oxidant are not mixed before ignition, but flow together in an uncontrolled manner and combust when the fuel/oxidant ratios reach values within the flammable range. A fireplace is a diffuse flame burning in air, as was the WTC fire. Diffuse flames generate the lowest heat intensities of the three flame types... The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1000 °C -- hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1500 °C."

"But it is very difficult to reach [even] this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio... This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500 °C to 650 °C range [Cote, 1992]. It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke.... It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425 °C and loses about half of its strength at 650 °C [Cote, 1992]. This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse... The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable... Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650 °C fire." (Eagar and Musso, 2001; emphasis added.)

So perhaps the sheep believing the official reports can explain how molten steel was found on ground level days after the collapse? Not even among the wreckage of the building, but right at the bottom?

No Previous Skyscraper Collapse Due to Fires

Experts said no building like it [WTC7], a modern, steel-reinforced high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire. (Glanz, 2001; emphasis added.)

Fire engineering expert Norman Glover agrees:

Almost all large buildings will be the location for a major fire in their useful life. No major high-rise building has ever collapsed from fire…

The WTC [itself] was the location for such a fire in 1975; however, the building survived with minor damage and was repaired and returned to service.” (Glover, 2002)

So no building has ever collapsed due to fires before or after 9/11, yet somehow they not only collapsed on that day, but they did so with such symmetrical precision which only occurs under controlled implosion.

Early Drop of North Tower Antenna
A NY Times article also notes this behavior:
The building stood for more than an hour and a half. Videos of the north tower's collapse appear to show that its television antenna began to drop a fraction of a second before the rest of the building. The observations suggest that the building's steel core somehow gave way first… (Glanz and Lipton, 2002; emphasis added).

But how? What caused the 47 enormous steel core columns of this building which supported the antenna to evidently give way nearly simultaneously, if not cutter charges?

The anomalous early antenna-drop was noted by the FEMA report (FEMA, 2002) and the New York Times (Glanz and Lipton, 2002) yet not resolved in the official reports (FEMA, 2002; Commission, 2004; NIST, 2005). The NIST report notes that:

...photographic and videographic records taken from due north of the WTC 1 collapse appeared to indicate that the antenna was sinking into the roof {McAllister 2002}.

Hmmm, so it's noted that the antenna was sinking into the roof before the actual collapse occurred. The evidence suggets that there's no way that this is possible that so many large structures can simultaneously give way. It's even been noted in the FEMA and NIST report, yet no clarification is provided as to how this occurred.

Ejection of Steel Beams and Debris-plumes from the Towers
The horizontal ejection of structural steel members for hundreds of feet and the pulverization of concrete to flour-like powder, observed clearly in the collapses of the WTC towers, provide further evidence for the use of explosives.

I refer you to http://www.implosionworld.com/cinema.htm to see exactly how an implosion is carried out. If the flames (as claimed) are responsible for the collapse of the building, how do you explain the debris emitted horizontally just before the collapse of the building? Unless and explosion from within occurred?

Rapid Collapses and Conservation of Momentum and Energy
We observe that approximately 30 upper floors begin to rotate as a block, to the south and east. They begin to topple over, not fall straight down. The torque due to gravity on this block is enormous, as is its angular momentum. But then – and this I’m still puzzling over – this block turned mostly to powder in mid-air! How can we understand this strange behavior, without explosives? Remarkable, amazing – and demanding scrutiny since the US government-funded reports failed to analyze this phenomenon. But, of course, the Final NIST 9-11 report “does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached.” (NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 1; emphasis added.)

Indeed, if we seek the truth of the matter, we must NOT ignore the data to be observed during the actual collapses of the towers, as the NIST team admits they did. But why did they follow such a non-scientific procedure as to ignore highly-relevant data?

So indeed, by their own admission, they're saying that they provided us with the cause, but not the effect. In other words, they're blaming the fire for causing the collapse (which is already bull), and then also deliberately fail to explain how the upper 30 stories tilted at an angle, but instead of gravity inducing an angular torque hence giving it momentum, it just magically turned into powder in mid-air before falling towards the centre? Care to explain how the laws of physics were violated if it weren't for explosive charges?

 

[Highflyer_GP]

Steel Column Temperatures of 800°C Needed
A Mechanical Engineering professor suggested that I review a paper by Zedenek P. Bazant and Yong Zhou, which I did. Quoting:

The 110-story towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand as a whole the forces caused by a horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft. So why did a total collapse occur? (Bazant and Zhou, 2002, p. 2.)

Correct – the WTC Towers were designed to withstand forces caused by large commercial aircraft – we can agree on that. MIT’s Thomas Eagar also concurs “because the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure” (Eagar and Musso, 2001).

We continue with Bazant & Zhou:
The conflagration, caused by the aircraft fuel spilled into the structure, causes the steel of the columns to be exposed to sustained temperatures apparently exceeding 800ºC… (Bazant and Zhou, 2002, p. 2.)

Moreover, the Final NIST report on the Towers admits:
Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250ºC… Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC. ... Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC. (NIST, 2005, pp. 176-177; emphasis added.)

So according to the NIST report, they have succeeded in shooting themselves in the foot. It should be noted that air temperature and surface temperatures are two totally different things. NIST themselves conceed that there is no evidence that the columns temperatures reached more than 600 degrees centigrade. How then did these columns melt if this temperature was within it's melting point.

I can quote more cases from the article, but you would be doing yourself a favour to actually read the whole thing as it contains pictures and videos relevant to the discussion. We're not even taking into account here that WTC was never hit by a plane yet it too collapsed in the same manner that WTC1 and WTC2 did. If you're too lazy to read through it or cannot prove otherwise, then don't comment any further because then you're just wasting everybody's time. It should also be noted that your guy from MIT is quoted a lot in this article, and his statements are actually used to prove against the official explanation.

EDIT: kilo39 you may add one more to the kooks
EDIT2: didn't realise that Prometheus beat me to the link Well done, nice, credible source of information.

 

[kilo39]

Well - the kooks score just went linear.

And I remind you all of my original link: http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/soldier5.htm

 

[Highflyer_GP]

Quite the guy... his own university doesn't support him:

The BYU physics department has also issued a statement: "The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones's hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones's department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review." The Fulton College of Engineering and Technology department has also added, "The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones."

So - there you have it - CONSENSUS scientific opinion still doesn't agree with you.

Edit: Another cool theory by this "non-kook" professor: Behold My Hands: Evidence for Christ's Visit in Ancient America . Yup - he is precisely the scientist I would want backing up my theory... it is all gold, I told yah... he even quotes the Book of Mormon, which makes him the least kooky prof I know.

The following piece of information is not stated in the wiki article prior to the actual discreditation of the professor:

[The following was posted at the web site of the BYU Fulton College of Engineering and Technology from November 2005 to April 2006, when it was removed without explanation.]

The reason the universities stance on the matter was removed could possibly have to do with this:

[Letter from Prof. McGinn to the Dean of the BYU Fulton College of Engineering and Technology, March 27, 2006]:

March 27, 2006

Alan R. Parkinson, Dean

Fulton College of Engineering and Technology

270 CB

Brigham Young University

Provo, UT 84602

Dear Dean Parkinson,

I am writing to you both as an individual and a member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth (ST911.org). At issue is a statement posted on the Engineering College’s web site that is harmful to the career and reputation of BYU physicist Steven Jones.

The web site makes three questionable statements. First, it implies that Dr. Jones’ in-progress research into the physics of the 9/11 attacks in New York has not yet been subjected to a relevant and sufficiently rigorous peer review process.

Second, it states without substantiation: "The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones." If they really mean this, the engineers should defend the official FEMA and NIST reports which Jones challenges, giving specifics.

Third, it names Dr. Jones’ own department as complicit in all of this, and in particular, that the Physics Department is "not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review."

I hereby request the Engineering College to remove the offending statement from its web site. At the very least, the College should remove the reference to Dr. Jones’ home department on the basis of the following, new, information. One of Dr. Jones’s research papers ["Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?"] has undergone relevant and sufficient peer-review, and has been accepted for publication in a book to appear later this year, titled "9/11 and the American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out" (Northampton, Mass: Olive Branch Press, 2006), edited by David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott. In fact, as you may know, this paper had been peer reviewed for a publication by Elsevier Press. But after the stated concerns about "rigorous technical peer review," the paper was withdrawn and submitted to a different publication and peer reviewed again. One of the editors, while maintaining anonymity of the reviewers, disclosed that four PhDs reviewed this paper, two of whom were physicists (and thus peers). Notably, even before the fact of this forthcoming, peer-reviewed publication, BYU’s Physics Department revised its own web site last fall, removing its reference to Dr. Jones’ in-progress research. Therefore, as a first step, it behooves the Engineering College to follow suit, and to remove the following passage from the web site:

"Professor Jones' department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review. The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones."

There are additional reasons for deleting the unprofessional and unethical statement. First, although I am not a member of American Society of Civil Engineers, I am permitted, according to the ASCE code, to lodge an ethics complaint against an engineer. (The ombudsman for formal complaints to ASCE is: [email protected]).

Second, no dean has the right to represent individual faculty, much less the entire faculty of BYU’s Engineering College, on the issue of whether they do (or do not) "support" a colleague’s research, whether published or in-progress. The offending statement is a breach of collegiality, and seems as well to infringe upon Professor Jones’ academic freedom.

Most poignantly, it is inconsistent with the code of ethics of the American Society of Civil Engineers, by which you, as dean of the Engineering College, are bound, given that your web site claims to represent the opinions of an entire faculty of BYU engineers. The ASCR Code states in part:

"CANON 5.

g. Engineers shall not maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly, injure the professional reputation, prospects, practice or employment of another engineer or indiscriminately criticize another's work."

If members of the College disagree with Dr. Jones' assertions in his paper that the official FEMA and NIST reports are inadequate as they stand, then they should be specific in their reasons for supporting those reports, neither of which provides (routine) visualizations for finite element analyses.

Sincerely yours,

Richard McGinn

… [email protected]

CC: ASCE Ombudsman

AAUP Committee on Academic Freedom

[The web-statement by the Engineering College was soon removed.]

Therefore I suggest that you do get your facts in order properly before blurting out the first thing that you stumble across without doing a background check regarding the authenticity of the claim, and whether it was valid or not. This is why it's important to have a paper peer-reviewed. If you've actually taken the time to read this paper instead of commenting blindly, you'd see that it states quite clearly that it's been peer-reviewed (twice!). Therefore the article that you are reading at the moment is actually the modified article after it has been peer reviewed. On a side note, what has his discussion of J3sus have to do with the discussion at hand? Do you question some of Schroddinger's flawed theories when partaking in a discussion about wavelengths? Or Einsteins failure through high school when discussing relativity?

 

[Highflyer_GP]

One of two of Ignacio's only sources of information provided in this whole thread:

http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/sciam/

Firstly which is an article written by a journalist, and not the actual peer-reviewed papers published by the academics in question. This is therefore open for misinterpretation by means of selectively quoting (as Ignacio himself is evidently so good at).

Given the lack of firm conclusions regarding how the collapses occurred, the M.I.T. panel participants asked their audience to consider various theories they put forth. In general, it was agreed that as the structure warped and weakened at the top of each tower, the frame, along with the concrete slabs, furniture, file cabinets and other materials, became an enormous consolidated weight that eventually crushed the lower portions of the structure below. The details of how the frame members failed remain under contention.

So well done Ignacio, one of your sources of information is in doubt, yet still released an official explanation without addressing this doubt.

Ignatio's second source:

http://wtc.nist.gov/

Government source, which defies the purpose of providing a credible independent (and hence unbiased) source.

Now since he's harped on me for not adding anything to this thread, I don't see exactly how he's contributed any more besides mindless name-calling of posters, and citing his stance on the matter based purely on MIT (which isn't even directly represented in the link he's provided, instead representing the views of a journalist who selectively quotes) and NIST (government - no further comment). He hasn't presented a single scientific argument, instead choosing to stand by the view of a journalist, quoting said journalist as being MIT. Until such time that he can disprove anything stated by the "kooks" in the same scientific manner as the "kooks" presented their argument, I think it stands to reason that he is in fact the real kook.

 

[ignacio]

Oh Goodies!
ignacio: "And while in a hurry to grab at straws during a hurricane I didn't bother to read any further from my link"

My, my... come home to find that the kooks are running the asylum.... never be it for me to interrupt a circle jerk (I hear HF likes the cookie the best), let me quickly point out a few things:
peer reviewing in and of itself is meaningless... where was it published? What journal accepted it? If I submit my theory that 1 + 1 = 3, it will get peer reviewed... and rejected. Then I can run around saying it was peer reviewed. Pretty brilliant, eh? The PUBLISHING is all that counts in this case... so get back to me when that kook gets this actually published by any engineering journal of worth (by the looks of it he was rejected one book - even a book that wants kooks like him rejected it... and still waiting for the other)

And - yeah - if you also read your own posts, you would see that a linguistics professor is defending him, and we have 2 mystery physicists peer reviewing.... wow convincing, his peers really backed him up on this.

I await your link to the final published, peer reviewed paper.

 

[Nom Chompsky]

LOL. I said footage, not photos from freeze frame "videos" in one second intervals showing only one frame before the explosion on which no plane is visible. Unless you count that speck of dirt which is there even after the explosion.

Yes security camera's are really going to capture a fast moving plane in minute detail . Those arn't the only frames - there's clearly other frames which I've provided earlier.

Furthermore, earlier in the thread I gave you

A) the dimensions of the plane which shows perfectly why it made that size of hole

B) Debris found on the site (not only lawn)

C) List of witnesses: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911_pentagon_eyewitnesses.html (Me 1, you = 0)

 

[Highflyer_GP]

Oh Goodies!
ignacio: "And while in a hurry to grab at straws during a hurricane I didn't bother to read any further from my link"

My, my... come home to find that the kooks are running the asylum.... never be it for me to interrupt a circle jerk (I hear HF likes the cookie the best), let me quickly point out a few things:
peer reviewing in and of itself is meaningless... where was it published? What journal accepted it? If I submit my theory that 1 + 1 = 3, it will get peer reviewed... and rejected. Then I can run around saying it was peer reviewed. Pretty brilliant, eh? The PUBLISHING is all that counts in this case... so get back to me when that kook gets this actually published by any engineering journal of worth (by the looks of it he was rejected one book - even a book that wants kooks like him rejected it... and still waiting for the other)

And - yeah - if you also read your own posts, you would see that a linguistics professor is defending him, and we have 2 mystery physicists peer reviewing.... wow convincing, his peers really backed him up on this.

I await your link to the final published, peer reviewed paper.

OMFG you are so fukcen dumb it's not even funny. Firstly you quoted the wrong person. Secondly the link you provided is less credible given that it was an article written by a journalist with no technical expertise who has to resort to random quotes to try and put his point across. Yet you're posting here like you're the most brilliant person since Einstein, talking about awaiting links to final papers etc. You never provided a single link to a final peer-reviewed paper supporting your explanation except that provided by the government. All you seem to do is back up your dumbass claim by throwing mindless insults around to compensate (or hide) for your lack of intelligence. If you can't provide some kind of proof, of which the source isn't government or a dumbass journalist, then fsck off I'm not interested in debating any further. How do you explain the universities sudden withdrawal of the statement unless they realised that they were at fault? As soon as you are able to disprove anything stated in a scientific manner, then post. Otherwise shut the fsck up, and conceed that you're at a loss for words, and thats why you have to resort to insults.

 

[Prometheus]

My, my... come home to find that the kooks are running the asylum.... never be it for me to interrupt a circle jerk (I hear HF likes the cookie the best), let me quickly point out a few things:
peer reviewing in and of itself is meaningless... where was it published? What journal accepted it? If I submit my theory that 1 + 1 = 3, it will get peer reviewed... and rejected. Then I can run around saying it was peer reviewed. Pretty brilliant, eh? The PUBLISHING is all that counts in this case... so get back to me when that kook gets this actually published by any engineering journal of worth (by the looks of it he was rejected one book - even a book that wants kooks like him rejected it... and still waiting for the other)

So just because your xenu theory was published in the wikipedia doesn't make it true. It was peer reviewed and thousands of people believe it and now because it was published you should now believe it as well as it has satisfied your standards.

And - yeah - if you also read your own posts, you would see that a linguistics professor is defending him, and we have 2 mystery physicists peer reviewing.... wow convincing, his peers really backed him up on this.

On the contrary. Who has spoken out about his work taking him on point for point as he suggested? On quack that is completely unethical in speaking for a whole department who is perfectly capable of speaking for themselves as stated by BYU. Why haven't they spoken out then, except for this quack of yours? I think I'll stick with the respectable nuclear fusion physicists and you can stick with the unethical quacks and reporters.

I await your links where he has been disproven on a point for point basis as that is the correct ethical practice.
Sane People 0:Kooks 4

 

[Prometheus]

Yes security camera's are really going to capture a fast moving plane in minute detail . Those arn't the only frames - there's clearly other frames which I've provided earlier.

Like anything can be captured on a 1fps "video"? Where is the 25fps real videos taken by the gas station camera? Oh yes, now I remember. Confiscated by the government never to be seen again. And I didn't say anything about minute details. There is not even an object in one of those frames before the explosion. Nothing. Not even a speck. And which frames did you provide earlier? Was it that 5 second 5 frame video. The one "leaked" to the public from the same camera as stated by the link you provided. Give us something new for heavens sake, not the same regurgitated stuff over and over.

There is also a list of people who didn't see a plane but something else. I think it might have been kilo who posted it, I'm not going to search for all that stuff again as you'll just make them out as kooks and update your count anyway.

Fact: Only reliable account, video footage confiscated and gone.

 

[ignacio]

Without further adieu, and since my last post was just a quick pre-bed rebuttal to our resident kooks and kookie eater, here is the a quick summary of scientific papers on the matter.

On the side of the kooks/kookie eater:
Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse? - Steven E. Jones
Publication: Internet, possibly in a purpose-built book at some stage (ETA unknown) in modified form (modifications unknown, just noted by author), BYU dismisses all responsibility (as noted by author). Unable to evaluate peer review quality since it is only published on the internet, but so far it looks like a linguistics professor, some anonymous peers, and legions of fawning kooks.
URL: http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

On the side of sane people:
Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation - Thomas W. Eagar and Christopher Musso
Publication: JOM / Minerals, Metals & Materials Society, December 2001
URL: http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
[Note to kooks: these are the scientists from MIT... so you can stop whining about my other summary]

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? — Simple Analysis. Zdenek P. Bazant and Yong Zhou
Publication: Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE, September 2001
URL: http://www3.tam.uiuc.edu/news/200109wtc/

Dissecting the Collapses
Publication: Civil Engineering, volume 72, number 5, May 2002
URL: http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline02/0502feat.html

A suggested cause of the fire-induced collapse of the World Trade Towers. J. G. Quintiere, M. di Marzo and R. Becker
Publication: Fire Safety Journal Volume 37, Issue 7 , October 2002
URL: (Abstract) http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=2a43a7e31886e9b3cefe778178398464

"Fireproofing" at the WTC Towers. roger G. Morse
Publication: Fire Engineering October, 2002
URL: http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Arti...tion=PrintTOC&ARTICLE_ID=163436&VERSION_NUM=1

I am not going to list the other “official version” papers/abstracts, since I can’t view the abstracts (I can provide a list of wanted)... and I have avoided official FEMA/NIST reports (since the government scares kookie eater)


Non-science magazine, but a good read:

THE TOWER BUILDER
Why did the World Trade Center buildings fall down when they did?
John Seabrook, The New Yorker, November, 2001
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/011119fa_FACT


So there you have it folks... one unpublished paper with unknown or questionable peer reviewers vs. numerous journal published and therefore scientifically peer-reviewed papers.

What is the score up to now? Oh... I see, this is what happens when fantacists keep score. I think we need the sane people to keep score...

So sane people: 3 (WFI debunk, Steven E. Jones debunk, no-witnesses debunk), kooks: 0

 

[neio]

I agree with Ignacio, he's points are far more lucid than any other.
My conclusion is based on the facts as he presents them.
An interesting debate can be envisioned when LG returns from his training camp in Iran. ,Jokes

 

[kilo39]

I agree with Ignacio, he's points are far more lucid than any other.
My conclusion is based on the facts as he presents them.
An interesting debate can be envisioned when LG returns from his training camp in Iran. ,Jokes

Another idiot on this thread. Read the thread from the beginning idiot - and make some valid comment - "Ignacio, he's points are far more lucid than any other." Ignacio points to "evidence", "scientific view", the "experts", and the official report. On every level his reports, diatribe is torn to bits - but we have some idiot - posting "ignacio is more lucid" - what - are you on drugs??!

Up to and including his last garbage - of which I read the first few paragraphs - and shall now describe the garbage for what it is (without wasting my time reading the rest):

THE DESIGN
The towers were designed and built in the mid-1960s through the early 1970s. They represented a new approach to skyscrapers in that they were to be very lightweight and involved modular construction methods in order to accelerate the schedule and to reduce the costs.

To a structural engineer, a skyscraper is modeled as a large cantilever vertical column. Each tower was 64 m square, standing 411 m above street level and 21 m below grade. This produces a height-to-width ratio of 6.8. The total weight of the structure was roughly 500,000 t, but wind load, rather than the gravity load, dominated the design. The building is a huge sail that must resist a 225 km/h hurricane. It was designed to resist a wind load of 2 kPa—a total of lateral load of 5,000 t.

In order to make each tower capable of withstanding this wind load, the architects selected a lightweight “perimeter tube” design consisting of 244 exterior columns of 36 cm square steel box section on 100 cm centers (see Figure 3). This permitted windows more than one-half meter wide. Inside this outer tube there was a 27 m × 40 m core, which was designed to support the weight of the tower. It also housed the elevators, the stairwells, and the mechanical risers and utilities. Web joists 80 cm tall connected the core to the perimeter at each story. Concrete slabs were poured over these joists to form the floors. In essence, the building is an egg-crate construction that is about 95 percent air,explaining why the rubble after the collapse was only a few stories high.

Uum oh yah - now shall I go back through the posts, the thread, the evidence to show you that Twin Towers was one of the most heavily constructed and engineered buildings in the world? Or - shall we just deal with this latest gem from ignacio (kook that he is?)

27 m × 40 m core

metres mind!!! Solid steel. Stressed for massive loads. If I bother to go through the postings (like an intelligent person should) - they would discover that the "official FEMA report" - says that this is impossible. Never mind the old human eyeball. 40 metres - yeah right.

Just to remind you of some elementary addition and subtraction:

1 gallon of fuel = melted 3+ tons of steel

Twin Towers = 47 minutes = 24000 gallons = 78000tons of steel = slagheap (fires burning in the basement for weeks - molten metal - glowing red hot - weeks after.) Shall I bother to do the arithmetic again - to show you how patently absurd the claim is?!

So - let's get this straight - one final time - for the idiots on this thread: it is "impossible" for 1 gallon of fuel to "melt" (or shall we use the more appropriate term "liquefy") 3+ tons of steel. Oh - and you can throw the drapes, desks and papers in there too - according to the official NIST report and experts.

And just to rub your nose in it - just in case you are incapable of coherent thought:

ignacio: peer reviewing in and of itself is meaningless...

Oh what a gem - excuse me while I pick my jaw up off the floor.

Aside: this video issue - dominic - the hysteria just gets louder. Dominic posts a video - consisting of X amount of still frames (not even the "real" video.) Having said "real video" I refer to the insipid stop frame version they are now trying to sell to us.

Have any of you noticed that the purported video - is taken from probably the most "low quality", "Low angle" camera that they could possibly find? This - at a building with the highest security in the world - crawling with cameras - but no - they huff and puff for X months - finally - when dragged screaming and protesting to court they release this "video" - the most low quality, low detail version that they could find.

Further to this - our esteemed colleague - dominic - posts links to a still frame version. BwwaaHaHa, excuse me while I pick myself up off the floor. LOL.

Here is a link to the full version: http://www.judicialwatch.org/flight77.shtml

I'm laughing so hard I'll stop here. We can tear the video apart - discuss it sensibly I hope - without derogatory comments, name calling, etc. The limit of intelligence in terms of these so-called "debunkers".

Pleeaze. Look at the video. Then we can all have a good laugh together after.

 

[Prometheus]

Was going to comment on the links by ignacio, but why bother. They have been taken apart already, ripped to shreds and shot full of holes that it's just unbelievable that any "sane" person can still refer to them or say they make any sense.

 

[mooK]

It's commonly thought that people believe exactly what they want to believe so I suppose the only question now is why Kilo39 wants to believe in this conspiracy.

 

[ignacio]

ignacio: peer reviewing in and of itself is meaningless...
Then we can all have a good laugh together after.

Should we just hold our breaths until you come up with a legitimate published paper? Why do we have to trust published experts when we can just post a lot of fantasies ourselves, you ask? Well... unless you are an engineer or expert in the domain, I couldn't care what you come up, because
a. I can't trust it (you could be making any of this up, stringing it together with half-truths/conjecture... basically all the things that kooks do, and legitimate scientists don't)
b. scientists who could scientifically debunk it, have not reviewed it. So you ask me to make my own mind up - let me get right back to you after I get a PhD in Engineering, so I can do a real peer review... puh-lease.

Meanwhile evidence a layperson CAN judge - eyewitness accounts - all 26 as provided by Dominic... is dismissed immediately by your fellow kook. hmm... eyewitness accounts are good enough for courts, but video is a requirement for kooks.

Btw this is my favourite one: Mare Ann Owens, a journalist with Gannett News Service

Yup - eyewitnesses provide a horrible hole in your story... they beat any amount of pseudo-science conjecture you can muster.

So... I will just keep waiting for real scientists while you keep laughing (as Rick James would say "Cocaine's a helluva drug.")

 

[neio]

@ kilo39

Excuse me, I did not start calling you names, please edit your post or I will start calling you names worse than idiot.

Thank you.

 

[mooK]

Kilo39, you may find this interesting, it's from the 2nd link Ignacio posted and it addresses some of the things you had a problem with.



The perimeter tube design of the WTC was highly redundant. It survived the loss of several exterior columns due to aircraft impact, but the ensuing fire led to other steel failures. Many structural engineers believe that the weak points—the limiting factors on design allowables—were the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure (see Figure 5). With a 700 Pa floor design allowable, each floor should have been able to support approximately 1,300 t beyond its own weight. The total weight of each tower was about 500,000 t.

As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.1 It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.



The full story is at http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

 

[kilo39]

ignacio: Should we just hold our breaths until you come up with a legitimate published paper? Why do we have to trust published experts when we can just post a lot of fantasies ourselves, you ask? Well... unless you are an engineer or expert in the domain, I couldn't care what you come up, because

I am going to stop reading your posts - because they do not deserve credible attention. Excuse me - for the hundredth time - I am posting your information - your credible experts - your official report - your facts. And they have been torn into a thousand shreds - but still somehow in all this - you still manage to have a lip. Somewhat more respectful - but still a lip. You also seem to have an exceedingly short memory span - so one last time - just in case you forgot the paragraph before: your experts, your report - your peer reviewed papers - which after being shown they were cr#p - you then turn around and say "peer reviewing in and of itself is meaningless... "

A laugh a minute.