by JamesThomas 68 Replies latest members politics
Yes and UFO was right next to towers before they collapsed. Hey, meybe UFO actually gave them a last nudge before building collapsed
Conspiracy theoriests seems to ignore one minor thing if plain didn't hit, were are then people that were on that plane?
First, thanks Abaddon, for your input; it has spurred me on to look deeper into this than I might have.
I am not trying to shy away from anything you have brought up. I just needed to come back to the original ideas and move on from there -- as I'm trying to look at what is for me a very complex and important issue, and not get too confused.
So, in regards to Jones' paper you said: "Well you are making the mistake AGAIN of assuming the presence of a question or challenge MEANS something."
It means something (as far as an honest proposal for further investigation) if the questions arise from a credible source and are scientifically falsifiable. Professor Jones' peer-reviewed analyses does fall into this court. He is not saying the buildings were unquestionably helped along by explosives; but rather presents valid evidence that suggests such. Evidence which requires scientific examinations to see what can, or can not, be revealed. So, on it's own it doesn't mean much, it's the valid conclusions which are important.
It seems to me that if the situation was hypothetically tweaked so that the same evidential questions Jones puts forth would strengthen the argument for the official story, then these very same observations would be extremely important and so automatically and thoroughly be examined by the officials. But instead they are discounted at the wave of a hand as "conspiracy theory". Why?
Steven Jones' paper focuses on thirteen phenomena occurring during and after the collapses which he painstakingly shows could all occur via planted explosives. Have all his points truly been nullified and shown groundless by the official explanations? I'm looking, and this is what I'm finding:
1. Molten Metal
There are reports of uncommon molten mental within the rubble piles of all three collapsed buildings. Jones maintains that this would be consistent with high temperature cutter charges; and goes into chemical detail as to why this is so.
As far as I can find (still looking), the official accounts from the 9/11 Commission, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), regarding the molten metal is......they do not address the molten metal. It does not seem too far fetched to assume that an open and honest investigation would leave no stone unturned. However it seems that the official dogma begins their investigations at already-defined-conclusions, which is: planes hit the buildings and damage from the planes is the sole reason which brought them down. How can honest and open investigation happen closed?
Jones simply and straight forwardly asks for an analysis of the previously-molten metal by a qualified scientific panel. That does not sound crazy to me. It sounds like something an honest and valid investigation would do naturally without having to be prodded. Whats the problem?
2. Observed Temperatures around 1000C (1860F) and Sulfidation in WTC7 Steel
In another peer-reviewed paper by Professors Barnett, Biederman and Sisson, relating to the WTC collapses titled "An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Stell from WTC Building 7" found here: http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html it is stated that an unexplained erosion of the steel warranted study and that it was found that the steel beam somehow reached temperatures of 1000C as a result of heating with oxidation in combination with melting due to the presence of sulfur.
Jones suggests that there is a "straightforward way to achieve 1000°C temperatures (and well above) in the presence of sulfur, and that is to use thermate (or a similar variation of thermite). Thermate is a high-level thermite analog containing sulfur developed by the military..."
So far that I have found, the official story is that the FEMA report calls for further metallurgic investigations, and Barnett, Biederman and Sisson hope that WPI will obtain NIST funding and access to more samples. They are continuing their microscopic studies on the samples prepared by graduate student Jeremy Bernier and Marco Fontecchio, the 2001-02 Helen E. Stoddard Materials Science and Engineering Fellow. (Next year's Stoddard Fellow, Erin Sullivan, will take up this work as part of her graduate studies.) Publication of their results may clear up some mysteries that have confounded the scientific community. These are their words, not mine. It seems there are others besides Jones who are confounded.
I have read that according to the FEMA report sulfidation was also observed in samples found in the WTC Towers as well (reported in Appendix C of FEMA report). I have yet to check that out for myself.
Jones, again, feels this is compelling evidence to warrant serious investigation; which it seems even the official FEMA agrees with him in this instance.
3. Near-Symmetrical Collapse of WTC7.
Basically a steel building with grossly asymmetrical damage has never collapsed symmetrically, until 9/11, and not since. Symmetrical collapse is the main reason and purpose of precision demolitions. For this obvious reason alone Jones feels there is warrant for further investigations to see if explosives were used. In other words when you here the sound of hooves it's best to expect horses rather than zebras.
So whats the official story on WTC7's symmetrical collapse that has so efficiently silenced the masses. First, the 9/11 Commission says: nothing, they don't mention it. FEMA, says: "The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel (which they feel is the reason) on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue." Now what NIST has to say is more intriguing as they have a huge amount of data here http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/reports_june05.htm
They have come upwith a hypotheses of "progressive collapse", but have no final word on it; and have farmed it out to Applied Research Associates, Inc. of Albuquerque, New Mexico to research and provide WTC7 structural analysis and collapse hypotheses. So it's still up in the air. Interesting that total symmetrical collapse of a steel building without explosives is as rare as "aliens" and "Nessy" (in other words it has never happened); while hundreds of steel buildings have completely collapsed due to explosives. So it seems that it is the official theory which deviates from what is ordinary and numeric fact, and offers the masses an account which amounts to "aliens did it".
Interesting I found in one of the NIST papers here: http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/ncst/sept2005_meeting/SunderNCSTAC(2)091205%20final.pdf were they say they have so far found no evidence of explosives. Interesting that would come out of the blue, because so far I find no mention in the ton of NIST pages I have looked through that implies explosives are considered in their tests and investigations. It's not all that difficult to not find what your not looking for.
I don't have time to go beyond Jones #3 today, and am not certain when I can post more.
An interesting side note is pictures of the core structure of the Towers in the NIST files, which give a clear idea of how massive the cores where. It was the cores which held the Towers up and were responsible for the vertical forces. Much of the data released via mass media is very misleading as to their size and importance. It is the cores which had to be severely compromised in order for the Towers to fall. Perhaps I will make a separate post about this at another time. I need to study it more myself as it's new to me.
j
Seems to me that a camera would have to be running at pretty high speed in order to catch something moving at 400 miles per hour. So maybe the lack of a frame containing a picture of a plane isn't so remarkable after all..
I can tell you a bit about the construction of the pentagon as I have seen similar structures on military bases all over the United States. To use a phrase, "It is hell for stout". Grossly overdesigned during a period when concrete was cheap and structural design equations not very precise. Moreover, its design lends itself to stability due to its shape. A structure like that could take a really big hit and not show too much damage. A more modern structure would have been completely decimated.
The World Trade Center has a unique structural design with most of the support columns on the exterior of the building and a central core for utilites, elevators, etc.. Unfortunately, this type of design lends itself to "pancaking" if the connection of the slab and the columns is weakened due to heat or impact. The floors connections below the point of impact were not designed to withstand the impact load of the slabs above crashing on top. At least that is what I understand from the American Society of Civil Engineers report on the failure. I remember many years ago when "lift slab" construction was very popular. Slabs were placed on the ground and then jacked into place. After several tragedies due to "pancaking" the method fell out of favor.
JamesThomas
It means something (as far as an honest proposal for further investigation) if the questions arise from a credible source and are scientifically falsifiable.
Now we're getting somewhere; yes, and not to put to fine a point on it, yes (I like agreeing with people too you know
Professor Jones' peer-reviewed analyses does fall into this court.
Errr... peer-reviewed? By WHOM?!
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 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."
As for credible - this guy believes in Golden Plates for Pete's sake. That's a Caveat Emptor, not an ad hom! He is also OUT of his specialisation; he is NOT an engineer, he is NOT a fire expert. I've posted a article from a fire expert who is also an engineer... that's credible...
But anyway, the list of Challenges;
Molten Metal;
1/ The 'glowing plate lifted by a digger' photo has no provinance; there is no proof that this is of the WTC rubble.
2/ As already commented on, 'eye-witness' testimony seems to be second or third hand. In cases, journalistic prose (talking about molten metal) around a quote by an eye witness (saying they said no one would get out alive) have been mistaken by Conspiracists as the eye wtiness stating there was molten metal, so eager are they to support their claims.
3/ Some people making these molten metal claims also make false claims about the rapid clearing of metal from the site; either they're lying or their competence must be called into question.
4/ Molten metal could quite belivably form in the insulated-furnace like conditions of the rubble heap.
5/ No hard evidence.
6/ From the Physics thread you linked to;
Regarding the mysterious melt coming out of WTC 2: I posted on this previously. Since the visuals have been color adjusted by NIST to accurately display on a typical rgb computer monitor, we can have good confidence in the colors. The melt slowly solidifies and breaks off into whitish pieces of slag at the bottom. This suggests a mixture of aluminum and lots of other stuff, such as spalled cement from the concrete floor. Now pure aluminum is not, even approximately, a black body radiator, but the mixture of embedded materials probably is approximately a black body. So the colors suggest that the melt is yellow hot. This is not hot enough to melt iron, which melts at an intense yellow-hot temperature. Also, aluminum is a good conductor of heat while iron is only moderately so. If the melt coming out the window of WTC 2 has mainly iron, I believe one would see a much longer, narrower stream. Further, the melt has clearly cooled along each side. This also indicates aluminum. Finally, once the melt cools, it is whitish. Iron is blackish when cool.
Others, with more expertise than I possess on this matter, have also concluded that the material is largely aluminum. I believe this is in the FEMA report.
Thus the presense of molten metal IN NO WAY invalidates the official story.
Observed Temperatures c. 1000 C
Haven't you read the multitude of explanations of high temerature hot-spots? I laugh when I read some Conspiracist stuff that is so poorly though out they don't know the high temeratures reached in NORMAL office fires due to all the palstics present. Add in things like lithium fires, torching from O2 cylinders from the plane, heat failure of the dozens of sodium chlorate O2 generators (releasing O2 and heat). The temperature known for the rubble pile are SURACE temperatures which is again something most Conspiracists say nowt about.
Thus temperatures c.100 C IN NO WAY invalidates the offical story
Near-Symmetrical Collapse of WTC7
So? If you factor in the building visually developed a kink before collapse, and also triggered movement sensors placed by the fire service to detect possible collapse over an hour before the collapse, then this pre-collapse movement is FULLY consistent with a progressive collapse caused by fire, not a demolition. There is no demolition theory that would allow for both, especially as the chance of a 'perfect' controlled demoltion would be greatly reduced due to charges being cut off from the firing network by fire or omapct damage, or otherwise rendered ineffective.
As for bulidings falling in their footprint, this is all about Centre of gravity. They are not trees which fall over when cut at the base. When a building starts to collapse the out-of-balance forces cause further structural failures destroying the vertical integrity of the structure and making the building pancake in a suprisingly compact fashion. For WTC 1 and 2 it's calaculated the top would have to be 100m out of alignment with its base to cause the towers c-of-g to be far enough out to fall significantly out of its footprint. That's another FACT the Conspiracists don't mention; as Jones et.al. are not engineers, they're ignorant of it.
Thus a symetrical collapse IN NO WAY invalidates the offical story.
More links for you;
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/index.htm
This site is prety fab.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/
Another good one.
And now one that seriously makes the claim about aliens I jokingly made, as light relief;
http://ufonauci.w.interia.pl/wtc.htm
Carry on your reseach James, and good luck. Please review the links supplied thoroughly as they really do leave most Conspiracist theories in disarray or the trash can.
Oh, with respect your comments regarding the cores are just wrong; please review the relevent item at the above link http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/index.htm
Oh, I can't resist this; more of Professor Jones's work;
Errr... peer-reviewed? By WHOM?!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 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."
If you continue to read further down on the Wikipedia link you provided, is says: "In April 2006, BYU removed those statements from their website following a letter saying that Jones' paper was, indeed, peer reviewed."
As for credible - this guy believes in Golden Plates for Pete's sake. That's a Caveat Emptor, not an ad hom! He is also OUT of his specialisation; he is NOT an engineer, he is NOT a fire expert. I've posted a article from a fire expert who is also an engineer... that's credible...
Rather than personal attaches, does the peer-reviewed paper from an accredited and employed Physics Professor show merit? I agree there are credible people who appose him. But again, let's get back to the paper.
The remainder of your post, in your words, comes down to:
And I agree; and would add: nor does the official arguments and theory IN NO WAY invalidate Jones' hypotheses. There is no solid proof one way or the other.Thus the presense of molten metal IN NO WAY invalidates the official story.
Thus temperatures c.100 C IN NO WAY invalidates the offical story
Thus a symetrical collapse IN NO WAY invalidates the offical story.
I am visiting the links you provided, and others when there is the time.
Reducing it down to it's simplest, this is what I see so far:
Professor Jones presents valid falsifiable evidence that is in compliance to known characteristics of planned demolitions. The officials present valid falsifiable evidence that implies that the official story (no planned demolitions) is correct.
What's the truth? What happened on that day?
Viewing this in the light of the fact that n
ever before or since 9/11 have steel buildings undergone complete collapse that were not demolitions, it seems reality and probability are on the side of Jones, giving supportive reason to seriously consider his hypothesis; credible and actual history that the official side does not have. Not to deny 9/11 was a highly unusual event.I think the main reason most refuse to consider Jones, is not so much scientific, but rather psychological. The ramifications are, for most of us, too painful, too alien, to consider.
So, as of now, with all the material from both sides of the issue that I have read -- with an open and critical mind -- I feel strongly that to get to the undeniable truth, an unbiased scientific analysis taking in serious consideration of modern high precision demolitions is in order. That said, I'm still looking.
j
Abaddon, the link you posted above of Jones', is admittedly disheartening. However, I too had weird religious beliefs once -- I was a JW for gawd sake. Yet, it didn't seem to impair all my reasoning faculties... though I can't be totally sure about that. Perhaps further scientific analysis is in order. Have to add it to the list.
If they ever locate a common religious center of the brain, I think they will find it most often suffers from significant oxygen deprivation.
j
JamesThomas
"... following a letter saying that Jones' paper was, indeed, peer reviewed."
By WHOM?
Rather than personal attaches, does the peer-reviewed paper from an accredited and employed Physics Professor show merit? I agree there are credible people who appose him. But again, let's get back to the paper.
There's a difference between looking at someone's credibility in general ("he believes in golden plates!!")and an ad hom ("his feet smell of cheese and he can't read"); as I said, Caveat Emptor; buyer beware. If his standards of evidence are so out of whack he believes in JC holidaying in the Americas, does it fill you with trust about his other beliefs?
And I agree; and would add: nor does the official arguments and theory IN NO WAY invalidate Jones' hypotheses. There is no solid proof one way or the other.
Errr... they have the fact two planes hit the building, and the fact reasonable models of the event show the collapse was inevitable given the damage caused.
Like I said, it could be UFO's. It could be thermite. Can't disprove either. The official theory in no was invalidates either of those claims. THAT doesn't mean either of those claims are worth a damn. This is where (I am saying this in a nice way) I think you're making a mistake by taking a claim as neccesarily meaning anything. The Conspiracist claims really don't stand up well to examination.
The official story explains the events of the collapses very well. It is supported in exquisite detail by photographs showing the various distortions of floors et. al. just as the model predicts. The fact the colum was the last thing to collapse validates the offcial theory and rules out demolition.
I also believed weird shit. I also got out, as did you.
I would choke on my tongue laughing at the bull I would have to listen to if I was called upon by my 22 year-old Dubbie self.
I am sure Professor Jones, if he shook off the paradigms that dominate his thinking, would laugh himself stupid if he engaged his younger self in discussion.
"Disheartening"... sweet, a rather nice way of putting it...
Oh, I had to laugh this evening - the new admissions by Osama about 9/ll... having seen assured statements on a dozen websites previous admissions were faked as part of the Conspiracy around the USA being implicitly involved in planning and executing 9/11 and pushing it on to Osama, I can't wait for their updates...
... because you see, just as what WE used to believe in wasn't about evidence (now we actually know what real evidence is), so to there are totally secular people with beliefs that aren't really about the evidence... they're about a belief. And beliefs remain fundamentally the same no matter what evidence is heaped against them.
All the best, enjoy the research...
Gyles
http://infowars.com/print/patriot_act/alexs_analysis.htm ; ;; Take a look at that and see just how "democracy" was at work ...................................&
Using the higher authority fallacy, Heathen?
You don't have to refute my ideas. Just post a link to some website, and you think you have refuted me?
I always thought that the passport flittering it's way down to safety out of a fireball was a joke. And within a few months it became clear that the US government now had a great excuse to go to war to secure access to some of the world's last oil reserves. So I've had a lingering cynicism about the events, but more of a grief; whether the conspiracy theories are true or not, there's still a group of people powerful enough to pull off massive acts of horror to achieve what they want. I don't think it matters who that group really was, and we all know that we'll never find out.
