Forum

profile |  register |  members |  groups |  faq |  search  login

WTC 7 analysis - is this conclusive?
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Media Lens Forum Index -> off-topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Stian



Joined: 27 Apr 2006
Posts: 10

Post Post subject: WTC 7 analysis - is this conclusive? Reply with quote

Hey guys, I just watched this analysis of the WTC7 tower collapse.

It seemed pretty convincing to me. What do you think?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVCDpL4Ax7I

Stian
Wed Aug 18, 2010 10:09 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
David Sketchley



Joined: 09 Jun 2005
Posts: 85

Post Post subject: Are you a phycisist or structural engineer? Reply with quote

Well here's former phycisist at the Lawrence Livermore Nuclear Laboratory, Manuel Garcia, Jr. and his explanations.

The Physics of 9/11
http://www.counterpunch.org/physic11282006.html

The Thermodynamics of 9/11
http://www.counterpunch.org/thermo11282006.html

The Fall of WTC 7
http://www.counterpunch.org/darkfire11282006.html

Forgetting 9/11
http://www.counterpunch.org/garcia09122007.html

911 Emergency! Calling Robert Fisk!
http://www.counterpunch.org/garcia08272007.html

Links for 9/11 Research
http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/home

In particular you should watch these 2 videos

WTC 7 Collapse Chandler Debunked Pt 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rhY9c_iemA

WTC7 Collapse Chandler Debunked pt 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60A86cg16KQ
Wed Aug 18, 2010 11:17 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Stian



Joined: 27 Apr 2006
Posts: 10

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Hey and thanks for the reply!

I'll look more deeply into all of that, but I am no expert so I will be easily convinced by technical talk - from both sides. I'd be interested, though, to hear from more knowledgeable people what might be wrong with the analysis provided in the video I posted.

I skimmed through one of the articles you linked regarding WTC7 and this is the conclusion he reached in that:

Quote:
"The blast of hot debris from WTC 1 kindled fires in WTC 7 and caused an emergency power system to feed the burning to the point of building collapse.

One of the building's major bridging supports was heated to the point of exhaustion by the burning of an abundant store of hydrocarbon fuel.

An oil well fire under a loaded bridge."


in other words, fires caused the building to collapse.

Although no steel structures that I am aware of have ever collapsed to due fires, I might believe that it could happen. However, it seems really unlikely to me that collapse from fires would cause it to fall as if there was no resistance - at free-fall speed. Also, surely a collapse from fires would render the building weaker in some places than other places causing it to collapse in a much more asymmetrical fashion?

It just doesnt make sense to me.

To me, a building collapsing from fire should have the following signatures:

Quote:

1. Slow onset with large visible deformations

2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)

3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel


To my untrained eye, I see nothing matching any of those three.

Isn't that rather suspicious?
Wed Aug 18, 2010 12:33 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Stian



Joined: 27 Apr 2006
Posts: 10

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Okay, I see now that the two videos you post is a response to the video I posted. Great stuff - will hav a look later tonight Smile

Stian
Wed Aug 18, 2010 12:36 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Stian. Sketchley refers you to Garcia. Here (links below) is what others make of this government-employed weapons scientist.

You'll need to assess the information and make up your own mind.

As for David Chandler, he is a member of the American Physics Teachers Association and credited for being the man who got NIST to admit to faulty calculation and acknowledge a 2.25 second period of "freefall"- an admission of assisted demolition. [What's they're saying is that WTC was *partially* demolished - which I understand to be the equivalent of being *partially* pregnant.] “World Trade Centre Building 7 was with the highest probability brought down with explosives,” - structural engineers Professor Jorg Schneider and Professor Hugo Bachman of the ETH Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich.

His latest calculations seem to bury NIST a little deeper:
David Chandler Updates: 2 new videos and interview
http://911blogger.com/news/2010-08-16/david-chandler-updates-2-new-videos-and-video-interview
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiHeCjZlkr8

Notes on Garcia -
Manuel Garcia is a US weapons scientist. He not only works for the government, "he works for a very interesting organization in terms of the best hypothesis for what happened that day. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), Garcia's employer, appears to be where explosive thermite was invented, and it continues to be a focus of research there.

At LLNL, government scientists have learned how to combine the exothermic power of the thermite reaction with organic moieties to produce a thermite reaction that can do pressure/volume work (i.e. turn massive quantities of concrete and other building materials into dust). From the research of Steven Jones, we know that the thermite reaction likely played a role in bringing the towers down... Could that be why Manuel Garcia is so intent on seeing Physics that don't exist, in order to avoid seeing links to technology developed by his employer? "

"".. even if we really wanted to believe his extended string of astounding events, he doesn't address the primary problems of the collapse dynamics. Instead, he simply states "a progressive collapse propagates up and material falls freely." And as with the work of NIST, we're expected to believe that just saying so makes it true...


Manuel Garcia Sees Physics That Don't Exist: Another Opportunity to Understand Our Predicament

http://www.stj911.org/ryan/garcia.html ·

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20070102200529471

Critique of Manuel Garcia's The Physics of 9/11, by Jim Hoffman

http://www.911review.com/reviews/counterpunch/markup/physic11282006.html ·


Last edited by marc on Thu Aug 19, 2010 10:22 am; edited 2 times in total
Wed Aug 18, 2010 1:52 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Jeopardising Public Safety Reply with quote

Question for David Sketchley:

I'd be interested to hear why you think the federal agency, the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST), has denied a request for information about WTC 7 under the Freedom on Information Act (FOIA) on the grounds releasing it "might jeopardize public safety."


Structural engineer Ronald Brookman sought structural analysis information gathered by NIST on Building 7, but was denied.
http://911blogger.com/news/2010-07-12/nist-denies-access-wtc-collapse-data

Why do you suppose they are reluctant to allow building professionals to study their analyses?
They themselves had announced WTC7 collapse as "extraordinary" and came up with a new one - "thermal expansion" - to explain it. Because of this anomalous collapse - even NIST admits it's anomalous - the building industry is keen to study this event, at the very least to ensure that random office furnishing fires on a couple of floors don't bring any other steel skyscrapers down in such a rapid, thorough fashion. (Remember NIST itself said the limited masonry damage had nothing to do with the collapse - so the two "alienentity" videos you submit to debunk Chandler are already wrong on this count).

[Look at images of buildings subjected to masonry damage during the Nato bombing of Belgrade and Sirte. Although missing chunks of floor and subjected to fire, these buildings remained standing and do not implode, as you can see with your own eyes. You do not need to be an engineer to evaluate this information.]

If random office furnishing fires on 8 floors can bring a steel high-rise vertically down to pavement level in less than 14 seconds, surely public safety is jeopardised anytime there is a fire in a skyscraper?

President Obama announced transparency on day one of his new administration, so this sort of FOIA denial from a federal agency does not look good.

If there's nothing to hide and it's all so obvious, what's the problem with a structural engineer having a look? Surely they should welcome the opportunity to exonerate themselves and prove that all along what they have been saying is true and verifiable?


Last edited by marc on Tue Dec 06, 2011 7:38 am; edited 4 times in total
Thu Aug 19, 2010 7:45 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Peter Cleall



Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Posts: 103

Post Post subject: Jeopardising Public Safety Reply with quote

Excellent response Marc - though I doubt very much that David Sketchley will engage in a disussion. He's delivered what he considers to be the 'killer blow' by posting a few spurious links.
Thu Aug 19, 2010 10:16 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
David Sketchley



Joined: 09 Jun 2005
Posts: 85

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Peter

"He's delivered what he considers to be the 'killer blow' by posting a few spurious links"

I'd certainly be interested to read how you manage to come to the conclusion that I 'consider' my posting "to be the 'killer blow'". You are allocating to me positions I have never espoused. Stian posted a link to a video he found "pretty convincing", I merely posted other links giving him the option of getting another point of view. I never gave any personal opinion on the matter, as to whether I disagreed with the point of view expressed in the video he linked to or not. Through your language, you're trying to frame the argument with me in the role of 'villain' intent on delivering a 'killer blow'. Laughable really!

Also, you call the links 'spurious', the definition of which is

1 : of illegitimate birth : bastard
2 : outwardly similar or corresponding to something without having its genuine qualities : false <the>
3 a : of falsified or erroneously attributed origin : forged b : of a deceitful nature or quality <spurious>

Could you possibly explain which definition you are referring to and explain how you arrived at that conclusion?

Marc

"If random office furnishing fires on 8 floors can bring a steel high-rise vertically down to pavement level in less than 7 seconds, surely public safety is jeopardised anytime there is a fire in a skyscraper? "

The video debunking Chandler shows that the collapse time was actually over 14 seconds. One can see that with one's own eyes. Garcia's article states that there was more than office furnishings burning randomly. The videos and Garcia's article also show the 3 signatures Stian argues "a building collapsing from fire should have":

Quote:

1. Slow onset with large visible deformations. (Several seconds. "a progressive collapse propagates up and material falls freely")

2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires). (Not to the side, inwards: "since the building implodes, exterior walls falls in")

3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel ("One of the building's major bridging supports was heated to the point of exhaustion by the burning of an abundant store of hydrocarbon fuel.")


Is that all 'spurious' too?

Do I now have to put a disclaimer that I am not supporting Garcia's view, I'm just pointing out anomalies? Is that what debate has come to?
Thu Aug 19, 2010 7:27 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Peter Cleall



Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Posts: 103

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

David

You've posted links to Garcia's articles so I assume you give them credit. I read them on Counterpunch three years ago. Garcia's stuff has been thoroughly debunked since that time. Also you post a link which pokes fun at Robert Fisk - one of the very few mainstream journalists who has had the courage to admit he doubts the official fable of 9/11. Have you looked at recent research on the subject by the likes of Richard Gage, Nils Harrit and Steven Jones? Have you an explanation for the traces of nano-thermite found in the dust?

I used the word 'spurious' because most of the links you produced are old and discredited - rather like Mr Doherty trotting out Chip Berlet's antique views on the subject. The work which has been done by concerned citizens on the subject of 9/11 is in my opinion admirable and for many on the left (prominently Chomsky) to say that it's a diversion is profoundly wrong. 9/11 is the excuse for all the repression, illegal wars and curtailment of civil rights which has occurred since. 9/11 should be minutely investigated, pulled apart and the truth exposed. It's no use sweeping it under the bloody carpet.
Thu Aug 19, 2010 10:02 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Bush Science artefacts Reply with quote

Hi David, you wrote: ""Is that what debate has come to?"

The debate is welcome - but perhaps if you'd put your links in context there'd have been less misunderstanding. Like Peter Cleall, I assumed you gave Garcia credit. I was surprised because Garcia, as Peter points out, was debunked - and by the federal agency NIST itself, funnily enough.

You write: "Garcia's article states that there was more than office furnishings burning randomly"".

Yes, in flowery language Garcia referred to "dark fire" and the dramatic role of some diesel fuel oil stored in a basement. Colourful speculation, zero evidence - not a good combination for a nuclear weapons scientist.

Director of NIST Shyam Sunder in his final report on WTC7 said WTC7 "did not collapse from fuel oil fires".

WTC7 collapsed, he said, from "fire" - and "a new phenomenon" : fire that compromised ONE asymmetrically placed steel column, apparently, and brought the whole edifice down with perfect symmetry. Sunder admitted "this is the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building."

Structural engineers keen to learn more about this "new phenomenon" now have FOIA requests turned down, because a look at NIST's closely guarded computer data "might jeopardise public safety.""

To sum up NIST's position on WTC7:

WTC7 - not subject to kerosene-fed fires because it was not hit by a plane.
WTC7 - not subject to diesel fuel oil feed from the basement - discounted by NIST.
WTC7 - subject to random, asymmetrically-positioned fires on a limited number of floors - fuelled by office content alone.

Demolition experts must be scratching their heads. All that painstaking pre-prep needed for steel high-rises - turns out all you need to do is light fires on a couple of floors and trundle down to the pub to wait for the thing to land neatly in its own footprint.

Many call WTC7 the smoking gun; in fact the NIST Report itself is the biggest smoking gun.

NIST report - produced by a US Department of Commerce agency. No-one bothers to read it - and our media has never bothered to analyse it. [ Pity Mike Rudin never did look properly at it in his BBC "Conspiracy Files: The Third Tower" despite being requested to do so in literally thousands of e-mails on BBC Editors Blog]. Ryan and Hoffman are correct to ask why CounterPunch gave this US government weapons scientist Garcia so much space (a series of 3 articles, I think) to write articles so strong on crude psycho-pathologising (mentally-deficient conspiracy nuts, etc) and so weak on physical realities?

David, you also write: Collapse time was actually over 14 seconds.

Observing the raw footage, we see several very interesting seconds' worth of the roof penthouse shifting and descending a little - a giveaway apparently of demolition of core internal columns underway. This was followed by 7 seconds of resistance-free descent of the 47-floor building in its entirety.

Read "The Mysterious Collapse of Building Seven: Why the Official Report is Unscientific and Fraudulent" by D.R.Griffin.
extract: "NIST is an agency of the Commerce Department. During the years in which its reports on the Twin Towers and World Trade Center 7 were produced, therefore, it was an agency of the Bush administration, which was notorious for, in the words of the Union of Concerned Scientists, "distortion of scientific knowledge for partisan political ends."[20] A former NIST scientist reported, moreover, that NIST had been "fully hijacked from the scientific into the political realm," so that the scientists employed by it "lost [their] scientific independence, and became little more than 'hired guns.'"[21] Not surprisingly, therefore, the resulting reports by NIST were completely unscientific. "

On David Chandler: "after physicist David Chandler demonstrated, in a YouTube video, that the top floor had come down in absolute free fall for over two seconds,[45] NIST acknowledged this fact in its final report, but without changing its theory.[46] NIST thereby affirmed a miracle, in the sense of a violation of laws of physics -- a fact that NIST implicitly admitted by removing all its previous assurances that its explanation of WTC 7's collapse was "consistent with physical principles."[47] The fact that Building 7 came down in absolute free fall for over two seconds, thereby forcing NIST to affirm a miracle, has shown, more clearly than any other feature of the official account of 9/11, that the government's conspiracy theory is the silly one.

From Kevin Ryan: "NIST has not released the computer models... Several FOIAs have been submitted to gain access to those documents but in the cases that I've seen, NIST has not complied, but instead asked for a search fee of approximately $20,000. Appeals have been made on some of these FOIAs and the work goes on, with Americans trying to get access to the basic information that NIST used to arrive at it's (ever-changing) conclusions. I'm not aware of another such precedent, at least in our country during my lifetime."

"There is no science involved in the WTC 7 report from NIST, it is pure and quite transparent deception. In the future, people will learn a great deal from it, in terms of our present culture and the extent of our ability to deceive."
" - Kevin Ryan, Truth And Deception interview, American Buddhist.net
Fri Aug 20, 2010 10:58 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Physicist David Chandler - the man who got NIST to acknowledge a period of no-resistance freefall in Building 7 - features in yesterday's line-up. Demos's "citizen ínfilitrators" have a busy time ahead shutting up the 911 research movement as three new sites launch.
New Scientific Evidence Undermines Afghanistan War
http://911blogger.com/news/2010-09-09/press-release-new-scientific-evidence-undermines-afghanistan-war

Richard Gage speaks at the National Press Club, Washington DC.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20100907/pl_usnw/DC60870
"Architects & Engineers ... call for a grand jury investigation of government report lead engineers Shyam Sunder and John Gross of the National Institute of Standards and Technology... Also speaking will be Florida State Professor Lance deHaven-Smith, who coined the academic term State Crimes Against Democracy (SCAD).
Fri Sep 10, 2010 6:13 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Nature cannot be fooled Reply with quote

The clearest explanation I've yet seen on the importance of Newton's Laws of Conservation of Momentum to the discussion.

http://911blogger.com/news/2010-09-14/awesome-new-911-truth-science-video-911-experiments-arbitrator-competing-hypotheses#comments

It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.

-- Richard P. Feynman - the physicist who famously demonstrated the cause of the 1986 Challenger disaster by using a glass of iced water.
Wed Sep 15, 2010 9:24 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Retired NASA director: The official version of the events of 911 defies science.
http://www.vcreporter.com/cms/story/detail/faith_in_science/8213/

It has been said that it requires a very unusual mind to undertake the analysis of the obvious. But is it unusual to want peace? Truth? Dwain Deets doesn’t think so, and the retired NASA director is determined to demonstrate that the official version of the events of 9/11 defies science.
His lectures have been gaining popularity, and Deets speaks on troubling questions about 9/11, from the perspective of science.

Deets, a physicist and engineer, was the former director of NASA’s Dryden Flight Research Center’s Aerospace project.. Having retired from a 37-year career, Deets has set out to show that the American public has been duped into the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. His goal is simple. Faith alone cannot end the wars abroad. But perhaps science can.

VCReporter: Of all the indications that the official 9/11 explanation is insufficient, what is the most glaring?
Deets: Building 7 is the most glaring. I think people can realize, after what happened at Building 7, that the public was not told anything close to what went on. I think you actually get kind of the same thing in all three buildings at the World Trade Center. So when I talk about them and the major problems presented, it will be with all buildings in mind.
There are four main points: One, there is no historical precedent with steel-frame, high-rise buildings to have been totally destroyed due to fire. So you got a situation with no precedent, but it happened three times in the same day. These buildings supposedly came down due to fire, officially.
Second, there is indisputable evidence that there were extraordinarily high temperatures, in the ground and it persisted for weeks. When I say indisputable evidence, I mean things like satellite imaging photos from NASA. They can measure the temperatures showing how it’s persisting weeks after the event. And there are eyewitnesses of molten metal and things that would require extremely high temperatures. There are a number of different elements that have been analyzed chemically afterwards, and it can only be explained due to extremely high temperature. There are a lot of tiny spheres. We refer to them as microspheres, and they are iron-rich. To be a sphere, they had to have been liquid, even to the point of maybe vaporizing because that is the way it would form into a sphere. The surface tension, as it cooled down, it would do so in a spherical shape. So that’s hard evidence that there had to be extremely high temperatures.

When you refer to high temperature, are you suggesting there were explosives involved?
What I’m saying is, the temperatures are so high that the ordinary office fires and aviation fuel fires can’t come close to explaining those high temperatures.

The third point is, there has been evidence of high-tech, and I can’t say they’re explosives, but they are nano-thermite. Nano meaning they’re extremely small and had to be manufactured with very sophisticated equipment and knowledge, which we only know about in government laboratories. But it was highly sophisticated, and how exactly it is designed, it could be very explosive, or something used in a different way. We use the term pyrotechnic to describe that category. So it was used as an explosive or pyrotechnic. But either way, the key thing is it provides an explanation why the temperatures were so high and persisted for so long afterwards. So it fits together with that set of findings in a very consistent way.

The fourth major thing is, all three buildings came down at freefall, gravitational freefall, or very close to it. The only way that can happen is if the lower structure was abruptly removed to allow the top part to fall into freefall. This fits into the other things I talk about. There were several varieties of explosives. And the ones that we found are just one of those, and not necessarily the one that did most of the damage. We just don’t know that kind of thing. When I say we, there was an international team of scientists and chemists that studied the dust from the WTC and reported in the open literature, so it’s there and there has not been any counterpublication to say this is not true.

In regard to Building 7, is it not possible that the debris from the previously collapsed main towers had initiated the fires that damaged the bottom eight floors to the point of collapse causing the free-fall?

There is no evidence that there were fires for the initial time period. There could be that there were. But there have not been any photographs released to the public. About 100 minutes is the first indication that there were any fires, and even then it was not on the floors where supposedly the fire damage caused the buildings to come down. That would be several hours later.

Let’s say you were taking this to [a] court of law; you wouldn’t have a chain of evidence that led from the debris to the fires. The other piece of evidence is whether the fires, especially that kind of office fire, can lead to compromising the steel structure and causing the whole thing to come crashing down. So you go back to saying there is no precedent in the history of high-rise steel structures that fires lead to the building coming down. Some of those fires have historically lasted up to 18 hours and still didn’t compromise the structure. So it’s unreasonable to think that if the fires did start from the debris it would lead to the buildings coming down. The other part is that it came down in pure free fall for what is equivalent to eight stories’ worth of free fall

Why do you think the government has never officially addressed the collapse of Building 7?
I think it causes a severe problem for them in explaining what happened. At first you have to talk about the great length of time that the government agency that was supposed to investigate Building 7, which was NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology.) They stalled up until November 2008 before they issued their final report. That is seven years to come up with a final report. Clearly, it was a problem to them. Either they couldn’t explain it or they could, but didn’t want to. They didn’t want to give the explanation that the evidence pointed to, which I think is the case.

Didn’t they also deny a request from engineers into the report about how Building 7 came down, citing a “concern for public safety”?
They did. In this case, this is a freedom-of-information request asking for details of their computer model. They said they had a very sophisticated computer model that modeled the structure, the fires, and based on that, they said this is the explanation, that fires caused the whole thing. For professional engineers to request that information through the law of the Freedom of Information Act, to provide that information, they have resisted it to this day.
So anyway they are using this argument that revealing this sophisticated model could or might endanger public safety is very hard to justify, particularly when it’s professional engineers wanting to understand what caused the building to come down.

That in itself should be an effort in the interest of safety. In each of these four cases I brought up, if you look at what NIST has done, they have basically denied that these issues exist. Regarding hot temperatures, they come out and say we have no evidence of either high temperatures or that anybody saw it, even though there are testimonies from responders. They are just stonewalling all the way.

But they did admit, however, that the building collapsed at free fall. Shouldn’t that be evidence in itself?
Yes, they did admit that. But the thing is, they didn’t change any of their conclusions.

Why? Do you believe this is some sort of plan to engage our country into wars with Iraq and Afghanistan?
Well, I certainly think that we, as prudent members of the public, should consider it was highly likely, and it’s based on a record that our government has done that in a number of cases. Most recently, it did it to escalate the war in Vietnam. The Gulf of Tonkin incident turned out to not be an incident, and that has become publicly known because documents concerning that have been declassified but not publicized by the media. There is certainly a pattern. If you just put together the fact that all this happened on 9/11 and then we go to war. It fits a pattern and you have to wonder about that.

Let’s assume you are right. What is your political agenda? What do you want the public to do?
I want the public to demand of their representatives to investigate this, to stop stonewalling and investigate this to wherever it leads. I think that will be healthy for the country. It will be difficult to go through that, but it will force politicians to be more careful about doing things, because they will realize they won’t be able to get away with it. I think it will be good for the country. I think it will end the war. A large segment of the population believes we should be in Iraq and Afghanistan because of 9/11, but I think that would change.

Why do you think the vast majority of the public has accepted the findings?
The big media plays such a big role. The mainstream media, and I don’t know how this works, but they haven’t allowed any questioning of 9/11. A lot of the questions about what went on get marginalized and called conspiracies.


Last edited by marc on Sat Oct 16, 2010 8:54 am; edited 1 time in total
Tue Sep 21, 2010 8:15 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Science vs Narrative: Forensic evidence refutes official explanation.

Architects & Engineers group addresses journalists at The National Press Club, Washington DC, including a good summary of forensic evidence.

Text of Gage's address to Press Club:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=21436

Dr Jeffrey Farrer of Brigham Young University interviewed
http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news/41-articles/389-interview-of-dr-jeffrey-farrer.html

"Dr. Farrer (who co-authored with Dr Niels Harrit) is lab director for BYU Transmission Electron Microscopy. The article notes: “The electron microscopes in the TEM lab combine to give BYU capabilities that are virtually unique… rivaling anything built worldwide.” The article is entitled: “Rare and Powerful Microscopes Unlock Nano Secrets,” which is certainly true as regards the discoveries of the published paper. Kudos to BYU for permitting Drs. Farrer and Steven Jones and physics student Daniel Farnsworth to do much of the research described in the paper and for conducting internal reviews of the above paper. After internal peer review of the paper, BYU administrators approved publication with Dr. Farrer’s name and BYU affiliation listed and we congratulate BYU for this."


Last edited by marc on Mon Oct 18, 2010 10:17 am; edited 2 times in total
Sat Oct 16, 2010 8:50 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
OrwellianUK



Joined: 11 Oct 2008
Posts: 26

Post Post subject: Interesting exchange Reply with quote

Hi Marc

An interesting exchange all that. Although I notice that David made himself scarce pretty quick. This is probably because he didn't want to deal with refutation of the Counterpunch dross he posted, or the fact that Garcia's explanations had been refuted by NIST itself.

The likes of David and Alex can't deal with this and never will be able to. That's because they cannot confront the implications it forces upon them. Even Chomsky couldn't confront the implications of the evidence he was once shown about the murder of JFK by assassination researchers. That's why he has continued to endorse the official explanations for that and all the other political murders of the 1960's.

In the eyes of Alex and other fake 'lefties', it's ok for the US government (and its agencies) to make as many mistakes, have as many contradictions in their story and tell as many lies as it wants, yet the Official Government Conspiracy must still be treated as sacrosanct.

However, the "troofers" are not allowed any leeway whatsoever. Hence Doherty's scorn for David Ray Griffin over his few minor errors, and refusal to acknowledge his later written corrections of those errors. Sad really.

Rhisiart's "This is an Orange" video does it for me.
Sun Oct 17, 2010 1:19 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Orwellian, I agree, 'This is an Orange' is a powerful little video, along the lines of Magritte's "Ceci N'est Pas Une Pipe" which beautifully illustrates cognitive dissonance and the don't-believe-your-own-lying-eyes distortions.

Here's another, rather amusing, reply to Manuel Garcia from Dr David Griscom

Hand-Waving the Physics of 911
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/e/hand-waving-the%20physics-of-911-by-david-griscom.pdf


Last edited by marc on Tue Nov 23, 2010 8:40 am; edited 1 time in total
Thu Oct 28, 2010 7:57 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Kooks and nuts speak out Reply with quote

Listening to what chemical engineer (and materials scientist) Mark Basile has to say is important for a couple of reasons: He talks in lay terms and makes difficult science more understandable. He calls for many more scientists to get involved. Also, Basile is an independent scientist whose radar was alerted early on by events at the WTC. He got his own rubble sample directly from a New York museum and analysed that. He independently found the same chemical fingerprint for high-tech thermitic material as Harrit et al. [Basile was not part of the 'Active Thermitics' paper published in the Open Chemical Physics Journal.] He is prepared to go public, putting his name and professional career on the line.

Mark Basile interviewed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frIpyTBAV_Y

I see that physicist Dr Jeffrey Farrer, head of Brigham Young Uni Physics Department lab (ranked as having some of the word's top-rated microscopes) has also been interviewed for the upcoming Explosive Evidence doccie. Farrer was part of the Harrit team.

Jeff Farrer interviewed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23n0Vr_A1TQ

If nothing else, the interviews afford one a chance to study these ''911 nutters'' up close Wink
Thu Oct 28, 2010 8:27 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Dr Niels Harrit quoted in an article in Chemistry World on nano-structured thermite.
http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2010/November/05111001.asp


Last edited by marc on Tue Nov 16, 2010 3:01 pm; edited 2 times in total
Tue Nov 09, 2010 8:34 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: FIRE-LED, TEXTBOOK IMPLOSION Reply with quote

Yet another 'towering inferno' defies NIST science

Quote:
NIST science = textbook building demolition by means of ordinary fire...
There must be a reason demo experts never have used and still do not use fire to bring buildings down through their vertical axes.


Why did this week's Shanghai high-rise fire NOT bring this tower down smoothly, symmetrically and thoroughly, through the path of greatest resistance, like NY's Building Seven?

Like all fire-ravaged buildings before or since 2001 (eg Beijing skyscraper inferno of last year) this Shanghai structure survived as expected - blackened, but foursquare.
(Compare the photographs for yourself).

Wars are predicated upon the US Dept of Commerce's NIST fire-led implosion explanation.

Engineering students will study the WTC case, going forward, as will history students. Which version of engineering/history will they study?

Fires Have Never Caused Skyscrapers to Collapse
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html

Shanghai apartment blaze - stands firm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1329834/Shanghai-49-dead-apartment-block-engulfed-flames.html

Mandarin Hotel, Beijing, engulfed top to bottom by fire - does not collapse.
http://stj911.org/blog/?p=133


Last edited by marc on Sun Nov 21, 2010 10:45 am; edited 2 times in total
Tue Nov 16, 2010 2:59 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Propaganda of the deed Reply with quote

OK, this has nothing to do with WTC Building 7, which was not hit by a plane but...
What should the towers have looked like one hour after the jets hit them?

Examine these photographs from a Danish site (English is flawed):
http://911experiments.com/WTC

The two sets of photographs in the above link are important.

(i) The first set shows how the fires in the top fifth would slowly cool and diminish (jet-fuel having burned off in the first 15 minutes), leaving the building standing firm, if blackened

(ii) The bird's-eye-view of the shredded remains of the towers is also important, because it reveals what was left of a quarter-mile high steel building which had firmly withstood a projectile in its upper fifth an hour earlier, but suddenly and inexplicably started exploding and pulverising outwards. The building descended to pavement level in 10 or 11 seconds. This means the building pulverised itself top-down at 10 floors per second. Can you clap your hands 10 times a second?

This kind of speed can only happen if a force works ahead of the collapse zone, cutting the mass/resistance out of the way. I believe this would be Sir Newton's take on it, if the good man were alive today and could chip in his tuppence worth on the evening news Sad

Here is what the engineers at AE911 list as characteristics of destruction by fire - ie. what the towers and B7 should have looked like after asymmetrical, jet-fuel and office content-fuelled fires:

1. Slow onset with large visible deformations
2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (Newton's laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)
3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel [jet fuel fires are not hot enough to soften steel] [from ae911truth website]

The Towers should have remained standing
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/05/world-trade-center-building-designers.html

"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." - A. Conan Doyle.

Propaganda of the Deed = a public, symbolic, fear-inducing act designed to impact the widest audience possible in order to psychologically persuade them of a particular viewpoint.
Propagande par le fait * is painted as a crazy "anarchist", "terrorist" or "radicals' " ploy. A pseudo or synthetic operation, deceitful street theatre, to which moral Western forces would never stoop.

In fact, p.o.d. turns out to be a highly effective and documented Western military tool to facilitate a desired scenario where "The other side throws the first punch" '- at a time and place of one's choosing. This allows one to pre-plan, maintain the moral high ground (so necessary in keeping Western domestic populations on board), rationalise the call for blood revenge and pursue the politics of fear.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_of_the_deed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy_of_tension
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag

The planes served as a tool to attack the symbolic US/Western Military and Financial HQs; and the hijackers served to drive home the 'evil-irrational-Arabs-threatening-the-very-heart-of-our-world' narrative. The planes represented "the other side throwing the first punch", providing rationalisation for the speedy roll-out of new military strategy.

"Since the days of Russian anarchist Mikhail Bakunin, radicals have talked of the "propaganda of the deed" -- the use of dramatic, usually violent, acts to inspire the masses and topple the existing order. The method -- targeting symbolic landmarks to create powerful images -- is now familiar. The killing of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics. The first World Trade Center attack. The Oklahoma City bombing. And 9/11 itself." - Michael Gerson, Washington Post
Sun Nov 21, 2010 6:35 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Smithereens Reply with quote

Beijing and Shanghai High-Rises Burn for Hours!
Fail to Implode or Blow Themselves Up!
Investigation urgently required!


Blown to Smitheens in Mid-Air
An engineer I know credits this particular clip as his eye-opener, his moment of truth:
David Chandler: North Tower Exploding
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXh5u62oJCU

For two reasons: The clear visuals of (i) the giveaway demo squibs and (ii) the upper steel and concrete portions of the buildings being pulverised to dust in mid-air, leaving nothing to impact on the floors below:

The pictures tell the story.

High Velocity Demolition Squibs Are Visible in The Twin Towers Collapse
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/squibs.html

What 'Top of the Building Crushing the Lower Portion Down to Pavement Level?" There is No Top Of the Building- It's Missing: Blown to Smithereens in Mid-Air

Bazant and NIST claimed the top of the building pushed the rest of the building all the way down to pavement level - like a 'pile-driver' or hammer.

The raw footage reveals that there was no top of the building left, no pile-driver. With one's own eyes one can see that the top of the building is missing - exploded rapidly outwards into shredded steel and pulverised dust.

The picture tells the story.

A masterfully-executed top-down demolition of which the executors must be very proud, is the verdict of Dr Harrit of Copenhagen University.

Engineer Tony Szamboti (assisted in writing by Graeme MacQueen) addressed it:
"The Missing Jolt' -A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt7.pdf

Back-of-the-envelope science

Bazant's 'back-of-the-envelope' "crush-down" theory was published an astonishing two days after the event, before the smoke had cleared (13/9/01) and has been pushed and maintained by government and media ever since.

Michael Fullerton - NIST's WTC 7 theory Violates the Laws of Physics
Very readable, clear explanation of the science, handy for physics pupils studying Newton's Laws. .
http://knol.google.com/k/michael-fullerton/nist-wtc-7-9-11-theory-violates-the/1hwr2894wxokh/10#


Last edited by marc on Sat Dec 04, 2010 8:37 am; edited 2 times in total
Wed Nov 24, 2010 5:32 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: cherchez la verite Reply with quote

Referee for the Harrit paper reveals himself

One of the highly-qualified physicists who peer-reviewed the Harrit paper identifies himself - and posts the NASA image showing the WTC hotspots, revealing the extreme temperatures still evident in the rubble piles five days after 11 Sept despite water and chemical fire retardant - temps that cannot be attained by jet-fuel or office content fire.

For those who wondered how the sheets of paper that drifted through Manhattan afterwards survived a kerosene fire apparently hot enough to shred buildings (according to the official story), Griscom offers a possible answer in the Comment thread.

Since April 2009 there has existed a published, peer-reviewed scientific paper with nine authors - addressing the 11/9 forensics. Chemical engineer Mark Basile independently came to the same findings soon afterwards. Dr Steven Jones (one of the paper's authors) has reported: "Brigham Young University scientists did a review of the "Active Thermitic Materials" paper before it was published. They did approve it for scientific publication, with a few suggested changes that actually strengthened the paper IMO". BYU is known to have a good physics department with one of the world's top-rated microscopy units. Are these scientists' findings correct? Or should these people be exposed by media as peddlars of junk science, misleading the public?

The quickest way to find out, of course, would be to throw the subject open to transparent debate in the media. Double-page spread with graphics in a Sunday newspaper, laying out the pros-and-cons for public scrutiny, inviting physicists and engineers (who may never have read these arguments as they've been blanked out by the media) to chip in. Journalists can assist in opening this up in a transparent manner - rather than Obama administration figures like Cass Sunstein and think tanks like Demos having to call for "infiltration" of sceptics' discussion.

http://impactglassman.blogspot.com/2010/09/911-truth-evidence-of-energetic.html

Dr Griscom's statement: ...
I implore my fellow physicists and engineers who may have the time, expertise, and (ideally) supercomputer access to get to work on the physics of the World Trade Center collapses and publish their findings in refereed journals like, say, the Journal of Applied Physics.

The issue of knowing who was really behind the 9/11 attacks is of paramount importance to the future of our country, because the "official" assumption that it was the work of 19 Arab amateurs (1) does not match the available facts and (2) has led directly to the deplorable Patriot Act, the illegal Iraq war, NSA spying on ordinary Americans, repudiation of the Geneva Conventions, and the repeal of habeas corpus (a fundamental point of law that has been with us since the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215).
[from www.patriotsquestion911.com]
Fri Dec 03, 2010 6:52 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

US Federal government response to "the publicly humiliating free-fall lesson provided to NIST's Dr. Sunder by physics instructor David Chandler during its Draft Final Report in August 2008"? An amateur student video.

Why are no engineers/scientists stepping forward to publicly support the official version? While 911 researchers are given a very high bar to reach (they have managed to publish four peer-reviewed papers in different journals so far), the official version is given a free pass by mainstream journalists and the federal govt gets away with Proof By Student Video. The NIST report itself has never been peer reviewed.

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news/41-articles/414-alert-us-state-department-cannot-afford-professional-advice-on-wtc-destruction.html
Fri Dec 10, 2010 2:52 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

R.I.P. Janette MacKinlay, Manhattan artist.

Last edited by marc on Wed Dec 15, 2010 11:37 am; edited 3 times in total
Sat Dec 11, 2010 7:15 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

The biggest story never told
How the media blanked out the facts for a decade

Artist Janette MacKinlay lived in an apartment close to the World Trade Centre. Her furniture was covered with mounds of dust on 11 September. She decided to collect a few bags full with a view to making an artwork. She gave one of the bags to Dr Steven Jones who contacted her after hearing about her dust collection. She is cited in the Active Thermitics paper (Open Chemical Physics Journal) as one of the four sources for dust. She spoke with Jones at Berkeley and Davis Universities. She fell ill with brain cancer and died this week.
http://911truthnews.com/janette-mackinlay-rip/

Letter from physicist Steven Jones on the death of Janette MacKinlay: Comment section at link:
http://911blogger.com/news/2010-12-11/janette-mackinlay-february-26-1948-december-9-2010
Mon Dec 13, 2010 7:54 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Media Lens Forum Index -> off-topic All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2005 phpBB Group
    printer friendly
eXTReMe Tracker