9/11 American Scholars Symposium aired on C-SPAN

Oh, really.... and does it also cause the buildings to fall at free fall speed as they disintegrate into pulverized concrete, leaving pools of molten steel beneath the rubble?

Of course you won't address those issues because you can't.

 

The towers didn't fall at freefall speed. Claims of freefall are another truther myth. Measure it using the videos. It's about 2/3 the acceleration of gravity. The gravity energy is what pulverized the gypsum walls and concrete.

The remains of the core can be seen and that is sticking up above ground level. The remains of perimeter wall are seen also, at least a dozen stories high. The main floors pancaked right past the perimeter walls and core.

Some of the videos show the pancaking even better, where you can see the central core still standing about half the height of the south tower at the end of the collapse after all the main floors pancaked past it. Then the core collapses a few seconds later.

.

 

Here is a great video you should all watch called September 11 Revisited which asks the question "Were explosives used to bring down the buildings?"

http://www.911revisited.com/

 

I've already addressed them.

The towers didn't fall at free fall speed, in spite of truthers repeating that mantra. The duration would have been about 9 seconds for freefall of the towers. It was on the order of 14 to 16 seconds. That's an acceleration equivalent to about 2/3 G, clearly not freefall G.

The longer collapse duration was due to the effects of momentum transfer, particularly near the beginning of the collapse where the top floors (15 for the north tower and about 29 for the south) falling together as a unit hadn't yet picked up a lot of KE. I suggest you reading Greening's paper on the collapse rate.

WTC7 was closer to freefall rate, but that was because it collapsed from bottom to top. 40+ floors were falling as a unit and each single floor destroyed at the bottom had an almost negligble effect on the slowing of the large number of floors falling together as a unit.

If the towers had collapsed from bottom to top like WTC7, they would have fallen at a rate closer to that of freefall rates. The fact that they didn't shows that the basements were not blown out. It's also clear from the videos that the towers fell from top to bottom. It's a non-issue.

.

 

There are only anecdotal accounts of molten steel but no clear evidence of it. There may have been molten metals of a lower melting point, such as aluminum, that were mistaken for steel. It's possible that there were molten slags of oxidized or sulphidized steel that could have been mistaken for molten steel. Steel releases a lot of heat when it sulphidizes and there was plenty of sulphur in the powered gypsum wallboard (calcium sulphate), plastics, tires, and diesel fuel.

Aluminum is also a reactive metal that releases heat when it combines with other elements. There was plenty of aluminum in the aircraft and facade. Molten aluminum was seen pouring out the side of the south tower where the aircraft ended up. All of these things need to be considered before jumping on the CD bandwagon.

In any event, molten steel, even if there was any, is no proof of controlled demolition. Molten metals or slags aren't proof of CD either.

.

 

Concrete and gypsum wallboard are going to pulverize during a global collapse. What else would we expect? Nothing mysterious.

.

 

If anyone want to dig deeper into this, look at the collapse rate of the south tower. It collapses at a faster rate at the start compared with the north tower. Check out Greening's paper about this. The reason is that only about 15 floors were falling as a unit at the start of the collapse of the north tower, compared with about 29 for the south. The effect of momentum transfer on the slowing the collapse was greater for the north tower compared with the south. Nothing mysterious.

.

 

You were just claiming it got hit by a missile!

The engineering degree holding demolition team who was on the scene of 9/11 and the WTC clean up disagrees with you. What's your experience that gives you a much more thorough understanding of building collapse then they.

Apparently nobody with an idea of how super structures are constructed agrees with you.

 

Rat the free falling questions have been addressed numerous time.
There are various accounts of the speeds at which the towers fell over the net, and most of them vary between well over 12 seconds, most people put it around 15.

You're just insisting on the quickest times because they support your already formed opinion. The free falling speeds do not stand up to research off of it, and your selection of the most convinent time does not meet with scientific method.

 

negative, I told you to look at the images from that website.

The FDA/USG claims these chemicals are good for you.
This one goes in your MILK :

http://www.ethicalinvesting.com/monsanto/bgh.shtml
eventho' it is a KNOWN cause of CANCER
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovine_somatotropin

and this one goes into our artificial SUGAR :

http://www.health-report.co.uk/aspartame-formaldehyde-poisoning.htm
http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/embalm.html

Don't you understand ... FEMA,,, GODDAMNM MOTHERf&^%$#@ FEMA , picked up all of the evidence, put it on ships, transported it overseas, and RECYCLED EVERYTHING.

So if you are right shaggie, the 19 MUSLIM hijackers not only had the power to VAPORIZE the 757 that hit the pentagon, Flight 93-another 757,, they also have the power to "coincidentially DEMOLISH" WTC Tower 1, 2 & 7 right in front of our faces, and TRICK FEMA into functioning as the worlds fastest and most efficient solid steel vaccume cleaner and overseas recycling station.

Maybe you are right, and Allah stepped in and possessed FEMA like I questioned in my first post in this thread... because they sure as hell didn't know what to do or how to help these people !

http://photo.ghajar.ir/archives/Hurricane-Katrina-Aftermath.jpg

I made it to New Orleans before FEMA did.

As Lodui quoted it :

Apparently they were not hired to help the American people in a time of need, but to make Osama Bin Laden and his 19 martyr's look like the most powerful and mysterious entities known and unknown to this universe. Greater than our creator that the pyramids were built for, these 20 clowns took 3 SUPERSTRUCTURES below ground.

Regardless, I've been through this already with another group of hard headed people in another forum and it's just not worth it. You'll know the truth when the television explains it to you shaggie, Lodui, and everybody else that can't believe their own eyes.
They're all yours Matt, good luck...I'm in enough trouble already.

over n out

 

And Love_N_It, my major concern is that theories like this might be left to fester to provide a brush for all criticism of the US administrations actions subsequent to the 9/11 attacks, including the invasion of Iraq.

I'm afraid of nothing, I just want your 'truth movement' to realise that if they want to play around in fact, they should be prepared to provide solid evidence to be examined. Not a few pictures and claims by people who did a few hours googling.

Your contention that all the evidence that could prove your theory has been destroyed, is an admission that the evidence behind this movement is flimsy and can never be proven.

Moreover, you're not even arguing technical details, your arguing for conspiracy which you attempt to prove by providing disparate facts.

Read the field guide to critical thinking please. I'm not trying to condescend, I'm just saying that these are the sorts of challenges this sort of thing most go through, not insistance.

 

The website you were using was to back your assertion of a collapse, and everything on that page had to do with missile strikes.

What does that have to do with anything?

The people in the article I posted had no affiliation with the US government, it mentions their credentials at the forefront of the article.

It was in the US for 6 months where it was investigated on a wild scale. 6 months isn't an unusual amount of time according to aformentioned article.

FEMA didn't have any part with shipping the steel to China!

You're not even asserting anything.

So are you asserting FEMA incompetent? I'll agree with that one.

I've already addressed the technical side of that, with the help of the demolition experts at Implosion World.

As for most powerful group on earth, nobody ever claimed any of that. They were disorganized cunning and had immense amounts of zeal. You're just using commentary to make them look foolish and the building look impregnable.

These evil men proved both these claims false on the morning of September 11th.

 

If any of you conspiracy thorists would endulge me, would you list three questions that would help you to believe the accounts of 9/11 as reported by lets say, FOX news.

Also what degree of evidence would you want for this? Try not to make it to unreasonable to be proven or disproven. Also what degree of proficiency would you want in the field?

I suppose this is a way of me asking if there would be any way of convinving you the government wasn't involved.

 

Ok, here's a question I'd like to ask-and I want to preface this by saying that I have no trust in the government or it's motives or reasons for doing things; however.....

For people that believe that airplanes really didn't fly into the World Trade Center, here's what I would say needs to be done in the interest of objectivity:

Interview the people that were on the ground in NYC on Sept. 11 that say they saw airplanes fly into the buildings. There are plenty of them. Were they all hallucinating? Are they all on the government payroll, being paid to say those things?

And the people that took photos of the planes flying into the buildings-were those photos doctored up? Even the amateur photographers that took the videos, were they all on the government payroll, deliberately deceiving us? If so, then this isn't about analyzing types of metal and how fast they melt, this is about a monumental conspiracy that thousands and thousands of people are taking part in, and keeping real quiet about it to boot.

Also interview the families of the people that died on those flights. Are they all lying? Are those people really all alive and well somewhere?

It's the same thing with a 'documentary' I saw a few years back that supposedly 'exposed' the 'fact' that men never walked on the Moon. Guess who they didn't interview? Neil Armstrong and a few other guys that claim to have done just that. Why can't they look those guys in the eye and ask them point blank: did you really walk on the moon?

Why is it that these types of questioners are not asked these questions?

People that are sure that planes didn't fly into the WTC and that men didn't walk on the moon need to be asking these folks those kinds of questions, not just analyzing photos and debating what happens to certain types of metal.

 

What? Who said they don't believe airplanes flew into the towers? Both collisions were recorded on tape. Perhaps you're referring to THE PENTAGON. We've all seen the planes hitting the towers, though some people may dispute the actual planes which struck.

There is no doubt in my mind jetliners hit the towers, because I have seen the footage, as have we all.

None of us have seen the plane hitting the Pentagon, or the one crashing into the field in Shanksville, PA.

 

In the early days of the '9/11 truth movement' claims of missiles as opposed to jetliners hitting the WTC were common. One of the links Love_N_It posted claimed this.

Some of the evidence they provide for this was the claim that Rumsfield said missiles hit the pentagon in a press conference. Missile is common military jargon for a flying object (human made) so I wouldn't disagree with this claim at all.

Some have stuck with this version, some have accepted the official account, and the vast majority have moved on to the conrolled demolition hypothesis.

 

No, what they believed is that the plane -- Flight 175 -- which struck the South Tower, had something attached to its underbelly... perhaps a missile or something. Whether it did or didn't, I do not know. What I do know is that it's one of the weaker pieces of evidence and can be debated to no end. Thus, it's often used in straw man arguments, as was the case with the Popular Mechanics "debunking" piece.

C'mon now, you really believe Rumsfeld was speaking in jargon when he said that.... at a press conference?

 

Any sort of missile would leave a residue that would be noticable, and even more importantly, probably leave physical evidence, especially if it ejected from the building.

Moreover, if it had to be mounted on a commercial airliner, it would have had to have been done in a manner on the same day for it not to have left a suspicious record of being 'serviced'. And also to have prevented dangers of a passenger plane going arround with missiles which they would have wanted to use to hit the WTC.

I think a carrer military man using military lingo, is very likely to slip in some military jargon, even when talking to reporters (especially if it was a Q&A). Nothing about that seems remotely suspicious.

But I'm sure you'd agree that the claim on rumsfeilds use of the term missile, like the other claim, is fairly circumstantial and conjectural.

 

Heres a steel rise tower controlled demolition in Ft. Worth.

http://www.break.com/index/landmark_tower_demolition.html

Notice that the implosions (like all implosions) began at the bottom of the building.

It took 1,200 charges. (much smaller building)
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/031806dnmetlandmark.354aec2e.html

The general contractor was D.H. Griffin of Texas, co-operated with NIST on a seperate demolition to investigate the penetration of radio and cell phone frequencies through rubble to help them find trapped rescue workers in the case of a 9/11 type collapse.
http://www.implosionworld.com/fischerbftp.htm

Eye witnesses report the explosion vibrations were much more powerful then the implosion.
http://www.fortwortharchitecture.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=1171&st=300

I couldn't find any seismograph data on this demolition, but it would have showed up in multiple spikes, with the largest spikes being the explosions because as implosion world says, the excess energy would have been transferred through the steel construction into the ground.

Heres the seismic data for the WTC collapse.
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/WTC_20010911.html

"We can study these signals and begin to develop a portfolio of different kinds of signatures of explosions It will be like have a set of fingerprints."
-Terry Wallace, a geophysicist at the University of Arizona

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2002/020527-secure.htm

I'll find the seismic data for this collapse later.

This controlled demolition took 4 months of planning and demolition teams moving around the building. Notice the Demolition World article detailing why this would be impossible.
http://www.nbc5i.com/news/8079772/detail.html

At free fall speeds:

s=0.5 * a * t^2 to calculate the collapse time of the tower:

s=116m

a = 9.81 m/s^2

time works out as 4.9 seconds.

This landmark tower took over 6 seconds with a controlled demolition. It did not fall faster then gravity.

 

Another video refuting free fall.

http://www.yourfilelink.com/get.php?fid=108995

Riddle me this, is the building or the debris falling first?

The debris, because it's descending at free fall speeds. You can see the building falling slower probably on the order of 3/4 to 1/2 G.