A Peer-Reviewed Professional Publication

[Winstonm]

i'm sorry, i'm still not getting it... by demolition do you mean it occurred at the same time (or *very* shortly after) the planes hit? how could using 'demolition' as an explanation not be conspiratorial?

By demolition they mean, what the impact of the airplane exactly did to the structure.

I'm pretty sure that's not what Winston means when he says demolition.

i'm pretty sure you're right... he says he's not thinking conspiracy, but i honestly don't see how that's possible if he thinks there was, in addition to the planes, demolition

Jimmy, you are not seperating the events.

 

First, there is investigation; second, there is determination of cause.

 

What you keep saying is that any other cause is impossible, therefore a diligent investigation is not needed.

 

Hey, we all saw what happened. Why investigate? Right?

 

What I am saying is: Wrong. Investigate first. Then, if the cause was controlled demolition, then it is time to find out the how.

 

But it is wrong to create a hypothesis that dosn't fit all the facts and then claim that a less probable hypothesis that does fit the facts is invalid - it can only be invalidated by facts, not innuendo.

[Winstonm]

Building 7 had the CIA super-secret documents from Bay of Pigs and stuff. It collapsed purely due to ground shock and debris, which some people find hard to believe.

 

Let's at least be accurate here. There is NO proof of your claim. The NIST has not published a cause for the collapse of building 7. Other WTC buildings were closer and suffered greater damage and more significant fires, yet did not collapse.

 

Even if one initially accepts the NIST version of the towers, consider the remarkable series of events that had to occur for a single building to collapse straight down - and then remember that this occured 3 times in a single day.

 

Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they are not really after you.

[Winstonm]

I'm pretty sure that's not what Winston means when he says demolition.

 

No, I am speaking of controlled demolition. But where Jimmy gets lost is that this is a question in and of itself. Were the towers' collapse controlled demolition, yes or no?

 

If no, that ends the need to look further at that hypothesis.

If yes, then that leads to a second question.

 

How was it done? It is only when you reach this second question that any possibility of a conspiracy arises.

 

Prior to that, you are simply looking for the scientific evidence that explains what happened.

[Winstonm]

The fact that there are conspiracy buffs that come out of the woodwork when there's a national tragedy does not mean that there's a conspiracy.

 

There is another side to this, as well. The fact that there is a large percentage of the population who will never doubt the official version makes it much easier to cover up a massive, illegal event, and get away with it.

[jtfanclub]

Building 7 had the CIA super-secret documents from Bay of Pigs and stuff. It collapsed purely due to ground shock and debris, which some people find hard to believe.

 

Let's at least be accurate here. There is NO proof of your claim.

Before quoting one of my posts, please read it to the end.

 

Thank you.

[luke warm]

What you keep saying is that any other cause is impossible, therefore a diligent investigation is not needed.

actually what i'm saying is that even offering up "... controlled demolition ..." as a cause shows at the very least a willingness (if not an outright hope) to believe there was a conspiracy...

 

1) do you agree that if there was a controlled demolition there had to have been a conspiracy?

2) do you personally believe there is a higher possibility that there was a controlled demolition than that there wasn't (i know you don't *know* that, i'm asking what you think, what you believe to be true)?

But it is wrong to create a hypothesis that dosn't fit all the facts and then claim that a less probable hypothesis that does fit the facts is invalid - it can only be invalidated by facts, not innuendo.

what less probable hypothesis that fits all the facts are you speaking of?

There is another side to this, as well. The fact that there is a large percentage of the population who will never doubt the official version makes it much easier to cover up a massive, illegal event, and get away with it.

i don't doubt the official version that we did not shoot down an alien spacecraft near roswell... i don't doubt the official version that we did indeed land on the moon

 

it seems to me that the onus is on those who dispute the "official version" - and occam's razor does apply here

[mike777]

The fact that there are conspiracy buffs that come out of the woodwork when there's a national tragedy does not mean that there's a conspiracy.

 

There is another side to this, as well. The fact that there is a large percentage of the population who will never doubt the official version makes it much easier to cover up a massive, illegal event, and get away with it.

I am lost what event was illegal?

 

 

If you mean blowing up buildings I assume a zillion govt lawyers or secret courts over the decades approved it under some unknown law. As Jimmy said I doubt they blew up one or more buildings as a spur of the moment thingy.

 

Just the other day Mrs Clinton said if Iran attacked Israel with nukes, America would wipe Iran off the map. What treaty says that? When did Congress approve that? I assume this is an illegal act she promised to do, yet she won Penn big! I repeat she promises to do an illegal act ( I assume it is illegal) and she wins the election!

 

Bush may or may not blow up one or more buildings, legally or illegally. Mrs. Clinton threatens to blow an entire country of tens of millions of people away. :)

[Winstonm]

Materials Engineering, Inc, has this to say about thermite residue testing. (emphasis added.)

 

Note, this quote is not about a test run on any WTC residue.

 

When thermite reaction compounds are used to ignite a fire, they produce a characteristic burn pattern, and leave behind evidence. These compounds are rather unique in their chemical composition, containing common elements such as copper, iron, calcium, silicon and aluminum, but also contain more unusual elements, such as vanadium, titanium, tin, fluorine and manganese. While some of these elements are consumed in the fire, many are also left behind in the residue.

 

MEi has conducted Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy (EDS) on minute traces of residue, identifying the presence of these chemical elements. The results, coupled with visual evidence at the scene, provide absolute certainty that thermite reaction compounds were present, indicating the fire was deliberately set, and not of natural causes.

 

This seems to dispute claims that testing for thermite would have been inconclusive.

[Winstonm]

actually what i'm saying is that even offering up "... controlled demolition ..." as a cause shows at the very least a willingness (if not an outright hope) to believe there was a conspiracy...

 

No, once again. What is required is simply the scientific method applied to a problem. Again, a valid hypothesis has to be able to explain all the known conditions. When a certain hypothesis explains all the observable data, it should then be tested.

 

1) do you agree that if there was a controlled demolition there had to have been a conspiracy?

That is irrelevant to utilizing the scientific method to solve a problem.

 

2) do you personally believe there is a higher possibility that there was a controlled demolition than that there wasn't (i know you don't *know* that, i'm asking what you think, what you believe to be true)?

 

It doesn't matter. The point is was this a scientific investigation, using scientific methods, or was it a political investigation, where certain possibilities were not addressed?

 

 

But it is wrong to create a hypothesis that dosn't fit all the facts and then claim that a less probable hypothesis that does fit the facts is invalid - it can only be invalidated by facts, not innuendo.

 

 

what less probable hypothesis that fits all the facts are you speaking of?

 

Controlled demolition would be one. I am unaware of other hypothesis that fit all the known facts.

 

As I have said before, the NIST hypothesis is not satifactory because they simply ignore and leave unexplained observable data - the models only reach the point of collapse initiation - so they do not explaim the free fall speeds of collapse, the hot spots left for weeks afterwards, the molten metal, or the diagonal breaks in steel beams that photographs have shown.

[Winstonm]

Building 7 had the CIA super-secret documents from Bay of Pigs and stuff. It collapsed purely due to ground shock and debris, which some people find hard to believe.

 

Let's at least be accurate here. There is NO proof of your claim.

Before quoting one of my posts, please read it to the end.

 

Thank you.

Sorry, JT,

 

I read it all - but this read to me as if you were making a claim of fact that ground shock, etc., brought down WTC 7.

 

I believe the final report in now due in July of this year.

[Winstonm]

Just the other day Mrs Clinton said if Iran attacked Israel with nukes, America would wipe Iran off the map

 

This "My God has a bigger dick than your God" mentality is going to get us all wiped off the freaking map.

[jtfanclub]

Materials Engineering, Inc, has this to say about thermite residue testing. (emphasis added.)

 

Note, this quote is not about a test run on any WTC residue.

 

When thermite reaction compounds are used to ignite a fire, they produce a characteristic burn pattern, and leave behind evidence. These compounds are rather unique in their chemical composition, containing common elements such as copper, iron, calcium, silicon and aluminum, but also contain more unusual elements, such as vanadium, titanium, tin, fluorine and manganese. While some of these elements are consumed in the fire, many are also left behind in the residue.

 

MEi has conducted Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy (EDS) on minute traces of residue, identifying the presence of these chemical elements. The results, coupled with visual evidence at the scene, provide absolute certainty that thermite reaction compounds were present, indicating the fire was deliberately set, and not of natural causes.

 

This seems to dispute claims that testing for thermite would have been inconclusive.

Why is it that you do quotes but not links?

 

They're talking about looking for traces of arson in a house fire, not whether you can tell a fire was merely an airplane burning up or industrial grade thermite.

 

Which compound do you think they'd be looking for that isn't in an airplane hull or commonly in a skyscraper? Are you still under the illusion that there's a magic thermite compound they're looking for? If so, you might want to read the article you quoted again.

[mike777]

Just the other day Mrs Clinton said if Iran attacked Israel with nukes, America would wipe Iran off the map

 

This "My God has a bigger dick than your God" mentality is going to get us all wiped off the freaking map.

I am sorry who won Penn election in a landslide?

 

If you mean voters said hold.....illegal...........Mrs. Clinton got close to zero votes?

 

Of course my main point is.......she said it...she won in landslide vote.

 

Yet so many blame Bush or whoever is elected but not the voters? Not civilians?

[luke warm]

1) do you agree that if there was a controlled demolition there had to have been a conspiracy?

That is irrelevant to utilizing the scientific method to solve a problem.

 

2) do you personally believe there is a higher possibility that there was a controlled demolition than that there wasn't (i know you don't *know* that, i'm asking what you think, what you believe to be true)?

 

It doesn't matter. The point is was this a scientific investigation, using scientific methods, or was it a political investigation, where certain possibilities were not addressed?

winston, you have stated that you don't believe there was a conspiracy... i'm saying that you at the very least think there *might* have been one... that's why i asked those two questions, and i suspect you knew that

 

anyone who believes that controlled demolition brought down the twin towers, or that it's even possible, sees conspiracy around every corner... did we disect an alien in new mexico in 1951? was the moon landing really a hollywood production? did the cia kill jfk?

 

imagine for a moment what would have to be true for a controlled demolition to have been involved... now not only were all those things true, the planning and execution were flawless... sigh

But it is wrong to create a hypothesis that dosn't fit all the facts and then claim that a less probable hypothesis that does fit the facts is invalid - it can only be invalidated by facts, not innuendo.

 

what less probable hypothesis that fits all the facts are you speaking of?

 

Controlled demolition would be one. I am unaware of other hypothesis that fit all the known facts.

i was and still am unaware that controlled demolition fit all the facts... how does it fit with the fact that 2 jets hit the twin towers?

[Winstonm]

winston, you have stated that you don't believe there was a conspiracy...

 

Jimmy, you keep misquoting me. What I have said is that the scientific method of investigation looks at all possible reasons - it is the political method that rules out without testing. You are the one who keeps wanting to change the debate to include conspiracy. I grant your point. A conspiracy of this magnitude would have been difficult to accomplish - so what does that prove? Neither you nor I nor anyone else who posts here have any real understandiing of how many people or how truly difficult it would have been to accomplish - we only think we understand from our own biases. How difficult we believe it may have been to accomplish is irrelevant - we are simply guessing - and guessing is what we are trying to eliminate by investigation, isn't it?

 

anyone who believes that controlled demolition brought down the twin towers, or that it's even possible, sees conspiracy around every corner...

 

This is simply untrue - a claim without substance. While it is generally accepted that there is some small fraction of the population that sees conspiracy everywhere, the WTC tragedy is quite different in that research has caused many who originally accepted the official verstion to now question the official claims.

 

imagine for a moment what would have to be true for a controlled demolition to have been involved... now not only were all those things true, the planning and execution were flawless... sigh

 

Imagine for a moment what would have to be true for life to have evolved from the primordial slime, for evolution to eventually produce mankind.....

 

I suppose the reasoning is the same - it couldn't have happened because it seems way too complex?

 

i was and still am unaware that controlled demolition fit all the facts... how does it fit with the fact that 2 jets hit the twin towers?

 

Two seperate events: 1) striking of the towers by planes; 2) collapse of the towers and building 7. Demolition has to do with #2. #1 is not a point of contention.

[Al_U_Card]

God has a dick?

 

Iran has nukes?

 

Next, Jesus will have Aids.....

[Winstonm]

Jtfanclub,

 

Having compared the NIST to the challenges, I would make the following statement to see if you may not agree:

 

The NIST makes an attempt to explain what may have happened - the challenges disagree with those findings.

 

My reasons for this statement: The NIST began with the premise that airplane collisions and fire caused the towers to fall, and then looked for mechanisms that would explain that cause. By utilizing a preconceived causation, the NIST used a political inquiry rather than a scientific inquiry.

 

Because the cause was predetermined, the best estimate can only be "may have occured" rather than "did occur". I believe this distiction is important to understand when reading the NIST version - that their explanation is based on the assumption that only airplane collision and fire caused the towers to collapse.

 

Their report is not necessarily one of fact, but one of modeling based on a presupposition.

 

In answer to your question:

Why is it that you do quotes but not links?

 

It is two cut and paste procedures, and I tend to lose the original post at times going back and forth - if it seems truly important, I open two browsers - mainly, though, because it is a pain, I'm lazy, and I only do so when it seems critical to the post.

[hotShot]

Sometimes airplanes crash, often causing a big fire.

 

Cars and vans often hit buildings and cause damage. Sometimes the damage is big enough to to make the building collapse, sometimes it can be repaired.

 

Every day somewhere buildings are burning, if they burn long enough they collapse.

 

A building was hit by an airplane, it was damaged, started burning and after a while collapsed.

 

Nothing unexpected happened.

[Winstonm]

Sometimes airplanes crash, often causing a big fire.

True enough.

 

Cars and vans often hit buildings and cause damage. Sometimes the damage is big enough to to make the building collapse, sometimes it can be repaired.

I've never heard of a skyscraper collapsing due to car or van damage - do you have a link to support this claim?

 

Every day somewhere buildings are burning, if they burn long enough they collapse.

 

From what I have read, no time in history has a building totally collapsed due to fire - again, if you have a link supporting your claim, it would be good to see.

 

A building was hit by an airplane, it was damaged, started burning and after a while collapsed.

 

Nothing unexpected happened.

 

That appears to be the same premise used by the NIST.

[Al_U_Card]

A building was hit by an airplane, it was damaged, started burning and after a while collapsed.

 

Nothing unexpected happened.

 

That appears to be the same premise used by the NIST.

Ahhh, so now we start to agree that they EXPECTED what happened!!!!!

 

:P :lol: :lol:

 

Even on that day, as I watched the first tower "peel" itself....it was a total "wtf" moment. Buildings just don't do "that". I must admit that WTC 1 and 2 didn't look like any demolition (controlled implosion) that I had ever seen before (7 yes, big time) but I was looking forward to finding out the mechanism of how such a huge building could withdraw from its spatial location with such alacrity.

[blackshoe]

I was looking forward to finding out the mechanism of how such a huge building could withdraw from its spatial location with such alacrity.

It was magic.

[luke warm]

i was and still am unaware that controlled demolition fit all the facts... how does it fit with the fact that 2 jets hit the twin towers?

 

Two seperate events: 1) striking of the towers by planes; 2) collapse of the towers and building 7. Demolition has to do with #2. #1 is not a point of contention.

which occurred first, and how soon afterwards did the second occur (both in such a way as to fit the "facts" you speak of)?

 

in another post i asked,

1) do you agree that if there was a controlled demolition there had to have been a conspiracy?

and you answered,

That is irrelevant to utilizing the scientific method to solve a problem.

and,

2) do you personally believe there is a higher possibility that there was a controlled demolition than that there wasn't (i know you don't *know* that, i'm asking what you think, what you believe to be true)?

answered thusly,

It doesn't matter. The point is was this a scientific investigation, using scientific methods, or was it a political investigation, where certain possibilities were not addressed?

you keep talking about presuppositions made by NIST but by your failure to answer either of those you appear to call into question your own presuppositions... that's why my questions were relevant and do matter, to me at least (and i suspect to one or two others)

[hotShot]

That appears to be the same premise used by the NIST.

The wonderful thing with science is, that if you apply it to a problem you get a valid result.

 

Using the same rational deduction I have to get to the same result.

 

Since you asked for links:

 

About concrete look for subsection Fire is says that concrete modifies to fragile calcium oxide at about 1000 deg. C.

 

Burning jet fuel can reach 980 C.

 

Burning Aluminum from airplane car reach temperatures above 1000 C.

Steel can be formed above temperatures from 500-700 C.

 

The "punch" a airplane delivers to a building is described by the kinetic energy:

E = 0.5 * mass * speed * speed

Mass unit kg

speed unit m/s

 

Since the speed of a plane is more than 10 times larger than the speed of a van the impact is 100 times bigger!

[Winstonm]

Jimmy,

 

Your only point seems to be a recurring reliance on the necessity of an alternative conspircy and how the difficulty of carrying out such a plan then makes it unnecessary to investigate this cause.

 

Occam's Razor could not apply to our decision as not one of us has a clue how truly difficult or simple it would be to carry out such a plan, so there is no way for any of us to make a comparison of simplicity.

 

I will say this much on your subject, though - regardless of the cause of collapse, I do not view controlled demolition as such an incredibly difficult assignment as you, it seems. If the day and method of attack were known, then there would really only be the necessity to control 4 aspects to ensure collapse after impact: WTC security (to allow charge placement), airport security (to make sure the hijackers were not stopped), U.S. Air Force intercept response (so plane impact could be assured), and charge placement and ignition (to bring about the collapse). Looks to me as though no more than 3 powerful CEO-type positions could accomplish the first three, and a small team could carry out the rest - and this group wouldn't have to be U.S. nationals, even, making them less likely to be able to "spill the beans".

 

Let me aks you a two questions of my own. If controlled demolition had been the actual cause of the collapses, would you want to know it? If it had not been the cause, what is the harm in investigating its potential in order to rule out that cause?

[Winstonm]

That appears to be the same premise used by the NIST.

The wonderful thing with science is, that if you apply it to a problem you get a valid result.

 

Using the same rational deduction I have to get to the same result.

 

Since you asked for links:

 

About concrete look for subsection Fire is says that concrete modifies to fragile calcium oxide at about 1000 deg. C.

 

Burning jet fuel can reach 980 C.

 

Burning Aluminum from airplane car reach temperatures above 1000 C.

Steel can be formed above temperatures from 500-700 C.

 

The "punch" a airplane delivers to a building is described by the kinetic energy:

E = 0.5 * mass * speed * speed

Mass unit kg

speed unit m/s

 

Since the speed of a plane is more than 10 times larger than the speed of a van the impact is 100 times bigger!

Reasonable points....but.... there is always a but...(emphasis added)

 

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which investigates the collapses, will say “The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes.” [National Institute of Standards and Technology, 9/2005, pp. 183 ]  ] Flight 11, a Boeing 767, had a fuel capacity of 23,980 gallons, but was only carrying about 10,000 gallons when it hit the WTC. NIST will estimate that less than 1,500 gallons were consumed in a fireball inside the tower and a comparable amount was consumed in the fireballs outside the building. Therefore, approximately 7,000 gallons splashed onto the office furnishings and started fires on various floors. However, after the jet fuel is used up, office fires burn until the building collapses. NIST will calculate that there were about four pounds per square foot of combustibles in the office space, or about 60 tons per floor. Offices in the WTC actually have fewer combustibles than some other similar spaces due to the small number of interior walls and limited bookshelf space. NIST will later find that only three of sixteen perimeter columns it recovers reached a temperature of 250°C and neither of the two core columns it retrieves reached this temperature. NIST will also find that none of the samples it acquires reaches a temperature above 600°C (see August 27, 2003). Although steel does not melt until its temperature is about 1,600°C, it may begin to lose significant strength at over 500°C. [National Institute of Standards and Technology, 9/2005, pp. 20, 29, 24, 77 ]

It seems the evidence the NIST looked at (only three of sixteen perimeter columns it recovers reached a temperature of 250°C and neither of the two core columns it retrieves reached this temperature. NIST will also find that none of the samples it acquires reaches a temperature above 600°C (see August 27, 2003). ) support a claim for high temperatures.

 

Although jet fuel can produce the higher temperatures, it is quickly consumed and thus the higher temperatures could not have sustained for any great length of time.