9-11 Evidence Unanswered

OkhamsRazor · #41 (**permalink**) 06-14-2006, 03:00 AM

Continuing with the PM breakdown....

Quote:

Puffs Of Dust
CLAIM: As each tower collapsed, clearly visible puffs of dust and debris were ejected from the sides of the buildings. An advertisement in The New York Times for the book Painful Questions: An Analysis Of The September 11th Attack made this claim: "The concrete clouds shooting out of the buildings are not possible from a mere collapse. They do occur from explosions." Numerous conspiracy theorists cite Van Romero, an explosives expert and vice president of the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, who was quoted on 9/11 by the Albuquerque Journal as saying "there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse." The article continues, "Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures."

FACT: Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report.

Again, in order for the pancaking theory to work on a simultaneous, global and symmetrical fashion, temperatures would have had to be high enough, widespread, for an extended period of time. Again, we have the eyewitness taped radio traffic of a fireman on the scene say, "we can knock this down with two lines (two hoses), no problem". A hand full of NY's finest, after climbing 80 stories in full gear, feel they can knock down the fire "no problem". That does not sound like the hopeless inferno that we have been told MUST have been, in order to facilitate a collapse. Also, the pancake theory has other problems. It completely ignores the central core. 44 steel columns that supported the entire gravitational load that ran from the bedrock to the roof. Even if the building failed at the 80th, a substantial portion of the unawakened, undamaged core, a minimum of ten stories should have remained standing. It was simply that strong. The "doughnuts" that made up the usable floor space would have simply fell away from the core.

Quote:

Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air--along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse--was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."

Well, well, well. Large volume of air you say?... enormous energy you say?

Anyone here ever sit on an inflated balloon? When it pops it makes a big bang (unless you have a truly large ass, then it's pretty muffled) which is a large form of energy release. However... just before it pops, there is ALOT of resistance. Follow me?

It's already been acknowledged, (or rather the NIST doesn't dispute it) that the buildings fell very near the speed of freefall... that's in a vacuum mind you, no air resistance. Yet here they are arguing that there is so much air resistance that it's blowing out windows with large quantities of debris and air? Remember that each floor is only about ten feet high, yet these mysterious puffs of dust are happening several stories below. In regular intervals, in symmetrical central positions on the buildings face. Why would the air pressure be so great several floors below, with several still intact floor strictures acting as air barriers? The only place you should have seen this taking place is at the specific floor being "pancaked". Maybe in the lobby if the fireball from the crash scenario isn't BS.

I'd like to pint this out here and now, off topic a bit...
There is a disturbing overall lack of randomness in every single aspect of the collapse of all three buildings. From the symmetry of every single event, to each building falling into it's basement. Natural events are never that pat.

Quote:

Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."

Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years."

Gee, can't imagine why a guy would change his story after being called a kook for three years straight ny some of his peers.

jrafe · #42 (**permalink**) 06-14-2006, 03:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OkhamsRazor

Nice post Huff... we have common ground after all. Excellent! I take back every nasty thing... well ok, some you deserved.

Huh??????????

OkhamsRazor · #43 (**permalink**) 06-14-2006, 03:28 AM

Seismic Spikes

Quote:

CLAIM: Seismographs at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N.Y., 21 miles north of the WTC, recorded the events of 9/11. "The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before falling debris struck the earth," reports the Web site WhatReallyHappened.com.

A columnist on Prisonplanet.com, a Web site run by radio talk show host Alex Jones, claims the seismic spikes (boxed area on Graph 1) are "indisputable proof that massive explosions brought down" the towers. The Web site says its findings are supported by two seismologists at the observatory, Won-Young Kim and Arthur Lerner-Lam. Each "sharp spike of short duration," says Prisonplanet.com, was consistent with a "demolition-style implosion."

FACT: "There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers, " Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."

This is slightly distorting, what should have been said is...
"There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers, based on our work," Lerner-Lam tells PM.

There is in fact a scientific basis for this conclusion.

Quote:

The report issued by Lamont-Doherty includes various graphs showing the seismic readings produced by the planes crashing into the two towers as well as the later collapse of both buildings. WhatReallyHappened.com chooses to display only one graph (Graph 1), which shows the readings over a 30-minute time span.

On that graph, the 8- and 10-second collapses appear--misleadingly--as a pair of sudden spikes. Lamont-Doherty's 40-second plot of the same data (Graph 2) gives a much more detailed picture: The seismic waves--blue for the South Tower, red for the North Tower--start small and then escalate as the buildings rumble to the ground. Translation: no bombs.

Let me get this straight... in order to get a clearer picture of the event, we have to reduce resolution from the fine analysis of 8 seconds, to the broad analysis of 40 seconds? I realize these are seismic waves, but a wave is a wave and any sound engineer can tell you that is complete crap. Anyone that works with oscilloscopes will can tell you that's complete crap. If you want to see detail, you zoom in.

Also, in some of the video evidence already provided, we've seen and heard the sound the analysis of the consussive booms heard over a a mile away. The white noise of a constant rumble tends to get filtered more through the air than a consuddive report.

I'd like to take a moment to point out a major flaw in this article. Every single "claim" they use from the "theorists, is attributed to a website that reports it, and not to the individual scientists that performed the studies. This gives the impression that their (PM's) "Team of Experts", is far more well informed than the source of the claim. THAT IS NOT THE CASE. This enitre article pisses me off. I know one thing for sure, that publication which I've enjoyed for over two decades will receive not another penny from me.
yet, still more to come.....

dimension XI · #44 (**permalink**) 06-14-2006, 12:10 PM

Working out the exact mathematics is a little much for me but a thought did occur which I thought was worth exploring. Ok let’s use WTC-1 a tower block with straight sides and the impact happens on floors 93-99 that span a distance of over 70ft. If then imagine that the fire reaches such a temperature that everything within this fire melts instantaneously, that means that the 10 floors above plus the extra roof area would freefall 70ft directly impacting on the floors below. (This is obviously what happened, the fire burned for a short period of time and completely vaporised all the internal structures, and the upper floors were floating in thin air above the rest of the building until it collapsed, there must have been magic involved)

My question is, if you did this a thousand or a million times, what is the chance that the building below would collapse straight down whilst the floors above either disintegrate or stay balanced on the falling pancakes? I know this does not directly relate to what happened in the tower but I would still be interested to know. If one of the towers had started collapsing on one side and then toppled i.e. like a tree and then went into the other tower which then collapsed, maybe it would seem more realistic. In fact didn't WTC2 start to fall this way and then stopped suddenly, I'm sure I have read or seen that somewhere, but I am not 100%?

OkhamsRazor · #45 (**permalink**) 06-14-2006, 12:55 PM

Quote:

In fact didn't WTC2 start to fall this way and then stopped suddenly, I'm sure I have read or seen that somewhere, but I am not 100%?

That is absolutely correct dimension. The upper corner of wtc 2 did indeed begin to topple over, then violating conservation of momentum, stopped, fell straight down for a few moments and completely disintegrated.

Good question

I also forgot to mention in the PM breakdown that the air pressure cited in the explanation of the "squibs" (demolition like puffs if debris leaving the windows below) runs directly counter to the observed free fall collapse of the towers. If there was indeed that much air pressure it would have slowed the collapse to a perceptable difference to that observed.

OkhamsRazor · #46 (**permalink**) 06-14-2006, 10:32 PM

Okay, I guess I'm done with the PM article. I have no intention at this time to tackle the pentagon evidence, except to say this...

Why is it so impossible to release one frame, just one from the dozens of cameras whose video was confiscated, just one frame with a plane in it? Just one! There is no way they are all as indistinct as what has already been released.

I'm also going to skip flight 93. There is just far too much to go over with the towers right now, and there are other subjects I want to address on this site with the kind of detail I'm providing here.

Besides, if I manage to raise your curiosity enough with the towers, you will do your own research on the other incidents, hopefully.

BTW, I'm not doing this for the purpose of preaching to the choir. I'm doing this to get some of the doubters who have refused to look at the data and it's sources because of the websites associated with it.

Either way, with or without the doubters, those of us with questions will never give up in getting the answers.

HuffDawg · #47 (**permalink**) 06-15-2006, 03:52 PM

OK, we can go back and forth with evidence and theories, we can agree to disagree. Let me ask you a couple of questions.

1. So are you saying that the administration was responsible for flying 2 planes (whatever kind they were) into the towers, 1 plane into the Pentagon, and flight 93 into the ground, with great precision I might add, and have been able to keep it a secret all this time?

2. What about the people that were supposedly on those planes? Some say that they were all on flight 93. Where did they all go? so now the airlines and FAA are involved and able to keep a secret?

3. All this was supposedly done and kept secret by individuals who people say are stupid and dumb?

I understand your conspiracy theory, if that is the case, its the best one since JFK assassination.

OkhamsRazor · #48 (**permalink**) 06-15-2006, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HuffDawg

OK, we can go back and forth with evidence and theories, we can agree to disagree. Let me ask you a couple of questions.

1. So are you saying that the administration was responsible for flying 2 planes (whatever kind they were) into the towers, 1 plane into the Pentagon, and flight 93 into the ground, with great precision I might add, and have been able to keep it a secret all this time?

I'm merely providing facts, it's up to you to decide. At most I'm suggesting that it's certainly possible, and fits the available evidence much better than a terrorist attack alone. The reason I'm careful in this distinction is that I don't want to believe, as much as I dislike Bush, that any American is capable of this. But historically, and with this present data, I simply can not ignore that possibility.

As to the precision of the flight strikes, which I have not delved into yet, it is far more likely using a Military GPS system than it would be by a couple of incompetent flight students. Managing 100 tons of metal flying at over 350 miles an hour and putting it on a dime, is no small feat. At the pentagon, the lawn wasn't even touched (if indeed it was a 757). I still won't comment on 93. There just isn't enough data.

Quote:

2. What about the people that were supposedly on those planes? Some say that they were all on flight 93. Where did they all go? so now the airlines and FAA are involved and able to keep a secret?

All I'll say about this is, we emptied the skies lickity split that morning, to day there was mass confusion would be an understatement. I'll have to take a look at the time line. The data is there (though not as much and not as solid), I'm just not all that familiar with it. I have to admit that I suffer the same prejudices that I have accused others of. The REALLY far out theories I tend not to look at. The less data that there is available, the more conjecture is the operator, and that opens the door for all sorts of interpretation. The short answer is, I don't know.

Quote:

3. All this was supposedly done and kept secret by individuals who people say are stupid and dumb?

LOL, the only person in that administration that is accused of being stupid is Bush. I would never underestimate the rest of the Cabal. There is no doubt that these men are shrewd, wily and very smart. Don't forget that these guys cut their teeth under the Nixon teet. Rumsfeld and Cheney did their little power grab in the Ford administration, and did it well. They've had plenty of time to refine their techniques and examine past mistakes (theirs and others). Look, there are so many convergent lines between these men and VERY unlikely events over almost 40 years on public office, I just don't know how anyone can look away.

Again, I would like to clarify "conspiracy". This is not a negative term, it simply describes an event planned and carried out by more than one person. The "official" story is also a conspiracy theory. I doubt that will level the playing field in the minds of some, but it should.

Quote:

I understand your conspiracy theory, if that is the case, its the best one since JFK assassination.

Maybe, but this one is still provable. The only things missing at this point are what the government is holding on to. If this evidence would end the speculation, then why not at least release a few bits of the most convincing of that evidence. Such as the pentagon vidoes.

OkhamsRazor · #49 (**permalink**) 06-15-2006, 09:25 PM

Alrighty, now lets take a (another) side trip. Ever wonder why the 911 commission would go along with all of these alleged shenanigans? How indeed could you get so many people to keep their mouths shut?

Keep in mind that Bush opposed an independent investigation vehemently despite the outcry of victims families. Unfortunately for Bush, he had to cave in light of the HUGE apparent intelligence failures.

Note: Interesting that with the alleged intel incompetence happened leading up to 911, you'd think there would be no way that they would screw up that bad again... yet we see this unprecedented (well... ok, sure, NOW there's precedent) failure again by supplying 100% inaccurate information to support an invasion of Iraq. Never before has our intelligence (FBI and CIA) been completely off base, or even close. Anytime they have appeared to in the past, we have learned they were lying.

So, who's on this "blueribbon panel" of 911 investigators?

Quote:

Thomas Kean (chair) director of oil giant Amerada Hess. business ties to Saudis Khalid bin Mahfouz. co-chairman of Homeland Security Project. CFR member.

Lee H. Hamilton (vice chair) member of Homeland Security Advisory Council. former chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and House Select Intelligence Committee. chair of committee investigating Iran/Contra. CFR member.

Richard Ben-Veniste partner in the Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw law firm which represented Westfield Corporation and Westfield America -- insurance beneficiaries of the court-ordered multi-billion dollar payout for the World Trade Center destruction.

Bob Kerrey vice-chair of the Senate Committee on Intelligence. Kerrey said in a 1999 Washington Post column that the Vietnam war (which killed over 2 million civilians) was a "just war."

Fred F. Fielding worked for John Dean as White House counsel to Nixon -- "Deep Throat" of Watergate fame, avoided prison time.

Jamie S. Gorelick current and former partner, along with Commission General
Counsel Daniel Marcus, of Wilmer, Cutler and Pickering, a law firm representing Prince Mohammed al Faisal against the August 2002 lawsuit by victims' families against several Saudi princes and banks, and the Sudanese government. vice-chair of mortgage giant Fannie Mae. Former deputy to Janet Reno. CFR member.

Slade Gorton served two years on the Senate Intelligence Committee.

John F. Lehman former Secretary of the Navy under Reagan. disgraced in a number of scandals, including Tailhook.

Timothy J. Roemer member of the House Intelligence Committee.

James R. Thompson chairman of the large Chicago-based law firm Winston and Strawn, whose clients have included American Airlines, Boeing, and a number of WTC tenants.

Philip Zelikow member of George W. Bush's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board; member of Bush-Cheney transition team.

Why does the phrase, "Fox guarding the hen house" come to mind?

The connections of these panelists goes much deeper than what is reported here. This is another pathological behavior of the Bushies, appoint cronies as rewards or favors to posts they have no business being in. Like the horse breeder that oversaw FEMA during Katrina. Wholly inappropriate and unqualified. Just proves the old maxim, "it's not what you know, it's who you know." But if you ever talk about what you know....

The CFM attached to some of these names refers to the Council on Foreign Relations. Let's take a quick look at this group.

Like the Brookings Institute and the Pew Research Center, this group has been around for quite a while, claims to be non-partisan and claims to be a balanced resource for policy issues. Unlike the aforementioned BI and PRC, they are not in the game of solely supplying information. From their own mission statement, we get this...

Quote:

Founded in 1921, the Council on Foreign Relations is an independent, national membership organization and a nonpartisan center for scholars dedicated to producing and disseminating ideas so that individual and corporate members, as well as policymakers, journalists, students, and interested citizens in the United States and other countries, can better understand the world and the foreign policy choices facing the United States and other governments.

No research, just discussion of issues and "producing and disseminating ideas".

They actually do some research, but that is not the center of their existence. They more often (re)interpret information by others, and then disseminate their view of it.

Lets look at another quote from the front page of their "About Us" section.

Quote:

Welcome to www.cfr.org, the website of the Council on Foreign Relations. It is designed to be an online resource for everyone in these turbulent times who wants to learn more about the complex international issues challenging policy-makers and citizens alike.

Translation, don't worry your pretty li'l head, we'll explain everything for you. All of this is far too complex for you average Joes. We figure it out and let you know.

For a more objective look without my opinion, look here.

Council_on_Foreign_Relations - wiki
CFR

Glorfindel87 · #50 (**permalink**) 06-15-2006, 11:06 PM

I know I haven't said anything really about this post of yours, but I have been keeping up with it and it has certainly caused me to look at the data. From what I've read on my own and the data you present, it seems that the key sticking point is the time. All the other points seem possible to explain, though obviously to varied degrees of credibility. From what I've looked at though, no videos seem to give a clear, unquestionable duration of the fall unfortunately. I know the seismic graphs and a couple videos give estimates or reasonable speculation, but since there's nothing solid, scientists and engineers have differing opinions on the matter. I'll continue to look at the data though, and I thank you for the encouragement to do so and the excellent presentation of seemingly unbiased reports. Good post.