Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...

[Jack White]

Just what are YOUR CREDENTIALS which enable you to declare

the work of a doctor of physics and engineering NONSENSE?

Please show us your calculations regarding gravity's effect,

instead of just saying that Dr. Woods has erred.

So far as I can determine you are only an internet gadfly.

Please tell us your credentials. Or make something up, like

you do on other postings.

Jack

[William Kelly]

And just what is this venue for the proper questioning of the VP under oath?

Certainly not a Congressional hearing. Certainly not another Commission? Where would Cheney be required to go to answer questions under oath?

A grand jury?

If impeached, he would have to testify before the Senate.....

Dennis Kucinich sure is trying:

http://kucinich.house.gov/spotlightissues/documents.htm

Indeed, Dennis Kucinich is trying to impeach Cheney first, and is using much of the material provided by John Judge and Peter Dale Scott in his arguments.

Yet, the time it takes to impeach is past, as the current Lame Duck administration is just finishing out its term and will be passe before any such legal movements could take hold.

Kucinich is a well informed, principled and prepared progressive who doesn't mind going off the cuff, with TV reporters, as long as they let him have his say and don't put words in his mouth.

He's too independent to be allowed to be president.

BK

Edited June 27, 2007 by William Kelly

[Michael Hogan]

The breadth of your expertise never ceases to amaze, Len. You offer (almost) instant opinion about practically anything and everything. Quite remarkable really.

I would submit that Len's 9/11 expertise is derived almost exclusively from this website: http://911myths.com/index.html

Len has employed this website as his bedrock research tool. He has been doing the same thing for over a year, that I know of. Is there some good information there? Yes there is. Is there some poor research there? I think that there is. On the homepage the author(s) offer this advice:

But does this make us an authority? No. If we’ve an overall message here, it’s check things for yourself. Don’t trust a site just because it’s telling you what you want to believe. Don’t believe us without evaluating our arguments and checking the references we provide, either (we’re as likely to make mistakes as anyone else). Look into the claims yourself, discover both sides of the argument, and make your own mind up. The truth deserves nothing less.

I think Len believes that in many cases, merely posting a link to this site proves whatever point he is trying to make at the time.

And although I am sure that Len will deny it, it appears to me that he will go to almost any lengths he deems necessary in order to diminish the credentials of those with whom he disagrees. To some extent we all employ the same tactic in advancing an argument, but Len seems to take that tactic to an extreme which borders on the silly sometimes. I would provide quotes, but I've lost most of my motivation to engage in an endless back and forth with him. It never leads anywhere.

Back in the sixties, one didn't have to be a world leading forensic pathologist, or a recognized ballistics expert, or a renowned crime scene specialist to recognize that the Warren Report, and hence the government that strenuously backed it, was lacking to the point of fraud. A Maryland poultry farmer, a research analyst at the World Health Organization and a New York lawyer demonstrated as much.

In the case of 9/11, endless debate about who is the best structural engineer, or who is the most accomplished pilot, or what college someone attended means little. Empirical logic, intellectual honesty, clarity of thought, and impeccable documentation mean much more.

Edited June 27, 2007 by Michael Hogan

[Jack White]

Bravo, Mike. You are right on.

Your list should have included a legal secretary in Dallas

name of Mary Ferrell, an architect in Cleburne name of

Gary Shaw, and retired Brigadier General Penn Jones,

publisher of a small Texas newspaper.

Jack

[Michael Hogan]

Bravo, Mike. You are right on.

Your list should have included a legal secretary in Dallas

name of Mary Ferrell, an architect in Cleburne name of

Gary Shaw, and retired Brigadier General Penn Jones,

publisher of a small Texas newspaper.

Jack

Yes indeed Jack. No doubt about those three. Thanks for supplying the Texas connection.

[Sid Walker]

In the case of 9/11, endless debate about who is the best structural engineer, or who is the most accomplished pilot, or what college someone attended means little. Empirical logic, intellectual honesty, clarity of thought, and impeccable documentation mean much more.

Nicely put, Michael.

[Peter McKenna]

In the case of 9/11, endless debate about who is the best structural engineer, or who is the most accomplished pilot, or what college someone attended means little. Empirical logic, intellectual honesty, clarity of thought, and impeccable documentation mean much more.

Nicely put, Michael.

Sid,

I read many of the linked articles on physics911. Thanks for the reference.

Like many articles I have read on the events of 9/11 I found many good points, but also there are many that I am skeptical of. I liked Dave Heller's article on thw WTC collapse. He said that the WTC 7 collapse was, for him, the pivotal item that raised his suspicions. He also has some reasonable points on WTC 1 and 2, although I still disagree with much of the basis for the argument that the WTC 1 and 2 collapse were caused by other than the aircraft.

Much of Dewdney's article on cellphone use in UA93 seems well thought out, but for a couple of points. If the aircraft were at, say, a 20,000 foot elevation, it does seem unlikely that a cellphone call would get through. But below 10,000 feet, it is very possible to make cellphone calls. His article basically says this. I have flown at least half a million miles, and although cellphone use is prohibited, I have observed an occasional (albeit surreptitious) successful cellphone call during an ascent or descent.

Dewdney's article on Islam and its irreconcilability with suicide bombing is interesting. I wasn't aware that the concepts were diametrically opposed as in the Catholic religion. In view of the prodigious amount and omniscient presence of suicide bombings I would be interested in how this is reconciled with the Moslem faith (or if it is).

The articles on WTC 1 and 2 seem to follow the same course as Judy Wood's (conservation of energy), except I didn't see any theories exposed utilizing a star wars weapon to fell the buildings. I believe (now this is my opinion) that the same flaws present in Judy Wood's theory appears here as well, in relying on the timing of the collapse of WTC 1 and 2. But I won't go into that, if you feel strongly the other way, it wouldn't be productive to descend into an argument.

Len says that there was some deformation along the roof (or penthouse) of WTC 7. I need to review the video again, but simple modeling indicates that the collapse which I saw on video, must have been assisted, somehow. I haven't had much luck finding information on the WTC 7 architectural plans, but based on the post collapse footage and internet descriptions, it was a steel framed building of steel beams, columns, and glass, although there were some features a bit more exotic than a simple box structure made of right angle steel sections.

With a set of architectural drawings and a computer program for frame structure modeling, it should be easy work to determine if WTC 7 could have been overloaded from the WTC 1 and 2 events, to the point of collapse. I haven't seen anyything yet (I reviewed an NIST presentation doing an 'ANSYS' model of the WTC 7 collapse. 'Expected results' were projected in the presentation, but I could find no actual results of the computer modeling). Maybe there is some modeling done but I can't find it.

Anyway, a computer model of WTC 7 is very do-able, which should be able to provide a very high confidence level in whatever hypothesis is the right hypothesis. I just don't understand why the NIST or ASCE, or the ASME haven't done it (or if they have where is it?). That would make too much sense.

Edited June 27, 2007 by Peter McKenna

[Jack White]

McKenna exhibits his abysmal lack of information regarding the WTC bldgs when he says:

" I haven't had much luck finding information on the WTC 7 architectural plans, but based on the post collapse footage and internet descriptions, it was a steel framed building of steel beams, columns, and glass, although there were some features a bit more exotic than a simple box structure made of right angle steel sections. "

IN FACT there is an abundance of such information. Even Colby knows this. Several

911 websites detail the architectural information, as well as some engineering and

architectural websites. Just google WTC TOWERS ARCHITECTURE, etc. Even the

911 Commission explained the construction.

The twin towers were NOT STEEL FRAMED BUILDINGS. They were a newer type of

construction called CURTAIN WALL. There are several internet explanations of their

construction. There was a central STEEL FRAMED ELEVATOR CORE of heavy I-beams.

The outer wall was steel "tubular" box columns. These were tied to the central core

by steel spandrel plates, steel trusses and concrete floors. Each tower was a rigid

box designed to sway slightly with wind and maintain integrity. The steel columns

at ground level were 4 inches thick, but thinned gradually to a quarter inch at the

top. Conventional steel-framing was not possible for buildings this tall. So much

steel would have been required that little room would have been left for offices.

Duh.

Jack

[Steve Ulman]

McKenna exhibits his abysmal lack of information regarding the WTC bldgs when he says:

<snip>

The twin towers were NOT STEEL FRAMED BUILDINGS. They were a newer type of

construction called CURTAIN WALL.

<snip>

Duh.

Jack

I know I said I wasn't going to discuss this anymore but I cannot let this disinformation / misinformation pass.

Jack exhibits his abysmal lack of information regarding the WTC bldgs when he says:

"The twin towers were NOT STEEL FRAMED BUILDINGS. They were a newer type of construction called CURTAIN WALL."

Neither of the Twin Towers or WTC-7 had a curtain wall.

From Wikipedia:

Curtain wall is a term used to describe a building façade which does not carry any dead load from the building other than its own dead load. These loads are transferred to the main building structure through connections at floors or columns of the building. A curtain wall is designed to resist air and water infiltration, wind forces acting on the building, seismic forces, and its own dead load forces.

In all three buildings the outer walls carried building loads.

Anyone who has researched 9-11 knows this - EXECPT jack! This isn't the first time jack has shown a lack of research skills regardijng 9-11 and I'm sure it won't be the last.

Either jack is trying to deceive or has no clue about 9-11 and the WTC - either way, no one who cares about the truth should pay any attention to what he says.

Duh!

[Jack White]

I had a friend of mine who headed Fort Worth's largest building contracting firm for about 30 years

read a web page about the design of the towers and explain things to me, since it was an unconventional

design. His firm had built at least a dozen skyscrapers.

He told me..."it is not a conventional steel-framed building; it is known as curtain-wall design,

which allows maximum use of interior space without having interior columns. The exterior walls

bear much of the building load on the perimeter instead of having conventional framing."

As a builder of multi-million dollar buildings, he knows what he is talking about. Perhaps I misunderstood him.

Jack

[Steve Ulman]

Jack-

His explanation of the load bearing characteristics of the outer walls coincides with the way I understand the buildings were constructed (told to me by a Professional Structural Engineer - who had inspected the towers after the '93 bombing).

However, they were not a "Curtain Wall" design. A "Curtain Wall" is just what it sounds like - a curtain "hung" on the outside of the building.

My apologies - Perhaps you did misunderstand him.

In terms of whether or not the buildings were "steel framed" - there is some nuance involved here. ALL loads in the Towers and WTC-7 were carried by steel members, vertical and horizontal - in that sense they were "steel framed".

The typical construction of low rise buildings places most of the loads on interior columns, spread out to columns throughout the interior of the building including the perimeter columns.

The WTC buildings were not of conventional construction, the loads were shared by only two systems, the core and the perimeter walls, with the floor beams connecting the two - and yes - you must think of them as a SYSTEM - if any one part failed, the other parts would be compromised - all steel.

In any event, Peter McKenna does understand how the Towers and WTC-7 were constructed.

[Kevin M. West]

Just what are YOUR CREDENTIALS which enable you to declare

the work of a doctor of physics and engineering NONSENSE?

Please show us your calculations regarding gravity's effect,

instead of just saying that Dr. Woods has erred.

So far as I can determine you are only an internet gadfly.

Please tell us your credentials. Or make something up, like

you do on other postings.

Jack

Ah there you go again Jack. You show no evidence of even reading, let alone understanding the very simple argument that I made, and instead of telling me why you think it's wrong, you go straight for the ad-homs.

Credentials are not necessary, her argument is so wrong you don't even need to do the math to show it. Her comparison uses billiard balls as the floors of the towers. In her graphs, the every floor falls all the way to the ground with no interference, under only the influence of gravity. They show no signs of slowing down when they hit the floors below them, and no sign of speeding up when being impacted from above. But it gets worse! She has the floors hitting the ground in reverse order! First the top floor, then the second from the top, then the third, etc. Every single floor passes completely though every floor under it (magically, with no transfer of momentum) and hits the ground in exactly the reverse order. The building would completely invert itself, with the basement on top of the rubble pile, and the roof at the bottom, if it fell like her graphs show. Her billiard balls don't match reality in any way whatsoever.

[Peter McKenna]

McKenna exhibits his abysmal lack of information regarding the WTC bldgs when he says:

" I haven't had much luck finding information on the WTC 7 architectural plans, but based on the post collapse footage and internet descriptions, it was a steel framed building of steel beams, columns, and glass, although there were some features a bit more exotic than a simple box structure made of right angle steel sections. "

IN FACT there is an abundance of such information. Even Colby knows this. Several

911 websites detail the architectural information, as well as some engineering and

architectural websites. Just google WTC TOWERS ARCHITECTURE, etc. Even the

911 Commission explained the construction.

The twin towers were NOT STEEL FRAMED BUILDINGS. They were a newer type of

construction called CURTAIN WALL. There are several internet explanations of their

construction. There was a central STEEL FRAMED ELEVATOR CORE of heavy I-beams.

The outer wall was steel "tubular" box columns. These were tied to the central core

by steel spandrel plates, steel trusses and concrete floors. Each tower was a rigid

box designed to sway slightly with wind and maintain integrity. The steel columns

at ground level were 4 inches thick, but thinned gradually to a quarter inch at the

top. Conventional steel-framing was not possible for buildings this tall. So much

steel would have been required that little room would have been left for offices.

Duh.

Jack

Hey, "Duh' Jack,

You might do yourself a favor and actually read the posts which you so ham handedly attempt to castigate, before you respond.

I have done a fair bit of searching for plans of WTC 7, and while there are a dearth of blueprints for WTC 1 and 2 , there seems to be something of a vacuum with respect to plans for the now gone, WTC 7. You should be aware of this if you did a little research before you open your mouth. The Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice (http://www.stj911.com/press_releases/blueprints.pdf) site actually identified that 'The newly released blueprints do not include WTC 7' when 'Independent Investigators had released the blueprints for the World Trade Center buildings' .

Of course knowing this would exemplify an exhibition of your 'abysmal lack of information regarding the WTC bldgs'. but, contrary to your usual practice, you might have to actually research this before you elucidate on it.

Also, and again, I was talking about WTC 7, and not WTC 1 and 2, but and again, Jack, you would have to have read the post, inconvenient, I know, but if you actually wish to post pertinent information, reading the post that prompted you in the first place, would be recommended.

Since you had actually directed everyone at this forum to no longer take me seriously, as I (in your uninformed opinion) had not researched Judy Woods work sufficiently (even though it was not germaine to the specific posts I was making) to satisfy you (as if people on this forum must satisfy Jack Whiote before they can offer an opinion or a statement on any subject), I find it fairly ironic that you can't even read the posts (which you attempt to castigate) properly before you begin your infantile ad homs.

I have work to do, so I don't have any more time to spend right now. But if it is any consolation, your posts, and your antics on this forum (especially running out and getting Fetzer to log on to critisize my posts, which, by the way, he misread the exact same way you did), are highly entertaining. Keep them coming.

Edited June 27, 2007 by Peter McKenna

[Jack White]

Check this new article:

http://www.rense.com/general75/melt2.htm

[T. Folsom]

Check this new article:

http://www.rense.com/general75/melt2.htm

Well, well, well my old nemesis Jack White.

I'm curious, Jack. Is there ANY bizarre conspiracy theory that you DON'T believe?