Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...

[Guest Stephen Turner]

"Some guy" That was me!! I was joking though. You should get a deep sea diver's helmet too, for protection.

Ah, LenBrazil,NOW I get it...Should have recognised your biting sarcasm my man..LOL.

[Len Colby]

I have done a lot of research concerning the collapse of the WTC towers on 9/11 and one thing that I have pointed out much to the chagrin of conspiracy theorists is that no civil engineers, architects, construction contractors or demolition experts, another words no one with relevant expertise has publicly backed their claims. To the contrary the collapses were the subjects of two major studies and various papers prepared by structural engineers. These reports and papers were studied and in some cases peer reviewed by civil engineers the World over and none of them have found fault with their basic conclusions. The CT’s have responded with various rationalizations: they are blinded by group think, they are afraid of loosing their jobs or more severe retaliation, one even brought up the case of Copernicus.

“He wrote this treatise a few hundred years ago, suggesting that the earth revolves around the Sun. Up till that time none of the "experts" in any relevent fields had been prepared to publish a similar statement, although I suspect many were secretly in agreement with him.

The reason all the experts kept quiet about their views was possibly due to the fear of being charged with heresy and losing their jobs, or worse. To be guilty of heresy was, in medieval times, a very serious matter. Copernicus himself was forced to retract his views on threat of ex-communication.

Later Galileo decided to stick his neck out and advocate the Copernican theory. Galileo was arrested and tried for heresy.

These days the heretics are called whistle blowers and they don't get burned at the stake, but they do get burned in other ways, and they often lose their jobs, their marriages and their health. It is a big price to pay.

So, is the fact that civil engineers, architects and demolitions experts are not publicly advocating the controlled demolition theory proof that they all agree with the official theory? I suspect not.”

Below is my response to him but it applies to other rationalizations for why no competent experts back controlled demolition theories.

Your analogy/analysis doesn’t really apply here because it does take into account members of these professions outside the US, esp. those in countries hostile to the US and/or Islamic counties (where explanations taking Muslims ‘off the hook’ would be welcome) or even countries friendly to the US but where emotions about 9/11 don’t run so high. I doubt even in Canada this would be an issue. Nor does it take into account the dozens of Americans with a wide variety of professions who publicly embrace (“unofficial”) 9/11 CTs.

There must be at least a million civil engineers worldwide*. Brazil’s Oscar Niemeyer is a national hero and an ardent-Communist, he hates the US and continues to be a “think outside the box” architect well into his 90s, but he didn’t say anything, why not? What about architects and engineers from Muslim countries where IIRC about 80 % of the population believes 9/11 was an “inside job” or other countries hostile to the US? What about Cuban, Chinese and French experts. Surprisingly not one of them said anything. Saying the towers were demolished would not lead to them being ostracized, I would imagine quite the opposite.

Even in the US the supposed threat of ostracism or job loss has not stopped scientists and academics from publicly stating their controversial views publicly in groups like “SPINE” and “Academics for 9/11 Truth” etc. What about the various webmasters and authors of books alleging conspiracy, have any of them been ‘burned’? What ill effects have Griffith and Rupert suffered other than making small fortunes peddling conspiracies? I am sure some one will want to mention the case of that guy from UL who got fired, but IIRC he got bounced for using UL letterhead and if he had expressed his views as a private individual he probably would still be employed. As for job security how many of these professionals are public servants (who can’t be fired for expressing their views) or tenured college professors or retired?

This rationalization sells civil engineers and architects short. Various physicists, electrical engineers and other scientists, economists, computer scientists, MDs are members of the “9/11 truth” movement. No to mention that the history of science is full brave souls who weren’t afraid of scorn and put forth theories that were greatly at odds with accepted beliefs. Many it turn out were wrong and are now “footnotes” but others like Galileo, Copernicus, Darwin, Einstein, Freud etc “rewrote the science books”. There are many less famous examples: the winners of this year’s Nobel Prize for Medicine disagreed with prevailing opinion about the causes of ulcers, there are medical researchers who don’t believe that HIV causes AIDS, they are pariahs in the research community but they persist. Recently astronomers, physical anthropologists an undoubtedly scientist in other fields have gone against prevailing opinion.

Why should civil engineers and architects be any different? Frank Lloyd Wright, I.M. Pei, van der Rohe, Le Corbusier, Niemeyer, those responsible for the WTC, Ingall's Building, Home Insurance Building etc. etc. were not afraid to break norms.There was a civil engineer who publicly backed “Creationism” and Arthur Butz a professor of Electrical Engineering at Northwestern is a leading Holocaust denier. Although these positions have nothing to do with engineering I'm sure this doesn’t make them very popular with their colleagues. Butz will never be invited to address the IEEE [institute of Electrical & Electronics Engineers].

The ASCE (Am. Soc. Of Civil Engineers) has “over 137,500 members”* the AIA (Am. Inst. of Arch.) has “more than 75,000”** members that gives a total of over 212,000. Are all of them so “blind“ that none of them perceive what CTs claim are violations of basic laws of physics obvious to anyone or don’t have the courage to come forward? Hard to believe. If there was some thing wrong with the “collapse theory” a it least a few at the very least should have said something. If they based their contrary views there is no reason to believe they would ostracized at all let alone to the extent CTs think.

The Copernicus analogy does not hold. In his day as you freely admit the consequences of heresy were extremely severe, as I have shown above the consequences of speaking out should not be a factor. In his day there were not any layman said or believed the Sun was the center of the “solar” system, today there are thousands if not millions of people who believed the towers were brought down with explosives. In his day ’science’ and ‘religion’ were inexorably tied and the “scientific method” was not used, indeed many date the beginning of the Scientific Revolution to the publication of Copernicus’ works ****, that the Earth was at the center of the Universe was taken as a matter of faith. To be fair to the geoscientists in Copernicus’ day we had far less info about our Universe than we did a few decades later compare this to the collapses of the WTC towers one of the most studied structural failures of all time.

If the excepted explanation of the collapses of the Towers so violates scientific principles as many 9/11 conspiracists believe there is no logical explanation why no relevant experts from anywhere in the World would not come forward publicly. The fact that more than four years later none have this leads to only one inevitable conclusion, the Towers collapsed due to the impact damage caused by large jets crashing into them at high speed and the resultant fires.

Did Bush plan 9/11? I wouldn’t put it past the SOB but think it highly unlikely. Did he know about it but do nothing or did he intentionally “provoke” Muslim extremists? Possibly but the evidence in support of such theories is not very convincing. Was he negligently disinterested in the threat of terrorism before 9/11? I would say definitely so, but these questions are outside the scope of this thread

* If there are over 212,000 just in the US, the Worldwide total is easily over 1 million.

** http://www.asce.org/inside/profile.cfm

***http://aia.org/join_categories

**** http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/dbanach/timel.htm

[Jack White]

Will a professor of PHYSICS do?

Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?

By Steven E. Jones

Department of Physics and Astronomy

Brigham Young University

Provo, UT 84604

ABSTRACT

In writing this paper, I call for a serious investigation of the hypothesis that WTC 7 and the Twin Towers were brought down, not just by impact damage and fires, but through the use of

pre-positioned cutter-charges. I consider the official FEMA, NIST, and 9-11 Commission reports that fires plus impact damage alone caused complete collapses of all three buildings. And I

present evidence for the controlled-demolition hypothesis, which is suggested by the available data, testable and falsifiable, and yet has not been analyzed in any of the reports funded by the US

government.

We start with the fact that large quantities of molten metal were observed in basement areas under rubble piles of all three buildings: the Twin Towers and WTC7. A video clip provides

eye-witness evidence regarding this metal at ground zero: http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%2...low_quality.wmv . The photograph below by Frank

Silecchia shows a chunk of the hot metal being removed from the North Tower rubble about eight weeks after 9-11. Notice the color of the lower portion of the extracted metal -- this tells us

much about the temperature of the metal and provides important clues regarding its composition, as we shall see.

Next, as a basis for discussion, I invite you to consider the collapse of the 47-story WTC 7, which was never hit by a jet. Here is the building prior to and on September 11, 2001:

WTC 7: 47 - Story, steel-frame building..

WTC 7 on afternoon of 9-11-01. WTC 7 is the tall

sky-scraper in the background, right. Seen from WTC plaza area.

WTC 7 collapsed completely, onto its own footprint

Now that you have seen the still photographs, it is important to the discussion which follows for you to observe video clips of the collapse of this building, so go to:

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html Click on the three photos at the top of this web-site page in order to see the videos of the collapse of WTC 7. It helps to have sound.

Then consider a video close-up of the same building (SW corner) as its demise begins:

http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/Flash...west_corner.htm

What did you observe?

Symmetry: did the building collapse straight down (nearly symmetrically) – or did it topple over?

Speed: How fast did the building fall? (Students and I measure less than 6.6 seconds; time it!)

Smoke/debris-jets: Did you observe puffs of smoke/debris coming out of the building? Please note for yourself the sequence and fast timing of observed puffs or “squibs.” Note that

reference to web pages is used in this paper due largely to the importance of viewing motion picture clips, thus enhancing consideration of the laws of motion and physics generally. High-quality

photographs showing details of the collapses of WTC 7 and the WTC Towers can be found in books (Hufschmid, 2002; Paul and Hoffman, 2004), magazines (Hoffman, 2005; Baker, 2005) and

at http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/p.../collapses.html .

Seventeen reasons for advancing the controlled-demolition hypothesis while challenging the “official” fire-caused collapse hypothesis are delineated here. Any rebuttal should address each

of these seventeen points.

1. There are several published observations of molten metal in the basements of all three buildings, WTC 1, 2 (“Twin Towers”) and 7. For example, Dr. Keith Eaton toured Ground

Zero and stated in The Structural Engineer,

‘They showed us many fascinating slides’ [Eaton] continued, ‘ranging from molten metal which was still red hot weeks after the event, to 4-inch thick steel plates sheared and bent in

the disaster’. (Structural Engineer, September 3, 2002, p. 6; emphasis added.)

The observation of molten metal at Ground Zero was emphasized publicly by Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center Towers, who

reported that “As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running.” (Williams, 2001, p. 3; emphasis added.)

Sarah Atlas was part of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue and was one of the first on the scene at Ground Zero with her canine partner Anna. She reported in Penn

Arts and Sciences, summer 2002,

‘Nobody's going to be alive.' Fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet. (Penn, 2002; emphasis added.)

Dr. Allison Geyh was one of a team of public health investigators from Johns Hopkins who visited the WTC site after 9-11. She reported in the Late Fall 2001 issue of Magazine of Johns

Hopkins Public Health, "In some pockets now being uncovered they are finding molten steel.”

A video clip provides eye-witness evidence regarding this metal at ground zero: http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%2...low_quality.wmv . The

observer notes that the observed surface of this metal is still reddish-orange some six weeks after 9-11. This implies a large quantity of a metal with fairly low heat conductivity and a relatively

large heat capacity (e.g., iron is more likely than aluminum) even in an underground location. Like magma in a volcanic cone, such metal can remain hot and molten for a long time -- once the metal

is sufficiently hot to melt in large quantities and then kept in a fairly-well insulated underground location.

Thus, molten metal was repeatedly observed and formally reported in the rubble piles of the WTC Towers and WTC 7, metal that looked like molten steel or perhaps iron. Scientific

analysis would be needed to ascertain the actual composition of the molten metal.

I maintain that these observations are consistent with the use of high-temperature cutter-charges such as thermite, HDX or RDX or some combination thereof, routinely used to

melt/cut/demolish steel. Thermite is a mixture of iron oxide and aluminum powder. The end products of the thermite reaction are aluminum oxide and molten iron. So the thermite reaction

generates molten iron directly, and is hot enough to melt and even evaporate steel which it contacts while reacting. Thermite contains its own supply of oxygen and so the reaction cannot be

smothered, even with water. Use of sulfur in conjunction with the thermite, for example in thermate, will accelerate the destructive effect on steel, and sulfidation of structural steel was indeed

observed in some of the few recovered members from the WTC rubble, as reported in Appendix C of the FEMA report. (FEMA, 2005; see also,

http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/eviden...gy/index.html.) On the other hand, falling buildings (absent explosives) have insufficient directed energy to result in melting of large

quantities of metal.

The government reports admit that the building fires were insufficient to melt steel beams -- then where did the molten metal come from? Metals expert Dr. Frank Gayle (working with

NIST) stated:

Your gut reaction would be the jet fuel is what made the fire so very intense, a lot of people figured that's what melted the steel. Indeed it did not, the steel did not melt.

(Field, 2005; emphasis added.)

None of the official reports tackles this mystery. Yet this is evidently a significant clue to what caused the Towers and WTC 7 to collapse. So an analysis of the composition of the metal is

required by a qualified scientific panel. This could well become an experiment crucis.

Prof. Thomas Eagar explained in 2001 that the WTC fires would NOT melt steel:

"The fire is the most misunderstood part of the WTC collapse. Even today, the media report (and many scientists believe) that the steel melted. It is argued that the jet fuel burns very

hot, especially with so much fuel present. This is not true.... The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel.

In combustion science, there are three basic types of flames, namely, a jet burner, a pre-mixed flame, and a diffuse flame.... In a diffuse flame, the fuel and the oxidant are not mixed before

ignition, but flow together in an uncontrolled manner and combust when the fuel/oxidant ratios reach values within the flammable range. A fireplace is a diffuse flame burning in air, as was

the WTC fire. Diffuse flames generate the lowest heat intensities of the three flame types... The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus,

about 1000 °C -- hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1500 °C.

But it is very difficult to reach [even] this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best

ratio... This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500 °C to 650 °C range [Cote, 1992]. It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as

evidenced by the copious black smoke.... It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425 °C and loses about half of its strength at 650 °C [Cote, 1992]. This is why

steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse... The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely

not stressed more than a third of the design allowable... Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650 °C fire." (Eagar and

Musso, 2001; emphasis added.)

We will return to the question of fire-induced stresses and WTC collapses later.

Even without a direct elemental analysis, we can rule out some metals based on available data. The photograph in the introduction shows a chunk of the hot slag being extracted at

ground zero. The hottest portion of the chunk is the lower portion, which was deepest down in the slag, and the metal is seen to be yellow-hot, certainly above cherry-red hot. The following

table (see http://www.processassociates.com/process/heat/metcolor.htm ) provides data regarding the melting temperatures of lead, aluminum, structural steel and iron, along with approximate

metal temperatures by color. Note that the approximate temperature of a hot metal is given by its color, quite independent of the composition of the metal.

READ THE REMAINDER AT....

FULL TEXT with many photos MAY BE READ BY CLICKING ON...

http://www.st911.org/

[Craig Lamson]

Will a professor of PHYSICS do?

Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?

By Steven E. Jones

Department of Physics and Astronomy

Brigham Young University

Provo, UT 84604

ABSTRACT

In writing this paper, I call for a serious investigation of the hypothesis that WTC 7 and the Twin Towers were brought down, not just by impact damage and fires, but through the use of

pre-positioned cutter-charges. I consider the official FEMA, NIST, and 9-11 Commission reports that fires plus impact damage alone caused complete collapses of all three buildings. And I

present evidence for the controlled-demolition hypothesis, which is suggested by the available data, testable and falsifiable, and yet has not been analyzed in any of the reports funded by the US

government.

We start with the fact that large quantities of molten metal were observed in basement areas under rubble piles of all three buildings: the Twin Towers and WTC7. A video clip provides

eye-witness evidence regarding this metal at ground zero: http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%2...low_quality.wmv . The photograph below by Frank

Silecchia shows a chunk of the hot metal being removed from the North Tower rubble about eight weeks after 9-11. Notice the color of the lower portion of the extracted metal -- this tells us

much about the temperature of the metal and provides important clues regarding its composition, as we shall see.

Next, as a basis for discussion, I invite you to consider the collapse of the 47-story WTC 7, which was never hit by a jet. Here is the building prior to and on September 11, 2001:

WTC 7: 47 - Story, steel-frame building..

WTC 7 on afternoon of 9-11-01. WTC 7 is the tall

sky-scraper in the background, right. Seen from WTC plaza area.

WTC 7 collapsed completely, onto its own footprint

Now that you have seen the still photographs, it is important to the discussion which follows for you to observe video clips of the collapse of this building, so go to:

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html Click on the three photos at the top of this web-site page in order to see the videos of the collapse of WTC 7. It helps to have sound.

Then consider a video close-up of the same building (SW corner) as its demise begins:

http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/Flash...west_corner.htm

What did you observe?

Symmetry: did the building collapse straight down (nearly symmetrically) – or did it topple over?

Speed: How fast did the building fall? (Students and I measure less than 6.6 seconds; time it!)

Smoke/debris-jets: Did you observe puffs of smoke/debris coming out of the building? Please note for yourself the sequence and fast timing of observed puffs or “squibs.” Note that

reference to web pages is used in this paper due largely to the importance of viewing motion picture clips, thus enhancing consideration of the laws of motion and physics generally. High-quality

photographs showing details of the collapses of WTC 7 and the WTC Towers can be found in books (Hufschmid, 2002; Paul and Hoffman, 2004), magazines (Hoffman, 2005; Baker, 2005) and

at http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/p.../collapses.html .

Seventeen reasons for advancing the controlled-demolition hypothesis while challenging the “official” fire-caused collapse hypothesis are delineated here. Any rebuttal should address each

of these seventeen points.

1. There are several published observations of molten metal in the basements of all three buildings, WTC 1, 2 (“Twin Towers”) and 7. For example, Dr. Keith Eaton toured Ground

Zero and stated in The Structural Engineer,

‘They showed us many fascinating slides’ [Eaton] continued, ‘ranging from molten metal which was still red hot weeks after the event, to 4-inch thick steel plates sheared and bent in

the disaster’. (Structural Engineer, September 3, 2002, p. 6; emphasis added.)

The observation of molten metal at Ground Zero was emphasized publicly by Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center Towers, who

reported that “As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running.” (Williams, 2001, p. 3; emphasis added.)

Sarah Atlas was part of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue and was one of the first on the scene at Ground Zero with her canine partner Anna. She reported in Penn

Arts and Sciences, summer 2002,

‘Nobody's going to be alive.' Fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet. (Penn, 2002; emphasis added.)

Dr. Allison Geyh was one of a team of public health investigators from Johns Hopkins who visited the WTC site after 9-11. She reported in the Late Fall 2001 issue of Magazine of Johns

Hopkins Public Health, "In some pockets now being uncovered they are finding molten steel.”

A video clip provides eye-witness evidence regarding this metal at ground zero: http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%2...low_quality.wmv . The

observer notes that the observed surface of this metal is still reddish-orange some six weeks after 9-11. This implies a large quantity of a metal with fairly low heat conductivity and a relatively

large heat capacity (e.g., iron is more likely than aluminum) even in an underground location. Like magma in a volcanic cone, such metal can remain hot and molten for a long time -- once the metal

is sufficiently hot to melt in large quantities and then kept in a fairly-well insulated underground location.

Thus, molten metal was repeatedly observed and formally reported in the rubble piles of the WTC Towers and WTC 7, metal that looked like molten steel or perhaps iron. Scientific

analysis would be needed to ascertain the actual composition of the molten metal.

I maintain that these observations are consistent with the use of high-temperature cutter-charges such as thermite, HDX or RDX or some combination thereof, routinely used to

melt/cut/demolish steel. Thermite is a mixture of iron oxide and aluminum powder. The end products of the thermite reaction are aluminum oxide and molten iron. So the thermite reaction

generates molten iron directly, and is hot enough to melt and even evaporate steel which it contacts while reacting. Thermite contains its own supply of oxygen and so the reaction cannot be

smothered, even with water. Use of sulfur in conjunction with the thermite, for example in thermate, will accelerate the destructive effect on steel, and sulfidation of structural steel was indeed

observed in some of the few recovered members from the WTC rubble, as reported in Appendix C of the FEMA report. (FEMA, 2005; see also,

http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/eviden...gy/index.html.) On the other hand, falling buildings (absent explosives) have insufficient directed energy to result in melting of large

quantities of metal.

The government reports admit that the building fires were insufficient to melt steel beams -- then where did the molten metal come from? Metals expert Dr. Frank Gayle (working with

NIST) stated:

Your gut reaction would be the jet fuel is what made the fire so very intense, a lot of people figured that's what melted the steel. Indeed it did not, the steel did not melt.

(Field, 2005; emphasis added.)

None of the official reports tackles this mystery. Yet this is evidently a significant clue to what caused the Towers and WTC 7 to collapse. So an analysis of the composition of the metal is

required by a qualified scientific panel. This could well become an experiment crucis.

Prof. Thomas Eagar explained in 2001 that the WTC fires would NOT melt steel:

"The fire is the most misunderstood part of the WTC collapse. Even today, the media report (and many scientists believe) that the steel melted. It is argued that the jet fuel burns very

hot, especially with so much fuel present. This is not true.... The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel.

In combustion science, there are three basic types of flames, namely, a jet burner, a pre-mixed flame, and a diffuse flame.... In a diffuse flame, the fuel and the oxidant are not mixed before

ignition, but flow together in an uncontrolled manner and combust when the fuel/oxidant ratios reach values within the flammable range. A fireplace is a diffuse flame burning in air, as was

the WTC fire. Diffuse flames generate the lowest heat intensities of the three flame types... The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus,

about 1000 °C -- hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1500 °C.

But it is very difficult to reach [even] this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best

ratio... This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500 °C to 650 °C range [Cote, 1992]. It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as

evidenced by the copious black smoke.... It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425 °C and loses about half of its strength at 650 °C [Cote, 1992]. This is why

steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse... The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely

not stressed more than a third of the design allowable... Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650 °C fire." (Eagar and

Musso, 2001; emphasis added.)

We will return to the question of fire-induced stresses and WTC collapses later.

Even without a direct elemental analysis, we can rule out some metals based on available data. The photograph in the introduction shows a chunk of the hot slag being extracted at

ground zero. The hottest portion of the chunk is the lower portion, which was deepest down in the slag, and the metal is seen to be yellow-hot, certainly above cherry-red hot. The following

table (see http://www.processassociates.com/process/heat/metcolor.htm ) provides data regarding the melting temperatures of lead, aluminum, structural steel and iron, along with approximate

metal temperatures by color. Note that the approximate temperature of a hot metal is given by its color, quite independent of the composition of the metal.

READ THE REMAINDER AT....

FULL TEXT with many photos MAY BE READ BY CLICKING ON...

http://www.st911.org/

The short answer...NO!

[Len Colby]

Will a professor of PHYSICS do?

The short answer...NO!

Craig took the words out of my mouth or off my keyboard in this case. Of course not and esp. not Jones his area of expertise is high energy and atomic physics. It's like a biologist who specializes in plant genetics claiming that a person, who all the doctors determined died of natural causes, must have been poisoned.

Even if Jones were some how qualified he is only one of 2 or 3 physicists who support the controlled demo theory. If the collapse theory so violates the laws of physics more physicist should have come forward by now. I imagine at least 70 % of physics profs. (in the US) are anti-Bush and they can't be fired for speaking their minds.

http://www.physics.byu.edu/faculty/bergeso...ic/jones_cv.htm

Also one must ask if Jones is so sure he's got his science straight why he didn't submit his "paper" to peer review.

Edited February 10, 2006 by Len Colby

[Guest Stephen Turner]

What this comes down to is, can Dr Jones lay claim to the title expert in the field of structural analysis.

Nobody is arguing that Dr Jones is not a respected Physicist, but his claims here fall well outside his area of expertise. So should we view him as an expert witness in this case,in other words, does the purported expert have the relevant qualifications, knowledge and peer exceptance to claim expertise in this field, and is he speaking in his capacity as an expert witness. In Dr Jones case he is speaking outside his position as a Prof of Physics, and therefore cannot lay claim to the title of expert in the field of structural analysis. Further his own dept disavows his research in this area, and engineers at his university dispute his findings.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

What this comes down to is, can Dr Jones lay claim to the title expert in the field of structural analysis.

Nobody is arguing that Dr Jones is not a respected Physicist, but his claims here fall well outside his area of expertise. So should we view him as an expert witness in this case,in other words, does the purported expert have the relevant qualifications, knowledge and peer exceptance to claim expertise in this field, and is he speaking in his capacity as an expert witness. In Dr Jones case he is speaking outside his position as a Prof of Physics, and therefore cannot lay claim to the title of expert in the field of structural analysis. Further his own dept disavows his research in this area, and engineers at his university dispute his findings.

[Ron Ecker]

What about firemen and other first responders who were there and lived to tell about it, who saw and heard explosions in the towers? Do their words mean anything, or do they have to have degrees first in architecture or engineering?

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060118104223192

[Matthew Lewis]

What about firemen and other first responders who were there and lived to tell about it, who saw and heard explosions in the towers? Do their words mean anything, or do they have to have degrees first in architecture or engineering?

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060118104223192

When a building is on fire, can there not be materials inside that will explode? How do we know they weren't hearing something that just sounded like an explosion?

[Ron Ecker]

How do we know they weren't hearing something that just sounded like an explosion?

Because we have to consider what they heard (and saw) in conjunction with all the other evidence for government complicity in 9/11. And for the conspirators and their agenda, hitting those towers with planes wasn't enough. Those towers had to come down, spectacularly. (It's called "shock and awe.") And the people who put together such a well-planned military/intelligence operation were not going to leave catastrophic collapse of the towers to (very slim if non-existent) chance.

[Christopher T. George]

How do we know they weren't hearing something that just sounded like an explosion?

Because we have to consider what they heard (and saw) in conjunction with all the other evidence for government complicity in 9/11. And for the conspirators and their agenda, hitting those towers with planes wasn't enough. Those towers had to come down, spectacularly. (It's called "shock and awe.") And the people who put together such a well-planned military/intelligence operation were not going to leave catastrophic collapse of the towers to (very slim if non-existent) chance.

I guess then that the conspirators missed their opportunity with the first attack on the WTC in 1993, is that right? The flaw in the idea that the government colluded in bringing down the towers is that how could they have coordinated the bring-down with the impact of the planes. Would they have set the charges at some time in the hopes that terrorists would one day try to demolish the towers using planes? There are too many loopholes in the idea. Far more probably, the planes themselves, with their exploding fuel tanks instigated the bring-down of the towers.

Chris

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Chris, my guess is that Ron would say that the planes were more than expected, and that the whole story about 19 Arab hijackers is a myth. you pays your money, and you takes your choise. In over a year of researching this subject I have found no hard evidence that this is the case though. Perhaps I need to look harder

[Ron Ecker]

In over a year of researching this subject I have found no hard evidence

The circumstantial evidence is overwhelming. To buy the official 9/11 conspiracy theory, you have to buy more unlikely coincidences, not to mention mind-boggling, across-the-board military and civilian incompetence, than my natural cynicism will allow.

To mention just one "coincidence": Flight 77 just happens to hit the one spot at the Pentagon that is both the strongest structurally and the least populated. That section had been recently reinforced, and the offices in that section were not fully reoccupied yet. This suggests an obvious attempt to minimize both damage and loss of life, which of course is the last thing that Muslim terrorists would want to do. Such terrorists would have struck the other side of the building, where Rumsfeld and the other top brass were, or the center of the Pentagon to kill as many people as possible. Instead, in a virtually flawless plan, they hijack an airliner and fly it all the way to the Pentagon, only to hit the least vulnerable spot in the whole building? Sure.

[Len Colby]

In over a year of researching this subject I have found no hard evidence

The circumstantial evidence is overwhelming. To buy the official 9/11 conspiracy theory, you have to buy more unlikely coincidences, not to mention mind-boggling, across-the-board military and civilian incompetence, than my natural cynicism will allow.

To mention just one "coincidence": Flight 77 just happens to hit the one spot at the Pentagon that is both the strongest structurally and the least populated. That section had been recently reinforced, and the offices in that section were not fully reoccupied yet. This suggests an obvious attempt to minimize both damage and loss of life, which of course is the last thing that Muslim terrorists would want to do. Such terrorists would have struck the other side of the building, where Rumsfeld and the other top brass were, or the center of the Pentagon to kill as many people as possible. Instead, in a virtually flawless plan, they hijack an airliner and fly it all the way to the Pentagon, only to hit the least vulnerable spot in the whole building? Sure.

Ron did you ever consider the possibility that they didn't know that that part of the Pentagon was being renovated? They didn't exactly have security clearance and I doubt that information was available to the general public.

I have question for you, how did the planes end up hitting the Pentagon and the Twin Towers, remote control?

As for the supposed incompetence much of that has been exaggerated by "CTists" and is based on hindsight. The US military is basically set up for protecting the US from external rather than internal threats, it is virtually prohibited from acting on US soil, and all the flights were all domestic of course. Part of the problem was 'interagency' communication. It took a while for the FAA to inform NORAD and then a while for NORAD to inform the relevant air force bases. Let's not forget the last time a plane had been commandeered in the US was in the 80's (IIRC) and that the elapsed time between the attacks was only 51 minutes.

.Other than shoot the planes down there is little fighter jets could have done. The first attack obviously could not have been prevented because a shootdown can only be authorized by the President. There wasn't really enough time (18 minutes) to stop the second plane. The failure to stop the third plane was a mixture of being taken by surprise, inadequate procedures and probably some incompetence. A bigger question is, if it was all a sham - why attack the Pentagon at all? The attacks on the Towers would have been enough for the 'Illuminati's' casus belli.

Edited February 17, 2006 by Len Colby

[Ron Ecker]

Ron did you ever consider the possibility that they didn't know that that part of the Pentagon was being renovated? They didn't exactly have security clearance and I doubt that information was available to the general public.

What difference does that make? I'm talking about the "coincidence" that they just happened to hit that least vulnerable spot of the building, whether they knew what they were hitting or not. That's according to the official CT, of course. I think whoever was behind it knew exactly what they were doing, hitting that spot for an obvious reason: the military doing the least damage possible to its own (and making sure Rummy and the big brass were nowhere near the point of impact).

I have question for you, how did the planes end up hitting the Pentagon and the Twin Towers, remote control?

I don't know but it's likely, as the technology was available. Why wouldn't they use it? In fact, as I've posted elsewhere, the Chief Financial Officer of the Pentagon at the time was Dov Zakheim, whose job before then was in the remote controlled aircraft business. Another coincidence!!

why attack the Pentagon at all? The attacks on the Towers would have been enough for the 'Illuminati's' casus belli.

The conspirators didn't think the towers were enough. But after hitting the Pentagon, apparently they did call off the last plane (shooting it down over PA).

But I'm not here to discuss all this. Your derisive reference to the Illuminati is a perfect example of why not. It's a complete and total waste of time. I just wanted to put my two cents worth in about the demolition question. I think the long-suppressed NYC oral histories are important in that regard, which is why the NYC politicians tried their damndest to keep the histories suppressed.

Edited February 17, 2006 by Ron Ecker