Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...

[Len Colby]

Len Colby' wrote:

[...]

Fetzer is an at times dishonest sloppy researcher, I don’t find it surprising he would been impressed by this “movie”.

[...]

dishonest??? Post "proof" of the above assertion -- or retract it

So as to not take this thread too off topic I replied here http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=76807

Len

The key to solving the mass murder of 911 lies in the irrifutable evidence that the WTC Towers and #7 were brought down by controlled demolitions. Physics and other sciences have said so, without equivication.

That declaration is all that is necessary to debunk the government's CT.

http://www.v911t.org/911Physics.php

Bests,

John McCarthy

LOL only three scientists has said this one is a particle physicist who specializes in a theory discredited by the vast majority of his colleagues (cold fusion) the second is a mechanical engineer who specializes in dental fillings who called the first a xxxx and fraud the third is a structural engineer with no background in building construction who specializes in oil rigs who admitted he hadn’t looked at the case too closely. This as opposed to hundreds of highly qualified engineers from academia, the publlc and private sector

[John J. McCarthy]

It is very funny that ONLY three scientists (who never manufactured a T shirt silk screen process) remain unchallenged in their findings but are supported by their colleagues, world wide.

Bests,

John

[John J. McCarthy]

Must be a picnic of nit pikers going on so where is Posner, et al.

The tests of time are slanting away from specious arguments of diversion, nit pik pik pik. Keep on pikin'.

Bests,

John

[John J. McCarthy]

Physicist's Letter On

911 PHYSICS To

Rocky Mountain News

10-3-6

The following letter was sent by Eric Harrington, a physicist who lives in Ojai, CA, to Vincent Carroll at the Rocky Mountain News...

Dear Mr. Carrol,

I am responding to your article slandering the legitimate questions posed by numerous scientists, engineers, pilots, even international (often Republican) politicians regarding the flaws in the "official account" of 9/11.

"Let us dip our toe again into" a couple of the bogus rebuffs posed by the "experts" at Popular Mechanics.

Pop Mech- "As the fires blazed and the temperatures rose within the buildings, NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) believes, the remaining core columns (those not severed by the planes during impact) softened and buckled, transferring most of the load to the building's outer structural columns. The floors . . . began to sag from the heat, pulling those columns inward and adding to the burden on the outer columns."

Debunking: For anyone who as actually watched the WTC video's carefully, you will note that the south tower was struck near the corner, almost insuring it sustained NO damage to the central core columns. It also had by far the largest fireball produced, indicating a substantially larger portion of the fuel was burned in the initial impact and for the most part outside the building. Oddly, it was the south tower which fell first after burning for only 55 minutes, and at a point when the fires had greatly diminished.

In addition, as given by Kevin Ryan who was responsible for the thermal testing of the WTC Steel when it was certified, the samples tested for the WTC were certified to withstand a temperature of 2,000 deg for 6 hours without failing their rated load characteristics. And that is without insulation. The WTC beams were insulated. Jet fuel burns at only 1200-1300 degrees with an ideal oxygen mixture, something not indicated by the black smoke that issued from the fires. There was nothing contained within the buildings that could have raised this figure, and those that use the example of ancient furnaces that tempered steel as a argument, again, do not understand the principles involved. I suggest that if you want the truth, and wish to actually act like a journalist for a change, you broach this subject with a real expert, Mr. Ryan. I can put you in touch with him upon request.

But more important than the issue of the likelihood of the steel failure, is the FACT (not conjecture) that ALL THREE buildings collapsed into their own footprint at FREEFALL SPEED (i.e. the unimpeded acceleration of gravity). That means, drop a rock off the roof, at the moment of collapse, and the roof would hit the ground at the same time as the rock. This implies, (regardless of what happened at the fire zone) that the when the top section of the building began to fall it managed to plow through 70-80 odd floors of pristine and undamaged steel -- literally thousands of huge beams and concrete pads-- with absolutely NO RESISTANCE (i.e.. slowing of the rate of fall) WHATSOEVER. And this sir, is physically impossible and verging on the absurd, and I (a physicist), and anyone with a shred of knowledge of engineering, physics, or just plain common sense can understand that.

And there is a $1,000,000.00 cash challenge (to date unanswered) to anyone that can suggest a legitimate solution to this nagging little problem. And lastly, if the official pancake theory is correct, it lends no explanation whatsoever for why the central core of 47 HUGE beams, all connected together at numerous levels, would not be left standing like a spire as the floor connectors failed and the floors pancaked symmetrically around them. The less resistance to this collapse scenario exhibited by the building's design, the more likely the central core would remain virtually untouched. It is a paradox.

Watch the videos. Study the evidence. Talk to the experts and the scientists who simply can no longer tolerate an explanation so at odds with the physical evidence and the physical principles of the universe. And these experts I refer to are ready and willing to debate these issues with ANYONE you and your ilk choose, ANYTIME and ANYWHERE, as long as it can be videotaped for posterity.

I will not even get into the dozens of other patently absurd explanations that Popular Mechanics and other government shills and publicity hacks have posed to make the painfully obvious physical evidence at both the WTC and Pentagon fit the official fairy tale, while suppressing the numerous eyewitness accounts that disagree, but suffice to say that when "journalists" (and I use that term EXTREMELY loosely with you), continue to disparage those who simply demand the truth, and not propaganda; who examine the evidence with open minds and simply request that the investigation of this murder of 3,000 innocents be pursued with the same objectivity and forensic vigor that a common mugging would be given; they only contribute to the ignorance pervasive and growing in this country, reduce the once noble journalistic trade to nothing more than corporate propaganda machines, and deface the sacrifice of the 3000 who were murdered.

As for your contemptuous tone of which I have tried to mimic in this reply, to quote Shakespeare, "Me thinks thou dost protest too much."

Sincerely,

Eric Harrington

Ojai, Ca

GADS, the scientist's are coming out of the woodwork, er, rubble of WTC facts

Bests,

John McCarthy

[Len Colby]

It is very funny that ONLY three scientists (who never manufactured a T shirt silk screen process) remain unchallenged in their findings but are supported by their colleagues, world wide.

Bests,

John

No quite a few people have challeged the conclusions of Jones and Wood. Wood herself said Jones' paper was junk as did the engineering dept. and other physicists at BYU where Jones taught

[John J. McCarthy]

And the farmer hauled another load away.

Bests,

John McCarthy

[Len Colby]

Physicist's Letter On

911 PHYSICS To

Rocky Mountain News

10-3-6

The following letter was sent by Eric Harrington, a physicist who lives in Ojai, CA, to Vincent Carroll at the Rocky Mountain News...

Dear Mr. Carrol,

I am responding to your article slandering the legitimate questions posed by numerous scientists, engineers, pilots, even international (often Republican) politicians regarding the flaws in the "official account" of 9/11.

[...}

GADS, the scientist's are coming out of the woodwork, er, rubble of WTC facts

Bests,

John McCarthy

4 in the whole world is "coming out of the woodwork"? Yeah right. What exactly are Mr. Harrington's credentials?

He seems more to expressing his personal rather than profesional opinion because he does no abaklysis. he is also quite misinformed Mr. Ryan for example never claimed to have tested the WTC steel he claimed his company did. He worked for a water testing company bought by UL a few months before 9/11. UL, The PANYNJ, NIST and The NY Times all contradicted his assertions for which has yet to produce any evidence.

Yes the steel was insulated but that insulation which was very fragile almost certainly was damages or destroyed in the impact zones

NIST explained why the South Tower fell 1st he obviously didn't read the report

He goes on about the fuelball but none of the various studies done NIST, ASCE, Berkley etc were based on the assumtion that jet fuel was the primarry fuel source he obviously didn't read any of them. nor presumably have you

etc etc

Len

[John J. McCarthy]

NIST is not a credible witness. They are appointed and serve at the pleasure of a mass murderer.

Speaking of credentials...........where is your debunking certificate?

Bests,

John McCarthy

Edited October 4, 2006 by John J. McCarthy

[Brian Smith]

What do you think the molten metal in this video is, that started pouring out of the south tower right before it began its near freefall collapse down into the street?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=545886459853896774

Is it molten steel? Would the oxygen deficient fires in the tower be sufficiently hot to melt steel? The Nist team that investigated said it could have been melted aluminum from the plane, but aluminum does not glow orange when melted, but rather has a silvery appearance. And how could the aluminum from the plane have been melted when the jet fuel burned up in about ten minutes, and the fires at the impact hole in the south tower were almost out, as per recordings of fire fighters at the impact zone immediately prior to collapse?

Could the molten orange material be an incendiary steel cutting substance called "thermite" that burns at temperatures above 2000 degrees? It sure looks a lot like the burning material in this video - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7231843493488769585

It's very curious how that stuff started pouring out a few minutes before the south towers collapse, almost as if the two events were causally connected.

Edited October 4, 2006 by Brian Smith

[David G. Healy]

Len Colby' dronned:

[...]

I was going to let that go as an offhand comment but since Mr. Healy asked for proof I will oblige him. There is an old adage among lawyers, ‘never ask a witness a question if you don’t know the answer’.

[...]

***************

offhand, OFFHAND comment? LMAO... There's also a age old adage regarding researchers and JFK assassination related evidence: never believe self-professed CT type lawyers when it comes to discussing same...

You have a copy of the WCR and volumes down there Brazil way, Counselor?

Edited October 4, 2006 by David G. Healy

[Steve Ulman]

Brian-

Try here

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Item # 11 - If you can find a competent expert to refute the NIST response - post it and we'll discuss. I suggest all those who are so confidant that the "official" version is incorrect, pick a section or two, and do the same.

BTW-

Also, Find me a competent peer review of S. Jones work, and I'll be happy to discuss - oops, I forgot, he won't submit his work for a competent peer review.

[Brian Smith]

I still think the stuff pouring out of the south tower minutes before it's near freefall collapse has a remarkable similarity in appearance to the steel melting incendiary thermite. It starts pouring out, and a few minutes later, the building comes down. Come on.

[John J. McCarthy]

There are a number of ideas as to what the molten material may have been that was observed running down the side of a tower prior to collapse. I personally don't have a clue.

There is little doubt that the glowing white and red hot material being removed from the WTC rubble 90 days after the collapse could only have been created by a nuclear 'device'.

Having used plastic explosives on steel targets, I would offer that the verticle girders shown with diagonal cuts to 'facilitate walking the building' were created with a 'ribbon charge' rather than a 'shaped charge'.

Shaped charges are designed to penetrate up to 9 inches of homogeneous steel. The blast is fascilitated by the concentration of the power via the 'monroe effect'.

The diagonal cuts in the steel of the WTC could not have been made by shaped charges for that reason alone.

A ribbon charge is quite simple. An equal thickness of plastic explosive is applied to the steel in the desired length. The phenomena of 25,000 fps explosives is that they seek the path of most resistance. This 'economy of force' cutting device works without destroying the surrounding steel, as seen in the photos of the WTC.

This alone provides the logical conclusion that mankind placed the explosives on the major steel supporting structures in the WTC basement.

Perhaps this is one of the reasons why the 'crime scene' was destroyed (a crime in itself re mass murder) by removing certain material in 'the pit' asap.

Damn those photographers, anyway.

Bests,

John McCarthy

[Brian Smith]

Having used plastic explosives on steel targets, I would offer that the verticle girders shown with diagonal cuts to 'facilitate walking the building' were created with a 'ribbon charge' rather than a 'shaped charge'.

Shaped charges are designed to penetrate up to 9 inches of homogeneous steel. The blast is fascilitated by the concentration of the power via the 'monroe effect'.

The diagonal cuts in the steel of the WTC could not have been made by shaped charges for that reason alone.

A ribbon charge is quite simple. An equal thickness of plastic explosive is applied to the steel in the desired length. The phenomena of 25,000 fps explosives is that they seek the path of most resistance. This 'economy of force' cutting device works without destroying the surrounding steel, as seen in the photos of the WTC.

Could thermite be used in some way in a ribbon charge? I also think explosives (possibly nuclear) could have been used, but I think it's possible that they used thermite to initiate the collapse, in that it would not have been as visible on the outside of the buildings as explosives would have been. Once the thermite or thermate initiated the collapses, then the explosives were set off, creating the impression that all that dust and ejecta was the result of the collision of steel and concrete from the upper part of the buildings crashing down on the undamaged floors below.

I also think it's possible that they initiated the collapses by detonating charges just below the impact holes, on the 47 central steel columns bearing the weight of the floors just above. I have often wondered how the charges could have remained connected to the columns at the level of plane impact. Such a violent collision and resulting explosion would have knocked the charges loose, or so I imagine. If the columns just below the impact zones were taken out, then it would look like the collapse began at the level of impact, in that the space between the undamaged floors below, and the floors above impact, would act as a kind of buffer, as the outer steel perimeter was basically blasted away. Laymans speculation, of course.

Edited October 4, 2006 by Brian Smith

[John J. McCarthy]

Thermite is a relatively 'slow' but extremely hot tool. But the cutting of the steel girders would have to take place simultaneously, someting a series of thermite could not be counted on providing. A thermite charge is somewhat like a torch. It does not blast or cut steel. In fact, thermite grenades were placed on top of the filing cabinets in the Embassy in Saigon as folks were scramblilng to save their lives in 1975. Someone forgot to pull the pins which were supposed to incinerate the files of some 10,000 Vietnamese who worked for the US Government in varying capacities. Most were rounded up and shot. So much for thermite if you don't pull the pin. But that could have been part of the design.....

The blasts in the WTC did not take place where the planes impacted. And it would not matter a hoot if the steel had fireproofing on the surfaces or not, if explosives are used as cutter charges.

Take a look at the force results in this article.

http://johnmccarthy90066.tripod.com/id472.html

Note that the blast is somewhat the same as the side by side photo of a nuclear detonation. These are 'fingerprints'.

In the movie Mystery's of 911 they make no such conclusion. In fact, they point no fingers. They just provide facts as observed, and in particular to the steel of the WTC damaged by some unknown force. They force you to make a logical conclusion.

http://johnmccarthy90066.tripod.com/id807.html

Bests,

John McCarthy