POLITICS: Physics Prof Says Explosives, Not Fires Brought Down WTC Towers

Originally posted by Muaddib
No harm in doing more serious investigations, do you think there haven't been enough investigations done?

What I find harmful is believing that because a nuclear physicist makes claims about the wtc collapse, that it is taken as gospel and many people believe he must be right, when in fact structural engineers disagree with the conclusions of Dr Jones.

Muaddib, you know as well as most here my stance on this topic, as you do a number of other controversial topics.

The simple and objective point that I was making was that there is no harm in a fair and serious investigation into what may have happened and/or what did not happen. I openly stated, twice, that I did not entirely agree with Dr. Jones' hypothesis, but again, what is the harm in another fair and serious investigation? Is there ever enough legit investigations? Have all the investigations been objective in nature and method? As to your question of if there have been enough investigations, I would simply assert that 'yeah, perhaps there have been,' but have the investigations that have been done dealt with this particular hypothesis? I understand the conspiratorial nature and implications of Dr. Jones' hypothesis, but even he does not buy into each and all. Again, what is the harm in having another legit, fair, open, and serious investigation? None, IMHO.





seekerof

[edit on 15-11-2005 by Seekerof]

Captain Chris Boyle
Engine 94 - 18 years
www.firehouse.com...

Boyle:We went one block north over to Greenwich and then headed south. There was an engine company there, right at the corner. It was right underneath building 7 and it was still burning at the time. They had a hose in operation, but you could tell there was no pressure. It was barely making it across the street. Building 6 was fully involved and it was hitting the sidewalk across the street. I told the guys to wait up.

A little north of Vesey I said, we’ll go down, let’s see what’s going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see.

So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.

Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.

Sounds like it was pretty badly damaged to me.


[edit on 15-11-2005 by HowardRoark]

Man, you're working overtime on this topic, aren't you Howard? Must be of some importance to you guys.

First, you attack the guy, and you have continued to do so, but in the mean time you repost the old buckling columns stuff, which I guess is supposed to explain away all the problems of momentum and symmetry and squibs.. all while drowning out a lot of good posts, with good information, that are now becoming buried.

Can we get back to the topics we were on earlier, regarding the actual material, rather than making personal attacks on the author of one of a growing body of works, and interjecting random, off-topic information to try to buff up the official story?

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Captain Chris Boyle
Engine 94 - 18 years
www.firehouse.com...

Boyle:We went one block north over to Greenwich and then headed south. There was an engine company there, right at the corner. It was right underneath building 7 and it was still burning at the time. They had a hose in operation, but you could tell there was no pressure. It was barely making it across the street. Building 6 was fully involved and it was hitting the sidewalk across the street. I told the guys to wait up.

A little north of Vesey I said, we’ll go down, let’s see what’s going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see.

So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.

Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.

Sounds like it was pretty badly damaged to me.

Then please Howard, please answer me what was being pulled out of WTC7 when Silverstein clearly said 'pull-it'.

There was no fire-fighters there as you have clearly stated above. So what was silvertein talking about??

And why is there no pictures of this gaping hole? Its not that I don't believe you, it's just I have not seen nor has FEMA said that there was significant damage to WTC7 and even FEMA claimed it was "apparantly" more of a problem with fire that with damage to the structure.

And it's funny that when you bring a firefighters eye-witness details you expect everyone to read and take note, yet if someone who did not agree with you and posted a similar eye-witness account but that eye-witness thinks there were bombs in the building you would probably dismiss them.
~Peace ~

Originally posted by HowardRoark
FYI as to the credibility of Steven Jones.

It seems that he was involved in the cold fusion debacle back in 1989.

blake.montclair.edu...

en.wikipedia.org...

partners.nytimes.com...

Based on his close association with that fiasco, I would say that his credibility is somewhat suspect.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Steven Jones paper was "Accepted for Publication"

Accepted for publication:

Steven E. Jones, (2006). “Why Indeed did the WTC Buildings Collapse?,” The Hidden History of 9-11-2001, Research in Political Economy, Volume 23, P. Zarembka, editor, Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2006.


Who is Elsevier?

The research is founded on analyzing society in a manner consistent with classical Marxism. International in scope, the annual volumes deal primarily with economic and political issues and the unity between them. Both theoretical and empirical works are included. While published papers must be appropriate for developing class analysis of society, they need not be explicitly Marxist.

Irrelevant, but I see what you attempted to do here with your prologue of character smear attacks; it's an obvious smear campaign. Firstly, the Cold Fusion "debacle" was nearly 17 years ago, and, I might add, absolutely nothing to do with this subject, even if it may, or may not indicate the Professor was at fault (over a decade and a half ago). Secondly, what does it matter if Jones's paper was "accepted for publication", and what does it matter if the publisher was Elsevier, and "The research is founded on analyzing society in a manner consistent with classical Marxism"? It does actually go on to say "While published papers must be appropriate for developing class analysis of society, they need not be explicitly Marxist.” Even if it didn't go on to say that, what's the problem here, Roark?

Originally posted by HowardRoark
His research into the facts is alos woefully incomplete.

Engineers have been trying to figure out exactly what happened and whether they should be worried about other buildings like it around the country… Most of the other buildings in the [area] stood despite suffering damage of all kinds, including fire... ‘Fire and the structural damage …would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated’, Dr. [Jonathan] Barnett said. (Glanz, 2001; emphasis added.)



The observed “partly evaporated” steel members is particularly upsetting to the official theory, since fires involving paper, office materials, even diesel fuel, cannot generate temperatures anywhere near the 5,000+ oF needed to “evaporate” steel. However, thermite, RDX and other commonly-used explosives can readily slice through steel (thus cutting the support columns simultaneously in an explosive demolition) and reach the required temperatures. (It is possible that some other chemical reactions were involved which might proceed at lesser temperatures.) This mystery needs to be explored – but is not mentioned in the “official” 9-11 Commission or NIST reports.

Metalugists have studied the "partially evaporated" steel and have determined that is was caused by a Eutectic reaction. The hot corrosion of the steel was casued by exposure to sulfur, a component of gypsum (drywall).

Which Metallurgists have studied the steel, these?

J.R. Barnett is a professor of fire protection engineering, and R.R. Biederman and R.D. Sisson, Jr. are professors of materials science and engineering, at Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, Massachusetts, 01609.

Were the findings included in the official 9-11 Commission report, or NIST report? If they were, then you have obviously pointed out a discrepancy here, but if they were not, then this is pointless and irrelevant, isn't it? Especially as the link you provided states that the location of the steel beam in the WTC 7 building was unknown, and there is no mention of how, or when, the analysts came into possession of the beam. In conclusion, this is just an analysis of one section of one A36 wide beam. According to your link "Examination of other sections in this beam is underway," do you know the findings, or are you basing your argument that the whole building fell because of fire around metallurgic analysis on one section of one beam? Shame on you. Who's to say this beam wasn't specially prepared to produce certain desired results when analysed anyway?





[edit on 063030p://42116 by MERC]

Originally posted by bsbray11
Man, you're working overtime on this topic, aren't you Howard? Must be of some importance to you guys.

Not as much overtime as you seem to be taking to respond.....

Not that is any of your business but as I have said, I am working in a rig in 12 hour shifts and in that time, if there is not much to do, I can respond in here, so most of my time that I am online and in the forums, I am actually working and paying attention to my monitors and my data, that's more important than responding at your attemps of trying to start another mud fight. I barely have enough time to go over some of my own posts

Originally posted by bsbray11
First, you attack the guy, and you have continued to do so, but in the mean time you repost the old buckling columns stuff, which I guess is supposed to explain away all the problems of momentum and symmetry and squibs.. all while drowning out a lot of good posts, with good information, that are now becoming buried.

wecomeinpeace also attacked Thomas Eagar, and you continue trying to attack me, making claims that i don't know what I am talking about when I have presented the views of not only one but several structural engineers who agree with what I have said so far. Yet, you keep claiming i don't know what I am saying, without going into detail and explaining what is it that I have said wrong.

BTW, you keep claiming there are problems with "squibs" when i still remember the only "squib" that was seen in one of the videos and photos you have posted in the past, shows just one squib instead of all the squibs that blow from all, or most, windows and are clearly evident in videos taken of controlled demolition sites. But of course, you can't mention this, since it doesn't corroborate the story of "controlled demolition."

As for the rest of your points, I am going to quote you... "what are are talking about"?

Originally posted by bsbray11
Can we get back to the topics we were on earlier, regarding the actual material, rather than making personal attacks on the author of one of a growing body of works, and interjecting random, off-topic information to try to buff up the official story?

Yes, indeed, can we get back on topic instead of trying to start more high school fights, and instead of getting off topic and try to buff up the marxist, I mean the liberal story?

No download need just click to watch.

Click here to watch Physics-Prof-Says-Bombs-not-Planes-brought-down-wtc

Unfortunately the interview was relatively quick at just 6 minutes, and Jones' did not use his short time as best as possible to highlight the points of his recent paper [here: www.physics.byu.edu... ] to the American public.

While the interview was not the best, it was undoubtedly enough to spark inquisitive minds all across the country. Please make your best effort to contact Tucker Carlson at 1-877-TCARLSON and let him know how you feel about 9/11, and the work of Dr. Jones, it may just be aired on his show tommorrow night.

This may have been just what was needed to judge the response and desire for such subjects to be covered, now is the time to show MSNBC that we want the truth, and that professors such as Jones and Griffin deserve to be given a fair shake to educate the American people.

or can be seen here as well
www.abovetopsecret.com...




[edit on 16/11/2005 by Sauron]

Let's actually see some videos of wtc7 collapsing, and let's compare them to what we see in real controlled demolition.

And btw, I want you to notice that the following video shows that wtc7 did not fall as symmetrically as some people around here want you to believe. They only keep showing the videos that were taken farther away from wtc7, but I haven't seen any of these members show the following video, which i found in a site which claims, and I quote...:

The video enlargement on the right shows part of WTC 7's roof crumbling seconds before the collapse. The only logical reason for this occurrence is the building was rocked by a powerful explosion.

Excerpted from.
www.whatreallyhappened.com...

Wait a second....I though several members were claiming that the wtc7 collapsed way too "symmetrically" and this shows that it was a controlled demolition...yet this site claims that wtc7 did not fall so symmetrically, and this shows that it was a controlled demolition?.....

i see...so whether or not the wtc7 fell too symmetrically or not, it still proves it was a controlled demolition?......

Anyways, let's see the comparisons.

Here is a link to wtc7 collapse from a close up camera. in here we see that wtc7 did not fall as "symmetrically" as some want you to believe. I will also give links for you to see how buildings collapse due to fires.

www.whatreallyhappened.com...

These are the "squibs" that are seen in controlled demolition. Notice that it is not just one squib, but several from each floor where the explosives are detonated.



Here is another picture, of a smaller building and the squibs that are seen before it collpases.



Here is a close up of wtc7 before collapsing. (sorry for the resolution, but this is the only picture that the site "whatreallyhappened" shows the wtc7 and the "not even close to a symettrical collapse of wtc7". I will try to find some other sites that have better resolution)



Perhaps every building that has collapsed to a fire was OH MY GOD.....THEY WERE ALL BROUGHT DOWN BY CONTROLLED DEMOLITION..........



[edit on 16-11-2005 by Muaddib]

muaddib.
what position are you looking at this from?
Is it just your opinions or do you have some specific knowledge?

just to help me work out who knows what. thanx.

Actually,

In this piece of footage, it shows 1 part of the penthouse collapsing into the building, then the rest of the penthouse and soon thereafter the entire building falls flat. And from the looks of it, LOOKS.

The building was '"probably" collapsed from the middle, out. So you are correct it is not symmetrical, exactly, but its as close as is probably possible.

Its not like half the building fell before the other, it all collapsed in a relatively symmetrical way. Of course its not going to be perfect.

~Peace ~

Originally posted by Hunting Veritas
Actually,

In this piece of footage, it shows 1 part of the penthouse collapsing into the building, then the rest of the penthouse and soon thereafter the entire building falls flat. And from the looks of it, LOOKS.

The building was '"probably" collapsed from the middle, out. So you are correct it is not symmetrical, exactly, but its as close as is probably possible.

Its not like half the building fell before the other, it all collapsed in a relatively symmetrical way. Of course its not going to be perfect.

~Peace

~

Did you count how many seconds it took from the moment the roof collapsed to the moment when the rest of the wtc7 collapsed? I counted 7-8 seconds....that's nowhere near a symettrical collapse.

[edit on 16-11-2005 by Muaddib]

Can anyone show me a film of a steel building collapsing from fire damage, other than the WTC? I have heard that there aren't any and would be very interested to see one.

Originally posted by CindyfromFlorida
Can anyone show me a film of a steel building collapsing from fire damage, other than the WTC? I have heard that there aren't any and would be very interested to see one.

If only things worked as simple as that.

The problem is Cindy that there have been no steel buildings, with the same foundation and materials used for the construction of the wtc, that had planes crash into them, and there hadn't been any buildings which had explosions from the fuel of passenger planes which most probably blew up all the fireproof covering surrounding several of the steel columns, and there have been no buildings which had several steel columns taken out by planes crashing into them?

Not to mention the fires from the fuel, not only the fires from combustible materials which is what happens to other buildings when they catch fire.

There are many differences Cindy.

Some people try to bring up the B-25 bomber that crashed into the empire state building in 1945, but they fail to tell you that there are many differences between the buildings, the planes, and the speed the planes were travelling.


[edit on 16-11-2005 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
Did you count how many seconds it took from the moment the roof collapsed to the moment when the rest of the wtc7 collapsed? I counted 7-8 seconds....that's nowhere near a symettrical collapse.

The penthouse on top of the building collapses as you rightfully say approx 7-8 seconds before the initial building collapse. The question is Why? no?

I think when people are talking symmetrical they are talking about the level of the roof. The way it sort of falls without falling, looks more like sinking rather than half or even quarter of the building collapses before the other, which does not happen.

I believe thats what people are saying, although the penthouse collapsed before the initial collapse it still does not explain how the building itself can look like its sinking.

~Peace ~

[edit on 16/11/05 by Hunting Veritas]

edit: Not important to the conversation. I erased what was said earlier.

[edit on 16-11-2005 by MacMerdin]

How many people remember 9/11 in detail? no one saw/remembers the explosion before each tower came down?

The people who were there probably don't remember a lot of things from that day. That's what happens when people are in shock...they have a loss of memory.

Elijio, I remember it very cleary. In fact, I watched it from the get go on BBC 1.

I in fact remember people standing, waving with white shirts[tops] on the floors which were so hot it could weaken steel...but shush.

Originally posted by Odium
Elijio, I remember it very cleary. In fact, I watched it from the get go on BBC 1.

I in fact remember people standing, waving with white shirts[tops] on the floors which were so hot it could weaken steel...but shush.

Very good point Odium. I'd like to hear the "official" explanation of that.

Originally posted by Odium
Elijio, I remember it very cleary. In fact, I watched it from the get go on BBC 1.

I in fact remember people standing, waving with white shirts[tops] on the floors which were so hot it could weaken steel...but shush.

Right....you are going to tell us that you saw people waving their shirts from the spots where the planes crashed into the buildings....

You probably saw people at the floors below, or above where the planes crashed, where the combination of the plane crash, the explosion from the crash and the ensuing fires all together weakened the steel which collapsed the towers....

and Odium, it is not funny in the least....