It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
I quote Jerry Russel Ph.D:
www.attackonamerica.net...
The gravitational potential energy of the upper stories would be coupled into the frame below, beginning to destroy it. The frame below would deflect elastically, absorbing energy in the process of deflecting. At weak points, the metal structure would break, but the elastic energy absorbed into the entire frame would not be available to do more destruction. Instead, it would be dissipated in vibration, acoustic noise and heat. Eventually this process would grind to a halt, because the gravitational potential energy of a skyscraper is nowhere near sufficient to destroy its own frame.
Distinguished University of Minnesota Philosophy Professor Joins 9/11 Fight, Saying the Truth Must Be Uncovered
James H.Fetzer, PhD., has publicly thrown his hat in the ring to support other professors seriously questioning and casting doubt on the official 9/11 story.
16 Dec 2005
By Greg Szymanski
Snip
“One fascinating aspect of 9/11 is that the official story involves collaboration between some nineteen persons in order to bring about illegal ends and thus obviously qualifies as a conspiracy theory,” wrote Fetzer.
“When critics of the government offer an alternative account that implicates key figures of the government in 9/11, that obviously qualifies as a ‘conspiracy theory’, too. But what matters now is that we are confronted by alternative accounts of what happened on 9/11, both of which qualify as "conspiracy theories". It is therefore no longer rational to dismiss one of them as a "conspiracy theory" in favor of the other. The question becomes, which of two ‘conspiracy theories’ is more defensible?”
After setting the record straight on conspiracy theories, Fetzer in his paper delves into an analysis of the 9/11 evidence, saying that the controlled demolition of the WTC must be taken seriously.
~~
“Most Americans may not realize that no steel-structure high-rise building has ever collapsed from fire in the history of civil engineering, either before or after 9/11,” wrote Fetzer. “If we assume that those fires have occurred in a wide variety of buildings under a broad range of conditions, that evidence suggests that these buildings do not have a propensity to collapsed as an effect of fire. That makes an alternative explanation, especially the use of powerful explosives in a controlled demolition, a hypothesis that must be taken seriously.”
~~
Besides the WTC, Fetzer also provides a detailed analysis of the Pentagon crash, questioning as many before him, “What Really Happened?”
~~
In his paper, he states: Link
~~
Fetzer will appear next Monday on Greg Szymanski’s nationwide radio show, the Investigative Journal, on the Republic Broadcasting Network at
www.rbnlive.com...
Originally posted by LeftBehind
I responded with questions of my own to hold your theory to the same standard of evidence that you hold to the official story. I fail to see how this is disingenous or a disinfo topic.
[edit on 23-12-2005 by LeftBehind]
Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
I quote Jerry Russel Ph.D:
The central argument in my essay was that the process of collapse should have involved enough friction that the fall of the building should at least have been braked significantly compared to the acceleration of an object in free fall. The argument seemed perfectly reasonable if not obvious to me, and I managed to trick some pretty smart people with it. But the truth is that it is possible for a building to collapse in a process which concentrates high leverage at certain joints in the structure. The result is a nearly frictionless collapse. This was very counter-intuitive to me, but people who work with structures seem quite aware of it. This technical article by Bazant & Zhou explains this in some detail, and although I believe their presentation is oversimplified, the basic message seems to be correct.
www.911-strike.com...
Originally posted by Sauron
Yeap another one joins the team
Distinguished University of Minnesota Philosophy Professor Joins 9/11 Fight, Saying the Truth Must Be Uncovered
James H.Fetzer, PhD., has publicly thrown his hat in the ring to support other professors seriously questioning and casting doubt on the official 9/11 story.
16 Dec 2005
Originally posted by ashmok
Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
I quote Jerry Russel Ph.D:
Might not be wise to quote from that particular Russell article, given what he said about it later:
The central argument in my essay was that the process of collapse should have involved enough friction that the fall of the building should at least have been braked significantly compared to the acceleration of an object in free fall. The argument seemed perfectly reasonable if not obvious to me, and I managed to trick some pretty smart people with it. But the truth is that it is possible for a building to collapse in a process which concentrates high leverage at certain joints in the structure. The result is a nearly frictionless collapse. This was very counter-intuitive to me, but people who work with structures seem quite aware of it. This technical article by Bazant & Zhou explains this in some detail, and although I believe their presentation is oversimplified, the basic message seems to be correct.
www.911-strike.com...
His more up-to-date piece is at www.911-strike.com...
[edit on 27-12-2005 by ashmok]
The argument seemed perfectly reasonable if not obvious to me, and I managed to trick some pretty smart people with it. But the truth is that it is possible for a building to collapse in a process which concentrates high leverage at certain joints in the structure. The result is a nearly frictionless collapse. This was very counter-intuitive to me, but people who work with structures seem quite aware of it.
Originally posted by ashmok
Might not be wise to quote from that particular Russell article, given what he said about it later:
...This technical article by Bazant & Zhou explains this in some detail, and although I believe their presentation is oversimplified, the basic message seems to be correct.
Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
I think the most pressing question is: How did AgentSmith get so chubby when it is a well-known fact that British cuisine is bloody awful?
Originally posted by derdy
for me this was the final nail in the coffin, it's amazing how far i've come since October, a month earlier i laughed in my friend's face when he said our gov't was behind 9/11..... i believed everything about 9/11 our gov't had said and believed we should have gone to iraq, i mean i knew our gov't was corrupt as far as corporations calling the shots, but man, never did i think they'd go this far... after 2.5 solid weeks of nonstop documentaries, internet research (not limited to "conspiracy" websites) i just downloaded this 2 weeks ago[.................]
Originally posted by AgentSmith
Don't forget the same way you were 'brainwashed' by just seeing one side of the story before - you can equally become 'brainwashed' by just subjecting yourself to the alternative explanations.
Remember how you could relate to and understand the 'official' explanations without thinking something was up? Seem familiar?
Just be careful not to go too much the other way.
Documentary.The.Power.Of.Nightmares.01.Baby.Its.Cold.Outside.avi 360949760
Documentary.The.Power.Of.Nightmares.02.The.Phantom.Victory.divx.avi 519942144
Documentary.The.Power.Of.Nightmares.03.The.Shadows.In.The.Cave.divx.avi 516345856
Source
search.bittorrent.com...
Originally posted by Lumos
Wow AgentSmith, trying to make a good first impression? The denial will follow once you established yourself as "open minded", eh? Well, I have to admit you appear smarter when it comes to psychology than is the case with science. Still transparent for the casual observer...
Anyway, now that you conceded that the CIA et al do in fact exert influence outside the sphere considered righteous for most people, how does that fit in with your conviction that on 9/11, everything occured as described by official sources?