www.911myths.com

[larsenb]

Please stop resurrecting this thread! Go start your own thread. Please.

Touchy!!! What difference does it make???

I've been getting email notifications for this thread for a very long time now. I would unsubscribe, but I don't want to miss a relevant reply from Professor Jones. It's bad form to hijack a thread, so unless you're Professor Jones replying to my specific questions on this thread, kindly go start another thread. Thanks.

Robert, do you mean you've been keeping email notifications open for posts to this thread so you can get closure regarding accusations of personal attacks you've made on Dr. Jones?

Maybe I can help you out. One of your emails attacking Dr. Jones was filtered to me. It certainly contained personal attacks against Dr. Jones, which undoubtedly was passed on to Dr. Jones because you sent it to someone he has worked with.

If you're game, I can post it here w/your addressee's name removed. You sent it as 'LDS Patriot'.

This should be a great relief to you to be able to get closure after all this time, and to be able to truly go on with your life completely unfettered.

Are you game?? Think of the relief!

Also, Robert, you talk about never resorting to hypothesizing until you've collected all the pertinent facts. Has the scientific report documenting the highly probable existence of nano-thermite in 5 samples of the WTC dust kicked you over into at least giving slight entertainment of the hypthosis that explosives/incendiaries might just have been used to 'help' bring down the WTC towers??

Incidentally, the scientific way is not to wait until all possible pertinent facts are in before starting to entertain hypotheses. Normally, scientists work with multiple hypotheses, and sort them out during the processes of collecting observations, facts and evidence.

[Explorer]

I wonder as I read this discussion of the 9/11 –what is the point? There is the one group who doesn’t believe it to be a conspiracy and the others that see evidence of it in every facet of life. For those who don’t believe there appears to me to be a pile on mentality where they are berated by hundreds of bits of evidence that comes from who knows where and whose validity appears questionable in some case. Those who believe pepper nonbelievers with accusations that they are not awake or just plain stupid to miss the overwhelming evidence. They push for acceptance of the facts of day – or look for capitulations in ones beliefs. My question is to what end? For me, I simply do not believe in the conspiracy ideology – to my testimony of my everlasting ignorance or possible incredible perceptiveness. I simply don’t know. But what I do know is I won’t find it be searching simply on the web. There is simply to much that can be falsified and altered on this huge electronic medium by either side.

In the end – I don’t understand why it matters one way or the other. For those of you who believe – don’t you continue to put your pants on one leg at a time? Don’t you continue to serve faithfully in the temple and in your callings – seeking to achieve the best in yourselves and in your family? I know that you do. The same is true for the non-believers. Is not the saving ordinances extended to all who believe in the gospel regardless of their belief of the 9/11 discussion. Is there anywhere in gospel blessings that require this type of belief system – hardly. It is on something much more important - faith , hope, charity.... You all know the list. So it is because of this, I wonder why there is such vitriolic reaction on the one side or the other to what someone believes on this subject. Are we not more kind and generous to those who are seeking questions about our church who are of another faith? Don’t we treat them more kindly and with greater care than with their differing beliefs than ours?

This subject like many others on this post are discussed passionately, with much vigor, and ad nausea on the site. Since it is not my sight, I guess it can continue as many as you see fit. But let me add again my one question – what does it matter? If your right or wrong, does the knowledge you have affect the eventual outcome of the last days? Will there be any change of course by the Lord? Will His plan be altered or changed – or will the wicked change their schemes if you know some secret? This post is filled with 4 years of discussion – has anything changed? We all believe that there is secret combinations in some form or another afoot in the world – however nothing is changed in the coming day of the Lord. For me personally, I need to spend more time on worthwhile things, then researching whether there was complicity or not. Should I spend hours upon hours looking for each direct link to 9/11, N.W.O crowd – or should I spend it in the scriptures, at the temple, in service to others. Each of us are governed by the same 24 hour clock – what we do with the time, will have much bearing on our life. In my case, I feel inadequately prepared spiritually – and so, I must spend time and effort working towards preparing to meet my Savior. I see little to no benefit of this discussion and outcome in the long term things of life and salvation, as some try to figure out what happened truly on that fateful day. In the end – I know my salvation will have nothing to do with the twin towers. It will have little to do with building 7 – but might have a lot to do with how I treat people within some innocuous post.

[larsenb]

I wonder as I read this discussion of the 9/11 –what is the point? . . . . . . . . I see little to no benefit of this discussion and utcome in the long term things of life and salvation, as some try to figure out what happened truly on that fateful day. In the end – I know my salvation will have nothing to do with the twin towers. It will have little to do with building 7 – but might have a lot to do with how I treat people within some innocuous post.

Explorer, this site is mainly a political site for LDS conservatives. Not a religion site, per se. Brian, correct me if I'm wrong.

The merits and importance of getting to the truth of the events of 9/11, an extremely awful political act, has been discussed ad nauseum in many threads in this forum. Those events have been a watershed that have adversely affected millions in this country and elsewhere. If this isn't worthy of discussion and hashing out in a political forum, what pray tell, is??

Also, the many, many statements from current and earlier Brethren to be active politically and to fight for truth and justice, and particularly the Constitution, have been displayed on Brian's web site and in the threads of this forum, ad nauseum.

Your choice to not be concerned or want to deal with these issues, which are NOT mutually exclusive from personal spiritual preparation in your life and family, is just that: your choice. But why then did you just post a fairly long post on this very subject?

[Explorer]

Your response goes to my point – in 10 years since 9/11 what have you accomplished? What have ye and your merry men done that has benefited us / America? Or has the world only become more wicked and perverse. Please name something positive that this movement promotes? I don’t mean this as a challenge, but a very sincere question. My opinion, all of this dialogue does nothing. My disbelief in this theory hasn’t stifled me from reading constitutional books, or to notice the direction our country is taking, or to prepare my family as has been prescribed by our leaders. Moreover what I find comical about all of those who believe and defend this subject – is this ominous undertone in your response and others, that because we don’t believe what you do, your are more awake, better prepared, more constitutionally astute, more knowledgeable...which is simply not true.

I am usually not a poster on sites. I view this site and others a my PG rated entertainment of the week – but tire of the constant gnawing at one another. I guess your right this might be more political and spiritual so I should go haunt somewhere else. But I finally decided to put something down today- because I can ‘t believe that people waste so much time arguing a point over and over. Whether the theory is true or not – is does not affect ONE SENTILLA the outcome of the Lords return. Not one. He will come at his appointed time. Secret combinations and their ilk will be washed away. Whatever their fiendish designs may have been or are; affects me and my family only momentarily. We all agreed in the preexistence to these terms and conditions. The prophets have been telling us this would happen in the last days. So why the surprise to find out about these modern day robbers? Why the surprise at the possible level of their complicity? I have now done what wish I hoped to never do, which is to go down the rabbit hole too far on this subject. My only point was time could be much better spent working on our temporal and spiritual preparation rather than discussions of painted on explosives. But to each their own. I will now gladly return to the shadows were this provides a brief outlet in life’s turns.

My best to each of you.

[LittleLion]

Please name something positive that this movement promotes?

Therefore, that we should waste and wear out our lives in bringing to light all the hidden things of darkness, wherein we know them; and they are truly manifest from heaven—
These should then be attended to with great earnestness.
Let no man count them as small things; for there is much which lieth in futurity, pertaining to the saints, which depends upon these things.

DnC 123:13-15

There are many reasons to know what satan and his merry men are doing. It can and does benefit all of us that some are called to do these very things. Most are not called to waste and wear out their lives but some are I assure you. Who is to judge which is which and who is whom? Not I.....

[dconrad000]

To keep the public deceived on the issue allows the Secret Combination to continue to carry out false flag terror events like 9/11 and worse -- enabling them to accelerate even more -- our loss of liberties and further immoral warfare.

When the public is sufficiently awakened to the truth of this particular matter, that takes false flag terror as a tool, away from the Secret Combination. They can no longer use that particular tool, because it is only effective when the public is none-the-wiser.

We therefore need to continue to get more of the public awakened to that reality as soon as possible (after-all it has been 8 1/2 years since 9/11)...otherwise we are in danger of another false flag event occurring -- worse than 9/11 -- say a suitcase nuke and martial law or some such thing.

...and a great awakening to the truth has been occurring, thanks to the efforts of 9/11 truthers. Whether that awakening has occurred to a large enough degree at this point to prevent another 9/11 level (or worse) false flag event in this country again remains to be seen, but here is evidence that the efforts of 9/11 truthers have not been fruitless --but are becoming more and more acknowledged to be valid:

Scientific Poll: 84% Reject Official 9/11 Story
Only 16% now believe official fable according to New York Times/CBS News poll
Truth Movement has the huge majority of opinion


http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11 ... on_911.htm

(...and this was four years ago...tens of millions more...perhaps hundreds of millions around the globe...have continued to be awakened since then)

[larsenb]

Your response goes to my point – in 10 years since 9/11 what have you accomplished? What have ye and your merry men done that has benefited us / America? Or has the world only become more wicked and perverse. Please name something positive that this movement promotes? I don’t mean this as a challenge, but a very sincere question. My opinion, all of this dialogue does nothing. My disbelief in this theory hasn’t stifled me from reading constitutional books, or to notice the direction our country is taking, or to prepare my family as has been prescribed by our leaders. Moreover what I find comical about all of those who believe and defend this subject – is this ominous undertone in your response and others, that because we don’t believe what you do, your are more awake, better prepared, more constitutionally astute, more knowledgeable...which is simply not true.

I am usually not a poster on sites. I view this site and others a my PG rated entertainment of the week – but tire of the constant gnawing at one another. I guess your right this might be more political and spiritual so I should go haunt somewhere else. But I finally decided to put something down today- because I can ‘t believe that people waste so much time arguing a point over and over. Whether the theory is true or not – is does not affect ONE SENTILLA the outcome of the Lords return. Not one. He will come at his appointed time. Secret combinations and their ilk will be washed away. Whatever their fiendish designs may have been or are; affects me and my family only momentarily. We all agreed in the preexistence to these terms and conditions. The prophets have been telling us this would happen in the last days. So why the surprise to find out about these modern day robbers? Why the surprise at the possible level of their complicity? I have now done what wish I hoped to never do, which is to go down the rabbit hole too far on this subject. My only point was time could be much better spent working on our temporal and spiritual preparation rather than discussions of painted on explosives. But to each their own. I will now gladly return to the shadows were this provides a brief outlet in life’s turns.

My best to each of you.

Well, explorer, as you suggest, you blew it. You got drawn into something you thought not important, placing yourself squarely in the 3rd group or node of this controversy: those who do not think 9/11 is important enough to discuss, investigate further, and hopefully, bring real justice to the victims. Usually, from my experience, people in this group believe the official story. You are responding to type. Discussion of alternative hypotheses obviously greatly wrankles you.

As a matter of fact, in the last 10 years, the 'merry men' you reference have done a lot to clarify what happened on that day. Many books have been written, much thought generated and many investigations have resulted. Actually, enough to indict, give reason for further in-depth investigation and to wake up many, many people who lend their voice to demanding an independent investigation. Probably even a few in this forum have gained from the discussion of this subject.

The only 'fault' I see in people who are serious about 9/11 truth, is that they may be naive in their belief that the information and facts they have brought to light will actually be used to bring a real investigation resulting in indictments.

And where you say: "Whether the theory is true or not – is does not affect ONE SENTILLA the outcome of the Lords return.", may I suggest you can't know any such thing. Did you get revelation on this, or something?

Also, where you say: "[an] ominous undertone in your response and others, that because we don’t believe what you do, your are more awake, better prepared, more constitutionally astute, more knowledgeable...which is simply not true.", is certainly a gross misreading of what I feel toward those who don't have my understanding of 9/11. I detect a little psychological projection here, in view of the tone of your post sounding very much like a put-down and disdain for people arguing for 9/11 truth.

And from what you've said, I think you are going to be 'surprised' to discover (probably in the afterlife) that alternative hypthoses of 9/11 were true, and the significance of rooting out the high-level perpetrators, if only we had done so at the appropriate time.

[BroJones]

Well to the point, larsenb -- and dconrad000 hits the nail on the head IMO:

To keep the public deceived on the issue allows the Secret Combination to continue to carry out false flag terror events like 9/11 and worse -- enabling them to accelerate even more -- our loss of liberties and further immoral warfare.

When the public is sufficiently awakened to the truth of this particular matter, that takes false flag terror as a tool, away from the Secret Combination. They can no longer use that particular tool, because it is only effective when the public is none-the-wiser.

We therefore need to continue to get more of the public awakened to that reality as soon as possible (after-all it has been 8 1/2 years since 9/11)...otherwise we are in danger of another false flag event occurring -- worse than 9/11 -- say a suitcase nuke and martial law or some such thing.

...and a great awakening to the truth has been occurring, thanks to the efforts of 9/11 truthers. Whether that awakening has occurred to a large enough degree at this point to prevent another 9/11 level (or worse) false flag event in this country again remains to be seen, but here is evidence that the efforts of 9/11 truthers have not been fruitless --but are becoming more and more acknowledged to be valid:

Scientific Poll: 84% Reject Official 9/11 Story
Only 16% now believe official fable according to New York Times/CBS News poll
Truth Movement has the huge majority of opinion


http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11 ... on_911.htm

(...and this was four years ago...tens of millions more...perhaps hundreds of millions around the globe...have continued to be awakened since then)

And let us not forget it is the LORD who commands us to "awaken to our awful situation." Ether 8:20ff

[Lone Star Patriot]

Secret combinations and their ilk will be washed away. Whatever their fiendish designs may have been or are; affects me and my family only momentarily.

I think it is fascinating to hear such a comment. Just how do you think the Lord accomplishes His will? How does He do missionary work? One might just as easily say we know that the Gospel will be preached to the whole world, so why do I have to waste one bit of my time worrying about it. I don't need to do anything, because the Lord said it will be done.

If we pay careful attention to the words of our modern day prophets and the scriptures, it will be quite clear that we have a solemn duty to "awake to our awful situation," and that we are commanded to keep secret combinations from gaining power over us. In fact, one of the strongest warnings I've read in the scriptures is in regards to what will happen if we suffer these things to be. (Ether 8 )

I would like to ask you this one question. How were the Nephite and Jaredite civilizations destroyed? Have our modern prophets discussed this, even recently, and what does the Book of Mormon say about this?

If the Book of Mormon is more current than the morning paper, and much more definitive and inspired, how should we follow the counsel we read in the Book of Mormon?

I testify that the Book of Mormon contains answers to these very issues. I know the Book of Mormon is more current than the morning paper as President Hinckley testified.

[rcronk]

Please stop resurrecting this thread! Go start your own thread. Please.

Touchy!!! What difference does it make???

I've been getting email notifications for this thread for a very long time now. I would unsubscribe, but I don't want to miss a relevant reply from Professor Jones. It's bad form to hijack a thread, so unless you're Professor Jones replying to my specific questions on this thread, kindly go start another thread. Thanks.

Robert, do you mean you've been keeping email notifications open for posts to this thread so you can get closure regarding accusations of personal attacks you've made on Dr. Jones?

Maybe I can help you out. One of your emails attacking Dr. Jones was filtered to me. It certainly contained personal attacks against Dr. Jones, which undoubtedly was passed on to Dr. Jones because you sent it to someone he has worked with.

If you're game, I can post it here w/your addressee's name removed. You sent it as 'LDS Patriot'.

This should be a great relief to you to be able to get closure after all this time, and to be able to truly go on with your life completely unfettered.

Are you game?? Think of the relief!

Also, Robert, you talk about never resorting to hypothesizing until you've collected all the pertinent facts. Has the scientific report documenting the highly probable existence of nano-thermite in 5 samples of the WTC dust kicked you over into at least giving slight entertainment of the hypthosis that explosives/incendiaries might just have been used to 'help' bring down the WTC towers??

Incidentally, the scientific way is not to wait until all possible pertinent facts are in before starting to entertain hypotheses. Normally, scientists work with multiple hypotheses, and sort them out during the processes of collecting observations, facts and evidence.

I have never sent an email under the name "LDS Patriot". You can post the email if you wish, but if it's signed "LDS Patriot", then it's not from me. I have only used my name when corresponding. If you post it, I can confirm directly if I wrote it or not. Also, yes, I am seeking closure on this and that's why I have remained subscribed. I have yet to see the quotes of my personal attacks. If they exist, I will apologize. If they don't, then let's all get on with our lives. I searched all posts and emails I have written on this subject and have sent them to professor Jones (years ago, mind you) and didn't find personal attacks in them.

[Mullenite]

http://heiwaco.tripod.com/blgb.htm






"What did and did not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York"


Home
About us
Services
Contact info
News
Order books




"The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing."

Albert Einstein


The below Discussion to Paper was submitted to ASCE - Journal of Engineering Mechanics on 3 February 2009 and approved for publication 3 June 2009, apparently awaiting a reply or Closure by Messrs. Bazant, Le, Greening and Benson, that has not come forward 15 December 2009. Messrs. Bazant, Le, Greening and Benson have presented a theory, where a small top part C of a structure compresses and destroys a bigger bottom part A of same structure only due to gravity, and suggest that it explains the destructions of the WTC towers of 911. Mr. Björkman, M.Sc, suggests that the theory is nonsense.

The illustrations, figures 1-8 did not form part of the original submission to ASCE-JEM but are added here for easy verification of observations. As ASCE/JEM are delaying publication, I have decided to publish it here today, 15 December, 2009. Comments are always welcome at [email protected] .

ASCE-JEM has informed 25 January 2010 that a Closure has finally been written by Messrs. Bazant, Le, Greening and Benson and given to JEM mid-January 2010 to be published with this Discussion of Paper in JEM at some future date.

On 16 March 2010 ASCE has advised:

Date: 03-16-2010

Manuscript #: EMENG-296R1

Re: Discussion of "What Did and Did Not Cause Collapse of World Trade Center Twin Towers in New York" by Bazant, Le, Greening and Benson

Authors: Anders Björkman, M.Sc.

Dear Mr Anders Björkman,

Your article EMENG-296R1 entitled, "Discussion of "What Did and Did Not Cause Collapse of World Trade Center Twin Towers in New York" by Bazant, Le, Greening and Benson" by Anders Björkman, M.Sc. has been through a final check and is now scheduled for publication in the July 2010 issue of the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

We are very pleased to be publishing your paper, and we look forward to receiving manuscripts from you in the future.

Sincerely,

ASCE Journals Department

So it looks as if ASCE will finally publish my paper + Bazant's 'Closure'.

Anders Björkman, M.Sc., Heiwa Co - European Agency for Safety at Sea



Discussion to Paper (3 February, 2009 - final 3 June, 2009) - To be published in ASCE:s Journal of Engineering Mechanics (July - 2010)

(Also as Power Point presentation + nice figures presented on 19 February 2010 to AE 911 at San Francisco - http://www.ae911truth.org/ . Support AE911truth.org and Richard Gage to get a new investigation done).



Discussion of "What Did and Did not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York" by Bazant, Le, Greening and Benson, Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, Vol. 134 (2008), [1]



I have read subject article by Bazant, Le, Greening and Benson (BLGB) with great interest and would like to make the following observations:

There is no need to describe the destruction of WTC1 using differential equations. Simple math + observations of videos prove the BLGB model and paper wrong.

BLGB suggests that upper part C (of WTC1) drops on the lower structure of WTC1 - part A - that is one-way crushed in 97 steps until ground.



Fig. 1 - The Bazant & Co crush-down theory applied to a structure consisting of five assemblies of structural elements - one upper part C and four lower parts A; All parts consists 95% of air. Each part has height h. Thus total structure has height 5 h.

(1) Lower parts A carries upper part C of the structure statically with a FoS >1 (actually >3 so that part C will not collapse by itself before start). Primary load bearing elements make up <1% of the structure volume. Upper part C is then dropped on top part A and one way crush-down, suggested by Bazant & Co, starts. The suggested reason is that upper part C can apply sufficient energy and pressure to destroy elements in part A and compress them into rubble part B without destroying itself. It is of course crazy! Part C cannot apply energy and pressure to destroy part A without destroying itself!

(2) Upper part C has crushed down top part A into rubble part B A/4, while only air is ejected; The density of part B rubble is 4 times the density of C and A according Bazant. Part C has dropped 3/4 h. Part C remains intact according to Bazant & Co. In reality it cannot happen but Bazant & Co suggest otherwise!

(3) Upper part C and rubble part B have crushed down two top parts A into rubble part B A/2 and more air is ejected; Part C has dropped 1.5 h! The rubble B assists the crushing of part A.

(4) Upper part C and rubble part B have crushed down three top parts A into rubble part B 3A/4, etc; Part C has dropped 2.25 h. The rubble B assists the crushing of part A.

(5) Upper part C and rubble part B have crushed all four parts A into rubble part B = one part A, etc; Part C has dropped 3 h. The rubble B assists the crushing of part A.

(6) Rubble part B (!) has crushed up (?) upper part C into rubble from below. Parts A and C with density 0.25 have become 100% rubble of height 1.25 h and 'rubble' density 1.

(7) The rubble then spills out on the ground, according Bazant & Co (and is more compressed to density >1?).

Steps 2 to 6 go very fast according to Bazant & Co; Upper part C decends down/crushes parts A and produces rubble part B at acceleration about 0.7 g (g = 9.8 m/s²). If the structure A+C is only 1 meter high (and the top part C 0.2 meter), 0.8 meter A should become 0.2 m rubble B in a fraction of second like a POUFF! What kind of magic structure or material is that?

The Bazant theory can evidently not be verified in a laboratory or in reality for any structure of any size.

Actually the whole theory is complete fantasy: Upper, structural part C would either bounce or get locally damaged (partly or completely) when contacting and putting pressure on structural top part A after a gravity drop and would then get stuck up on top of parts A.

No structure of any size can be crushed by an upper part of itself from top down by gravity.

It is quite elementary! Part C and the rubble part B cannot ever apply sufficient force/pressure/energy to crush part A from above. It is quite easy to calculate the pressure applied and energy released by falling upper part C and any rubble B and compare it with the energy required to break all elements in part A. The pressure applied and energy released by C and B is too small ... and difficult to apply on A ... so A will never be crushed down.

Question remains why Bazant & Co suggest the opposite? It is insane! Are Bazant & Co part of the conspiracy to destroy the WTC at NY?

Fig. 2 below shows Bazant & Co's original crush-down/up phases:


Fig. 2 - Figure 2 bottom from [1]. The suggestion by Bazant & Co that a small upper top part C of any structure can crush down a bigger same structure bottom part A into rubble, part B, only by gravity is not possible. Upper top part C can never apply sufficient force and energy on the bottom part A and the result should always be that upper top part C remains stuck up top. The Bazant theory can not be verified in a laboratory for any structure.

During crush of the first, the uppermost storey of part A (floor 97) a layer of debris is formed - part B - that grows thicker as more storeys are crushed by parts B and C. What happens using the BLGB model is easily calculated by simple calculations, step by step. Differential equations are not really required.



1. Mass and Density of part C

Near the top, the specific mass (of WTC 1) (mass per unit height) µ = 1 020 000 kg/m or 1 020 ton/m according BLGB. With a storey height of 3.6 m, the mass of a storey is thus 3 672 ton. Assuming the upper part C is 53 m high (14.7 storeys) as suggested by BLGB, total mass of part C above the initiation zone for collapse is 54 060 tons. Part C is supposed to drop down and to one-way crush all 97 storeys of part A, while part C only suffers 'negligible damages'. Part A is quite similar structural wise to part C even if the columns get stronger lower down.

Using a floor area of 4 000 m² the volume of part C is 212 000 m3, thus the uniform (which it is not) density of the upper part C is 0.255 ton/m3 or 255 kg/m3 according BLGB. It is not very much. Reason is that there is plenty of air inside a storey structure. BLGB assumes that the upper part C has some sort of homogeneous structure/density.


Fig. 3 - Upper part C prior "crush down". It is 53 meters high. Floor levels 85 and 75 of Lower part A are indicated in red.



2. Density of Rubble - part B

The known typical (sic) density (sic) of rubble, µc = 4 100 000 kg/m or 4 100 ton/m according BLGB. The density of this rubble is then exactly 1 025 kg/m3 (as the floor area is 4 000 m²), which is the density of salt water (that ships float in).

Thus, when one typical storey structure of WTC 1 part A is homogeneously crushed according the BLGB model, it becomes 0.896 m high/thick. As it was originally 3.6 m high, it has been compressed 75.1%.



3. Initiation of Collapse - the first Crush - Formation of Part B

According BLGB, at initiation - part C - 54 060 tons (actually the lowest floor 98 of part C) - crushes the uppermost storey of part A - floor 97 of the lower structure of WTC 1 and compresses it into a 0.896 m thick layer of debris/rubble that becomes part B. Air/smoke is ejected sideways. BLGB suggests that the local failures are generally buckling of columns between floors 96/98 requiring little energy. Energy to compress the rubble is not considered by BLGB.

This layer, part B, is then resting on the second uppermost floor of part A - floor 96. This compression takes place at increasing velocity of part C. Only air is ejected sideways out. The mass of the rubble - 3 670 tons - is uniformly distributed on the floor below - 918 kg/m² - and the floor should be able to carry that uniform load according general building standards.

What about the part C and its mass 54 060 tons? Is it acting on the debris layer part B? Not really - part C is intact according BLGB but only its bottom floor is now in contact with part B. The columns of part C are now not in contact with the columns of part A below due to the layer of rubble, but it must be assumed that part C columns contact the columns of part A below as suggested by BLGB, so that crush-down destruction can continue.

The roof line of part C has now dropped 2.704 m after first crush (i.e. storey height 3.6 m minus part B height 0.896 m).



4. The second Crush - Part B doubles in Thickness

Then the part C + part B (the layer of rubble/debris) crush the second uppermost floor (no 96) of part A and compresses it into another 0.896 m thick layer of debris that is added to part B. Part B is thus 1.792 m high or thick after two storeys of part A have been crushed. The part C columns now crush the columns of part A again (how?) so that the destruction can continue.

The roof line has then dropped 5.408 m after two crushes! The velocity is increasing. More air/smoke is ejected sideways but only from the storey being crushed.

And so on.

Both the first and second crush is strange in many ways. You would expect the columns in part C between floors 97/99 to fail first at impact. The part C columns are weaker than the part A columns below.


Fig. 4 - Upper part C just after initiation of "crush down" and when roof line has dropped about 35 meters. There is no sign of a Part B - Rubble/debris below the Upper part C. You can actually see ejections of debris through windows at floor #85 and, on other videos/photos, local destructions of other kind here and here higher up.



5. The Displacement of the Roof Line of Part C during Destruction

According to paper The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis [2] by Graeme MacQueen, Tony Szamboti, January, 2009 (http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2 ... gJolt4.pdf ) and careful observations of videos of the alleged crush-down we now know that the roof line of part C dropped (displaced downwards) 35 m in 3.17 seconds at increasing velocity. This 'drop' of part C is also verified by BLGB. However, it is not part C moving down we see. It is part C becoming shorter, while part A remains intact.


Fig. 5 - from [2] - Upper part C roof line downward displacement versus time. The curve is very smooth. If Upper part C had really "crushed down" 9 or 13 intact storeys below into Part B - Rubble/debris, the curve should be staggered! The smooth curve suggests that Upper part C is simply destroyed.

Every time a storey is crushed, part C drops 2.704 m and an 0.896 m layer of debris is formed according BLGB, and the part C columns also destroy the columns below - how is not clear as there is a thick layer of rubble - part B in between.

Thus, when the roof line has dropped 35 m, 12.94 storeys, total height 46.6 m (!) of part A have been crushed and have been replaced by an 11.56 m thick layer of debris - part B. 46.6 m of columns of part A have been crushed at perimeter and core, the latter being mixed in the debris. I assume the wall columns are dropping down to ground outside the building.

MacQueen & Szamboti believe that only 9 (or 9.72) storeys of part A have been crushed after 3.17 seconds, but according BLGB it should be 12.94 storeys. MacQueen & Szamboti forget that there should be an 11.56 m thick layer of debris on part A and below the upper part C, when its roof line has dropped 35 m.



6. Verification of Parts A and B using Video Recordings of the Destruction

Regardless - does anybody see an 11.56 m thick layer of debris - part B - on any video of WTC1 destruction after a 35 m drop of the upper part of WTC1, part C according BLGB? Or that 46.6 m of wall columns have disappeared?

And does anybody believe that an upper part C with density 255 kg/m3 can produce an 11.56 m thick layer of rubble/debris in 3.17 seconds? Only BLGB suggests so, but there is no evidence for it. Reason is that BLGB ignore the energy required to compress the rubble. Simple calculations show that this energy doesn't exist.

This layer of debris is then moving at a velocity of >20 m/s and increasing. The acceleration of parts C and B become rather uniform 0.65-0.7g, i.e. very little force is applied on part A. Only air/smoke should be ejected from the next storey below being crushed, where more debris is formed.



7. Situation when Part C Roof Line has dropped 100 and 200 m

Now - when part C has dropped 100 m and 37 storeys (floors 97-60) have been crushed, the layer of debris - part B - should be 33 m thick on top of which a 53 m high part C should be visible (forgetting the mast). 133 m of walls should be missing! You do not need differential equations to calculate this. Simple math suffices.


Fig. 6 - "Crush down" between floors 85 and 75. Upper Part C is evidently not visible, nor is Part B - Rubble/debris. It should be clear to everybody that WTC 1 is now blown apart by energy released inside the tower as described here.

And when part C has dropped 200 m and 74 (floors 97-23) storeys of WTC1 have been crushed, the layer of debris should be an impressive 66 m thick with part C still riding on top of it.

Imagine a layer of debris - density 1,025 ton/m3 - 66 m high. Over 4 000 m² floor area it is almost a big cube of 264 000 tons of rubble. On top of which part C - 54 060 tons floats. Part C is 53 m high. Add the rubble - part B - and we have a moving mass that is 119 m high, when the part C roof line has dropped 200 meters.


Fig. 7 - "Crush down" below floor 75. Upper Part C is evidently not visible, nor is Part B - Rubble/debris. Smoke is ejected upwards indicating energy release other than that of gravity.

Below this 119 m high pile, a storey of part A - floor 23 - is just being crushed. How the columns of part C - 66 m above floor 23 - can crush the columns there is not clear. 266 m of walls should also be gone. There are another 23 storeys still to crush. About 83 m of WTC 1 remains to be crushed. Can it be seen on any video? Note also that upper part C is still accelerating at 0.7g at this time. The speed is of the order 45 m/s.

When all 97 floors of WTC 1 - part A - have been crushed, there should be an 83 m thick layer of debris on the ground + upper part C on top of it - 53 m. This is also confirmed by BLGB - see fig. 3 (b) in their paper: just before the end of crush- down the 53 m high part C rests on a 92 m thick layer of debris (density 1.025 ton/m3) - the crush down has also penetrated the basement 22 m below ground! The roof line of part C should be 133 m above ground then.

An instant later upper part C is destroyed in a crush-up according BLGB and should form another 13 m thick layer of rubble (according another differential equation). The total thickness of rubble should be 92 + 13 = 105 m minus 22 m of rubble in the basement = 83 m of rubble above ground but only 20 m is suggested by BLGB.

Evidently some rubble is spread outside the 4 000 m² foot print, but it seems the density of the rubble must have increased 3 times - 3.075 ton/m3. But it is not possible - it is too dense. So where did all the rubble go?

Actually no rubble could be produced at all by dropping upper part C, as the destruction should have been stopped up top due to all local failures developing, when part C contacts part A and friction between all partly damaged parts develops at floor 98 level. Only by ignoring local failures and friction at first contact between parts C and A, the BLGB model is initiated. If any further columns would fail, they would have been in part C.


Fig. 8 - figures 3 (a) and 3 (b) from [1]

But what the BLGB theory and model postulate cannot be seen on any videos of the WTC1 destruction. Simple observations of any video of the WTC1 destruction prove the BLGB model wrong.



Anders Björkman, M.Sc., Heiwa Co, European Agency for Safety at Sea

Beausoleil, France



References

[1] What Did and Did not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York

Zdenek P. Bazant, Jia-Liang Le, Frank R. Greening and David B. Benson (2008)

[2] The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis

Graeme MacQueen, Tony Szamboti, January 14, 2009





Try to crush a structure from top down!


More about WTC 1

Heiwa Co home page


This is a very funny element! What can it be used for?

[larsenb]

Maybe I can help you out. One of your emails attacking Dr. Jones was filtered to me. It certainly contained personal attacks against Dr. Jones, which undoubtedly was passed on to Dr. Jones because you sent it to someone he has worked with.

If you're game, I can post it here w/your addressee's name removed. You sent it as 'LDS Patriot'.

This should be a great relief to you to be able to get closure after all this time, and to be able to truly go on with your life completely unfettered.

Are you game?? Think of the relief!

Also, Robert, you talk about never resorting to hypothesizing until you've collected all the pertinent facts. Has the scientific report documenting the highly probable existence of nano-thermite in 5 samples of the WTC dust kicked you over into at least giving slight entertainment of the hypthosis that explosives/incendiaries might just have been used to 'help' bring down the WTC towers??

Incidentally, the scientific way is not to wait until all possible pertinent facts are in before starting to entertain hypotheses. Normally, scientists work with multiple hypotheses, and sort them out during the processes of collecting observations, facts and evidence.

I have never sent an email under the name "LDS Patriot". You can post the email if you wish, but if it's signed "LDS Patriot", then it's not from me. I have only used my name when corresponding. If you post it, I can confirm directly if I wrote it or not. Also, yes, I am seeking closure on this and that's why I have remained subscribed. I have yet to see the quotes of my personal attacks. If they exist, I will apologize. If they don't, then let's all get on with our lives. I searched all posts and emails I have written on this subject and have sent them to professor Jones (years ago, mind you) and didn't find personal attacks in them.

OK, Robert, here it is. My comments bracketed.

From: XXXX
Sent: Saturday, October 07, 2006 10:01 PM
To: [larsenb]
Subject: Steven-Jones-itis

I was reading this message on a blog written by someone who claims to be an LDS patriot...

http://ldspatriot.wordpress.com/2006/10 ... e-program/

So, I left a comment about it: [comment left out]

Then this guy wrote an e-mail to me.... (his words in green)

LDS Patriot < [email protected]]> wrote:
XXXX, I know your are the elect of God because it's apparent you have been deceived. I can't stop, XXXX, because I love you and the truth too much.

I am on a mission to save LDS from the exact lucifarian deception you suffer from, stevenjonesitis: a form of 9/11 post traumatic stress disorder which causes a severe mental delusional disease attacking the part of the brain used for reason, logic, and factual thinking, causing irrational and illogical governmental paranoia and terror-denial.

Steven Jones is a false teacher.

Bush is a good, honorable, even godly man. You've cast your lost on the wrong side, XXXX.

You'd know that if you "trreasureth up my word", i.e., Gods word through our living Prophet, President Hinckley, instead of your love affair and proof texting of dead prophets like E. T. Benson.

Only the truth can set you free, XXXX, and am pleased to deliver the truth to you one post at a time.

God bless,
LDS Patriot

[XXXX wrote some more response to this, left out; but finished with the following:]

Just spend a few minutes on his website (http://ldspatriot.wordpress.com) and . . . . ..
XXXX

Notice how, in his last comment, the person who sent the email to me identifies LDS Patriot, as the owner of the ldspatriot.wordpress.com web site. Now if you go to this web site, you can see a 4 part series called 9/11, Steven Jones, and Me, with ‘Me’ identified as Robert Cronk. So Robert Cronk is certainly affiliated with this web site, and I would guess, probably owns it. Correct me if I’m wrong, Robert.

One other clue to me that rcronk wrote this rather nasty attack on Dr. Jones, is his use of the phrase ‘proof text’. Robert used this same phrase several times in an extensive email exchange with me over the summer of 2006 and into the Fall.

Now maybe rcronk didn’t write the email, but according to the very credible source of the email sent to me, it was a result of the source's posting to a web site Robert seems to be very stronglly affiliated with.

[larsenb]

Robert, let's have some closure on this so we can get on with our lives.

[rcronk]

THANK YOU!!!!! So this is the source of it all! I did NOT write that email. I was contacted by phone by the owner of LDS Patriot to write up my experiences with Professor Jones and so I did. I don't own the site nor do I ever go by "LDS Patriot" so I'm sure the owner of that site wrote the email. You can contact him directly if you wish - I believe his contact info is on his site or you could comment on a post of his.

That certainly took a long time to have someone post the actual text so we could get to the bottom of it. It would have been better (years ago) for Professor Jones or one of you to approach me personally and resolve this. Better late than never.

[larsenb]

THANK YOU!!!!! So this is the source of it all! I did NOT write that email. I was contacted by phone by the owner of LDS Patriot to write up my experiences with Professor Jones and so I did. I don't own the site nor do I ever go by "LDS Patriot" so I'm sure the owner of that site wrote the email. You can contact him directly if you wish - I believe his contact info is on his site or you could comment on a post of his.

That certainly took a long time to have someone post the actual text so we could get to the bottom of it. It would have been better (years ago) for Professor Jones or one of you to approach me personally and resolve this. Better late than never.

I wasn't a participant in this blog, and just ran into your plea recently; and don't know if Dr. Jones ever received this email

But like I said, I've never seen the use of the phrase 'proof texting' outside of emails from you. Maybe the owner of the blog picked it up from you?

[rcronk]

I wasn't a participant in this blog, and just ran into your plea recently; and don't know if Dr. Jones ever received this email

But like I said, I've never seen the use of the phrase 'proof texting' outside of emails from you. Maybe the owner of the blog picked it up from you?

I don't remember ever using the term "proof texting". Can you post one of my emails with that phrase in it? It sounds like with the assumption in place that "LDS Patriot" and I are the same person perhaps some other mixups have happened. I do repeat that I did not write the above quoted email and I'm glad to finally be getting to the bottom of this. Thanks.

[larsenb]

I wasn't a participant in this blog, and just ran into your plea recently; and don't know if Dr. Jones ever received this email

But like I said, I've never seen the use of the phrase 'proof texting' outside of emails from you. Maybe the owner of the blog picked it up from you?

I don't remember ever using the term "proof texting". Can you post one of my emails with that phrase in it? It sounds like with the assumption in place that "LDS Patriot" and I are the same person perhaps some other mixups have happened. I do repeat that I did not write the above quoted email and I'm glad to finally be getting to the bottom of this. Thanks.

Do you know what the term means? Later I can wade through our emails to find an example.

While I've got you here, though, your original post starting this thread, indicates you don't settle on a theory or hypothesis until you've collected all the facts. I asked this question above, but I'm curious if Dr. Jones' finding nano-thermite and iron-rich metallic spheres identical in composition to those produced in thermite reactions, in 5 WTC dust samples, has weighted you in the direction of believing that explosives/incendiary charges may have at least helped in bringing down the WTC buildings?

Just curious, in the light of your apparently strong resistance to such an idea.

[rcronk]

I wasn't a participant in this blog, and just ran into your plea recently; and don't know if Dr. Jones ever received this email

But like I said, I've never seen the use of the phrase 'proof texting' outside of emails from you. Maybe the owner of the blog picked it up from you?

I don't remember ever using the term "proof texting". Can you post one of my emails with that phrase in it? It sounds like with the assumption in place that "LDS Patriot" and I are the same person perhaps some other mixups have happened. I do repeat that I did not write the above quoted email and I'm glad to finally be getting to the bottom of this. Thanks.

Do you know what the term means? Later I can wade through our emails to find an example.

While I've got you here, though, your original post starting this thread, indicates you don't settle on a theory or hypothesis until you've collected all the facts. I asked this question above, but I'm curious if Dr. Jones' finding nano-thermite and iron-rich metallic spheres identical in composition to those produced in thermite reactions, in 5 WTC dust samples, has weighted you in the direction of believing that explosives/incendiary charges may have at least helped in bringing down the WTC buildings?

Just curious, in the light of your apparently strong resistance to such an idea.

I don't know what "proof texting" means. Sure, anything's possible. I'd like to see some effort on falsifying the theory though. It's kind of like saying that your tree in your back yard was knocked over and that's just what trees look like when UFO's hit them, therefore a UFO hit it. In fact, the wind blew it over, but without an attempt to falsify the theory, we'd never consider other, more likely causes. I'm not qualified to debate the subject, but I have seen others who are qualified debate it (check out http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=91). I'm no longer interested in 9/11 theories.

[larsenb]

Do you know what [proof texting] means? Later I can wade through our emails to find an example.

While I've got you here, though, your original post starting this thread, indicates you don't settle on a theory or hypothesis until you've collected all the facts. I asked this question above, but I'm curious if Dr. Jones' finding nano-thermite and iron-rich metallic spheres identical in composition to those produced in thermite reactions, in 5 WTC dust samples, has weighted you in the direction of believing that explosives/incendiary charges may have at least helped in bringing down the WTC buildings?

Just curious, in the light of your apparently strong resistance to such an idea.

I don't know what "proof texting" means. Sure, anything's possible. I'd like to see some effort on falsifying the theory though. It's kind of like saying that your tree in your back yard was knocked over and that's just what trees look like when UFO's hit them, therefore a UFO hit it. In fact, the wind blew it over, but without an attempt to falsify the theory, we'd never consider other, more likely causes. I'm not qualified to debate the subject, but I have seen others who are qualified debate it (check out http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=91). I'm no longer interested in 9/11 theories.

Ok. fair enough. Maybe I'm remembering reading the use of the term by LDS Patriot from reading a few things on his web site, and because I thought that was you, I thought you were using it.

Your UFO analogy doesn't quite hack it. That would just be a very poor adductive assertion if there was no evidence for the presence of the UFO's or no previous evidence that UFO's knock trees over in a particular way. No one would go for that theory when a more prosaic explanation is possible; and it is not particularly falsifiable.

In the case of the presence of nano-thermite and the metallic spheres in WTC dust samples, the only real method of falsifying that would be to disprove the presence of the stuff in the samples or to prove the analyses tagging them as thermite or residues of thermite reactions was wrong.

Unlike your UFO analogy, there is hard evidence that the spheres mimic similar by- products from thermite reactions; there is hard evidence the spheres were once melted (which the WTC building fires could not do); and there is hard evidence that the 'red chips' mimic the main characteristics of nano-thermite. So you can see that your UFO analogy is very wide of the mark

JRef ain't the forum for doing that. Needs to come from actual scientific analysis and hopefully be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Otherwise, just speculation. Of course they are welcome to 'debate' endlessly, as much as they want.

[rcronk]

Do you know what [proof texting] means? Later I can wade through our emails to find an example.

While I've got you here, though, your original post starting this thread, indicates you don't settle on a theory or hypothesis until you've collected all the facts. I asked this question above, but I'm curious if Dr. Jones' finding nano-thermite and iron-rich metallic spheres identical in composition to those produced in thermite reactions, in 5 WTC dust samples, has weighted you in the direction of believing that explosives/incendiary charges may have at least helped in bringing down the WTC buildings?

Just curious, in the light of your apparently strong resistance to such an idea.

I don't know what "proof texting" means. Sure, anything's possible. I'd like to see some effort on falsifying the theory though. It's kind of like saying that your tree in your back yard was knocked over and that's just what trees look like when UFO's hit them, therefore a UFO hit it. In fact, the wind blew it over, but without an attempt to falsify the theory, we'd never consider other, more likely causes. I'm not qualified to debate the subject, but I have seen others who are qualified debate it (check out http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=91). I'm no longer interested in 9/11 theories.

Ok. fair enough. Maybe I'm remembering reading the use of the term by LDS Patriot from reading a few things on his web site, and because I thought that was you, I thought you were using it.

Your UFO analogy doesn't quite hack it. That would just be a very poor adductive assertion if there was no evidence for the presence of the UFO's or no previous evidence that UFO's knock trees over in a particular way. No one would go for that theory when a more prosaic explanation is possible; and it is not particularly falsifiable.

In the case of the presence of nano-thermite and the metallic spheres in WTC dust samples, the only real method of falsifying that would be to disprove the presence of the stuff in the samples or to prove the analyses tagging them as thermite or residues of thermite reactions was wrong.

Unlike your UFO analogy, there is hard evidence that the spheres mimic similar by- products from thermite reactions; there is hard evidence the spheres were once melted (which the WTC building fires could not do); and there is hard evidence that the 'red chips' mimic the main characteristics of nano-thermite. So you can see that your UFO analogy is very wide of the mark

JRef ain't the forum for doing that. Needs to come from actual scientific analysis and hopefully be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Otherwise, just speculation. Of course they are welcome to 'debate' endlessly, as much as they want.

Well, I guess this issue is closed for me now as it was apparently a case of mistaken identity. Thanks for helping me get closure on this.

Perhaps I'm using the wrong term. I saw some people discuss alternate sources for the spheres and it would seem that you'd have to prove that there was no other reasonable source that could have produced them in order to get people to go along with such an interesting theory, that's all. Again, I've become disinterested in 9/11 theories. Thanks again.

[Jason]

Why follow the thread for years if you are disinterested in 9/11???

[rcronk]

Why follow the thread for years if you are disinterested in 9/11???

If you look back a few posts, I explained why I've been following the thread all these years. I wanted closure about some accusations made against me and now that I have closure, I'll be unsubscribing.

[Mark]

Why follow the thread for years if you are disinterested in 9/11???

If you look back a few posts, I explained why I've been following the thread all these years. I wanted closure about some accusations made against me and now that I have closure, I'll be unsubscribing.

Hey Robert long time no talk. Why don't we schedule a 9-11 skeptics club meeting. I bet I could get old man Dalton to come but we would have to meet in Vegas because he can't drive very far at his age. Afterward we can go over to the bearded Indians house and TP the crap out of it. What do you say? Are you in??

[larsenb]

I don't know what "proof texting" means. Sure, anything's possible. I'd like to see some effort on falsifying the theory though. It's kind of like saying that your tree in your back yard was knocked over and that's just what trees look like when UFO's hit them, therefore a UFO hit it. In fact, the wind blew it over, but without an attempt to falsify the theory, we'd never consider other, more likely causes. I'm not qualified to debate the subject, but I have seen others who are qualified debate it (check out http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=91). I'm no longer interested in 9/11 theories.

Ok. fair enough. Maybe I'm remembering reading the use of the term by LDS Patriot from reading a few things on his web site, and because I thought that was you, I thought you were using it.

Your UFO analogy doesn't quite hack it. That would just be a very poor adductive assertion if there was no evidence for the presence of the UFO's or no previous evidence that UFO's knock trees over in a particular way. No one would go for that theory when a more prosaic explanation is possible; and it is not particularly falsifiable.

In the case of the presence of nano-thermite and the metallic spheres in WTC dust samples, the only real method of falsifying that would be to disprove the presence of the stuff in the samples or to prove the analyses tagging them as thermite or residues of thermite reactions was wrong.

Unlike your UFO analogy, there is hard evidence that the spheres mimic similar by- products from thermite reactions; there is hard evidence the spheres were once melted (which the WTC building fires could not do); and there is hard evidence that the 'red chips' mimic the main characteristics of nano-thermite. So you can see that your UFO analogy is very wide of the mark

JRef ain't the forum for doing that. Needs to come from actual scientific analysis and hopefully be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Otherwise, just speculation. Of course they are welcome to 'debate' endlessly, as much as they want.

Well, I guess this issue is closed for me now as it was apparently a case of mistaken identity. Thanks for helping me get closure on this.

Perhaps I'm using the wrong term. I saw some people discuss alternate sources for the spheres and it would seem that you'd have to prove that there was no other reasonable source that could have produced them in order to get people to go along with such an interesting theory, that's all. Again, I've become disinterested in 9/11 theories. Thanks again.

Your welcome.

Actually science doesn't work that way. You’ve got the process kind of backwards.

The authors of the papers describing the spheres and chips gave what they thought was the most reasonable explanation for their origin and behavior. It would be rather stupid of them not to do this. Their conclusions were based on compositional identity and in the case of the chips, their behavior. Very much in keeping with the law of parsimony.

Now if other people can some how scrabble up a more reasonable theory, well and good. But then to make it fly, they are obligated to describe the mechanism that produces these materials under the conditions of a fire/minimal damage induced collapse of a steel high rise. And they are further obligated to either demonstrate the mechanism in the production of similar spherules and nano-thermite-mimicking chips, or at the very least, to find these products in debris from other fire/minimal damage induced collapses of steel high rises. Anything else isn’t science, its jawboning and endlessly debating in forums such as JREF.

Also, accomplishing the latter is going to be very tough, unless they build their own mock-up and cause it to collapse from fire and minimal damage, because it’s never happened before, last time I checked.

And frankly, I can’t imagine coming up with a mechanism that produces material from a building collapse that mimics nano-thermite. Lots of luck. Not only are you going to have to produce a material that contains evenly dispersed and uniformally sized Fe2O3 and Al particles of nano-dimensions embedded in a matrix, the material is going to have to behave like nano-thermite when ignited.

But if you do come up with such a natural mechanism, happy day. You will be rich. The labs that try do make the stuff with much more complicated methods will beat a path to your door and pay you BIG bucks to learn how you do it.

The main problem with people not going along with this theory, is they don’t understand the science and/or they emotionally can’t accept the implications of the official theory being wrong. Not much more complicated than that. Other wise, alternative explanations for the spherules and chips would spring up like hot-house flowers in myriad peer-reviewed journals. Where are these studies??

[larsenb]

Why follow the thread for years if you are disinterested in 9/11???

If you look back a few posts, I explained why I've been following the thread all these years. I wanted closure about some accusations made against me and now that I have closure, I'll be unsubscribing.

Hey Robert long time no talk. Why don't we schedule a 9-11 skeptics club meeting. I bet I could get old man Dalton to come but we would have to meet in Vegas because he can't drive very far at his age. Afterward we can go over to the bearded Indians house and TP the crap out of it. What do you say? Are you in??

Excellent idea, Mark, except for TPing the house of the bearded indian! You might get an arrow in your gut.

I actually can't think of more kindred spirits than you, Robert and OMD. You deserve each other. What happened to OMD, by the way? Did the Federal funding supporting his time on the Feedom Forum and similar venues dry up?

In all honesty, though, Mark, your apparent love of Hugh Nibley's Approaching Zion worries me, and maybe it should you as well. I've been reading and re-reading it for 20 years. Maybe you're in danger of ending up like me, or visa versa. We could be approaching a convergence from this indugence.