9/11 Evidence: starting with peer-reviewed "Fourteen Points"

[BroJones]

This is to follow up on previous threads discussing the EVIDENCE for what really happened on 9/11. It is my contention, based on evidence-based analyses, that the OFFICIAL STORY of the destruction of the Towers and WTC 7 is FALSE.

I put together with colleagues two papers (so far) that have been peer-reviewed and published in established technical journals:

Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction
Authors: Steven E. Jones, Frank M. Legge, Kevin R. Ryan, Anthony F. Szamboti, James R. Gourley
The Open Civil Engineering Journal, pp.35-40, Vol 2
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/conte ... TOCIEJ.SGM


Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials
Authors: Kevin R. Ryan, James R. Gourley, and Steven E. Jones
The Environmentalist, August, 2008
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10669-008-9182-4

A third paper, regarding new findings in the WTC dust which point to the use of cutter-charges, is going through the peer-review process now. (Submitted in July 2008).

In science, research generally begins with a review of the published, peer-reviewed literature -- so I propose we act like scientists and "pick apart" these published papers, starting with the first.
Perhaps we can reach agreement on some or all of the points?

[BroJones]

OK -- we begin, with the introduction and a discussion of the collapse of WTC 7. Comments welcomed. (NOTE: NIST has produced their final report on WTC 7, several months AFTER this Fourteen Points paper was published. Although their report was NOT peer-reviewed, I would be glad to comment on it if there is interest. Otherwise, we'll move to point 2 in the peer-reviewed paper.)

INTRODUCTION
On September 11, 2001, the Twin Towers of the World
Trade Center (WTC) were hit by airplanes. Total destruction
of these high-rises at near free-fall speeds ensued within two
hours, and another high-rise which was not hit by a plane
(WTC 7) collapsed about seven hours later at 5:20 p.m.
The US Congress laid out the charge specifically to the
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to
“Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed fol-
lowing the initial impacts of the aircraft and why and how
WTC 7 collapsed” [1]. The Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) was acting with a similar motivation in
their earlier study of these tragic collapses [2]. NIST and
FEMA were not charged with finding out how fire was the
specific agent of collapse, yet both evidently took that lim-
ited approach while leaving open a number of unanswered
questions. Our goal here is to set a foundation for scientific
discussion by enumerating those areas where we find agree-
ment with NIST and FEMA. Understanding the mechanisms
that led to the destruction of the World Trade Center will
enable scientists and engineers to provide a safer environ-
ment for people using similar buildings and benefit firefight-
ers who risk their lives trying to save others.

DISCUSSION

1. WTC 7 Collapse Issue
FEMA: “The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how
they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this
time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises con-
tained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only
a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investiga-
tion, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue” [2].

FEMA analyzed the remarkable collapse of WTC build-
ing 7, the 47-story skyscraper that, even though it was not hit
by a plane, collapsed about seven hours after the second
Tower collapse. We certainly agree that FEMA’s best fire-
based hypothesis “has only a low probability of occurrence.”
NIST’s final report on WTC 7 has been long delayed and is
eagerly awaited [3]. Apparently it is difficult to fully explain
the complete and rapid collapse of WTC 7 with a fire-based
hypothesis alone.

[The Red Pill]

In science, research generally begins with a review of the published, peer-reviewed literature -- so I propose we act like scientists and "pick apart" these published papers, starting with the first.
Perhaps we can reach agreement on some or all of the points?

Thank you Dr. Jones for starting this new thread with genuine scientific analysis wanted instead of the chants and voodoo of the previous thread.

I agree with your paper. Thanks for all the valuable research you have done.

[BroJones]

Thanks, redpill... Can't resist a few comments on the latest NIST report on WTC 7.

1. NIST says the collapse was due to office-materials FIRE -- that the diesel fuel was NOT a factor and that damage from falling debris from the Towers was NOT a significant factor. (Both were debunkers' arguments, dismissed by NIST in their report.)

2. After questioning by David Chandler and myself, NIST finally admits to a 2.25 second free-fall period in which the roof moves with free fall ACCELERATION = g 9.8 m/sec**2. There is an informative video by Chandler:
David Chandler report on WTC7 and NIST report:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0GHVEKrhng

2b. NIST did not explain how free-fall could be achieved -- how does one explain that the material below offered NO RESISTANCE to the falling roof? (See video above, and note that explosives routinely move material out of the way in controlled demolitions -- permitting the upper floors to move nearly STRAIGHT down with little interference, so the building falls rapidly and into its own footprint).

3. NIST did not test ANY steel from WTC 7 rubble, even though there was some -- which figured importantly in the FEMA report, Appendix C. (A mystery, ignored by NIST.)

4. In order to "explain" the fall of WTC 7, NIST resorted to a computer model which is NOT available to the public, despite our requests.

5. In this computer model, NIST says that a crucial column failed -- but in order to get it to fail, they admit that they set the heat-conduction parameter for this column to ZERO. That is, they allowed all the heat from burning office materials near this column to BUILD UP for about THREE hours without letting any of the heat to be conducted away by connecting steel members. This is contrary to the laws of physics! You cannot just set heat conduction to zero.

(Have you ever heated the point of a steel needle with a flame? Soon the needle becomes too hot to handle, and that is due to heat conduction which is non-zero, even for steel!!)

OK -- now take off the kid gloves and tell me why NIST is right about WTC 7, that it fell completely and rapidly, straight down, due to office-material fires -- can anyone do it? Can anyone even give me a precedent for such a complete collapse due to fire?

C'mon!

[BroJones]

More regarding NIST and the collapse of WTC 7, which was NEVER HIT by a plane, from a friend of mine who is a professional engineer:

The 2.25 second freefall found in WTC 7 is obviously due to a large number of columns being blown across the building. The resistance at that point was completely removed.

I would argue that the need to overcome the factor of safety in the columns requires an impulsive load to generate the needed amplified force and that in turn requires deceleration. Freefall isn't possible in a progressive collapse, there would have to be deceleration. The fact that the collapse does decelerate after the 2.25 second freefall proves the point and nobody can argue the resistance was negligible earlier since the momentum would be even greater 3 seconds into the collapse. The fact that there was no resistance for 2.25 seconds and then all of a sudden deceleration is observed can only be explained by columns being blown during the 2.25 seconds.

...There is no chance that an entire eight floor section of a 300 foot long x 145 foot wide building could buckle symmetrically and cause no resistance to the progression of the upper mass....

It is ridiculous that [essentially] none of the steel from WTC 7 and less than 0.5% from the towers was saved for examination, and that action cannot be defended in any meaningful or innocent way. Legitimate investigations do not operate that way. Any genuine person has to see the elimination of the physical evidence as a nefarious thing.

Alright, oldmandalton, Mark, anyone?-- where are the responses? Waiting.

[WYp8riot]

Well one argument that can be made is that the official story is always correct, because it can change and can use truth it creates to fit the situation.

Lets not buy into conspiracy theories. Bush should tell that to every person who blindly buys into the official conspiracy theory. Lets re investigate the facts. with out institutional speculation.

Here is what happened to Kevin for seeking truth...
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Ke ... 2nov04.htm

NIST conspiracy theory is as far fetched from seeking any reality based on facts and science a high school level education with an open mind can figure that out.

[BroJones]

Physicist David Chandler challenges the NIST report on WTC 7 in two enlightening video-analyses:


David Chandler report on WTC7 and NIST report:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0GHVEKrhng
If that doesn't work, try: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0GHVEKr ... re=related

(One of my questions publicly challenging NIST is delivered at the 5:46 mark in the above video.)

Part III: Chandler takes on NIST:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vz43hcKYBm4

[Oldemandalton]

[Dr Jones
Alright, oldmandalton, Mark, anyone?-- where are the responses? Waiting]

How would you think a retired carpenter would respond Dr Jones? I do not have a scientific back ground in Engineering, Architecture, Chemistry, etc. How do I go about refuting these claims?

BTW you never answered my questions in the other thread.

OMD

[Col. Flagg]

In science, research generally begins with a review of the published, peer-reviewed literature -- so I propose we act like scientists and "pick apart" these published papers, starting with the first.
Perhaps we can reach agreement on some or all of the points?

Thank you Dr. Jones for starting this new thread with genuine scientific analysis wanted instead of the chants and voodoo of the previous thread.

I agree with your paper. Thanks for all the valuable research you have done.

Same here Steve.

[Col. Flagg]

[Dr Jones
Alright, oldmandalton, Mark, anyone?-- where are the responses? Waiting]

How would you think a retired carpenter would respond Dr Jones? I do not have a scientific back ground in Engineering, Architecture, Chemistry, etc. How do I go about refuting these claims?

BTW you never answered my questions in the other thread.

OMD

Dalton, many of us have already answered dozens of your questions covering many aspects of 9/11, yet, you continue to play ignorant. Enough already! I can't help but determine that your motive here is to stir the pot and rock the boat, especially when you continue to ask the same questions over and over again, even after explanations have been given on an elementary level. Forgive me for sounding mean-spirited, but we shouldn't have to keep explaining basic concepts about what happened and why over and over. We desire to spread truth and inform others of it... seek it out man and do some research into what we've brought to your attention about 9/11!

[Col. Flagg]

I just wanted to make a quick comment about the collapse of the towers. I remember watching the billows of smoke live on TV and thinking that they'll get the oxygen-starved fires out and then re-build the upper floors. As soon as the south tower collapsed, I sat there watching with complete stupor at what I had just seen... a 110 story building, with 90 perfectly in-tact floors below, just disintegrated in a matter of seconds!? I could accept the pancake theory under three conditions... first, if there was no 47 column massive steel core, 2nd, if the buildings hadn't disintegrated and pulverized into dust and small fragments during collapse and 3rd, if no molten metal had been discovered beneath all 3 buildings. However, such is not the case as all three are fact. 9/11 was a cover-up operation that made a lot of people very rich, saved a lot of people a lot of money, covered up possibly hundreds of cases of fraud involving government, military and/or Wall Street firms and allowed for the implementation of a geo-political agenda contrived in Washington, DC by a think tank consisting of members of the Bush adminsitration. It was a win-win situation for the true perpetrators.

[Oldemandalton]

[Col. Flagg;
Dalton, many of us have already answered dozens of your questions covering many aspects of 9/11, yet, you continue to play ignorant. Enough already! I can't help but determine that your motive here is to stir the pot and rock the boat, especially when you continue to ask the same questions over and over again, even after explanations have been given on an elementary level. Forgive me for sounding mean-spirited, but we shouldn't have to keep explaining basic concepts about what happened and why over and over. We desire to spread truth and inform others of it... seek it out man and do some research into what we've brought to your attention about 9/11!]

I have answered all of your responses on your theory of why there were demolitions planted in the Towers. None have responded to those. I believe, please correct me if I am wrong, Col. Flagg that the Towers were demoed because of the desire to put forth the Patriot Act and other Rights inhibiting legislation. I have demonstrated that this and more may have occurred with out the need of the Collapsing buildings. Also you have postulated that the Port Authority wanted to save money which I again demonstrated this also was unnecessary because the buildings would have been condemned anyway by the city, insurance cashed in on and moneys received from the Government.

Did I miss one Col. Flagg?

There is research on both sides. Should I ignore one over the other as some do?

There are other truths than 9/11. I seek after those.

[Col. Flagg;
I just wanted to make a quick comment about the collapse of the towers. I remember watching the billows of smoke live on TV and thinking that they'll get the oxygen-starved fires out and then re-build the upper floors. As soon as the south tower collapsed, I sat there watching with complete stupor at what I had just seen... a 110 story building, with 90 perfectly in-tact floors below, just disintegrated in a matter of seconds!? I could accept the pancake theory under three conditions... first, if there was no 47 column massive steel core, 2nd, if the buildings hadn't disintegrated and pulverized into dust and small fragments during collapse and 3rd, if no molten metal had been discovered beneath all 3 buildings. However, such is not the case as all three are fact. 9/11 was a cover-up operation that made a lot of people very rich, saved a lot of people a lot of money, covered up possibly hundreds of cases of fraud involving government, military and/or Wall Street firms and allowed for the implementation of a geo-political agenda contrived in Washington, DC by a think tank consisting of members of the Bush adminsitration. It was a win-win situation for the true perpetrators.]

Don’t forget Col. Flagg the fire and impacts of the planes caused the weaknesses in the steel members, not fire alone.
http://www.debunking911.com/impact.htm
http://www.debunking911.com/towers.htm

The building didn’t disintegrate into dust and small fragments. Why do you guys keep saying this? There was dust and small fragments yes, just as would be expected in a building collapse. If you saw ground zero you would know what I mean. There were huge sections of twisted steel, large chunks, of concrete, etc in the wreckage.

OMD

[The Red Pill]

[Dr Jones
Alright, oldmandalton, Mark, anyone?-- where are the responses? Waiting]

How would you think a retired carpenter would respond Dr Jones? I do not have a scientific back ground in Engineering, Architecture, Chemistry, etc. How do I go about refuting these claims?

BTW you never answered my questions in the other thread.

OMD

Im not buying it Dalton. You had plenty of spit and vinegar responses over at the other thread. --Quoting your "science guys" as if they were your best friends (maybe they are).

You got into it over there just fine. Don't play the decrepit, old, near-sighted carpenter with Alzheimer's and a third grade education.

Answer the question Dr. Jones asked and let's see how it holds up.

[bobhenstra]

[Col. Flagg;
Dalton, many of us have already answered dozens of your questions covering many aspects of 9/11, yet, you continue to play ignorant. Enough already! I can't help but determine that your motive here is to stir the pot and rock the boat, especially when you continue to ask the same questions over and over again, even after explanations have been given on an elementary level. Forgive me for sounding mean-spirited, but we shouldn't have to keep explaining basic concepts about what happened and why over and over. We desire to spread truth and inform others of it... seek it out man and do some research into what we've brought to your attention about 9/11!]

I have answered all of your responses on your theory of why there were demolitions planted in the Towers. None have responded to those. I believe, please correct me if I am wrong, Col. Flagg that the Towers were demoed because of the desire to put forth the Patriot Act and other Rights inhibiting legislation. I have demonstrated that this and more may have occurred with out the need of the Collapsing buildings. Also you have postulated that the Port Authority wanted to save money which I again demonstrated this also was unnecessary because the buildings would have been condemned anyway by the city, insurance cashed in on and moneys received from the Government.

Did I miss one Col. Flagg?

There is research on both sides. Should I ignore one over the other as some do?

There are other truths than 9/11. I seek after those.

[Col. Flagg;
I just wanted to make a quick comment about the collapse of the towers. I remember watching the billows of smoke live on TV and thinking that they'll get the oxygen-starved fires out and then re-build the upper floors. As soon as the south tower collapsed, I sat there watching with complete stupor at what I had just seen... a 110 story building, with 90 perfectly in-tact floors below, just disintegrated in a matter of seconds!? I could accept the pancake theory under three conditions... first, if there was no 47 column massive steel core, 2nd, if the buildings hadn't disintegrated and pulverized into dust and small fragments during collapse and 3rd, if no molten metal had been discovered beneath all 3 buildings. However, such is not the case as all three are fact. 9/11 was a cover-up operation that made a lot of people very rich, saved a lot of people a lot of money, covered up possibly hundreds of cases of fraud involving government, military and/or Wall Street firms and allowed for the implementation of a geo-political agenda contrived in Washington, DC by a think tank consisting of members of the Bush adminsitration. It was a win-win situation for the true perpetrators.]

Don’t forget Col. Flagg the fire and impacts of the planes caused the weaknesses in the steel members, not fire alone.
http://www.debunking911.com/impact.htm
http://www.debunking911.com/towers.htm

The building didn’t disintegrate into dust and small fragments. Why do you guys keep saying this? There was dust and small fragments yes, just as would be expected in a building collapse. If you saw ground zero you would know what I mean. There were huge sections of twisted steel, large chunks, of concrete, etc in the wreckage.

OMD

[bobhenstra]

I have very good experience with explosives, I have explosive ordinance disposal (EOD) military experience, and I have been involved in many explosive sets, including some very large detonations. I know what an explosion looks like, I know what shape charges are, and how they are used. My experience tells me all three buildings were brought down with pre-set high order explosions.

Building 7 was not explained by NIST, mostly simply ignored. The whole building dropped at free fall speed into it’s own footprint, and that explains a lot to me. To have all three buildings supposedly weakened by fire in specific spots fall at free fall speed is improbable, indeed impossible beyond any chance. (as did buildings one and two, except for a thirty ton beam that was blown across the street from the towers, and impaled in the walls of a bank, how much energy would it take to throw a 30 ton beam that distance?) Bones from victims were found on the tops of buildings 600 feet away, yet a perfectly preserved un-singed passport belonging to one of “the terrorist’ supposedly made it through the explosion and was found on the street below, and was instantly recognized as belonging to one of the supposed perps!

The mayor knew 7 was coming down and said so, the police knew it was coming down, and there is audio/video proof of those warnings before the fall, it was even announced on TV with it “still” standing in the background that it “had come down” several minutes before it actually come down. It was destroyed by perfectly executed implosions, later in the day.

It is my opinion that building 7 was supposed to be destroyed by making it look like the debris from buildings one and two caused the collapse of bldg 7, the explosives were set to destroy the building as the debris fell on it. But something failed and the “powers that be” simply finished it off.

9-11 was a botched operation, blame was put on Osama before the dust had settled. LDG’s brought down the buildings to further enrich themselves through the military industrial complex with the declaration by Bush, of war on the supposed terrorist organization that the LDG’s chose to blame.

Even though the operation was botched, the ldg’s got away with it because the majority of the people in the USA simply refuse to believe their government would do such a thing. The fact that the WTC complex was not treated as a crime scene, was not investigated properly, the incriminating evidence rapidly destroyed, is testament in itself that LDG’s were involved.

Bush himself was caught in a bold faced lie when he said he saw the first plane hit the North tower while in the school after reading to the kids in the morning, the tapes showing the first plane hitting the North building was not shown until later in the day, he couldn’t have seen it. He showed very little concern when he was supposedly told by an aid that a plane had hit the World Trade Center, Bush knew it was going to happen.

The events that are happening today are simply a continuation of 9-11, delayed a bit because of the botched 9-11 operation, the LDG’s need to get it right this time to accomplish their dreams and wicked desires.

It’s done, we have been commanded to prepare for the cleansing that’s coming, the wicked will be used by the Lord to cleanse themselves. They will “not” make it through the cleansing! They will not enjoy the fruits of their doings, their fruits will fall with their dead bodies. We have the Lord’s promise!

Bob

[WYp8riot]

There is research on both sides. Should I ignore one over the other as some do?

OMD

I agree that all evidence should be reviewed, which is why this thread was started. Also we need to consider the credibility or motives that some may use for presenting evidence and or junk science.
If there is evidence refuting Dr Jones 14 points I think that each one should recieve a post and source so that we can evaluate that point and the claimed legit source on an individual basis. We may not all agree even after that but we can look at both sides of the arguement.


DOES ANYONE OBJECT TO GOING THROUGH EACH POINT, One at a time?

-Paul

[Col. Flagg]

I have very good experience with explosives, I have explosive ordinance disposal (EOD) military experience, and I have been involved in many explosive sets, including some very large detonations. I know what an explosion looks like, I know what shape charges are, and how they are used. My experience tells me all three buildings were brought down with pre-set high order explosions.

Building 7 was not explained by NIST, mostly simply ignored.

Because it is a HUGE smoking gun... it should NOT have collapsed at all, let alone at free fall speed. You can clearly see the explosions going off in the building, the classic 'crimp' and also one angle shot shows the top floors of the south end being blown to kingdom come. Hundreds, if not thousands of investigative case files into financial fraud, extortion and all manner of chicanery involving Wall Street and our 'government' were contained in building 7 and we're now seeing the result of what that fraud has done with the financial crises and 'bail-outs' for those connected to the whole thing... these people are involved in evil beyond understanding.

The whole building dropped at free fall speed into it’s own footprint, and that explains a lot to me. To have all three buildings supposedly weakened by fire in specific spots fall at free fall speed is improbable, indeed impossible beyond any chance. (as did buildings one and two, except for a thirty ton beam that was blown across the street from the towers, and impaled in the walls of a bank, how much energy would it take to throw a 30 ton beam that distance?) Bones from victims were found on the tops of buildings 600 feet away, yet a perfectly preserved un-singed passport belonging to one of “the terrorist’ supposedly made it through the explosion and was found on the street below, and was instantly recognized as belonging to one of the supposed perps!

The mayor knew 7 was coming down and said so, the police knew it was coming down, and there is audio/video proof of those warnings before the fall, it was even announced on TV with it “still” standing in the background that it “had come down” several minutes before it actually come down. It was destroyed by perfectly executed implosions, later in the day.

It is my opinion that building 7 was supposed to be destroyed by making it look like the debris from buildings one and two caused the collapse of bldg 7, the explosives were set to destroy the building as the debris fell on it. But something failed and the “powers that be” simply finished it off.

Maybe, but IMO, it came down when it was planned to come down... they had to wait for a while to make it appear as though the damage from the twin towers had weakened it. It's amazing how other WTC buildings which were closer to the twin towers that sustained a lot more damage didn't collapse.

9-11 was a botched operation, blame was put on Osama before the dust had settled. LDG’s brought down the buildings to further enrich themselves through the military industrial complex with the declaration by Bush, of war on the supposed terrorist organization that the LDG’s chose to blame.

Even though the operation was botched, the ldg’s got away with it because the majority of the people in the USA simply refuse to believe their government would do such a thing. The fact that the WTC complex was not treated as a crime scene, was not investigated properly, the incriminating evidence rapidly destroyed, is testament in itself that LDG’s were involved.

Bush himself was caught in a bold faced lie when he said he saw the first plane hit the North tower while in the school after reading to the kids in the morning, the tapes showing the first plane hitting the North building was not shown until later in the day, he couldn’t have seen it. He showed very little concern when he was supposedly told by an aid that a plane had hit the World Trade Center, Bush knew it was going to happen.

The events that are happening today are simply a continuation of 9-11, delayed a bit because of the botched 9-11 operation, the LDG’s need to get it right this time to accomplish their dreams and wicked desires.

It’s done, we have been commanded to prepare for the cleansing that’s coming, the wicked will be used by the Lord to cleanse themselves. They will “not” make it through the cleansing! They will not enjoy the fruits of their doings, their fruits will fall with their dead bodies. We have the Lord’s promise!

Bob

Amen brother!!!

[BroJones]

Paul, I would indeed like to go through the Fourteen Points in the formally published paper, in a civil engineering journal.

I think we covered POINT #1 in the Fourteen Points paper (about the strange collapse of WTC 7) fairly thoroughly. I do find that arguments by "debunkers" are old arguments in general -- neglecting the fact that NIST has studied the issue and determined that damage from the debris of the falling towers was NOT fatal to WTC 7... Let's move on to the next two points, moving more quickly now:

Quote from the 14 Points paper:

2. Withstanding Jet Impact.
FEMA: “The WTC towers had been designed to withstand the accidental impact of a Boeing 707 seeking to land at a nearby airport…” [2]
NIST: “Both WTC 1 and WTC 2 were stable after the aircraft impact, standing for 102 min and 56 min, respectively. The global analyses with structural impact damage showed that both towers had considerable reserve capacity” [4].

Yes, we agree, as do previously published reports: “The 110-story towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand as a whole the forces caused by a horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft. So why did a total collapse occur?” [5]
John Skilling, a leading structural engineer for the WTC Towers, was interviewed in 1993 just after a bomb in a truck went off in the North Tower:
"We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side," said John Skilling, head structural engineer….

Concerned because of a case where an airplane hit the Empire State Building [which did not collapse], Skilling's people did an analysis that showed the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707.

"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."

Skilling - a recognized expert in tall buildings - doesn't think a single 200-pound car bomb would topple or do major structural damage to a Trade Center tower. The supporting columns are closely spaced and even if several were disabled, the others would carry the load.

…Although Skilling is not an explosives expert, he says there are people who do know enough about building demolition to bring a structure like the Trade Center down.

"I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it." [6]

Thus, Skilling’s team’s expert analysis showed that a commercial jet would not bring down a WTC Tower, just as the Empire State Building did not collapse when hit by an airplane, and he explained that a demolition expert using explosives could demolish the buildings. We find we are in agreement.

3. Pancake Theory Not Supported.
NIST: “NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers… Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon” [3].

Agreed: the “pancake theory of collapse” is incorrect and should be rejected. This theory of collapse was proposed by the earlier FEMA report and promoted in the documentary “Why the Towers Fell” produced by NOVA [7]. The “pancake theory of collapse” is strongly promoted in a Popular Mechanics article along with a number of other discredited ideas [8, 9]. We, on the other hand, agree with NIST that the “pancake theory” is not scientifically tenable and ought to be set aside in serious discussions regarding the destruction of the WTC Towers and WTC 7.

Any comments on THESE two points? (Did you know, OMD, Mark, that NIST had studied and RULED OUT the "Pancake theory" of collapse for the Towers? Didn't one of you cite the Pancake theory in the other thread?)

[Rob]

There are other truths than 9/11. I seek after those.

Huh? You lost me. If you're saying you feel prompted to pursue other ways to carry out the three-fold mission of the Church, ok. That's your call. As for me, the simultaneous (ie. mass) murder of 3,000+ people, followed by a war (killing who knows how many) predicated upon the lie that 9/11 was perpetrated by some bogeyman, begs for my attention.

But, hey, that's just me.

[truthseeker]

My experience has been that there are many who are so locked in to their beliefs about what happened on 9/11, that no amount of evidence to the contrary will convince them. We can go over each point and show all the arguments, logic, and evidence that show the validity of it, but at the end of the day, those who choose to see it differently will continue to do so.

It is hard for me to understand why this is so. How people can see such strong evidence and problems with the official account and still believe the official story is beyond me.

Perhaps we all have blind spots due to a set of beliefs that are so core to our identity that we never allow any truth in that would challenge them. In this case, (ie. what happened on 9/11) the core belief that seems to be the largest barrier is that the US government is good and a symbol for that which is right in the world.

Joseph Smith expressed the following regarding the difficulty he would encounter in trying to get people to accept truths:

"I have tried for a number of years to get the minds of the Saints prepared to receive the things of God; BUT we frequently see some of them after suffering all they have for the work of God, will fly to pieces like glass as soon as anything comes that is contrary to their traditions" - Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith p. 331

[WYp8riot]

Paul, I would indeed like to go through the Fourteen Points in the formally published paper, in a civil engineering journal.

I think we covered POINT #1 in the Fourteen Points paper (about the strange collapse of WTC 7) fairly thoroughly. I do find that arguments by "debunkers" are old arguments in general -- neglecting the fact that NIST has studied the issue and determined that damage from the debris of the falling towers was NOT fatal to WTC 7... Let's move on to the next two points, moving more quickly now:

Quote from the 14 Points paper:

2. Withstanding Jet Impact.
FEMA: “The WTC towers had been designed to withstand the accidental impact of a Boeing 707 seeking to land at a nearby airport…” [2]
NIST: “Both WTC 1 and WTC 2 were stable after the aircraft impact, standing for 102 min and 56 min, respectively. The global analyses with structural impact damage showed that both towers had considerable reserve capacity” [4].

Yes, we agree, as do previously published reports: “The 110-story towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand as a whole the forces caused by a horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft. So why did a total collapse occur?” [5]
John Skilling, a leading structural engineer for the WTC Towers, was interviewed in 1993 just after a bomb in a truck went off in the North Tower:
"We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side," said John Skilling, head structural engineer….

Concerned because of a case where an airplane hit the Empire State Building [which did not collapse], Skilling's people did an analysis that showed the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707.

"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."

Skilling - a recognized expert in tall buildings - doesn't think a single 200-pound car bomb would topple or do major structural damage to a Trade Center tower. The supporting columns are closely spaced and even if several were disabled, the others would carry the load.

…Although Skilling is not an explosives expert, he says there are people who do know enough about building demolition to bring a structure like the Trade Center down.

"I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it." [6]

Thus, Skilling’s team’s expert analysis showed that a commercial jet would not bring down a WTC Tower, just as the Empire State Building did not collapse when hit by an airplane, and he explained that a demolition expert using explosives could demolish the buildings. We find we are in agreement.

3. Pancake Theory Not Supported.
NIST: “NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers… Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon” [3].

Agreed: the “pancake theory of collapse” is incorrect and should be rejected. This theory of collapse was proposed by the earlier FEMA report and promoted in the documentary “Why the Towers Fell” produced by NOVA [7]. The “pancake theory of collapse” is strongly promoted in a Popular Mechanics article along with a number of other discredited ideas [8, 9]. We, on the other hand, agree with NIST that the “pancake theory” is not scientifically tenable and ought to be set aside in serious discussions regarding the destruction of the WTC Towers and WTC 7.

Any comments on THESE two points? (Did you know, OMD, Mark, that NIST had studied and RULED OUT the "Pancake theory" of collapse for the Towers? Didn't one of you cite the Pancake theory in the other thread?)

I believe these questions are open to anyone. I invite any expert, scientist etc to give some valid science and information we can discuss on these 2 points. Additionally anyone who reads this thread and feels they have a credible arguement or know of one and the source please post it so we can be enlightened or debunk, which ever is necessary.

-Paul

[Oldemandalton]

[Dalton, many of us have already answered dozens of your questions covering many aspects of 9/11, yet, you continue to play ignorant. Enough already! I can't help but determine that your motive here is to stir the pot and rock the boat, especially when you continue to ask the same questions over and over again, even after explanations have been given on an elementary level. Forgive me for sounding mean-spirited, but we shouldn't have to keep explaining basic concepts about what happened and why over and over. We desire to spread truth and inform others of it... seek it out man and do some research into what we've brought to your attention about 9/11!]

Sorry, Col Flagg, but I have punched holes in all of your theories of "the why".

OMD

[Oldemandalton]

[From Red Pill;
Im not buying it Dalton. You had plenty of spit and vinegar responses over at the other thread. --Quoting your "science guys" as if they were your best friends (maybe they are).
You got into it over there just fine. Don't play the decrepit, old, near-sighted carpenter with Alzheimer's and a third grade education.
Answer the question Dr. Jones asked and let's see how it holds up.]

Red Pill, are you a scientist that can go over every equation and computer model to check for errors or something left out that would negate their hypothesis?

Have you done the same with these peer reviewed papers that have the opposite view of the 9/11 false flagg event?
http://www.debunking911.com/paper.htm

So whom should I believe, Red Pill?

I have noticed that Dr Jones has ignored my question to him about a motive. Any thinking human being would have contemplated the why especially to such a horrendous act as occurred on 9/11.

Old, decrepit, near-sighted carpenter with Alzheimer's and a third grade education, Man.

[Oldemandalton]

[From Bob;

I have very good experience with explosives, I have explosive ordinance disposal (EOD) military experience, and I have been involved in many explosive sets, including some very large detonations. I know what an explosion looks like, I know what shape charges are, and how they are used. My experience tells me all three buildings were brought down with pre-set high order explosions.]

I can’t argue with your past experience, Bob. I posted mine just now in the other thread. Please read it, Bob, so you will understand how I saw the collapse.



[Building 7 was not explained by NIST, mostly simply ignored. The whole building dropped at free fall speed into it’s own footprint, and that explains a lot to me. To have all three buildings supposedly weakened by fire in specific spots fall at free fall speed is improbable, indeed impossible beyond any chance. (as did buildings one and two, except for a thirty ton beam that was blown across the street from the towers, and impaled in the walls of a bank, how much energy would it take to throw a 30 ton beam that distance?) Bones from victims were found on the tops of buildings 600 feet away, yet a perfectly preserved un-singed passport belonging to one of “the terrorist’ supposedly made it through the explosion and was found on the street below, and was instantly recognized as belonging to one of the supposed perps!]

They didn’t fall into there own foot print:
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

They did not fall at free fall speeds. If you look closely to the video you will see debris passing up the collapsing Tower, therefore the Tower was falling LESS than the pull of gravity.

If your theory is correct and that they only put cutting charges NOT explosives in the core columns, then how did that bone get 400’ away?

Bob, did you notice all of the paper around ground zero, where did they come from? Couldn’t a passport survive too?

[The mayor knew 7 was coming down and said so, the police knew it was coming down, and there is audio/video proof of those warnings before the fall, it was even announced on TV with it “still” standing in the background that it “had come down” several minutes before it actually come down. It was destroyed by perfectly executed implosions, later in the day.
It is my opinion that building 7 was supposed to be destroyed by making it look like the debris from buildings one and two caused the collapse of bldg 7, the explosives were set to destroy the building as the debris fell on it. But something failed and the “powers that be” simply finished it off.]

Foreknowledge of 4 planes impacting into buildings doesn’t necessarily mean the buildings were set with cutting charges. See also;
http://www.911myths.com/html/foreknowledge.html


[9-11 was a botched operation, blame was put on Osama before the dust had settled. LDG’s brought down the buildings to further enrich themselves through the military industrial complex with the declaration by Bush, of war on the supposed terrorist organization that the LDG’s chose to blame.]

I believe that the LDGs did not have to set charges to accomplish this. 4 planes killing thousands amomg them Senators and Congressmen would have made the military industrialists very happy along with the diabolical Bush/Cheney.

Even though the operation was botched, the ldg’s got away with it because the majority of the people in the USA simply refuse to believe their government would do such a thing. The fact that the WTC complex was not treated as a crime scene, was not investigated properly, the incrminating evidence rapidly destroyed, is testament in itself that LDG’s were involved.
Bush himself was caught in a bold faced lie when he said he saw the first plane hit the North tower while in the school after reading to the kids in the morning, the tapes showing the first plane hitting the North building was not shown until later in the day, he couldn’t have seen it. He showed very little concern when he was supposedly told by an aid that a plane had hit the World Trade Center, Bush knew it was going to happen.]

Obstruction of justice;
http://www.911myths.com/html/obstructing_justice.html

Foreknowledge;
http://www.911myths.com/html/foreknowledge.html

[The events that are happening today are simply a continuation of 9-11, delayed a bit because of the botched 9-11 operation, the LDG’s need to get it right this time to accomplish their dreams and wicked desires.]

I believe that the operation was “botched” when the 4th plane failed to hit the Capital.

[It’s done, we have been commanded to prepare for the cleansing that’s coming, the wicked will be used by the Lord to cleanse themselves. They will “not” make it through the cleansing! They will not enjoy the fruits of their doings, their fruits will fall with their dead bodies. We have the Lord’s promise!]

I am with you here Bob. I’ll be standing shoulder to shoulder with gun in hand with all of you. We may have a differing view on 9/11, but not much else.

OMD

[WYp8riot]

OMD, I thought Jones did reply to the question regarding motive? I could be wrong.
Those links you posted make some strong arguments. I cant pretend to know what happened. I do know that I didnt like how they catagorized everything else as a a theory implying all their info wasn't theory. There was obviously a conspiracy and the question is who was involved and did insiders allow the event to happen. There are so many theories and a lot of them are obviously far fetched. I do not think you are playing ignorant but are just defending your position based on your beliefs. I think this debate can be a healthy one and perhaps we will all learn something.

Historically False flag terrorism is a reality. Additionally we know from the actual word of some of the PTB that they needed a catastrophic event to promote their agenda. From there in my mind it gets kinda blurry as to whats going on. I havent been able to swallow the idea that these terrorists did this without some inside work, if nothing more than just allowing it to happen.

Anyway I just want an honest debate to follow, so back to the 2 points anyone?

-Paul