national medal of science winner Lynn Margulis: WTC-7 was demolished

[mhgaffney]

Margullis has just endorsed David R Griffin's research on 9/11. Of course, it also follows that she thinks 9/11 was an "inside job..."

It will be interesting to see what filth the true believers will now sling at her. Their only hope is that if they sling enough -- something might stick...

MHG

Two Hit, Three Down - The Biggest Lie

National Academy of Science member and Distinguished Professor endorses
David Ray Griffin’s work exposing the truth of 9/11

By Lynn Margulis

Why did three World Trade Center buildings (#1,#2 and #7) collapse on 9/11, after two (and only two) of them were hit by “hijacked airplanes”?

The scientific answer:

Because all three buildings were destroyed by carefully planned, orchestrated and executed controlled demolition. Ignited by incendiaries (such as thermate) and high explosives (including nanothermite), the steel columns were selectively melted in a brilliantly-timed controlled demolition. Two 110-story buildings (towers 1&2), plus one 47-floor building (WTC 7), were induced to collapse at gravitationally accelerated rates in an operation planned and carried out by insiders. The apparent hijacking of airliners and the crashing of them into the Twin Towers were intrinsic parts of the operation, which together provided a basis for claiming that the buildings were brought down by Muslim terrorists. The buildings’ steel columns, which would have provided irrefutable physical evidence of the use of explosives, were quickly removed from the scene of the crime.

Impeccable logic and addiction to reading inspire this truth-seeker. With his practiced scientific mind (he has organized professional philosophy-of-science conferences and published several books on this theme) coupled with investigation of evidence from not only us scientists but from witnesses, documentary film-makers, scholars, architects and engineers et al., he concludes that the virtuall free-fall collapse of the three (not two) World Trade Center buildings in 2001 was a premeditated, exquisitely executed operation. He recognized this “tragic publicity stunt” (my claim) was likely intended to provide the “new Pearl Harbor” desired by radical neoconservatives, some of whom had become members of the Bush administration (see Ch. 6 of Griffin’s 2006 book, Christian Faith and the Truth behind 9/11).

The far-more-difficult science-education problem:

The persistent problem is how to wake up public awareness, especially in the global scientifically literate public, of the overwhelming evidence that the three buildings collapsed by controlled demolition. (Much has been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, see Ch. 4 of The Mysterious Collapse). We, on the basis of hard evidence, must conclude that the petroleum fires related to the aircraft crashes were irrelevant (except perhaps as a cover story).We citizens of Earth within and beyond the boundaries of the United States who demand detailed evidence for extraordinary claims agree with Griffin: the rapid destruction of New York skyscrapers on September 11, 2001 was planned and executed by people inside the US government.

Griffin’s eight books about 9/11 (listed below) are his call to his kind of truly patriotic action. They show in appropriate detail, accurately documented, that the official government conspiracy theory can not be correct journalistically, scientifically, and morally. Muslim airline hijackers, in short, never triggered the collapse of high-rise steel-framed buildings at gravitational acceleration into neat removable pieces. They didn’t remove the remaining steel girders before they could be studied as evidence for a huge crime. They were not described in telephone calls by passengers and crew members from the four airliners –all the evidence for al Qaeda hijackers on the planes dissipates under close inspection (for example, even the FBI now admits that the reported cell phone calls from 25,000 to 40,000 feet never happened).

And to me the most compelling and obviously incorrect accusation is that Muslim hijackers caused the pulverization of cement high-rise office buildings into tons of dust that contain crystalline thermate and other minute metallic particles not found in the usual charred remains of fire rubble. Minute iron-aluminum-molybdenum rich spheres, steel perforated with swiss-cheese type holes and large quantities of unreacted nanothermite are not components of petroleum office fires. Besides the fact that building fire temperatures, even if fed by jet-fuel, could not have risen beyond 1,800°F, and hence they would be nowhere close to the of 2,800°F needed to melt iron (or for molybdenum that melts at 4,753°F). The facile appeal to the presence of gypsum (calcium sulfate) in the office wall-board fails to explain why sulfur was found in the intergranular structure of pieces of steel. (There was no detection of calcium!) The New York Times, in a rare example of honest reporting about the WTC collapses, called this “the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation”).

Nor could “Muslim terrorists” have accessed and then planted in these buildings huge quantities of nanothermite. This recently developed high explosive was developed mainly in secrecy by professional scientists and engineers who enjoy government grant support for “nanotechnology” by the military. Significant quantities of red-gray crystals of nanothermite have been found in several independently collected samples of WTC dust studied by a team headed by physicist Steven Jones, formerly of Brigham Young University. Niels Harrit, a University of Copenhagen professor of chemistry who specializes in nanochemistry, is the first author of a peer-reviewed paper reporting this team’s results.

The two mutually exclusive “9/11-conspiracy theories”, the patently and nefariously absurd tale our government imposes on us and the true, criminal story yet to be entirely brought to light, deserve the attention of all literate people. Remember: Only two airplanes struck, but three buildings collapsed at free-fall velocities on that same day. Begin with Mazza’s review and Griffin’s book that detail the nanothermite scientific studies. Examine the government’s reluctant late admission that WTC 7 came down in absolute free fall for over two seconds to realize this is a scientific impossibility unless all the steel columns were partitioned into neat, removable pieces by explosives. Find out what happened to two men, Hess and Jennings, trapped inside WT7 in its abortive explosion before noon. Truth here, as David Ray Griffin tries to tell it, is (at least to me) stranger and far more dramatic than even the best fiction.


Suggested sources of evidence and explanation:
John B. Cobb, Jr. 2008 Back to Darwin: A richer account of evolution, Erdmann Publishers
Michael Ruppert 2009 Collapse: Peak oil, global politics, depletion of world resources and the end of “civilization” Chelsea Green Publishing Co. White River Junction VT
Lecutre by D.R. Griffin and M. Ruppert on DVDs.
DRG:
1. The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11 (2004)
2. The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions (2005)
3. Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11: A Call to Reflection and Action (2006)
4. 9/11 and the American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out (2006, co-edited with Peter Dale Scott)
5. Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory (2007)
6. 9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press (2008)
7. The New Pearl Harbor Revisited: 9/11, the Cover-Up, and the Exposé (2008).
8. The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7: Why the Final Official Report about 9/11 Is Unscientific and False (2009)

For the rest of the article go here:
http://rockcreekfreepress.tumblr.com/post/353434420/two-hit-three-down-the-biggest-lie

[mhgaffney]

This actually was posted in the Rock Creek Press -- back on Jan 24th -- just before Griffin's book about WTC-7 was released.

You will notice that Margulis cites the very points I posted on this board -- hard evidence for extreme temperatures -- for temperatures way way way beyond what you can get with ordinary building fires.

I posted this some weeks back. That's when Dolt's "real expert" from Randi, Tom-what's-his name, fled the board.

He hasn't been back since, to my knowledge.

You don't need to be an engineer to get this.

[mhgaffney]

my my it got silent in here.

[Florida_Bronco]

So many memories of TomK and Beerslug stomping your ass up and down this forum.

Sigh.

[mhgaffney]

Stomping?

Only in your vacuous head, Florida.

The truth is not a shouting contest.

Nor is it a good old boy's club.

Nor a popularity contest. And thank heaven for that.

[JJJ]

my my it got silent in here.

Just really too stupid and ridiculous to even comment on.

[TDmvp]

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/aDTwO0TlwOU&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/aDTwO0TlwOU&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>



:welcome:

[Rohirrim]

What we should think about, when we think of 9/11, are the three basics of prosecutorial responsibility required to successfully argue a case: means, motive, and opportunity.

We have the accepted version of events (accepted by the vast majority, anyway) that Al Queda, a fundamentalist terrorist organization led by Osama Bin Laden, trained a bunch of terrorists to hijack passenger airliners and crash them into prominent U.S. landmarks; the White House, the Pentagon and the WTC. We now have the back story on all these hijackers down to where they came from, where they trained, who trained them, who hatched the plot, who led the plot, and how it was carried out, including airport video on the morning of the attack of the terrorists getting on the planes and cockpit tape of some of them on the planes during the hijackings. We also know who was on the planes and who died that day. So, we know they had the means (to buy plane tickets, to pay for flight lessons, to purchase box cutters, etc.). We know they had the motive (all we have to do is read some of their own literature and websites and watch their self-promoted videos on Al Jazeera). And we know they had the opportunity (buy plane tickets).

Now, there's the conspiracist case. In order to buy into this case you must first cast out the entire scenario of Al Queda because they had nothing to do with it, or were limited dupes. In fact, it seems to be evolving now that Bin Laden might actually be working for the CIA. Anyway, their final argument is that the government did it.

So, did the government have the means? Sure. They could come up with all the explosives necessary. Of course, from manufacture to procurement, explosives of that caliber are intensively controlled, so they would require the cooperation of individuals all along the chain of control to participate in the plot. You can't just remove tons of high explosives from the chain of control without notice, unless we accept the idea that the CIA might operate its own, covert, high explosives manufacturing facility somewhere, which of course means you have hundreds of persons involved in that capacity. Also, under the "means" category, they would have also, by necessity, been coordinating this act with the terrorists who took over the planes. There had to be some synchronicity of a very high order going on here. Something even more complex than say, a multi-service rescue of hostages in a foreign country. We're talking Jack Bauer/Mission Impossible stuff here. Talk about "synchronize your watches!" So, the terrorists themselves have to ultimately be operating under government control. Could the government pull off this kind of synchronous operation?

Then, we get to motive, and this gets very sticky. Maybe we can argue that a bunch of neocons desired some "catalyzing" event so they could pull off an attack on Iraq, but one could also argue that they already had this "event" in hand because Saddam was already violating UN directives and the no fly zone. In other words, if the goal was to attack Saddam, the U.S. government already had cause prior to 9/11, so you could argue that the additional plot would be almost ludicrously superfluous, akin to going after an ant with a baseball bat. The case for attacking Iraq could have already been made in front of the UN security council. Of course, Bush manipulated 9/11 into the eventual case that was made, to his own shame and discredit, but under motive, it seems highly overblown the idea that we couldn't have gone into Iraq without 9/11 happening. With or without it, Bush would have gone after Saddam.

Under motive we also have to come to grips with the numbers of individuals who would have been involved and what their motives would have been. Of course, this is the element of proof that the conspiracists studiously ignore. They won't answer it, think about it, talk about it, or consider it. Why? Because the plot they outline would have required the cooperation of thousands in all levels of employment, from high explosives experts, to police, security guards, building workers, maintenance crews, military, airlines (all facets), firemen, inspectors, etc. etc. etc. The whole idea is just too ridiculous to even contemplate. You would have to accept that there were police and firemen who would go along with this government plot to the extent that they would stand silent while the lives of hundreds of their brothers were extinguished. What would have been the motives of all these thousands to attack and kill their own countrymen, women and children on that morning - and then never speak of it afterwards? Money? Political ideology? We have entered the realm of insanity. Obviously.

Finally, we come to "opportunity." Would the government have had the opportunity to wire the buildings (especially buildings of the magnitude of the World Trade Center), in the furtherance of the plot, without detection? Anybody who has ever seen a building wired for demolition would simply laugh at such a ludicrous idea. It would be virtually impossible.

So, when we ponder the means, motive and opportunity for Al Queda attacking us on 9/11, the case is straightforward and simple. When we consider the case of the conspiracists, we come to a wall of sheer buffoonery and insanity, which of course is why they never address the basic, prosecutorial issues. Instead, they rely on an almost OCD examination of the rubble left over from the attacks. They search for the flea on the elephant while ignoring the elephant. They get all feverish about a molecule of thermite and cry out "It must have been explosives" while ignoring the fact that to even consider the implications of their conspiracy is lunacy. In other words, due to the fact that your idea of a vast government conspiracy is impossible on its face, by scientific necessity the explanation for anything you do find in a microscopic study of the rubble must be something other than a vast government conspiracy. Simple.

Which brings us to the final quandary. What is the motive of the conspiracists? Gaffney now brings forward as evidence the testimony of an esteemed biologist who agrees with the conspiracy idea. Biologist, mind you. When we follow the link, we see the picture of this biologist, and the other conspiracy "scientist" she now endorses, surrounded by all the books they have for sale. In fact, since Gaffney started coming here, his one abiding drive seems to have been that he has books for sale. So, what conclusion can we draw?

The conspiracists have the means. They can certainly write books and make videos. We have ample proof of that. They have the motive. The oldest one of all; The profit motive. And they have the opportunity. 9/11 happened. A great, national tragedy. Probably the worst tragedy to befall this country in its history. Made even worse by the knowledge that our failure to live up to our own principles, in many ways, led to the events of that terrible morning. The great lesson to learn from 9/11 is that America must return to its ideals and take George Washington's final warnings about "foreign entanglements" to heart. We must turn away from a corporatist driven, "for profit" (for the few) driven foreign policy to policies that reflect our principles and ideals first. Even in this spill in the Gulf we can see our failure.

We have allowed our government to become the tail of the oil dog. Our government allowed the oil industry to write the regulations that now fill our waters with sludge. Those regulations were intended to protect the health and well being of our own citizens and our environment, and our politicians sold us down the river for the cheap cash of corporate lobbyists. Our government overthrew a freely elected Iranian government in the service of BP profits, and now BP destroys our entire Gulf community and the livelihood of thousands of Americans, in search of more profits. We have made friends of the worst of the worst, from Saddam to the Sauds, at the behest of the oil companies. These are the actions we took that brought 9/11 to our doorstep. We colluded with tyrants, criminals, despots and murderers. Until we learn this lesson, it seems, we will be continuously beaten over the heads with the price we must pay for such collusion. We must get off the oil teat and throw these bastards over for the general welfare and benefit of our own citizens.

That's what we need to learn from 9/11, and now, this Gulf disaster.

What have the conspiracists learned from 9/11? They can sell books.

The worst kind of parasites imaginable.

[El Guapo]

Can't wait for the mythbusters to take this on someday (they said they're exploring the idea of doing this).

Hogwash, I say.

[DenverBrit]

Margullis has just endorsed David R Griffin's research on 9/11. Of course, it also follows that she thinks 9/11 was an "inside job..."

"Hey, did you hear"? "Margullis is coming to join us."

http://media.entertainment.sky.com/image/unscaled/2009/2/10/One-Flew-Over-The-Cuckoos-Nest-09.jpg

[The Lone Bolt]

Stomping?

Only in your vacuous head, Florida.

The truth is not a shouting contest.

Nor is it a good old boy's club.

Nor a popularity contest. And thank heaven for that.

Nope. They proved you wrong over and over again. You just don't want to accept it.

[Rohirrim]

Nope. They proved you wrong over and over again. You just don't want to accept it.

It's not possible to convince somebody that their religion is wrong. There are those who want to believe and those who want to know. Those who want to believe adopt religions. How do you convince them not to believe? You can't.

[Florida_Bronco]

Can't wait for the mythbusters to take this on someday (they said they're exploring the idea of doing this).

Hogwash, I say.

National Geographic had show on here awhile back that completely destroyed their arguments. They even involved some of the truthers (including the kid from Loose Change) who pretty much looked like deer in the headlights when trying to argue their case.

They still broadcast it occasionally. I highly recommend it.

[W*GS]

Sigh.

[The Lone Bolt]

What we should think about, when we think of 9/11, are the three basics of prosecutorial responsibility required to successfully argue a case: means, motive, and opportunity.

We have the accepted version of events (accepted by the vast majority, anyway) that Al Queda, a fundamentalist terrorist organization led by Osama Bin Laden, trained a bunch of terrorists to hijack passenger airliners and crash them into prominent U.S. landmarks; the White House, the Pentagon and the WTC. We now have the back story on all these hijackers down to where they came from, where they trained, who trained them, who hatched the plot, who led the plot, and how it was carried out, including airport video on the morning of the attack of the terrorists getting on the planes and cockpit tape of some of them on the planes during the hijackings. We also know who was on the planes and who died that day. So, we know they had the means (to buy plane tickets, to pay for flight lessons, to purchase box cutters, etc.). We know they had the motive (all we have to do is read some of their own literature and websites and watch their self-promoted videos on Al Jazeera). And we know they had the opportunity (buy plane tickets).

Now, there's the conspiracist case. In order to buy into this case you must first cast out the entire scenario of Al Queda because they had nothing to do with it, or were limited dupes. In fact, it seems to be evolving now that Bin Laden might actually be working for the CIA. Anyway, their final argument is that the government did it.

So, did the government have the means? Sure. They could come up with all the explosives necessary. Of course, from manufacture to procurement, explosives of that caliber are intensively controlled, so they would require the cooperation of individuals all along the chain of control to participate in the plot. You can't just remove tons of high explosives from the chain of control without notice, unless we accept the idea that the CIA might operate its own, covert, high explosives manufacturing facility somewhere, which of course means you have hundreds of persons involved in that capacity. Also, under the "means" category, they would have also, by necessity, been coordinating this act with the terrorists who took over the planes. There had to be some synchronicity of a very high order going on here. Something even more complex than say, a multi-service rescue of hostages in a foreign country. We're talking Jack Bauer/Mission Impossible stuff here. Talk about "synchronize your watches!" So, the terrorists themselves have to ultimately be operating under government control. Could the government pull off this kind of synchronous operation?

Then, we get to motive, and this gets very sticky. Maybe we can argue that a bunch of neocons desired some "catalyzing" event so they could pull off an attack on Iraq, but one could also argue that they already had this "event" in hand because Saddam was already violating UN directives and the no fly zone. In other words, if the goal was to attack Saddam, the U.S. government already had cause prior to 9/11, so you could argue that the additional plot would be almost ludicrously superfluous, akin to going after an ant with a baseball bat. The case for attacking Iraq could have already been made in front of the UN security council. Of course, Bush manipulated 9/11 into the eventual case that was made, to his own shame and discredit, but under motive, it seems highly overblown the idea that we couldn't have gone into Iraq without 9/11 happening. With or without it, Bush would have gone after Saddam.

Under motive we also have to come to grips with the numbers of individuals who would have been involved and what their motives would have been. Of course, this is the element of proof that the conspiracists studiously ignore. They won't answer it, think about it, talk about it, or consider it. Why? Because the plot they outline would have required the cooperation of thousands in all levels of employment, from high explosives experts, to police, security guards, building workers, maintenance crews, military, airlines (all facets), firemen, inspectors, etc. etc. etc. The whole idea is just too ridiculous to even contemplate. You would have to accept that there were police and firemen who would go along with this government plot to the extent that they would stand silent while the lives of hundreds of their brothers were extinguished. What would have been the motives of all these thousands to attack and kill their own countrymen, women and children on that morning - and then never speak of it afterwards? Money? Political ideology? We have entered the realm of insanity. Obviously.

Finally, we come to "opportunity." Would the government have had the opportunity to wire the buildings (especially buildings of the magnitude of the World Trade Center), in the furtherance of the plot, without detection? Anybody who has ever seen a building wired for demolition would simply laugh at such a ludicrous idea. It would be virtually impossible.

So, when we ponder the means, motive and opportunity for Al Queda attacking us on 9/11, the case is straightforward and simple. When we consider the case of the conspiracists, we come to a wall of sheer buffoonery and insanity, which of course is why they never address the basic, prosecutorial issues. Instead, they rely on an almost OCD examination of the rubble left over from the attacks. They search for the flea on the elephant while ignoring the elephant. They get all feverish about a molecule of thermite and cry out "It must have been explosives" while ignoring the fact that to even consider the implications of their conspiracy is lunacy. In other words, due to the fact that your idea of a vast government conspiracy is impossible on its face, by scientific necessity the explanation for anything you do find in a microscopic study of the rubble must be something other than a vast government conspiracy. Simple.

Which brings us to the final quandary. What is the motive of the conspiracists? Gaffney now brings forward as evidence the testimony of an esteemed biologist who agrees with the conspiracy idea. Biologist, mind you. When we follow the link, we see the picture of this biologist, and the other conspiracy "scientist" she now endorses, surrounded by all the books they have for sale. In fact, since Gaffney started coming here, his one abiding drive seems to have been that he has books for sale. So, what conclusion can we draw?

The conspiracists have the means. They can certainly write books and make videos. We have ample proof of that. They have the motive. The oldest one of all; The profit motive. And they have the opportunity. 9/11 happened. A great, national tragedy. Probably the worst tragedy to befall this country in its history. Made even worse by the knowledge that our failure to live up to our own principles, in many ways, led to the events of that terrible morning. The great lesson to learn from 9/11 is that America must return to its ideals and take George Washington's final warnings about "foreign entanglements" to heart. We must turn away from a corporatist driven, "for profit" (for the few) driven foreign policy to policies that reflect our principles and ideals first. Even in this spill in the Gulf we can see our failure.

We have allowed our government to become the tail of the oil dog. Our government allowed the oil industry to write the regulations that now fill our waters with sludge. Those regulations were intended to protect the health and well being of our own citizens and our environment, and our politicians sold us down the river for the cheap cash of corporate lobbyists. Our government overthrew a freely elected Iranian government in the service of BP profits, and now BP destroys our entire Gulf community and the livelihood of thousands of Americans, in search of more profits. We have made friends of the worst of the worst, from Saddam to the Sauds, at the behest of the oil companies. These are the actions we took that brought 9/11 to our doorstep. We colluded with tyrants, criminals, despots and murderers. Until we learn this lesson, it seems, we will be continuously beaten over the heads with the price we must pay for such collusion. We must get off the oil teat and throw these bastards over for the general welfare and benefit of our own citizens.

That's what we need to learn from 9/11, and now, this Gulf disaster.

What have the conspiracists learned from 9/11? They can sell books.

The worst kind of parasites imaginable.


This.

[gyldenlove]

National Geographic had show on here awhile back that completely destroyed their arguments. They even involved some of the truthers (including the kid from Loose Change) who pretty much looked like deer in the headlights when trying to argue their case.

They still broadcast it occasionally. I highly recommend it.

Do you have a name or something, I would quite like to see that show.

[Florida_Bronco]

Do you have a name or something, I would quite like to see that show.

9/11: Science and Conspiracy.

Looks like it's going to be on tomorrow night.

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/episode/9-11-science-and-conspiracy-4067/conspiracy-vs-science#tab-conspiracy-vs-science

[DenverBrit]

9/11: Science and Conspiracy.

Looks like it's going to be on tomorrow night.

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/episode/9-11-science-and-conspiracy-4067/conspiracy-vs-science#tab-conspiracy-vs-science

Good synopsis of the show.

Gaffney will be here soon, with his poetry and organic gardening expertise, to inform us that National Geographic are stooges
of the Government and no matter how much evidence they present......it's dead wrong.
Only Troofers know the troof!! Hilarious!


CONSPIRACY VS. SCIENCE

Conspiracy theories are put to the test. How well do they stand up against the visual simulations of professional engineers? See how science supports official stories and debunks the conspiracies below.

THE COLLAPSE OF THE BUILDINGS

Official Story: The collapse was caused by fire initially fed by the jet fuel from the planes.
Testing the Official Story: Using original construction blueprints, photographs, and construction data, Purdue University, along with the American Society of Civil Engineers, created a model structure of the north World Trade Center tower and a scaled 767 jetliner. To model the fuel load, Purdue launched aluminum cans filled with liquid to represent an airline wing colliding with a steel column. The final simulation showed the internal destruction of supporting columns, the disintegration of the jetliner, the atomizing of the fuel, and the resulting fires that softened the steel framework of the building and brought it down.

Conspiracy: The fire could not have gotten hot enough to melt the steel.

Science: The Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center (EMRTC) designed explosives to test the effects of burning jet fuel on steel. EMRTC used a bare steel beam because the National Institute of Standards and Technology reports that much of the any fireproofing material would have been knocked off at the moment of impact. Within two minutes of igniting the fuel, the temperature peaked just above 2,000 Fahrenheit and complete structural failure occurred in less than four minutes.

Conspiracy: The collapse was caused by controlled demolition.

Science: The film crew recorded the demolition of a college dormitory building to learn all that is involved in the process of prepping and loading. The first step was to expose the columns in order to attach explosives to them. The World Trade Center had 47 inner core columns that would have needed to be prepared. To cut the steel beams the demolition team used a shape charge, which is piece of copper apportioned to a shape-charged weapon. When an explosive is attached and ignited, the device implodes and forms a stream of liquid copper that cuts through the steel. A demolition of this scale would leave clear evidence behind, but no such traces were found at Ground Zero.

Conspiracy: Thermite, which is less traceable, was used in the controlled demolition that brought down the towers.

Science: Some Truthers claim that pulverized dust found by some New Yorkers after the attack contained the chemical signature of thermite. Scientists assert that even if this dust did contain thermite, it would be impossible to determine whether the thermite came from a controlled demolition or simply from the melting of the airplanes. EMRTC designed an experiment to see if thermite was a plausible option in the collapse of the towers. The thermite in the test was not even able to melt a column much smaller than those in the World Trade Center.

THE ATTACK ON THE PENTAGON

Official Story: Hijackers caused a commercial airplane to crash into the building.
Testing the Official Story: Purdue University created a visual simulation of the crash, which indicated the victims’ bodies would have been pushed forward in relation to one another, just as they were in the actual attack. To further investigate, EMRTC launched a projectile into a simulated structure. They did not include wings in the projectile model because Purdue asserted they were of little consequence as the Pentagon was so heavily reinforced. The experiment created a hole in the structure the approximate size of the projectile - similar to photo evidence from the actual attack.

Conspiracy: The Pentagon was either bombed or hit by a missile.

Science: EMRTC also planted an explosive in the same model structure and compared the results to photos of the Pentagon after the crash. The explosive test demonstrated a different sort of damage. The structure blew out from the point of the explosion, causing complete destruction of floors and walls. This dispersed debris did not match the photo evidence.

Read more: http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/episode/9-11-science-and-conspiracy-4067/conspiracy-vs-science#tab-conspiracy-vs-science#ixzz0pMvLxBD8

[SoCalBronco]

Everybody's gotta price....including Gaff it would seem.

How utterly shameful.

Hey Gaff....why don't you try living like the rest of us for once. You know...earning a wage from a hard day of honest work.....rather than exploiting tragedy and death.


<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_ij81dv1fqI&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_ij81dv1fqI&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

[W*GS]

Hey Gaff....why don't you try living like the rest of us for once. You know...earning a wage from a hard day of honest work.....rather than exploiting tragedy and death.

He can't - he has neither the moral nor literal balls.

[mhgaffney]

The circle jerk continues...

You clowns are a work. You keep patting one another on the back -- to bolster your own denial. It's a circle of knee jerks.

One or two of you said I was refuted. But this is bull shyte. Dolt's "real expert" never even tried to explain the physical evidence of extreme temperatures. That's when he disappeared.

Ordinary building fires cannot melt steel. Nor can they boil lead or melt molybdenum. Yet all of these things happened.

Dolt's "real expert" also obfuscated about the WTC-7 free fall. And yes, NIST did try to evade this issue in its draft report. However, after David Chandler, a high school science teacher, embarrassed them at a public hearing in August 2008 when NIST unveiled its draft report -- the NIST scientists were forced to modify this key part of their analysis in the final report, which was released several months later. In the final NIST acknowledged that WTC-7 did collapse in an absolute free fall for the first 2.2 seconds.

But if you watched the video of the public hearing in August 2008 you heard/saw NIST lead scientist Shyam Sunder state unequivocally that free fall was incompatible with NIST's probable collapse scenario.

Whoops! NIST contradicted itself -- again.

The reality of extreme temperatures means some other agent had to be responsible.

Given the implosion -- NIST should have considered explosives as the most likely collapse scenario from the very beginning. They did not -- for good reason. Had they looked they would have found the residues and the flakes of unexploded nano thermite in the dust. Proof of a demolition.

I repeat - this physical evidence will stand up in a courtroom. Dolt, where will your "real expert" be then?

[mhgaffney]

I occasionally receive emails from around the globe -- including one recently from an editor I know in New Zealand.

You clowns -- through your continuing denial -- which prevents you from acting in the best interests of the nation -- have a become a laughingstock around the world.

Here is how the international community increasingly perceives you and our nation.

[The Lone Bolt]

Gaff, tomk tried to explain to you why just about everything you just printed above is wrong, you just didn't want to hear it.

One example: the "nano-thermite" in the WTC dust. There was none. Tomk explained to you exactly why Harrit's sample could not have been nano-thermite.

But you didn't want to hear it, thus you continue to repeat this nonsense when you've been previously proven wrong beyond any doubt.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

[mhgaffney]

Good synopsis of the show.

Gaffney will be here soon, with his poetry and organic gardening expertise, to inform us that National Geographic are stooges
of the Government and no matter how much evidence they present......it's dead wrong.
Only Troofers know the troof!! Hilarious!


CONSPIRACY VS. SCIENCE

Conspiracy theories are put to the test. How well do they stand up against the visual simulations of professional engineers? See how science supports official stories and debunks the conspiracies below.

THE COLLAPSE OF THE BUILDINGS

Official Story: The collapse was caused by fire initially fed by the jet fuel from the planes.
Testing the Official Story: Using original construction blueprints, photographs, and construction data, Purdue University, along with the American Society of Civil Engineers, created a model structure of the north World Trade Center tower and a scaled 767 jetliner. To model the fuel load, Purdue launched aluminum cans filled with liquid to represent an airline wing colliding with a steel column. The final simulation showed the internal destruction of supporting columns, the disintegration of the jetliner, the atomizing of the fuel, and the resulting fires that softened the steel framework of the building and brought it down.

Conspiracy: The fire could not have gotten hot enough to melt the steel.

Science: The Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center (EMRTC) designed explosives to test the effects of burning jet fuel on steel. EMRTC used a bare steel beam because the National Institute of Standards and Technology reports that much of the any fireproofing material would have been knocked off at the moment of impact. Within two minutes of igniting the fuel, the temperature peaked just above 2,000 Fahrenheit and complete structural failure occurred in less than four minutes.

Conspiracy: The collapse was caused by controlled demolition.

Science: The film crew recorded the demolition of a college dormitory building to learn all that is involved in the process of prepping and loading. The first step was to expose the columns in order to attach explosives to them. The World Trade Center had 47 inner core columns that would have needed to be prepared. To cut the steel beams the demolition team used a shape charge, which is piece of copper apportioned to a shape-charged weapon. When an explosive is attached and ignited, the device implodes and forms a stream of liquid copper that cuts through the steel. A demolition of this scale would leave clear evidence behind, but no such traces were found at Ground Zero.

Conspiracy: Thermite, which is less traceable, was used in the controlled demolition that brought down the towers.

Science: Some Truthers claim that pulverized dust found by some New Yorkers after the attack contained the chemical signature of thermite. Scientists assert that even if this dust did contain thermite, it would be impossible to determine whether the thermite came from a controlled demolition or simply from the melting of the airplanes. EMRTC designed an experiment to see if thermite was a plausible option in the collapse of the towers. The thermite in the test was not even able to melt a column much smaller than those in the World Trade Center.

THE ATTACK ON THE PENTAGON

Official Story: Hijackers caused a commercial airplane to crash into the building.
Testing the Official Story: Purdue University created a visual simulation of the crash, which indicated the victims’ bodies would have been pushed forward in relation to one another, just as they were in the actual attack. To further investigate, EMRTC launched a projectile into a simulated structure. They did not include wings in the projectile model because Purdue asserted they were of little consequence as the Pentagon was so heavily reinforced. The experiment created a hole in the structure the approximate size of the projectile - similar to photo evidence from the actual attack.

Conspiracy: The Pentagon was either bombed or hit by a missile.

Science: EMRTC also planted an explosive in the same model structure and compared the results to photos of the Pentagon after the crash. The explosive test demonstrated a different sort of damage. The structure blew out from the point of the explosion, causing complete destruction of floors and walls. This dispersed debris did not match the photo evidence.

Read more: http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/episode/9-11-science-and-conspiracy-4067/conspiracy-vs-science#tab-conspiracy-vs-science#ixzz0pMvLxBD8


You believe what you hear and see on TV? Obviously.

You are going to be told more lies.

You should listen to Lynn Margulis. She is an independent scientist -- not under the control of government or corporate media.

[Spider]

just imagine if the inter webs was around when the titanic went down ........

[Florida_Bronco]

just imagine if the inter webs was around when the titanic went down ........

I hear the Jews did it.

[Spider]

i hear the jews did it.

;d ........

[W*GS]

gaff-o, gaff-o, gaff-o.

You've been beat so many times on this subject. Give it up.

You don't have anyone's respect, you don't have any credibility, and you're mentally ill. Seek some help.

[The Lone Bolt]

The circle jerk continues...

You clowns are a work. You keep patting one another on the back -- to bolster your own denial. It's a circle of knee jerks.

One or two of you said I was refuted. But this is bull shyte. Dolt's "real expert" never even tried to explain the physical evidence of extreme temperatures. That's when he disappeared.

Ordinary building fires cannot melt steel. Nor can they boil lead or melt molybdenum. Yet all of these things happened.

I addressed that issue in this post: http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=2779054&postcount=483

Your response? Nothing. No counterargument. Silence.

I wonder why?

Dolt's "real expert" also obfuscated about the WTC-7 free fall. And yes, NIST did try to evade this issue in its draft report. However, after David Chandler, a high school science teacher, embarrassed them at a public hearing in August 2008 when NIST unveiled its draft report -- the NIST scientists were forced to modify this key part of their analysis in the final report, which was released several months later. In the final NIST acknowledged that WTC-7 did collapse in an absolute free fall for the first 2.2 seconds.

But if you watched the video of the public hearing in August 2008 you heard/saw NIST lead scientist Shyam Sunder state unequivocally that free fall was incompatible with NIST's probable collapse scenario.

Whoops! NIST contradicted itself -- again.

Tomk addressed this here: http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=2766064&postcount=406

And here: http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=2769106&postcount=426

He pointed out that your "absolute free fall" claim is absolutely wrong.

Your response? Nothing. No counterargument. Silence.

I wonder why?

The reality of extreme temperatures means some other agent had to be responsible.

Ummm.. such as... cutting torches during the cleanup perhaps?

Given the implosion -- NIST should have considered explosives as the most likely collapse scenario from the very beginning. They did not -- for good reason. Had they looked they would have found the residues and the flakes of unexploded nano thermite in the dust. Proof of a demolition.

Once again, there was no nano-thermite.

I repeat - this physical evidence will stand up in a courtroom. Dolt, where will your "real expert" be then?

Well then, when will you and the rest of the troofer nation take it to one?

[orangeatheist]

You might have known about that real irritating kid that lived in the neighborhood. He was a complete dork. Socially inept. But he tried. And it was worse than awkward. The kid was such a doofus, such a dork, such a complete ass that when he tried to join in with the rest of the kids you didn't sympathize with him as much as despise him. He was such a stooge, but he thought of himself as one of the cool guys. And, in fact, the more he was shunned and ridiculed, the more he thought he was cool. He JUST DIDN'T GET IT. Everyone tried to turn him around but he was so inept that he just couldn't and people grew to just hate him. And, it got to the point where when he showed up, the bigger kids would just pound him because he was so annoying. Just the sound of his voice made you want to pull heads off of kittens, so when the bigger kids pounded him you couldn't help cheer them on.

That's Gaffe.

Congrats, kid.

[DenverBrit]

You believe what you hear and see on TV? Obviously.

You are going to be told more lies.

You should listen to Lynn Margulis. She is an independent scientist -- not under the control of government or corporate media.

She's a 'biologist' which qualifies her to analyze and comment upon structural engineering how??

Gaffney, you're desperate, you cling to anyone who agrees with your Troofer nonsense. Theologists, school gym architects and now a biologist.

Go and promote your 'book' at a Renaissance fair, organic farmers market or Trekkie convention. That's your audience.

Though I doubt they're interested in helping you make a buck from the 911 tragedy either.

[mhgaffney]

hey Dolt,

Your claims above are garbage -- sheer junk.

You and the others have simply refused to look at the evidence with an open mind. This is the fact.

Every lab which studied the WTC dust found the iron spherules. Every dust sample had them.

6 % of the dust = iron spherules. They are spherical in shape because the iron was melted -- then cooled.

You idiots think this was "surface oxidation?" More garbage. You are floundering around in the dark.

As for your "real expert" Tom -- again -- more false claims. I posted the verbatim passages in NIST's final report acknowledging free fall. No way Tom can refute that.

You guys are complete idiots.

There is no serious talk going on here. Just more denial.

I can appreciate why Baja lost patience with you idiots -- and left. You are beyond hope.

[W*GS]

gaff-o, you're the idiot. You always have been. Always will be.

You're a neo-Nazi America-hating ****head.

[DenverBrit]

hey Dolt,

Your claims above are garbage -- sheer junk.

You and the others have simply refused to look at the evidence with an open mind. This is the fact.

Every lab which studied the WTC dust found the iron spherules. Every dust sample had them.

6 % of the dust = iron spherules. They are spherical in shape because the iron was melted -- then cooled.

You idiots think this was "surface oxidation?" More garbage. You are floundering around in the dark.

As for your "real expert" Tom -- again -- more false claims. I posted the verbatim passages in NIST's final report acknowledging free fall. No way Tom can refute that.

You guys are complete idiots.

There is no serious talk going on here. Just more denial.

I can appreciate why Baja lost patience with you idiots -- and left. You are beyond hope.

You should follow Baja's example. Seriously, you're not appreciated here. 8')

[Rohirrim]

hey Dolt,

Your claims above are garbage -- sheer junk.

You and the others have simply refused to look at the evidence with an open mind. This is the fact.

Every lab which studied the WTC dust found the iron spherules. Every dust sample had them.

6 % of the dust = iron spherules. They are spherical in shape because the iron was melted -- then cooled.

You idiots think this was "surface oxidation?" More garbage. You are floundering around in the dark.

As for your "real expert" Tom -- again -- more false claims. I posted the verbatim passages in NIST's final report acknowledging free fall. No way Tom can refute that.

You guys are complete idiots.

There is no serious talk going on here. Just more denial.

I can appreciate why Baja lost patience with you idiots -- and left. You are beyond hope.

You're a true believer. No doubt about that.

[The Lone Bolt]

hey Dolt,

Your claims above are garbage -- sheer junk.

You and the others have simply refused to look at the evidence with an open mind. This is the fact.

Every lab which studied the WTC dust found the iron spherules. Every dust sample had them.

6 % of the dust = iron spherules. They are spherical in shape because the iron was melted -- then cooled.


And there are multiple plausible sources for this. Cutting torches would accomplish this. You have simply refused to consider this fact with an open mind, and have done nothing to refute it.


As for your "real expert" Tom -- again -- more false claims. I posted the verbatim passages in NIST's final report acknowledging free fall. No way Tom can refute that.

Looks to me like he did just that:

With a presumably straight face, you are quote mining the NIST report to demonstrate a couple of things.

1) That this little quote-mine of yours somehow undermines the other 1000 pages of this report. (NCSTAR1A & 1-9).

2) That somehow, NIST's words support your brain-dead interpretation.

These delusions that the world works in Merry Pason fashion - that Silverstein suddenly announces on national TV that he blew up his own buiding, that Rumsfeld suddenly announces on TV that a missile hit the Pentagon, that NIST announces in its own report that its report is fraudulent, etc. - is why you Twoofers are just so precious...!

Let's all read it together, shall we? Like real adults. And try to understand ALL the words this time.

It doesn't say what you think it says.

Let me help.

"The observed descent time of the upper 18 stories of the north face of WTC 7 (the floors clearly visible in the video evidence) was 40 percent greater than the computed free fall time. A more detailed analysis of the descent of the north face found three stages: (1) a slow descent with acceleration less than that of gravity that corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns at the lower floors, (2) a freefall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s, ..."

After having it explained to you in detail, about 8 times by me alone, you still think that the collapse that with which you are obsessed is the collapse of the building.

It's not. It is the collapse of the north (and west) wall.

Just ... exactly ... like ... the ... report ... says.

If you read ALL the words, that is...

Keep it up, Gaff. You're killing me.!

Tom

Tomk showed clearly that you have misread and misrepresented the NIST report. He quotes NIST and shows you EXACTLY what it REALLY says. Your claim of 2.2 seconds of free-fall of WTC-7 is garbage, pure and simple. You have done nothing to refute this, except...


You guys are complete idiots.

There is no serious talk going on here. Just more denial.

I can appreciate why Baja lost patience with you idiots -- and left. You are beyond hope.

... attack-the-messenger name-calling, argument from personal incredulity and, once again, no substance whatsoever.

And you're calling us idiots?

[mhgaffney]

No Dolt,

The dust samples were collected BEFORE the clean up of the WTC site began. These were virgin dust samples -- collected within days of September 11, 2001. At least one of the samples was taken within an apartment -- one block from the site. No chance of false readings here.

There is also a clear chain of custody. No issues there. You would already know this -- if you had done any real research yourself.

So you are posting garbage.

MHG

[mhgaffney]

Ro,

You uncritically accept Tom's opinion. Why?

Here is the NIST Report on WTC-7. If you scroll to pages 44-46 you will find the pertinent passages.
http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf

Now -- I am going to explain how NIST lied about the collapse. They did this by selecting a starting point for the collapse that is completely arbitrary. So that -- when they calculate an average time -- it appears not to be a free fall.

But when you calculate from the moment when the visible collapse begins in the video -- you can determine for yourself that the first 2+ seconds was indeed a free fall.

NIST even concedes this on page 45. Look at bullet two. Here is the text:

• In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as the buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face. This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 m (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s.

Can you do simple arithmetic? If you subtract 1.75 from 4.0 you get 2.25 seconds

NIST concedes that between these times WTC 7 fell at free fall. The first point happens to correspond with the moment in the video when the collapse first becomes visible!

Is this too simple for you?

[The Lone Bolt]

No Dolt,

The dust samples were collected BEFORE the clean up of the WTC site began. These were virgin dust samples -- collected within days of September 11, 2001. At least one of the samples was taken within an apartment -- one block from the site. No chance of false readings here.

Really?

It is also not known when the iron spheres were produced. The RJ Lee Group report considers samples taken several months after the collapses, and it is certain that torch-cutting of steel beams as part of the cleanup process contributed some, if not all, of the spherules seen in these samples.

http://www.jod911.com/drg_nist_review_2_1.pdf

[The Lone Bolt]

for the billionth time gaff...


• In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as the buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face. This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 m (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s.



NIST concedes that between these times WTC 7 fell at free fall.

Clearly they do not. They are talking about the NORTH FACE of the building, not the entire building.

Is that too simple for you?

[Spider]

LMAO ........ u guys take the bait every time .... seriously , what can be said about 9-11 that hasnt already been said ?

[DenverBrit]

LMAO ........ u guys take the bait every time .... seriously , what can be said about 9-11 that hasnt already been said ?

Gaffney has breaking news to share.

A Biologist now thinks it was a demolition job.
See, apparently biologists have been skeptical of Troofer theories, but now one has stepped forward.
In Gaff's world, this is new and conclusive evidence. :spit:

[Rohirrim]

Ro,

You uncritically accept Tom's opinion. Why?

Here is the NIST Report on WTC-7. If you scroll to pages 44-46 you will find the pertinent passages.
http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf

Now -- I am going to explain how NIST lied about the collapse. They did this by selecting a starting point for the collapse that is completely arbitrary. So that -- when they calculate an average time -- it appears not to be a free fall.

But when you calculate from the moment when the visible collapse begins in the video -- you can determine for yourself that the first 2+ seconds was indeed a free fall.

NIST even concedes this on page 45. Look at bullet two. Here is the text:

• In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as the buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face. This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 m (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s.

Can you do simple arithmetic? If you subtract 1.75 from 4.0 you get 2.25 seconds

NIST concedes that between these times WTC 7 fell at free fall. The first point happens to correspond with the moment in the video when the collapse first becomes visible!

Is this too simple for you?

Read my original post again. You study the flea while ignoring the elephant.

[Spider]

gaffney has breaking news to share.

A biologist now thinks it was a demolition job.
See, apparently biologists have been skeptical of troofer theories, but now one has stepped forward.
In gaff's world, this is new and conclusive evidence. :spit:

lol

[mhgaffney]

Ro,

NIST broke the collapse into three arbitrary stages. The operative word here is arbitrary.

The start of the collapse should be the moment when the tower begins to fall in the video. From this moment the building collapsed in a free fall for over two seconds.

NIST concedes this in the second bullet-- the passage I cited above.

So it was indeed a free fall -- which cannot be explained in terms of "a classic progressive collapse" whatever the hell that means.

Since there has never been a "classic progressive collapse" of a high rise due to fire -- it's a completely new phrase -- coined to scam you with techno babble.

Dolt shows his ignorance with his latest post. North face? What's his point? He doesn't even know. Yes, we are looking at the north face in the videos -- because all of the known footage of the collapse of WTC 7 was captured by cameras which were located north of the WTC.

But so what? In the video we are watching the whole building collapse into its footprint - as one.

MHG

[mhgaffney]

Here is the excellent 3-part analysis by David Chandler -- the high school science teacher who embarrassed NIST at the August 2008 hearing when -- after 7 years -- NIST finally unveiled its draft report on the WTC collapse:

I am reposting it. This series includes footage of the collapse.

part one
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA

part two
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXTlaqXsm4k

part three
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw&feature=related

[The Lone Bolt]

Dolt shows his ignorance with his latest post. North face? What's his point? He doesn't even know. Yes, we are looking at the north face in the videos -- because all of the known footage of the collapse of WTC 7 was captured by cameras which were located north of the WTC.

But so what? In the video we are watching the whole building collapse into its footprint - as one. MHG

OK, I'll try again. You said:

But when you calculate from the moment when the visible collapse begins in the video -- you can determine for yourself that the first 2+ seconds was indeed a free fall.

NIST even concedes this on page 45...

Suggesting that NIST agrees with you that the entire building collapses at free fall. But what NIST actually says is:

...the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as the buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face. This free fall drop continued...

So NIST does NOT agree with you. You claim the entire building fell at free-fall speed. NIST is saying that, for a brief period that they label as "stage 2" of the collapse, the NORTH FACE fell at free-fall speeds.

Note that NIST is NOT saying that the entire building fell at free-fall speeds for the entire collapse. Thus NIST does NOT confirm your claims. You are cherry-picking and creating a false impression.

All clear on my point?

[mhgaffney]

Dolt,

Have you watched the collapse of WTC-7?

You need to watch the video.

Here is a good look.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLnBSyc4ICo

It is not only the north face that falls -- it's the whole building. In this angle -- we can clearly see the West side of the building. You can see that the whole building goes down at once.

This is a demolition.

[DenverBrit]

Dolt,

Have you watched the collapse of WTC-7?

You need to watch the video.

Here is a good look.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLnBSyc4ICo

It is not only the north face that falls -- it's the whole building. In this angle -- we can clearly see the West side of the building. You can see that the whole building goes down at once.

This is a demolition.

You're now a demolition expert as well as an idiot and leach?

[W*GS]

We've been over this ground many times, gaff-o. Every time you've been shown to be a liar. You're repeating the same BS. It's not more truthful now than the last time.

Give it up. You're not making any headway. We all know you're full of ****, just like you've always been.

[SoCalBronco]

She's a 'biologist' which qualifies her to analyze and comment upon structural engineering how??

Gaffney, you're desperate, you cling to anyone who agrees with your Troofer nonsense. Theologists, school gym architects and now a biologist.

Go and promote your 'book' at a Renaissance fair, organic farmers market or Trekkie convention. That's your audience.

Though I doubt they're interested in helping you make a buck from the 911 tragedy either.

Woah..woah...woah...wait a minute, Mr. DenverBrit. We Trekkies are a bit eccentric to be sure....but we definitely do not deserve to be be lumped in with Gaff.

[mhgaffney]

You're now a demolition expert as well as an idiot and leach?

Brit,

No, I am not a demolition expert. But here's one, Danny Jowenko, who pronounced this same footage an obvious demolition.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uw1Lh7lYMNo&NR=1

BTW, a 9/11 truth activist called up Jowenko recently to see if he had recanted. Here is what Jowenko said.

http://www.pumpitout.com/audio/danny_jowenko_022207.mp3

[DenverBrit]

Woah..woah...woah...wait a minute, Mr. DenverBrit. We Trekkies are a bit eccentric to be sure....but we definitely do not deserve to be be lumped in with Gaff.

Are you sure?

He does have Klingon tendencies, or at least he's impossible to get rid of.

Live long and prosper. ;D

[DenverBrit]

Brit,

No, I am not a demolition expert. But here's one, Danny Jowenko, who pronounced this same footage an obvious demolition.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uw1Lh7lYMNo&NR=1

BTW, a 9/11 truth activist called up Jowenko recently to see if he had recanted. Here is what Jowenko said.

http://www.pumpitout.com/audio/danny_jowenko_022207.mp3

Cutting and pasting links to Troofers is hardly evidence....let alone proof.
For every charlatan you can find, there are a hundred better qualified individuals saying they're wrong.....or that they're batsh*t crazy.
What's the point, other than preserving an immoral living for yourself at the expense of those who suffered loss in 911?
And why here? Are you so desperate for attention?

[The Lone Bolt]

Dolt,

Have you watched the collapse of WTC-7?

You need to watch the video.

Here is a good look.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLnBSyc4ICo

It is not only the north face that falls -- it's the whole building. In this angle -- we can clearly see the West side of the building. You can see that the whole building goes down at once.

This is a demolition.

Well according to NIST the building did not collapse all at once, universally, at free-fall speed (as it would in a CD).

Tell ya what, gaff. You do a frame-by-frame analysis and all of the math and get back to us with a presentation that proves that the NIST report was wrong. Until then your whole argument is based on your own subjective interpretation of the video evidence.

[Sam.I.Am]

Mr Jowenko has also said that both of the twin towers weren't a CD. Are you going to cherry pick his comments too Gaff?

[gyldenlove]

Well according to NIST the building did not collapse all at once, universally, at free-fall speed (as it would in a CD).

Tell ya what, gaff. You do a frame-by-frame analysis and all of the math and get back to us with a presentation that proves that the NIST report was wrong. Until then your whole argument is based on your own subjective interpretation of the video evidence.

The entire building clearly didn't collapse at once, from the video it is obvious that the center part of the building and potentially the part facing away from the camera collapses first which causes the outside to collapse. This is clear from the fact that the penthouse which is only supported by the central supports disappears into the building meaning the entire central support is gone at point, then the outside walls to cave and collapse.

[watermock]

Now you act like WTC7 was a house of cards.

BTW, Silverstein triple insured all three 6 months before.

[watermock]

The entire building clearly didn't collapse at once, from the video it is obvious that the center part of the building and potentially the part facing away from the camera collapses first which causes the outside to collapse. This is clear from the fact that the penthouse which is only supported by the central supports disappears into the building meaning the entire central support is gone at point, then the outside walls to cave and collapse.

And what caused that?

[QUOTE]the center part of the building and potentially the part facing away from the camera collapses first which causes the outside to collapse. [/QU<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/owyqt-8RnKI&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/owyqt-8RnKI&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>OTE]

[mhgaffney]

Well according to NIST the building did not collapse all at once, universally, at free-fall speed (as it would in a CD).

Tell ya what, gaff. You do a frame-by-frame analysis and all of the math and get back to us with a presentation that proves that the NIST report was wrong. Until then your whole argument is based on your own subjective interpretation of the video evidence.

David Chandler did this in his three videos Scroll back up and watch them.

And BTW I checked the draft report and your "real expert" Tom scammed you when he claimed that NIST did not change the wording in its analysis as a result of Chandler's presentation at the August 2008 public hearing. Although the draft report for WTC-7 is not posted on the Internet -- I requested a hard copy from NIST -- and checked it.

Nowhere in the draft report does NIST concede that WTC-7 fell at free fall speed. They changed the wording in the final report to acknowledge that a portion of the collapse was indeed at free fall. I posted the verbatim passage above.

David Chandler owns NIST. This is amazing when you consider he is a high school science teacher. As I stated -- NIST had 200 scientists, a multi million dollar budget, and seven years to get it done, and they couldn't manage to do a simple calculation.

That said-- almost certainly it was not a mistake. In its draft report NIST tried to cover up the reality of free fall. Amazing that they thought they could get away with this. But Chandler exposed them -- thank God we have those videos of the collapse. Any moderately intelligent person -- even a high school physics student -- can do the frame by frame analysis and confirm the reality of free fall.

The analysis is limited to the portion of the collapse that is visible in the videos. The rate of collapse slowed a bit as it went down. But the first 2+ seconds was a free fall -- starting from the moment in the video when the top of the tower starts down.

The overall collapse time was around 6.5 seconds. If you average the whole -- it is still very close to free fall speed.

MHG

[W*GS]

gaff-o is just like global warming deniers - intellectually dishonest, deceptive, fraudulent, and motivated by a reprehensible agenda.

[mhgaffney]

W*gs,

Thanks for your endorsement.

BTW, I saw a bumper sticker that reminded me of you:

WAG MORE.
BARK LESS.

You dog.

[W*GS]

W*gs,

Thanks for your endorsement.

Dream on, arseface.

I saw a bumper sticker that reminded me of you:

"ADOLF HITLER WAS RIGHT".

[gyldenlove]

And what caused that?

[QUOTE]the center part of the building and potentially the part facing away from the camera collapses first which causes the outside to collapse. [/QU<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/owyqt-8RnKI&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/owyqt-8RnKI&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>OTE]

Well an uneducated guess would be that the center support columns (which I am led to believe the WTC 7 building had) broke at a lower floor, presumably due to fire and shock impact.

There is no correlation in how that tiny appartment building would collapse and how a high rise like WTC 7 would collapse, that is like expecting a meteor to bounce when it hits the planetary surface just because a basketball bounces.

In a normal appartment building like the one in your clip, the structure itself is loadbearing, it is like a modern car where the bodywork is structural, the floors and walls are the supports. The WTC complex was like an old fashioned car being held up by a support system like a chassis with walls, windows and floors attached like bodywork that does little other than the provide some rigidity. In an old car if you sever the chassis rails it will split in half, however with a modern car the entire body provides structural strength so other parts of the car could hold it together even if you removed the rails. Same for buildings, once you remove the center columns (which is apparently what happened from that video) the entire building loses structural support and collapses.

[mhgaffney]

I just heard from a friend who saw this National Geographic Channel special last weekend. He said the show actually deals honestly with the questions being raised by the 9/11 truth movement.

I was shocked to hear him say that the evidence for explosives is presented and that it's very persuasive. So if this is true -- it's a breakthrough.

If any of you saw it -- I'd like to hear your reaction.

BTW, the special will air again on Sunday June 6 at 10 AM

9/11: Science and Conspiracy

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/episode/9-11-science-and-conspiracy-4067/Overview

[hookemhess]

gaff-o is just like global warming deniers - intellectually dishonest, deceptive, fraudulent, and motivated by a reprehensible agenda.

I'm a global warming skeptic myself and I'd take offense to all those things.

[hookemhess]

my my it got silent in here.

http://drbobbs.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/tin-foil-hat-3.jpg

[DenverBrit]

I just heard from a friend who saw this National Geographic Channel special last weekend. He said the show actually deals honestly with the questions being raised by the 9/11 truth movement.

I was shocked to hear him say that the evidence for explosives is presented and that it's very persuasive. So if this is true -- it's a breakthrough.

If any of you saw it -- I'd like to hear your reaction.

BTW, the special will air again on Sunday June 6 at 10 AM

9/11: Science and Conspiracy

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/episode/9-11-science-and-conspiracy-4067/Overview


I wouldn't get too giddy, this is a synopsis from the NatGeo site.

CONSPIRACY VS. SCIENCE

Conspiracy theories are put to the test. How well do they stand up against the visual simulations of professional engineers? See how science supports official stories and debunks the conspiracies below.

THE COLLAPSE OF THE BUILDINGS

Official Story: The collapse was caused by fire initially fed by the jet fuel from the planes.
Testing the Official Story: Using original construction blueprints, photographs, and construction data, Purdue University, along with the American Society of Civil Engineers, created a model structure of the north World Trade Center tower and a scaled 767 jetliner. To model the fuel load, Purdue launched aluminum cans filled with liquid to represent an airline wing colliding with a steel column. The final simulation showed the internal destruction of supporting columns, the disintegration of the jetliner, the atomizing of the fuel, and the resulting fires that softened the steel framework of the building and brought it down.

Conspiracy: The fire could not have gotten hot enough to melt the steel.

Science: The Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center (EMRTC) designed explosives to test the effects of burning jet fuel on steel. EMRTC used a bare steel beam because the National Institute of Standards and Technology reports that much of the any fireproofing material would have been knocked off at the moment of impact. Within two minutes of igniting the fuel, the temperature peaked just above 2,000 Fahrenheit and complete structural failure occurred in less than four minutes.

Conspiracy: The collapse was caused by controlled demolition.

Science: The film crew recorded the demolition of a college dormitory building to learn all that is involved in the process of prepping and loading. The first step was to expose the columns in order to attach explosives to them. The World Trade Center had 47 inner core columns that would have needed to be prepared. To cut the steel beams the demolition team used a shape charge, which is piece of copper apportioned to a shape-charged weapon. When an explosive is attached and ignited, the device implodes and forms a stream of liquid copper that cuts through the steel. A demolition of this scale would leave clear evidence behind, but no such traces were found at Ground Zero.

Conspiracy: Thermite, which is less traceable, was used in the controlled demolition that brought down the towers.

Science: Some Truthers claim that pulverized dust found by some New Yorkers after the attack contained the chemical signature of thermite. Scientists assert that even if this dust did contain thermite, it would be impossible to determine whether the thermite came from a controlled demolition or simply from the melting of the airplanes. EMRTC designed an experiment to see if thermite was a plausible option in the collapse of the towers. The thermite in the test was not even able to melt a column much smaller than those in the World Trade Center.

THE ATTACK ON THE PENTAGON

Official Story: Hijackers caused a commercial airplane to crash into the building.
Testing the Official Story: Purdue University created a visual simulation of the crash, which indicated the victims’ bodies would have been pushed forward in relation to one another, just as they were in the actual attack. To further investigate, EMRTC launched a projectile into a simulated structure. They did not include wings in the projectile model because Purdue asserted they were of little consequence as the Pentagon was so heavily reinforced. The experiment created a hole in the structure the approximate size of the projectile - similar to photo evidence from the actual attack.

Conspiracy: The Pentagon was either bombed or hit by a missile.

Science: EMRTC also planted an explosive in the same model structure and compared the results to photos of the Pentagon after the crash. The explosive test demonstrated a different sort of damage. The structure blew out from the point of the explosion, causing complete destruction of floors and walls. This dispersed debris did not match the photo evidence.

[mhgaffney]

Brit,

Did you see the show?

My friend told me they discussed super themite (nanothermite) the traces of which were found...

[W*GS]

I'm a global warming skeptic myself and I'd take offense to all those things.

The overlap in tactics between global warming deniers and 9/11 troofers is quite large.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Margullis has just endorsed David R Griffin's research on 9/11. Of course, it also follows that she thinks 9/11 was an "inside job..."

Why did three World Trade Center buildings (#1,#2 and #7) collapse on 9/11, after two (and only two) of them were hit by “hijacked airplanes”?

The scientific answer:

Because all three buildings were destroyed by carefully planned, orchestrated and executed controlled demolition. Geeeezus you are ignorant. A demented, old woman who is NOT a structural engineer says she is as dense as you are and you celebrate.



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Lynn_Margulis.jpg/225px-Lynn_Margulis.jpg
In addition to rejecting Neo-Darwinian evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn_Margulis) as an explanation for diversity (on the grounds that speciation due solely to random mutation and differential survival has yet to be proven), Margulis holds a number of opinions outside of mainstream science. In 2009 she co-authored a paper [7] arguing that the change in spirochete form, from more motile helical to more inactive cyst and back, may be a causal contributor to AIDS. In 2009 she also pushed the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) to publish a paper by Donald I. Williamson arguing that butterflies are the result of hybridization of a now extinct insect and velvet worms[8][9]. As a member of the National Academy of Sciences, Margulis has the ability to "communicate" scientific papers, allowing them to be published with minimal review. Williamson's paper provoked immediate response from the scientific community, including a paper in PNAS [10]. Developmental Biologist and Professor at Duke university Fred Nijhout was quoted as saying that the paper was better suited for "National Enquirer than the National Academy.". In September it was announced that PNAS will eliminate Communicated submissions in July 2010 but PNAS stated that the decision had nothing to do with the Williamson controversy.

[W*GS]

gaff-o takes anything bizarre and trumpets it as truth.

How long before he hails "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" as historical fact?

His true colors have been revealed for all to see.

[Rohirrim]

I wouldn't get too giddy, this is a synopsis from the NatGeo site.

Obviously, National Geographic is in on the conspiracy.

I'm guessing that at some point the troofers will realize that they are the only ones left on Earth who weren't in on the conspiracy.

[DenverBrit]

Brit,

Did you see the show?

My friend told me they discussed super themite (nanothermite) the traces of which were found...

Did your Troofer friend explain it this way?

Science: Some Truthers claim that pulverized dust found by some New Yorkers after the attack contained the chemical signature of thermite. Scientists assert that even if this dust did contain thermite, it would be impossible to determine whether the thermite came from a controlled demolition or simply from the melting of the airplanes. EMRTC designed an experiment to see if thermite was a plausible option in the collapse of the towers. The thermite in the test was not even able to melt a column much smaller than those in the World Trade Center.

[DenverBrit]

Obviously, National Geographic is in on the conspiracy.

I'm guessing that at some point the troofers will realize that they are the only ones left on Earth who weren't in on the conspiracy.


How else could it be explained? ;)

[mhgaffney]

hey Brit,

I asked you if you saw the show -- and all I get is this blizzard of ridicule.

Did you see it or not? Evidently not.

I suggest you true believers tune in Sunday morning at 10 AM -- and then report back

I do not own a television -- so I might not see it. But I will try.

Word is that National Geographic produced something worth watching. That would be a welcome change.

[W*GS]

gaff-o, you're a clown.

No-one takes you seriously, because you so obviously hate America, hate Jews, and love suicide-bombing terrorists.

**** off.

[DenverBrit]

hey Brit,

I asked you if you saw the show -- and all I get is this blizzard of ridicule.

Did you see it or not? Evidently not.

I suggest you true believers tune in Sunday morning at 10 AM -- and then report back

I do not own a television -- so I might not see it. But I will try.

Word is that National Geographic produced something worth watching. That would be a welcome change.

I posted the synopsis of the program from Nat Geo's site for you.
It explains clearly what they are reporting.
No, I haven't seen it either, but their position seems clear. They are shooting down the Troofer nonsense and dealing with actual science and experiment.

Buy a tv and get a dish and stop living on the rumor mill....the Net.