Grab Bag and Open Thread

There have been a bunch of links sent in in the last week that haven't been posted, here is a quick grab bag. If you have something to add feel free to post it in the comments.

911truthseekers.org is hosting an interview with Professor James Fetzer, another member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, which was recorded at a local Utah radio station on the same day as the recent Jones presentation. You can download the interview from their site here.

Able Danger Hearings A Go

The House Armed Services Committee will hold a hearing on Wednesday, February 15 about the controversial Able Danger data-mining program, according to informed Congressional sources.
..
After intense staff negotiations, it was finally decided that a portion of the Armed Services Committee hearing will be open, but that subsequent discussion of classified aspects of the Able Danger program will move into a closed session.

Interview with Daniel Hopsicker About the Venice Florida Cover-up (February 7, 2006)
Listen RealAudio
Listen 128K MP3

New Finnish WTC7 Site - 11syyskuu:

I have just translated into English my updated WTC 7 page, which contains e.g. detailed measurements about the collapse speed of the building. The measurements confirm the conclusion in "9-11 Eyewitness" that WTC 7 collapsed the first 100 meters virtually without structural resistance. See, especially, the section entitled "Collapse speed":
http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/02/destruction-of-wtc-7.html

The page has a link to another WTC 7 article, with lots of detailed calculations, by a Finnish Doctor of Engineering and accident researcher:
http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/WTC7_collapse_examination.pdf

Post 9/11 Steel-Bashing Called Unfounded and Unfair
What an odd twist, the Madrid fire is being used to argue that concrete buildings are stronger than steel superstructures.. perhaps this will make steel structure producers stand up and point out the inconsistancies with the collapses on 9/11?

Structural engineers say alliance claims are not only without merit, they are out of bounds. "Their assertion that concrete structures are safer than steel is based not on facts but on their greed to build concrete structures...," says Clifford Schwinger, quality assurance manager with Cagley Harman & Associates Inc., King of Prussia, Pa. "That they are trying to profit from the 9/11 tragedy by claiming concrete construction is safer is worse than obscene."
..
The straw that broke the camel's back for AISC was the alliance's marketing blitz after a recent highrise fire in Madrid. The campaign included a full-page magazine ad. It began: "A demonstration of cast-in-place reinforced concrete over steel construction was the recent fire at Madrid's Windsor Tower."

Nick Nack Paddy Whacked
Music video download from a band named The Who Boys. It is a "mash-up" music project of Led Zeppelin's "The Immigrant Song" vs "The Children's Marching Song" featuring video clips about 9/11, Iraq, Iran, etc.

Dr. Jones's presentation slides in flash format:
http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/February1bFinal.swf

I'm pretty sick of the

I'm pretty sick of the democrats/liberals...I know people don't wanna hear it, but they are in the same boat as the Bush supporters. I guess the Bush administration has carte blanche to do whatever, and any disagreement of it will get ya labeled a kook and unpatriotic. People seemed to think more for themselves during the Watergate era. People know deep down in their hearts those towers did not fall from fire...people know we're not being told the full truth about 9/11 or Iraq, yet they remain silent.
It's really a tragedy.

Let's not forget that that

Let's not forget that that post removals and banning is common on sites of the Left too, many Indymedia sites being notorious for that.

Hi all! I've been posting

Hi all!

I've been posting Truth messages here
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/forum/

Unfortunately, that site feels the need to "protect" their sheeple audience from "sensitive" material, regardeless of how factual it is. So they've been deleting my posts.

That site is filled with people who don't know what's going on in the country, so if anyone would like to add some Truth threads of their own, feel free!

A real email address is NOT required to post on that site.

I, myself, will be stopping the posting tonight, for my own protection.

Sites like that are the reason for the sh*t this country is in. They're limiting free speech, so they don't believe in American values. They are therefore anti-American.

That .swf is tres handy.

That .swf is tres handy.

Those anti-Americans at

Those anti-Americans at http://www.theconservativevoice.com/ banned me again!

Eh, maybe we should just

Eh, maybe we should just give it a rest for now

Yep. I got them to actually

Yep. I got them to actually respond to me, instead of deleting. (That's basically what I wanted.)

They call my posts from reputable newspapers "junk"!

But I know a lot of people

But I know a lot of people read that site, so I've done my good deed of the day :-)

There's just too many people in the country for all this. How long will it be till the NY Times says something already? There's got to be an editor over there with guts

I've been watching too CB -

I've been watching too CB - good job. I noted in the rantings section in their response to karl priest, they stated something amount debate and opening minds to other viewpoints and that people fear opposing views stronger than their own. You might point out that they might follow their own advice if he really believes in the theory.

Hopsicker interview very

Hopsicker interview very interesting, thanks. e.g. comments re: "elite deviants"

Thanks mari! That's an

Thanks mari! That's an interesting item from their own editors. I'll use it if they decide to delete my post again. But if I post another message, that'll be the last one for now.

The Zogby poll post has been up for a couple hours now! I wonder how many people saw it. A dozen? A thousand? One? Who knows.

The editor at TCV actually called my posts "junk". How on earth could they call the following junk??

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1512597,00.html
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/comment/0,12956,1036687,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1840182.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2608713.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/3032147.stm
http://tinyurl.com/2kp45 (AMERICAN FREE PRESS)
http://tinyurl.com/da23y (ABC NEWS)
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article342859.ece
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,,1700881,00.html
http://tinyurl.com/c84fg (WASHINGTON POST)
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Powells_former_chief_of_staff_on_0205.html

I think the above are good wakeup call for people.

I was gonna include this one too, but felt it would be a bit much :-)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/france/story/0,11882,1665621,00.html

CB, I saw the editor's

CB, I saw the editor's remarks. I guess conservatives aren't allowed to be subversive.

Pro, you see how they

Pro, you see how they censored my last comment in the zogby thread? They said "POST JUNK AGAIN AND YOU WILL BE BANNED!"

What are they gonna do, ban me a 3rd time? haha

They are limiting free speech, they edited out my comment from the comment thread. Isn't that what the comment area it for? Comments? And the comments MUST conform to their rules? People can't express themselves?

Well, they've kept the Zogby link up, which is good. Let's hope it stays.

CB

CB

Hey all, I got an interview

Hey all, I got an interview with Sander Hicks, author of "The Big Wedding". I'd love it if you all would check it out and, if you like it, to link to it. Thanks for your great work!

Just go to:

www.apctahoma.blogspot.com

and search for "Sander Hicks"

First, apologies to Jon

First, apologies to Jon Gold. No offense intended cause I think you guys are great, and yes, they were trollish.

However, this brings me to my second point, which I hope you will all try to respond to, because there are many out there like myself, who are deeply worried. I definitely feel as though time is running out on this issue for all of you, and I was wondering what the next steps are to jettison this thing into the Mainstream. Sibel Edmonds now has 14,000 signatures but little is happening there. Dr. Jones says there is a conference in September no less. I'm just not sure that you guys have the luxury of time, cause I fear my forecast is that you're all gonna be sharing bunks, bagels, and a Guantanamo cocktail before the year is out. Dr. Jones, I saw mentioned once, has dust. Is there any proof that can be pushed into the mainstream discourse.

Thanks. Deeply Worried.
Nemo

No apology necessary.

No apology necessary.

Anybody going to comment or

Anybody going to comment or post on Larry Kings story tonight about Flight 93.

Monday's show Monday's

Monday's show
Monday's show

Hear from family of passengers who fought back before Flight 93 crashed. Inside those last moments and final conversations. Tune in at 9 p.m. ET.

Should be interesting.

S. King, didn't you say this

S. King,
didn't you say this the other day? :

Have you ever considered bothered to research opposing views and why people like Jones, Griifin, films like "Loose Change" don't hold up under scrutiny?

I would be delighted to consider opposing views and research! by all means, post/link some opposing views and research right here on this comment section. here are mr. dz's very words::

If you have something to add feel free to post it in the comments.

no time like the present!

unlimited and unedited

unlimited and unedited comments are still allowed on any topic at davidcorn.com

did someone say flight 93?
it's a shame that Larry King can't be forced to remark on the photos of the crater.

Monday's show on Larry King:

Monday's show on Larry King: "Hear from family of passengers who fought back before Flight 93 crashed. Inside those last moments and final conversations. Tune in at 9 p.m. ET."

Such propaganda is extremely difficult to counter because it's so emotionally charged. As soon as you begin to refute it, all the Joe/Jane Sixpacks start screaming, "How dare you suggest they didn't talk to their loved ones in those last moments! You disgrace these heroes' memory with your crazy, un-American insinuations, you stupid liberal!" etc.

good on you boys!! When

good on you boys!!

When posting in hostile forums
try:

1) overstating their case into the
ridiculous:

(I think arabs should be made to
carry a visible yellow patch
with the crecent moon!)

(their brains may engage!)

2) praise them in their beliefs
and then give them a hard one.

Morality, christians, guantanamo

3) pose as a small child and ask
innocent questions.

(what is "perception management")

4) pose as their enemy loving them

(I am a communist and I love you)

James ha wrote... "I would

James ha wrote...

"I would be delighted to consider opposing views and research! by all means, post/link some opposing views and research right here on this comment section."

I already have in other comment sections.

But here is some scientific data to consider:

http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf

http://www.911myths.com/Energy_Transfer_Addendum.pdf

http://www.911myths.com/NISTREPORT.pdf

Anonymous wrote... "Such

Anonymous wrote...

"Such propaganda is extremely difficult to counter because it's so emotionally charged. As soon as you begin to refute it, all the Joe/Jane Sixpacks start screaming."

Your problem is that it has neither been refuted nor shown to be propaganda.

Those a-holes at TCV deleted

Those a-holes at TCV deleted my post again! Well, I'm gonna keep reposting it.

Did anyone see any responses to last night's question about why Bush is resisting an investigation?

rgarding 911myths: In the

rgarding 911myths: In the quest for the full truth, I have spent a good amount of time pouring over this and many debunking sites....but mostly actual reports I know some may not want to hear it, but quite a few theories and ideas in the 9/11 truth movement are just as erroneous as the official bogus story.

When it comes to clarifying some issues on the side, these aites are pretty spot on. I won't get into the Pentagon thing nor the Flight 93 thing, because I know my thoughts differ from those on here. But when it comes to the WTC collapses and a lot of other main sticking points, OCcam's Razor and the evidence leans toward a lot of the 9/11 Truth explanations.

As for time...just like 3 years ago, I wouldnt be surprised if even by the 2008 elections the 9/11 truth movement is right where it is now: a few little nuggets ot get people excited, some high fives from mainstream appearences, etc...but at this rate, save for some 'catalyzing and catatrophic smoking gun in the mainstream', I can't see how 9/11 truth will ever break wide. Not when even the Bush hating liberals agree with the Bush administration. The answer is to continue to question thw official story with legitimate refuting facts and never fear saying own's own views. Maybe one day 9/11 will be accepted as a coverup like theIraq war reasoning was bogus.

pocky: what do you find so

pocky: what do you find so erroneous?

Why so gloomy?

Cheer up Charlie. Everything is happening as expected ;)

I think TCV banned my entire

I think TCV banned my entire subnet. Can't get on at all. Just as well, their site sucks anyway

Help spread some 9/11 truth

Help spread some 9/11 truth on the most widely seen and mainstream site online:
http://aintitcool.com/tb_display.cgi?id=22465
(subject: Oliver stone's WTC movie)

@the professional: I find erroneous using data that was misreported/inmcorrect in order to make one's particular theories stronger. It's akin to forcing pieces into a puzzle when youre in kindergarten, when you know youre eventually going to finish the puzzle anyways.

I looked at www.911myths.com

I looked at www.911myths.com the other day... the first and only thing I glanced at was the John Ashcroft being warned not to fly commercially before 9/11 "myth". They talked about his testimony before the 9/11 Commission where he denied it. Ok... he denied it... I don't believe word one that comes out of Ashcroft's mouth. Secondly... why didn't they warn him not to use trains? Why didn't they warn him not to use public transportation? Why didn't they warn him not to use boats? Why did they SPECIFICALLY ask him not to fly commercial aircraft? After I debunked their debunking, I left, and went about my bidness...

pocky: I wonder if you could

pocky: I wonder if you could be a little more specific?

They do mention that

They do mention that Ashcroft flew twice commercially over that summer... but that could mean he didn't adhere to the warning... that doesn't debunk the warning itself. Did he, or did he not receive a warning not to fly commercial aircraft? THAT is the question... and what reasons were there for such a warning? Anywho...

from 911myths.com:So "George

from 911myths.com:So "George Herbert Bush met with Osama bin LadinÂ’s own brother" would seem to be more accurately described by saying they were both at the same meeting, along with hundreds of other people. Did they actually meet in person? Bush senior was reported to leave early ( see above and http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Bush_Gang/CarlyleGroup_TETTR.html ) so there may have been little opportunity. Doesn't prove they didn't, of course, but if you think they did then show us the evidence: misleading quotes are not enough.
(this is all you need to know about this weak ass site.he MIGHT not have actually SEEN the Bin Laden in question that day,so its debunked to them.fuck that site,its almost as bad as snopes.com.talk about misleading.....)

S. King, wow that's a lot of

S. King,
wow that's a lot of pdf's! I just started the 1st one:: http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf and I got as far as pg 3 before I found a flaw - this report states that we should assume that all the floors above the impact site fell in one block onto the floors beneath in a domino effect, but if one views a clip of either tower collapsing, one sees that the entire block of floors is rendered into powder from the top down in a wave like effect that continues all the way to the ground - and this rendering of all the concrete into powder takes place before anything has a chance to collide with a floor below, much less the ground.

anyone, am I correct or was I imagining this?

S. King, check this out:: billiard balls

@professional: Ok, let's

@professional: Ok, let's take the Pentagon for example. In 2002 it was kind of fun little idea that 'hey, maybe it was a missle'...but as of 2006, all the facts line up with Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. the only thing adding fuel is, and I agree, the government not releasing the footage. Why? I have no idea. But Flight 77 makes sense: Cheney ordered pilots not to engage or shoot it down, according to Norman Mineta.

Flight 93. some say it was shot down, or it never crashed. And while the idea of passengers being heroic seems convenient for the government...it may be true. This 'faked voice' thing, while technically posisble, is stretching things a bit too much. Its possible the people did try and take it over and it was still shot down, or something else. But I think the evidence on the WTC explosions, governmental foreknowlege and other things is stronger.

When people say some of the hijackers are still alive...well, that may be the case, but I REFUTE anyone who says Arabs were not involved. I have seen the security camera footage of most of the hijackers boarding the flights, setting off medal detectors and all kinds of stuff. they were allowed on those flights, no question. In 9/11 Truth seeking, the truth should come out on both sides, not just what fits one particular theory. I believe in strong LIHOP with a heavy dose of MIHOP like complicit actions, ala the Reichstag fire(ie: a lone nut thought he was acting alone, but was playing right into the hands of the powers that be)

i wonder who pays S.Kings

i wonder who pays S.Kings salary.

I post truth messages on the

I post truth messages on the internet movie database website..imdb.com

Try the "soapbox" George w bush's board

The fahreheit 9/11 board as well.
in those boards you will come across all types of people and it has a VEY active message board system. You will meet alot of the "scientists" who post there and like to refute anything I post.

You have to register for free and choose a screenname to find the "soapbox" board, click on the main boards tab and scroll down.

pockybot wrote... "But when

pockybot wrote...

"But when it comes to the WTC collapses and a lot of other main sticking points, OCcam's Razor and the evidence leans toward a lot of the 9/11 Truth explanations."

Just what evidence are you referring to?

pockybot: don't bother

pockybot: don't bother responding to Sky King. He is a government shill and is doing nothing but taking our time away from more important tasks. His goal is to keep us occupied by twisting logic. He will stop at nothing. So it's best to just ignore.

James Ha wrote... "I got as

James Ha wrote...

"I got as far as pg 3 before I found a flaw - this report states that we should assume that all the floors above the impact site fell in one block onto the floors beneath in a domino effect, but if one views a clip of either tower collapsing, one sees that the entire block of floors is rendered into powder from the top down in a wave like effect that continues all the way to the ground."

If you look at the beginning of each collapse, it is readily apparent that the failure of each building occurred at the plane impact level. It is quite easy to see that the floors above the impact level on each tower started to fall as a block; this is more apparent from the photos and videos of WTC 2 than of WTC 1.

Rather than instantly turning to dust, each block disappered into the dust and debris being formed by the collapse.

This is perfectly in line with the expected physics, as Dr. Greening explains, and that the blocks themselves would not normally disintegrate under the circumstances until AFTER they hit the top of the debris pile the collapses were forming.

Of course, by looking at the photos, one cannot tell when the blocks actually disintegrate, but we can easily see that they started out as blocks until obscurred by dust.

And the physics is important. The blocks themselves carried so much potential energy that when they first fell one floor, about 3.9 meters, the kinetic energy created was so great that it was impossible for there NOT to be a progressive collapse of each tower.

You should read the paper in full for a full understanding and realize that eventually 9/11 conspiracists like Prof Jones and David Ray Griffin are going to finally be forced to actually deal with the physics, chemistry, structual engineering, and forensic science they are so far avoiding.

Chris wrote... "i wonder who

Chris wrote...

"i wonder who pays S.Kings salary."

Why would wonder such a thing, Chris?

CB wrote... "pockybot: don't

CB wrote...

"pockybot: don't bother responding to Sky King. He is a government shill and is doing nothing but taking our time away from more important tasks. His goal is to keep us occupied by twisting logic. He will stop at nothing. So it's best to just ignore."

I'm curious about the prevalence of such paranoia here. Anyone here can argue with me on logic and the facts. Why does someone who may not agree with you can't be a normal citizen, interested in the subject?

Why are you so fearful of discussing issues of 9/11? Are you afraid that facts and evidence may get in the way of your beliefs? If you are so sure of those beliefs you should be able to discuss them here rationally, wouldn't you agree?

After all, are we not all after the truth, or do you have a different goal?

S. King... what facts

S. King... what facts pertaining to 9/11 Truth do you question specifically? Admittedly, if you're going to talk about demolition, that's not my strong suit, but what facts in general do you question?

S King, I see what you're

S King, I see what you're saying, but watching tower 2, you can see the whole block of floors tip over as if they will fall, then it (the block) rights itself and crumbles into dust and the rest of the tower also crumbles into dust from the top down - and speaking of dust, ALL of that dust is powdered concrete, which billows outward before settling to the street - the energy required to render ALL the concrete to powder far exceeds the energy generated by the gravity driven pancake theory of floors dropping and slamming onto the one's below - and regarding the rate of fall, I think F.R. Greening's mathematics are calculated for the rate of fall IN A VACCUUM - this paper :: billiard balls - calculates the rate of fall accurately in my opinion.

sorry - billiard balls

ok looking at this aerial

ok looking at this aerial photo that someone overlayed measurements onto, you can see that there is no concrete rubble anywhere - it has ALL turned into powder -

Why would wonder such a

Why would wonder such a thing, Chris?
S. King | 02.13.06 - 6:59 pm | #
why would i wonder such a thing? oh, i dont know, maybe because you are on a 9/11 truth website, yet you tow the "company" line with the best of em.

are you a republican by any

are you a republican by any chance?im not a democrat or republican, but i was just wondering.

I think F.R. Greening's

I think F.R. Greening's mathematics are calculated for the rate of fall IN A VACCUUM

I didn't say that right, earlier - what I meant to say was that I think all the calculations used to justify the speed of the collapses can only work in a vaccuum - they don't take into account the resistance of the air which would slow each falling floor down - really, the only thing that could account for that would be if the concrete of each floor was rendered into powder before it had to fall onto the floor below - and that's what one sees when watching a clip of the collapses -
ok I'm all done, sorry for wasting bandwidth -

way back when, I used to

way back when, I used to hang out at this "librul" (read- zionist whipped controlled opposition) site, smirkingchimp.com. I was active in the one and only 911-Truth thread they permitted in their messageboards, before they locked it... evidently a little too much free speech going on there:
http://smirkingchimp.com/viewtopic.php?topic=34081&forum=12

Jump to the end of the thread, and look what the site owner/administrator, SmirkyChimpster, writes as he locks the thread in Sept 05, after 21 months existence and 1118 replies:

It's time for all the CT people to go bye-bye.

Bye-bye, CT people!

When the thread was "librully" allowed to exist, of course it was whipped by the site's resident shills, "boloboffin" and "cerwiller" among a few others. But evidently 911-truth was a little to powerful/dangerous to be managed/whipped effectively and so they locked it sans meaningful explanation (CT people... pfft).

So that's just a little field report from "THE LEFT" side of the fake left/right paradigm. I invite all to sign up there too, and wreak havoc in their messageboards. Lots of well meaning albeit misguided folks there, who know not how conspicuously they're censored. Me, I was banned nearly 2 years ago there.

100 most recent threads:
http://smirkingchimp.com/recentposts.php

@S King:"And the physics is

@S King:"And the physics is important. The blocks themselves carried so much potential energy that when they first fell one floor, about 3.9 meters, the kinetic energy created was so great that it was impossible for there NOT to be a progressive collapse of each tower.
"

S. King, I think some of us

S. King,

I think some of us are more than willing to debate with you over topics of 9/11, specifically the idea of controlled demolition which you appear to have a focus on.. but perhaps this could best be done through a message board forum instead of trying to carry on any real discussion jumping thread to thread here in the comments section..

would you be willing to join Jon Gold's forum at www.yourbbsucks.com? i personally would love to continue on with your mention of how the structurally stable 80%+ of the towers would provide less than .1 seconds worth of delay in the freefall collapse as you mentioned last night..

please sign up at yourbbsucks.com and start a thread there in the 9/11 section, that way some real discussion can be had without needing to dominate the comments of every thread here..

thanks.

chris wrote... "are you a

chris wrote...

"are you a republican by any chance?im not a democrat or republican, but i was just wondering."

Of what relevance is that question to physics?

Jon Gold wrote... "S.

Jon Gold wrote...

"S. King... what facts pertaining to 9/11 Truth do you question specifically?"

Broadly, the claim that it's "truth,"
without providing solid evidence, failure to reveal methodologies, assumptions, data, calculations, ignoring inconvenient evidence, use of erroneous data, a lot of it already shown to be so, assertions like the Scholars for 9/11 Truth's statement:

"Physics research establishes that only controlled demolitions are consistent with the near-gravity speed of fall and virtually symmetrical collapse of all three of the WTC buildings,"

without actually revealing the data and calculations, and a broad attitude that they are exempt from having refute alternative explanations - shown by such people as Jones, Griffin, Gerard Holmgren, etc.

James Ha

James Ha wrote...

"...watching tower 2, you can see the whole block of floors tip over as if they will fall, then it (the block) rights itself and crumbles into dust and the rest of the tower also crumbles into dust from the top down - and speaking of dust,..."

I disagree. What happened is that a progressive sagging of the block to one side occurred, failure, a small rotation of the block around an axis of a part still attached, then the collapse.

The "block" of WTC 1 weighed 40,000 tons, that of WTC 2, 110,000 tons. Each floor of both towers were designed to hold a static weight of only 1,400 tons. It should be easy to see that the blocks are not going disintegrate when they hit the first floor below them, but just the opposite: the floors are going to succesively fail as the massive kinetic energy of the blocks pulverizes the floor connections one by one.

Conspiracy groups claim that the towers below the impact "should have" remained standing "because" they were more massive than the blocks that collapsed and "therefore" it had to be controlled demolitions that actually caused the towers to fall. Nothing could be further than the truth!

And physics demonstrates it easily.

James Ha wrote... "billard

James Ha wrote...

"billard balls"

Do you see what is wrong with her assumption: "According to the pancake theory, one floor fails and falls onto the floor below, causing it to fail and fall on the floor below that one. The "pancake theory" implies that this continues all the way to the ground floor. To simulate this domino effect, we will use a sequence of falling billiard balls, where each billiard ball triggers the release of the next billiard ball in the sequence?"

She completely ignores the mass of everything above accelerating downwards - and the jackhammer effect that results. Amazing.

This is the kind of erroneous amateur physics people too often flock to - while ignoring real physics from qualified and credible scientists and structural engineers.

James Ha wrote... "ok

James Ha wrote...

"ok looking at this aerial photo that someone overlayed measurements onto, you can see that there is no concrete rubble anywhere - it has ALL turned into powder."

Do investigators rely on aerial photos or do they get on the ground to make that determination?

See:

http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/2002/110p703-714lioy/EHP110p703PDF.PDF

http://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/media/1lbppwvquh31adhwrh5u/contrib...

http://www.nycosh.org/environment_wtc/911_organic_pollutants_lioy.pdf

http://www.911myths.com/Energy_Transfer_Addendum.pdf

One thing you won't find in these papers is any evidence of explosives.

dz wrote ... "would you be

dz wrote ...

"would you be willing to join Jon Gold's forum at www.yourbbsucks.com? i personally would love to continue on with your mention of how the structurally stable 80%+ of the towers would provide less than .1 seconds worth of delay in the freefall collapse as you mentioned last night.."

Sure.

S. King, "It should be easy

S. King,

"It should be easy to see that the blocks are not going disintegrate when they hit the first floor below them, but just the opposite: the floors are going to succesively fail as the massive kinetic energy of the blocks pulverizes the floor connections one by one."

so the momentum of the collapse is dispersed through the momentum's energy being spent in the destruction of each successive floor, thus slowing to some degree the speed of the collapse.. i beleive the focus of jones and others has been focused around the idea of the conservation of momentum, or lack there of.. you cant have the downward momentum stay continuous at near the speed of freefall and at the same time ahve that energy used to destroy/pulverise each floor as well.. the energy spent on pulverising the floors is taken away from the momentum.. when the collapse is at the speed of freefall then little to no resistance was provided by the 80+ floors that were still structurally sound.

please move this discussion to a forum such as yourbbsucks.com

dz... "please move this

dz...

"please move this discussion to a forum such as yourbbsucks.com"

I already agreed to that above.

See:

http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf

http://www.911myths.com/ Energy_T...er_Addendum.pdf

http://www.911myths.com/NISTREPORT.pdf

for details and ask Prof. Jones to address them as many of already have.

chris wrote... "are you a

chris wrote...

"are you a republican by any chance?im not a democrat or republican, but i was just wondering."

Of what relevance is that question to physics?
S. King | 02.14.06 - 9:04 am | #
just a simple question, but i can see its too much for your sheep-like brain to handle. sorry i asked. i guess that tells me all i need to know coward.

prof. Jones points out the

prof. Jones points out the fact that molten metal was still red hot in the basements of the WTC a long time after 911. he further points out that the energy required to make that metal molten in the first place is a lot more than could be generated by the gravity driven pancake theory. he claims that controlled explosives are one way to generate the heat required, and states that any other theories need to take into account the existence of said molten metal. so far none have.
he didn't even NEED to bust out any scientific equations to make his report, and his scientific know-how should not be referred to as "so-called". he is an esteemed professor of physics and is well respected in his field. in my opinion Prof. Jones' Report has put a serious thorn into the side of the pancake theory.

James Ha and S King: please

James Ha and S King: please see my blog page for what I think is a thorough discussion of both the collapse time and molten metal evidence. My conclusion is: these two provide evidence neither for nor against the controlled demolition hypothesis.