9/11 Conspiracy Thread (There can be only one!)

[scott3x]

But engineering schools still have to teach physics. That is what I don't get about the so called Truth Movement. Why stand on the street trying to convince regular people? Why not embarass the engineering schools in front of their students that scored in the top 5% on the SAT?

My guess is that heavy duty official story believers can run loops around average alternate story believers. I also wouldn't really want to go where I'm not welcome for whatever reason. It's different on the internet, however. Here, we may get flack, but we also have allies. The moderators of sci forums may relegate us to one thread, but they tend to generally leave us alone in that thread.

I have to wonder what those kids think of this stuff. Ever heard about the MIT students and Ringworld in 1971?

I heard of the sci fi ringworld series, but not about its connection to MIT.

 

[MacGyver1968]

Apparently some MIT students brought up some engineering problems with the original novel and the orbit of the ringworld. The author of the book, decided to write a sequel called "ringworld engineers" to address the problem.

Not sure what a SF book has to do with discussion, though.

 

[scott3x]

Apparently some MIT students brought up some engineering problems with the original novel and the orbit of the ringworld. The author of the book, decided to write a sequel called "ringworld engineers" to address the problem.

Not sure what a SF book has to do with discussion, though.

Perhaps it's the idea that schools should be some of the first to question the official story regarding 9/11. However, if you take a look, 2 of the key leaders regarding 9/11 -are- former professors:
Steven Jones (retired physics professor) and David Ray Griffin (retired theology professor). And there were certainly other professors who supported Steven Jones, including a former Mechanical Engineering Professor, Judy Wood. Some of her correspondence with Steven Jones can be seen on this page:
http://www.911truthseekers.org/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=4

The fear that professors have that repercussions will follow if they openly disagree with the official story is quite palpable. This is what was apparently said by Judy Wood, who was a proffessor for Mechanical Engineering at Clemson University at the time:
*********************************
I'm sorry I didn't contact you then. I was afraid of what might happen with my career. Now, I'm more afraid of what is happening with the world than with my career. I'm writing you now because I'd like to join your Scholars for 9/11 Truth team." [Prof. J. Wood at Clemson University]
*********************************

Now, witness the power of this fully armed and operational conspiracy:
*********************************
Morgan Reynolds and Professor Judy Wood have been criticizing the research work of Professor Jones. Professor Wood and one of her students, Michael Zebuhr, conducted an experiment in 2006 in an effort to prove that Professor Jones is wrong about his theory that thermite was in the South Tower. Not long after that experiment, Zebuhr was murdered in a very mysterious manner:
http://www.iamthewitness.com/DarylBradfordSmith_Michael.html
************************************

I'd say the manner went beyond mysterious and right through to suspicious, based on the following part of the above mentioned link:
************************************
On 18 March 2006 Michael, his sister, his mother, and a friend were walking to their car after dinner at a restaurant when they were approached by a couple of young men who demanded his mother's purse. She gave it to them without a fight, but one of the men shot Michael in the head anyway, for no apparent reason. He died quickly.

The two men escaped in a car. Police were soon chasing after a car that matched the description. A woman was driving. Two male passengers tossed loaded handguns out the window. After a few miles the woman stopped the car and all three people in the car were arrested.

However, the two men, Omari Kwakou Thomas (2920 Northway Drive, Brooklyn Park), and James Michael Walker (2938 Morgan Avenue North, Minneapolis), were soon released. The woman, Aiesha Camille Williams (1301 Highway 7, Apt #127, Hopkins), is still in jail, but the police insist she had nothing to do with the murder. Mug shots are not available.
************************************


The original article continues:
************************************
A secretive person using the name CB_Brooklyn posted an insinuation that Professor Jones is involved In the murder of Zebuhr, and another murder many years earlier! These insinuations were posted at the site registered to Richard Siegel, a man involved with the video 911 Eyewitness.

So we have to wonder: Who is this mystery person CB_Brooklyn, and why is he implying that Professor Jones was involved with two murders? Why is Richard Siegel promoting this accusation?
************************************
http://www.iamthewitness.com/Wood-Jones-fight.html

Update: I just checked Richard Siegel's site and started thinking- the fact that some anonymous poster accussed Steven Jones of something in no way links Richard Siegel to said anonymous poster. I've actually seen Richard Siegel's site in the past and it seems like he truly knows his stuff regarding 9/11.

 

[psikeyhackr]

I heard of the sci fi ringworld series, but not about its connection to MIT.

Instability

A ringworld design requires active stabilization, because it is not in inertial orbit. Though the ring itself is rotating at 1,200 km/s (to approximate Earth gravity), the center of mass is stationary — in fact, it is at an unstable equilibrium, roughly comparable to a small sphere balanced on top of a larger one.

Thus, large thrusters must be incorporated into the design to keep it centered about its star. This point gave Niven some difficulty after he published his first Ringworld novel; he was deluged with letters pointing out that "the Ringworld isn't stable" and dedicated the first sequel to a resolution of this problem. He notes in the dedication of Ringworld Engineers that at the 1971 World Science Fiction Convention MIT students crowded the hotel hallways chanting "The Ringworld is Unstable!"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ringworld

This entire 9/11 business is an inherently unstable condition of "cognitive disonance". The first thing everyone should have wanted to know after 9/11 was the distribution of steel and concrete. WHAT HOLDS UP ANY SKYSCRAPER? WHAT HAS TO BE DESTROYED FOR IT TO COME DOWN? It isn't possible for kids in top sci-eng school to not understand this.

The comparison to the Ringworld incident is quite ironic. Fiction was important enough to shout about but everyone is silent about reality. We must not upset the moron majority.

psik

 

[shaman_]

You doubt, but you're not sure.

From what I can tell this testimony is on 9/11 from the people who were at the pentagon. Most of the testimony would most likely have been taken before any one saw any news reports. However even if they had, of all the news reports on 9/11 how many made mention of planes knocking over poles? Think about it, not many, if any. Just replying with “but you’re not sure” just shows me that you are choosing not to think or be rational.

People can describe things they believe to have happened as well as what they saw happen. .

.. and people say they saw the planes knocking over poles.

This is why it's so important when someone says that they -saw- something, instead of just that something happened.

Yes but many (most, all?) of those people were describing what they saw. That was the context. The CIT guys discard any testimony they don’t like that doesn’t have ‘saw’ and ‘pole’ in the same sentence.

There is one thing that I think we may both agree on, however: that it would be best to ask the sources of the statements as to whether they saw it or simply deduced or believed it to be true because of being told it happened, for instance.

The problem there is that the memory is even less reliable many years later. There are many studies done that show that peoples memories of events change over time.

Their witnesses clearly state that they -did- see the plane approach from the north side of the Citgo gas station, however. No ambivalence there. .

They were no clearer on what they saw than all the other people who say it came from a different direction … and hit the pentagon! .. and there are more of those people and they have physical evidence which corroborates their story. Don’t you see a problem here?

They now have 13 witnesses that saw the plane coming from the north side, which sounds fairly numerous to me.

If 13 is numerous to you then so must the 15 or so that claim they saw poles being knocked down or the 100+ that claim they saw a plane smashing into the pentagon.

And why do you believe that the interpretations they give of their witnesses to be questionable?

Firstly, read the link I posted. Secondly, it is clear that these guys do not take unbiased accounts, particularly when interviewing years after the event. They have a belief (and a stupid one at that) and only want to hear evidence that suits them. Having seen that post where he discards the pole witnesses it is clear that these guys are not objective in their work.

I'm guessing that you aren't happy that most of the witnesses deduce that the plane crashed into the pentagon even though the CIT team deduces that it didn't. The witnesses all seem to believe that the plane did in fact hit the pentagon at first; as to afterwards, I think the only one who may have been persuaded that there was a flyover after their interviews with CIT is, I believe, the one witness who clearly saw the plane fly over the pentagon. Is that the only interpretation of theirs you disagree with?

As I said I think it is obvious that they are not objective. If they took witness testimony from WTC they would come to the conclusion that the planes came from a different angle.

I have to point out again how stupid the theory is. You don’t seem to have the ability to spot a foolish theory scott. If you were the government trying to pull off a conspiracy and you were already smashing three planes that day why would you not smash the fourth one? Pretending to smash a plane into a very well known building will never work. Someone would see people knocking over light poles (how did they do this?) and throwing planes parts and bodies everywhere. Then you need to get over 100 people to lie. It is a very very stupid conspiracy theory that is not supported by the evidence. Only the very gullible would believe it.

 

[shaman_]

I checked out the definition of faith on wikipedia; I really liked the first sentence at any rate. It is this:
"Faith is a belief in the trustworthiness of an idea."

I thought, why not extend it to the trustworthiness of a theory, a person, a group of people? I can't think of any other word that comes close to these types of concepts. I find this ironic because I used to have a rather lousy view of faith in general.

You must realize one thing, however: while I may believe certain individuals, I -also- wish to hear from the other side. If I simply wanted to believe in the alternate theory and dismiss everyone who believed in the official story, I wouldn't be here;

Scott you are not here to find anything out. You are here to defend the conspiracy.

I'd be solely in the alternate theory forums discussing the finer points of the theory.

I'm not, however, because I don't think it makes that much sense to discuss the finer points when many people don't even believe in the basic premises of the mainstream alternate theories. I believe that, without a doubt, official story believers are hands down the best at pointing out the weaknesses of the alternate theories. I also think that alternate theorists are the best people to point out the weaknesses in the official story.

Anyway, I've created a partial response to your previous response to me here:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2080501&postcount=2138

I have responded but forget that for a moment. Understand my point, if you cannot defend the theory then why do you still believe in it. Why do you have faith in these people? If you say it is because their explanations seem reasonable and logical then I would say what part of my posts are not logical or reasonable?

 

[KennyJC]

As seen in this revealing photo the Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all the characteristics of destruction by explosions: (and some non-standard characteristics)

It's funny that the part in brackets was later added after a debunker pointed out to Richard Gage that most of the points he listed were nothing like characteristics of a demolition.

In fact, just looking at that picture instantly tells you it is not a demolition.

1. Extremely rapid onset of “collapse”

You still fail to mention my 10 story apartment buildings rapid onset of collapse due to fire damage.

2. Sounds of explosions and flashes of light witnessed near the beginning of the "collapse" by over 100 first responders

Despite many cameras (both video and still images) reveal NO flashes and no sounds other than the expected rumble of collapse.

3. "Squibs", or focused explosions, 40 floors below the “collapsing” building seen in all the videos

Compressed air... duh! If it was from explosives, the squibs would be instantaneous like in a regular demolition (see YouTube for what demolition squibs look like). The speed of the squibs is consistent air being squeezed out by the falling floors above.

4. Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete and steel decking, filing cabinets & 1000 people – mostly to dust

If anything this is uncommon of a demolition. Because the WTC collapsed from top to bottom, each floor underwent sudden impact of thousands of tons with a momentum that could not be stopped by what the tower was designed for.

5. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds

Pyroclastic dust clouds are from volcanoes. It seems like he is trying to use it as a simile, or that he doesn't understand what the word means.

Anyway, any building collapse will give off a huge dust cloud. 10 story building as I have shown you before.

6. Vertical progression of full building perimeter demolition waves

Nothing like a demolition. Demolitions don't go from top to bottom. At least not when it has to be timed perfectly for the collapsed of the upper portion to coincide when it reaches that particular floor.

7. Symmetrical collapse – through the path of greatest resistance – at nearly free-fall speed — the columns gave no resistance

Let's get one thing clear about the "path of greatest resistance": Gravity. Not only did the first impacted floor have to suddenly hold the weight of the upper portion of the building, but the upper portion of the building was FALLING. The floor trusses and thin layer of concrete are in no way able to slow down the momentum or such a weight that is FALLING. Thus if the floors below can't hold the falling weight, then the path of resistance is straight through.

8. 1,400 foot diameter field of equally distributed debris – outside of building footprint

Isn't a demolished building supposed to collapse to its footprint?

9. Blast waves blew out windows in buildings 400 feet away

Obviously false. Windows lower down were smashed by debris. If blast waves destroyed these windows then we would expect ALL windows to be smashed in the local area in a UNIFORM pattern.

10. Lateral ejection of thousands of individual 4 - 20 ton steel beams up to 500 feet

Even though it wasn't a controlled demolition, the force of each floor falling on to the other was still enough to nudge the perimeter columns outward. And since they had a long way to fall, they reached quite a distance.

However, this just shows the stupidity of A&E that they would think demolition explosives could be the only thing that is responsible for this. Ask any demolition expert about explosives and they will tell you that their materials do local damage to each beam it is placed on, slicing it like butter. Far from being capable of throwing tons of steel great distances. The power of the collapse of the building itself was responsible for this, not any explosives.

11. Total destruction of the building down to individual structural steel elements – obliterating the steel core structure

This is plain wrong. The steel core was FAR from obliterated. In fact, many video and still pictures show that the core in both towers was still standing moments after the collapse. The initial collapse consisted of the floors alone.

12. Tons of molten metal found by FDNY and numerous other experts under all 3 high-rises

The only thing they have to support this are layman testimony. "Molten steel beam" etc... If it's molten steel, then how can it be a beam? Quote after quote seems to be describing red hot steel/metal rather than liquid steel/metal.

13. Chemical signature of Thermate (high tech incendiary) found in slag, solidified molten metal, and dust samples by Physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.

So all that talk of explosives was BS? Truthers can't make up their mind what was used to demolish the tower. It seems to be one or the other, or both. You can't even make up your mind what kind of thermite was used as I've heard of multiple types in this thread. Nobody in the industry even knows how to use thermite to take down a building, so you got nothing here.

The so-called thermate signature is non-existant when you consider that the materials were already common and presant in the WTC for non-sinister reasons.

15. More than 1000 Bodies are unaccounted for — 700 tiny bone fragments found on top of nearby buildings

What do you think would happen to you if a skyscraper fell on top of you?

And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.

1. Slow onset with large visible deformations

In 40 minutes steel can reach 900C when exposed to 1000C fires. So the towers stood pretty long with hindsight.

Visible deformations took place with the considerable bowing of the tower. Nothing else can explain this but extreme fire temperatures.

2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)

The south tower lurched to the side, but was arrested by the columns on the other side and the collapse of the floors below which made it go straight down.

3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel

I've already shown you testimony from a steel inspector who told of the softening and twisting of the steel.

4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”.

Different structures entirely. All of the buildings that collapsed on 9/11 were noted for their unusual design. And the lack of concrete in the buildings core and outer columns made the towers were more vulnerable to fire.

 

[scott3x]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ringworld

This entire 9/11 business is an inherently unstable condition of "cognitive disonance". The first thing everyone should have wanted to know after 9/11 was the distribution of steel and concrete. WHAT HOLDS UP ANY SKYSCRAPER? WHAT HAS TO BE DESTROYED FOR IT TO COME DOWN? It isn't possible for kids in top sci-eng school to not understand this.

Apparently it's more then possible; apparently it's the way things are.

The comparison to the Ringworld incident is quite ironic. Fiction was important enough to shout about but everyone is silent about reality. We must not upset the moron majority.

psik

I think we must also account for the fear factor; if people disagree with an author of fiction, you're not going to get fired from your job. The same can't be said for people who are in relatively high positions in our society (professors such as Steven Jones, directors such as Kevin Ryan). It's funny how one who has spoken out can help bring out another, etc., however.

Kevin Ryan turned to professor David Ray Griffin before coming out. Professor Judy Wood turned to Professor Steven Jones.

By the way, regarding MIT, there was an MIT physics professor who sent an email to Steven Jones stating the following:
********************************
8. Email to Prof. Jones from a Professor of Physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MIT:

"I agree wholeheartedly with one comment [in Jones’ paper] – that the [official] enquiries are grossly inadequate and the conclusions may well be wrong. I have publicly stated that they are significant for what they do NOT say rather than for what they say. Building engineers on the defensive."
********************************
http://www.911truthseekers.org/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=4

 

[scott3x]

It's funny that the part in brackets was later added after a debunker pointed out to Richard Gage that most of the points he listed were nothing like characteristics of a demolition.

Everyone makes mistakes. Clearly, the type of demolition is unusual in the case of the WTC buildings in that it's from the top down. Also, from what I understand, they're even less like a fire induced collapse.

In fact, just looking at that picture instantly tells you it is not a demolition.

What a picture tells you is based on your knowledge. I think yours is lacking here ;-).

You still fail to mention my 10 story apartment buildings rapid onset of collapse due to fire damage.

A 10 story apartment building is not the same thing as a steel framed high rise; no steel framed high rise has ever fallen from fires.

Despite many cameras (both video and still images) reveal NO flashes and no sounds other than the expected rumble of collapse.

To me, the rumble heard is reminiscent of tons of explosions going off, but to each their own there I suppose.

I've actually heard otherwise in respect to the video images, but I have no evidence on me right now. The other issue is, what, do witnesses not count now? The flashes may not have been to common a witness site, but the -sounds- and other evidence of explosions is quite pronounced:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/oralhistories/explosions.html

3. "Squibs", or focused explosions, 40 floors below the “collapsing” building seen in all the videos

Compressed air... duh! If it was from explosives, the squibs would be instantaneous like in a regular demolition (see YouTube for what demolition squibs look like). The speed of the squibs is consistent air being squeezed out by the falling floors above.

Actually, it's not. 9/11 Research debunks NIST's theory on the squibs handily:
***************************

NIST attempts to explain away without disclosing evidence for or even accurately describing this demolition feature: energetic jets of dust emerging symmetrically from the Tower's faces. (Image copyright: Richard Lethin)


[NIST's] fourth paragraph addresses the jets of dust, often called "squibs." It reads:
The falling mass of the building compressed the air ahead of it, much like the action of a piston, forcing material, such as smoke and debris, out the windows as seen in several videos. (p 146/196)

NIST conceals the nature of the energetic ejections by describing them only as material "forc[ed] ... out the windows". It does not mention any resources for examining this evidence, such as these video frames showing dust ejections from the North Tower.

When one examines these ejections, it becomes obvious that NIST's piston theory does not begin to explain them, for a number of reasons including:
* No photographs show evidence of the alleged piston moving down inside of the Towers, and the thickness of the dust clouds indicate that the floors were being pulverized well above the ejections.
* The ejections appear at regular intervals on all visible faces of the North Tower, a pattern much too regular to be explained by the piston theory.
* The North Tower's ejections are very energetic and focused, blasting through single openings on each face. This challenges the piston theory to explain how the relatively even application of pressure caused by falling floors could be contained by all but single windows in the middle of each face.
* The ejections appear to contain thick dust such as of pulverized concrete and gypsum, which would not be generated until after a floor had already collapsed and ejected its air.

NIST thus attempts to explain away only two of the six features of controlled demolition enumerated in the Conclusion of this essay, and in the essay's earlier version critiquing the NIST's Draft Report.
***************************
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html

 

[shaman_]

You sure about that? I mean, ofcourse there were temperatures above 250C; as early as November 2001, there was evidence of -evaporated- steel;

There is only one comment regarding evaporated steel and the later conclusion by team was that the steel did reach anywhere near those temperatures. So you ignore the later, more detailed report but cling to the early comment. .. There is no evidence to corroborate this and it is contradicted by that teams own findings.

since steel evaporates at around 2860C, clearly steel had gotten -much- hotter then 250C. And yet in Frank Gayle's report, he apparently dismissed any sample that had evidence of reaching temperatures above 250C. So tell me then, why did he dismiss all evidence of any steel sample evidence that was above 250C? After looking at Frank Gayle's report, I believe I see the answer:
*********************************
Fire model
•Detailed comparison with paint results underway•Model predicts temperature in Plate 3 (inner web) to be
maximum of 200-350 °C when fire proofing (1 3/16”) intact; Spandrels, with 0.5”fire proofing, maximum 450 °C
*********************************
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P3MechanicalandMetAnalysisofSteel.pdf

So, if fire proofing was intact, the 'inner web' shouldn't have gotten much higher then 250C, 100C more at the most, with some spandrels getting up to 450. Temperatures of 3000C+ simply wouldn't have fit in with that model.

What are you talking about? How did you come to the conclusion that dismisses evidence of temperatures over 250C? It was made clear very early on it that NIST estimated there were temperatures near 1000C.

Secondly why would it even matter? It is clear that the temperatures went over 600C. By constantly picking and choosing bits of various reports regarding temperatures you just end up looking deceptive.

Not sure what tests you were talking of. NIST believes that the -air- might have been heated to 1000C, but not the steel itself.

If the atmospheric temperature is 1000C the temperature of unprotected steel is only marginally lower. This has been demonstrated to you on several occasions. If you play dumb for long enough people will think you aren’t playing.

Steven Jones puts it well in the following quote:
******************************************
"At any given location, the duration of [air, not steel] temperatures near 1,000C was about 15 min to 20 min. The rest of the time, the calculated temperatures were near 500C or below.” (NIST, 2005, p. 127, emphasis added.)
******************************************
http://www.journalof911studies.com/...ollapse_Jones_Thermite_World_Trade_Center.pdf

Here is the quote from the more recent NCSTAR1-5F

The simulations and the visual evidence suggested that the duration of temperatures in the neighborhood of 1,000 oC at any given location on any given floor was about 15 min to 20 min. The rest of the time, temperatures were predicted to have been in the range of 400 oC to 800 oC on floors with active fires.

Steel is down to 50% of its strength at around 590C.

For office fires, yes, but not for a thermate induced demolition. Surely you realize that if evaporated steel were truly found, it would be fatal to the official story?

No evaporated steel was found. Though I'm not sure how you wold even identify something that has been evaporated. All the credible evidence points to the temperatures being not much over 1000C.

There was, as I have already mentioned; the fact that NIST didn't include it in their report should be something you should consider deeply.

The evidence you have presented so far doesn’t stand up to any scrutiny. This is something you don’t want to see.

Exactly:

On of your more stupid responses and that is saying something. We were discussing the cause of the cause of that collapse. That is a photo of the building after the collapse had started. That is what it looks like when one of the tallest buildings in the world collapses from the top down. If it happened very often you you wouldn't be so surprised. To just look at the photo and say "oh that looks like a bomb going off so a bomb must have gone off" is just moronic. If you watch the entire collapse it is clear what is happening there. You have no excuse because evidence of the heated and extremely softened steel has pointed out to you a dozen times.

But you are again dodging the point. I expect that from you now though.

So for the 13434th time, what is the theory here? Explosives explode, thermite cuts steel, ultrasupermegathermate explodes (and cuts?) so can you explain the twisted steel which was subjected to temperatures around 1000C? That steel is the cause of the collapse. It is all that is needed for the collapse to begin.

 

[scott3x]

4. Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete and steel decking, filing cabinets & 1000 people – mostly to dust

If anything this is uncommon of a demolition. Because the WTC collapsed from top to bottom...

Yes, it's uncommon for demolitions to go from top to bottom. However, no one to my knowledge denies it can be done and I myself have seen it done in a non 9/11 context (I saw a video of such a demolition somewhere).

each floor underwent sudden impact of thousands of tons with a momentum that could not be stopped by what the tower was designed for.

Where are you getting this theory from? Ryan Mackey? Certainly not from NIST. Steven Jones explains NIST's position and his own below:
***********************************
14. The NIST team fairly admits that their report “does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached.” (NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 1; emphasis added.) Quite a confession, since much of the external evidence for explosive demolition typically comes after collapse initiation, as seen in cases of acknowledged controlled demolition. (Harris, 2000.)

The rapid fall of the Towers and WTC7 has been analyzed by several engineers/scientists (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/proofs/speed.html; Griffin, 2004, chapter 2). The roof of WTC 7 (students and I are observing the southwest corner) falls to earth in less than 6.6 seconds, while an object dropped from the roof would hit the ground in 6.0 seconds. This follows from t = (2H/g)1/2. Likewise, the Towers fall very rapidly to the ground, with the upper part falling nearly as rapidly as ejected debris which provide free-fall references (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/proofs/speed.html; Griffin, 2004, chapter 2). Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum — one of the foundational Laws of Physics? That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors — and intact steel support columns — the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass. If the central support columns remained standing, then the effective resistive mass would be less, but this is not the case — somehow the enormous support columns failed/disintegrated along with the falling floor pans.

How do the upper floors fall so quickly, then, and still conserve momentum in the collapsing buildings? The contradiction is ignored by FEMA, NIST and 9-11 Commission reports where conservation of momentum and the fall times were not analyzed. The paradox is easily resolved by the explosive demolition hypothesis, whereby explosives quickly remove lower-floor material including steel support columns and allow near free-fall-speed collapses (Harris, 2000).

And these explosives also readily account for the turning of the falling Towers to fine dust as the collapse ensues. Rather than a piling up with shattering of concrete as we might expect from non-explosive-caused progressive collapse (”official theory”), we find that most of the Towers material (concrete, carpet, steel, etc.) is converted to flour-like powder WHILE the buildings are falling. The Towers’ collapses are not typical implosions, but quite possibly [a] series of “shock-and-awe” explosions — at least the evidence points strongly in this direction. The hypothesis ought to be explored further.
***********************************
http://physics911.net/stevenjones

 

[shaman_]

Yes, it's uncommon for demolitions to go from top to bottom. However, no one to my knowledge denies it can be done

That is beside the point. The conspiracy theorists claim it is a controlled demolition because they say it looked like a controlled demolition. It didn't look like a controlled demolition at all. So their point is refuted. You are just altering the argument by then saying 'oh bit it's possible'.

 

[scott3x]

5. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds

Pyroclastic dust clouds are from volcanoes.

Pyroclastic dust clouds -can- be from volcanoes, but the key is that they are of explosive origin; explosives can clearly be such an origin. Don't get me wrong, this is not something that is recognized by every dictionary. The American Heritage Science Dictionary does recognize this, however, and you can see this definition from them at dictionary.com:
**********************************
pyroclastic: Composed chiefly of rock fragments of explosive origin...
**********************************
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pyroclastic

Anyway, any building collapse will give off a huge dust cloud. 10 story building as I have shown you before.

If memory serves, this only happens when the debris hits the earth, not before. But feel free to show me pictures of this 10 story building collapse that you feel disproves this if you like.

 

[scott3x]

6. Vertical progression of full building perimeter demolition waves

Nothing like a demolition. Demolitions don't go from top to bottom. At least not when it has to be timed perfectly for the collapsed of the upper portion to coincide when it reaches that particular floor.

Again, to my knowledge, no one has denied that it can be done. Where are you getting the notion that it can't be done?

7. Symmetrical collapse – through the path of greatest resistance – at nearly free-fall speed — the columns gave no resistance

Let's get one thing clear about the "path of greatest resistance": Gravity. Not only did the first impacted floor have to suddenly hold the weight of the upper portion of the building, but the upper portion of the building was FALLING. The floor trusses and thin layer of concrete are in no way able to slow down the momentum or such a weight that is FALLING. Thus if the floors below can't hold the falling weight, then the path of resistance is straight through.

If you take a look at the debris, you'll notice that a lot if not most of the upper debris had the texture of dust or at best sand- imagine dumping dust on a structure- would it demolish the structure beneath it or would it simply run off the sides of the structure? There is apparently one example in the collapses where the explosives weren't detonated quite fast enough to avoid a bit of angular momentum:
***************************************
Consider the collapse of the South WTC Tower on 9-11: http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/south_tower_collapse.mpeg

Top ~ 34 floors of South Tower topple over.

What happens to the block and its angular momentum?

We observe that approximately 34 upper floors begin to rotate as a block, to the south and east. They begin to topple over, as favored by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The torque due to gravity on this block is enormous, as is its angular momentum. But then — and this I’m still puzzling over — this block turned mostly to powder in mid-air! How can we understand this strange behavior, without explosives? Remarkable, amazing — and demanding scrutiny since the US government-funded reports failed to analyze this phenomenon. But, of course, the Final NIST 9-11 report “does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached.” (NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 1; emphasis added.)
***************************************
http://physics911.net/stevenjones

 

[shaman_]

If you take a look at the debris, you'll notice that a lot if not most of the upper debris had the texture of dust or at best sand-

Are you serious? Look at the footage. That top part of the building help together for at least some of the collapse. Just because you can see concrete breaking up that doesn’t mean its just a bit of sand and doesn't weigh anything.

imagine dumping dust on a structure- would it demolish the structure beneath it or would it simply run off the sides of the structure?

A bucket of sand will yes but the top thirty floors of WTC2 were not sand.

There is apparently one example in the collapses where the explosives weren't detonated quite fast enough to avoid a bit of angular momentum:

Ah so when you have more behavior which shows that explosives weren’t involved you just know that they were there but they didn’t detonate. Yeah ok....

Top ~ 34 floors of South Tower topple over.

What happens to the block and its angular momentum?

We observe that approximately 34 upper floors begin to rotate as a block, to the south and east. They begin to topple over, as favored by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The torque due to gravity on this block is enormous, as is its angular momentum. But then — and this I’m still puzzling over — this block turned mostly to powder in mid-air! How can we understand this strange behavior, without explosives? Remarkable, amazing — and demanding scrutiny since the US government-funded reports failed to analyze this phenomenon. But, of course, the Final NIST 9-11 report “does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached.” (NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 1; emphasis added.)
***************************************
http://physics911.net/stevenjones

So explosives soften steel, melt steel, cut steel, evaporate steel, keep it molten for weeks, explode in the basement causing a collapse at the top, can knock over lamp posts and they turn concrete to dust while it is collapsing. Is there anything explosives can’t do?

 

[Headspin]

13. Chemical signature of Thermate (high tech incendiary) found in slag, solidified molten metal, and dust samples by Physics professor Steven Jones, PhD. ”

So all that talk of explosives was BS? Truthers can't make up their mind what was used to demolish the tower.

It seems to be one or the other, or both. You can't even make up your mind what kind of thermite was used as I've heard of multiple types in this thread. Nobody in the industry even knows how to use thermite to take down a building, so you got nothing here.

Irrelevant and intended to detract from the issue. You are not addressing the issue raised.
The issue is simple -
the chemical fingerprint signature of a thermite reaction was found in the dust
it was found in abundance
it was found immediately after "collapse"
it was found in various sample types
it was found at the nanoscale
it was found at the microscale
it was found at the macroscale

The so-called thermate signature is non-existant when you consider that the materials were already common and presant in the WTC for non-sinister reasons.

You have failed to address the science. you are confronting the argument that goes "i found a piece of aluminium, i found a piece of iron, i found a peice of wallboard with calcium sulphate in it - voila! i found thermite!" This cartoon-argument is an absurd caricature of the evidence being presented. The evidence is not simply just that these elements existed in the world trade centre and/or wtc rubble. The evidence is that the chemical fingerprint of thermite derivatives was found at the microscale - this is how forensic teams detect thermite arson! microspheres with the thermite fingerprint cannot magically form at the microscale when a building is crushed, falls down, collapses, or is smashed to pieces.

These microspheres were detected in abundant quantities, so much that RJ Lee used them to identifiy wtc dust from background dust. they were an intergral part of the wtc dust! Where did the molten microspheres with chemical fingerprint of thermite come from? I hope you will now accept the impossibility of the collapse or the fire forming them?

You might think they were liberated from the concrete as the concrete was pulverised, but consider the fact that concrete chunk samples were crushed and analysed and found not to contain the previously molten alumino-iron microspheres with the chemical fingerprint of thermite. Also consider the fact that these alumino-iron spheres exist at the macro scale up to a few mm in radius. so how can the thermite spheres and microspheres be explained without the presence of thermite in the building?

http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf

 

[Headspin]

12. Tons of molten metal found by FDNY and numerous other experts under all 3 high-rises ”

The only thing they have to support this are layman testimony.

That is incorrect, there are many witnesses, and many experts including engineers , firemen, iron workers and cleaup crews. these would have as much experience as any dealing with fire disaster situations.

"Molten steel beam" etc... If it's molten steel, then how can it be a beam?

something described as a "molten steel beam" is not a description for a "beam" but it could easily be a description for a partly melted beam, that would be one end melted and the other end not melted, do you understand? you seem to be relying on semantics to restrict your thinking.

Quote after quote seems to be describing red hot steel/metal rather than liquid steel/metal.

there are many quotes that do not limit the description to only "red hot metal". you are ignoring contrary evidence. Here is an example filtered out by your cherry picking - firemen stating "molten steel running down the channel rails, like lava, like a volcano, like you were in a foundry".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afZaK8zVbUw

 

[Headspin]

5. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds ”

Pyroclastic dust clouds are from volcanoes. It seems like he is trying to use it as a simile, or that he doesn't understand what the word means.

Anyway, any building collapse will give off a huge dust cloud. 10 story building as I have shown you before

It is not that the dust clouds were simply a visual simile of a volcanic dust cloud. They had other physical characteristics in common with volcanic clouds. Pyroclastic is a good description because the clouds thermally expanded. Witnesses reported it was very hot when it engulfed them. One witness said it burned and gave them a rash, and weeks later metallic detritis oozed from the skin. this is consistent with red hot microspheres burning and burrowing into the skin. The dust cloud expanded to 5 times its volume which can only occur with a heat source. The cars in the parking lot covered by the dust cloud were corroded and caught fire by this wtc "dust" cloud. This is simply not a dust cloud formed from an air disturbance due to a collapse. This is a thermally expanded dust cloud, meaning an unnatural and extreme heat source was the cause for the pulverised concrete cloud to thermally expand, similar to the process for a volcanic pyroclastic cloud.

 

[MacGyver1968]

Y'all just make shit up as you go, don't you?

 

[Headspin]

2. Sounds of explosions and flashes of light witnessed near the beginning of the "collapse" by over 100 first responders ”

Despite many cameras (both video and still images) reveal NO flashes and no sounds other than the expected rumble of collapse.

this has been brought to your attention many times:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2074695&postcount=1962
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2074474&postcount=1942
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2074365&postcount=1928
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2031653&postcount=1039

I've shown you this before:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw

check out what the bbc said:
"there are more explosions further down the building...there was an explosion about 20 stories further down, i was at the base of the building when it happened, there was one huge bang..then 2 or three bangs"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45fZlX1ZCU0
"there was another big explosion...then an hour latr we had that big explosion from much lower...I don;t know what caused that" wtach his reaction as the second shockwave hits him. notice that the video sound recording does not pick up the shockwave.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D17QP2kna1I

here he is again describing many major explosions as the planes hit, after the planes hit and just prior to the collapse of the towers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bjezhp0rL3M&feature=related

Most of these flashes appear to be ABOVE the actual collapse point and in NO WAY are the explosive in nature. It looks more like peices of debris reflecting sunlight.

now you say there were "NO flashes"

you are denying the basic facts.