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

[John99]

Well now that i see how sensitive you are perhaps i will not respond to your posts at all. One thing that has become apparent is that you have never conducted an investigation.

We have a mixture of profiteering from books, video's, radio shows etc to animosity and outright stupidity. Now i have no ulterior motivation's for disbelieving far out conclusions but i believe that you are extrapolating a series of events into one specific event. That is at the heart of all conspiracy theories. Sometimes the answer is right in front of your face.

And at the end of the day it is all an exercise in futility on my part - I may make you feel but I can't make you think.

 

[Headspin]

If that were the case, same issue: she just held onto a bunch of dust from WTC for years and years because...? Why? Because she knew in her heart of hearts that it was going to be important to illustrate a controlled demolition years later? It doesn't. Add. Up. Period. It is extraordinarily fishy - completely fishy. He gives a mushy name that sounds like "Cynthia McKinley" - so who is she? Then a "PhD physicist" collects some, and then the other two are supposedly from later on. Again - why? Was there any doubt about the attack at that point? Private individuals just decided to collect some dust? It isn't reasonable, and it smells very, very fishy.

Why? I don't see anything fishy.

I saw those; not much of a test, heating stuff in a cup compared to an open fire.

the experiment used a blue flame (hotter) and they were attempting to recreate the orange colour of molten aluminium - they could not! therefore the statement by NIST that the yellow orange molten metal was aluminium with "bits of carpet" etc was NOT a scientific statement - it was pure speculation!

Because I'm very concerned about where the samples came from. Wouldn't it be simple, I wonder, to cook up a sample with the parameters you want and to "mail it in" for "analysis"? His samples have no chain of evidence and he has a definite bias in his outlook.

What "chain of evidence" would you expect to see given the circumstances? isn't that a legal term? members of the public are not the FBI, in the majority they do not behave like lawyers or cops. I doubt whether even NIST scientists follow formal chain of custody procedures. The lack of formal chain of custody procedure for samples collected by members of the public is not a reason for suspicion. It seems to me your argument for doubting the evidence is just an argument from personal incredulity:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance#Argument_from_personal_incredulity

 

[Headspin]

Well now that i see how sensitive you are perhaps i will not respond to your posts at all

if i was overly sensitive, i would hardly have entered such hostile terrain. i think you use your personal attacks to avoid dealing with the issues.

One thing that has become apparent is that you have never conducted an investigation.

this guy has conducted an investigation, he was a long time senior LAPD detective, maybe you should read it.

http://www.amazon.com/Crossing-Rubi...=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1224677984&sr=8-6

We have a mixture of profiteering from books, video's, radio shows etc to animosity and outright stupidity. Now i have no ulterior motivation's for disbelieving far out conclusions but i believe that you are extrapolating a series of events into one specific event. That is at the heart of all conspiracy theories.

There are books and media published that support all sides, to pretend that unofficial theories are profiteering, and pretend the msm and other media that support the official story are not profiteering by all this is clearly mistaken. I guess what you mean is that there is good profiteering and bad profiteering, right?

read war is a racket by smedley butler to find out about profiteering
http://www.amazon.com/War-Racket-An...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1224678264&sr=8-1

Sometimes the answer is right in front of your face.

which is what exactly?

And at the end of the day it is all an exercise in futility on my part - I may make you feel but I can't make you think.

so if nanothermite explosive was found in the dust, how would that make you feel and think?

 

[shaman_]

It is not enough to believe someone just because of their expertise. If a scientist says "the sky is green", then it does not follow that the statement "the sky is green" is based on good science.

Are you talking to the sceptics or the conspiracy theorists?

 

[GeoffP]

Why? I don't see anything fishy.

You don't see anything fishy about a private individual just hanging on to samples from the most important event in recent US history until sent to the good Dr. Jones who just happens to test it for thermite? Were they sent to NIST? Who collected them? How's it known from where they were collected?? There's none of this information. The samples are effectively nonexistant.

Headspin: the experiment used a blue flame (hotter) and they were attempting to recreate the orange colour of molten aluminium - they could not! therefore the statement by NIST that the yellow orange molten metal was aluminium with "bits of carpet" etc was NOT a scientific statement - it was pure speculation!

Note the color of the substance as it cools and solidifies toward the end of its journey. Molten steel would turn almost black. One thing it's not, and that's black.

http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

At what temperature is aluminum silver and what temperature

The next piece of evidence they point to is the color, which is a bright yellow at the center. They say aluminum is silver when melted. While this is true, at higher temperatures it can be yellow.

Jones writes: "This is a point worth emphasizing: aluminum has low emissivity and high reflectivity, so that in daylight conditions molten aluminum will appear silvery-gray"

I think at a cooler temperature, he's right.

What's telling about this photo isn't that it's proof of the substance being aluminum, It's that it's a zoom and crop of the photo from Jones own paper. (Time for him to change yet another one of his photos.) Below is a screenshot from National Geographic's "Inside 911".

One of the pieces of evidence Jones points to is a snapshot of the flow falling down the side the building. This pyrotechnic show seems ominous, that is until you look at it closely...

Besides which, long before the steel melted, the bolts would have failed. Collapse would have been imminent:

Below is a message from Stephen D. Chastain of Metal Talk.

Several times over the last year I have been asked to comment on a photo of one of the Trade Center Towers. The photo shows a molten flow from one of the windows. The flow falls down along the building. It appears orange and turns to a gray color as it cools.

The questions usually want me to address "Is this photo a fake?" and "Is the flow steel or aluminum?" "Is this situation possible?"

First, I will address the temperature range, then the color of the flow.

I am working in imperial units and temperature in degrees F [To convert to C use this link]

Metals lose about 50% of their strength at 60% of their melting temperature. This is common knowledge and may be found in any undergraduate text regarding "Fracture and Deformation of Materials."

If the approximate melting temperature of steel is 2750 F the the material would be plastic at 1650 F. Even assuming a safety factor of 3, you would expect the bolts or other structural members to deform and fail near this temperature, especially with the additional weight if a jet air liner. I would assume that the live load calculations did not include the typical office equipment and an airliner plus a factor of 3. THEREFORE I assume that the flow is not steel and that the temperature of the steel members at the time of the photo is less than 1650 F.

Assuming that the flow would be molten aluminum from the airliner and the color of molten aluminum is silver then why is the flow orange?

The color of pure molten aluminum is silver, It has an emissivity of .12. Steel has an emissivity of .4 and appears orange in the temperature range of molten aluminum.

The emissivity of aluminum oxide is .44 and also appears orange in the melting temperature range of molten aluminum.

The emissivity of plate glass is .937 It begins to soften at 1000 F and flows around 1350 F. Silica has an emissivity of .8

Copper oxide also has an emissivity of .8. however I will assume that their effect is negligible.

Aluminum oxidizes readily in the foundry under ideal melting conditions. Large surface area relative to thickness, turbulence, the presence of water or oil greatly increases the oxidation of aluminum. A jet airliner is made of thin aluminum sheet and most probably suffered considerable oxidation especially in contact with an open flame and being in contact with jet fuel. If you don't believe this, try melting a few soda cans over coals or open flame. If you are lucky you will end up with only 50% aluminum oxide. However, the cans may completely burn up.

The specific gravity of aluminum is 2.7. The specific gravity of aluminum oxide (Al2O3-3H2O) is 2.42 the specific gravity of Si = 2.40 and Glass is 2.65 these are all very similar and likely to be entrained in a molten aluminum flow. Don't believe it? lightly stir the dross into molten aluminum. The surface tension is so high is is almost impossible to separate them.

THEREFORE assuming that the flow consist of molten aluminum and considerable oxides, and assuming that the windows in the trade center were plate glass and also in a plastic state and that they were also likely entrained in the molten aluminum. I would expect the flow to appear to be orange in color. Especially since both the entrained materials have emissivities equal to or more than twice that of iron.

Also since dross cools to a gray color and glass with impurities also turns dark. I would expect that the flow would darken upon cooling.

I would also suggest that not only is the photo possible, but entirely likely.

Summary: The flow is not steel because the structural steel would fail well below the melting temperature. The flow is likely to be a mixture of aluminum, aluminum oxides, molten glass and coals of whatever trash the aluminum flowed over as it reached the open window. Such a flow would appear orange and cool to a dark color.

Stephen D. Chastain

The colour of molten aluminum is temperature-dependent. From 1200-600F (pretty likely for a molted metal at 1800F, then exposed to air in an actual free fall), it turns orange-red. Note how it looks more orange-red the further it falls, and the cooler it certainly must be. For more information:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhHzMttUKO0

What "chain of evidence" would you expect to see given the circumstances? isn't that a legal term? members of the public are not the FBI, in the majority they do not behave like lawyers or cops. I doubt whether even NIST scientists follow formal chain of custody procedures. The lack of formal chain of custody procedure for samples collected by members of the public is not a reason for suspicion.

It certainly bloody is, when they've been preaching their own bizarre view of events for seven years after a terrorist attack. Are you insane?

Best regards,

Geoff

 

[shaman_]

so if nanothermite explosive was found in the dust, how would that make you feel and think?

Jones ignores the other possible explanations for the spheres he has found. It certainly appears that he does little to falsify his own work. He has blinkers on and heads straight for the CD theory every time.

 

[fedr808]

once more! jet fuel is not diesel fuel. It burns at two thousand + degrees when you use a little cup of it. Imagine what a few thousand of gallons of it burns at? Most people say significantly higher than 8000 in right conditions.

 

[GeoffP]

Did you even open the link I provided?

Yes, I did. It contained elements of "evidencyness", but no actual evidence.

Maybe she felt that at some point, someone would actually get to testing the dust for thermite arson, as is standard procedure where arson is suspected.

I see. And she was a civil engineer or demolitions expert, was she, that she would know this??

And that - moreover - she would know that NIST wouldn't perform a test of thermite, also. What remarkable insight she must have! She knew all about thermite testing in demolitions, knew it would be an inside job, knew that the NIST wouldn't test for thermite. If I were going to be humorous about the whole thing, I'd ask you why a demolitions expert is in the WTC at all. Then again, if she was as amazingly prescient as you say, wouldn't she have known that there was going to be an attack in the first place? I would have got out of the towers long before if the tea leaves had read wrong.

What's fishy is why NIST never tested the dust itself and still refuses to even talk to Steven Jones, let alone test the dust now that the cat is out of the bag.

Have they refused to do so? I have seen no evidence whatsoever that this is so.

My point is that he's meticulous in his research. I also think it's a lot easier for a physicist to learn about engineering principles then an engineer to learn about muon catalyzed fusion.

No, this isn't it. He's a known advocate of some kind of controlled demolition theory - whatever the evidence around such a theory - and her sending the material to him strikes me as very strange indeed. Would not an independent party have been preferable?

A real eye opener to me at any rate:
*********************************
Government's 9/11 Investigators Were ALSO Lead OKC Bombing Investigators
Would you be surprised to learn that the exact same investigators who headed up the government's investigation into the World Trade Center collapses and the Pentagon attack on 9/11 also headed up the government's investigation into the Oklahoma City bombing?

O-kaaaay. Why is this an eye-opening surprise? They were probably chosen since they had experience with terrorism. Not surprising. They were chosen since they had experience with terrorism, and Dr. Jones since he had experience posing mythical theories in the Americas based on no real evidence.

Several of these individuals have strong connections to industries that benefited from the attack, and that would suffer if it were known that 9/11 was an inside job, such as armaments makers and oil and gas producers.

First off, demonstrate these relationships. Second off, explain how they don't apply to Steven Jones' speaking salary at 9/11 and Trekkie conventions.

Does this essay put the above-described information in perspective?

No. What are you trying to say?

Best regards,

Geoff

 

[GeoffP]

Scott, did she know about nanothermite also? Does she have the names of the real 9/11 attackers? Can she tell me what stocks I should sell or buy?



Geoff

 

[scott3x]

Several of these individuals have strong connections to industries that benefited from the attack, and that would suffer if it were known that 9/11 was an inside job, such as armaments makers and oil and gas producers.

First off, demonstrate these relationships...

Here:
********************************************
Thursday, November 08, 2007
The Professional Cover-Up Artists
The same professional cover-up artists are brought in again and again to cover up self-inflicted terror attacks, military stand downs, and other acts acts of deception and false flag terror.

For example:

* The same political hack who whitewashed Iran-Contra also made sure that the 9/11 Commission found only that "innocent mistakes were made"*

* The same expert on myth-making who has helped to cover up the likelihood that Japan was allowed to attack Pearl Harbor was also instrumental in covering up the fact that 9/11 was allowed to happen

* The same scientists who covered up the anomalies surrounding the Oklahoma City bombing are covering up the truth of what happened on 9/11.

* He later admitted that the 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials lied to the Commission, and considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements, yet didn't bother to tell the American people; that the 9/11 Commission largely operated based upon political considerations; that "I don't believe for a minute we got everything right", that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, that the 9/11 debate should continue, and that the 9/11 Commission report was only "the first draft" of history (see this). However, when he was in his role as co-chair of the Commission, he promoted the whitewash.

Of course, the White House tried to bring in perhaps the greatest cover up artist of all time, Henry Kissinger, to chair the 9/11 Commission. However, Mr. Kissinger's reputation was too well-known, and the families of the 9/11 victims objected to his nomination. So cover-up professionals with slightly lower profiles had to be brought in.
********************************************

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/11/cover-up-pros.html

 

[GeoffP]

So your synthesis is based on the assumption of coverups in everything else. Guilt by association; the core problem is that these, with the exception of Contra, also aren't proven. How do we know that innocent mistakes weren't the only ones made?

You don't go, girl.

 

[KennyJC]

You're right, you can't scale everything down. But surely you must realize that steel is much stronger then cardboard

I know that steel is stronger than cardboard. A human body is also stronger than a spiders body, yet a spider can survive falls comparable to us falling off a cliff (or a skyscraper). It's all to do with weight and momentum. Thus it is a moment of shocking stupidity or deceit that someone thinks a small peice of cardboard will replicate the physics of a structure that is god knows how many tons.

and that many architects and engineers, not to mention a few physicists believe that only controlled demolition had the capacity of bringing down those buildings. Architects and Engineers work with -real- buildings

So what if less than 1% of scientists or so called experts will think the WTC was demolished? What about the 99% who think these people are idiots?

What you read in textbooks in respected universities only gets there by consensus; when experts agree almost unanimously on an issue.

and physicists know a lot about things such as the preservation of energy.

Do they also know anything about transfer of momentum?

One day, I hope that you will thoroughly read articles, such as Steven Jones' "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?":
http://physics911.net/stevenjones

You may be surprised at what you find.

One thing you may be surprised about is people who on paper have impressive credentials who would use that to their advantage in promoting ridiculous theories such as creationists or 9/11 truthers.

Fortunately, these dishonest people in science are a dot on a page and poison only YouTube rather than our textbooks in schools.

 

[GeoffP]

I'd like to ask again about the sequestering of the sample: who collected it? Why? Where was it held? How was it secured? Do we know it actually came from the WTC? Are we sure it wasn't salted? (I remind one and all: Indonesian gold scandal.) Etc etc.

 

[MacGyver1968]

I collected it...placed it in a condom...lubed it up...and shoved it up my bung hole. It hurt at first...but later I began to enjoy it.

That's why the samples had high indicators for "butt lube".

 

[GeoffP]

Not again, Mac.

Sigh.

 

[scott3x]

So your synthesis is based on the assumption of coverups in everything else. Guilt by association; the core problem is that these, with the exception of Contra, also aren't proven.

Atleast you believe in Iran Contra. That's a start. Here's a little excerpt from one of the pages that the article I quoted linked to:
*************************************
George Bush Jr. has appointed numerous felons and others from the Iran Contra scandal to prominent positions in his current administration. He has suspiciously appointed Iran-contra insider, Lee Hamilton, to head the 9-11 investigation after a failed attempt to appoint wanted war criminal Henry Kissinger. His advisors in Latin American affairs are none other than Otto reich and Roger Noriega. Both implicated in Iran-contra and behind the recent coup in Haiti.
*************************************
http://web.archive.org/web/20070210125354/http://www.oldamericancentury.org/bushco/bushcontra.htm

How do we know that innocent mistakes weren't the only ones made?

But ofcourse. With such upstanding citizens such as Lee Hamilton, what could possibly occur but innocent mistakes? You may wish to have a look at the link I provided to see other such upstanding citizens that Bush appointed to his administration...

 

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by scott3x

Did you even open the link I provided?

Yes, I did. It contained elements of "evidencyness", but no actual evidence.

Well, for our audience, let's take a little look at this 'evidencyness'. Most judges don't trust 'confessions' extracted in Guatanamo Bay. Do you? This guy seems to 'confess' to everything under the sun. Perhaps it would be wiser to ask who -wouldn't- confess to whatever after a few years of torture.
**************************************
Editor's note

The Pentagon has released a 26 page transcript of the "confession" of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (pdf) who is
now being presented to World public opinion as the mastermind and architect of the September 11, 2001 attacks.

This "confession" was read (in his presence) from a prepared text by his "personal [legal?] representative" at "military hearings" held behind closed doors at the US Guantanamo concentration camp.

According to the transcript, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed claims responsibility for the attacks on the WTC twin towers and the Pentagon: “I was responsible for the 9/11 operation, from A to Z.”

According to his prepared statement, he also "confessed" to an impressive list of terrorist attacks as well as the planning of a “second wave” of post 9/11 attacks, which were to include the bombings of skyscrapers in New York, Chicago and Washington, attacks on London's Heathrow airport, Canary Warf and the Tower of Big Ben.

He also claimed responsibility for the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, Richard Reid’s attempt to ignite a shoe bomb on an Transatlantic flight in December 2001, and the October 2002 Bali bombings in Indonesia.

In a statement read by his personal representative, he allegedly confessed to planning the assassination of several former presidents, including Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, as well as Pope John Paul II.

With regard to The Wall Street Journal's reporter Daniel Pearl, KSM's statement reads: “I decapitated with my blessed right hand the head of the American Jew Daniel Pearl... For those who would like to confirm, there are pictures of me on the Internet holding his head.”

KSM was arrested in March 2003 and was then imprisoned for more than three years in secret CIA detention facilities. He claims to have made this confession without any form of pressure being exerted on him. Several press reports suggest that he was tortured.

Khalid Sheikh Mohamed personifies the "outside enemy" of America. His "confession" upholds the illusion that Al Qaeda outwitted the 40 billion dollar US intelligence apparatus, in waging a terrorist attack on America.

The arrest and confessed statements of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed serve to uphold the official 9/11 narrative, namely that the 9/11 attacks were masterminded by Islamic terrorists.

The following text by Chaim Kupferberg, first published by Global Research in October 2003, shortly after the arrest of KSM, reveals with foresight and accuracy the nature of the propaganda ploy. According to Kupferberg, a "marketing plan" was established in June 2002 to introduce Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to the public as the 9/11 mastermind.

Kupferberg exposes how the official legend was fabricated around Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.

His analysis reveals the historical background behind the creation of the 9/11 Legend. The latter serves to drown the lies and inconsistencies contained in the official 9/11 narrative; it also sustains the "global war on terrorism".

Serious doubts have been expressed on the authenticity of the KSM confession. The latter is ultimately intended, in a clumsy and inept fashion, to uphold the shaky legitimacy of the Bush administration.
**************************************
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=KUP20070315&articleId=5087

 

[scott3x]

Have they refused to do so? I have seen no evidence whatsoever that this is so.

Not only have they refused to do so: -articles- have been written pointing out why they should. And yet, things stay the same. I've already posted what may be the best article out there on why they should. It seems, however, as if I may have confused Robert Moore with Robert F. Moore, who is NIST's program director of Advanced Measurement Laboratories. Regardless, his article is still quite good:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2057222&postcount=1564

My point is that he's meticulous in his research. I also think it's a lot easier for a physicist to learn about engineering principles then an engineer to learn about muon catalyzed fusion.

No, this isn't it. He's a known advocate of some kind of controlled demolition theory - whatever the evidence around such a theory - and her sending the material to him strikes me as very strange indeed. Would not an independent party have been preferable?

No one else even seemed interested in testing for it. Jones, on the other hand, seems to have actively sought a sample. Geoff, there are times when I begin to question your honesty; at the very least, with yourself. I've pointed out -so- much evidence suggesting that the government wants to simply bury all of this and yet you seem to ignore it all. If, however, you did see a bit between mainly shut eyelids, you may consider the possibility that the only people who would possibly want to go against the government on the burying job are people whose principles are of the highest calibur and who are very hard indeed to bribe or threaten into submission.

 

[scott3x]

A real eye opener to me at any rate:
*********************************
Government's 9/11 Investigators Were ALSO Lead OKC Bombing Investigators

Would you be surprised to learn that the exact same investigators who headed up the government's investigation into the World Trade Center collapses and the Pentagon attack on 9/11 also headed up the government's investigation into the Oklahoma City bombing?
*********************************

O-kaaaay. Why is this an eye-opening surprise? They were probably chosen since they had experience with terrorism. Not surprising. They were chosen since they had experience with terrorism, and Dr. Jones since he had experience posing mythical theories in the Americas based on no real evidence.

'They were probably' becomes 'they were'. Sure, they had experience with terrorism. And the covering up of. But yes, I know, that is the part you'd say there was no evidence for. I'll post an excerpt of a very long article and hope that you'll read beyond the part I post here. You may recognize the bit on conspiracy theories ...
************************************
9/11: Looking for Truth in Credentials: The Peculiar WTC “Experts”

When Matthew Rothschild, editor of the online magazine The Progressive, wrote an article called “Enough of the 9/11 Conspiracies, Already”, we all knew he was not talking about the conspiracy theory that the US government sells us to justify the expanding 9/11 Wars.[1] To the contrary, in writing that article Mr. Rothschild was selling that same theory himself. What he actually meant was that people should not question the US government’s story of terror because credentialed experts have been found to support it. But the fact is that the experts found to support the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 are predominantly those who profit from doing so. That’s not to say that all of these people were “part of the conspiracy”. But they are, whether consciously or not, a part of the cover-up. And that, of course, is the greater crime.

The Bush Administration employed a number of such credentialed experts to give us multiple explanations for the unprecedented destruction of three tall steel-framed buildings at the World Trade Center (WTC). Unfortunately, all of those explanations have proven to be false, and this fact reminds us that academic credentials don’t necessarily make a person more capable, or more likely, to tell the truth.

Exactly how they could find so many experts on the fire-induced collapse of tall buildings is not immediately clear, considering such an event had never happened before. But it did help that the questions were quickly framed as being solely matters of structural engineering, a sub-field of civil engineering, because structural engineers cannot find work without continual government approvals. A Chemistry laboratory manager like myself can work without permits or licenses, but people can’t just go out and build a bridge or a tall building on their own. The extensive paperwork necessary to complete civil engineering projects is obtained by working closely with, and staying on good terms with, local and national authorities. That fact may not be enough to ensure vocal support for the official story of “global collapse”, but it has been enough to keep most structural engineers from publicly opposing the intransigent government stance on the WTC events.
************************************
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5071

Second off, explain how they don't apply to Steven Jones' speaking salary at 9/11 and Trekkie conventions.

You think -I'm- getting paid to type this stuff up? I think you should focus on the fact that the people who are getting taxpayers dollars are not the likes of Steven Jones. Steven Jones is resourceful and has managed to make a living out of all of this it would seem, but I think it's safe to say that most of the people who get paid for talking about 9/11 are the debunkers.

 

[scott3x]

I know that steel is stronger than cardboard. A human body is also stronger than a spiders body, yet a spider can survive falls comparable to us falling off a cliff (or a skyscraper). It's all to do with weight and momentum. Thus it is a moment of shocking stupidity or deceit that someone thinks a small piece of cardboard will replicate the physics of a structure that is god knows how many tons.

I haven't really analyzed his cardboard model. However, it's clear that there have been some very detailed explanations of why the official story doesn't hold water in regards to momentum. Here's a small excerpt of a rather technical document on the subject:
******************************************
Momentum Transfer Analysis of the Collapse of the Upper Storeys of WTC 1

Author:
The author of this work, Gordon Ross, was born in Dundee, Scotland. He holds degrees in both Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, graduating from Liverpool John Moores University, in 1984. He can be contacted at gordonjross@yahoo.com.

Summary:
This paper examines the elastic loading and plastic shortening phases of the columns of WTC 1 after impact of the upper 16 storeys of the building upon the lower storeys and its effect on the momentum transfer after the collision. An energy balance is derived showing that there is an energy deficit before completion of the plastic shortunder the constraints of this paper.
******************************************
http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf

And another:
****************************************
Response to NIST on Energy and Momentum

Dr. Crockett Grabbe
University of Iowa & SeaLane Consulting
www.SeaLane.org
www.physics.uiowa.edu/~cgrabbe

ABSTRACT
NIST, in their latest Answers to FAQs, artfully dodges the important issues on the physics of conservation of energy and momentum in the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7. These issues and their unmistakable implications are addressed.
****************************************
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/g/GrabbeToNISTenergyMomentum.pdf