The Tragedy of 9/11 and Science?

Question

Do you think that various scientific principles are violated and even downgraded by the official 'explanation' of the tragic events of 9/11/2001 ? For example, in matters such as planes entering steel framed buildings, tower collapses, the apparent speeds of planes at low altitude, etc etc. ? That we have been, in fact, presiding over Mickey Mouse style 'explanations' which have undermined real respect for scientific principles ?

The newly discovered ability of jet fuel (modified kerosene) to weaken steel structures, of aluminium coated fibreglass wings to pierce specially designed steel reinforced buildings, etc etc etc.

The newly discovered ability of jet fuel (modified kerosene) to weaken steel structures, of aluminium coated fibreglass wings to pierce specially designed steel reinforced buildings, etc etc etc.

As a matter of plain fact the NIST report does NOT deal with the final moments of the tower - an issue currently being taken to law by Dr Judy Wood (see Drjudywood.com) in her detailed proof of the towers NOT so much collapsing as being turned in to powder - vast areas reduced to dust even before the lower floors were destroyed. To avoid such huge evidence is just chicanery of the worst kind. Scholars for 9/11 Truth include many who demonstrate that the official 'explanation' of tower collapses is no explanation at all. We are seeing in the data no evidence whatsover of floors collapsing in a pancake fashion and not even a fraction of debris at Ground Zero had there been such a 'collapse'. The official story is moonshine. It does not deserve being called 'science'.

The Twin Towers (contrary to popular myth - and Popular Mechanics) did NOT collapse. They clearly disintegrate even as they are being destroyed. Let's be honest instead of devious !

The Purdue study has widely been condemned by all who've read it as unscientific - letters to them saying that it is extremely poor and that it calls in to question the scientific integrity of that University. See article on Purdue politics versus science on 'Scholars for 9/11 Truth'.

Unless/until scientists get off their backsides and actually examine the evidence of these towers being destroyed by energy weapons (as were some 1400 vehicles, many of them city blocks from the WTC) we are deceiving others and are unworthy of claiming that we have dealt with these issues honestly. The 9/11 Reports are moonshine and are riddled with factual errors and omissions.

Answer 1

The question was, "do you think scientific principles are violated......?

Of course science was violated.

Anyone who is intellignet can find the blatent illogic of the following arguments. I'll just give 3 for example:

1. Planes full of fuel crashed into the twin towers. Therefore WTC7, which wasn't hit by planes full of fuel, fell smoothly down.

2. Flight 93 couldn't have been shot down because the fighters were over a hundred miles away. It would take a long time for an F15 to fly a hundred miles!

3. All of the video camera records around the pentagon from gas stations and parking lots were confiscated. The FBI can release pictures from these films to 'proove' that the pentagon was hit by a plane, but the FBI would rather have citizens suspicious of the official story, so it's not releasing those films.

Those are not logical statements! But they are only a small example of the absurd logic I've heard to support the official story.

Just look at the illogic of Brent Blanchards links in one the of posts here.

Surely you can find the illogic in his argument. I'll shorten one of his paragraphs to make a point:

Planned demolitions are usually placed on the bottom floors of buildings. Therefore it's impossible for demolitions to start on the upper floors.

That's just clearly illogical! You start the demolitions on higher floors and synchronize the expolsions to match the planned rate-of-fall of the building. You do this so that the explosions are hidden in the smoke from the fires. (but too bad the ones 50ft below wern't hidden. we saw those.)

1. Demoltions would have to be placed right at the impact point which they couldn't know of or else, 2. the demolitions would have to be placed quickly while the buildings were burning. it's IMPOSSIBLE for a 3rd explanation.

To bad for Brents illogic that a 3rd explanation is impossilbe.
Once the explosives were planted, you start the synchronized explosions from the impact point. so there. there's a 3rd explantaion. the statement that a 3rd explanation is impossible is simply illogical.

Answer 2

I've done my own studies that show there was enough energy within the building, due to jet fuel fires, to raise the temperature of the steel columns well past the melting point.

What the conspiracy theorists always fail to take into account is, that any fire, from any fuel, when contained in an insulated (or in this case semi-insulated) environment will cause the temperature in said environment to rise well beyond the 'free-air' ignition temperature of the fuel. They only will cite the free-air ignition temperature of the fuel.

One of my calculations puts the steel at well over 10,000 degrees F in some hot-spots. At that temperature it would be totally liquid.

Study the WWII fire bombing raid over Dresden, Germany, (or some of the fire bombings over Tokyo). The fuel was mainly wood (ignited by petro fuel), yet the temperatures rose to well over 1000 degrees F -- FROM WOOD!!! And that was in a much more 'open' environment than the WTC.

I can put a 1 watt heater inside a styrofoam cooler, close the lid, poke a thermometer through the foam and watch the temperature go up, and up, and up, an up -- from a 1 watt heater! Imagine how hot it could get with 20,000 gallons of jet fuel on fire.

.

Answer 3

I need to explain something about your statement “the NIST report does NOT deal with the final moments of the tower”

With all due respect, this is a very misleading statement.

NIST used a computer model that followed the towers up to the moment of “global instability,” which means up to the point where collapse started. It did go past this point because collapse is too chaotic and can’t be modeled. However, this is completely unimportant, because the computer model showed, without any doubt, that the impact and fire caused the collapse of the tower.

So when you say "NIST did NOT deal with the final moments of the collapse," it's both unimportant and deceptive.

It doesn’t matter how or where the towers fell; it just matters that NIST proved that the impact & fires were sufficient.

Secondly, about the towers being reduced to “dust.” This is of course absurd. Only conspiracy folks say that.

REALITY: Whenever a building or stadium collapses, you get a large dust cloud, no matter what the cause. So the question becomes, was the dust cloud too big (suggesting that bombs went off) when WTC1&2 collapsed? Only an expert can tell you whether the dust cloud was more consistent with bombs than with collapse alone.

Fortunately, we have experts who have analyzed the collapse.

Moreover, they published their findings for all to see in an article in the leading demolition journal, "ImplosionWorld." They say the collapse did not look like a “controlled demolition.” See Point #1 in:

http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf

Thirdly, Dr Judy Wood can claim to “prove” anything, but the fact remains that her “proof” has not been accepted in any peer-reviewed journal. The REAL experts have their proofs published in scientific journals that stand up to peer-review. Dr. Wood’s “proof” is worth nothing at all if it can’t get published.

Here are some explanations of the collapse by real experts. Many of these have been published in scientific & technical journals. Here's just a few:

-- The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) http://www.asce.org/pressroom/news/display_press.cfm?uid=1057

-- Massachusetts Institute of Technology. See http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/

--NIST (National Institute on Science and Technology):
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
Also see the lead investigator of NIST explain the collapse at
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/
Click on "Impact to Collapse"

-- The leading demolition journal in the world is against the conspiracy theorists:
http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf

-- Purdue (http://www.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/020910.Sozen.Pentagon.html

--Professor Bazant (Northwestern Dept of Civil Engineering) is one of only 14 people to win the Prager Award in engineering. He first described the collapse mechanism as follows: http://www.debunking911.com/ProgressiveCollapseWTC-6-23-2006.pdf
------------
NOTE: NIST never supported the "pancake theory". NIST explicitly rejects this theory. See point #2 at the NIST FAQ page:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Answer 4

A word contained in the commercial international is a promise to pay. for instance, in case you borrow money to purchase a automobile or a house, you signal a "word", promising the commercial organization that you'll be able to pay them again below the words of the word. The dollar bill you've is a word from the Federal Reserve Banks to pay you. The Federal Reserve is a private entity prevalent through the U. S. Congress in 1913 via the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. previous to the institution of the Fed Reserve Banks, human beings had "US Notes" issued through the U. S. Treasury branch. some human beings ought to say the U. S. economy has been managed through inner most banks ever considering then. enable me supply an social gathering. Say they challenge $a million million (through fiat, which skill, arbitrarily, without gold to again up the money). the U. S. authorities borrows this $a million million to pay for its costs (payroll, progression dams or roads, and so on). In replace, the U. S. authorities themes bonds again to the Federal Reserve The bond fee is more suitable than $a million million because the Federal Reserve expenditures interest. Say the interest is $50,000. So now there is $a million million in move. yet the position ought to the authorities get this $50,000 .... considering all money is issued through the Federal Reserve to start with. Therein lies the challenge.

Answer 5

No one claims that fuel (modified kerosene) directly weakens steel structures. The belief is that heat from fire weakens steel structures and that fuel (modified kerosene) burns. Neither of these is a newly discovered ability. The ability of kerosene to burn was discovered before airplanes were invented. The ability of fire to weaken structures has been known since antiquity.

Answer 6

This is nothing for you to get your shorts in a tangle over.

The official explanations are all accepted and are in strict accordance with any and all scientific and construction principles.

It's time for all you naysayers to take your limited knowledge of things scientific and for you to get yourselves enlisted in Al Gore's new army of non-science. (get it? nonscience, reminds you of nonsense)

Answer 7

burning kerosene can't melt fire proof steel .Only thermite can