@KJame: "Conservatives for 9/11 Truth
By 911wasInsideJob
Most people, when they encounter 9/11 skeptics for the first time, assume that most members of the 911 truth movement
would be drawn from the left of center politically.  In fact, most of the strongest and most respected voices speaking
about 911 truth are conservatives old-school republicans who speak out of a profound respect for the truth, the
constitution and the rule of law.  For example:
Paul Craig Roberts
Paul Craig Roberts was the assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury under Ronald Reagan where he developed the theory of
economics that came to be called "Reaganomics.". Dr. Roberts is Chairman of the Institute for Political Economy and
Research Fellow at the Independent Institute. He is a former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, former
contributing editor for National Review.
Here is what Paul Craig Robert has to say about 9/11:
  "I haven't looked at it very close, but I did go to Georgia Tech and I did learn some physics and I know enough
physics to know that it is strictly impossible for those buildings to collapse in their own footprint, at free-fall
speed except under controlled demolition.  Those buildings did not come down the way the 9-11 report says.  It is
strictly impossible, in fact, it's a total, the account in the 911 report is a total contradiction to the laws of
physics".
Listen to the entire interview at ElectricPolitics .com (here) <url>
David Ray Griffin
David Ray Griffin is professor emeritus at the Claremont School of Theology, where he taught for over 30 years (retiring
in 2004). He has authored or edited over two dozen books, including "God and Religion in the Postmodern World,"
"Religion and Scientific Naturalism,"  recently he has written several papers and two books about 9/11; "The New Pearl
Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11."  And "The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and
Distortions"
Here is what David Ray Griffin has to say about 9/11:
  "It is, in any case, already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of
the World Trade Center was an inside job, orchestrated by domestic terrorists. Foreign terrorists could not have gotten
access to the buildings to plant the explosives. They probably would not have had the courtesy to make sure that the
buildings collapsed straight down, rather than falling over onto surrounding buildings. And they could not have
orchestrated a cover-up, from the quick disposal of the steel to the FEMA Report to The 9/11 Commission Report to the
NIST Report. All of these things could have been orchestrated only by forces within our own government". (read his
paper)  <url>
Ray McGovern
Ray McGovern had a 27-year career with the CIA as an analyst, spanning the administrations of JFK to GHW Bush. His
duties included chairing National Intelligence Estimates and preparing the President's Daily Brief (PDB). During the
mid-eighties, Ray was one of the senior analysts conducting early morning briefings of the PDB one-on-one with the Vice
President, the Secretaries of State and Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and the Assistant to the President
for National Security Affairs.
Here is what Ray McGovern has to say about 9/11:
  "There are real doubts in my mind whether they [Cheney and Rumsfield] clue the president in on some very serious
things, 9/11 for example. a lot of bizarre stuff going on there. very troubling.  What can be more telling than the fact
that the president was unwilling to see the commissioners alone, he had to have Cheney with him. that's not symbiosis,
that's making sure we've got our stories straight."
Listen to the entire interview at ElectricPolitics .com (here)
<url>
Morgan Reynolds
Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D., is professor emeritus at Texas A&M University and former director of the Criminal Justice Center
at the National Center for Policy Analysis headquartered in Dallas, TX. He served as chief economist for the US
Department of Labor during George W. Bush's first term.
Here is what Morgan Reynolds has to say about 9/11:
  "There is special import in the fact of free-fall collapse., if only because everyone agrees that the towers fell at
free-fall speed. This makes pancake collapse with one floor progressively falling onto the floor below an unattractive
explanation. Progressive pancaking cannot happen at free-fall speed ("g" or 9.8 m/s2). Free-fall would require "pulling"
or removing obstacles below before they could impede (slow) the acceleration of falling objects from above. Sequenced
explosions, on the other hand, explain why the lower floors did not interfere with the progress of the falling objects
above. The pancake theory fails this test.
  If we put the murder of 2,749 innocent victims momentarily aside, the only unusual technical feature of the collapses
of the twin towers was that the explosions began at the top, immediately followed by explosions from below. WTC-7, by
contrast, was entirely conventional, imploding from bottom up."  (read his paper)
Prof. Steven E. Jones
Steven E. Jones  is a professor of physics at Brigham Young University who conducts research in nuclear fusion and solar
energy. Jones has also investigated the hypothesis that the World Trade Center Twin Towers and WTC 7, which all
collapsed nearly symmetrically on September 11, 2001, were brought down by pre-positioned explosives.  Professor Jones
describes himself as a life-long Republican who voted for President Bush in 2000.
Here is what Professor Jones has to say about 9/11:
  "I have called attention to glaring inadequacies in the "final" reports funded by the US government.  I have also
presented multiple evidences for an alternative hypothesis.  In particular, the official theory lacks repeatability in
that no actual models or buildings (before or since 9-11-01) have been observed to completely collapse due to the
proposed fire-based mechanisms. On the other hand, dozens of buildings have been completely and symmetrically demolished
through the use of pre-positioned explosives.  And high-temperature chemical reactions can account for the observed
large pools of molten metal, under both Towers and WTC 7, and the sulfidation of structural steel.   The controlled-
demolition hypothesis cannot be dismissed as "junk science" because it better satisfies tests of repeatability and
parsimony.  It ought to be seriously (scientifically) investigated and debated".  (read his paper)
<url>
For more information go to <url>
<url>"
    @zero: "Well, K ames
Do this look like your name ?????????
On a statement, plus something here and minus something there, than the
statement becomes a lie
That is what you are doing and you call it truth
Go jump into the mud and wash yourself and call it a bath
HA!   HA!  try to bullshit some eh!
news:<email_address>
<quote>
that most members of the 911 truth movement
strongest and most respected voices speaking
of a profound respect for the truth, the
Ronald Reagan where he developed the theory of
of the Institute for Political Economy and
editor of the Wall Street Journal, former
did learn some physics and I know enough
collapse in their own footprint, at free-fall
down the way the 9-11 report says.  It is
is a total contradiction to the laws of
<url>
Theology, where he taught for over 30 years (retiring
and Religion in the Postmodern World,"
papers and two books about 9/11; "The New Pearl
"The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and
doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of
terrorists. Foreign terrorists could not have gotten
have had the courtesy to make sure that the
surrounding buildings. And they could not have
Report to The 9/11 Commission Report to the
forces within our own government". (read his
administrations of JFK to GHW Bush. His
President's Daily Brief (PDB). During the
briefings of the PDB one-on-one with the Vice
Chiefs, and the Assistant to the President
clue the president in on some very serious
troubling.  What can be more telling than the fact
have Cheney with him. that's not symbiosis,
<url>
html
former director of the Criminal Justice Center
served as chief economist for the US
because everyone agrees that the towers fell at
falling onto the floor below an unattractive
or 9.8 m/s2). Free-fall would require "pulling"
acceleration of falling objects from above. Sequenced
interfere with the progress of the falling objects
only unusual technical feature of the collapses
followed by explosions from below. WTC-7, by
paper)
conducts research in nuclear fusion and solar
Center Twin Towers and WTC 7, which all
pre-positioned explosives.  Professor Jones
in 2000.
funded by the US government.  I have also
particular, the official theory lacks repeatability in
observed to completely collapse due to the
have been completely and symmetrically demolished
chemical reactions can account for the observed
sulfidation of structural steel.   The controlled-
better satisfies tests of repeatability and
debated".  (read his paper)"
    @KJames: ""+1-1=0" <email_address> wrote in message news:44276a39$<email_address>
<quote>
You can add and subtract, I am impressed.
You are a geniuos, you figured it out on your own, very impressive."
    @KJames: "news:<email_address>
<quote>
The dancing Israelis arrested on 9/11 is a fact.
<url>
The Israeli spy ring arrested before and after 9/11 is a fact.
<url>"
    @KJames: "news:<email_address>
<quote>
Israel has a long history of  terrorist activity that gets blamed on Arabs.
<url>"
    @KJames: "news:<email_address>
<quote>
You can say anything you want kido .... you are nothing but a NAZI Terrorist Mr Muslim crusher."
    @artiemorty: "On 27 Mar 2006 19:05:10 -0800, "Anonymous Infidel - The Muslim
<quote>
Why don't you try to prove him wrong, instead of just abusing him?
Better still - why don't you post one point that will substantiate
(with evidence) that  either of the twin towers collapsed in a natural
state.
Artie..."
    @observer111: "news:<email_address>
<quote>
A<url> disappointed with you mate....
Everybody knows buildings collapse like
that.
We have "engineers" and "professors" in this
very forum who would vouch for that.....
LOL."
    @observer111: "news:<email_address>
<quote>
Ok....lets assume that the said "engineer" and
"university professors" are in fact real.
Lets start with SIMPLE calculations to start
the ball rolling for them to show how good a
"scientist" they are.
Hmmm....if I recall High School maths...it
goes like this...
For linear movements...(the buildings did fall
in a straight line, didn't they? Or are our resident
engineer and professor claiming they fell in an arc?
LOL).
a = (v - vi) / t
Since its falling down under gravitational force
a = g
Hence
g = (vf - vi) / t
Solving for t where t is the time it takes
for a mass on at the very top of collapsing WTC
to fall to the ground.
t = (vf - vi) / g
Since vi = 0
t = vf / g
Assuming constant acceleration during collapse
v avg = vf / 2
Hence
v avg = d / t   where d is the height of the WTC.
Thus
t = d / v avg
  = d / vf / 2
  = 2d / vf
  = 2d / gt
t^2 = 2d / g
t = sqrt ( 2d / g)
Hehe....see how easy it is to calculate the THEORETICAL
time it would take for the top of WTC to reach the ground
if its a FREEFALL condition without any resistance....including
air resistance.
See....these are all easily available in any High School
textbooks.
You cannot run away from these simple straight
forward calculations.
You can simply substitute the actual dimensions
of WTC into the formula and get the theoretical
time it should take to fall in PERFECT vacuum...
its not rocket science.
Can these equations be WRONG?
Are we teaching our students WRONG stuffs
all these while?
Now...any true blue engineer would know that in
the real world, its not perfect. There are resistances
(to a freefall) encountered....because the object did NOT fall
in a vacuum. So any true blue engineer would factor
in those real world resistances into the above "perfect"
formula.
So how would our "engineer" remodel this very
simple High School kinematics formula?
But we may be dealing with FAKE engineers who
even claim that tonnes of titanium can be vaporised
into thin air without being able to show the heat
calculations.
Hey artie...can you start the ball rolling for the
heat calculations (make it simple High School
maths so that there no excuse that our resident
engineer does NOT know it) to let our resident
"engineer" and a certain university professor
complete it....(if they can...that is)
LOL."
    @artiemorty: "On 28 Mar 2006 15:02:28 -0800, "Anonymous Infidel - The Muslim
<quote>
You are not a professional, yet it seems you accept the official
report without proof.
Why?
Artie..."
    @artiemorty: "On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 23:43:35 +0800, "Observer"
<quote>
It has been estimated the 767's that hit the WTC held approximately
10,000 gallons of fuel each (the tanks were not full - verified by
government report)
1 US gallon = 3.7584 litres
Therefore 10,000 gallons = 37584 litres.
1000 liters = 1 cubic meter
Therefore 37584 litres = 37.584 cubic meters
This is the equivalent to a toddlers swimming pool 6.2 meters * 6.2
meters * 1 meter deep.
This could also be approximately expressed as (3.4m * 3.4m * 3.4m) or
(11 feet * 11 feet * 11 feet).
That is no bigger volume than a normal kids bedroom.
The official report disclosed that the WTC did not collapse due to the
impact of the planes, they fell from structural weakness due to the
heat caused by the fire fueled by the jet fuel.
The explosion on impact clearly shows that a large amount (estimated
at between 10 to 30%) of the fuel exploded outside the building,
further reducing the amount of burning fuel inside the tower.
The structural steel in each floor of the towers was approximately
960,000 kilograms, and the surface area of each floor was
approximately 3200 square meters.
This has extremely large and efficient heatsink properties.
The melting point of the structural steel was 2800 degrees F,
structural collapse 2800 degrees F - the thermal generation of heat
created by the combustion of aviation fuel is 500 - 800 Degrees F.
Is it reasonable to assume that the energy generated by the combustion
of this small amount of jet fuel could actually weaken the structure
of one floor of the WTC enough for it to cause the collapse of a
building with a mass of 500,000,000 kg?
Artie...."
    @artiemorty: "On 28 Mar 2006 18:27:40 -0800, "Anonymous Infidel - The Muslim
<quote>
You want to cop out and start raving on about conspiracy theories,
that's your perogative.
But it is not mine, and it is not Observer's.
I don't care about theories, Islam, bin laden or the god damn boogie
man.
Engineers and physicists are trying to find a mathematical, provable
explanation as to how the WTC collapsed.
You want to blame it on fiction - be my guest. It just shows you as an
ignorant tool without the ability to see past your own inept
intelligence.
When asked you couldn't even point us at one fact that proves the
official explanation to be true (not even one).
Don't you understand - scientist and engineers don't make conspiracy
theories - they find the evidence to either prove or disprove them,
and that is through years of study and practical application, and
access to data most wouldn't understand if they even bothered to try.
Which category are you in?
Artie..."
    @artiemorty: "On 28 Mar 2006 22:53:44 -0800, "Anonymous Infidel - The Muslim fixer"
<quote>
Not much between your ears, is there?
This has nothing to do with who did what - it is about finding a
provable explanation as to how the buildings were able to fall through
themselves at freefall speed, how metal was able to apparently melt
and even vaporize without adequate temperature, how an amount of jet
fuel taking up less cubic capacity that an average kids bedroom could
bring down a building with a mass of 500 million kg's.
The person who is able to give a credible, provable and repeatable
explanation to the above will be justly rewarded.
One thing is for sure - it won't be you.
Artie..."
    @artiemorty: "On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 13:38:17 +1030, artie morty
<quote>
Calc error - 2nd to last paragraph should read 'structural collapse
1800-2000 degrees F'.
Artie..."
    @observer111: "news:<email_address>
<quote>
Hi artie.
I understand where you are coming from.
However, you must realise that a LOT of
people (especially in dumb usa) simply has
no education nor knowledge in the things
you are talking about.
You want to point out about freefall times...and
why its not possible.....or exothermic reactions
and thermal energy in jet fuel....but the simple point
is that THESE PEOPLE do not have the training
necessary to even fathom what you're saying.
Look here....what are most of the people in usa
are into?
Music?
Performing arts?
Theater, Broadway...poetry...
These are the soft, girly stuffs.....but it makes
money.
Do you think a professor in performing arts know
the significance of the melting point of steel in
relation to 911?
The simple points is this....these chaps are
in the performing arts simply because they
FAILED maths and physics...
Thats why they have to try to earn a living by
dancing and be a minstrel.
And for that very reason, it was EASY for
anyone to fool them into believing that a plane
with TONNES of steel can be vaporised into
thin air.
Because in reality, they are minstrels, not
scientists.
I think the dumbing down of dufus in a so
called "advanced country" like usa....where
even though they have plenty people who make
millions by "rapping", they are simply DUMB
and clueless when it comes to technical stuffs.
And the WORSE part is that they THINK that
they are smart.....and would not admit that they
are actually stupid in these matters.
Now thats the reason I presented my calculations
from ground up....from first principles....from
High School maths....because even at this low
entry level, most in usa would be challenged to
understand it. (though they of course would not
admit it....LOL)
Even worse if you jumping straight to "complex"
theories like why 10000 gallons could not have
possibly raise the ambient temperature to 2000
degrees.
So my suggestion is to try to make the maths
and science SOOOOOO simple, that even those
dufus will find it hard to deny....better still if you can
actually illustrate using kindergarten blocks and
stick diagrams......because that where their level
of understanding is, in these technical matters.
LOL.
You are asking a mental midget to do
impossible things...
LOL.
Now...I've said it again that since this discussion
focussed into "measurable" evidence like maths...
our usual resident "engineers" including one claiming
to be from the air industries has remained silent
on their mathematical rebuttal.......in fact we have
not heard from one university lecturer (who claims
to be a scientist) either.
LOL.
Now, theoretical t, where t is the time it would
have taken a mass at the top of WTC to reach
the ground in a freefall in a vacuum is easily calculated
and shown. Even our resident dufus dares not
argue with that....because they will be exposed
as FRAUDS...
I have not elaborated on the real life modelling
of the kinematics formula which would and must
include the various resistances to a vacuum freefall
because ANY practical engineer worth his salt
would be able to complete it and hence calculate
what the real life t should be.
Hehe....my point is to first show that these so called
resident engineers are either FRAUDSTERS or simply
dishonest....
Where are they?
The ones that are actually stupid and dumb
but try to pass off as somebody credible?
Look....in the usa, its easy to find many rich
dumb blokes who became rich not because they
have rocket scientist brains, but simply because
they have the looks, or can sing a few bars in tune,
or can write a stanza or two.
So they may look rich and smart, but do you really
think they understand Newton's law or even
simple algebraic manipulation?
Why, back in ancient times, they are simply
the court jesters or minstrels.
Now....this is the reason as to why such
suspicious activities AFTER 911 is not
noticed by these fools.....like guilliani dismantling
the evidence and shipping them to CHINA.....
or that NO plane parts were found OUTSIDE
the pentagon.
These are good looking poofsters who care
more if they break their fingernails than to
try to find the truth so that those many firemen
and poor souls did NOT die for nothing....and
to bring anyone responsible for such a heinous
and nefarious crime to justice.
I hope I have given you an insight as to why
you would find it hard to make these people
understand you or where you are coming from.
LOL."
    @observer111: "news:<email_address>
<quote>
It can be easily shown that the speed
that WTC fell is not much less than if
it fell in a vacuum.
Meaning, after deducting air resistance,
there is no other significant external resistance to the
downward motion.
Where the total downward force acting on
a mass on top of WTC can be illustrated as
Ft = Fg - Fa - F1 - F2 ......
    = Fg - Fa - summ ( Fs)
Where
Ft = total downward force
Fg = gravitational force
Fa = air resistance
F1....F = summation of all other resistances including
               forces needed to buckle the steel support beams
               on the way down and fracture compress concrete
Easily shown what the  MAXIMUM amount of thermal energy
that a finite or estimated amount of fuels, including
jet fuel and other combustible materials inside a plane
and the environment can produce.
And that the thermal energy required to MELT
and vaporise a finite amount of tonnes of metal
is fixed within a certain range and known to any
practical engineer.
As to whether the TWO quantum of theoretical
energies calculated and estimated matches can
thus be shown.
As to why there could be anomalies ( oh ...oh..
I hope those dufus understand this word) , I'll
let those dufus scratch their heads and explain.
How I love the explanation that the heat was
so intense to vaporise the tonnes of titatium and
yet gentle enough to preserve DNA structures...
LOL.
The MAXIMUM amount of heat energy and
MAXIMUM achievable temperatute that
can be generated by such a fixed amount of
known fuel is easily calculated and presented
if required.
Now whether the calculations matches the
parameters needed to do all the things they
said happened, cannot be hidden by "explanations".
In maths, its either there, or its bunkum.
Simple and straightforward.
There is no leeway to bullshit your way thru.
Even for cynics and critics of the 911.
As to why our resident fake "engineers" have
not shown us their calculations for this long
to once and for all silent critics like me, is a
serious mystery we all should ponder...
Or "silenced"....?
Note that it was indeed reported that officials
IMMIDIATELY seized and destroyed the tapes
recording the tower conversations with the pilots.
These dufus, never questioned why?
Or that firemen were threatened and silenced?
And these are indeed testimonies more real
and reported than that "osama" confession?
LOL.
Never under estimate what a dufus can achieve...
Duh....
LOL."
    @observer111: "news:<email_address>
<quote>
I'm sorry James...
I do not think the majority dufus in usa even understand
the concept of Newton's laws for conservation of energy
in an event....let alone complex stuffs like
"thermite"....
Do you expect a country that is fed on rap
music, vegas, soap operas....etc...to understand
the significance of scientific facts and the accuracy
of mathematical modelling and simulations on the interaction
of physical forces?
Nah....they'd rather believe the shrub.
Their ultimate product after decades of
dumbing down.
LOL."
    @observer111: "news:<email_address>
<quote>
This reminded me of a conversation I had
here with one of the regular chaps I thought was sincere.
He argued that alqaeda was proven to be
involved because he pointed out to the video of
"osama" confessing.
At that time, I had not seen that video....so I let
it passed. Thinking that he may have a valid
point.
Then one day, I chanced upon the video and could'nt
believe my eyes.
That that dickhead actually wanted ME to believe
that that fat fake looking slob was osama.
Anybody who is honest and have at least
a good eye would have noticed that the chap
in the video looked suspiciously NOT like osama.
So I thought, was this dickhead trying to pull a
fast one on me or thought that I would not notice
the dissimilarities?
My conclusion, is that either the dickhead is really
one dumb shit, or a terribly terribly desperate LIAR.
The least I would expect from an honest poster was
to admit that the video looked a bit UNLIKE osama
that we have all been used to seeing.
So we may be dealing with retards or sickos
on this subject. And worse, they claim or maybe
in reality holding posts like engineers, professors...
etc.
So its either they FAKED their credentials to
get where they are, or that they are one group
of sick bastards."
    @artiemorty: "On 29 Mar 2006 16:10:19 -0800, "Anonymous Infidel - The Muslim
<quote>
Can't you get it into your thick head - we are not talking about the
points you listed above.
We are trying to work out the calculations to prove or disprove the
actual physical collapse times of the buildings, using the force of
gravity and the calculated collapse time from the videos as reference.
We are also trying to work out how a piece of metal put into a flame
that could burn at a maximum temperature of 800 degrees F, could
supposedly attain a temperature of 2800 degrees F.
What is so hard to understand - nothing about conspiracy, just plain
simple maths.
I'm beginning to suspect you are a fucking retard, and logical
reasoning is simply outside your mental scope.
Artie..."
    @artiemorty: "snip
<quote>
Well, considering I'm not a muslim, there goes your first theory.
I would assume you don't have the licence to practise gabrielle55@example.org.
After looking at you posting history in google, it is obvious to all
that you are a racist bigot who delights in abusing others, whilst
hiding behind names designed for the sole purpose of showing your
comtempt for Islam.
You are the type who enjoys hiding behind usenet and abusing all in
sundry.
What happened - couldn't make it in the real world I suppose?
After reading 50 of your posts, I was unable to find one link to
anything called facts, not one point that was supported by anything
more than your own bigoted view.
You appear to be an ugly, hate filled man with severe mental
deficiencies, the language and maturity in your posts suggest you are
a child, yet your level of hate would require a longer amount of time
to fester itself.
For someone who often suggest others seek help - I would say a quick
trip to the local shrink would do you a world of good.
The only other explanation I can think of is that they now install
computers with usenet access in metal asylums - and when diddums is a
good boy, they let you on them to play.
Get a life, you fucking retard.
Artie..."
    @artiemorty: "On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 23:11:02 +0800, "Observer"
<quote>
My family had a kerosene heater and used it through winter time for
years.
Funny thing - it used to produce a lot of heat, but I can never
remember the heater itself actually melting or vapourizing.
Strange.
Artie..."
    @KJames: ""Observer" <email_address> wrote in message news:<email_address>
<quote>
Their are who know the the official story is full of BS, it is either they do not care or they prefer the offiicial
story than anything else. They prefer to the lies over the facts.
A lot of people questioned the official story from the beginning,  Ellen Mariani a 911 victim's wife filed a RICO case
against Bush. You can find information about this and the lawyer who is helping her at this site
<url>
1st International Citizen's Inquiry into 9-11 held in San Francisco ( A lot of free videos to download)
<url> watch "flight 93" video you are going to find it very interesting.
 > >> > But we may be dealing with FAKE engineers who"
    @artiemorty: "On 29 Mar 2006 19:24:58 -0800, "Anonymous Infidel - The Muslim
<quote>
What are you doing - dumping every post ever made about 9/11 on myself
and Observer.
Why?
I do not speak for anyone but myself, and in this instance Observer,
as we are on common ground  - but he has the intelligence to speak for
himself, and he does not need my 2 cents to prove his point.
To find the answers we are looking for, the opinions of others on
either a conspiracy theory or the official release hold no interest
whatsoever.
I am looking only for facts, provable by maths and pyhsics, and it
appears Observer is looking for exactly the same reasoning.
You want to fight - you are arguing with the wrong people. I have
absolutely no interest in your unprovable views on anything to do with
9/11.
If you want to dispute either a consiracy or the official release - go
find someone who believes them.
I'm telling you now, that person is not me, and I am sure it is not
Observer.
You want to talk about gravity and fall times, potential heat,
momentum and kinetic energy, give us a call.
Until then - give it a break.
You are becoming rather tiresome.
Artie..."
    @observer111: "news:<email_address>
<quote>
Yes...as scientists and engineers, all we can
conclude from all this exercise is that the
explanations do not match known scientific
fundamentals.
And that there were strange anomalies in their
response to the 911 events.
As to whether these anomalies are caused
by conspiracies is NOT for us to judge.
However in real life crime scenarios, usually
judges do and have inferred guilt and motives
from less than what have been seen.
Anyone who  tried to tamper with evidence
from a crime scene would have been quickly
prosecuted.
But not in this case.....strange that resident dufus
never even bother to ask why.
And the fact that it took MONTHS to destroy all
the evidence in WTC and that NO ONE even bothered
to STOP the destruction all that time, surely must be the most
"forgetful" and "honest mistake" this century so far...
LOL."
    @artiemorty: "On 29 Mar 2006 20:45:47 -0800, "Anonymous Infidel - The Muslim
<quote>
I don't have a provable clue.
But lets leave the emotion aside and look at some simple structural
reasoning:
On 9/11 several undisputed incidents occured
1. The structure of the two towers were put under severe stress due to
the impact of individual planes colliding with each.
2. Building 7 was put under structural stress due to the apparent
inpact in one corner from falling tower debris.
3. Both towers were subjected to heat stress from the internal burning
of jet fuel.
4. Building 7 was subjected to heat stress from internal fires
(apparently burning diesel fuel from storage tanks).
The official report states that the buildings did not collapse from
impact stress, but from the heat effects of fire (as can be seen by
the length the buildings remained standing after impact).
The construction report states that the towers were designed and
constructed to withstand the impact of a plane similar to the 767.
The construction report also states that the steel used in
construction was of a grade that would not be weakened sufficiently
from heat, such as from the burning of jet fuel, to cause any
structural failure.
Put it all together and all three buildings should still be standing.
But there are two things that are true beyond all doubt, and no one
can dispute these points.
All buildings were subjected to both impact and heat.
So in actuality the collapse can only be caused by one or the other,
or a combination of both.
The physics and engineering calculations involved are complicated, but
with access to all data (and that is very important to stop
supposition) it is not unreasonable to expect that a proper and
correct answer could be found to either confirm or deny the collapse
from impact and heat.
But there is one other point that is very important - if the steel
used to construct these buildings was not to the structural standard
required and specified, or if the original design specifications were
incorrect and they had specified inadequate steel, then all three
buildings collapsed because they were structurally inferior, and all
the above is pointless.
All supposition has been made assuming the buildings were constructed
to code.
So it boils down to three things:
1. Impact.
2. Fire. 
3. Structural steel not being up to standard due to either the
original design being incorrect, or the proper grade of steel not
being supplied.
Who did it - I don't know.
My bet (for what it's worth) is the steel. 
Either purposefully (follow the money), or by mistake (engineering
calculation has progressed a lot in the last 30 years), the steel
supplied was not made to the required strength.
It was not made to the grade to withstand the combination of impact
and fire - hence it allows all points above to come together. Leave
any one point out (impact, fire or inadequate steel), and the
buildings remain standing, as they had done for 30 years.
We cannot leave out impact and fire - they are proven without doubt.
It only leaves inadequate steel.
It would explain how the impact of the planes or debris could weaken
the structure sufficiently, how the heat from a relatively small
amount of jet fuel or diesel could melt and even vaporise the
structure and take it past its structural limit, how the building
could be crushed so quickly when pancaking into itself (nearly at
freefall speed) and how the steel structure was able to fracture into
such small pieces.
Anything else simply does not fit the scenario - but without the
building plans, original specification requests, metalurgy reports and
debris, how do you find out the truth?
My second guess - follow the money!
Artie..."
    @artiemorty: "On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 17:56:19 +0800, "Observer"
<quote>
Howdy - Do you live in the US, and if so, do you have access to any of
the original building specs (library perhaps)?
It's impossible trying to get anything like this from Australia where
I live.
I'm particularly interested in the supposed grade of steel used as to
that specified .- try doing a couple of calcs using under spec. steel
and the results are more than interesting.
Artie.."
    @observer111: "news:<email_address>
<quote>
The second one was a plane because
we ALL saw it....and there is physical evidence
like the video.
However, the FIRST hit, I'm not so sure.
I would settle for "alleged" plane....;-)
This may sound plausible, however it
remains a fact that buildings that were nearer
to WTC did NOT have any problems with impact.
Plausible but do note that the buildings have
been standing for decades.
Carrying all that load all these while.
Inferior materials would have shown signs
in the structure by now.
Now to have ONE building collapse in a funny
way is one thing.....to have TWO....and even
a THIRD with no direct impact, and all
falling in exactly the freefall way, surely counts
for the luckiest lottery strike in history.
The mathematical probability of that happening
would be interesting to see...
LOL.
I would dispute impact on WTC7 though.
Now do note that all disagreements can be
quickly resolved by a SIMPLE analysis of the
steel you said.
But lo and behold....what happened?
guilianni conveniently carted the very evidence
right under everybody's noses in LORRIES and
BARGES and nobody bats an eyelid.
Surely an analysis of the sample would confirm
whether the steel was within specs.
So two scenarios here.
1) If steel was below specs, it could be proven
and shown at what temperature it would weaken
beyond safety levels.
2) If the steel was within specs, your scenarios
does not hold water. Hence the building must have
suffered stresses that was BEYOND your explanation
of heat and impact.
Yes....but you cannot prove otherwise too that
they MAY have been other causes besides heat
and impact.
I leave my mind open on this.
Besides "other" possibilities if scenario
2 holds true.
Not that simple.
Even if the steel was below standards, the fact
is that the buildings have been standing for decades
and any inferior materials used would have shown
up by then....cracks, chips,...etc.
So not until a thorough examination of the steel
would I give an opinion on this.
But thats the point.
Nobody is following anything.
Even the put calls.
Why?
Whilst all else is speculation and hearsay....the fact
remains that there are GLARING instances of criminal
activities with respect to the handling of evidence
and crime scenes....with NO ONE even reprimanded,
let alone prosecuted.
This is also beyond any doubt.
Unless we are saying that this is how crime scenes
and criminal activities are  handled ordinarily."
    @observer111: "news:<email_address>
<quote>
Sorry, nope.
I recall somebody publishing the details some
time back.
Hey buddy....I think its even impossible
for the americans too...
LOL.
I see where you are coming from.
I only see one problem with this approach.
That the buildings should have showed signs
by then if inferior materials were used, especially
structural, weight bearing steel.
However, it would be interesting if you run a
simulation with different "quality" levels of steel
used to see what is the point where it would
buckle under the calculated stresses as evidenced
in those videos.
But do note that you have to also check that IF
the figure that you used for the steel was used
in a simulation, would it also withstand all the
load all that decades the buildings have been standing
and operating.
Since this is a highly debated topic, I always
insist on multi dimensional look on a single
result to make sure that its consistent with all
other events before giving an opinion....even though
it may "fit in" one aspect of analysis."
    @artiemorty: "On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 19:52:27 +0800, "Observer"
<quote>
I can only think that the level of inadequacy in the structure was so
fine that it required stress from both impact and heat. One without
the other is simply not enough.
Steel has some nasty habits (especially high carbon content steel)
Extremely strong to a point - but overstressed, its crystaline
structure can shatter.
Easy enough to do - but imagine if you could get some accurate data so
you could run the scenario without guessing, and end up with an
repeatable result.
We'll never know - without the building or remnants to run a test.
It would be a hell of an algorythm to write to take into account all
the factors involved, including longevity of the steel over 30 years.
You have made a good point.
It's the freefall that has me interested. Inadequate steel is all that
seems to allow this fact to happen.
And the freefall is undisputable - it has been captured on camera and
can be timed to the frame.
A little research on the effects of heat on high carbon steel is very
interesting - this stuff, under load, is much weaker than one would
expect, although under normal conditions of stress is extremely
strong. Made me start thinking along this line, because to be honest
without more data, I'm running out of ideas.
Artie..."
    @artiemorty: "On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 19:37:57 +0800, "Observer"
<quote>
I'm glad you had your smilie face on when you said that!
Did those buildings also have fire?
Perhaps it was how the force was applied - for example 90 degree angle
iron is extremely rigid and has immense strength when subjected to a
lateral force, but it is pathetically weak when twisted.
I wonder if there is any structural similarity between the 3 buildings
that collapsed, that is not shared by those that didn't (the company
that supplied the steel, or the architects that designed them, for
example).
A long shot perhaps - it may just mean that impact was simply a
smaller part of the equation than one would expect.
Why would they do that - Americans are sticklers for knowing the facts
(take the space shuttles for example). They are rarely scared to admit
they are wrong, and they take pride in fixing errors they have made.
Also, they have no compunction about sharing their knowledge with
anyone who will listen.
Getting rid of the steel without a complete investigation is just so
out of character for the US.
Exactly correct.
If the steel was within spec the buildings would still be standing,
and all of this would be irrelavent.
So do I.
But lets look at it this was.
If the cause of the collapse was through impact and heat, then the
steel was below spec.
If the steel was to spec, either the original calculations were in
error, in which case they would never have remained standing, or the
collapse was caused by forces outside impact and heat.
If that is the case, what those forces might be, I have no idea.
But there is plenty of speculation.
Is this a thing that buildings are regularly checked for?
The steel was covered with sprayed on fire retardent - perhaps a check
couldn't even be accomplished. I read that a check was carried out of
the fire retardent a while before the collapse, and was found to be
inadequate in areas.
Does high grade, high content carbon steel chip or crack? - I know its
crystaline structure will fracture and even shatter under duress.
Perhaps the normal everyday stress was close to, but not adequate
enough to cause visible damage, just enough to weaken the molecular
bond of the metal.
Who knows - but this is really getting into the realms of speculation.
No steel - no investigation!
It's just downright strange - it is not the way the US usually handles
this type of investigation.
I know it was a very emotional time, due to the loss of life - but
surely this would make America more stringent in its investigation,
not less to the point of negligence.
I have always found the American people (not the government, the
actual population) to be honest and forthwright, Those I have met were
simply nice, decent folks. 
It just does not add up that the general population would be happy
with, or party to a cover-up or a poor investigation.
So what happened?
Artie..."
    @pluto: ""On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 11:33:02 +1030, artie morty <email_address>
wrote/and/or quoted:
<quote>
hmm artie and observer,
very interesting observations.
i have not thought of this steel business being carted post haste.
is this another "conspiracy theory" on the rise?
how come this discussion does not include some "experts" in
soc.culture.thai?? ;-)))
=========================end, and/or end quote================
-pluto"
    @observer111: "news:<email_address>
<quote>
As artie said, I'm not interested in conspiracy
theories, just the ANSWERS to the questions
posed by many cynics.
It is very troubling as a scientist or engineer that
you find no reasonable explanation to their
questions. And that you know, based on all the
training and expertise that you have, that certain
things touted as being the "truth" (aka official explanation)
is close to impossible.
As to WHY these things happened, I'm not here
to find the answers, because it would be a waste
of time because it would just be hearsay and speculation.
However I am interested in proveable FACTS.
Facts like it took 8.4 secs for WTC to fall.
Facts like there has NEVER been ANY other
building that collapse in a similar manner under
WORSE conditions.
Now the carting of material evidence from WTC
is a well known FACT. It not speculation. Its not
hearsay. It was in fact widely reported.
And that NOBODY including scientists were
allowed to examine even the steel debris.
All I can conclude is that this is NOT consistent
to how past sites of plane crashes or other disasters
are processed anywhere or anytime before 911.
As to WHY its done that way, I'm not going
to speculate.
You and everybody else have to figure that one
out for yourself.
Maybe they're all tied up at the demo
downtown?
LOL."
{'source': 'USENET', 'other_information': '{"reply_count": 31, "forum_name": "soc.culture.indonesia.20140909.mbox"}', 'file': 'data/output/usenet-soc.culture.parquet'}