|
Post by turbonium on Oct 11, 2005 22:04:35 GMT -4
But this is simply the same old "anomaly" and "inconsistency" argument that we know to be poor reasoning. "I personally don't understand what's happening here, therefore there is something objectively wrong."
No. That's exceptionally poor thinking. A bunch of irrelevantly-qualified professors shooting the breeze is not an expert analysis of findings.
I don't see Dr. Jones' comments here in that light. To me, he seems to be simply pointing out that the very unusual collapse of WTC 7 needs a much more in-depth investigation and analysis than has been done to date by the various groups.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Oct 11, 2005 21:59:30 GMT -4
I agree. I think WTC samples -- however well or poorly constituted they are -- should be made available for public investigation when the official investigations have concluded. The people of the United States own those samples. Now as with any resource, there has to be some control on how it's accessed and used, simply to make sure it's effectively shared.
I'm glad to see that we can agree on this point. I believe that we are entitled to conduct public studies of the evidence, after the current investigations have wrapped up.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Oct 11, 2005 21:52:56 GMT -4
But what did the engineers say? None of those other people mentioned necessarily has the specialized expertise to challenge the findings. Dr. Jones is happy to name those who agree with him, but I specifically want to know what the civil and mechanical engineers had to say.
I would also like to know more about the specifics discussed, and who was involved. If you do get the chance to speak with him, I would appreciate a posting of anything discussed relevant to the topic (with his permission, of course). I am trying to find a way to contact him, as well, because the email address listed does not seem to work.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Oct 11, 2005 19:07:14 GMT -4
www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=55542&mesg_id=56388The above link is to a post from Steven E. Jones, Professor of Physics at BYU. I've posted the main part of it below. I hope to find out much more about this. Some posters on this board seem to be trying to make an issue out of his personal beliefs as a Mormon. I find this to be completely irrelevant to the issues he is addressing in regards to 9/11 evidence and investigations Yes, I did present a seminar on the puzzling collapse of WTC-7 and other 9-11 anomalies, on 9-22-05. Sorry I don't have time to post very often, but this from an email I sent out to colleagues on 9-23-5:
Approximately 50 were in attendance, with representatives from the following Brigham Young University and UVSC (Utah Valley St. College) departments:
Physics, Civil Eng., Mechanical Eng., EE, Geology, Psychology, Mathematics. There were several I did not recognize, so other departments were probably represented also. I’ve had particularly encouraging comments from four Physics Profs. and a Math Prof especially, and one of the psychology profs., himself an active democrat...
As you can imagine, there was considerable hostility especially at first. A lot of questions – which I fielded throughout the presentation.
The EE Prof. emailed me before the seminar that this was all “conspiracy theory” and “claptrap.” However, he did – to his credit – look at the website referenced in a previous email, which is Jim Hoffman’s site. <http://911research.wtc7.net/sitemap.html >
During the seminar, it was clear he -- and many others -- were coming around. He admitted that the collapse of WTC 7 was VERY strange, very hard to explain as due to fires. And he’s reading up on all this now.
We started just after 3 pm and had to quit at 4:55 pm as there was a class coming in at 5 pm. One or two left at about 4 pm, when I had covered most of the WTC7 material, but I was pleased that most of the group stayed and we carried on for NEARLY TWO HOURS. Many favorable comments were received afterwards and this morning. People were impressed by the DATA and my critiques of the FEMA and NIST and 9-11 Commission reports.
The most “hostile” was a geology professor. He raised the point that “the Twin Towers were a special case since hit by jets.” Fortunately, I had previously shown a slide discussing “Pathological Science” – and this business of “special case” is one of the red flags for bad science. (I’m well known around here for being among the first, if not the first, to debunk claims of Pons and Fleischmann in 1989.) And he had to admit that WTC7 was NOT hit by a plane.
The approach I took was that we need to have data released (not destroyed, as were most of the steel beams) – and an independent investigation conducted. This was the approach also encouraged by Prof. Weyland – thanks, Jack – it worked extremely well. My goal was clear, and all except one (the geology prof.) agreed with my conclusion that data held by NIST, etc. should be released – and an independent investigation conducted. And several in the group are now doing some investigation on their own – climbing the learning curve.
The next day <9-23-05>, this geology Prof. told me privately that he hoped I could get the information for further investigation. I’m particularly after a sample of the molten metal found in the basement of WTC7 (also in the basements of the Towers).
The tilting of the South Tower was also intriguing to many, squibs from the North Tower less so – but I spent most of the time on WTC 7. Also, the letter of Kevin Ryan carried weight evidently, along with protests about the destruction of the steel beams. My slides on Pathological Science were very useful in countering claims of the "official" theory.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Oct 11, 2005 18:36:40 GMT -4
while NIST has steel they believe is from WTC 7, they cannot confirm it. So you won't see results specifically tied to WTC 7 although studies were done on steel not related to the towers.
Excuse me - they cannot confirm if it's WTC 7 steel? Despite the fact the site is not even near to the towers, they aren't sure if it's actually WTC 7 steel? That makes no sense whatsoever. They presumably were able to catalog the steel from the towers, and where in the buildings it came from. So they can't control and identify the steel from a building a full city block away from the towers, that was also separated from the towers by WTC 6?
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Oct 9, 2005 4:42:26 GMT -4
I have found other reports of molten steel within the WTC debris (besides the two witnesses mentioned here previously). "Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense," reports Alison Geyh, PhD. "In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel."
Geyh, an assistant scientist with the School's Department of Environmental Health Sciences (EHS), heads the team of scientists sent by the School in response to a request by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences for a coordinated study of the disaster's potential health effects to those in the immediate environment. By attaching personal air monitors to the workers and by placing stationary air sampling pumps outside the periphery of Ground Zero, Geyh (pronounced "Guy") and her colleagues can determine the density of the particulate matter in the air, the size of those particles, and any short-term health effects to those at and around the site.www.jhsph.edu/Publications/Special/Welch.htmDr. Keith Eaton toured the WTC site weeks after 9/11, with George Tarnaro, principal engineer, and stated in the September 3, 2002 issue of The Structural Engineer, "They showed us many fascinating slides ranging from molten metal, which was still red hot weeks after the event, to 4-inch thick steel plates sheared and bent in the disaster’.pdf link for the above is here... www.istructe.org.uk/thestructuralengineer/HC/getfile.asp?id=406Sarah Atlas and her canine partner, Anna, a black-faced German shepherd, were deployed by New Jersey’s Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue. By the end of the day on September 11, they were at Ground Zero, where they stayed for ten days in a fruitless search for survivors.
“The [NYFD] people who called us had been killed,” Atlas considered as she surveyed the tons and acres of wreckage. “Nobody’s going to be alive.” Fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet.www.sas.upenn.edu/sasalum/newsltr/summer2002/k911.html I will post more reports if I come across them.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Oct 9, 2005 4:11:38 GMT -4
I’m not sure what sort of metallurgical tests would be done to look for explosives residue. I thought those sorts of tests would be chemical. You seem to be fixated by the idea that residue would only be in metal or concrete. But any material from the building could contain traces of explosives residue – papers, desks, chairs, ceramic toilet bowls. In other words, just about any material in Ground Zero could have been tested for explosives residue.
Of course, steel is not the only material that could contain residue from explosives. But, why would there have been any tests on other material (as well as the steel) for explosives residue, when they would have never been told to perform such tests? To wit, there was never any official speculation about explosives being used, so there would not be any directives to follow that line of investigation.
The metallurgical tests are a case in point - the sulfidation and oxidation detected have not been explained, but when the investigators speculated, they mentioned acid rain or some other phenomenon, but never mentioned explosives being another possible cause.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Oct 9, 2005 4:00:13 GMT -4
For example, your explanation for the building starting to collapse at a different point from where you believe explosions took place doesn’t make much sense. If the explosions took place at the base of the building, people down there evacuating would have surely been affected.The accounts of explosions were not only reported to be in the basement, but at different locations throughout the buildings, as well. As for those in the basements, there were reports of people with severe injuries, such as WTC worker Felipe David. www.lasvegastribune.com/20050729/headline3.htmlFelipe David stormed into the basement office with severe burns on his face and arms, screaming for help and yelling "explosion! explosion! explosion!"
David had been in front of a nearby freight elevator on sub-level 1 about 400 feet from the office when fire burst out of the elevator shaft, causing his injuries.
"He was burned terribly," said Rodriguez. "The skin was hanging off his hands and arms. His injuries couldn’t have come from the airplane above, but only from a massive explosion below. I don’t care what the government says, what scientists say. I saw a man burned terribly from a fire that was caused from an explosion below.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Oct 9, 2005 2:30:34 GMT -4
NIST did not investigate #7 as throughly because no one died as a result of its collapse. However would they not be very interested anyway in why it collapsed and would the steel be important in investigating that?
I think they should have been at least as interested in analysing the steel from WTC 7, since it was only subjected to fire, not plane impact.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Oct 9, 2005 2:13:43 GMT -4
Could you please provide a link for this info? I'm referring to the part about the debris field.Sure - here are two articles - first link here... post-gazette.com/headlines/20010913somersetp3.aspThe relevant paragraph is near the bottom of the article, which I have posted below... In a morning briefing, state Police Major Lyle Szupinka confirmed that debris from the plane had turned up in relatively far-flung sites, including the residential area of Indian Lake.Second link and article section here.. archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/13/penn.attack/index.htmlMeanwhile, investigators say they've found debris from the crash at least eight miles away from the crash site.
A second debris field was around Indian Lake about 3 miles from the crash scene. Some debris was in the lake and some was adjacent to the lake.
More debris from the plane was found in New Baltimore, some 8 miles away from the crash. Indian Lake is the "U" shaped lake at the top of the map - the residential area of Indian Lake where some debris was found is located just above the right arm of the lake. New Baltimore is at the right end of the purple line from Shanksville. Debris was found in the lake, as well as at Indian Lake and New Baltimore, among many other areas. A very widespread debris field.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Oct 3, 2005 3:13:28 GMT -4
Question 1: I think you missed the thrust of my question. You equated the molten pools of metal with explosives somewhere low in the building. However, the footage of the WTC collapses clearly show the collapse starting at the plane impact points. The lower floors were intact until the mass of material above them crushed them. If explosives had gone off low in the building, then wouldn’t the collapse be at the base of the building with intact floors above falling into an expanding pile of rubble?
Question 2: As others have pointed out, the residue of explosive would have been pervasive, not just on steel. After all, if these explosions blew out windows, wouldn’t every surface on that floor contain residue?
Question 3: Can you explain (as others have asked) why planes were shot down if they were also being controlled remotely. Are we talking about the same people ordering these two separate actions? Would you care to specify which organisations were involved? Would Al-Qaeda have had a role? What relationship would you draw between the events of September 11 2001 and previous events such as the 1993 truck bomb attack on the WTC, the attacks on the US embassies in Africa and the attack on the USS Cole?1 Good point, and one I've been wanting to delve into more.. At this point, I can only speculate that has to do with weakening the lower supports of the towers first, as the lower levels were stronger, with larger steel cores and steel beams (not trusses) than the higher floors. The many accounts of secondary explosions were said to be just minutes or seconds before the collapses. The molten steel may have been the result of these secondary explosions. But I did find an interesting article about the WTC steel - molten steel beams being hauled away from the site by the NYDS. Link here - www.wasteage.com/mag/waste_dday_ny_sanitation/So, it now appears there are accounts of molten steel in the basements and amongst the debris hauled away. 2. Residue - still looking to find answers to questions I have on this issue as well. To wit, were there metallurgical tests done to specifically look for traces of explosives, and if not, would it be possible that some residues were overlooked? Were there tests for chemical composition done on the concrete dust? The sampling size of the steel was small - not every square inch of WTC steel would have residue of explosives. 3. One plane, Flight 93, has been viewed by some as having been shot down. I favor this argument, that as the last of the "hijacked" airliners still in flight, there were fighter jets sent on an intercept mission, and they shot down the airplane. I believe an opposing faction within the military undertook this mission, countering an element within the military that had deliberately offered no defensive support. The debris field was scattered over a very large area, before the site of the crash, which I see as lending support to a shoot down, not the official story of passengers revolting in an attempt to subdue the hijackers. I really hesitate to venture into any possible connections between 9/11 and the other events you mention. I haven't delved into them and so would not want to speculate.without knowing much more about them. I wish I could provide you with a more substantial reply - I hope to buttress my argument on these issues much more in the future. Please accept my apologies if it failed to answer your questions to any degree you may have hoped for. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Sept 30, 2005 3:15:07 GMT -4
..you never know what a jury will believe....and juries can be influenced by carefully laid innuendo..
I don't wish for anyone in any trial to be found guilty simply through courtroom trickery, the manipulation of juries or judges. It's sad and unjust, but it's a method all too frequently played out within our legal system.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Sept 30, 2005 0:39:56 GMT -4
Thx for the link.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Sept 30, 2005 0:32:26 GMT -4
Third, and most important, the motive for the defendant's actions must be to eliminate the value of the material as evidence. If there is another motive behind the actions, then it does not constitute a criminal destruction of evidence.
This is a point I wanted to address yesterday but didn't have the time. I agree on the question of motive being most important in proving it was deliberate removal and/or destruction of evidence.
I believe it would be pointless in raising accusations of intentional tampering of evidence without first establishing the motive of the party or parties involved in such an action. That it was considered a crime scene is beyond doubt. But the only way to establish motive for those ordering the evidence be removed/destroyed would be to establish that they were in some way involved/accessories to the crime. Or, if they were found to benefit in some way from the crime, then it would need to be proven that they did so with that intent.
In any scenario, I agree it would be very difficult to establish motive. And likely impossible to prove without external considerations of involvement in the crime.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Sept 29, 2005 3:15:16 GMT -4
You claimed a law was broken in the case of 9/11 debris removal. Cite the law or withdraw the claim.Took a while to get back to, but I located the law..... PENAL LAW 215.40(2) TAMPERING WITH PHYSICAL EVIDENCE (E Felony) (Destroying Evidence) www.nycourts.gov/cji/3-PenalLaw/215/art215hp.htmYou may argue that it was not a deliberate removal of evidence from a crime scene. From the law linked above, three elements must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.. In summary, relating to the removal of WTC steel..... 1. That the defendant destroyed physical evidence. 2. That the defendant did destroy such evidence believing that it was to be used in an official proceeding, or prospective official proceeding. 3. That the defendand did so to prevent such use. Point 1 is a given. Points 2 and 3 are quite possible to prove as well, , in light of the actions by groups protesting the removal while it was still occurring. One such group was the one organized by Fire Engineering's Bill Manning, linked below... fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=OnlineArticles&SubSection=Display&PUBLICATION_ID=25&ARTICLE_ID=130026 These were calls and emails made by many fire investigators and private individuals to local, state and federal officials to demand a stop to the removal of the crime scene evidence. So the people involved were well aware that this was removal/destruction of evidence they were conducting. And they continued to destroy the evidence despite this knowledge. Even before the protests began, there may be enough evidence unearthed that those involved. If those responsible for directing this activity have in the past not followed this procedure, it can quite likely be shown that this was a deliberate breach of standard procedure.
|
|