[Winstonm]

For those interested (which in my opinion should be all of us), a short (6-page) peer-reviewed article concerning the WTC collapses is downloadable here:

http://www.bentham.o...openaccess2.htm

It is in PDF format and has no sensationalism whatsoever - simply legitimate concerns well expressed.

Whatever your suppositions, I urge you to read this paper. It only takes a few minutes.

Edit: (Any conspiracy to destroy these buildings would have been impossible.)

[blackshoe]

Interesting paper. I find the NIST's refusal to look for thermite or other explosive residue particularly puzzling.

[Al_U_Card]

Too late. No one is left that can do anything about it. They (not the Cubs) won.

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on Apr 20 2008, 05:42 PM, said:

For those interested (which in my opinion should be all of us), a short (6-page) peer-reviewed article concerning the WTC collapses is downloadable here:

http://www.bentham.o...openaccess2.htm

It is in PDF format and has no sensationalism whatsoever - simply legitimate concerns well expressed.

Whatever your suppositions, I urge you to read this paper. It only takes a few minutes.

The link takes me to a Civil Engineering Journal with titles such as
A New Method for Spatial Analysis of Risk in Water Resources Engineering Management

This is what you want me to read?

I am assuming I have missed some point here.

[PassedOut]

A lot of great-looking articles there. What is the title of the one you recommend?

[Winstonm]

Sorry. If needed, choose year 2008.

Article is: Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction

[DrTodd13]

For the "our government could not and would never do something like this" crowd, Jones is a quack and no matter what he writes his quack status will negate it.

[Winstonm]

DrTodd13, on Apr 20 2008, 10:38 PM, said:

For the "our government could not and would never do something like this" crowd, Jones is a quack and no matter what he writes his quack status will negate it.

That is the reason to chose this particular article - it is very straightforward and matter-of-fact - no embellishments to be found.

I am not a part of the scientific community, but I would hope that little-to-no quackery would make it past both the peer-review and the editors into the pages of a scientific journal.

[cherdano]

Winstonm, on Apr 20 2008, 09:53 PM, said:

DrTodd13, on Apr 20 2008, 10:38 PM, said:

For the "our government could not and would never do something like this" crowd, Jones is a quack and no matter what he writes his quack status will negate it.

That is the reason to chose this particular article - it is very straightforward and matter-of-fact - no embellishments to be found.

I am not a part of the scientific community, but I would hope that little-to-no quackery would make it past both the peer-review and the editors into the pages of a scientific journal.

Once you start refereeing articles or talking to journal editors over beers, you realize that quite a lot of crap will make it into medium- or lower-ranked journals.

[Winstonm]

cherdano, on Apr 20 2008, 10:57 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Apr 20 2008, 09:53 PM, said:

DrTodd13, on Apr 20 2008, 10:38 PM, said:

For the "our government could not and would never do something like this" crowd, Jones is a quack and no matter what he writes his quack status will negate it.

That is the reason to chose this particular article - it is very straightforward and matter-of-fact - no embellishments to be found.

I am not a part of the scientific community, but I would hope that little-to-no quackery would make it past both the peer-review and the editors into the pages of a scientific journal.

Once you start refereeing articles or talking to journal editors over beers, you realize that quite a lot of crap will make it into medium- or lower-ranked journals.

Indeed. We are all human, after all - even the scientists. However, if I were to look for a reasonably accurate scientific debate, I would still go to the peer-reviewed scientific journals before trusting what I read in "Popular Mechanics".

[Winstonm]

blackshoe, on Apr 20 2008, 08:16 PM, said:

Interesting paper. I find the NIST's refusal to look for thermite or other explosive residue particularly puzzling.

Why, indeed, would the NIST fail to test for thermite when their own results showed residue consistent with thermite, the fire investigation code calls for this type testing, and their own research showed that there were temperatures reached that were also consistent with pyrotechnics but were left unexplained and unexplored?

But the head-shaker to me is the admission in writing from the NIST that "we cannot explain the collapse." Yet, that was their assignment.

It seems the NIST was incompetent for their task - surely no one could object to a secondary, thorough investigation to rule out other causes and to prevent a recurrence in another building in another city?

[mike777]

cherdano, on Apr 20 2008, 10:57 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Apr 20 2008, 09:53 PM, said:

DrTodd13, on Apr 20 2008, 10:38 PM, said:

For the "our government could not and would never do something like this" crowd, Jones is a quack and no matter what he writes his quack status will negate it.

That is the reason to chose this particular article - it is very straightforward and matter-of-fact - no embellishments to be found.

I am not a part of the scientific community, but I would hope that little-to-no quackery would make it past both the peer-review and the editors into the pages of a scientific journal.

Once you start refereeing articles or talking to journal editors over beers, you realize that quite a lot of crap will make it into medium- or lower-ranked journals.

Arend, this sounds like a very interesting book theme I hope you or someone writes it, I will buy it.

[jtfanclub]

Winstonm, on Apr 20 2008, 11:28 PM, said:

Why, indeed, would the NIST fail to test for thermite

You know what thermite is, right?

Thermite is a mix of aluminum and iron oxide.

In an open flame, steel doesn't tend to melt. It tends to burn. Burnt steel is mostly iron oxide. Take the body of the plane (mostly aluminum), pour it (aluminum melts at 660 degrees celsius, even these guys admit the fire was around 1000 degrees) over iron oxide, set it on fire, and you get a thermite reaction. Not as good as if the aluminum was powdered, but still darn spectactular. It also explains the oddly colored glowing stuff, how the fire got hot enough to destroy the steel structure, and so on and so forth.

Why don't they test for thermite? Because they'd be guaranteed to get a positive.
The fact that they don't mention once the properties of the hull of the plane is enough for me to dismiss these guys as wackos.

P.S. Why did the building collapse the way it did? Because it was designed to collapse that way from the start. If they hadn't designed it that way, it would be impossible to demolish without risking everybody in a half mile radius.

P.P.S. Building 7 is a red herring. It contained an enormous amout of secret stuff, so I'm sure it was rigged to self-destruct. You don't have to believe in conspiracies to imagine why it would collapse like that.

[Al_U_Card]

OMG! Kudos for a reasonable explanation.

Now how about that multi-billion dollar deal for Silverstein?

[Winstonm]

jtfanclub, on Apr 21 2008, 11:36 AM, said:

Winstonm, on Apr 20 2008, 11:28 PM, said:

Why, indeed, would the NIST fail to test for thermite

You know what thermite is, right?

Thermite is a mix of aluminum and iron oxide.

In an open flame, steel doesn't tend to melt. It tends to burn. Burnt steel is mostly iron oxide. Take the body of the plane (mostly aluminum), pour it (aluminum melts at 660 degrees celsius, even these guys admit the fire was around 1000 degrees) over iron oxide, set it on fire, and you get a thermite reaction. Not as good as if the aluminum was powdered, but still darn spectactular. It also explains the oddly colored glowing stuff, how the fire got hot enough to destroy the steel structure, and so on and so forth.

Why don't they test for thermite? Because they'd be guaranteed to get a positive.
The fact that they don't mention once the properties of the hull of the plane is enough for me to dismiss these guys as wackos.

P.S. Why did the building collapse the way it did? Because it was designed to collapse that way from the start. If they hadn't designed it that way, it would be impossible to demolish without risking everybody in a half mile radius.

P.P.S. Building 7 is a red herring. It contained an enormous amout of secret stuff, so I'm sure it was rigged to self-destruct. You don't have to believe in conspiracies to imagine why it would collapse like that.

That's rather a remarkable conclusion - I assume you did not bother to read the article as you seem to already know what it says?

Strange, the NIST does not agree with your conclusions.
I don't know where you get your facts - but the NIST disputes your claims.
The NIST admits they cannot explain the collapse - why is it a problem finding an explanation?

Perhaps you could publish your findings in a peer-reviewed scientific journal - even a low-to-mid end one. I'm sure such conclusive proof would be welcomed.

[Winstonm]

jtfanclub, on Apr 21 2008, 11:36 AM, said:

Winstonm, on Apr 20 2008, 11:28 PM, said:

Why, indeed, would the NIST fail to test for thermite

You know what thermite is, right?

Thermite is a mix of aluminum and iron oxide.

In an open flame, steel doesn't tend to melt. It tends to burn. Burnt steel is mostly iron oxide. Take the body of the plane (mostly aluminum), pour it (aluminum melts at 660 degrees celsius, even these guys admit the fire was around 1000 degrees) over iron oxide, set it on fire, and you get a thermite reaction. Not as good as if the aluminum was powdered, but still darn spectactular. It also explains the oddly colored glowing stuff, how the fire got hot enough to destroy the steel structure, and so on and so forth.

Why don't they test for thermite? Because they'd be guaranteed to get a positive.
The fact that they don't mention once the properties of the hull of the plane is enough for me to dismiss these guys as wackos.

P.S. Why did the building collapse the way it did? Because it was designed to collapse that way from the start. If they hadn't designed it that way, it would be impossible to demolish without risking everybody in a half mile radius.

P.P.S. Building 7 is a red herring. It contained an enormous amout of secret stuff, so I'm sure it was rigged to self-destruct. You don't have to believe in conspiracies to imagine why it would collapse like that.

Wow?! That's quite an imagination you have. A crashed airplane and a burning steel beam mangaged in the 15 second time interval that the fires reached their peak intesity (about 1000F), the plane and the iron oxide magically compacted into a glob of thermite?!?! And then this occured over and over, even where no airplane crashed, in order to detonate the lower floors and allow a free-fall speed collapse.

Even if the Bin Laden God Fairy had accomplished this magic, how did they get the thermite then to ignite?

Quote: (emphasis added)

Quote

Ignition of a thermite reaction normally requires supervision by a trained technician, and may require persistent efforts, as ignition can be unreliable and unpredictable. Thermite reactions require very high temperatures for initiation. These temperatures cannot be reached with conventional black powder fuses, nitrocellulose rods, detonators, a suitable pyrotechnic initiator, or other common igniting substances. Even when the thermite is hot enough to glow bright red, it will not ignite as it must be at or near white-hot to initiate the reaction. It is possible to start the reaction using a propane torch if done correctly. The torch can preheat the entire pile of thermite which will make it explode instead of burning slowly when it finally reaches ignition temperature.

And some think evidence of explosion is grasping at straws.

[luke warm]

winston, are you saying that there were terrorists who flew into the wtw or there weren't? are you saying that if there were, the bushites grasped *quickly* the possibility of bringing the towers down so they could invade iraq?

please spell out for me the conspiracy you think occurred

[mike777]

Just another coverup.

"Nothing appeared on radar and Gregor said the FAA will not be investigating."


http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/200...lights0422.html

[Winstonm]

luke warm, on Apr 22 2008, 05:12 PM, said:

winston, are you saying that there were terrorists who flew into the wtw or there weren't? are you saying that if there were, the bushites grasped *quickly* the possibility of bringing the towers down so they could invade iraq?

please spell out for me the conspiracy you think occurred

I did not say any conspiracies occured - and I think I have made that point numerous times.

I accept that two large airplanes flew into the WTC towers.

I accept the NIST's claim that they cannot explain why the towers fell.

There is no conspiracy. There are only unsolved questions that need to be answered in order to: 1) help prevent future recurrence in other high-rise buildings, and 2) to rule-out some type of sabotage.

It is important to note that many scientists, physicists, and engineers have made statements that the most logical event that fits the known facts is demolition.
The importance of an investigation is to rule-out this most likely cause.

What happened is similar to holding an autopsy of a body, but with the stipulation "don't test for possible poisoning", and then after finding no other cause of death stating, "we don't know what the cause of death was, but we didn't find any evidence of poisioning". As a prosecutor, would you be satisfied with that autopsy conclusion?

[Winstonm]

mike777, on Apr 22 2008, 05:49 PM, said:

Just another coverup.

"Nothing appeared on radar and Gregor said the FAA will not be investigating."


http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/200...lights0422.html

Is azcentral.com a peer-reviewed scientific journal? Funny, but I didn't see any footnotes of sources.

It is amazing the tactics some are willing to use to deflect a discussion.

The WTC towers collapsed at near free-fall speed, in violation of physical law.
The NIST throws up their hands and says, "We can't tell you how it happened. It's a mystery to us."

And those 3000 dead at the towers only bring out "Red Lights in the Air" conspiracy comparisons?

That's rather shameful.

The four authors of the article took known facts, made no conspiratorial claims, and presented to peers their findings - who then found no scientifically valid reason to withhold publication - and so published the findings for all the world to read, criticize, and explain; on the other side, we have a silly, non-connected comparison of the WTC tragedy to UFO sighting conspiracy.

I ask - which side appears to most fear open debate?