Jones, Legge, Ryan, et al Published in Peer-Reviewed Online Journal of Civil Engineering

78. To: yukon (#75)

Downward pressure from the weight of the collapsing building! Have you ever seen a handyman jack get ejected from beneath a vehicle?

Actually no I haven't seen that happen, but I imagine it only happens when it's not being used properly, otherwise there might be safety recalls. I'm not sure how they are analogous either. Are you saying that columns bolted and welded together are like a gadget on the pavement with a car on top of it? So you think that downward pressure, as opposed to pushing something, well, downwards, would send it flying *outwards*. Hmmmm.... I think I may know what your problem is... :)

DougReed  posted on  2008-04-18   22:12:51 ET  Reply   Trace

---

79. To: yukon, ralphlopez1 (#47)

To: ralphlopez1

after a 280 degree corkscrew dive More BULLSHIITE!

Yes utter rubbish.

A 757 does not have the structural integrity nor does it have the requisite thrust nor does it have the requisite flight control surface area to recover from any 280 degree corkscrew vertical dive and a simple viewing of the ATC flight telemetry would indicate if that plane went inverse and aerodynamically stalled ..... and then levelled out again..... and it will not show that was the case........oh wait.....the ATC was in on this batty plan too:)

e _ type _ jag  posted on  2008-04-18   22:18:34 ET  Reply   Trace

---

80. To: DougReed (#68)

They do, eh? How many burning collapsing buildings have you been next to in your life?

And let me get this straight--you are saying that Felipe David, the WTC worker who was severly burned by an explosion in the basement burned himself?

And finally, when you say none of the witnesses, who did indeed report seeing and hearing and feeling explosions, actually saw bombs or explosives, do you think that might be because the actual bombs and explosives might not have been sitting in the middle of the hallway or stairwell, but instead have been hidden away from view?

And you call *us* irrational?

I can't tell you off hand, but I was a VFF for 15 years and know from first hand experience. You can check with your local fire department if you don't believe me. Hell, a forest fire makes sounds like bombs going off when trees get superheated and "explode".

Are you stupid or do you like to create strawmen? Do you know anything about flammable vapors?

And the bomb detection dog that was in the building the morning of 9/11 and died in the collapse, didn't detect any explosives?

Yes and you definitely haven't researched well.

yukon  posted on  2008-04-18   22:21:13 ET  Reply   Trace

---

81. To: DougReed (#71)

Should I not maybe wonder if you have something against hispanic people, yukon?

I don't have to wonder about your dumbass red herring. You're proving to be a real ignorant jerk.

yukon  posted on  2008-04-18   22:23:11 ET  Reply   Trace

---

82. To: DougReed (#76)

DId I say they were experts on anything? No, but among them are an ex-Governor of Minnesota, an ex-cabinet member from the Reagan admin, an eminent historian, and two former CIA agents. All of whom you seem to think are either a) crazy, b)stupid,

So why are you presenting them? Geezus, research the names and their positions and recent written materials.

yukon  posted on  2008-04-18   22:27:13 ET  Reply   Trace

---

83. To: DougReed (#78)

So you think that downward pressure, as opposed to pushing something, well, downwards, would send it flying *outwards*.

Stand on a model house made of popsicle sticks. Downward pressure, correct?

yukon  posted on  2008-04-18   22:29:39 ET  Reply   Trace

---

84. To: DougReed (#74)

are you saying that invalidates the 9/11 Commission's own reports that Hanjours flight instructors said he was not at all a good pilot, on small planes, let alone a 757 he never flew?

No Doug I'm not saying the guy was a good pilot at all......seems he was quite bad in fact as his landing he did perform was not up to par:)

What I am saying is that someone claiming the guy wanted to check out his flight skills on a roller skate of a plane that supervised 14 year olds can fly is really not equivalent to a 757....no one would equate the 2 skill levels needed........I would not think posting up my 3 year old boy in the paint and scoring over him would be a good indicator of how I'll do against the guys I play B-Ball with either.

Clear on the concept?

I think this is rubbish and the story about the 172 checkout never happened and my intent is to disprove anyone who alleges this bogus storyline.....and any storyline subsequent to that nonsense lacks credibility.

That's all:)

e _ type _ jag  posted on  2008-04-18   22:31:49 ET  Reply   Trace

---

85. To: DougReed (#78)

I imagine it only happens when it's not being used properly,

Of course a plane crashing into a building would be proper use to you? Sounds like something from a dumb forum! LOLAY!

yukon  posted on  2008-04-18   22:34:14 ET  Reply   Trace

---

86. To: DougReed (#57)

Well at least in the case of WTC7, Danny Jowenko, the top demolitions guy in the Netherlands, says it was a controlled demolition. WTC7 was a classic controlled demolition. The twin towers on the other hand, which unlike WTC7 were hit by planes, were demolished in a way that would make the gravity driven pancake collapse seem plausible to laymen. Jowenko also expressed his view that demolition companies in the US would be very reluctant to admit this because of the potential loss of business from the government and anyone else with a vested interest in the official account.

I had forgotten about Jowenko. Let's review what he said.

Danny Jowenko has made it quite clear that, in his expert opinion, the collapses of WTC1 and WTC2 could not possibly have been brought about by the use of explosives. He has explained his reasons for this opinion perfectly clearly; since the collapses initiated in the regions struck by airliners and engulfed in fires, the fires would have set off the demolition charges uncontrollably, and much sooner than the actual collapse initiation times.

So let's look at the possibilities here.

(a) Jowenko's opinion is sufficiently informed that we can assume that everything he says is correct. If this is the case, then WTC1 and WTC2 cannot possibly have been expected to collapse, therefore the debris damage and the fire in WTC7 cannot possibly have been expected to be available to cover the demolition of WTC7. The only possible explanation for a hypothetical demolition of WTC7 is therefore that it was entirely planned and executed between 10am and 5pm on 9-11. This rules out any possibility that the demolition of WTC7 was a part of any premeditated inside job.

(b) Jowenko's opinion, while that of a well-informed expert, is not infallible. Therefore, either he is (1) wrong about WTC1 and WTC2 but right about WTC7, (2) right about WTC1 and WTC2 but wrong about WTC7, or (3) wrong about all three buildings. Possibility (1) is the only one of these that supports an inside job theory based on Jowenko's testimony, because (2) is entirely compatible with the conventional understanding of 9-11 and (3) requires that Jowenko's testimony be discarded altogether.

The contention that Jowenko's testimony supports an inside job requires, therefore, that Jowenko be wrong more often than he is right (wrong about WTC1 and WTC2 but right about WTC7), yet that on the minority of occasions when he is right his testimony cannot be disputed.

Let me point out another reason why Jowenko is wrong. It takes months, not hours, to prepare a building the size of WTC 7 for a controlled demolition. It's simply impossible to do it in a few hours.

GarySpFc  posted on  2008-04-18   23:35:45 ET  Reply   Trace

---

87. To: DougReed (#59)

And are you really saying that the 319 architecture and engineering professionals of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth are all either crazy or stupid?

Emphatically yes! Having worked with demo for years I can say they are dead wrong. It takes months to prepare a building for demo, and anyone saying otherwise is insane, stupid or has a political agenda.

GarySpFc  posted on  2008-04-18   23:41:23 ET  Reply   Trace

---

88. To: poitiers (#63)

So we have a man who truly was a member of the Special Forces who has had demolition training as a SEAL who says the events of 9-11 don't fit the official story...

And, we have a keyboard commando posting under a fictitious name claiming to have been a SpFc demolitions expert who slavishly agrees with the official story....

.....I think I'll believe the former.

Firstly, Jesse was not a member of the Special Forces, but a member of UDT.

Secondly, you can call any number of former Special Forces on LP or TOS to check my credentials. Feel free to check with Travis McGee, a former SEAL officer.

GarySpFc  posted on  2008-04-18   23:44:59 ET  Reply   Trace

---

89. To: DougReed (#68)

And let me get this straight--you are saying that Felipe David, the WTC worker who was severly burned by an explosion in the basement burned himself? That there was no explosion, but that he imagined it? So Mr. Rodriguez has profited from his story, and that means that he's also lying about the explosion that he felt and heard just before Mr. David came out of the elevator with severe burns, yelling "explosion"? Are they lying about all of this as part of the same conspiracy that the Architects and Engineers are part of?

The fuel and/or explosive fumes would have traveled down the elevator shafts. The resulting explosions blew out the elevator doors.

And finally, when you say none of the witnesses, who did indeed report seeing and hearing and feeling explosions, actually saw bombs or explosives, do you think that might be because the actual bombs and explosives might not have been sitting in the middle of the hallway or stairwell, but instead have been hidden away from view? Would you actually expect anyone to say "Well we were coming down the stairs and came across this bomb, this bundle of explosives, that's how we know what the explosions were." ?

There would have been all kinds of explosions or explosive sounds happening in the buildings resulting from the airplanes hitting the buildings, but these were not demolition charges.

GarySpFc  posted on  2008-04-18   23:52:32 ET  Reply   Trace

---

90. To: DougReed (#76)

Agian, I ask: *you* think *we* are irrational? I'm not sure who you think you're convincing here...

No, I think you're just a liar who would do anything for a political agenda.

GarySpFc  posted on  2008-04-18   23:54:52 ET  Reply   Trace

---

91. To: GarySpFc (#86)

I have not seen where Jowenko says that the twin towers could NOT have been a result of demolition--I have seen the interview where he does not suppose they were, but that their difference from WTC7 is stark and WTC7 WAS DEFINITELY in his opinion a demolition.

If indeed Jowenko claimed that chain reaction problem where the plane would set off all the explosives, perhaps he did so assuming that, like him, the pepretrators would have used detonation cord connecting all the explosives. Since what is more likely in the case of the twin towers is that the explosives were divided into isolated units set off by remote control and by detonation cord, this would seem to explain away that problem adequately.

Your idea moreover that WTC7 had to have been prepared for demolition that morning is absurd. It could have been done in weeks preceding the event, and by a team larger than your average demolition team. For you to suggest that it would HAVE to have been done that morning has no basis in reason, you are simply screaming it and hoping to convince a few stragglers!

Now you also turn around say something that is the exact opposite of what you all have claimed before. You suggest that if the towers didn't have explosives in them then they couldn't have been expected to collapse, so how would they have known they would have a cover story for the implosion of WTC7. Previously you all had tried to claim that it was apparently common knowledge that a fire could bring down the towers, so either you're wrong or you're wrong--pick one.

For that matter, NIST itself says that their view is that the floors could not have pancaked, so you're also going agianst the official explanation. The problem with the official reports is not that they lied too much, it's that they were too honest in many cases and drew illogical conclusions that are being pointed out in a new peer reviewed journal by Steven Jones, which I'm sure everyone here will be eager to read.

The problem with the case you all are presenting here is that it depends on:

1) ad hominem attack - calling people names instead of addressing their claims

2) claiming without evidence things that "must have happened" for your version to be correct (e.g. claiming with no evidence that jet fuel or gaseous vapors somehow poured over 1000 ft down the sealed elevator shafts to explode in the face of Felipe David in the basement, all BEFORE the first plane hit.)

3) ignoring the problems you can't explain and changing the subject (Hanjour was a bad pilot, so you focus on some unconfirmed story about his training, or claim all he needed to do was crash, which leaves out the alleged flight out to over Ohio and back to D.C. and his ability to target the Pentagon with a difficult maneuver, or for example the midair pulverization of concrete, evidence of molten iron, and lateral ejection of extremely massive steel components, which you have so far tried to explain with analogies to car jacks and popsicle stick houses!)

And all we are trying to do is show that there are many legitimate questions being voiced by people with no reason to lie and much to lose by speaking out. Your claim on the other hand is that there are no good questions, no crredible people, and that instead there is a real conspiracy that you haven't really identified, to accomplish, something you haven''t been able to specify. Are supposed to be working with al Qaeda? The Soviets? Aliens? Democrats? Who exactly is behind this effort to in your opinion to confound and divide Americans?

And you say all of this as, for all we know, 16 year old boys sitting in your underwear in mom's basement, claiming all kinds of expertise that you don't actually seem to possess.

I ask again, is it in the interest of the American people to take *your* word over everyone else's that there is no problem whatsoever with the official account of the events of september 11? I submit to you that it is not--that following your lead is the surest way for America to continue on its self- destructive path into bankruptcy and loss of sovereignty.

I know many people are reading, and not commenting. It is *you* who must decide what *you* believe. You don't have to make up your mind now, just decide if any of what read here merits, in the interest of your country, a more thorough review than you will find on an internet forum. Remember to consider the *best* case made by each side before deciding what you think your country needs you to do!

Best wishes in the process...

DougReed  posted on  2008-04-19   11:43:17 ET  Reply   Trace

---

92. To: DougReed (#91)

a new peer reviewed journal by Steven Jones, which I'm sure everyone here will be eager to read.

Your claim on the other hand is that there are no good questions

And you say all of this as, for all we know, 16 year old boys sitting in your underwear in mom's basement, claiming all kinds of expertise that you don't actually seem to possess.

is it in the interest of the American people to take *your* word over everyone else's that there is no problem whatsoever with the official account of the events of september 11

Tell us about it! When is it expected and who is going to review the work?

Where did anyone ever claim that, strawman?

Likewise! Most of the questions raised have been reasonably explained, yet you CT's keep coming back with the same ones repeatedly. You don't want to believe the evidence.

Another strawman!

yukon  posted on  2008-04-19   11:57:59 ET  Reply   Trace

---

93. To: yukon (#72)

What engine? Proves again you know not of what you speak and have done damned little research.

Anyone can see that what I said was that engine parts were found, not an engine. it was you who said that an entire engine had been found in the Pentagon, and asked how it could have been put there beforehand. Now you point to a pile of junk with an engine part in the middle of it, and call it an engine (again). The amount of possibly plane related debris pulled from the Pentagon was a tiny fraction of the entire plane, which you presumably are arguing was vaporized. Tons and tons of steel, titanium, aluminum, etc--just vanished. I don't suppose you have a helpful picture of all the plane debris that was recovered so we can see what it amounted to... This is routinely done, and even assembled into its approximate shape in other air disasters. In this case it wasn't was it. Why not? Maybe for the same reason that a heavily surveilled military HQ can't produce an adequate video of the alleged collision? And we haven't even gotten to the "punch out hole"in the interior ring. What caused that nearly perfectly round hole again? The landing gear? The landing gear that was found inside the Pentagon so clearly did not go through that hole?

DougReed  posted on  2008-04-19   14:49:50 ET  Reply   Trace

---

94. To: yukon (#92)

Tell us about it! When is it expected and who is going to review the work?

There you go, it's already been peer-reviewed and published. Please be sure to read it and let us know where you think they are mistaken! http://www.bentham.org/open/index.htm

Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction pp.35-40 (6) Authors: Steven E. Jones, Frank M. Legge, Kevin R. Ryan, Anthony F. Szamboti, James R. Gourley

doi: 10.2174/1874149500802010035

The Open Civil Engineering Journal

ISSN: 1874-1495 Volume 2, 2008

Aims & Scope

The Open Civil Engineering Journal is an Open Access online journal, which publishes research articles, reviews, and letters in all areas of civil engineering.

The Open Civil Engineering Journal, a peer-reviewed journal, aims to provide the most complete and reliable source of information on recent developments in civil engineering. The emphasis will be on publishing quality articles rapidly and freely available to researchers worldwide.

DougReed  posted on  2008-04-19   15:03:40 ET  Reply   Trace

---

95. To: yukon (#92)

You don't want to believe the evidence.

Really? Please direct me to evidence, for example, that after the initiation of collapse of each of the twin towers, a progressive collapse would have ensued. Please make sure that it is something that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Please also direct me to evidence that a collapse initiated in each of the twin towers solely due to impact damage and fire, also in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

If you can't find any such evidence in peer-reviewed journals, then you can cite a non-peer reviewed source, but please do point me specifically to the evidence I'm asking you for. You say we keep rejecting the evidence, but I have as yet not seen you provide any.

DougReed  posted on  2008-04-19   15:11:08 ET  Reply   Trace

---

96. To: DougReed (#94)

There you go, it's already been peer-reviewed and published.

By whom? Your link doesn't provide the information.

yukon  posted on  2008-04-19   15:18:43 ET  Reply   Trace

---

97. To: DougReed (#95)

Please direct me to evidence

Please also direct me to evidence

but I have as yet not seen you provide any.

I already have. You don't accept it. The claims that ALL the steel from the WTC was immediately auctioned and sent to China is false and proven so. Photos of the remnants of the plane that crashed into the Pentagon have been posted.

http://www.lafire.com/famous_fires/2001- 0911_WTC/2002-0500_LA-Firefighter_WTC-BuildingCollapse_Dunn.htm

That is because you refuse to read it.

Here is a source of more information for you to refuse to read.

http://cms.firehouse.com/content/contributor/bio.jsp?id=114

http://www.firehouse. com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/

Pay special attention to the interview with Capt. Chris Boyle - Engine 94. Reread it.

yukon  posted on  2008-04-19   15:32:29 ET  Reply   Trace

---

98. To: yukon (#97)

Yukon to Dougreed;

That is because you refuse to read it.

His tin hat is one size to big and keeps falling in his eyes. LOL!

ScratInTheHat  posted on  2008-04-19   15:49:30 ET  Reply   Trace

---

99. To: yukon (#96)

By whom? Your link doesn't provide the information.

Are you suggesting that this journal is a fraud, that it claims to have articles peer-reviewed and doesn't really? Wow, I guess we've found ANOTHER layer to this conspiracy against you defenders of the official myth. So who is now ignoring evidence? You look for any and every excuse not to have to actually rebut things you know you can't! But those who are not paranoid about conspiracies to deceive people about 9/11 might well decide it's worth reading the very clear and accessible 12 page report, written by scientists and reviewed by scientists.

DougReed  posted on  2008-04-19   15:54:01 ET  Reply   Trace

---

100. To: yukon (#97)

Photos of the remnants of the plane that crashed into the Pentagon have been posted.

Here is a source of more information for you to refuse to read.

You posted a picture of all of the remnants of the Pentagon plane assembled in one place? Really? Where? I recall you posted a picture of a piece of an engine. What I asked you for is evidence that all those remnants were collected, as is done in every other airplane crash, and reassembled to the extent possible. I'll put this one down as another "No, I can't" from you.

As for the links to the fireman magazine, what part of them contains a peer- reviewed analysis of the collapse initiation and evidence of progressive collapse following that? I don't see it. It seems like you're just posting random links in order to avoid directly addressing the issues I raise.

I'll make this very easy for you folks... here is an excerpt from an actual peer-reviewed engineering journal (not a firehouse magazine:)

10. Unusual Bright Flame and Glowing Liquid (WTC 2)

NIST: “An unusual flame is visible within this fire. In the upper photograph {Fig 9-44} a very bright flame, as opposed to the typical yellow or orange surrounding flames, which is generating a plume of white smoke, stands out”.4

“NIST reported (NCSTAR 1-5A) that just before 9:52 a.m., a bright spot appeared at the top of a window on the 80th floor of WTC 2, four windows removed from the east edge on the north face, followed by the flow of a glowing liquid. This flow lasted approximately four seconds before subsiding. Many such liquid flows were observed from near this location in the seven minutes leading up to the collapse of this tower”.3

We agree and congratulate NIST for including these observations of an “unusual flame... which is generating a plume of white smoke” 4 “followed by the flow of a glowing liquid” having “an orange glow” [3]. With regard to the “very bright flame… which is generating a plume of white smoke”, NIST effectively rules out burning aluminum, because “Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures…”.3

Again, we agree.

The origins of this very bright flame and of the associated flow of an orange- glowing liquid remain open questions in the NIST report. NIST opened a very appropriate line of investigation by publishing these significant clues from the data, 3, 4 providing an important starting point for further discussion which we seek.

11. High-Temperature Steel Attack, Sulfidation

FEMA (based on work by a Worchester Polytechnic Institute investigative team): “Sample 1 (From WTC 7)… Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure…. Sample 2 (From WTC 1 or WTC 2)… The thinning of the steel occurred by high temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation. …The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified… A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed…”2 We agree that the physical evidence for “severe high temperature corrosion attack” involving sulfur is compelling. Here we have grounds for an interesting discussion: How were “severe high temperatures” reached in the WTC buildings? What is the source of the sulfur that attacked the steel in these buildings? The answers to these questions may help us find the explanation for the “total collapse” of the Towers and WTC 7 that we are all looking for. The WPI researchers published their results2, 21 and called for “a detailed study” of this “high-temperature” “oxidation and sulfidation” phenomenon. Yet the results were unfortunately ignored by NIST in their subsequent reports on the Towers’ destruction.3, 4 Their failure to respond to this documented anomaly is a striking phenomenon in itself. Perhaps NIST will explain and correct this oversight by considering the high-temperature sulfidation data in their long overdue report on the collapse of WTC 7. The existence of severe high temperatures in the WTC destruction is by now very well established.22 It appears that NIST has inadvertently overlooked this evidence and we offer to investigate the matter with them, in pursuit of understanding and security.

12. Computer Modeling and Visualizations

NIST: “The more severe case (which became Case B for WTC 1 and Case D for WTC 2) was used for the global analysis of each tower. Complete sets of simulations were then performed for Cases B and D. To the extent that the simulations deviated from the photographic evidence or eyewitness reports [e.g., complete collapse occurred], the investigators adjusted the input, but only within the range of physical reality. Thus, for instance…the pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the sagging floors were adjusted...4 “The primary role of the floors in the collapse of the towers was to provide inward pull forces that induced inward bowing of perimeter columns.4 “The results were a simulation of the structural deterioration of each tower from the time of aircraft impact to the time at which the building became unstable, i.e., was poised for collapse…4 We agree that NIST resorted to complex computer simulations and no doubt “adjusted the input” to account for the Towers’ destruction, after the fire-endurance physical tests did not support their preordained collapse theory. But the end result of such tweaked computer models, which were provided without visualizations and without sufficient detail for others to validate them, is hardly compelling. An article in the journal New Civil Engineer states: World Trade Center disaster investigators [at NIST] are refusing to show computer visualisations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, NCE has learned. Visualisations of collapse mechanisms are routinely used to validate the type of finite element analysis model used by the [NIST] investigators. …A leading US structural engineer said NIST had obviously devoted enormous resources to the development of the impact and fire models. “By comparison the global structural model is not as sophisticated,” he said. “The software used [by NIST] has been pushed to new limits, and there have been a lot of simplifications, extrapolations and judgment calls”.23

Further detailed comments on the NIST computer simulations are provided by Eric Douglas.24

We would like to discuss the computer modeling and extrapolations made by NIST and the need for visualizations using numerical and graphical tools to scrutinize and validate the finite-element analysis.

13. Total Collapse Explanation Lacking

NIST: “This letter is in response to your April 12, 2007 request for correction… we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse”.25

This admission by NIST after publishing some 10,000 pages on the collapse of the Towers shows admirable candor, yet may come as a bit of a shock to interested parties including Congress, which commissioned NIST to find a full explanation.

We agree that NIST so far has not provided a full explanation for the total collapse. Indeed they take care to explain that their report stops short of the collapse, only taking the investigation up to the point where each Tower “was poised for collapse”.4 We offer to help find that elusive “full explanation of the total collapse” of the WTC Towers which killed so many innocent people, in the hope that it does not happen again. We have a few ideas and can back these up with experimental data.13, 22 Our interest is in physical evidence and analysis leading to a full understanding of the destruction of the WTC.

CONCLUSIONS

We have enumerated fourteen areas where we are in agreement with FEMA and NIST in their investigations of the tragic and shocking destruction of the World Trade Center. We agree that the Towers fell at near free-fall speed and that is an important starting point. We agree that several popular myths have been shown to be wrong, such as the idea that steel in the buildings melted due to the fires, or that the Towers were hollow tubes, or that floors “pancaked” to account for total Tower collapses. We agree that the collapse of the 47-story WTC 7 (which was not hit by a jet) is hard to explain from the point of view of a fire-induced mechanism and that NIST has refused (so far) to look for residues of explosives.3, 22, 27 Our investigative team would like to build from this foundation and correspond with the NIST investigation team, especially since they have candidly conceded (in a reply to some of us in September 2007):

“…we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse”.25

We are offering to discuss these matters in a civil manner as a matter of scientific and engineering courtesy and civic duty. The lives of thousands of people may very well depend on it.

DougReed  posted on  2008-04-19   16:03:32 ET  Reply   Trace

---

101. To: DougReed (#99)

Are you suggesting that this journal is a fraud

You appear to be. Just answer the question. Who reviewed the article which in essence does nothing more than agree with 14 points made by FEMA and the NIST!

yukon  posted on  2008-04-19   16:06:56 ET  Reply   Trace

---

102. To: yukon (#97)

http://www.lafire.com/famous_fires/2001- 0911_WTC/2002-0500_LA-Firefighter_WTC-BuildingCollapse_Dunn.htm

Effects of jet crash and fire on a skeleton steel high rise A plane that only weighted 10 tons struck the Empire State Building and the high-octane gasoline fire quickly flamed out after 35 minutes. When the firefighters walked up to the 79 floor most of the fire had dissipated. The Empire State Building in my opinion, and most fire chiefs in New York City, is the most fire safe building in America. I believe it would have not collapsed like the WTC towers. I believe the Empire State Building, and for that matter any other skeleton steel building in New York City, would have withstood the impact and fire of the terrorist’s jet plane better than the WTC towers.

This is not peer-reviewed, is it? "Weighted"? "terrorist's"? It doesn't look like it was even edited by someone with a decent command of the english language! This is the best you have? That doesn't say much. I'll be pointing out any more errors I find (not just poor grammar, of course!)

DougReed  posted on  2008-04-19   16:08:54 ET  Reply   Trace

---

103. To: yukon (#101)

Who reviewed the article which in essence does nothing more than agree with 14 points made by FEMA and the NIST!

I'll tell you after you tell me who reviewed your fireman's article! :)

DougReed  posted on  2008-04-19   16:10:04 ET  Reply   Trace

---

104. To: DougReed (#100)

You posted a picture of all of the remnants of the Pentagon plane assembled in one place?

It seems like you're just posting random links

Just how stupid are you strawman? Was ALL the steel from the WTC's shipped to China? Yes or No?

It seems like you are too dumb to read the information provided at said links.

yukon  posted on  2008-04-19   16:11:43 ET  Reply   Trace

---

105. To: DougReed (#102)

This is not peer-reviewed, is it?

You can't even remember what you post! "then you can cite a non-peer reviewed source," I'm dealing with an apparent illiterate.

yukon  posted on  2008-04-19   16:14:28 ET  Reply   Trace

---

106. To: yukon (#97)

http://www.lafire.com/famous_fires/2001- 0911_WTC/2002-0500_LA-Firefighter_WTC-BuildingCollapse_Dunn.htm

Oh my, it's worse than I thought. Let's see:

Fireman Dunn: "However, I believe a skeleton steel frame high rise would not suffer a cascading total pancake collapse of the lower floors in 8 and 10 seconds."

NIST: “NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers… Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon”.3

Fireman Dunn: "Most of the occupants and rescuers killed in the WTC tower collapse were on the lower floors."

A brilliant observation, since that is where most of them were. Is Fireman Dunn suggesting those *above* the impact zones survived?

DougReed  posted on  2008-04-19   16:25:07 ET  Reply   Trace

---

107. To: DougReed (#106)

Who were the reviewers of Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction ? LOL!

Just how stupid are you strawman? Was ALL the steel from the WTC's shipped to China? Yes or No?

It seems like you are too dumb to read the information provided at said links.

This is not peer-reviewed, is it?

You can't even remember what you post! "then you can cite a non-peer reviewed source," I'm dealing with an apparent illiterate.

Sorry, but I have to laugh!

yukon  posted on  2008-04-19   16:32:43 ET  Reply   Trace

---

108. To: All (#106)

Man, this Dunn guy is pretty much wrong about everything. See why you need to find peer-reviewed articles, yukon? This is embarassing!

Fireman Dunn: The computer has allowed engineers to reduce the mass of a structure by its ability to more accurately determine the load bearing capability of structural framework. Years ago before the computer, builders were not sure of a structural elements load bearing capability, so they over built by using a so called “safety factor”. This built in safety factor could result in a structure with twice the required load bearing strength. Because of computer calculation this no longer occurs. The older buildings use to have built in a so called “safety factor” of two-to-one. Not so today, if the building code requires a load bearing factor of 40 pounds per square foot that is exactly what you get. There is no margin for error.

FEMA: The building's structural system, composed of the exterior load-bearing frame, the gravity load-bearing frame at the central core, and the system of deep outrigger trusses in upper stories, was highly redundant. http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf

DougReed  posted on  2008-04-19   16:44:45 ET  Reply   Trace

---

109. To: yukon (#107)

Sorry, but I have to laugh!

We finally agree on something yukon, I also have to laugh! :)

Fireman Dunn: "The Twin towers are radically different in structural design as the exterior wall is used as the load-bearing wall. (A load bearing wall supports the weight of the floors.) The only interior columns are located in the core area, which contains the elevators. The outer wall carries the building vertical loads and provides the entire resistance to wind."

FEMA: "...the gravity load-bearing frame at the central core"

Put a fork in him... he's Dunn! LOL

Got anything else yukon?

DougReed  posted on  2008-04-19   16:53:50 ET  Reply   Trace

congrats to first place winner with over 4300 hits in the last week - Zaragoza, Spain. Great work, fellas! In second place with close to 1500 hits, we have our esteemed "researchers" from Mountain View, California, home to the Moffett Federal Airfield and NASA's Ames Research Facility.

I'm a Digging maniac now!!! Post far and wide! Digg, people, Digggg!!!!!

http://digg.com/political_opinion/Wired_for_Terror_Who_Was_Behind_9_11_b...

Over at nytimes they have an article with several general's who helped push for the Iraq war (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/washington/20generals.html). I noticed one had the last name "meigs". This name does not seem very common to me. Does any one know if there is a familial relation between General Montgomery Meigs and James B. Meigs of Popular Mechanics? Sorry to thread jack but we all know there are some tight knit circles involved in the 9/11 psyop and cover up so I thought I'd bring this up.

-Whitey