lord_casek Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html this is a very long read. however, it is important. " Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse? By Steven E. Jones Department of Physics and Astronomy Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 ABSTRACT In this paper, I call for a serious investigation of the hypothesis that WTC 7 and the Twin Towers were brought down, not just by impact damage and fires, but through the use of pre-positioned cutter-charges. I consider the official FEMA, NIST, and 9-11 Commission reports that fires plus impact damage alone caused complete collapses of all three buildings. And I present evidence for the controlled-demolition hypothesis, which is suggested by the available data, testable and falsifiable, and yet has not been analyzed in any of the reports funded by the US government." if this guy isn't reliable, and if the scientists overseeing him at the time the spectrographic tests were done, i don't know what is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
!@#$% Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 unfortunately, the masses do not care about this stuff. it'll take years before the public's psyche is equipped to fathom this sort of conjecture i didn't read the paper but i've seen a couple PBS specials on the topic basically refuting official versions of events. but people are complacent. they have their hummer, and their gas. so fuck it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted June 8, 2006 Author Share Posted June 8, 2006 unfortunately, the masses do not care about this stuff. it'll take years before the public's psyche is equipped to fathom this sort of conjecture i didn't read the paper but i've seen a couple PBS specials on the topic basically refuting official versions of events. but people are complacent. they have their hummer, and their gas. so fuck it. symbols: skim down to where he presents the spectrogram data for proving that there were thermate (thermite with sulfur mixed in to cut steel. it weakens it faster than thermite alone) that is the 'juicy' bit of that paper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
!@#$% Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 so who do you think was responsible for this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted June 8, 2006 Author Share Posted June 8, 2006 so who do you think was responsible for this? let's put it this way marvin bush's company was head of security. he'd be pretty pissed if some 'terrorists' came in and took the time it takes to set up demolitions explosives in the wtc, right? it can take 8 or so hours to do such a thing. it just so happens, and i can back this up, that the wtc was closed down for a day a couple of days prior to the 11th. marvin bush's security company had full run of the building. one whole day. did they do it? who knows? thermate is only used in demolitions. it's used to slice those huge steel girders in two and enable the building to collapse upon itself cleanly. what is my personal opinion? govt operations. whether it's a small faction or whatever, we'll probably never know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
!@#$% Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 this guy was the head of the WTC security he'd left the FBI because he 'knew' or at least anticipated the WTC as a target he was killed on 9.11 http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/ selections from the timeline on his life... Summer 2001 Intelligence Indicates Attack on U.S. Interests Likely By now, O'Neill is more marginalized than ever at the FBI because of his deteriorating relationship with headquarters. He discusses the threats with his friend Chris Isham, who tells FRONTLINE: "He knew that there was a lot of noise out there and that there were a lot of warnings, a lot of red flags, and that it was a similar level that they were hearing before the millennium, which was an indication that there was something going on. Yet, he felt that he was frozen out, that he was not in a capacity to really do anything about it anymore because of his relationship with the FBI. So it was a source of real anguish for him." June 21, 2001 Louis Freeh Resigns as FBI Director; Thomas Pickard Appointed Interim Director July 2001 O'Neill Decides to Retire from FBI He hears about a job opening as head of security at the World Trade Center. It would mean a significant salary increase, but also it would mean leaving the FBI. By this point, however, O'Neill realizes his chances for a promotion were severely hurt by the briefcase incident. In addition to career problems, entertaining foreign visitors and O'Neill's lifestyle had left him in debt. The job at the World Trade Center would give him a chance to pay off that debt. July 10, 2001 Speech to Spanish Police Foundation While vacationing in Spain with Valerie James and her son, O'Neill gives a speech to Spanish police on interagency cooperation. He asks the audience, "How much more successful could we all be if we really knew what our agencies really knew?" July 10, 2001 Phoenix FBI Office Recommends Agency-Wide Investigation of Flight Schools The memo makes its way to FBI headquarters but it is not passed on to O'Neill or Mawn in the New York office -- nor is the struggle the following month of the Minnesota FBI office to investigate the alleged 20th hijacker, Zacarias Moussaoui. Aug. 19, 2001 The New York Times Reports on O'Neill's Briefcase Incident and Pending Retirement The Times story quotes an anonymous source, whom O'Neill believes is Tom Pickard. O'Neill confronts Pickard who denies that he was the source of the leak. Aug. 22, 2001 Last Day at the FBI In his final hours on the job, O'Neill signs an authorization for the FBI to return to Yemen. Calling Fran Townsend at the Justice Department from his desk, O'Neill explains, "I wasn't leaving here until I did it, because I promised that we would send them back. When I pulled them out, I had to. But I was determined to be the one who signed the piece of paper to send them back." O'Neill also e-mails Lou Gunn, whose son had died in the Cole attack, to tell him that he was retiring, but that the FBI was returning to Yemen. Late August 2001 New Job: The World Trade Center According to Chris Isham, O'Neill recognized the threat still posed to the World Trade Center. "When he had first gotten the job at the World Trade Center, he told me, 'I've got this great job. I'm head of security at the World Trade Center.' And I joked with him and said, 'Well, that will be an easy job. They're not going to bomb that place again.' And he said, 'Well actually -- he immediately came back and he said, 'actually they've always wanted to finish that job. I think they're going to try again." Sept. 10, 2001 Intimations On the eve of Sept. 11, O'Neill is with friends on the town. According to Jerry Hauer, O'Neill warns him that night: "We're due for something big." O'Neill explains, "I don't like the way things are lining up in Afghanistan." Still, O'Neill tells friends that he is happy about his new job. "[it] doesn't get better than this," he says. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted June 8, 2006 Author Share Posted June 8, 2006 i've read about him. poor guy tried to stand up to something very very powerful. true patriot. may his soul rest in peace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Mamerro Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 Dear Editor, After reading in the Daily Herald the presentations made by Professor Steven E. Jones (BYU Physics) to students at UVSC and BYU, I feel obligated to reply to his "Conspiracy Theory" relating to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center (9/11/01). I have studied the summary of the report by FEMA, The American Society of Civil Engineers and several other professional engineering organizations. These experts have given in detail the effects on the Towers by the impact of the commercial aircraft. I have also read Professor Jones' (referred to) 42 page unpublished report. In my understanding of structural design and the properties of structural steel I find Professor Jones' thesis that planted explosives (rather than fire from the planes) caused the collapse of the Towers, very unreliable. The structural design of the towers was unique in that the supporting steel structure consisted of closely spaced columns in the walls of all four sides. The resulting structure was similar to a tube. When the aircraft impacted the towers at speeds of about 500 plus mph, many steel columns were immediately severed and others rendered weak by the following fires. The fires critically damaged the floors systems. Structural steel will begin to lose strength when heated to temperatures above 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. Steel bridge girders are bent to conform to the curved roadway by spot heating flanges between 800 and 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. It is easy to comprehend the loss of carrying capacity of all the structural steel due to the raging fires fed by the jet's fuel as well as aircraft and building contents. Before one (especially students) supports such a conspiracy theory, they should investigate all details of the theory. To me a practicing structural engineer of 57 continuous years (1941-1998), Professor Jones' presentations are very disturbing. D. Allan Firmage Professor Emeritus, Civil Engineering, BYU Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted June 8, 2006 Author Share Posted June 8, 2006 1,300°F or 1,400°F max temps. go find the weakening point for structural steel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted June 8, 2006 Author Share Posted June 8, 2006 http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-6ExecutiveSummary.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted June 8, 2006 Author Share Posted June 8, 2006 and what of all the firefights and police who claimed to hear, feel, and see explosions? liars? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
!@#$% Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 the national institute of science and technology did some cool experiments about this: that back up 'official' versions http://wtc.nist.gov/media/gallery2.htm http://wtc.nist.gov/media/gallery.htm#recover there is some variation in scientific literature about strain tests, heat and metals Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
!@#$% Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 here there are a ton of NIST presentations i can't seem to copy and paste from them http://wtc.nist.gov/WTC_Conf_Sep13-15/presentations905.htm but NIST has seen no evidence that the destruction was caused by bombs, missiles, or controlled demolition http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:ck-uBvSwANwJ:wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-6ExecutiveSummary.pdf+NIST+sequence+of+collapse&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Mamerro Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 Another sweet paper by Steve. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted June 8, 2006 Author Share Posted June 8, 2006 structural steel only gets to a weak point around 3000 degress fahrenheit from what i've read. jet fuel burns at 1,200 max? is that right? of course, official reports contradict themselves all over. so do the truth movement people for the most part. gotta go make some money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
!@#$% Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 ^as i said, it seems there is disagreement about the exact weakening point in the literature. you have to wade through all that NIST stuff but it seemed somewhat conlusive to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Mamerro Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 Structural steel melts at 2750° F. It supposedly gets weaker MUCH earlier than that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
!@#$% Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 Another sweet paper by Steve. :eek: nice discovery this shuts down pretty much any 'hypothesis' i'll ever see by this guy i knew when i saw BYU we were in for it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
!@#$% Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 hahahaaa melting point versus weakening point? i'm thinking those two things don't happen at the same time. ha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WORDISM45 Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 haha lord casek when you post shit like this and say how it must be true it just makes everything else you say sound stupid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted June 9, 2006 Author Share Posted June 9, 2006 haha lord casek when you post shit like this and say how it must be true it just makes everything else you say sound stupid i'd trust a physics professor over anything anyone here would say. yes. well, except for symbols. even though her degree makes her a DNA jockey. (we used to give those cats such trouble at AU. they hated me for being on their computers) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WORDISM45 Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 i truly believe that the people that are pulling the wool over the collective eyes of the masses love it when storys like this are propagated because theyre so easily ridiculed that it makes the 90 percent of people that bought the government story buy it even more totally because of how far fetched the opposing story that is presented is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted June 9, 2006 Author Share Posted June 9, 2006 yum: don't you find it a little odd that the buildings fell right in their tracks? don't you find it even morre odd that 7 of the terrorists were trained at pensacola naval air station? how about that the cia funded al qaida? what about the owner of the wtc complex saying that building seven was pulled? did they have time to place explosives in there to "pull" it before 2 or 3 pm? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obvious Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 Structural steel melts at 2750° F. It supposedly gets weaker MUCH earlier than that. yep. casek should take into account that the planes also severely damaged the external steel skeleton and the internal central support beam from the crash/explosion itself, without the weakening from the intense heat... combine that with the WEIGHT of the 10 or 15 floors above the crash area. it only makes sense why it collapsed. you're right, casek should question the conspiracy theories just as hard as he questions official news, investigations, and opinions from architects, engineers, scientists, etc... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obvious Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 how about that the cia funded al qaida? the cia never "funded" al-qaeda, the cia funded and supplied the mujahdeen fighters in Afghanistan to fight against Soviet forces; after the war ended in '89, many of those same mujahdeen along with bin Laden founded al-qaida, which was designed to confront threats against the Soviet Union, Israel, the U.S., and any others they perceived as being "crusaders against islam." after the USSR fell, bin laden shifted his focus against the U.S. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CACashRefund Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 Nick Berg set off the controlled explosions at the world trade center Not only that, but i hear he doesnt care about black people... .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
!@#$% Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 so, you agree with yourself then? awesome. great cash, way to bring your intelligence to this forum Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CACashRefund Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 i decided to bring my comment from the other thread onto here and thank you, i really appreciate your appreciation of me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rushawn wuan Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 i also decided to bring my comment from the other thread on to here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CACashRefund Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 THIS NIGGA... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.