How do you determine who is a "true 9/11 researcher?"

That's easy... nearly as easy as detecting a SHILL

Judge people by the fruits of their efforts, simple eh ?

Anonymous "Bert", or "Ernie" who thinks that George Bush is a hero, and believes everything the government and Popular Mechanics says.
A legend in his/ her own mind.

These must be the ones that Prof. Jones emphatically insists COULD NOT have been used at Ground Zero on 9/11:

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/glossarytermsd/g/directedenergy.htm
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/glossarytermsd/g/direnwea.htm
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/glossarytermsd/g/directedendev.htm
http://usmilitary.about.com/library/glossary/e/bldef02162.htm
http://usgovinfo.about.com/b/a/217339.htm

someone has to provide commerical support to all this "research and development" (not officially "operationa;" yet..)
http://www.ixys.com/directedenergy.html
a subsidiary of
http://www.ixys.com/micronix.html

http://www.directedenergy.com
http://www.directed.com

But the fires....... they were HOT!! ....Jet Fuel!? .... burning..... office furniture.....drywall?!

3 / 47 = .0638297 = 6%

using Popular Mechanics & NIST mathematics.... 6% X 4 floors = 24%

5 / 47 = .10638 = 11%

using Popular Mechanics & NIST mathematics.... 11% X 4 floors = 44%

Did bad Mr. Ryan make you copy and paste a link instead of just giving you one that you could clicky-clicky?

How 'bout any kind of substantive criticism, Braindead?

review the momentum transfer calculations, as these are the most important part of the paper. Rather than saying he might do it a later time, I would have preferred Mr. Ryan either promising to do that or saying it is beyond his expertise and should be done by someone else.

I don't buy the 10-second collapse calculated by Garcia, but that is just my intuition. I'm not able to do the calculations, though they don't look that complicated.

HAHAHAH did you guys just read that?
He is mad that Ryan didn't provide a HYPERLINK but instead provided a link that you would have to cut and paste.
Are you serious? You're joking right?
I am seriously falling out of my chair with laughter.
This is all they have left?!
His main gripe with Kevin Ryan's article is that the link is not clickable!
That just shows the research capabilities of people who believe the government's coincidence theory!
Hilarious!

you explained my intuition as I could not -- it seemed he was saying that the floor would basically disappear all at once, which did not make sense to me.

Isn't he also saying that the "hammer" of the upper block of the building got heavier and heavier as the collapse proceeded? That does not comport with the videos that seem to show the upper blocks disintegrating, at least in part, before or at least faster than the collapse of the building.

It also does not explain the dust clouds -- if that is the result of compression at the collapse front and not explosives or other added energy, then the expulsion of materials must mean that the lower block is providing lots of resistance. I read someone explaining this as similar to the expulsion of materials by the impact of a collapsing building with the ground.

It was here:

http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm

specifically here:

http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm#_Toc144445995

This writer was saying this to disprove the explosives thesis, saying as follows:

"This ejection [of steel beams and debris plumes] is not caused by explosion but by the huge pneumatic overpressures of the descending building. The Towers, unusually, had a crumple zone very high up, making the horizontal ejection of material uniquely visible. While explosives could have caused this, so could the pneumatic pressure of descent of the upper floors. In WTC 1 there were between 12 and 18 stories collapsing onto the impact area between floors 94 and 98, while in WTC 2 there were between 26 and 32 stories collapsing onto the impact area between floors 78 and 84. If one views the base of a 12-18 story building or a 26-32 story building being demolition in a traditional bottom-up demolition, vast amounts of debris are ejected at this point."

Then this guy goes on to say here:

http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm#_Toc144445996

"The fact is that the near free-fall-speed of collapse of buildings in controlled demolition is entirely due to gravity, and not to explosives. The question of course remains, how come that buildings, impeded by their intact lower floors, collapse so fast? (Though of course, this is not a question with any direct relevance to 9/11.) Put this way, the question conveys the essential fact of controlled demolition: that the only floors effectively ‘removed’ from the building are the lowest."

This writer apparently does not see the fundamental contradiction here -- if the impact area is resistant enough to eject steel beams and debris as observed, then it must be providing much resistance that would slow the collapse. This writer gets around this by ignoring the contradiction, saying that buildings fall fast in controlled demolitions because of gravity, not explosives.

But at least you can see the contradiction in King's paper -- Garcia just ignores the expulsion of steel beams and debris plumes.

This I think is the "resistance paradox" described here:

http://wtcdemolition.blogspot.com/2006/08/jeff-strahl-mechanical-enginee...

Garcia is full of shit, but I don't have the math to prove it. Anybody?

I have the math, but I don't have the time...right now...
As an engineer I agree Garcia's claims are easily refuted.
Science cannot truly be science if it is not truly objective.

Yes, Garcia's article screams subjectivity. And the beginning of the article, which I can critique with no math, is a bunch of pompous, illogical psychobabble.

About the part where he pretends to do physics, I noticed that he has the stress waves going up from the collision front into the upper block. He is trying to explain why the videos show it disintegrating. This shows even on his own terms that the lower 3/4 of the building was offering tremendous resistance, contradicts his argument that the upper block was an ever-growing hammer.

And how does he treat each floor as falling at free-fall speed?

I realize I didn't provide any proof for my claims. You are enitrely correct in that.
I'm busy preparing a paper for a conference, and will have time to look at stuff like this in a couple of weeks.

Mr. Garcia's analysis is quite thorough and would take several days to fully research and validate.
One cannot simply read this symposium and agree or disagree with it, without confirming his methods, research etc.

Personally I see the biggest problem with the explanation to be the symmetrical collapse assumption.
Near-simultaneous failures are very very improbable. One would certainly expect the building to lean and "snap in two" if you will...

When it all comes down to it, a collapse theory based on structural damage and fires alone, even if scientifically sound, does not explain the "lava'" in the basement, the massive movement of the retaining walls, the near perfect cutting of the beams, the pulverization of materials to such a fine degree. It does not fit the REST of the evidence... nevermind the testimony of firefighters etc.

We will forever argue over the nuances of the collapse because we can only speculate. Why?
We are left to flimsy theoretical models which could be much better resolved with EVIDENCE FROM THE SCENE. They want us to argue. They want to us to bicker over a collapse mechanism which no one can verify without access to the physical evidence.

So NIST had the evidence you say?

What's the harm in showing it?

To use their argument... "If you have nothing to hide, then you won't mind us searching your archives"

Hypocrisy with a capital "H".

Good luck finding the truth... just remember... truth is all relative... if you catch my drift...

My understanding is that FEMA controlled the evidence, and even NIST did not have access to it all. I know that engineering professors said they did not have access to building designs held by FEMA. It seems that NIST would have released such data if they had it.

About the leaning and snapping. MIT's Eager said the base of the building was much bigger so leaning beyond the center of gravity was unlikely, so the building would naturally fall straight down. Is that correct?

What I find puzzling about that statement is the following:

Picture the building standing with no airliner impact. It has its centre of gravity presumably located in the bottom half.

Airliner impacts purportedly shear and destroy standing columns at the leading edge of the impact, leaving the remainder of the columns on those floors intact... until...

Big explosion! (fuel rich... a bright fireball indicates more soot, which is evidence of incomplete combustion, which burns at a far lower temperature than what is called a "stoichiometric" reaction, which is the hottest, and will happen under controlled conditions)...but I digress. Columns begin to weaken...

So far we've heard this all before.

NOW

At this point we can consider the system as two sections:

1. The base (i.e. everything below the airliner impact)
2. The upper floors still supported by columns on the trailing side of the building.

Each section has its own centre of gravity... located along the vertical axis of the building.
(Picture a bird's eye view... it would be found in the centre of the square at some depths)

Now forget the base (section 1) exists... wipe it from your mind.

We now see section 2 as cantilevered (A projecting structure, such as a beam, that is supported at one end and carries a load at the other end or along its length.) This is analogous to placing a large safe on a diving board... (just picture it... bending... and on fire!!)

This centre of mass is now exerting a torque about the beams that support it.
The beams continue to fail... so we are told.. and thus the tendency of the section would be to "teeter over" to the side of impact as the beams get weaker and deform. This would continue until the beams sever, causing the upper floors (section 2) to "snap off" and come crashing down onto property presumably own by Larry Silverstein...

The result would be a building severed in two sections... with a standing base.
This did not happen.

(Please keep in mind I am considering the scenario before the structure critically fails (i.e. while the fires rage and people are leaping to their deaths) This is important. What Garcia does is begin his analysis with the assumption that the beams have all failed near-simultaneously and are in relative free-fall until they impact the lower structure below the point of impact. However, I am addressing MIT's Eager here)

From this analysis I cannot see how MIT's Eager's argument has any relevance. Because he's considering the centre of mass for a completely unmolested structure. If he can somehow show that the upper structure should fall straight down I would like to see his reasoning.

Please post. If I have misrepresented any comments please advise.

My regards to you fine people.

Eagar like pretty much everyone else simply presumes that once a collapse initiated it would proceed downward as observed just as a result of gravity.

But that is absurd. Eagar says a "domino collapse" ensued. Is that a technical term? Why doesn't he go into detail as to what actually happens to each component of the towers during this domino collapse? For the same reason NIST did not reveal the results of their black box computer model after the point of collapse initiation (which they could only even get by using unrealistically high values for the initial variables)--the fact is that the ONLY explanation for the collapse is that something was causing the core columns to break ahead of the falling portions, to keep them falling.

So it's not a question of tipping OR falling straight down--that is a classic false dichotomy. Tipping and not tipping, sure--in both cases the tower is assumed to fall in one piece.

The obsevred collapses were not an alternative to tipping, they were an alternative to not collapsing straight down. The straight down collapse makes it self evident that the core columns broke all the way down. The question that no one can answer without mentioning explosives (or space beams, of course!) is HOW could that have happened?

Then, between the available hypotheses, space beams or more conventional methods of demolition (designed in a way so as to simulate "destruction by plane impact and fire" in the incurious mind) or anything else that has been proposed, Occam's razor does help. The simplest explanation is not the one that is least complicated, it is the one that requires the least deviation from what one would expect to be the case.

In the case of buildings collapsing as observed on 9/11, it has ALWAYS--without exception, and numbering hundreds of times, been the case of deliberate demolition with explosives.

But all this is hardly even worth debating, it is so painfully obvious. What NEEDS to be debated and more importantly INVESTIGATED, is WHO did it. And as any detective will tell you, when things are destroyed and insurance is collected, one ALWAYS suspects the beneficiary of the policy, whether it's a case of arson or even (especially?) murder.

Can we get on with the prosecutions? Can we have some indictments? No? Well maybe our mistake is to ask nicely. Maybe we should be examining the error of that approach. I would hope we wouldn't EVEN have to ASK. I would think that people would do their job when their country's safety is at stake. If I'm wrong, and they won't, we will have to think very seriously about our next steps. And I hope the perps and their accomplices will do the same. And I hope that most of them realize that they can't win, and not prolong this crisis. WE are not going to back down, ever. SOME of them can save themselves now by, if not confessing, then at least ceasing to resist the outing of the truth. I highly recommend to them however, to plea bargain. The sooner you come forward to do so, the better off you will be. Ask yourselves--is your cause just? Is it right? Is it likely to win in the end?

The answer is NO, and you know it. Get off the sinking ship before some other rat takes the last lifeboat. Understand? It's OVER. That is not a hope or a wish. I know this to be a fact. It's over. You will not win.

____

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force