A Quick Review of Manuel Garcia’s article “We See Conspiracies That Don’t Exist: The Physics of 9/11”
This article* offers the US government another opportunity to answer serious questions about 9/11 without anyone actually having to take responsibility for those answers. Like Shyam Sunder of NIST, promoting the Pancake Theory in a Popular Mechanics interview even after that theory was proven to be incorrect, a US government scientist (Garcia) can say whatever he wants in an informal media presentation. And in this case, Garcia does just that, repeating many unsubstantiated claims, and even adding some new ones.
Garcia begins by suggesting that those who question the Bush Administration’s story are psychologically disturbed in some way. Of course, the absurdity of this implication is obvious. The official theory is not only a conspiracy theory, but is one that appeals to our most contemptible instincts. And after what we’ve been through in the last five years, questioning the Bush Administration’s ever-changing explanations for those important events would seem, for most of us, a pretty good idea.
As an introduction, readers get only a brief, dismissive hint that there is an alternative hypothesis for “collapse” of the WTC buildings. A link to a Wikipedia article on the subject is provided, but a more direct, and more fair, approach would have been to provide links to sources like Steven Jones’ paper at the Journal of 911 Studies (www.journalof911studies.com), or Jim Hoffman’s site (http://911research.wtc7.net). And a much more interesting article would have included some explanation from Garcia about his own employer’s growing dominance in research on the use of Aluminothermics (http://www.llnl.gov/str/RSimpson.html).
Be that as it may, Garcia begins his lecture with the slightly insulting statement that, with it, “readers can expand their range of rationality and hence their political maturity.” He then offers a summary review of the NIST WTC report that acknowledges how NIST never actually explained the dynamics of collapse. The NIST report is for the towers, not WTC 7, and only discusses how such a collapse could have initiated.
Garcia summarizes the NIST findings by offering a vague description of aircraft impact and damage, and then makes some unsupported claims about the versatility of the jet fuel and the “loosening” of fireproofing. Unfortunately, he does not refer to any existing critique (http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/kevin_ryan/newstandard.html) of the false claims already made by NIST. Instead, he proceeds to explain the importance of the tower’s supportive hat truss, but without noting that NIST simply ignored the hat truss in the critical segments of their all-important computer model.
The claim that the “fuel fire burned up to 1,100 degrees C (2,000 degrees F) for perhaps 10 minutes” is vague enough for government work, as well as being unsupported by any (computer) test data that the public is allowed to view. Garcia then claims, incredibly, that “the exposed steel beams in the impact zone heated to between 700 C to 1,000 C”, and in just (perhaps) ten minutes! Despite the fact that steel has a very high thermal conductivity, and therefore large quantities of steel would need to be heated for a long time, NIST’s (Bush’s) story calls for failure of steel columns that are far from the impact zone. The fires had to migrate around the building’s core to reach this failure zone, by which time the jet fuel was long gone. And don’t forget, NIST’s test results from real steel samples, pulled specifically from fires zones, showed steel temperatures of only about 250 C.
Garcia then offers even more detail about the collapse initiation sequence than NIST was ever ready to give, while simultaneously using some of the same fuzzy claims about sagging floors. How much did the floors sag in the physical tests? And for comparison, how much sagging was used in the computer model we are not allowed to see? There are some important differences here.
By saying “the sagging floors twisted their joints to the perimeter columns”, Garcia now appears to be telling us that it was increased torque (twisting), and not pure lateral (pull in) loads, that caused the external columns to fail. We can’t be sure if he checked with NIST on this before publication, but seeing as NIST had to actually disconnect their virtual floors from their virtual columns in order to demonstrate any kind of inward failure, none of this seems to matter anyway.
After simply parroting, and then embellishing, NIST’s vague claims, Garcia spends the remainder of his paper explaining what NIST could not – the dynamics of collapse. Perhaps we can take the time to consider his findings at a later date, but it is clear that Garcia’s paper is yet another attempt by US government employees to suggest that the rest of us are silly, and possibly insane, to continue seeing “conspiracies that don’t exist.” This helps us remember that we should only see those conspiracies that do exist, as provided by our own benevolent leaders.
*http://www.counterpunch.org/physic11282006.html
- Kevin Ryan's blog
- Login to post comments
Just wanted to say thanks for everything...
Great article Kevin 10/10
Garcia should be struck off...
Thanks for everything, the world owes you and every other true 9/11 researcher much gratitude.
Good Luck !!!
The proof is in the pudding...
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 ?
How do you determine a disinfo and COINTELPRO person?
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.
Straight from the horse's mouth...
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
WTC-7 was "pulled" in a controlled demolition, just like
Silverstein said!
Silverstein realized that folks were doubting its collapse due superficial damage & small, scattered fires. He therefore said that they decided to "pull-it" and watch the building collapse! He couldn't say it was our government's 9/11 perpetrators who "pulled-it", so he claimed it was the NY Fire Dept!!!
I agree completely
My theory is that as the 9/11 Truth movement gains currency, it will become increasingly apparent that WTC 7 had to be cd, therefore Silverstein admits it- playing for the history books. People forget that this was part of a PBS documentary- I highly doubt that they would include such a bizzare and ambigous quote without a good reason. But try telling that to someone who supports the official theory. Thats why I think we should all just ignore the Silverstein quote, and instead focus more on the physical evidence (molten metal, etc). Issues like this only serve as a distraction, and don't help to bringing people closer to the truth imho.
Nice piece
I liked it.
One thing that struck me is that Garcia says:
"The columns along one face of the building were sheared for a height of several floors, as were many of the columns at the core."
However, according to NIST's own base case model, only three core columns were severed in the North Tower, whereas five were severed in the South Tower. Three is not "many".
HOT!!
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%
This tells us our opinion.
"This helps us remember that we should only see those conspiracies that do exist, as provided by our own benevolent leaders."
How do we know that our leader is "benevolent?" Because he tells us he is? Because he has a baby face and just "looks" like someone we can trust? Don't you think they thought of this when recruiting operatives?
Do we need a reading comprehension test
to qualify anonymous posters here? It would appear so.
Thank you, Kevin. As tedious
Thank you, Kevin. As tedious as it may be, repeating the failures of NIST and FEMA is a necessary exercise to rebuff dishonest people like Garcia.
http://video.google.com/video
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=718236659434732032&q=kevin+ryan&...
A New Standard for Deception by Kevin Ryan
Oh, poor baby.
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?
Someone should
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.
hahahahaha
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!
Dude...relax. It wasn't that
Dude...relax. It wasn't that funny.
thank you
thank you, thank you, thank you, Kevin Ryan.
Your efforts, your determination, and your sacrifices are much appreciated by many, many sane people in the US and the world.
Debunking his collapse analysis
My first response to his address of the actual collapse:
First, Garcia simulates the downward acceleration of the upper floors as if every single column (exterior and core) failed simultaneously, and that the upper floors were suddenly receiving 0% of their original support. This causes them to accelerate downward, reaching 7.8 m/s after falling through the now non- existent floor of the building.
Next, he simulates the force of impact striking the intact floor below, and FINDS THAT IT IS ONLY SIX TIMES THE ORIGINAL WEIGHT OF THE UPPER FLOORS. That is to say that the fall of 3m only multiplied the force of the upper floors by six. Note that each floor was built to withstand ten times the weight of the floors above on a windless day such as 9/11.
I think Garcia has already disproven the official theory, but he goes on. The upper floors impact the undamaged floor below, and inflict damage equal to six times their own weight. The undamaged floor, built to withstand nearly twice the force striking it, not only fails instantly, but only subtracts 0.5 m/s of momentum from the upper floors. In other words, falling just 3 meters has given the upper floors such force that they can rip through a floor below and only loose a tiny fraction of their downward momentum (instead of stopping all together, as should have happened).
Therefore, if we accept Garcia's calculations and the upper floors really did reach 7.8 m/s, then the rest of the building still shouldn't have collapsed. However, there's no reason to believe that the initial collapse actually reached that velocity, because it's very unlikely that every single column on the damaged floor failed simultaneously, and intact columns would have resisted the collapse. Garcia's numbers produce a collapse time of exactly 10 seconds, so any of these factors that should provide resistance to the collapse would result in a duration significantly exceeding what was observed.
I think he has thoroughly debunked the FEMA claim that "It was understood that once an upper block of the building was in motion the structure below would be unable to counter the dynamic forces, and collapse would proceed to the ground." Good work Garcia!
Thank you
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
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.
Thanks, Mr. Man
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?
Rrriiiggghhht. You have the
Rrriiiggghhht. You have the math but no time.
You know...that's right up there with "my dog ate my homework".
The most important event of our time and all you can say is that you don't have the time to prove Garcia wrong, but you'll just assume he's wrong.
Typical circus clown mentality.
Hey retard...I have the facts to prove you're an idiot...and I found the time to show you.
I realize I didn't provide
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
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...
FEMA controlled evidence
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
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.
falling straight down is not an alternative to tipping over
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
I absolutely agree, RealTruther
And I will add that it's a lot more fun to visit with you all when we realize that we all share the same dilimea. (sp?) Ok, problem.
Thanks Ryan. Great article.
Thanks Ryan. Great article. I forced myself to wade through the tedious Garcia and Cockburn articles last night and was thoroughly disgusted with their shilling, as I imagine you were. It's pleasing to see a nice, sober article rebuking them. It's sad to see obviously intelligent people like Cockburn so psychologically locked into their narrow little worldview.
Fighting for G.O.D. (Gold, Oil, and Drugs) is available now for pre-order on Amazon.
Kevin Ryan
Thank You Kevin, I was looking for an intelligent counterpoint to this article by Garcia or whoever. I first saw you on C-Span the other day and really admired your courage and plain-spokenness. It is nice to see you are keeping up with this movement and providing your comments. It just seems like a matter of time before people become unafraid enough to look into 9/11 again like they do with every other thing like JFK and RFK etc. Hope you stick with it and thanks for being a source I can trust. Peace.
what really happened? read this
http://www.rys2sense.com/anti-neocons/viewtopic.php?t=1388
funny
You are so freaking clever... did you put that one together all by yourself.
*pats head*
Love to see that.
you've been spitting in my face this whole time you stuttering imbecile
the really funny thing is I could repeatedly bitch slap you and you'd never see it coming.... with those obtrusive blinders on
and the Nazi taunts come flooding out.... how long have you been chewing on that one before you decided to spew it?
You really think that Bush is trying to make this world a better place.....wait?....wait?.....
Jeff Gannon.....is that you?
I knew they could find you a good job
are you the boy or the girl today?
You lost me
I wasn't taunting you, I was saying that I think it is more likely that WASP-Nazi-types are behind 9/11, more than the Jews, Zionist, Mossad, etc. I responded to your smart ass comment, and assumed that you have a hard on for blaming the Jews, which I think is bullshit. Calling you a Nazi was a stretch so I apologize..
I don't understand the Jeff Gannon shit, nor how you think I think Bush is making the world a better place.
Are you OK?
Classic
LOL
Classic what?
Seriously, what are you suggesting? Can you write clearly?
Some jews fought for Hitler
Some jews fought for Hitler too.
http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/righit.html
It's not so black and white....
I'm not saying it is
I would say those Jews fought for their country, as sick as it became. Maybe to survive, also.
I've read works by Norman Finklestein (Holocaust Industry) and Lenni Brenner (Zionism in the Age of Dictators), so I am aware that it is not black and white. On the other hand, I think Israel has its back to the wall, and I just don't think Israel or Zionists or Jews control U.S. foreign policy. A symbiotic relationship exists, I think.
I also think Nazi ideas survived WWII.
Why is this rated negatively?
"Zionists did it" is fine, but "WASPs did it" is not? We have no idea who did it. Israel could have been involved, but I get the sense that this is a cover for something else. My money is on the WASPs.
I'm still waiting for an answer
Why are my comments being rated negatively? (I realize the first comment about spitting in a Nazi's face was over the top, and have no problem with that being rated negatively.)
Is blaming Zionists OK, but not blaming WASPs? Am I being anti-WASPetic?
Great little article
Straightforward and to the point. Good work Kevin.
Yet...
And yet he still makes more sense!!!
Do you guys think these Popular Mechanics shills are going to be tried when all this stuff unravels?
What about the MSM? This is blatant lying! They can't really believe it, right?
Do you really think that credentials . . .
are more important than arguments? What a joke.
If the doctor was telling me
If the doctor was telling me that he was going to remove the little green fairies from my back then I might prefer the lawyer.
Hey, great quote
it really fits the BinLaden conspiracy 100%
"NO MATTER HOW YOU TRY...YOU'LL NEVER BE ABLE TO TWIST THE EVIDENCE, FACTS OR TRUTH TO FIT INTO YOUR GOOFY LITTLE PUZZLE OF A CONSPIRACY. NEVER. IT'S IMPOSSIBLE!"
also, it sums up the
also, it sums up the comission report and NIST explanations pretty well.
Anonymous, you have a talent! Hoorai!
Credentials
Not in every case, but the fact that you can't the only engineering PhD you can get to support your theories is Judy Wood, who believes the Death Star blew up the WTC, should tell you something.
But as Jim Fetzer claims, they are all just cowards and damned to hell! Oh, we need more brave philosophy professors.
A number of structural
A number of structural engineers originally thought the towers were brought down by explosives. Also, while CD expert Jowenko does not think the towers were brought down by CD he does claim that CD brought down building 7.
How can you see one and not
How can you see one and not the other?
they simply have no knowledge of controlled demolitions..... many people like this simply think that the only way that a building can be demolished is from the bottom to the top....
this is a major monkey wrench to their thought processes.
Jowenko has plenty of
Jowenko has plenty of knowledge of controlled demolitions.
Jowenko... ?? I have not
Jowenko... ??
I have not read this guys analysis.... do you have a link?
and make it clickable so I can figure it out
Links
http://tribes.tribe.net/vancouver911truthmovement/thread/5bdbfc31-a67a-4...
In addition (my translations):
Hugo Bachmann, a Swiss professor emeritus for structural design and construction, said in Tages-Anzeiger(1) : "In my opinion WTC7 was with great probability brought down by controlled demolition done by experts". In addition, Jörg Schneider, another Swiss Professor emeritus for structural design and construction, interprets the existing videos as indices that "WTC7 was with great probability brought down by explosives".
http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/02/destruction-of-wtc-7.html
(1)
http://tagesanzeiger.ch/dyn/news/ausland/663864.html
Also here...
http://911blogger.com/node/3231
---From a decon @ my church: "I want to tell you something very serious..very serious, but I don't want you to say 'I told you so'. I want you to forgive me..You were right. I know the truth about 9/11.
and your degree is in? and
and your degree is in? and what university? i guess you cant discuss the collapses either huh? your name is very ironic considering how much of a shill you are.
?
Anonymous do you seriously just come in here to yell at people?
I want to discuss this with you civilly...can we do that please?
Just please tell me what we are lying about and maybe you can wake us up. Tell me where we are lying and why and we'll dissect it from there.
Or you can just keep going into every thread and yelling rude comments...up to you!
In his "Physics of 9/11"
In his "Physics of 9/11" article, Garcia says:
"The exposed steel beams in the impact zone heated to between 700 C to 1,000 C. Steel at 700 C has 50 per cent to 70 per cent of its strength at habitable temperatures; and steel at 1,000 C has between 10 per cent to 30 per cent."
In his "Thermodynamics of 9/11" article, Garcia says:
" Early after the impact, a floor might have some areas at habitable temperatures, and other areas as hot as the burning jet fuel, 1100 C. Later on, after the structure had absorbed heat, the gas temperature would vary over a narrower range, approximately 200 C to 700 C away from centers of active burning.
"As can be seen from Table 2, steel loses half its strength when heated to about 570 C (1060 F), and nearly all once past 700 C (1300 F). Thus, the structure of the impact zone, with a temperature that varies between 200 C and 700 C near the time of collapse, will only have between 20% to 86% of its original strength at any location."
In "Physics," Garcia says the steel beams reach between 700 and 1000 degrees C.
In "Thermodynamics," he suggest the steel beams heat to only 200 to 700 degrees C, and probably less, because these are ambient temperatures.
Why different temperatures and different effects on steel in the second article. He sources neither paper.
How do the floors fall symmetrically?
If the steel beams have all lost different amounts of strength, how do they fail so symmetrically? Can this be explained?
How does CounterPunch fall symmetrically?
Great debunking of the techno babble of Garcia. Counterpunch launches a bunch of physics equations (I barely passed jr. high algebra but I know something is rotten in Denmark re; 911) at its readers, most of whom are probably not trained in physics. What a shame that CounterPunch discredits its otherwise-- and I think most people would agree, very important social justice articles written by a wide variety of scholarly, journalist and regular smart folks that Alex posts--articles. What is the explanation? For that matter, what is the explanation for human nature? Uh oh. Thanks to Kevin Ryan, obviously one sharp and courageous man.
Now, when is the 911 truth movement going to start calling 911 a ZIONIST JOB instead of an INSIDE JOB? That would be really courageous, and accurate.
911 Eye-Witness-- minor site update
I may as well post my website up-date, since there seems to be a real switch-up underway at --Scholars for Truth.Org-- (I'm not a researcher, nor a journalist, nor have I any gripes with you, or anything to sell that wasn't patented prior to 1906.)
What I do know, is that --CDI of Texas-- had submitted a complete set of plans for a traditional demolition, of Both the World Trade Towers, prior to 5/9/1987. Since they were responsible fotr the clean-up, I think we can all take a deep breath, and admit to ourselves that; 9/11 was the current Administration's Call to arms; --against everything that America once stood for.--
And, I have no problem 'outing' FBI agents, as you can see at the photo-testimonial portion of my site. http://redlineav.com
(It will be complete within about 24 more hrs. I am just too sleepy to fish for the rest of the links.)
Everything that we see unfolding before us seems to be feeding into the downward spiral. These events, wrongly attributed to the 9/11 fall-out, has been a carbon-copy of the scenarios that led the USA into WWI, and into WWII. Israel may be the first to be anhillated, as a proxy. Maximum 'death-count' is certainly where it's going now.
All of the Bush Administrations so-called 'LAWS' are in my opinion, a preemptive strategy, to: 1.) Endenture the American people into debtor-prison. 2.) Clean-out the Fudiciary. 3.) Strategically alighn the (our citizen's) wealth with those factions in European Royalty, as represented by Tony Blair and the Bilderberg clan.
I know that Bill and Hillary were 'groomed' for the job, and that she was to marry Bill according to the script, because heavens knows they were never in love! That Rhodes and Oxford are somehow the tie in. And that it's too late for the likes of idle working-class to do anything about it.
Good Luck to all!
-T.S. Gordon
Careful, Tom
You are bordering on ani-WASPism here.
That's interesting about CDI. I thought it was impossible to demolish the towers, and that they would have to be dismantled, which would be enormously expensive.
Thanks for your post.
Aluminothermics
Aluminothermics link was scrubbed!
I hope someone archived it. I would have been very interested in reading about that. Lawrence Livermore Labs not only disabled the link, but a search for Aluminothermics yields no results.
Common sense
Here's a debate on whether common sense is compatible with science.
The physicist defenfing "uncommon sense" says:
"Evolution wired us with both hardware and software that would allow us to easily "grock" concepts like force, acceleration, and temperature, but only over the limited range that applies to our daily lives — concepts that are needed for our physical survival. But it simply did not provide us with wiring to intuit the quantum behavior of an electron, or velocities near the speed of light, or the powerful gravitational fields of black holes, or a universe that closes back on itself like the surface of the Earth. "
He is responding to a science journalist who says that string theory defies common sense.
I think the World Trade Center is closer to "grokable" than electrons, black holes, and universes. Garcia's article defies common sense.
That said, I hope someone with math and physics takes it apart. Garcia does not seem to state his assumptions, so that might be hard.
Link to Common Sense article
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/horgan05/horgan05_index.html
WTC should have been grokkable.
That's a very interesting way to put something I have been thinking about a lot. When people demur with the "I'm not a physicist/structural engineer" line, they are denying the obvious fact that we all make judgments and form understandings based on physics ALL THE TIME in our daily lives. One "brilliant" aspect of the 9/11 mind f*ck is the way the WTC destruction -- specifically of the Towers -- was removed from the realm of "grokkability" in most people's minds, where it remains today. "Fell down" or "blew up": this is an eminently grokkable distinction.
Guys we need to email this scum bag
I already did, and you better believe I gave him a piece of my mind, I mean talk about left gatekeeper, this guy is borderline traitor, I mean seriously he's as bad as the neocons we need to give him hell on earth, I mean we really need to give this guy a piece of our minds!!!
Better to politely ask questions
that point out that his analysis is wrong. Saying to someone that they are a "left gatekeeper" is stupid. If they are, they won't care that you call them that, if they aren't, the will reject anything else you say.
He's a physicist. Ask him to explain his physics.
He's not a scum bag
He is wrong. Tell him why, reasonably and politely. Either way you win -- you might persuade him he is wrong, and if he is a shill, you won't give him ammunition to denigrate 9/11 Inquirers.
Didn't they teach you to be more subtle?
Jeez, they take anyone into PsyOp these days.
ww3
aqwerew342