³experts² yet physicists, PhD¹s, private investigators, etc are not??? How
is that possible? They are somehow better reporters than the reporters on
9/11 with first hand knowledge.
2) What about Steven Jones¹ sampling of the steel?
3) Why did they take a demolition expert¹s testimony as ³expert² on their
side yet Torin Wolf is labeled as ³Nurse².
4) Why did they not show the firefighter in multiple films saying ³we¹re
fixing to ³pull² building #...²???
5) Why do the ³conspiracy theorists² say ³how did jet fuel melt
structural steel, yet jet fuel doesn¹t burn hot enough² only to have an
³expert² response stating that it only had to structurally weaken the steel.
Though this seems to address one point, it does NOT address the molten steel
seen pre-collapse and weeks after, NASA photos, etcŠ They specifically spin
that answer and don¹t address the point of meted steel.
6) Why do they no include firefighter testimony about explosions inside
the building?
7) Why do they not address William Rodriguez testimony of explosions
before the plane hit lifting him off of the floor?
8) Why do they not look at the direct laws, executive orders, acts etc
that are a direct result of 9/11 not having anything to do with terrorists
abroad but rather a degradation of American rights at home?
9) Why do they not address the ³waving woman² papers, desks, clothing etc
not burning?
10) Why do they not address the black smoke and color of flames
indicating low temperatures inside the building and also, that the
temperatures they quote only exist in a perfect burn of a jet engine or
other perfect mix of air/fuel?
11) Why no mention of eye witness testimony (see ³Pentacon² movie)
directly stating flight path differing from official commission report?
12) Why no mention of NIST report being different than commission report
regarding flight path of plane the hit Pentagon?
13) Why no mention of the near free fall speed at which the buildings
fell? The never really state how, just dance around the topic!
14) Why does the official black box flight data not show a correction for
surface pressure thus making the plane at 100+ feet when it approached the
Pentagon?
15) Why is there no point made against the fact that several of the
highjackers are still alive?
16) Why did they not address news reports and eye witness reports of
flight 93 landing in Cleveland at a concourse not part of the main airport?
17) How do they explain uneven fires bringing both towers straight down
when most of the fuel burned up outside the buildings?
18) Why do they refuse to mention reports on CNN and others that Bin
Laden admitted to having nothing to with 9/11 and the planning thereof.
19) Why no mention of Operation Northwood¹s?
20) Why was there no mention of UL test results for hours showing
insufficient strength loss after several hours of burning.
21) Why does Popular Mechanics not go after the official commission
report with equal effort and only ³9/11 conspiracy theorists²
22) Why does David Coburn state that conspiracy theorists got their
information from Hezbollah and we are ³anti-Semitic² because we picked up
the information?
23) The gentleman who wrote the line from Rebuilding Americas Defenses
does NOT address his comment and instead talks about using post-cold war
power to enforce law, which doesn¹t come close to explaining a ³Pearl harbor
like event². They refuse to state the backing for that comment.
24) Why do they claim ³we have no engineering basis² for collapse and/or
demolitions when we do have evidence?
25) When describing the ³conspiracy theorist² accusation that the
³buildings fell too fast² or what we say ³near free-fall speed², the expert
response does not deal with the physics of free fall speed and instead
addresses where the ³collapse started² and that ³controlled demolitions
always start from the bottom² so it could not have been a controlled
demolition. Also, the ³demolitions expert² says we are talking about the
³top section falling faster². This is not the case, rather we are pointing
out the time it took from the top of the building to reach the ground which
is near free fall. They also say the top section hitting the floors below
caused the squib-like explosions many floors below the blast wave. You can¹t
have both ways.
They preface the ³Conspiracy Theory vs. Expert Response² or reworded,
³claims/theories versus expert¹s analysis² portion of the documentary by
stating the following lines which clearly pre-condition a viewer into a
mindset where they would obviously not question the so-called experts:
1) They call us ³conspiracy theorists² clearly falsely asserting that we
are not grounded in any scientific proof or have no scientific explanation
and it is all misinterpretation and unfounded opinion. This is a lie.
2) They say we have² ³claims² rather than evidence and the so-called
experts have ³analysis² which will be pitted against our ³claims². This is a
lie.
3) They say: ³it¹s important to refute each and every theory that is not
based on the true evidence². This of course, is announced immediately
following the statement saying experts will respond to conspiracy claims and
theories.
I will attempt to categorically analyze what ³theory² was proposed, how we
so-called ³Conspiracy Theorists² addressed the charge, and whether or not
the ³Experts² addressed the topic as well as what was said in the ³Theory²
section for most of the section devoted to the twin towers. In future days
and weeks I will analyze the rest of the film.
The Twin Towers were destroyed by a controlled demolition
Conspiracy Theory:
Torin Wolf
€ Has 12 years of implosion and explosion demolition experience.
€ Certified structural welder.
€ Says ³serious problems² with the way the buildings came down according
to his experience.
Dylan Avery
€ Officials never scientifically explained the collapse, only initiation.
Dr. Steven Jones
€ Simply states there is no reason you couldn¹t have explosions proceed
in the area around the planes¹ entry hole.
Notes:
€ The History Channel fails to state Mr. Wolf¹s experience as demolitions
in the military by title. Furthermore, the title they do use for him is not
³former demolitions expert² or ³experienced demolition tech² or whatever.
They list his current job as ³Nurse². You figure out the perception
intention here.
€ Steven Jones, although having a PhD was not recognized as ³Dr. Steven
Jones². This also gives off the impression he has no credentials to back his
words.
€ They did not present an explanation through short clips from Truthers
that allows a full explanation of how it might be a controlled demolition.
You simply can¹t do it in a 30 second sound bite.
Expert Response:
Gene Corley
€ He starts off by saying ³I don¹t know the motivations for individuals
who do this sort of thing² as if to say Truthers have an ulterior motive for
doing what we do, or seeking the truth is not enough of a motive which
should be the same as Mr. Corley¹s motive. Who do you work for Mr. Corley
and what is your motive? Furthermore, and this is opinion, it seemed as if
the interviewer asked something like ³why would these people say such crazy
things².
€ He says: ³They never have an engineering basis for their conclusions²
and ³They virtually always ignore the facts, the physical evidence, and the
calculations that have been made to try and determine what happened² How is
this possible when Dr. Steven Jones has presented physical evidence of
Thermate and molten steel? How about explosions going off in a Class A
building? Who exactly is ignoring what sir?
€ He says he ³was there², he ³had his hands on the steel², what he did
³was factual², he backs it up with ³calculations² and ³scientific
principle².
Matthys Levy
€ He states: ³some people might think it looked like a controlled
demolition but it had nothing to do with it².
The speed of the collapse was too fast
Conspiracy Theory:
Dr. Steven Jones
€ States towers should have ³absorbed the shock but not just fail
completely² and ³certainly not in less than 15 seconds as we observed². He
says that collapsing debris would have encountered resistance making it
significantly slower than just 15 seconds.
Expert Response:
David Coburn
€ Does not address speed of collapse, instead states information about
controlled demolitions always beginning at the base and the twin towers
started at the impact area. This is not a response to the statement that the
speed of the collapse.
Brent Blanchard
€ ³what they¹re trying to say is, all kinds of explosives went off all of
the building that were perfectly timed and that top section fell a lot
faster then it would had if it had to force all this debris down, and it¹s
just not true. It¹s factually inaccurate.²
Notes:
It is not factually inaccurate to say that if the top of a building starts
to fall and reaches the ground at almost the same time an object
encountering no resistance would reach the ground, then the top of the
building itself encountered little to no resistance on the way down. Since
the official story suggests a pancake effect as the top collapsed it would
have to encounter much resistance to powderize concrete, snap steel, eject
material outward, and compress the air that supposedly shot out the windows
many floors below the collapse wave. The bottom line is that he presents no
evidence at all that shows it did not collapse too fast and certainly didn¹t
refute the tested vacuum freefall times for an object being about 9.2
seconds, which on only about 5-7 seconds faster than the towers. Remember
the 9.1 is in a vacuum and air resistance alone could account for the few
extra seconds it took in real life..
WTC Fires did not burn hot enough to melt structural steel
Conspiracy Theory:
Torin Wolf:
€ No other structural steel building has ever collapsed due to fire
before or since 9/11.
€ Many examples
Sofia Shafquat:
€ Jet fuel is a hydrocarbon
€ Max temperature burns in perfect setting at 1800 F.
€ Steel melts at 2750 F.
€ 1000 F difference.
€ Office fires burn between 600-800 F which is not able to weaken steel.
Expert Response:
Matthys Levy:
€ 1100 degrees will weaken steel by as much as 50% and did burn at the
temperatures in some cases.
€ If it has on 50% of strength, it can no longer support the floors above
it.
€ Debris knocked off fire proofing.
History Channel Commentator:
€ ³Engineers do agree that it would have taken a much hotter fire to melt
the steel supporting the floors, but they say it didn¹t have to melt to
compromise the buildings structural integrity²
Notes:
Look at the quote by the commentator, and then look at the conspiracy
theory. The theory says the fires ³did not burn hot enough to melt
structural steel². They refuse to answer as to how we have molten steel
coming from the building before collapse as well as weeks after in the
rubble. The talk about weakening steel, fire proofing, and brief
temperatures at 1100 degrees but no mention for how there was molten steel!
0 comments:
Post a Comment