I would be curious about who the peer reviewers are, and what their opinions are.

BULLSHIT!!!

You and your favorite physicist were not there.

Nothing was clearly visible due to the enormous amount of debris after the Twin Towers collapsed, so there is no way that any rational conclusion can be drawn from the visibility of the fires.

Russ,

Not true:

Many people saw building 7 fall live as it colapsed to the ground. Millions of others have seen the same thing on replays of that same footage.

Pick your favorite angle in the link below:

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html

Even FEMA admits that the fires were small in scale.


Dr. Jones' paper:

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

Those videos back me up. They were shot from too far of a distance to provide any detail. Also, I saw the Twin Towers before they fell. The fires were confined to an area much smaller than the area of WTC7 not visible in those videos.

Nice try.

If you cant see that building 7 in those videos and still framed pictures sustained only minor fires, you are experiencing a progressed case of cognative dissonance.

All firefighters on the ground reported mild to moderate fires.

Even FEMA admits the fires were minimal!

Please Russ... at least read this paper before posting:

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

Why are you so fixated with this paper? It's an interesting theory and all taken from a physics standpoint - problem is that the physics in question isn't operating in a vacuum as it were. The problem really comes down to placing the paper's conslusions in context - if everything in the paper is true, then you need to explain the "why" - but if the "why" is outlandish, illogical, or unfeasable then you have to question the conclusions that led you to try and explain the "why".

It actually a pretty pertinent issue considering the number of academic papers (archaeologica) I've seen that argued some solid science ot facts, but fell apart when trying to place the conclusion in a greater context.

"Why this happened" should be considered separately from the science. Having said that, your question is still valid:

I, as well as many others, have possible, if not reasonable explainations as to why Dr. Jones' hypothesis would be true.
However, once these ideas are brought into the discussion, emotional attachments to preconceived notions tend to cloud judgement. - hence my reservations in discussing why... not to mention that this discusion is more indefinite than considering the physics of the issue ...

But since this is your question, I will answer it by saying the events of 911, in many ways, seem to be a classic case of the problem-reaction-solution paradigm (Hegelian in nature) that has been a normal, although mostly unnoticed, part of human history. Having said that, I would like to add again that my speculation here is merely a hypothesis and should be considered separately from quantitative data.


This information is touches on the paradigm I described above:



Operation Northwoods documents are very important to this issue (3 links provided below text):

Operation Northwoods or Northwoods was the code name for various false flag actions, including domestic terror attacks (such as involving the use of "hijacked" planes) on U.S. soil, proposed in 1962 by senior U.S. Department of Defense leaders to generate U.S. public support for military action against Cuba. The proposal was presented in a document entitled "Justification for US Military Intervention in Cuba," a draft memorandum pdf) written by the Department of Defense (DoD) and Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) representative to the Caribbean Survey Group. The draft memo was presented by the JCS to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara on March 13 with one paragraph approved, as a preliminary submission for planning purposes. However, McNamara rejected the proposal. In addition, the existence of Operation Northwoods was often dismissed by the general U.S. public as an unfounded "conspiracy theory" until the draft memorandum was declassified in recent years through a Freedom of Information Act request by the National Security Archive.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/northwoods.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/


Also:


http://www.propagandamatrix.com/diocletian.html



More examples:

Nero Claudius Caesar (37-68 CE) - (University of Texas History Deparment) - In 64 C.E., a fire swept through Rome, burning for a week and destroying a large portion of the city... According to some sources, when he found that he did not have enough land to build his palace, he set fire to the city a second time. It is at this point that he is said to have "played his fiddle [lyre] while Rome burned." To avert suspicion, he blamed the fires on the Christians and proceeded to kill them in horrendous ways.

Neither human effort nor princely largesse nor divine appeasement was able to dispel the scandal that the fire (which burned much of Rome in 64 CE) was believed to have been commanded (by the emperor Nero). So, to do away with the rumor, Nero substituted as culprits those who were commonly called "Christians," who were hated because of their absurdities. And he inflicted them with the most extraordinary punishments


The USS Maine Sank in Havana Harbor Launching the US into the Spanish American War

Sinking of the USS Maine Resulting in the Spanish American War - US Navy Official Website - The Spanish-American War (21 April to 13 August 1898) was a turning point in the history of the United States, signaling the country's emergence as a world power. The blowing up of the battleship USS Maine in Havana harbor on the evening of 15 February was a critical event on the road to that war... The U.S. Navy Department immediately formed a board of inquiry to determine the reason for Maine's destruction... When the Navy's verdict was announced, the American public reacted with predictable outrage... The destruction of Maine did not cause the U.S. to declare war on Spain, but it served as a catalyst, accelerating the approach to a diplomatic impasse. In addition, the sinking and deaths of U.S. sailors rallied American opinion more strongly behind armed intervention...Technical experts at the time of both investigations disagreed with the findings, believing that spontaneous combustion of coal in the bunker adjacent to the reserve six-inch magazine was the most likely cause of the explosion on board the ship. In 1976, Admiral Hyman G. Rickover published his book, "How the Battleship Maine Was Destroyed". The admiral became interested in the disaster and wondered if the application of modern scientific knowledge could determine the cause. He called on two experts on explosions and their effects on ship hulls. Using documentation gathered from the two official inquiries, as well as information on the construction and ammunition of Maine, the experts concluded that the damage caused to the ship was inconsistent with the external explosion of a mine. The most likely cause, they speculated, was spontaneous combustion of coal in the bunker next to the magazine. As a result (of the Spanish American War) Spain lost its control over the remains of its overseas empire -- Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Philippine islands, Guam, and other islands - Library of Congress - On April 25, 1898 the United States declared war on Spain following the sinking of the Battleship Maine in Havana harbor on February 15, 1898. The war ended with the signing of the Treaty of Paris on December 10, 1898. As a result Spain lost its control over the remains of its overseas empire -- Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Philippine islands, Guam, and other islands.
Events moved swiftly after the explosion aboard the U.S.S. Maine on February 15. On March 9, Congress passed a law allocating fifty million dollars to build up military strength. On March 28, the U.S. Naval Court of Inquiry finds that a mine blew up the Maine. On April 21 President McKinley orders a blockade of Cuba and four days later the U.S. declares war.



Adolf Hitler was elected Chancellor (President) and then Burnt the Reichstag (German Parliament) Building. He Then Declared Himself Furor (Dictator) and Promised Utopia. Hitler Declared Martial Law and Suspended All Basic Human Rights.

Reichstag Fire - Encyclopedia Britannica - Reichstag fire, burning of the Reichstag (parliament) building in Berlin, on the night of Feb. 27, 1933, a key event in the establishment of the Nazi dictatorship and widely believed to have been contrived by the newly formed Nazi government itself to turn public opinion against its opponents and to assume emergency powers...his propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels, is supposed to have devised the scheme... On Feb. 28, 1933, the day after the fire, Hitler's dictatorship began with the enactment of a decree "for the Protection of the People and the State," which dispensed with all constitutional protection of political, personal, and property rights.



Hitler and the Reichstag Fire - (The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001 - In Jan., 1933), when Adolf Hitler became chancellor without an absolute majority, the Reichstag was dissolved and new elections were set for Mar. 5; a violent election campaign ensued. On Feb. 27, 1933, a fire destroyed part of the Reichstag building. Hitler immediately accused the Communists of having set the fire. President von Hindenburg proclaimed a state of emergency and issued decrees suspending freedom of speech and assembly.



Holocaust Timeline The Nazification of Germany - University of South Florida - On February 27, 1933, the Reichstag building went up in flames. Nazis immediately claimed that this was the beginning of a Communist revolution. This fact leads many historians to believe that Nazis actually set, or help set the fire. Others believe that a deranged Dutch Communist set the fire. The issue has never been resolved. This incident prompted Hitler to convince Hindenburg to issue a Decree for the Protection of People and State that granted Nazis sweeping power to deal with the so-called emergency. This laid the foundation for a police state.

???

Three things for you to consider, while you call our minds 'closed' in a most ironic fashion:

1 - The above shows an agenda that severely impairs the credibility of your "purely scientific" interest in the fall of WTC 7.

2 - Your reliance on the 'fact' that "no steel building has ever fallen due to fire" does not directly apply to WTC7, as it ignores other factors - including, but not limited to, concussive force from multiple external sources. In short, you're not presenting a very complete picture when using your 'absolute' proof. It's bad science.

3 - And speaking of bad science . . . relying on limited observational (essentially anecdotal) evidence, as well as precedent, is essentially taking a dump on the scientific method. Relying on "it LOOKED exactly like a planned demolition!" is, without a doubt, an argument that should not hold any scientific water. Using on-site reports from non-scientists, as well as shitty videographic evidence, does not at all encompass the type of evidence needed to create a solid foundation of fact. It's fine for hypothesizing, but not theorizing - if you don't know the difference, now would be a fantastic time to learn.

If you respond to this with "please read the article" I will vomit on myself.

KSig RC,

I dont know how to respond to you... You obviously didn't read my entire response to RACooper.

I do not consider the qualitative information in my last post a support for the science in this issue (as seen on previous posts), and I have stated that very clearly many times.


As far as the science goes, I am merely reiterating what has been said in this paper. I suggest you read it too before you respond.

Dr. Jones' paper:

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

I'm sorry but your response used a questionable conclusion to back up the conclusions you've reached with this paper... for example the whole Nero thingy - that's pretty much a hold over from the conspiracy folks of the middle ages - the Golden Legend angle... an angle that has largely been discredited through serious scholarly work in the last 50 years.

So in order to refute the "research" and conclusion of the paper you keep flogging I'll ask a simple question:
"If WTC7 was taken down by demolition, why hasn't any credible sources come forward to either say they did it - or they saw the demolition team - or heard the explosions (demolitions are loud) - or to say explosive residue was found on the I-beams (after all alot of tests were done on them, even as the paper in question claims)? Conspiracies theories often don't hold up simply because one has to either suspend their disbelief concerning the events, or more importantly suspend their disbelief that so many people can keep a secret"

the people involved can keep a secret, after all that would be their goal...(yet the evidence still exists).

Thats why the public knew nothing about the proposed U.S. government sponsored terrorism of Operation Northwoods until almost 40 years later.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/northwoods.html
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

Thats also why the problem-reaction-solution paradigm has been used so succesfully all throughout history...

- and thats why I offer it as a hypothesis

Excellent point. There are two other issues that WTC7 conspiracy theorists simply do not address:
1) Motive - why would anyone want to demolish that building, and why would they use 9-11 as a cover?
2) What about all of the other buildings surrounding the World Trade Center that were damaged or destroyed?

Russ,

Actually, I have adressed those issues in past posts, such as in the second post on this page.

Then what's the point?

Stop - unless you have something new to add, reposting this stale, potentially flawed, unreviewed literature is nothing short of wishcasting - "I HOPE this guy is correct! I won't address any negatives!"

That post adresses neither.

In response,

I have merely been (1)stating that I agree with Dr. Jones' paper, (2) given some reasons why in 4 posts on page three (he has submitted the first paper that I almost entirely agree with), (3) and have offered a hypothesis of "why" this this issue may have happened as Dr. Jones paper suggests when someone asked (second post on page 4).

Possible motive that you are asking for could easily be the same motive of the Operation Northwoods documents:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/northwoods.html
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/


problem-reaction-solution

its a hypothesis and does not negate the physics of this matter.

It's lovely that you're so into this "theory", but why on earth are you trying to further it here? This is a forum for greeks, not physicists. You're putting an awful lot of energy into trying to argue this point here, of all places, and it seems very, very strange.

You're still not providing a motive. The Northwoods argument could be used for 9-11, but why would anyone go that one extra step to knock down 7WTC?

This is the kind of logical approach I wish was taken to more of these theories - basically if you accept the premise that there was a conspiracy, one should then examine it logically... how would the demolition of WTC7 further the conspiracy?
- if the attack was all some 'evil' plot of governmental terrorism; then while demo WTC7? Wouldn't it risk exposure by enlarging the scope of the conspiracy?
- if the terror attacks on WTC were simply that, then why demo WTC7? It doesn't seem to further any agenda that the terrorists already didn't do...

So as PhiPsiRuss asks: whats the point of knocking down WTC7? As far as I can tell there is no point other than "it's a conspiracy".

Cooper,

This is actually a very good question.

Buildings 1 and 2 might make sense in the scenerio I presented (Northwoods Documents) but...

Why building number 7?

Answer: Insurance Settlement

Larry Silverstein heads the consortium that signed a rental contract for the WTC towers and WTC Building 7 with the Harbor Authorities of New York and New Jersey just seven weeks before the 9-11 attacks.

An icon for financial power, built in the early 1970s at a cost of $750 million as part of a massive urban renewal project spearheaded by America's Rockefeller family, the landmark towers anchored a seven-building complex spread over about 12 city blocks.

Silverstein Properties agreed to lease the towers and surrounding Port Authority properties for $3.2 billion over 99 years, with $616 million paid up front. (This $3.2 billion was, according to the actuaries, present discounted market value.)

Silverstein took out insurance cover of $3.6 billion on the WTC properties just 6 weeks before 9-11, then sought to recoup $7.2 billion from insurers on the grounds that the two hijacked airliners that struck the 110-story twin towers Sept. 11 were separate 'occurrences' for insurance purposes, entitling him to collect twice on the $3.6 billion of policies. In September 2003 the U.S. Court of Appeals turned down Silverstein's efforts to double his insurance recovery for the WTC loss. However, His investment in these three buildings seven weeks prior to 9-11 still proved to be very lucrative.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Dec6.html

So, Jet Propulsion Fuels are not as ignitable than as Regular Gasoline? Is this correct?

Does it depend on the ignition point?

So, depending on the ignition point what is the Flame Rate? If it is iginighted how hot does it burn, How Fast, and How Long?

Does Steel Burn and warp faster than Concrete?

It may have been designed to fall straight down, did it without harming other buildings?

I dont know? I just remember what I saw and a Brother was standing below when the first plane hit.

7WTC, despite its name, was not really part of the World Trade Center. It was not part of the lease for the WTC, and it was developed independently, and later.

"Larry Silverstein did it" is really not credible.

Can we get just one remotely plausable motive for a conspiracy theory behind blowing up 7WTC?

ETA the redevelopment of the WTC site has been slightly delayed because of the insurance law suits. The 7WTC site is just now completing redevelopment, absent of insurance lawsuits.

So, what does it actually matter? The Buildings came down and other buildings around them were destroyed and people Killed!

Design Flaw, who knows? Opinions are like asses, everyone has one!

Oh, arent the Pyramids of Egypt, and Central and South America still standing!:rolleyes:

But, they were built by Aliens!:p

i'd say intense heat brought down those buildings.

i'd respect a structural engineer before him. particularly those who investigated it.

he's a crackpot.

steel doesn't have to melt to fail.


at high temps, particularly 500 degrees....it's 30 percent it's yield strength.

1.The point is: Larry Silverstein purchased the buildings 1,2, and 7, then finalized a massive record breaking insurance deal just six weeks prior to 9-11... - which would satisfy motive for building 7 under Dr. Jones' hypothesis... - Although, I still maintain that my qualitative speculation here should be considered independently from the physics in this matter (quantitative data):

http://www.cbsnews.com/elements/2003...6_person.shtml

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/background/owners.html

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news...6/07/15925.htm


*2. And of course, *most importantly*, the Operation Northwoods documents explain the potential motive for buildings 1 and 2, as well as somewhat building 7:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/northwoods.html

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods



I would also like to add here that Marvin Bush was hired as head of security for the entire complex.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911security.html


3. and... that the person who was in charge of certifying the steel in those buildings does not see any reason why those buildings should have colapsed due to fire or any type of fuel.

here is his letter of obvious concern:

http://www.septembereleventh.org/new...11-11-ryan.php

Thus Dr. Jones' hypothesis :

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html


a hypothesis which is echoed by many others, including many engineers. Here is just one example:

PHYSICS 911 is created and maintained by a group of scientists, engineers and other professionals known collectively as the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-eleven

http://physics911.net/

this guy's an idiot.

you can't design for catastrophic failure such as that. unless you have a bank account the size of asia.

a structural engineer's opinion has far more weight.

this guy has no concept of structural analysis and member design.

the most ridiculous argument i've ever heard.

Why don't you break it down for him, boilermaker?

i already did.

and i don't need to write a long ass paper on it either.

Another reason why I love you.;)

*blushin*

:cool:

1.The point is: Larry Silverstein purchased the buildings 1,2, and 7, then finalized a massive record breaking insurance deal just six weeks prior to 9-11... - which would satisfy motive for building 7 under Dr. Jones' hypothesis... - Although, I still maintain that my qualitative speculation here should be considered independently from the physics in this matter (quantitative data):

http://www.cbsnews.com/elements/200..._6_person.shtml

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/background/owners.html

http://www.insurancejournal.com/new...06/07/15925.htm


*2. And of course, *most importantly*, the Operation Northwoods documents explain the potential motive for buildings 1 and 2, as well as somewhat building 7:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/northwoods.html

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods



I would also like to add here that Marvin Bush was hired as head of security for the entire complex.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911security.html


3. and... that the person who was in charge of certifying the steel in those buildings does not see any reason why those buildings should have colapsed due to fire or any type of fuel.

here is his letter of obvious concern:

http://www.septembereleventh.org/ne...-11-11-ryan.php

Thus Dr. Jones' hypothesis :

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html


a hypothesis which is echoed by many others, including many engineers. Here is just one example:

PHYSICS 911 is created and maintained by a group of scientists, engineers and other professionals known collectively as the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-eleven

http://physics911.net/

Deke -- simply amazing, and not in a good way. Honestly, your "theory" seems to be about the same quality as these:

"US Accused of Using Poison Gas in Iraq"

http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/new...ervice_id=9631

"Al-Zarqawi Captured in Iraq"

http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/new...ervice_id=6517

"Al-Zarqawi Captured on Syrian-Iraq Border"

http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/new...ervice_id=2955

Oh.. same paper, and this story looks familiar:

"Controlled collapse of World Trade Center Building 7?"

http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/con...ory.asp?id=255

I say we move this thread to the land of the loonies, so it can be debated by people who "know" the truth :rolleyes:

Here's a good site to banish it to:
http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/nwo.htm

Oh wait they already have a thing about the WTC7, and it being an evil governmental/NWO/Zionist/insurance/satanic plot :rolleyes:

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml


http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/aibs_2002_wtc.pdf


by structural engineers.

a more relevant discussion.

Hmmm... but they don't support his theory - so they'll be dismissed as well; much like the earlier report I linked to the thread.

In the immortal words of Winston Churchill:
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind
and won't change the subject"