Thursday, June 29, 2006

Fetzer Bites on Barbara Olson Story

As noted below, Fetzer was definitely trying to avoid the topic of the passengers and what happened to them; so desperately that when the topic of Fox News Commentator Barbara Olsen came up, he jumped on it (about 10:30):

Colmes: Wasn’t Barbara Olson on one of the planes? The one that hit at—

Fetzer: Great, let’s talk about Barbara Olson, we have discovered that those cellphone calls would have been physically impossible at speeds—at altitudes above 2000 feet and speeds above 230. AK Dewadney (sic), who’s a professor of computer science from Western Ontario has discovered that it becomes less and less possible to make those connections at the altitudes and speeds of these planes they would not have been possible. Now, Barbara Olson, according to her husband, called him, but he has given three different versions of her call, and get this, Alan, her name is not listed on the Social Security death index. If she’s dead her name ought to be listed there. It’s not.

Colmes: Are you suggesting Barbara Olson’s not dead?

Fetzer: There have been reports, that I haven’t been able to verify, that she was arrested in Europe, her husband is now retired and he has moved to Europe. You figure it out.

Colmes: Ted Olson’s living in Europe?

Fetzer: That’s what I understand. And Ted Olson’s an interesting guy, you know, even though he was the Solicitor General, he observed that—this is probably his most famous quote—that he could imagine infinitely many reasons why the American government might lie to the American people. That’s a lot of reasons, Alan.

Colmes: So you’re suggesting that Ted Olson and his wife are together, living in Europe?

Fetzer: That would be my best guess, Alan. I can’t claim to know that, but it makes sense with what we do know.


This is sheer, unadulterated nuttiness. First, on the Social Security Death Index, there are several reasons why somebody might not appear:

* The death was not reported to the Social Security Administration (SSA).
* The death occurred before the Death Master File was maintained in a computer database. About 98 percent of the deaths in this database occurred between 1962 and the present.
* The person did not participate in the Social Security program.
* Survivor death benefits were (are) being paid to dependents or spouse.
* A recent death may not be indexed yet.
* Human error. (Before you give up, read the section titled "Missing Entries in the SSDI.")


Did Olson have any minor children? They might be receiving survivor benefits. And anyway, why do CTers latch onto lists like this? If you'll notice, this is similar to the claims that the planes couldn't have been destroyed, because their tail numbers were still on an NTSB list. Do they really believe that the conspirators would put together this vast plot, but forget to retire the tail numbers, or add somebody to the Social Security Death Index? The answer, as best I can tell, is that it buys them another moment or two of having somebody listen to their stupidity.

As for Barbara Olson's arrest in Europe, here's the "report" that Fetzer is referring to. The "story" was broken by Tom Flocco, who's one of the nuttiest of the nutbars. His original version of the story had Olson being arrested at the Austrian-Polish border; that was changed to the German-Polish border when it was pointed out that Austria and Poland aren't contiguous.

Flocco is a fruitcake who has broken other "scoops" before, like:

Bush, Cheney and Blair indicted!

Katherine Harris dead!

Update: Commenter Manny was kind enough to point us to this article on Ted Olson from Mid-May:

A former U.S. solicitor general will help Kennedy cousin Michael Skakel appeal his murder conviction to the U.S. Supreme Court, saying Monday the case will focus on when the charges were filed.

Theodore B. Olson has argued 43 cases before the nation's highest court, including representing George W. Bush in the disputed presidential race of 2000.

49 Comments:

At 29 June, 2006 07:34, Blogger Chad said...

Undisputable truth indeed....

These guys do half our work for us. I love it.

 
At 29 June, 2006 07:50, Blogger Kiwi Realist said...

I've been lurking and reading this blog for a couple of months now since a mate of mine emailed me a link to Loose Change. It is clear who the nutcases are here - the ones with no actual evidence or evidence like "Just look at it man, it was a controlled demolition". Haven't felt compelled to comment until now. This post while being hilarious is also f**king disgusting. This guy needs a bullet.

 
At 29 June, 2006 08:44, Blogger Manny said...

Also been lurking and reading for a while. Lest there be any doubt whatsoever, Ted Olson lives in the United States and will be arguing in front of the Supreme Court this term. (Working for the Kennedys. Heh.)

 
At 29 June, 2006 10:34, Blogger CHF said...

kiwi,

Forget a bullet. Let Fetzer live and spew his crap far and wide. Put him on every radio and TV station.

He buys into even the most pathetic, long-discredited theories out there.

If that raving loon is allowed to become the face of "9/11 truth" then those stupid shits are toast and, as Chad said, out job is 100 times more easy.

 
At 29 June, 2006 10:45, Blogger Avery Dylan said...

"Not on the Social Security Death index?"

The ssdi is a list of those people who have STOPPED COLLECTING THEIR SS CHECK - based on the address their LAST check was sent to.

If you die young, violently, or still collecting a paycheck, and are not receiving a ss check, guess what? They don't have the infomation.


But like hey, man, I was sure the govenment informers were keeping track of everything. Let me take this up with my man Jason, 'cause like he's a research guy, and like I want him to read down to the bottom of the page some time. . .

 
At 29 June, 2006 11:17, Blogger default.xbe said...

we should keep track of what radio shows fetzers gonna be on so we can call in, with all the long-debunked stuff hes spouting it should be easy to cut him down a bit, lol

 
At 29 June, 2006 11:24, Blogger Jujigatami said...

Ted and Barbara Olsen are quite obviously in hiding with Elvis, Jim Morrison, and Ghandi.

Its a proven fact that is far beyond dispute.

 
At 29 June, 2006 13:29, Blogger roger_sq said...

It is clear who the nutcases are here - the ones with no actual evidence or evidence like "Just look at it man, it was a controlled demolition".

Have you read Steven Jones' paper?

 
At 29 June, 2006 13:43, Blogger shawn said...

Have you read Steven Jones' paper?

Do you just click on random posts? We've discussed it at length.

 
At 29 June, 2006 13:58, Blogger James B. said...

You forgot to bring up the counterfeit Lira she was caught with.

 
At 29 June, 2006 14:22, Blogger default.xbe said...

so they say she was arrested in europe with counterfeit lira? they could have at least said she had some counterfeit money thats worth something, lol

 
At 29 June, 2006 14:36, Blogger Manny said...

Lira? In 2005? Like, Italian Lira, which ceased to exist in March of 2002, or some other country's lira? In 2005, counterfeit lira would be worth more than real lira.

 
At 29 June, 2006 15:51, Blogger James B. said...

From the article:

The alleged 9.11 Pentagon crash victim was found to be in possession of millions in fake InterBank Italian lira currency, according to the agents.


Also there is no explanation why French and American intelligence agents are arresting people on the German-Polish border. Or the German-Austrian border for that matter.

 
At 29 June, 2006 15:52, Blogger James B. said...

Err... Polish-Austrian border. Now these idiots are confusing me.

 
At 29 June, 2006 17:16, Blogger roger_sq said...

Have you read Steven Jones' paper?

Do you just click on random posts? We've discussed it at length.


Yeah, pretty much. I did read the attempt at debunking Jones somewhere.

Said he's a physicist and what do physicists know about structural engineering? Which is amusing. But stupid.

 
At 29 June, 2006 17:32, Blogger default.xbe said...

but what area of physics does jones specialize in? last i heard he was working on cold fusion, a far cry from structural engineering

besides, i always thought structural engineering experts were called structural engineers, not physicists

 
At 29 June, 2006 17:49, Blogger roger_sq said...

She [Barbara] had trouble getting through, because she wasn’t using her cell phone – she was using the phone in the passengers’ seats,” said Mr Olson. “I guess she didn’t have her purse, because she was calling collect, and she was trying to get through to the Department of Justice, which is never very easy.” … “She wanted to know ‘What can I tell the pilot? What can I do? How can I stop this?’ ”
"What Can I tell the pilot?" Yes indeed! The forged Barbara Olson telephone call claims that the flight deck crew were with her at the back of the aircraft, presumably politely ushered down there by the box cutter-wielding Muslim maniacs, who for some bizarre reason decided not to cut their throats on the flight deck. Have you ever heard anything quite so ridiculous?
But it is at this juncture that we finally have the terminal error. Though the American Airlines Boeing 757 is fitted with individual telephones at each seat position, they are not of the variety where you can simply pick up the handset and ask for an operator. On many aircraft you can talk from one seat to another in the aircraft free of charge, but if you wish to access the outside world you must first swipe your credit card through the telephone. By Ted Olson’s own admission, Barbara did not have a credit card with her.
It gets worse. On American Airlines there is a telephone "setup" charge of US$2.50 which can only be paid by credit card, then a US$2.50 (sometimes US$5.00) charge per minute of speech thereafter. The setup charge is the crucial element. Without paying it in advance by swiping your credit card you cannot access the external telephone network.

 
At 29 June, 2006 17:53, Blogger roger_sq said...

but what area of physics does jones specialize in? last i heard he was working on cold fusion, a far cry from structural engineering

besides, i always thought structural engineering experts were called structural engineers, not physicists


That's because yer a moron. You're basically saying a diesel mechanic would be incapable of understanding how a bicycle works, because a bicycle isn't a diesel engine.

Quantum physics is vastly more complex than structural engineering, and there's not really any way of using, or teaching, quantum physics without having a complete mastery of physics. And yes Virginia, structural engineering IS physics, and nothing but physics.

 
At 29 June, 2006 17:56, Blogger default.xbe said...

so you have to know the tensile strength of a steel beam to describe the motion of a quark? i think not

 
At 29 June, 2006 17:58, Blogger CHF said...

roger,

cold fusion is considered a joke in the physics community. And Jones is a Mormon who wrote a paper on Jesus visiting America.

When that's your star witness you're in a world of trouble, mate.

The bottom line, roger, is that YOU HAVE NO STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS ON YOUR SIDE. The engineers in Jones' own university think he's full of shit.

That's why you find yourself parading around that fool as your savior.

 
At 29 June, 2006 18:37, Blogger roger_sq said...

so you have to know the tensile strength of a steel beam to describe the motion of a quark? i think not

Most definitely yes, you have to understand physics to understand quarks. Steel IS quarks.

What would a molecular biologist know about a dandelion... hey, live in you're own fuckin' world. It's ok.

 
At 29 June, 2006 18:47, Blogger roger_sq said...

cold fusion is considered a joke in the physics community.

As was every major scientific discovery since gravity. Do I have to tell you Galileo stories? Nah, fuck it I won't waste the time, google Schopenhauer.

And Jones is a Mormon who wrote a paper on Jesus visiting America.

And it says In God We Trust on every dollar in my pocket. The President of The United States talks to Jesus everyday. Samuel Alito is a member of Opus Dei.


When that's your star witness you're in a world of trouble, mate.

How many members and contributors to the 9/11 Commission are atheists? Or is it more lloney to believe Jesus came to America than to believe he's coming back to America sometime soon.

The bottom line, roger, is that YOU HAVE NO STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS ON YOUR SIDE.

I know it's paradoxical but I don't want any engineers on my side. The dozens I've known have no capacity for critical thinking whatsoever. But I can live without them.

The engineers in Jones' own university think he's full of shit.

No they don't, they say they don't support his conjecture, but they fail to refute it at all, and doubtless they have strong political incentive to simply disagree on political grounds.

That's why you find yourself parading around that fool as your savior.

Ad hominem (Hi Shawn!)... the beauty of science is that it stands on its own merit. I read his paper, and it has merit. Much moreso than the NIST "heck we dunno but we curve fitted this hypothesis."

 
At 29 June, 2006 19:09, Blogger shawn said...

As was every major scientific discovery since gravity.

hahah you're gonna equate cold fusion with the astronomy of Galileo? Cold fusion is a future possibility, but at our present level of technology it's impossible.

How many members and contributors to the 9/11 Commission are atheists? Or is it more lloney to believe Jesus came to America than to believe he's coming back to America sometime soon.

Only evangelicals believe in the Second Coming, and they're a minority of Christians in this nation. and what does it matter how many are atheists? I'm an atheist, that doesn't change anything.

the beauty of science is that it stands on its own merit.

Yeah, like how science supports everything the "official" story says.

Did you notice that in his paper he includes pictures of concrete and rebar as "melted steel"? That'a real scientific.

I know it's paradoxical but I don't want any engineers on my side. The dozens I've known have no capacity for critical thinking whatsoever.

You're not exactly one to judge anyone else on their critical thinking skills. It's ridiculous that you don't even think hmmm there's something seriously wrong with our hypothesis if not one expert in the field agrees with us.

 
At 29 June, 2006 19:43, Blogger JoanBasil said...

Well, good luck to Mr. Olson on the Skakel appeal. I never understood how you could convict someone of murder mostly on what someone he was in drug rehab with as a teenager said he said and that guy died of an overdose before the trial.

 
At 29 June, 2006 19:49, Blogger CHF said...

roger,

"I know it's paradoxical but I don't want any engineers on my side."

Yeah, unless one actually agreed with you! LOL!

Who needs experts? What do they know? They suck.

You're pathetic, roger.

 
At 29 June, 2006 21:12, Blogger roger_sq said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 29 June, 2006 21:15, Blogger roger_sq said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 29 June, 2006 21:15, Blogger roger_sq said...

roger,

"I know it's paradoxical but I don't want any engineers on my side."

Yeah, unless one actually agreed with you! LOL!

Who needs experts? What do they know? They suck.

You're pathetic, roger.


I'll tell you what. I will pay up to $50,000 cash to any structural engineer of your choice (yes, YOUR choice) to perform a comprehensive analysis of the destruction of WTC.

All you need to do is provide me with a set of blueprints first, so that I can submit it to my own engineers for a preview to ensure validity in the conclusions.

Game?

PS- Shawn, Your reply above shows you to be such an unbelievable asshole I feel no need to respond, and am glad to see it there for posterity.

 
At 29 June, 2006 21:43, Blogger CHF said...

Roger,

and when our structural engineers (like every other one on planet earth) reaches the "hijacked planes and fires" conclusion....then what will you do?

Call them CIA/Mossad agents?

Demand more sources and investigations?

If CTer past performances are any indication you'll dismiss it all as false if you don't like the result. So why would I, or any structural engineers, waste time with you?

The burden of proof is on YOU, roger; NOT me. Get that through your thick fucking skull!

We've already got the world's structural engineers firmly in our corner. Meanwhile, you've got Stephen Jones, Judy Wood and Charlie Sheen.

How about taking your $50,000 and finding yourself a structural engineer who's willing to back you up on the CD theory?

Lord knows no one else in the "Truth" movement has been able to find one (hense Fetzer's pathetic "going to hell" meltdown).

So go ahead, Roger - find one. Make a name for yourself!

Hey, you could be the next Dylan Avery.

 
At 29 June, 2006 22:47, Blogger roger_sq said...

If CTer past performances are any indication you'll dismiss it all as false if you don't like the result. So why would I, or any structural engineers, waste time with you?

For $50,000 I would presume.

The burden of proof is on YOU, roger; NOT me. Get that through your thick fucking skull!

Which is why I made the suggestion.

We've already got the world's structural engineers firmly in our corner.

No, actually you don't, you fucking mongoloid. Because none of them have access to the blueprints.Because you can't get the fucking blueprints. The reason no structural engineer can refute it (do you really think there wouldn't be one whack job structural engineer on the planet? I've met them!) is because no structural engineer can investigate it.

Despite this, they have no problem lining up with the OSCT and deeming it as valid.

 
At 30 June, 2006 05:18, Blogger CHF said...

We know how the WTC was designed, Roger.

What do you think the blueprints would show? The fucking locations of CD charges?

 
At 30 June, 2006 05:35, Blogger CHF said...

"do you really think there wouldn't be one whack job structural engineer on the planet?"

And thank you for ackowledging what kind of structural engineer would agree with you.

Indeed, roger - only the whack jobs. I sure as fuck wouldn't base a "truth" movement on such people, but that's just me.

 
At 30 June, 2006 10:57, Blogger apathoid said...

I'll tell you what. I will pay up to $50,000 cash to any structural engineer of your choice (yes, YOUR choice) to perform a comprehensive analysis of the destruction of WTC.

Give me a break.

OK, go ahead and put the $50,000 in escrow first and show us proof of this, and I'll gladly find an SE who "performs a comprehensive analysis of the destruction of WTC"
In fact, its already been done by some fellas at MIT.

All you need to do is provide me with a set of blueprints first, so that I can submit it to my own engineers for a preview to ensure validity in the conclusions.

And what is it that you do for a living exactly? Why do you consider your knowledge to be superior to thousands of SE's? Why do you have "your own" engineers? And BTW that last line is total and complete BS. "Ensure the validiy of the conclusions" ??
Are you kidding? Was that a bad joke? Dude, when will you guys finally get this through your thick skulls - no Structural Engineers IN THE ENTIRE WORLD agree with you. (Not to mention the fact that only a few "physicists" agree with you, whilst the overwhelmong majority dont)

 
At 30 June, 2006 11:08, Blogger apathoid said...

chf
We've already got the world's structural engineers firmly in our corner.

roger
No, actually you don't, you fucking mongoloid. Because none of them have access to the blueprint

Was this another bad joke Roger? Are you serious?

The reason no structural engineer can refute it (do you really think there wouldn't be one whack job structural engineer on the planet? I've met them!) is because no structural engineer can investigate it.

Wrong!!

Lots of ME/CE/SEs have already weighed in, in favor of the OS.
I guess you didnt notice??

 
At 30 June, 2006 12:53, Blogger roger_sq said...

The reason no structural engineer can refute it (do you really think there wouldn't be one whack job structural engineer on the planet? I've met them!) is because no structural engineer can investigate it.

Wrong!!

Lots of ME/CE/SEs have already weighed in, in favor of the OS.
I guess you didnt notice??


That paper was publish TWO FUCKING DAYS AFTER 9/11.

Get real!

 
At 30 June, 2006 12:54, Blogger roger_sq said...

No, actually you don't, you fucking mongoloid. Because none of them have access to the blueprint

Was this another bad joke Roger? Are you serious?


Totally and completely serious.

 
At 30 June, 2006 13:35, Blogger apathoid said...

That paper was publish TWO FUCKING DAYS AFTER 9/11.

Get real!


Okay. If its rubbish, can you point me to a credible engineer, or more preferebly an engineering paper or journal that has refuted it(thats right, no CT sites need apply - I already know how they feel about it)?

What about all the other papers and journals on that page, they all rubbish too?

 
At 30 June, 2006 14:09, Blogger CHF said...

roger,

your arrogance is stunning.

The world's structural engineers who "haven't seen the blue prints" are in no position to determine why the WTC fell down...

But YOU on the other hand (who has ALSO not seen the magic blueprints!) has the whole thing figured out???

Your pathetic logic alone discredits you!

Besides, what exactly do you think the supposedly forbidden blueprints would show that isn't already known? CD charges rigged up and ready to go?

 
At 30 June, 2006 14:33, Blogger apathoid said...

But YOU on the other hand (who has ALSO not seen the magic blueprints!) has the whole thing figured out???

C'mon now - anyone with two eyes(except every demolitionist and structural engineer in the world) can plainly see that the Towers came down in a classic controlled demolition.
No blueprints necessary for that!!

 
At 30 June, 2006 17:37, Blogger roger_sq said...

We know how the WTC was designed, Roger.

What do you think the blueprints would show? The fucking locations of CD charges?


No, actually you don't. All the analyses are guestimates curve fitted to explain how an airplane could cause global collapse in under an hour.

 
At 30 June, 2006 17:43, Blogger roger_sq said...

Okay. If its rubbish, can you point me to a credible engineer, or more preferebly an engineering paper or journal that has refuted it(thats right, no CT sites need apply - I already know how they feel about it)?

Can you show me another steel frame building that collapsed due to fire?

 
At 30 June, 2006 17:54, Blogger roger_sq said...

roger,

your arrogance is stunning.


Is there a Rush Limbaugh School of Rhetoric I don't know about? It's like you all read from the same manual.



the world's structural engineers who "haven't seen the blue prints" are in no position to determine why the WTC fell down...

But YOU on the other hand (who has ALSO not seen the magic blueprints!) has the whole thing figured out???


No, but if definitive conclusions can be established and published in 2 days on a disaster of such magnitude, why do they waste months and months investigating things like house fires? Hell, it takes two weeks to get a police report on a DUI.

I never said I knew, I think Steven Jones raises some very simple and irrefutable conclusions based on real physics. I know, that's pathetic!


Your pathetic logic alone discredits you!

Thanks, Rush!

Besides, what exactly do you think the supposedly forbidden blueprints would show that isn't already known? CD charges rigged up and ready to go?

I think it would show me that the load distribution of all three WTC towers was uneven to begin with, because the load of the building itself was dependent on the core columns and nut the trusses or the exterior wall. The weight of the exterior wall was dependent oin itself, and wind loads were distributed across each face and through the trusses to the core column, allowing for the "flex" effect common in modern buildings

Some simple math would establish that removal of most of the lateral trusses from the building would result in a standing core column and a standing exterior face, at least until a sufficient wind blew the exterior into the coree and caused a big messy collapse of most of the exterior wall as the lateral trusses buckled, leaving large portions of the core column intact.

But I don't have the blueprints so I can't say one way or the other.

 
At 30 June, 2006 18:57, Blogger CHF said...

Roger,

find yourself a structural engineer or a CD expert. You guys need one.

Badly.

This is way beyond sad.

 
At 30 June, 2006 19:32, Blogger apathoid said...

Can you show me another steel frame building that collapsed due to fire?

Find me another steel framed building that was hit by 140 tons of airliner with 10,000 gallons of fuel, travelling at 500+ mph.

We can play this game all day.

I think Steven Jones raises some very simple and irrefutable conclusions based on real physics

Care to name some other reknowned physicists who came to the same "simple and irrefutable conclusions"....that Jones did?

Some simple math would establish that removal of most of the lateral trusses from the building would result in a standing core column and a standing exterior face

This theory might hold if the trusses werent physically attached to both the core columns and perimeter columns.. Sagging trusses spanning the entire floor pulled the perimeter columns in (duh, they are bolted togther) until the load was too great. I'm not smart enough to figure out what exactly happened in the first few moments after the collapse onset. But, it doesnt take a genius to figure out that 80,000 tons of concrete and steel isnt just gonna sit there floating, it had to go somewhere...

 
At 01 July, 2006 20:21, Blogger shawn said...

Thanks, Rush!

Roger, why is it when someone points out your illogical thought processes you can only respond with ad hominem?

 
At 07 December, 2006 15:11, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The point made about how prior analyses of the WTC's were 'curve fit' to produce the desired result (collapse) is certainly how NIST approached this subject. Their initial simulations could not trigger a collapse event, so they simply pushed the parameters (e.g. assumed) higher heat until, voila, the simulation resulted in failure.

One big problem with this approach is that jet fuel and the standard contents of buildings (desks, carpet, chairs, paper, etc.), don't burn at sufficiently high enough temperatures in an open compartment fire (the WTC's with many of the windows blow out in the areas where the most intense fires were present.

NIST's next failure was one of omission. Their analyses stopped at the initiation (precise moment) of simulated collapse. They DID NOT simulate or bother to attempt to explain how the towers fell in the manner they did AFTER the moment of collapse.

Seems like a pretty huge omission, particularly when one considers that their primary purpose was building safety issues.

In particular, they offer no explanation whatsoever for how the core structure - below the point of impact - could suffer massive catastrophic failure such that the towers fell in only slightly more time than it would take for a golf ball to fall to the ground from the same height.

Finally, there have been almost a dozen well-document reports from highly reliable sources of melted steel found in the basements of the WTC7, 1 and 2. The pile was satellite imaged to have a surface temp of 2,000 F several days after the collapse after the pile had been sprayed with water and fire retardents. Temps on the day of collapse (and further down in the pile) would have been much higher. Again, NIST doesn't bother to explain how documented temps significantly greater than 2,000 F could have been present. Note, the gas supplies in the area of the WTC's had been shut off so this can't be the source of this amount of heat.

NIST's simulations of interior heat temps prior to collapse could document temps only in the range of about 600-700 farenheit (going on recollection here).

So, we've got curve-fit computer simulations that supposedly 'prove' how collapse initiation occurred.

We've got simulations of maximum interior temps that are 1,400 degrees LESS than were documented by satellite sensing to have been present at the surface of the pile days after collapse.

Oh, and I forgot to mention that NIST fails altoghether to explain how large structural steel elements had literally dissolved through documented eutectic reactions which showed the presence of sulphur in quantities necessary to dissolve the steel. The researchers (WPI, as I recall)who documented this called it the greatest mystery of the collapse of the WTC's and called for NIST to examine this. Of course NIST failed to do so whatsoever.

 
At 07 December, 2006 15:12, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The point made about how prior analyses of the WTC's were 'curve fit' to produce the desired result (collapse) is certainly how NIST approached this subject. Their initial simulations could not trigger a collapse event, so they simply pushed the parameters (e.g. assumed) higher heat until, voila, the simulation resulted in failure.

One big problem with this approach is that jet fuel and the standard contents of buildings (desks, carpet, chairs, paper, etc.), don't burn at sufficiently high enough temperatures in an open compartment fire (the WTC's with many of the windows blow out in the areas where the most intense fires were present.

NIST's next failure was one of omission. Their analyses stopped at the initiation (precise moment) of simulated collapse. They DID NOT simulate or bother to attempt to explain how the towers fell in the manner they did AFTER the moment of collapse.

Seems like a pretty huge omission, particularly when one considers that their primary purpose was building safety issues.

In particular, they offer no explanation whatsoever for how the core structure - below the point of impact - could suffer massive catastrophic failure such that the towers fell in only slightly more time than it would take for a golf ball to fall to the ground from the same height.

Finally, there have been almost a dozen well-document reports from highly reliable sources of melted steel found in the basements of the WTC7, 1 and 2. The pile was satellite imaged to have a surface temp of 2,000 F several days after the collapse after the pile had been sprayed with water and fire retardents. Temps on the day of collapse (and further down in the pile) would have been much higher. Again, NIST doesn't bother to explain how documented temps significantly greater than 2,000 F could have been present. Note, the gas supplies in the area of the WTC's had been shut off so this can't be the source of this amount of heat.

NIST's simulations of interior heat temps prior to collapse could document temps only in the range of about 600-700 farenheit (going on recollection here).

So, we've got curve-fit computer simulations that supposedly 'prove' how collapse initiation occurred.

We've got simulations of maximum interior temps that are 1,400 degrees LESS than were documented by satellite sensing to have been present at the surface of the pile days after collapse.

Oh, and I forgot to mention that NIST fails altoghether to explain how large structural steel elements had literally dissolved through documented eutectic reactions which showed the presence of sulphur in quantities necessary to dissolve the steel. The researchers (WPI, as I recall)who documented this called it the greatest mystery of the collapse of the WTC's and called for NIST to examine this. Of course NIST failed to do so whatsoever.

 
At 07 December, 2006 19:15, Anonymous Anonymous said...

on edit, this part of my previous comment:

One big problem with this approach is that jet fuel and the standard contents of buildings (desks, carpet, chairs, paper, etc.), don't burn at sufficiently high enough temperatures in an open or partially open compartment fire (the WTC's were a partially open compartment fire where many of the windows were blown out in the areas of impact where the most intense fires would have been present) to cause structural steel members (designed at a safety factor of 2 -3 to lose their load bearing capacity.

sorry for the omissions.

 
At 24 December, 2006 02:06, Blogger Paulie said...

Nist report is a joke what it can't answer it ignores.
Wake up.......explosives were used they (?) planted military grade explosives during power downs at the WTC's It matters not who flew the planes. What matters is the Government knew and did nothing to stop it.
Proof of this is evidant in many of the witness statements, not of the planes crashing but of what was being done and said within the Government and the resulting benfactors of this event are laughing all the way to the bank.
Thank god life is short as these people will soon be the richest in the graveyards.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home