Wednesday, March 29, 2006

wtc7

* xymphora tries to argue that WTC7 was a controlled demolition, but not wtc1 or 2. he argues that wtc7 would have been pre-wired to protect the valuable information inside in case of some calamity, but that it would be impossible to plant explosives in the other two because it'd be impossible to do it without being seen. the problem with that theory is that they shouldn't have been so secret about wtc7.

* cannon has a go at thewtc7 story too.

* paul thompson said something odd recently about sibel's blueprints & composites - something like "you'll be surprised to learn which buildings" - maybe he was talking about wtc7?

* xymph also takes a look at an interview with ellsberg where ellsberg says that he reckons judy miller actually did have a CIA security clearance - and probably Sulzberger as well.

* cannon:"We know, though, that when the Justice Department launched a criminal probe into the outing of Plame, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales gave Andrew Card a twelve-hour "heads up," which provided plenty of time to clear damning information from the White House computers....
Recently, we learned about the 250 pages of "Now you see 'em, now you don't" emails which Rove recently "discovered" and supplied to Patrick Fitzgerald. These very same emails went missing during the original Justice Department inquiry, perhaps during those key twelve hours. (The deadline to turn over all materials was October 10.) Andrew Card could probably tell us some very interesting details about this strange matter."

8 comments:

damien said...

Xymphora may have skills in other areas but on the WTC collapses he has it entirely wrong.

There are many things I can be wrong about, but speaking as someone with a degree in mathematical statistics (and a working ability with other areas of maths) I can state unequivocally that the Judy Woods article is perfectly sound mathematics that makes the case for controlled demolitions the most likely explanation. Basically the two towers 'exploded'.

Judy Woods makes one critical and entirely reasonable assumption in her work: that the lower floors were sufficiently structurally sound that they did not commence their movement downwards until acted upon by collapsing upper floors.

Even if you allow for absolutely no collapse delay due to materials resistance (impossible) and accept conditions most favourable to the official interpretation, then Woods' critical assumption guarantees that the time of the collapse of the twins towers (obtained by applying Newton's laws of motion) will be substantially longer than what actually occurred on the day.

Ergo, Woods is forced to discard her original assumption and accept that floors commenced falling ahead of the upper floors by some independant means (ie demolitions of some kind).

However much that fails to fit in with Xymphora's sense of the world, or reasoning about the difficulties involved in fitting up such explosions, Woods' mathematics on this is absolutely sound.

We'll start arguing about virgin births if this nonsense continues. (And it doesn't even begin to address the materials science aspects pointed to by Steven Jones.). Enough already.

Miguel said...

Damien,
But what about what Xymphora says about explosives having to be planted on every floor? Is that part true, do you think? If so, it would greatly weaken the controlled demolition theory.

Anonymous said...

Someone should research what floors those firefighters had heard explosions on and then figure out what companies were on those floors. If someone rented some office space in certain areas and closed it off they could do anything.

damien said...

Miguel, I am not in a position to argue for certainty about the exact nature of any explosives used, nor how or where they were placed. If Xymphora says there would have been difficulties I am prepared to accept that. But whatever operational difficulties may have been present for persons carrying out any demolitions work, the fact remains that Newton's laws of motion, together with quite simple and fair assumptions absolutely guarantee that the building - acting under gravity alone - would have come down in a time (20 - 90 sec)greater than it actually took (10 sec). If you check out Xymphora's blog you'll see he simply refuses to engage in any scientific discussion, dismissing it as absurd and associating it with scientology! Call me traditional here but when a tenured Professor of Mechanical engineering (also a materials scientist) provides a mathematically reasoned account for the WTC collapse fully consistent with Isaac Newton's laws of physics then I am going to accept those ideas ahead of 'gut feelings' about the comings and goings of people in the buildings. Arguments along those lines are third rate by comparison.

People just don't get it. Mathematical proofs of the type provided by Woods are so certain in their basis and reasoning they may as well have been handed down by the angel Gabriel. The onus is on the shoulders of those who disagree to demonstrate its failings. And for that they have to use science.

lukery said...

i've responded here - basically i agree that it would be difficult to get the explosives in place, but i also agree that the numbers seem to confirm the controlled demolition story. the obvious weakness in xymphora's argument is that he argues that one building was exploded, but that it was impossible for the other two to be. he tries to thread a scenario between the two possible stories.

here is where xymphora calls the controlled demolition folks 'scientologists'

and here is where xymphora says that the blueprints story is disinformation

Miguel said...

Damien,
I hear what you're saying, but the one issue that I have with relying on Judy Woods alone- and once again, I'm a guy who barely made it through Physics 101- is that her analysis is not yet peer reviewed. I would like to see a dialogue started with more and more scientists/engineers to see if the 'official story' of the collapse can be ruled out by consensus. I agree that there is a danger for any academic latching on to the 'inside job' theory- being labeled a 'conspiracy theorist' can ruin an academic career. But there's got to be a way to get past that- though I realize that academia runs on government money and that might be a political, rather than scientific barrier that stops the dialogue from launching.

I have a story to tell you along these lines. I went last Friday to get a book from a local political reform organization in followup to my research on the Sibel Edmonds/Dennis Hastert case. The head of the organization is someone I know pretty well, actually he's pretty well known in the national campaign finance reform community and is probably moderately liberal/libertarian, and says he votes for Republicans more often than Democrats.

Well, anyway, I explained to him this Hastert issue I was working on had to do with Turkish nationals bribing the Speaker of the House, and was trying to avoid any connection to 9/11, so this totally mainstream guy wouldn't think of me as a conspiracy theorist. But somehow it slipped out that Sibel Edmonds had testified before the 9/11 Commission. But instead of laughing, he and his assistant asked me, "Have you seen that 9/11 video?"

I told him No, and said I thought the idea of an "inside job" was a bit of a stretch, even for Bush/Cheney, and he replied "Well come to my office, and take a look at this".

He had a video called Reopen911 on his computer, and it went through the entire controlled demolition theory. And he seemed absolutely fascinated with the idea it could have been a controlled demolition- he said he was a civil engineer by training and he seemed to find the evidence compelling, though I forget his exact words.

So, as I told Lukery, I am more open now to the possibility of 'inside job', though I still think we need more evidence and I will continue to play devil's advocate where I think it will help move the dialogue forward.

Miguel said...

Has any demolitions expert weighed in on this? How many explosives would it have taken to take the towers down?

damien said...

Miguel, I don't just rely on the Woods article. Steven Jones also makes valid scientific arguments that the buildings were demolished, arguments that would form a necessary part of any official review. The NIST report uses a computer that models up till the start of the collapse process and then simply stops analysing. What kind of scientific analysis is that?!

I have to say we really need a genuinely independant, authoritative scientific review. NIST isn't it.

Also, Woods uses assumptions and mathematics to arrive at conclusions. It is possible she's wrong in some aspect of the assumptions (I doubt it). But the reasoning and conclusions derived from those assumptions are absolutely impeccable.

Like you, I'd appreciate a few more credible scientists to look at all this.

I'm going to give up responding to people who refuse to read Wood and Jones, or watch the Osama 'confession' video. It's basically a waste of time.

One day I promise myself, Miguel, that I'm going to make the effort to learn everything you and Lukery have done on the neocons, Sibel and Turkey. It's great work by both of you. Cheers.