Thread I started on Physics.Org forum

[Andrew Johnson]

Have a read:

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=3108

It's had about 200 views (exluding my own....)

How'm I doing?!?

[Guest]

Hi Andrew

You are rattling the cage bars really well - I just wish I paid more attention to the physics master at school. You might be interested to know that I was kicked out of the International Disaster Managers Association's forum for daring to suggest what you have done already. Whilst it is called 'International', 95% of the disaster managers come from the US of A and are willing puppets to FEMA. I've been thrown out of better clubs!

Keep up the good work,

Justin

[Andrew Johnson]

Justin,

Thanks for kind comments. Blimey - I wouldn't like to have been in your shoes - that many egos bearing down on you (with an agenda as well) is contravention of human rights!!

[Guest]

[Sinclair]

Ad-J,

I just bumped your post on Physics.org forum with my 2p worth.

717 views at last count!

Keep the pressure on !!

Sinclair

[uselesseater]

Nice one!

I noticed the guy tried to play the ignorant, when he said 'how could the CIA plant explosives in athat time'. I've encountered this ploy before which makes me question the authenticity of the poster.

[Sinclair]

Interestingly, there is a discussion started today regarding the WTC controlled demolition (or not) over at the Rigorous Intuition forum

Here's the link
http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm10.showMessageRange?topic ID=1292.topic&start=1&stop=20


Sinclair

[uselesseater]

There is this thread on thestudentroom too. It's a day or two old though, but the discussion never really got going as few postgers seemed to want to tackle the issues. The forum is huge and has thousands of memebers though.


http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/t156563.html

[Andrew Johnson]

Sinclair has made some CLASS contributions to the Physics Forum posts.

TOP MAN! (Or Woman!!)

[Sinclair]

Nae problem!

I'm a fella!

Ad-J Did you read the RI Forum topic on controlled demolition? I posted there (Byrne) & it prompted the posting of some useful info (NIST Report), which further substantiated the claim that No Steel-framed buildings had ever collapsed before 9/11.

Some of the discussions on the RI board are brilliant. I'd reccomend the site.

Sinclair

[Guest]

Some good posts on thestudentroom guys. None of the other posters on there seem up to the task of making any real challenge however. Jonathanh seems intelligent but is a government worshiping drone but he will not adress any of the points / questions.

I think we should keep the thread active though whils looking for more forums.

I had a thread on www.politic.co.uk but pretty much did it to death and nobody was answering and points, just sweeping them under the carpt as usuall.

[uselesseater]

the above post was by me btw

[Sinclair]

I had a look at the StudentRoom, but it was a bit lame, There was no depth of discussion at all, although there was some good posts made.

I concratulate Andrew on raising the issue at Physics.org. It is spreading the word amongst people who would otherwise not be aware.

At the RI Forum , on the topic of WTC Controlled Demolition, I cam across this good link to background info on 9/11:
http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/Baffles.htm


Sinclair

[Andrew Johnson]

Sinclair, do you have a link for the RI thread?

[Andrew Johnson]

With a heady feeling of a certain level of success on 1 Physics forum (at the weekend), I posted to another, which had a forum for "Classical Physics". I posted the same message to this forum as the other one.

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=91883&highlight=Andrew+J ohnson

My post was immediately moved to the place shown above, with the result as seen.

The irony was Ivan Seeking's signature (copied from Michio Kaku) then the result of the thread (i.e. it was closed without discussion). Some people just can't seem to deal with contradiction. LOL

(The thread was closed within 2 hours of me posting it).

[Sinclair2]

Andrew,

the link for the RI Forum is at
http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm10

Look for the topic: Controlled Demolition: Disinfo. It should be high up on the list as I posted there this morning!!

I copied over the excellent post from Farang on your thread at Physics.org. It was worth reproducing.

Interesting to note that your thread on Classic Physics was closed. Maybe they just tidied the forum board up. Was it the exact same thread or a different one to your original post?

It is gaining views. I posted the link to it on the RI Board, so that might have given it a few more visitors, but the important thing is to spread the word to those who aren't aware of the facts, as I'm sure you'd agree. I think it is important to be civil & polite on these boards & that fact has been commented on by other posters on that thread. It is so important, even when trolls & disinfo agents are stirring things up.
Firstimer has an excellent post on the RI board stating about when things get too close, all sorts of disinfo activity happens.

So congrats & well done on starting the Physics.org thread, mate.

Sinclair

[Andrew Johnson]

Hiya Sinclair,

Thanks for the link I will check it out!

I think it gets easier to be polite, once you get used to the predictably negative remarks and insults. "If you can't attack the data, attack the messenger" etc

It is heartening to see posts like farang's, yes - but as we know, the truth (most terrible though it is) is on our side.

Starting the Physics thread was a "lucky break" really - it was easy enough to do!


Cheers

[Andrew Johnson]

Check out the latest interesting post by a_ht on the physics forum. It's interesting reading. I tried to respond appropriately... I might even go as far as saying... we got a result!! (Steady, ye Togs)

P.S. I don't mean this in a "smug sense" - just that it may be a small wavelet in the turning tide...

[Sinclair]

Andrew,

Just made another post there myself.

Sinclair

[Jim]

How scientific of him.

[brian]

Excellent post Sinclair on the physics forum which I hope you wont mind me using in future. Attributed of course.

[uselesseater]

would anyone like to join in on this post from http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=156563&page=5
?
As he is getting into physics which i'm not good on. I know it's pretty lame on there but it is a huge forum i.e. exposure.

"A steel framed skyscraper had never collapsed in a fire prior to 9/11.

But how many steel framed skyscrapers had a fuel laden 150-ton twin engine 767 piloted by some kamikaze maniacs driven into them at 500mph and THEN endured a fire?
And in WTC7s case, how many buildings have had two 1300ft tall skyscrapers collapse metres away from them and THEN endured a fire?

You cannot simply generalise, the situation on 9/11 was clearly far different to anything that has ever happened before, and possibly, will ever happen again.

If you know anything about structural engineering, you can see why the towers fell. Not only were significant numbers of support pillars and floor trusses completely destroyed by the impact and explosion, but they were then subjected to a fire across 20 floors of the North Tower and 15 floors of the South.

These damaged, burning floors were bearing the huge weight of the floors above(15 in the North, 25 in the South) Floors that were half severed by a kamikaze jet, were engulfed in a huge explosion, their exposed steel covered in burning jet fuel and bearing the weight of the floors above. As soon as individual beams began to lose their strength due to the massive heat, and floor trusses began to detach weakening the entire structural frame - it was only a matter of time unfourtunately.

The buildings would have to be entirely set in concrete, not steel, to have any chance of surviving 9/11, and they wouldn't have been possible in that same form as purely concrere structures, at the time at least.

As for WTC7, the collapse of the north tower breached an oil fuel line which had a storage tank beneath building 7. As well as the building being massively unsettled by the collapse of the twin towers, it had a 12,000 gallon tank of fuel burning at it's base.

The twin towers did NOT exhibit features of a controlled collapse. A controlled collapse is designed to make the building fall into it's own footprint. The twin towers threw debris hundreds of feet outwards. WTC7 fell almost straight down but most of the conspiracy websites are wrong when they say that ''all of the load bearing supports would have had to fail at exactly the same time''. Watch the footage, one side of the building clearly falls a floor or two ahead of the rest of the building.

Come on people. 9/11 was not a conspiracy. Possibly the US government knew of an impending attack and chose not to act but to say they orchestrated it all, bringing down landmarks in unprecedented circumstances and killing 3000 people? Don't be so naive and eager to jump on the conspiracy bandwagon. Just look at the facts!"

[brian]

uslesseater, a cut and paste of sinclairs physics forum post should be more than enough to counter that blatant piece of obfuscation and downright lies. It may not thwart the obfuscator but will give those not fully conversant with the facts, but capable of rational analysis, enough to think about.

Also a couple of links which show clearly the demolition, visuals are a great aid.

South Tower collapse from the east mpeg
http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/south_tower_collap se.mpeg

(See also still frames of this video.)
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/stc_frames.html

[uselesseater]

Cheers Brian. I did that. Hope you don't mind Sinclair?

[Sinclair]

Of course I don't mind anyone diseminating the information that I posted.

I copied it & saved it ages ago from a source & just edited & presented it. No attibutes necessary....................

I think that visuals are a great help. I was trying to post animated GIFS here, but the size limit is too low for the ones I had in mind.

Look at this URL for a video showing squibs (demolition charges or advance 'Pancake' Farts? - You decide) ahead of the demolition wave above.

http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/collapse%20update/wtc-1_jets.mpg
Right Click to save


Sinclair

[Sinclair]

I see Andrew's thread has now been read by nearly 3200 people!! The thread is still top of the forum list & has been referred to in a number of other forums across the web.

There is another new post drawing attention to Jimmy Walters offer of $1 Million to the first person who can prove that the WTC towers collapsed without explosives.

Excellent stuff!!

[Sinclair]

Brian,

yep they are good & make the boards more interesting.............

[Andrew Johnson]

Sinclair,

You have been doing a sterling work on the thread there and I notice someone else has started one about the Pentagon Crash too!

I think the debunkers have certainly made 1 thing clear: the language of Physics is more interesting and diverse than the language of insults and ridicule...

[DrJazzz]

hi ad,

congrats on some good work - I had a big read of the physics.org thread and posted on it too

it's a lot to go through though!

If you forget about everything but the 47 or so huge steels that comprised the central core though... what was it that could have made them fall, if not demolition? I feel this is the thing to concentrate on. They would 'win' the contest with the airliner, hands down. They would conduct any local heat quickly away. There was nothing to collapse on top of them. What theory does NIST or any true believers have for their falling?

Couple of points that might interest you
1) Collapse time (if pancake theory is correct) is going to be at least couple of seconds slowed due to the inertia of the floors, even if the floors provide no resistance (I did this calculation myself)

2) On the North Tower, the communications mast fell at the start of the collapse - it was directly connected to the central core

you might already know about these points of course

[Andrew Johnson]

As regards NIST, this segment of one of the posts by Foxx seemed to be key:

NIST Caught trying to Bury Evidence

QUOTE
[by a_ht]

The NIST report is were the answers are. It is much more torought and complete.



I would have to disagree with you a_ht that NIST is being far more thorough and complete in view of the following...

NIST Caught Trying to 'Bury Evidence'

Nist claims in it's NIST NCSTAR 1-3 report (page xliv )
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/NIST_1_3_008.html
that...


QUOTE
E.6 Structural Steel in WTC 7...

quote: "No steel was recovered from WTC 7"





Folks, we [b]KNOW that this is a bold-faced LIE. They are exposed in this 'cover-up' by other federal documents which flatly state that WTC 7 steel was in fact collected...


QUOTE
WTC steel data collection efforts were undertaken by the Building Performance Study (BPS) Team and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY) to identify significant steel pieces from WTC 1, 2, 5, and 7 for further study

Page D1

FEMA - http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-r.../WTC_apndxD.pdf



and here...


QUOTE
Two structural steel members with unusual erosion patterns were observed in the WTC debris field. The first appeared to be from WTC 7 and the second from either WTC 1 or WTC 2. Samples were taken from these beams and labelled Sample 1 and sample 2, respectively. A mettallurgical examination was conducted.

C.2 Sample 1 (from WTC 7)
Several regions in the section of the beam shown in Figures C-1 and C-2 were examined to determine microstructural changes that occured in the A36 structural steel as a result of the events of September 11, 2001, and the subsequent fires. Although the exact location of this beam in the building was not known, the severe erosion found in several beams warranted further consideration.


Source: FEMA Metallurgical Report
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf



and here...

The following article appears in the journal JOM, 53 (12) (2001), pp. 18......


QUOTE
An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7

J.R. Barnett, R.R. Biederman, and R.D. Sisson, Jr.

A section of an A36 wide flange beam retrieved from the collapsed World Trade Center Building 7 was examined to determine changes in the steel microstructure as a result of the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001. This building was not one of the original buildings attacked but it indirectly suffered severe damage and eventually collapsed. While the exact location of this beam could not be determined, the unexpected erosion of the steel found in this beam warranted a study of microstructural changes that occurred in this steel. Examination of other sections in this beam is underway.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/...erman-0112.html



-------------------


QUOTE
The FEMA report calls for further metallurgic investigations, and Barnett, Biederman and Sisson hope that WPI will obtain NIST funding and access to more samples.

http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/20...ring/steel.html



-------------

Did Barnett and Biederman receive this further funding and additional samples? NO! NIST denied their application.

Now, it has become abundantly clear that they are trying to 'bury this evidence' from WTC 7.

First, in denying further study... and secondly, by attempting to rewrite history, by claiming now that 'no steel was recovered from WTC 7'.