Forum

TruthMove Forum

TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum

Near free-fall not evidence of controlled demolition (40 posts)

  1. gurich
    Member

    Hi everyone,

    One of the most common misconceptions within the truth movement is that the three near free-fall collapses were somehow evidence of controlled demolition. This paper, http://www.cool-places.0catch.com/911/FalaciousCdA... , recently submitted to the Journal of 9/11 Studies, shows that for WTC1 this clearly not correct.

    At least one other DRG claim regarding the evidence of controlled demolition posted on this site has also been essentially proven wrong on the STJ911 forum. I will post more information as time allows.

    I was impressed by the TruthMove declaration and I am concerned that as far as controlled demolition goes we have a lot of vetting to do.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  2. truthmod
    Administrator

    Thank you, gurich, and welcome to the TM forum. We are always open to refining and re-evaluating evidence. We'll take a look at this. There has been a lot of sloppy and sensationalistic evidence regarding controlled demolition. Physical evidence is not our favorite area of research, and we try to only promote the most responsible and sourced information.

    Again, welcome, and hope to hear more critical thinking from you on here...

    Posted 16 years ago #
  3. chrisc
    Member

    It's the rate of acceleration at the start of the collapse that is of most interest (nobody knows what exactly happens after the top of the building enters the dust cloud), in this paper there is an attempt to measure this and it basically finds that for several floors there is free-fall acceleration and for this to happen several floors have to be removed...

    http://zkt.blackfish.org.uk/119/Paperwtc1First_Dra...

    Posted 16 years ago #
  4. Arabesque
    Member

    Conclusion: Clearly the structure provided significant resistance on the order of what would be expected without any assistance from controlled demolition. Thus it is not reasonable to claim that near free fall times (at least in this context) are indicative of controlled demolition.

    I'm not sure that many are convinced by this argument.

    Free fall speed is a characteristic of controlled demolition. I am not aware of any experiments to show a fire inducing a steel framed building collapse producing a free fall collapse. The scientific method demands repeatability with experiment.

    You quoted the NIST FAQ on this issue.

    Hoffman response:

    NIST's assertion that the Tower's intact structure was "unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass" is absurd:

    • It requires us to believe that the massive steel frames of the towers provided no more resistance to falling rubble than air.

    • It ignores the fact that most of the rubble fell outside the towers' footprints, and hence could not contribute to crushing.

    • It is unsupported by any calculation or logical argument. http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/nist/WTC_FAQ_r...

    Steven Jones:

    The NIST team fairly admits that their report “does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached.” (NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 12; emphasis added.) Quite a confession, since much of the external evidence for explosive demolition typically comes after collapse initiation, as seen in cases of acknowledged controlled demolition. (Harris, 2000.) The NIST report could be called the official "pre-collapse theory." ... Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum – one of the foundational Laws of Physics? That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors – and intact steel support columns – the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass. If the central support columns remained standing, then the effective resistive mass would be less, but this is not the case – somehow the enormous support columns failed/disintegrated along with the falling floor pans.... How do the upper floors fall so quickly, then, and still conserve momentum and energy in the collapsing buildings? The contradiction is ignored by FEMA, NIST and 9-11 Commission reports where conservation of energy and momentum and the fall-times were not analyzed. Gordon Ross argues that when conservation of energy and momentum are factored in, then a gravity-driven collapse will be arrested, so that only a partial collapse of the Tower would occur (see http://www.journalof911studies.com/, Gordon Ross). The paradox is easily resolved by the explosive demolition hypothesis, whereby explosives quickly remove lower-floor material including steel support columns and allow near free-fall-speed collapses (Harris, 2000). http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/W...

    Posted 16 years ago #
  5. gurich
    Member

    Reply to chrisc,

    I agree that initiation is the key for proving or disproving gravitational collapse. I know Tony Szamboti is working on acceleration during initiation. If I have understood him correctly the accelleration is significantly less than g. Dr. Greening posted these numbers recently on the JREF forum:

    Time (s); Drop(m); Accel(m/s^2) t d acc %g------------------ 0; 0; 0 0 0.5; 1.0; 8.0 87 1.0; 4.2; 8.4 91 1.5; 8.3; 7.4 80 2.0; 14.0; 7.0 76 2.5; 20.0; 6.4 70 3.0; 27.6; 6.1 66

    I haven't read the article you posted in it's entirety but being that the author has accellerations greater than g, and some other rather dubious claims, I have trouble trusting the rest of the work.

    One issue most people are missing regarding the acceleration in WTC1 is that the top part tilted and throws off the video measurements. I think NIST measured at least 8 degrees of tilt. It is interesting to note that 8 degrees of tilt gives a measurement of 0,5m drop from the North but the South side has dropped approx. 8,7m. This means the center of mass has moved down 4,35 m releasing more energy than the equivalent straight down drop of one floor. Also, the center of mass has momentum and kinetic energy at this point so the accelleration and energy measurements are skewed.

    I think this issue needs more careful, in depth analysis to be indicative one way or the other, but my own preliminary measurements indicate tilt first, then drop. My intuition is that when the tilting is correctly accounted for that the accelleration will be more in line with what is expected without CD.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  6. gurich
    Member

    Reply to arabesque,

    Did you read the paper?

    Are you suggesting that WTC1 came down in free fall? All fall time measurements (regardless of religous affiliation) indicate that this is not the case.

    It also sounds like you are saying that we can not be reasonably sure without empirical collapse tests. In that case Dr. Jones will need to do the same.

    Hoffman only succedes in demonstrating that the cited text from NIST is not supported. Nevertheless, the cited text is incorrect because the structure did provide significant resistance. In fact:

    -The result of Hoffman's own collapse time analysis indicates that a huge amount of energy was spent destroying the structure.

    -Greg Jenkins article at the JO911S indicates that at least 66% of the debris fell within the footprint for WTC1. See http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/Fe-... We have discussed this at the STJ911 forum and Dr. Jenkins, Tony Szamboti and I are pretty much in agreement that 70-80% landed in the footprint and that 15% is the upper bound for concrete comminution to fine dust.

    Dr. Jones is citing Gordon Ross's article which has egregious errors. Other articles on JO911S demonstrate that Ross double counts inelastic energy and misapplies the shortening phase. Ross has only met the "double dipping" criticism by continuing to misapply the shortening phase. When Ross's errors are corrected, there is no indication of collapse arrest even when keeping the Bazant assumption (evenly distributed, coaxial impact), which is grossly in favor of survival of the structure. Jones (in this context) and Ross's argument are further eroded when tilting of the top part is taken into account (see above).

    Posted 16 years ago #
  7. Arabesque
    Member

    I read the paper and I agree (and it has been established already) that the buildings did not fall at exactly free fall speed. As you pointed out, this issue has been acknowledged by researchers such as Jim Hoffman.

    However, your conclusion that

    "it is not reasonable to claim that near free fall times (at least in this context) are indicative of controlled demolition,"

    Appears to me to be misleading because:

    • CD happens at (approx.) free fall speed. Numerous recorded examples show that this is a characteristic of CD.
    • The towers fell at approx. free falls speed.
    • In conclusion, the (approx.) free fall speed of the towers, IS a feature of CD, because numerous examples show us that this is the case.

    Clearly the structure provided significant resistance on the order of what would be expected without any assistance from controlled demolition

    Although I read your paper, I think this conclusion clearly is in contention.

    I am interested to see what response your paper gets, and I may have noticed you posting other things on the STJ911 forum.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  8. Arabesque
    Member

    To put it simply, the towers "collapsed" to the ground at a rate of approximately 10 floors per second.

    Imagine if you will, a 10 floor building collapsing to the ground in one second. I don't know about you, but I find it extremely hard to imagine this.

    Structural buildings are designed to SURVIVE column loss, and in the case of the (award winning) twin towers, they were built to survive the plane impacts.

    Like many modern structures and buildings, the WTC Towers were over-designed to withstand weight distribution in the event of structural damage. According to calculations made by the engineers who helped with the design of the Twin Towers, “all the columns on one side of a Tower could be cut, as well as the two corners and some of the columns on each adjacent side, and the building would still be strong enough to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind.”[5] As well, “Live loads on these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs.”[6] http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/05/world-tra...

    In other words, in spite of this OVER-design, the building fell at about 10 floors per second. As if nothing supported the building but air or a stack of cards.

    NIST essentially avoided the issue of how the towers collapsed by not addressing how the building completely collapsed. Now whether you support the official story of how the buildings collapsed or not this is a MAJOR omission, and it demands an investigation, as does the chemical evidence for thermate.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  9. gurich
    Member

    It is definitely misleading to say the building fell like a house of cards when 62% of the total P.E. was spent on destroying the structure. Near free fall is a characteristic of BOTH gravitational collapse and CD, and consequently is not indicative of either.

    The claims about the strength of the towers should be qualified. We don't know which "these columns" are and we don't know which "live loads" they are talking about. Is it the design live loads or the in-service live loads? Is it the core columns or the external columns. It is well known that the external columns were close to three times as strong as the core relative to gravity loads.

    The claim of 2000% is not true for the core columns. Even using in-service live loads (25% of design live loads), the total mass of the upper part becomes 82 806 tonnes. The upper bound for the load capacity of the core was 45 400 tonnes (using Tony Szamboti's application of the Johnson parabola method and SAP2000 core column data). This would seem to confirm the claim if the loads were actually distributed 50/50. But they weren't and it is easy to prove! The loads were distributed 60/40 (core/exterior) which would give catastrophic failure at the claimed load levels.

    NIST maintains that the hat truss was capable of transferring significant loads between the core and exterior, but they also state that the hat truss was designed primarily as a support for the antenna. There is more on these issues at the STJ911 forum. To understand the hat truss it is necessary to consider construction sequence. The hat truss was added last which means there is no way it could transfer loads in the base case. It is only in superimposed loading conditions such as impact damage or wind swaying that the hat truss could redistribute loads. Further, there was a limit on how much load could be redistributed by the hat truss. The structure was very good as redistributing loads within the core (moment frame) or between the exterior columns (Verendiell truss) but this shouldn't be confused with load distribution between the core and exterior.

    Nonetheless, NIST is correct in their assertion that the reserve capacity of the core was 50%. I have recalculated this with correct load distributions and no redistribution by the hat truss. Jones et. al. do not challenge this.

    I agree that explaining how the buildings collapsed completely is a major omission and should be corrected by NIST. I am not a supporter of the official story any more than can be demonstrated with sound science or real evidence. Maybe Dr. Jones has something with thermate or maybe there are other explanations.

    I think the major part of the truth movement got derailed on the CD issue and is missing the real issues of deception, inaction, and cover-up. I am not a debunker. My goal is to redirect the energies of the truth movement to the real issues.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  10. chrisc
    Member

    gurich, what, if any, is your involvement in the construction industry?

    Posted 16 years ago #
  11. gurich
    Member

    None. By education, I'm an electrical engineer, but I was always interested in mechanics. I learned most of what I know about structures writing this paper http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200703/G... and in discussions on the JREF and STJ911 forums. I have also done a bit of reading regarding impact dynamics. The structural engineers at JREF run circles around me, but I have been studying the WTC collapses for quite a while now and have at least gotten them to accept my analysis of the mass and PE as valid.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  12. dtg86
    Member

    Hi Everyone, I'm pretty new to all of the debates and I can't claim to be any type of engineer. But I am trying to comprehend some of the physics here. I am college educated in business/accounting and took basic physics 101 as my science requirement. However, despite all the math that seems to flying around, I can't seem to get past some of the fundamentals being lost here.

    The whole argument of free fall "collapse" seems very inconsequential to me. Whether 9 seconds, 12 seconds or even 15 seconds is determined to be "official" we seem to be overlooking many details. Even if we took the longest period of time of 15 seconds it seems impossible to me for gravity to be the only source of energy here. At 15 seconds and 90+ stories still standing, the rate of destruction is nearly 10 floors every 1.5 seconds. All 47 core columns and the multitude of exterior columns, which have always supported the weight and were overengineered, providing futile resistance is implausible. We're told to believe that 15% of the mass with a little help from gravity, can pulverize the remaining 85% of the mass. This flies in face of my very limited knowledge of physics. It also seems to be presumed that the top mass of the building is a solid object. The floors were open and spacious, I been in those buildings at least 2 dozen times on business. There isn't enough solid mass to keep pulverizing ALL of the building core and exterior columns, symmetrically, and in 15 seconds (im being very generous here with the times). Within 2 seconds of the collapse, the top portions is virtually disintegrated into the dust. I don't see any mass remaining 4 or 5 seconds into the "collapse" left to keep pulverizing the bottom third of the building. As improbable the collapse was in the first place, I would think it should have taken almost 90 seconds for that large of a building to fall. But SO utter and complete on top of it?

    One point you make in your conclusion gurich that really puzzles me. You state "clearly the structure provided SIGNIFICANT resistance" to add a few mere seconds to the "collapse" time. But what confuses me, and maybe you could help explain for my own edification, is that if this is gravity collapse, doesn't fundamental physics tell us that it would fall through path of least resistance? Maybe free fall speed doesn't indicate CD, but symmetry does in my most meager and humble opinion. Lets say the planes took out a generous 10 core columns. There are 37 left. Even if heated to the point the point of buckling, which is doubtful and I'll point to the One Meridian Plaza fire which burned 19 hours and never collapsed, all of remaining columns had to of failed at once and straight down without bending. The South Tower tipped and should have kept tipping. If this was a gravity collapse, it should have just toppled right over, crumbling, falling apart, not pulverizing straight down. Steel beams hurled 500 ft across the street. Where does that energy come from? The Lobby (as seen in the Naudet bros film) was blown out. Where'd that come from? In that same seen, the Naudet brothers said there were people coming off the elevators on fire. How would jet fuel reach these folks in a hermetically sealed elevator system. Oh and be able to burn through the elevator cart? Had to be thermite reactions going off in the inner core to cause that.

    Lastly, World Trade Center 7 was a controlled demolition. You have a better chance of winning the MegaMillions or Powerball Lotteries than a random collapse event that's never happened before or since to exhibit all the characteristics of CD. The proof is in FEMA's building performance report, Appendix C. I'll quote it, "Evidence of a high temperature corrosive ATTACK on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting... A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily of iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosive ATTACK. This sulfur rich liquid penetrated preferentially down grain boundries of the steel severely weakening the beam and making susceptible to erosion."

    I know this isn't very scientific and excuse my poor attempt at applying what seems to me as common sense. But if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then its a duck. Search google video for "this is an orange" and see if you believe your eyes or what you're told.

    To TruthMod, My apologies if I made this too long. Thanks to all for reading.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  13. truthmover
    Administrator

    I know this isn't very scientific and excuse my poor attempt at applying what seems to me as common sense. But if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then its a duck. Search google video for "this is an orange" and see if you believe your eyes or what you're told.

    Thanks for the input dtg86.

    My biggest cognitive dissonance around the collapse of the buildings has always been the asymmetric damage and relatively symmetric collapse of WTC 7. Assuming that fire alone could not have felled the building and that damage caused by the north tower falling was responsible, how did a 47 story building, shaped like a trapezoid, with damage only lower on its shortest face fall within the confines of its footprint and the streets around it? That's an awful lot of core columns that had to fail simultaneously.

    Then there's this.

    The diesel fuel was the most likely culprit, even though FEMA said this "best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence." The city's OEM command center used a 6,000-gallon diesel tank; this was one of several in the building. http://www.villagevoice.com/blogs/runninscared/arc...

    Interesting. But scattered fires don't cause buildings to collapse symmetrically either. And like the NIST report, we see low probability results being promoted as conclusions.


    The original post of this thread contains a link to a "paper" that is far from having any legitimate claim to its academic pretenses. Some of us here have written research papers, or have read many of them. You can't just make a loosely founded assertion in college speak when some in your audience may be professors.

    I can't imagine anything more droll or pointless than arguing about the loose definition of 'near-free-fall.'

    Posted 16 years ago #
  14. gurich
    Member

    Reply to truthmover,

    Any perceived academic pretenses are probably due to the fact that the paper is in a form that would be acceptable to the Journal of 9/11 Studies to which I have submitted it. If you read the whole paper you will see it's about the implications of near free fall rather than the definition.

    Would you care to point out the loosely founded assertions?

    Posted 16 years ago #
  15. gurich
    Member

    Reply to dtg86,

    The path of least resistance applies primarily to electricity. The behavior of bodies in mechanical dynamics depends on forces, mass, momentum and material properties. The only active force is gravity acting straight down.

    If the building did not provide resistance the collapse would take 9,22 seconds. The amount of energy required to overcome the resistance of the structure can be calculated based on the difference between free fall and the actual fall time. This is based on physical laws which can't be broken. If you use the data provided you can figure out how much energy was dissipated and convert that into tons of TNT if you want to get a handle on the magnitude.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  16. JennySparks
    Member

    It is definitely misleading to say the building fell like a house of cards when 62% of the total P.E. was spent on destroying the structure.

    Right. This is difference between colloquial English and University. Personally I would never assume someone using the phase "house of cards" meant it in any empirical sense. It's obviously a casual metaphor communicating the broad observation that the buildings fell fairly bloody fast, all things considered.

    I just did a page search for "house of cards" and you seem to be the first one to bring it up. Can I ask why?

    Near free fall is a characteristic of BOTH gravitational collapse and CD, and consequently is not indicative of either.

    Huh? I think there's a grammar/punctuation problem here, so I'll hold off until the meaning of this sentence is clarified.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  17. gurich
    Member

    The comment from arabesque I was referring to was: "In other words, in spite of this OVER-design, the building fell at about 10 floors per second. As if nothing supported the building but air or a stack of cards."

    "Stack of cards" or "house of cards" might be a difference between British and American english. I assume you are British? Everyone has their own interpretation of causual metaphors. My interpretation includes nothing holding it together.

    To put this in perpective, the energy spent detroying the structure (62% of the total P.E.) is equivalent to approximately 70 tons of TNT. That is 1200 pounds of TNT per floor.

    The point of the paper is that "fairly bloody fast" (however anyone chooses to express it) does not in any way favor the controlled demolition theory over the impact, fire and gravitational collapse theory.

    As time allows, I will be showing that most of the truth movement's claims, however superficially appealing, do not favor the controlled demolition theory. The only possible exception I have seen is Steve Jones and his thermite theory. Nonetheless, this evidence is, so far, inconclusive.

    The controlled demolition theory is the best thing that ever happened to Bush and Cheney as it has distracted most people from the real issues. Dennis Kucinich has the real dope, which he presented in Congress on Monday. If the truth movement is ever going to accomplish anything, it is by rallying behind Kucinich and his impeachment bill.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  18. dtg86
    Member

    Good Luck in your proof there Gurich, I mean that. Its been 7 years so far and NOBODY has explained WTC7 with a viable theory except for CD. I'd like to know what caused the sulfidation in the WTC7 sample and where those temperatures came from. I'd love to see how a random "collapse" achieved the goal that CD strives for cause I'm going in the CD business next.

    And when you explain the WTC 1 & 2 collapses, which defy physics and all we know about steel constructed buildings, account for the squibs, complete and under destruction, multi-ton steel beams being thrown 500 feet, concrete from river to river, the basements being blown out, the lobby, it's a tall order with just gravity and some fire and and unknown amount of some beams damaged but there were 47 core beams, the pouring out of the hot molten substance (pls don't say its aluminum, I think we can all agree its not aluminum) just seconds before the destruction, demolition waves, symmetry through entire sequence, molten steel seen weeks after the collapse, NASA photos of high temperatures weeks after the photos, and there is more. NIST had 16 Millions dollars and supposedly hundreds of engineers, architects, and UL working on it and they failed miserably in trying to explain it.

    Oh and BTW, the demolition theory wasn't GW's luck, its a spineless congress that won't call a spade a spade. If you are so certain about the all the other lies, why should this one be any different? He lied about Iraq and killed 4000+ more Americans and countless Iraqi and Afghan citizens. 911 was just another lie of his. I can only hope I'll see him tried for crimes against the state and international war crimes.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  19. truthmover
    Administrator

    Any perceived academic pretenses are probably due to the fact that the paper is in a form that would be acceptable to the Journal of 9/11 Studies to which I have submitted it. If you read the whole paper you will see it's about the implications of near free fall rather than the definition.

    Would you care to point out the loosely founded assertions?

    The whole thing is a loosely founded assertion. I'm not saying that you may not have a point. I'm saying that you need to take it back to the white board for a while. You have a lot of work to do on this paper if you want it to be accepted.

    • Your introduction does not well present an hypothesis or convey any basic premise.

    • You demonstrate that the buildings did not fall at free fall speed. That was my favorite part. But we already knew that.

    • Your discussion section addresses energy dissipation and you make the assertion that after initiation of the collapse that there was sufficient energy to bring the building down in the times indicated. In other words, the buildings could have collapsed as we saw them with no added energy. Unfortunately you don't offer nearly enough support for this hypothesis and do not address any contradictory views.

    • The conclusion is where you really fall of track. "Clearly" and "thus?" Two sentences.

    From a constructive point of view, I wish you luck in becoming more familiar with the academic research paper.

    As time allows, I will be showing that most of the truth movement's claims, however superficially appealing, do not favor the controlled demolition theory. The only possible exception I have seen is Steve Jones and his thermite theory. Nonetheless, this evidence is, so far, inconclusive.

    The controlled demolition theory is the best thing that ever happened to Bush and Cheney as it has distracted most people from the real issues. Dennis Kucinich has the real dope, which he presented in Congress on Monday. If the truth movement is ever going to accomplish anything, it is by rallying behind Kucinich and his impeachment bill.

    This doesn't make me feel constructive. I hope you will be showing us those things on your own website or blog. You seem to need one. A place where you can present this whole case. Personally, I'm not that interested in seeing it all laid out here.

    If you have a valid point, people concerned with the truth will be interested.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qy3z7XWtQc

    Posted 16 years ago #
  20. gurich
    Member

    Reply to truthmover,

    The article is meant for the Letters section at the Journal of 9/11 Studies. If you browse the articles in that section I think you will find that my level of formality fits in pretty well. You may want to check my other paper published in the main section if you are worried about me being able to produce a formal and rigorous paper.

    My hypothesis is implicit in the last sentence of the intro. I.e. Is near free fall meaningful in the context of controlled demolition vs gravitational collapse? Sure, I could be more explicit.

    Since many truth movement activists and sites claim that the towers fell in free fall or that the speed of collapse is somehow an indication of CD. I think it is important to set the record straight.

    I am dealing with an opposing view, that of Gordon Ross. I use his published results to demonstrate that the amount of energy available per floor was twice the amount he calculated as necessary. I could demonstrate that using his energies makes the collapse even faster. What more would you need to convince you?

    I think it's "clearly" and "thus", but what's clear to me is not always clear to others when I try to explain it. I don't agree with everything you say but I appreciate your comments. Thanks.

    I guess we'll see if the Journal of 9/11 Studies thinks it's a valid point.

    /Greg

    Posted 16 years ago #
  21. gurich
    Member

    reply to dtg86,

    Let's take one thing at a time. You say the WTC1 and WTC2 collapses defied physics. How so?

    Posted 16 years ago #
  22. JennySparks
    Member

    The point of the paper is that "fairly bloody fast" (however anyone chooses to express it) does not in any way favor the controlled demolition theory over the impact, fire and gravitational collapse theory.

    Considering the masses involved and the direction of collapse--through what would otherwise be the greatest path of resistance--I disagree. To fall as fast from fire and impact and NOT have any demolitions, could happen--if the buildings fell SIDEWAYS.

    But straight down? In seconds? No chance.

    This is all bollox anyway. Regardless of how the buildings fell, we still need a new investigation. We can argue in circles, but most of us have been there, done that and bought the T-shirt. See yeh at Nuremburg II. ;-)

    Posted 16 years ago #
  23. gurich
    Member

    I think "been there and done that" sounds like a pretty superficial experience.

    Now you are making claims about physics. Would you care to back them up?

    Posted 16 years ago #
  24. truthmod
    Administrator

    There are other very interesting threads on this forum.

    Reducing 9/11 skepticism to controlled demolition is ridiculous, whether it's done from the "truther" side or the JREF side.

    We can argue about free fall speeds and melting temperatures and thermite for another 7 years and it won't change anything.

    Here are 40 questions to remind you what 9/11 truth is all about.

    http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041221...

    And here is something that should remind us all that 9/11 truth is just a small piece in the huge context of critical issues that are facing our world and lives.

    http://www.massextinction.net/

    Posted 16 years ago #
  25. gurich
    Member

    Is anyone reducing 9/11 skepticism to controlled demolition?

    The controlled demolition theory is damaging our credibility on the real issues. Hence, my focus.

    Posted 16 years ago #

Reply »

You must log in to post.