Letters to the Editor

• @ondelette

  [Read the article: 9/11 Commission: Our investigation was "obstructed"]
  [Read more letters about this article: Here]

  "I assume you have a model for this? Can you explain in detail how you got the figures 1 minute for the twin towers, and 30 seconds for the other one? You know, like equations, parameter settings, maybe even a simulation?"

  No, I don't, others have done this work much better than I could...

  http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/BBE/BilliardBalls.html I know that Dr. Wood is on the fringes of even the truth movement with her theories about directed energy weapons being used, but I think that taken in isolation, her analysis of the observed collapse times versus the time it should have taken to overcome air resistance and the intact lower floors and load bearing columns is very convincing.

  "None of the buildings collapsed into their own footprints. All collapsed vertically."

  I am not sure what you mean here... how is this different? Would not a building that collapsed vertically collapse into it's own footprint (more or less)?

  "There are good, very analytical models that explain why a building that pancakes will collapse vertically. You apparently believe they should have toppled like trees."

  I don't believe that. I was referring to the videos of the tower that showed the upper floors starting to tilt and then appearing to right itself. If you agree that the upper floors were tilting off vertical, I would like your explanation as to what force or forces would have had sufficient energy to tilt all that mass back to the vertical? I do like pancakes though, especially the strawberry ones!

  "One also expects high heat in the rubble after such a collapse: compression causes heat, a good way to educate yourself on that effect is to go look up how a refrigerator works. The heat causes compounds in the buildings do reform."

  This is an extraordinary claim on your part, especially the part where you assert that I don't know how refrigerators work. Compression does cause heat, the question is how much heat? Show me your equations as to how much heat. Heat enough to melt so much metal that molten pools of it were still in the ground weeks after the collapse? In 10 -12 seconds? Remember that a huge amount of energy was need to pulverize the concrete. There is only so much energy in the system. It cannot do all the things you claim. It was a collapse, not a nuclear explosion.

  I expect that the heat would cause compounds to reform. Thermate traces were found. Your contention is that this was due to heat from the collapse, mine is that is caused by, wait for it - thermate (Occam's again). The evidence for thermate is also found in the melted iron microspheres found in the debris. None of the mechanisms you propose would have sufficient energy to melt iron which melts at 1535 º C, whereas aviation fuel burns at 980 °C. Please give me your models and equations that would produce all that extra energy.

  "One needs a very good model to explain why with all that steel and aluminum, and gypsum around, one can determine that an amalgam of aluminum, ferric oxide and sulfer is thermate and not just an amalgam resulting from the collapse and fire. Just having a geologist provide pictures identifying the components of the amalgam won't do."

  Why? Can you "prove" your model? Where did the sulphur come from in your model? I am not aware of any significant source for sulphur in steel framed structures.

  "Finally, you say there are no models for jet fuel weakening steel structure and causing collapse, but someone already posted the Route 80 interchange in Berkeley as a counterexample. The driver was hauling gasoline, but the result was the same. I drove past the accident the morning after. It wasn't a figment of anyone's imagination, and I don't think the driver was working for nefarious federal agents who engineer disasters."

  This is really your weakest argument Ondelette. I was of course talking about modern steel framed buildings. I never said "steel structure(s)", I said steel framed buildings as that is what we are discussing. An overpass is mostly concrete reinforced with rebar. There are also important differences in how the load is supported for two structures, the amount and type of combustible materials available, not to mention the duration of the fire and the amount of structural damage as well as many other distinguishing factors.

  "Unless and until you can come up with the whole model of how your scenario works, and the model that shows what the collapsing buildings should have looked like if they were just collapsing (because you do need that to argue they don't look right), you might want to back off on the accusations that we are in league with the "conspirators"."

  Again you misquote me. I never said that anyone was "in league" with the "conspirators". I said "apologists" for the official version. According to my dictionary an "apologist" is: a person who makes a defense in speech or writing of a belief, idea, etc. To the extent that you or others defend the conclusions of the Bush administration's deeply flawed NIST report and the report of the 9/11 Commission, you are meeting the definition. As for your other requests for models and simulations my super computer is down today (am running Vista) so I will have to get back to you with that.

  This whole "conspiracy" thing goes way beyond the physics of what happened that day Ondelette. You know the other arguments, so I won't go into them, except to say that there are a lot of good ones, and they can be found on some of the better sites such as the scholars site, architects for truth, pilots for truth and many others.

  All I want is a new independent investigation Ondellete, why is this so upsetting to you and others?

  Permalink Friday, January 4, 2008 10:25 AM