EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- 'The Gilded Age' Statistics Corporations Don't Want Workers, or Anyone, to See
- As Death Toll Rises Beyond 500, Garment Factory Disaster 'Worst in World History'
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Report: Toxic Chemicals Found in Thousands of Children's Products
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- Report: Toxic Chemicals Found in Thousands of Children's Products
- Move Over, Koch Brothers: A Bigger, Darker Rightwing Funder Is Out to Destroy Public Education
- 'The Gilded Age' Statistics Corporations Don't Want Workers, or Anyone, to See
- Time for Big Green to Go Fossil Free
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
Popular content
Today's Top News
America's Whipping Boy For 9/11
As a high school freshman, attending a small private prep school, I was one of a number of pranksters. We made the flag disappear from the flagpole. We put goofy hats on the bust of the school patron in the foyer. We organized silent boycotts of the greasy French fries in the lunch room. We dropped books on cue in Latin class.
One day, we went some act of mischief too far, and the headmaster went ballistic at morning assembly. A buzz of anxiety coursed through the school. I forget how, but the damning finger soon pointed to me, and I took the fall. I was summoned to the headmaster's office, where, wielding a stick with grave ceremony ("This hurts me more than it hurts you"), he inflicted multiple blows on my backside.
The memory of the pain I felt has faded, but not the humiliation. In those days, such corporal punishment was not unusual in schools, and "spanking" was ubiquitous in families. It is notable today how such public violence as a method of disciplining children has become taboo, even if children are still shockingly at risk for abuse in private.
But that memory is revealing to me now as an instance of scapegoating, and the lesson it offers in the social use to which designated victims are put. I was not consciously attuned to the sadomasochistic undercurrent of the event, but inwardly I burned with shame to have been so treated, especially by a figure whose authority was absolute.
Yet the most striking aspect of the experience was the sharp contrast between the private mortification I felt at being beaten in such a way and the public respect it earned me. My degradation stood in marked contrast to the new status I found myself occupying in the aftermath of my "strokes," as the blows were called. My schoolmates quietly treated me with an unprecedented deference which, at the time, was mystifying. How could such an experience of shaming lead to what was, in effect, a social promotion?
It was not only that I took the punishment that could have been meted out to a handful of others who went undisciplined. It was also that the headmaster's rage had been mollified, and the communal anguish that had upset the school had been dispelled. The punishment inflicted on me sparked a broad sense of relief, and the gaze with which my mates greeted me was infused with gratitude.
The aftermath of my beating was a period of good feeling in the school. The headmaster's authority had been reinforced, and with it the structure of order. The affectionate bond among us boys was strengthened as well, and even I felt somehow ennobled. Crucial to this outcome was the fact that I had been physically hurt. A mere bawling out would have resulted in no such mystical cohesion.
Now I understand that violence can have this effect across a range of social situations. Indeed, hurt-induced mystical cohesion accounts in large part for why we humans are addicted to turning on each other with weapons. We find an infinite variety of victims, and their suffering serves a social purpose. African-American men subjected with wild disproportionality to the caged violence of prisons. Muslim "terrorists" in torture camps. Enslaved women. Death row. In case after case, threatened authority locates a victim on whom to unload.
Whether the designated object of punishment is guilty (Saddam Hussein, say) or innocent (the American soldiers whose faces we see on the news each night) does not matter. This impulse to salve communal anxiety by inflicting hurt was the defining core of American public life after Sept. 11. It engendered the present war.
Up until the point of his "Mission Accomplished" celebration on that aircraft carrier, President Bush was the self-satisfied headmaster, and Baghdad was the chastened, if mulish, pupil. An ennobled US population was mainly pleased. No more. The war in Iraq is demonstrably mistaken by now, and American authority has self-destructed. Shame abounds.
In deciding what to do next, we should not compound the mistake by pretending any longer that the adventure was ever rational, just, or any more purposeful than taking a stick to a child in a fit of rage.
James Carroll's column appears regularly in the Globe.
© 2008 The Boston Globe
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

501 Comments so far
Show AllTO:JAMES CARROLL: This small catholic column aside, the nation owes you a debt of gratitude for your searing, seminal book, HOUSE OF WAR, about the founding and history of the PENTAGON, and the moving relationship between a little boy (you) who played in its halls and the powerful shadow your father, Air Force General Carroll played in shaping who you became. Your book accurately traced the growth of a now wholly dominant Industrial-Military-Congressional-Corporatist culture from its World War 2 inception. Why isn't better known? Go one C-Span and talk
-----------------------
i AGREE IT IS A CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE THAT EVERYONE READ HOUSE OF WAR RIGHT NOW. STOP SCANTRONING AND SCANTRONING AND MUSTARDING YOUR NEAR FUTURE LUNCH AND READ THIS BOOK NOW.
NOW. I WOULD USE CAPS EVEN IF I WEREN'T TIRED FROM HYBERBOLE SINCE NOVEMBER OF 1963.
AND GET EVERYONE ELSE TO READ IT NOW. IT IS 9/3RDS OF OUR ONLY SALVATION! (sorry, i was taught by an escaped German that if you typed a categorical imperative it had to be in caps)
Kem- the recovered gold was the one crushed truck.
Hi Kem,
It is good hearing from you. I am doing well, and hope you are too. I like your list of suggested panelists. It is too bad we can't replace Bush's minions in the White House with these people.
Bush let 9/11 happen. He did nothing about the U.S.S. Kole and did not want to even hear the name Al Qaida. It took 9 months for Richard Clarke to even get a meeting with the President and the cabinet on terrorism. That was only a few days before 9/11.
I think Bush and Cheney new Al Qaida would do something, but I do not think that they had something this big in mind. It is a power principle that in disaster comes opportunity. Now we are more than 6 years downstream in time, tens of thousands dead, 4 trillion more in debt and not safer. War is profitable for Republican contractors.
We didn't need bin Laden's assurance of breaking the economy...we had the neocon's to do that for us...
War is money and profit. They would have found a war somewhere, with or without bin Laden.
"U.S.S. Kole"
The USS *Cole* was attacked Oct. 12 2000, well before Bush took office. It was Clinton who was in charge, also when WTC got hit the first time.
So gratuitous physical violence is "ennobling" for both perpetrator and victims, and brings an "affectionate bond" and "mystical cohesion" to the victims?
First of all, what kind of sick crap are they teaching in Catholic schools?
Secondly, this is supposed to justify Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq?
This is perverted! I shudder to think how altar boys may have benefited by being sexually assaulted by Catholic priests!
This is sick beyond words. I'm beginning to think the Catholic schools are as bad as the Islamic madrasas. Not to mention the evangelical Christian brainwashing centers. They're all teaching insanity.
Investigating the Kole would have led them to bin Laden. It took months to get cooperation in the investigation that Clinton started and Bush should have continued. He did not.
Sjc_1- The CIA did talk to Ossama binLadin about the USS Cole bombing. He was in a US army base hospital receiving kidney dialysis. THE SECTION CHEIF was the one who performed the interview.
And released binLadin.
Ossama binLadin and Al Queada are CIA fronts, bought and paid for.
OBL is a patriot, he (MUST BE)
HE does just as geo_shrubery_in_slime ask$
Osama bin Laden would be in Crawford, but he's alergic to sage brush and bull-shit.
9/11 was clearly and inside job. Metal frame building simply do not fall at free fall speed, period. Unless of course they had been rigged for demolition.
"How did the BBC know it was going to collapse?"
Ostensibly they were leaked this information by the cabal involved with wiring it for demolition. Why do you think thet would do that? Why not just let the news outlets report events as they happened?
This is the third time I've asked this in this thread, with no answer.
"Metal frame building simply do not fall at free fall speed, period."
There is no conclusive evidence they fell at "free fall speed". None, no video clearly shows the start and stop times of the collapse events. In fact, the videos clearly show debris that had already broken loose outpacing the progress of the rest of the building. This fact disproves free fall speeds.
A challenge to conspiracy theorists:
1) Find a steel frame building at least 40 stories high
2) Which takes up a whole city block
3) And is a "Tube in a tube" design as with WTC1&2
4) Which came off its core columns at the bottom floors (Earthquake, fire, whatever - WTC 7)
5) Which was struck by another building or airliner and had structural damage as a result.
6) And weakened by fire for over 6 hours
7) And had trusses that were bolted on with two 5/8" bolts.
And which, after all seven tests are met, the building does not fall down.
Jake,
Rather than your "duplicative" test above, wouldn't it be better to first establish what mathematicians call the "existence" of the class of phenomenon under question?
In this case, it would seem to be to show a prior instance of the total collapse of a (damaged) high-rise steel building (with subsequent fire).
A more limited subset would be to show an example of the "symmetric" (however measured) total collapse of such a building.
While I am not aware of any such examples, that of course is not sufficient to answer this question.
Paul Craig Roberts, Ronald Reagan's Assist. Sec. of the Treasury, former editor of the Wall Street Journal, father of Reaganonmics said, "The official explanation of the collapse of the WTC buildings is false."
David L. Griscom, PhD – Research physicist, retired in 2001 from Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) in Washington, DC, after 33 years service. Fellow of the American Physical Society. Fulbright-GarcÃa Robles Fellow at Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México in Mexico City (1997). Visiting professorships of research at the Universities of Paris and Saint-Etienne, France, and Tokyo Institute of Technology (2000 - 2003). Adjunct Professor of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Arizona (2004 - 2005). Winner of the 1993 N.F. Mott Award sponsored by the Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids, the 1995 Otto Schott Award offered by the Carl-Zeiss-Stiftung (Germany), a 1996 Outstanding Graduate School Alumnus Award at Brown University, and the 1997 Sigma Xi Pure Science Award at NRL. Principal author of 109 of his 185 published works, a body of work which is highly cited by his peers. Officially credited with largest number of papers (5) by any author on list of 100 most cited articles authored at NRL between 1973 and 1988. He said:
"David Ray Griffin has web-published a splendid, highly footnoted account of The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True: This scholarly work, rich in eyewitness accounts, includes 11 separate pieces of evidence that the World Trade Center towers 1, 2 [each 1300+ feet tall, 110 stories], and 7 were brought down by explosives. ... I implore my fellow physicists and engineers who may have the time, expertise, and (ideally) supercomputer access to get to work on the physics of the World Trade Center collapses and publish their findings in refereed journals like, say, the Journal of Applied Physics.
The issue of knowing who was really behind the 9/11 attacks is of paramount importance to the future of our country, because the "official" assumption that it was the work of 19 Arab amateurs (1) does not match the available facts and (2) has led directly to the deplorable Patriot Act, the illegal Iraq war, NSA spying on ordinary Americans, repudiation of the Geneva Conventions, and the repeal of habeas corpus (a fundamental point of law that has been with us since the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215).
Surely these Orwellian consequences of public ignorance constitute more than sufficient motivation for any patriotic American physicist or engineer to join the search for 9/11 Truth!"
Scott C. Grainger, BS CE, PE – Licensed Professional Civil Engineer and/or Fire Protection Engineer in the States of Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming. Owner of Grainger Consulting, Inc., a fire protection engineering firm (23 years). Former Chairman, Arizona State Fire Code Committee. Former President of the Arizona Chapter of the Society of Fire Protection Engineers. Current Member of the Forensic Sciences Committee and the Fire Standards Committee of ASTM International (formerly American Society for Testing and Materials ). Senior Member, National Academy of Forensic Engineers.
He said: "Approximately 50% of my work is forensic. I am licensed in 9 States. In addition to my forensic work, a good portion of my work is in the design of structural fireproofing systems. All three [WTC] collapses were very uniform in nature. Natural collapses due to unplanned events are not uniform."
Hugo Bachmann, PhD – Professor Emeritus and former Chairman of the Department of Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology.
He said: " "In my opinion the building WTC 7 was, with great probability, professionally demolished."
Jörg Schneider, Dr hc – Professor Emeritus, Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Former President, Joint Committee on Structural Safety, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Elected member of the Swiss Academy of Engineering Sciences. Former Vice President and honorary lifetime member of the International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering.
He said: "the building WTC 7 was with great probability demolished."
Danny Jowenko – Proprietor, Jowenko Explosieve Demolitie B.V., a European demolition and construction company, with offices in the Netherlands. Founded 1980, Jowenko Explosieve Demolitie is certified and holds permits to comply with the Dutch Explosives for Civil Use Act and the German Explosives Act. Jowenko's explosives engineers also hold the German Certificate of Qualifications and the European Certificate for Shotfiring issued by The European Federation of Explosive Engineers.
Jowenko had this conversation:
Jeff Hill: I was just wondering real quickly, I know you had commented on World Trade Center Building 7 before.
Danny Jowenko: Yes, that's right.
Jeff Hill: And I've come to my conclusions, too, that it couldn't have came down by fire.
Danny Jowenko: No, it -- absolutely not.
Jeff Hill: Are you still sticking by your comments where you say it must have been a controlled demolition?
Danny Jowenko: Absolutely.
Jeff Hill: Yes? So, you as being a controlled demolitions expert, you've looked at the building, you've looked at the video and you've determined with your expertise that --
Danny Jowenko: I looked at the drawings, the construction and it couldn't be done by fire. So, no, absolutely not.
Jeff Hill: OK, 'cause I was reading on the Internet, people were asking about you and they said, I wonder -- I heard something that Danny Jowenko retracted his statement of what he said earlier about World Trade Center 7 now saying that it came down by fire. I said, "There's no way that's true."
Danny Jowenko: No, no, no, absolutely not.
Jeff Hill: 'Cause if anybody was -- Like when I called Controlled Demolition here in North America, they tell me that , "Oh, it's possible it came down from fire" and this and that and stuff like that --.
Danny Jowenko: When the FEMA makes a report that it came down by fire, and you have to earn your money in the States as a controlled demolition company and you say, "No, it was a controlled demolition", you're gone. You know?
Jeff Hill: Yeah, exactly, you'll be in a lot of trouble if you say that, right?
Danny Jowenko: Of course, of course. That's the end of your -- the end of the story.
Jeff Hill: Yeah, 'cause I was calling demolitions companies just to ask them if they used the term, "Pull it" in demolition terms and even Controlled Demolitions, Incorporated said they did. But the other people wouldn't -- didn't want to talk to me about Building 7 really because obviously 'cause they knew what happened and they didn't want to say it.
Danny Jowenko: Exactly
Robert David Steele (Vivas) – U.S. Marine Corps infantry and intelligence officer for twenty years. Second-ranking civilian (GS-14) in U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence from 1988 - 1992 and a member of the Adjunct Faculty of Marine Corps University. Also former clandestine services case officer with the CIA. 25-year U.S. military and intelligence career. Currently Founder and CEO of OSS.net and a proponent of Open Source Intelligence.
He said: "The U.S. government did not properly investigate this and there are more rocks to be turned over," said Steele adding, "I'm absolutely certain that WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolition and that as far as I'm concerned means that this case has not been properly investigated. There's no way that building could have come down without controlled demolition."
Gainsayers, naysayers, debunkers, and amateur sleuths have their theories, some more plausible than others, some not worth even responding to. The above is a very short list of statements (there are many, many more just like these) of the opinions of experts and imminently credible people about the likelihood of controlled demolition bringing down the WTC towers. Folks are certainly entitled to their opinions, but it seems rather presumptuous to dismiss this collection of expertise and opinions without a thorough investigation ever having been completed.
Is this the beginning of week two of 9/11 truth on Common Dreams?
Damn, JAKE, I'm so convinced …
that building should have fallen over weeks earlier, it was a disaster just waiting for … the neoCONnut jobs agenda.
… just two 5/8 bolts, Wow I really find that extraordinarily STUPID design, as I used that size bolt on by house's foundation retrofit (actually dozens of 'em), which is not even 2 stories and under 1000 sqft.
"Rather than your "duplicative" test above, wouldn't it be better to first establish what mathematicians call the "existence" of the class of phenomenon under question?"
If I understand what you propose, I am not sure how it helps. Just because you would not be able to show something similar happening before would not mean that it didn't/couldn't happen on 9/11. There is a first time for everything.
" just two 5/8 bolts, Wow I really find that extraordinarily STUPID design, "
I had said this:
"...had trusses that were bolted on with two 5/8″ bolts."
You will now explain exactly why that is incorrect.
"If I understand what you propose, I am not sure how it helps. Just because you would not be able to show something similar happening before would not mean that it didn't/couldn't happen on 9/11. There is a first time for everything."
But controlled demolition is not an unprecedented phenomenon, it has been done many times before. So it seems to me that those denying controlled demolition are the ones doing the "special pleading" and the ones with the burden to show that total collapse could occur without controlled demolition.
IMHO, neither NIST nor Bazant come anywhere close to showing how local fire-induced failure produces total symmetrical collapse. Also, I believe such symmetric total collapse (due to fire) is unlikely at the level of the "hurricane in a junk yard" producing an airliner so beloved of the ID crowd, not at the coin-flip level.
"total symmetrical collapse. "
WHat do you think of the one tower clearly slumping toward one corner before the rest of the collapse?
I think that was when "they" had to throw the switches connected to the "disintegration" charges that pulverized the entire block of the building above the impact zone.
Without such controlled demolition "backup" or "redundancy", I believe that block of the top stories would have continued rotating outside the footprint of the building and crashed (as a block) on hapless buildings hundreds of feet away from that (south?) tower.
I also believe that such a scenario is precisely what the NIST simulations kept predicting would happen, and why these simulation results had to be suppressed and the "analysis" terminated at the onset of (local) failure.
There was a most important issue with the attack on the World Trade Center buildings, which was never addressed or mentioned in the 9-11 Commissin or the NIST reports. Very important. Had it been addressed, there would not be so many who believe the buildings were imploded with thermite explosives.
Bear with me please, for I do know from years of experience what I'm talking about on this issue, which was not ever brought up and I can sort of understand why it was not.
First let's briefly discuss the design of all three buidings. The design was unusual and when compared to all other high rises, was light in weight. The "central core" of the building was bolted and welded steel beams. Attached to the 110 story high steel frame core, were projecting steel beams on which the 110 floors were attached.
The four inch thick concrete floors were reinforced with a heavy steel mesh, they were also considered to be light in weight, which when compared to all other high rise buildings, they indeed were.
Now both towers were definently hit in the center of their upper portions, by huge almost fully fueled, 757 aircraft, which were flying at speeds approaching 500 mph. Ka-Boom! When the aircraft struck and then ENTERED the buildings, the thousands of pounds of fuel they carried ignited. Most of the aircraft parts stayed within the buildings and stayed on the floors where they entered at an angle and several floors were effected and immediately engulfed in flames. ___That is very important.
Now it is often claimed, and with justification, that burning jet fuel will NOT burn at high enough temperatures to melt steel. Good point. It can burn hot enough to cause steel to lose its tensile strength and bend, or warp, but I don't belieleve that is the big problem, which was never addressed, was the cause of the buildings to collapse.
Very, very briefly. When a Boeing jetliner is manufactured, it begins with the aircraft's main farme, then the wings and tail assembly, main landng gear, then wiring, flooring, windows, the cockpit, etc, and finally the outer aluminum skin, Then the engines are attached and it's rolled out of the hanger. ___Very briefly that's about how it goes.
This is very important. By weight, most of the millions of aircraft parts are of a metal called "magnesium alloy". Probably magnesium alloy accounts for 60% to 70% of the total un-refueld aircraft weight. I cannot say for certain exactly how many tons of magnesium are in a 757 aircraft. ___ Several hundred tons of "magnesium alloy metal" however.
Magnesium is light-weight, very strong and long lasting. Many of the 757 aircraft parts are very thick magnesium alloy, the main frame, landing gear, wing frames etc. Even the huge landilng gear wheels are magnesium. It is difficult to set magnesium alloy afire, but in a huge fuel fire, it will always ignite after a few minuttes of intense flames.
When magnesium begins to burn, it is very difficult to put out, you have to smother it with foam or sand. If you spray it with water it will explode and it will burn while submerged in water. ____ Most importantly, ___magnesium burns at 4,000 degrees F temps. ___ hot enough to easily to turn heavy steel beams into molten metal.
Magnesium fires will also leave residue on steel which may be near any magnesium fire, which very much resembles 'thermite' explosive fire, as do "thermte welds".
So now picture this: A heavy, almost fully fueled 757 aircraft, slams into the building and the main fuselage then slams into the steel framed inner core of the bulding. There we have elevators, mechanical access areas, building's piping, wiring, ducting and emergency stairways. This massive and now ball of fire is burning in the central core area and some fuel goes down elevator shafts and sets fuel fires below those floors.
It's a fireman's worst nightmare. The fuel from the aircraft's center wing tank is on fire and there are hundreds of TONS of magnesium stacked up against the central core and inside the central core and it finaly lights up and is burning at temps of near 4,000 degrees and it will burn for several hours unless smothered. It continued to burn in the basements after the buildings fell. None of that was EVER mentioned in any official reports. __ Why not?
I don't know why not, it certainly should have been. I wasn't on those panels so I can only surmise.___ One theory I have is, the investigators were aware of such an event, but only said the fires were very hot and it would have caused the steel beams to warp, bend or melt. They just didn't elaborate on the type of fires. They should have known magnesium burns at very high temps, if any were on the panels who know aircraft at all. Maybe none familiar with aircraft were on the panels but I rather doubt that.
So back to the magnesium burning. The South tower fell after an hour of fire and the north about one and a half hours of fire. During those hours the steel beams which supported the floors where the magnesium was burnig and IT had to be burning, the steel beams would have finally melted and the floor would have had to fall onto the floor beneath it. Four inches of concrete floor, reinforced with heavy steel mesh and that mesh would have actted like cheeze cutters, turning the concrete into tiny chunks and powdery dust.
There the aircraft magnesium continued to burn and the same thing happened again. Explosions were heard. Of course, drop a multi-ton concrete floor ten feet onto another concrete floor, which is full of steel desks and filing cabinets and you'll hear lots of explosions.
Meanwhile, the heat from those 4,000 degree fires drafted right up the central core like a great big chimney with a tornado inside of it and that heated more of th ecore's steel beams and finally the building could not take any more and it fell 'straight down', according to a Newton law of phyics. Once a few floors collapsed, the building's structural integrity would have been compromised and they fell straight down in just a few seconds. I saw them fall on live televised programs, ___ no argument there.
Beneath the buildingw were huge parking garages, full of vehicles, thousands of behicles. There were fires down there, very likely caused by the magnesium fires which still had to be burning when the buildings fell. Those fires burned for weeks. Imagine how many rubber tires and gallons of gasoline were down there?
How mny MAG whels on vehicles? MAG wheels were very popular those years. There are several pounds of magnesium in every vehicle car bus, subway train car and trucks. Add up several thousand vehicles and you have tons more magnesium burning and the result is a volcano and pools of molten metal found in the basemnets when it finally ended.
Thermite explosives? ___ NO!___ Magnesium fueled fires.
That's a heck of a trick Professor.
Fire is a MacGuffin, in the Alfred Hitchcock sense, a diversion, a distraction (like Janet Leigh stealing the bank deposit money at the start of Psycho). Fire,whether at 1000 or 4000 degrees, is chaotic and heterogenous. I do not see how fire can weaken all the critical points of a redundant high-rise steel building *simultaneously*.
And if ALL the critical points are not weakened simultaneously, then failure should be asymmetric (falling over to the side of the upper stories) towards the most severely weakened section.
Also, a concrete slab falling 10 feet onto another concrete floor slab will NOT pulverize the concrete in either slab. Your assumptions about "cheeze cutter" action of reinforcing steel are way off the mark. (Also, wasnt the WTC floor system a corrigated steel pan underlayment system, not reinforced concrete?)
The floors were four inch thick, of what was termed "LIGHT WEIGHT" concrete. In it's center was very heavy steel mesh rods, and who is it that says I'm incorrect to state, that when suddenly dropped ten feet, after being heated by intense and very hot fire, that the metal reinforcing rods would not pulverize the concrete? Prove me wrong?
Who denies the buildings fell straight down, bomm, boom, boomm, like a stack of heavy cards? Once a few floors fell, the entire building collapsed and fell straight down, the extremely high heat in the central core would have warped steel beams all the way up.
Once a floor has several other concrete floors laying on it, it will fall also and as they fell, each floor increased in both volumn and weight. Those floors were never designed to hold the weight of two or three other floors.
The steel beams where the floors attached to the central core and only at the central core, would have melted where any magnesium fires burned. There were massive magnesium fires burning. Jake is also correct, the support trusses were attached with only two 5/8 bolts. ___ Check it out.
"And if ALL the critical points are not weakened simultaneously, then failure should be asymmetric (falling over to the side of the upper stories) towards the most severely weakened section."
And we saw that (I think) with the initial slumping of the corner of one of thwe towers.
This link containd links to various papers explaining the collapse, including one coming out of MIT. Let me know what you think:
http://www.debunking911.com/paper.htm
Had the towers been constructed with "outer" support steel beams, it probably would have had to have all support beams cut or imploded in sequence to fall straight down. The towers and buliding seven were not designed nor built that way. Big difference, as it so turned out. They did fall straight down and they were not imploded with thermite.
One may call the fires a "McGaffen", or a "McGuffin", or a Mc-baloney" if they want to do so. But there is absolutley no sensible argument, that the aircraft entered the buildings and they had to burn and it would have been magnesium burning and it would have melted steel floor support beams until they were molten metal. Molten metal was seen flowing fron the side of the building. ___ 'Magnesium!
A thermite explosion would have been a flash fire and not caused pools of molten metal, unless thermite grenades were used and that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. There was no evidence of explosive residue found and dog teams trained to detect explosives were brought in from other states. No explosives were detected in any amount necessary to even bring down a concrete outhouse.
The slumping was not followed by the continued rotation of that (mostly) detached entity,
as is required by the law of conservation of momentum.
Instead is was disintegrated into dusts, prior to it's even collapsing into a heap on top of the rest of the structure.
Your acceptance of non-symmetrical START of collapse, is an empty affront to the obvious logic OF near IMPOSSIBILITY of symmetrical collapse, as proven by the fact that there is NO CONTINUATION of that slump and rotation.
Your logic and powers of observation do not begin to explain what occurred.
Namaste
Jake,
The Bazant and Zhou paper ("Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Simple Analysis") was published by MIT, but the authors are from Northwestern.
In their Appendix 2, "Why Didn't the Upper Part Pivot About Its Base?" they discuss the south tower rotating initially at the top. However, the assumptions they make about the conditions of this rotation (i.e., that it occurs as a pure rotation, without the mass simultaneously dropping or moving laterally in a center of mass sense) are designed to maximum the calculated resistive response of the intact part of the structure. I do not consider these assumptions realistic at all.
Bazant calculates that the pivot would begin to self-correct at only 2.8 degrees of rotation, while the image on the web shows something much greater (I would guess 20 degrees at least). This discrepancy is not explained in this paper.
The assumptions of progressive collapse that Bazant uses to calculate that progressive collapse was "inevitable" once it began I also do not consider to be realistic (top block dropping one story with NO resistance).
Just my opinion, but I am not in any sense impressed by this paper.
KEM -- while you obviously like the image of molten metal burning through and into the central core, you fail to even obliquely align with eye-witness testimony and the use of the stairs, and firefighters own statements as to the lack of severity of the fires (needed only 2 hoses to extinguish).
The burden of proof of massive and sustained fires at the core is NOT met, and hasn't even been introduced as a causal bystander to logical events, as we know people were in the airplane crash area, the video show them waving for attention.
As to the connection between jet fueled to magnesium fueled fires, none of the video evidence shows the brilliant white color of magnesium, and most experts feel that most of the jet fuel was ignited at initial impact with perimeter wall.
So JAKE, why no challenge for the proof of this Humongous fire?
Is it because your pay master's theories are being supported, so you cave-in your usually abrasive disdain and arrogance of unproven statements? Your non-objective adherence to an agenda, against all pursuit of truth is thereby demonstrated.
Your logic is to _ t r u t h _, as
geo is to _ j u s t i c e _.
Namaste
"The slumping was not followed by the continued rotation of that (mostly) detached entity,"
How do you know what was attached or not? Components and subassemblies that is.
"Instead is was disintegrated into dusts"
Not really, there were pretty large pieces in the pile. The whole dust thing is overblown, there were pieces larger than dust.
"However, the assumptions they make about the conditions of this rotation (i.e., that it occurs as a pure rotation, without the mass simultaneously dropping or moving laterally in a center of mass sense) are designed to maximum the calculated resistive response of the intact part of the structure. I do not consider these assumptions realistic at all."
TO clarify, what are the additional or alternate assumptions you feel must be made?
"as we know people were in the airplane crash area, the video show them waving for attention."
Are you still ignorant of the counter to this "point"?
Make "points", ignore the counter points, repeat original point.
"Also, a concrete slab falling 10 feet onto another concrete floor slab will NOT pulverize the concrete in either slab. Your assumptions about "cheeze cutter" action of reinforcing steel are way off the mark. "
I voiced no cheese cutter assumptions, don't know what you are getting at. Also, why do you think *all* the concrete was pulverized to dust?
Jake,
Bazant should have used the SAME assumptions he used in the "progressive collapse" main section of the paper: the vertical columns at the failure zone imparted NO resistance to the vertical motion. So why assume "intact" level of resistance to horizontal motion?
And if the center of mass is dropping AND moving laterally, as it appears to me in the photo of the rotated South Tower, just what force is there that could possibly stop the lateral component of this motion??
None that I can see, which is why that block had to be "vaporized".
"The burden of proof of massive and sustained fires at the core is NOT met"
That they occured? Or how they occured? Same burden not met vis a vis molten steel.
Hi ~Namaste~, the fire fighters only needed two hoses to put out hundreds of tons of burning magnesium?
They never got onto the floors where the aircraft struck and entered the buildings. They were talking about much smaller fuel fires below that area.
What burden of proof does one require, to realize massive magnesium fed fires would have had to be burning at the building's central cores? That's the only place the aircraft's fuselages could have stopped.
If there were no central, steel beamed cores, the aircraft would have gone all the way through the buildings and out the other side at their massive weight and the speed they were flying. Some smaller portions did go all the way through, but not the main fuselage. So it is only logical to realize, the tons of burning magnesium was at and very likey some was inside the central core's of the towers.
So JAKE responds "Not really, there were pretty large pieces in the pile. The whole dust thing is overblown, there were pieces larger than dust."
Well isn't that clever and evasive? A body set in motion, continues IN THAT DIRECTION, until/or unless acted upon by a force -- so what and where from did a force originate to reverse that rotation?
The fact that there were shards of pillars and portions of the lower perimeter wall, in no manner proves the assumption that any of those pieces were from the upper 20 stories, not does it even to begin to explain the lack of visual evidence for those still welded and bolted together 20 floors.
Where exactly do you suppose they went, and what energy was used to do that. It was just so convenient that there was a big cloud of dust, but anyone watching controlled demolitions, wont even see that -- which is the "smoking gun" question of someone needing to PROVE where all of that DUST came from
Granted, there is some energy to falling 10 or 15 feet between floors, but please do show how that causes concrete to disintegrate (pyroclastic flow), and how human bones get to be fragmented to less than 1 cm in size? EVEN IF we could somehow prove that there was total (near) simultaneous collapse of ALL 234 columns?
And arguing from your conclusions to justify your assumptions really is atrocious logic -- so go ahead make my day and for a change present some plausible proof.
KEM, would magnesium have left a detectable residue that would show up as magnesium oxide or something of that nature? Show me a trace that reveals significant amounts of magnesium associated with the molten steel of column samples, in dust samples collected and examined, by any of the official studies that were done.
Brian, not only was it symmetrical collapse, it was symmetrical collapse times three. As Scott Grainger said, "natural collapses due to unplanned events are not uniform."
"Well isn't that clever and evasive? A body set in motion, continues IN THAT DIRECTION, until/or unless acted upon by a force "
Hello? I was talking about the idea that everything was turned to dust, nothing about anything rotating.
"The fact that there were shards of pillars and portions of the lower perimeter wall, in no manner proves the assumption that any of those pieces were from the upper 20 stories, not does it even to begin to explain the lack of visual evidence for those still welded and bolted together 20 floors."
I don't know what you are trying to say here. I have no doubt that the upper floor assemblies were likely to get bretty bashed up into pretty small pieces. They fell a *long* way.
"And arguing from your conclusions to justify your assumptions really is atrocious logic "
Where did I do that?
BTW ~Nam~, I don't LIKE the image of the aircraft burning, or of people leaping to their death that day. It made me sick to see it and it still does whenever it comes on the TV news. I do know fo rcerrtain the aircraft burned and it would have been 4,000 degree fires. I twold have melted steel and witnesses did report molten metal flowing from the side of the building. Just burning aircraft fuel would not have caused that.
Now if any remember what they did see when those aircraft struck those several floors, the entire areas they stuck were IMMEDIATELY engulfed in huge balls of fire. There were no witnesses on those floors and no one was waving from the building there. Above it, yes they were for a short time.
As to two fire hoses, with water? ___ Nope, impossible. Once that magnesium started to burn it would have required three or more full foam equipped fire trucks to have a prayer of putting it out and no way to get the fire trucks up there. It would have been impossible for anyone to enter those floors with that amount of heat and no one did.
A B-52G caught fire at Loring one time and five fire trucks arrived within three minutes and they could not save it, It burned to the ground and melted. They just kept it from spreading.
¿¿¿¿¿ HELLO ?????
So the SLUMP that you did recognize, was that not a rotation of the entire upper 20 stories at once (~ 20 degrees or so) ?
Please do provide your sources for what FORCE STOPPED the rotation of that "slumping", as the laws of motion do not "believe your logic" is sufficient.
And what is you counter to the live people within 100 m of the supposedly devastatingly intense magnesium fires?
(how big do you think this WTC tower really is?)
Especially, considering that KEM has already provided his recollections of fire-trucks burning down to their axles when parked near an aircraft's magnesium fire.
Your LACK of SUPPORTING evidence is JUST OVERWHELMING NOT !
ANd of course the CREATION of blindingly hiding DUST everywhere, is there anyway for you to actually respond to ALL of the points being discussed?
Why do we not see so much dust in the actual collapses of controlled demolishing buildings, where they even actually admit to use of explosives?
The explanation doesn't EXIST, isn't THAT why it is so hard for you to consider responding, perhaps?
jakenewton April 15th, 2008 6:30 pm:
"Make "points", ignore the counter points, repeat original point."
That is a pretty good description of your own style of debate here, son.
"That is a pretty good description of your own style of debate here, son."
You will, of course, provide your very best example, Pops.
Hi ~Sdemtri~. I am not qualified to answer that question, but when magnesium burns, I understand it leaves visual traces on metal that are similar to thermte explosive residue and thermte welds.
This I am qualified to state with authority. When an aircraft burns in a large, uncontrolled fuel fire, the magnesium will ignite, unless it's a wooden aircraft. The magnesium will burn for hours, even days, unless the fire is smothered and the fire will melt steel. It cannot be extinguished with water.
Those two 757s both burned inside the buildings and I cannot imagine how they could not have been burning at the central core location. At their speed and weight, they would have penetrated the building's central cores. Any who say they didn't burn, are delusional and denying the obvious.
The woman waving:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2005/170105womanwaving.htm
"Why do we not see so much dust in the actual collapses of controlled demolishing buildings, where they even actually admit to use of explosives?"
That remains for you to prove. That is, that controlled demolition of buildings, much shorter than the ones in question, don't produce dust commensurate wuth their composition.
And has been pointed out, the WTC buildings contained tons of gypsum, which we must assume would easily be reduced to dust.
Sisyphus had an easier job than this,
I cannot believe the sheer arrogance that goes for reason, even Sisyphus had to apply a force (and integrated that's called work) to go back up the hill (with his pet rock).
But these anti-TRUTHers would attempt to have a reasonable person accept that the entire rotational moment of inertia of 20 stories ROTATING to SOMEHOW stop (without ANY known FORCE to apply in the opposite angular "spin" direction --well that what we CALL IMPOSSIBLE).
Rotational momentum is the vector product of rotational momentum and angular velocity -- and the ONLY way to stop this movement is the total elimination of that solid 20-story building's structural integrity. It doesn't (and CANNOT) just squish up and die within the dust cloud, unless given much high explosive "convincing". Again, where is the needed energy coming from (to do all of this DUST making)?