In addition to the inerrant flaws and conflicts we pointed out in our previous article, it has now come to light that the so called "independent" structural engineers behind the study are anything but.
The Study was funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF), a federal agency created by Congress in 1950 "to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense…".
The board of the NSF was appointed by George W. Bush and confirmed by the United States Senate. Its director, Dr. Arden L. Bement Jr, has worked for the Department of defense, where he was under secretary for research and engineering, and DARPA (the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), which is responsible for the development of new technology for use by the military and famed for its black op projects and offshoot offices.
Last year the Bush Administration doubled the NSF's budget to $6.02 billion.
At the time Arden L. Bement, Jr. stated:
"This is a great day for NSF, and that means it's a great day for the nation, there has been a lot of rhetoric about doubling the NSF budget, but now the Administration is behind it. The FY 2007 Budget Request is the first installment. We are grateful to the Administration for its recognition and leadership,"
The Study was funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF), a federal agency created by Congress in 1950 "to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense…".
The board of the NSF was appointed by George W. Bush and confirmed by the United States Senate. Its director, Dr. Arden L. Bement Jr, has worked for the Department of defense, where he was under secretary for research and engineering, and DARPA (the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), which is responsible for the development of new technology for use by the military and famed for its black op projects and offshoot offices.
Last year the Bush Administration doubled the NSF's budget to $6.02 billion.
At the time Arden L. Bement, Jr. stated:
"This is a great day for NSF, and that means it's a great day for the nation, there has been a lot of rhetoric about doubling the NSF budget, but now the Administration is behind it. The FY 2007 Budget Request is the first installment. We are grateful to the Administration for its recognition and leadership,"
The great University of Purdue is not the latest member of W's Web of Deception
priceless :missingte
You want to take you serious? not possible
Does anyone close to you take you serious?
:monsters-
priceless :missingte
You want to take you serious? not possible
Does anyone close to you take you serious?
:monsters-
Did you read your little "debunking"? All it does is repeat the same claims that were already debunked long before this paper even came out, and then goes on to add a few more of the 9/11 "truthers" usual lies and strawmen arguments. :missingte :missingte :missingte
There's nothing in there that even remotley attempts a debunking, much like the other "debunking the debunking" pieces that I have read on the net.
Yeah, I'm feeling a little bit left out here.
:thumbsup:
Still nothing on how a fire caused a building to topple when a large portion of the fuel escaped upon impact. Perhaps someone can come along and say something like "only 10% of the fuel escaped during impact and the large fire ball made it seem like more since jet fuel expands when it is ignited..." I would respect something like that. But I have read nothing of the sort. I have yet to read an explanation of how a fire could bring down a building when so much fuel appeard to escape.
:toast:
Then let me help provide one.
To start with, remember that it's structural damage + fires that brought down the buildings together. The first thing to know is that the second plane was going far faster than the first plane did when it hit, thus hitting with more kinetic energy which = more structural damage to the building. Also, although some angles make it look like the plane just hit the corner of the building, it really didn't, although it wasn't the dead on hit that the first plane was. We have more shots of the second plane hitting and of the fireball that came after, but there was a decent sized fireball too after the first plane hit. Also important is that the jet fuel itself only started the fires that lead to the collapse. Although more fuel was lost in the second impact, there was still more than enough left to do the job of starting the fires. And also very important is the fact that the building had less fireproofing that the other one did (about half the amount). And since the impact occured at a lower point, there was far more weight bearing down on the damaged/fire heated section.
Lots of factors to consider.
All the video I saw showed the jet fuel being expelled outside the building as the plane hit at an angle in a corner. I don't see how you can say it didn't hit the corner. Granted, it wasn't exactly on the edge of the corner but the force of the plane caused the jet fuel to be expelled out the other side. If it weren't on a corner that wouldn't happen. Perhaps your definition of a corner and my definition are a bit different.
In regards to structural damage, the plane didn't hit the center of the building and that's where the building collapsed. There wasn't enough damage from the plane at that part of the building to cause a collapse. The building didn't collapse at the point of impact.
As far as the jet fuel only creating a fire which was later spread to other parts of the building, I would say that is an intelligent explanation. Jet fuel burns off quickly and burns with a bright flame. If you look at the building before impact there were no bright flames. However, we do see some smoke coming out meaning that other parts of the building caught fire.
:toast:
It went in about like this...
And jet fuel was also expelled in the first plane crash. But there was more than enough left in both cases to get the job done.
Damage + fires, remember? That damage alone isn't what caused it. To put it simply, the other parts of the building had the load shifted and transfered onto them, and then the fire weakened their abilities to bear it, which helped lead to the collapse.
And don't forget the overseas crowd. Engineers and engineering groups from countries that HATE the US also agree with the "official story". :thumbsup:
So now the government has to pay off all the structural high rise engineers here in the US, all the ones who GRADUATE from engineering school as well (don't forget them, they could expose this whole thing too! :thumbsup: ), AND somehow pay off all those in other countries that hate the US to keep their mouths shut and just go along with them.
No problem.
