Hear the sound of silence

The first 2 questions are pure rhetoric. They can be (and are) given very long and detailed answers. By stating these questions again like this, you're basically sharing your _feeling_ of "hey, how could this ever happen!", not asking any specific questions. Those who share your feelings would nod energetically, and their feeling will go up a notch. Those who do now will just shrug. In any case, asking or even answering such questions does not bring anyone any closer to the truth. Only specific questions about specific things, backed by specific research and completely devoid of any handwaving rhetoric, can do that.

The other 3 questions, however, are much more to the point, and I too would like to see them answered.

BB,

I you are refering to Sean Wheeler's questions you should remember to make a distinction between the author (me) and someone I quote. His questions - including the first two - I do find very relevant. And if you believe they have been answered - why don't you provide an answer, in your own words. You might want to consider doing it in Sean's blog since that was what he is asking for.

Thanks.

Boris.

Boris,

You present Sean's post in its entirety because you agree with it. However you then refuse to defend what you have posted and only point back to Sean?

Question 1 - The hardest parts of flying an airplane is to take off and land. Does Sean think Arabs are too stupid to accomplish the easy parts of the process? As for our vaunted air defense system, after the end of the Cold War this system was (until 9-11) basically on stand down. We won the Cold War so there was no longer a need to keep up the expense of the effort.

Question 2 - By flying two jetliners into two of the buildings and debris from the first two took out the third.

Question 3 - I do not know why. The FBI should release the videos. There is no reason to keep them a secret (that I know of) and by releasing them the government could squelch some of the conspiracy theories.

Question 4 - While the government almost certainly was not behind the 9-11 attacks, there were gross failures made by the government in failures to prevent the attacks. The Dubyah Bush administration is not motivated to point the finger of blame at themselves.

Question 5 - Does such a gag order exist? If so it should be lifted for the same reason I gave in questions 3 and 4.

I decline to take Sean on in a debate, I know nothing about him. I do know about you Boris, and I have respect for you. You are at least someone I would describe as fairly reasonable. You posted Sean's questions on your own blog. Certainly that should mean you are ready to defend them.

To Little David,

If the answer to question 2 is "By flying two jetliners into two of the buildings and debris from the first two took out the third" why has nobody collected the million dollar reward? Why has no buiding ever previously collapsed in a top down manner without the use of explosives wired <b>throughout<b/> the building's structure?

And just who determines when the requirements for winning the million dollars has been won? Is it the judgement of some scientific body or is it only the judgement of the person who offers the reward?

Why has no other building collapsed in such a manner? No other building that was built in such a manner has ever been struck by jetliners.

The only other building to have been such struck was the Empire State Building. It was struck by a much smaller plane. Even your own postings point to how firefighters think the "old" buildings are better able to sustain fires.

Now what is your point?

David,

You should direct the questions as to how the contest is run to Jimmy Walter. I might do that myself - just haven't gottn around to it yet.

It is my impression - that is to say, I believe I saw a report to that effect - that thus far there has been no submissions into the contest.

Now, it is one thing how this or that building sustains fires. It is quite another thing to explain a collapse of a building that - at least from the outside - does not even appear to have been significantly damaged by the fire, especially given that the building collapses at a near free-fall speed.

The architects of the WTC themselves aknowledge that those buildings were designed to take a hit a Boeing-707, potentially even multiple hits.

Boris.

I went to Jimmy Walters site. I notice that he puts a number of almost rediculous requirements on what must be proven to win the award. The submission would then be judged by a team of experts that I guess he would assemble himself. My guess is that this panel would only consist of a rather opinionated group. In my opinion the conditions he places are so absurd that the million dollars he offers is safe.

Did anyone else visit his site and notice how he attempts to use the fact that molten steel was still present at the site as far as 21 days after the collapse to make his case? How does the fact that molten steel was present at the site that long after the collapse bolster his case?

From my own experience, diesel fuel can be burned to achieve temperatures as high as 2000 degrees. If ordinary diesel can attain such temperatures, why is it reasonable to think jet fuel can not?

Our steel industry uses coal to manufacture steel. I would imagine the only reason they use coal instead of something more potent like jet fuel is that coal is cheaper.

The WTC was designed to take a Boeing 707 hit? Well evidently whoever designed it did not do a good job. Engineers are not super human, they make mistakes too. The Tacoma Narrows bridge was not designed to collapse only 4 months after it was completed either.

David,

I am getting set to address many of the issues you are raising in a separate post.

You write,

From my own experience, diesel fuel can be burned to achieve temperatures as high as 2000 degrees.

Do you mean 2000C or 2000F?

Boris.

I guess I would mean fahrenheit, as established by the exhaust temperature as measured by my exhaust gas pyrometer on my diesel engine. Please note these temperatures were only achieved after the failure of my turbo. Prior to the failure of my turbo, with optimum conditions, exhaust temperatures never exceeded 1200 degrees fahrenheit. Actually, 1200 degrees was the maximum obtained under optimal conditions. With new injectors, temperatures never exceed 900 degrees.

However my experience is that diesel can yield at least 2000 degrees fahrenheit as measured at the output of a diesel engine. Evidently coal can yield the temperature to melt steel under conditions not involving those of a diesel engine.

Is it impossible for jet fuel to yield such temperatures? I realize that coal only reaches the temperature necessary to melt steel in a blast furnace. Is it not possible that the updraft from the inferno created by the burning jet fuel caused something like blast furnace conditions?

This seems much more likely then the scenario laid out by conspiracy advocates, including yourself.

I just came across your blog and wanted to drop you a note telling you, Friend, how impressed I was with it. I give you my best wishes for your future endeavors. If you have a moment, please visit my site:

The steel in WTC1 and 2 was rated for 2000 degrees farenheit for six hours. Even the NIST report says that the majority of the jet fuel in BOTH impacts were burned up in the initial fireballs. In the case of WTC2, video evidence CLEARLY shows that most of the fireball burned OUTSIDE THE BUILDING.

Black body radiation is a well-understood science, the idea that one can determine the temperature of a heat source by the COLOR of said heat source. Yet, no video or photographic evidence of the crash or the time before the collapses indicate temperatures anywhere near the temperatures necessary to WEAKEN, much less MELT steel... that was rated at 2000 degrees farenheit for six hours.

In the public domain, there are satellite photos of the rubble pile, TWO WEEKS LATER, and it clearly indicates that there was a 1300 degree CELSIUS (2300 degrees farenheit, roughly) pile of molten steel under the rubble.

For two weeks after the collapse, there were molten piles of steel under the rubble of WTC 1, 2, and 7, and yet there is no indication that there was any kind of heat like that BEFORE the collapse...

It seems reasonable to ask, where did the heat come from?

I've seen a theory out there that posits that when the potential energy of the towers turned into kinetic energy, aimed straight down into the ground, that this could have been enough to generate the heat, which was then trapped in the rubble pile, composed of mostly concrete and asbestos which are very good heat insulators. If this is so, then surely this same kind of heat would be present whenever a 50-story plus building is demolished, but there is no mention of this anywhere, so I don't know.

The 911 truth movement is important. They are asking questions the government seems determined NOT to ask. Yes, there are some fringe people supporting it, but there are also some reputable people behind it.

If you had told me ten years ago that there were 19 people in this WORLD crazy enough to hijack American commercial airliners and fly them into buildings, I would've thought you were nuts, yet that's the CONSPIRACY THEORY that we are supposed to believe.

So, how many people in this COUNTRY do you think are merely MEAN enough and AMORAL enough to KILL someone ELSE for monetary gain?

Uhmm, looks like this could help... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firestorm