PDA

View Full Version : Jim Meigs contradicting 9/11 conspiracy theories


Iron Fist
09-12-2006, 04:34 PM
These excerpts are taken from a CBC News interview :
http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/911meigs.html

Evan Solomon interviews Jim Meigs

*it's a long read

I know some of you people are tired of hearing about this catastrophy, but I'm curious of hearing what you think of this guy's point of views about 9/11 conspiracy theories. I think he has some good explanations, but I still believe there was conspiracy behind this, there are too many facts and coincidences.

[...]
Solomon: In particular, though, the Pentagon pilot, the flight that hit the Pentagon, is in dispute, simply because of that 330-degree turn that that pilot would have to make, then he would have to go down 7,000 feet in a matter of seconds, and then skim over the lawn without making a mark, and then essentially hit the pentagon. That seemed like a more dramatic bit of flying..
Meigs: The pilot who hit the Pentagon definitely made some pretty wild maneuvers, which is a sign of his inexperience. He wasn't a great pilot. A more experienced pilot would line that right up much more accurately, not have to make all these kind of wild maneuvers. But he was good enough, he did hit the Pentagon, and the plane was recovered. We know that terrorists were flying on the plane. We have phone calls from people on the plane, we recovered the DNA of the passengers of the plane in the Pentagon, so if you're going to say that he wasn't flying the plane, then who was?

Solomon: Lets talk about the World Trade Center. The key thing is how these buildings collapsed, one of the key points is that steel structures like this were built to withstand plane attacks, a plane hitting them, you have 47 internal steel structures, and there's really no precedent for buildings like this to fall because of fire. what do you make of that?
Meigs: There's no precedent for an aircraft with 10,000 gallons of jet fuel hitting a skyscraper of that sort of construction. You know, a lot of conspiracy theorists will point to the time that a B-25 ran into the Empire State Building, but the Empire State Building is an order of magnitude more rigid a structure, more dense a structure. These buildings were actually very lightweight, and revolutionary in their time, because they don't have a rigid steel frame, or they did not have a rigid steel frame like most skyscrapers. They had a relatively solid internal core, and then a very lightweight tubular super structure around the outside, wide floors bridging that with 60-foot, very lightweight, steel trusses holding up the floors, and no vertical columns.

The jet fuel was spewed across 6 to 8 floors in each case. You know, those planes didn't hit parallel to the floor, they were each banked, so they took up multiple floors. You've never had a situation in a building of that scale with fires simultaneously ignited across 6 to 8 floors, and then burning at extremely high temperatures for a long period thereafter.
So, it's true that no building like that has collapsed solely due to a fire, but it wasn't solely due to a fire - you had massive impacts of jets that tore off the superstructure. The vertical tubular frames on the outside damaged the internal core, and then essentially cooked the concrete and steel truss floor assembly until they started to sag and buckle, and the steel, as it heated, gradually lost strength and began to sag with all the weight of all the floors overhead, until it failed.
Solomon: Of course, you've heard the view that a carbon fire, a fire started by carbon-based substances, which is what jet fuel essentially is, cannot reach temperatures even close to what it would take to melt steel. they only reach maximum 1700 degrees, you need almost 3000 degrees to melt steel; and two, the theory is that most of the jet fuel burned off anyway, during the collision with that big fireball.. how do you account for those arguments?
Meigs: It's true that jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel. But the steel doesn't have to melt to fail. Remember, these floors were supporting tens of thousands of tons of the superstructure above them. As those floors heated, they didn't have to get 3000 degrees until the steel turned to liquid. The steel did have to lose some of its strength, the steel loses about half its strength at about 1100 degrees Fahrenheit. Those temperatures were reached easily in the building, because fuel wasn't the only thing burning. The fuel did burn off relatively quickly, but it ignited fires that continued to burn, paper, wood, furniture, plastic, computers, everything else in those buildings that contributed most of the heat that ultimately the structure.
Solomon: What about the notion that buildings fell at virtually free-fall speed. and in fact a recent NIST report just came out (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm) saying that they fell at 9, 10 seconds, virtually free-fall, meaning there was so little resistance, you know, 'how could it possibly have fallen like that, i mean, there must have been a controlled demolition to help bring it down'?
Meigs: No, the NIST report did not say anything like 'there must have been a controlled demolition' - what did it say?
Solomon: I'll read you a quote. but NIST has recently come out about Building 7, let's get to Building 7, but tell me your view on the free-fall.
Meigs: You know, the World Trade Center collapses were not a movie. I think a lot of people who looked at that footage has an expectation that were shaped by their experience of disaster movies. Buildings don't fall in slow motion. Once that collapse is initiated, the enormous energy bearing down on these subsequent floors, as I said, was absolutely overwhelming. There was no reason for the failure of the structure to happen in slow motion, Yes, it happened quickly, it did not happen at a free-fall pace. In fact, if you look at the very video the conspiracy theorists cite, you can see pieces of the structure that fall outside of the frame of the building, falling faster than the collapse of the building itself.

Solomon: With regards to Building 7, the 9/11 commission didn't even talk about Building 7. We talked to Lee Hamilton, I asked him: 'Why didn't you talk about World Trade Center Building 7?' because many critics say 'here's an example where a similar-constructed building collapsed, and it wasn't hit by a jet, and it just collapsed from fire, of which there is no precedent.'
[...]
Meigs: What conspiracy theorists will often say is that 'no steel frame building has collapsed solely due to fire'. But it wasn't solely due to fire. If you look at the NIST report, you will see that, in subsequent investigations, they were able to find that the building was far more damaged by falling debris from the North Tower than had initially been understood. And in fact, in one portion, about 20 floors on the south wall of the building had been scooped out by this falling debris.
In addition, uncontrolled fires raged in that building for 7 hours, many of them they believe spread by diesel fuel from tanks in the building that were intended to supply back-up generators. With those uncontrolled fires raging in a building that initially.. it was also a very unusual design. We had the former deputy fire chief for the City of New York, and he said that one of the things that really concerned them about that building is that it had an extremely unusual design for a skyscraper. Instead of all the vertical beams terminating in the foundation, many of them terminate in huge trusses, that go across the entire structure, because it was built over a large Con Edison substation.
So essentially, the tower lower portion of the building was hollow. These trusses are extremely vulnerable to stress, since they carry loads far, far greater than you would see a typical skyscraper. When they were subjected to fire for a long period of time, and they were already carrying heavy loads because of the damage in the south side of the building, the NIST investigators believe that the potential for collapse, simply due to that combination of stresses, was enormous. And all it takes is a failure of a single one to ultimately bring down an entire building.
[...]
Solomon: What about the notion, and you've seen in documentaries like loose change and other things, that there are squibs - that as the building collapses, you can see puffs of smoke bursting out under it, and then in some cases, some say, some even above where the collapse is. what do you make of those squibs which many critics say are evidence of controlled demolition?
Meigs: You know, it's funny, if you go into a lot of these conspiracy websites, you see a lot of technical jargon like squibs and thermite, but they haven't actually talked to anybody who works in demolition. We talked to the major demolition firms in this country, and they all felt that this notion was really ridiculous.
For one thing, it would take months to wire a building like that for demolition. You wouldn't be wiring squibs up and down the building, you would be taking that out from the lower floors, and it would be impossible to do this in some kind of surreptious way. When they wire a building for demolition, they gut the building and hundreds of miles of wire would run everywhere through the building, there would be no way to do this surreptiously.
And in fact, they told us that the puffs of dust and pulverized concrete and sheetrock you see coming out of some of the windows, in some cases below the collapse zone, is very typical of a building collapse. If you think of a big building like that, it's really mostly air, it's like a giant accordion. As it's coming down, as all that air is being compressed, it has to find an escape route, it's going to take the path of least resistance, pushing down stairwells, elevators shafts. In some building collapses, you can even see puffs of air coming out of the basement of the building.
So the notion that you see puffs coming out from the windows is actually to be expected in a major building collapse, and it doesn't require some pre-positioned explosives.
[...]
Solomon: That's right, now, one thing, when I looked at those, there were two seismic spikes that were recorded at 8:46:26, and 9:02:54. Now, those were about 15 seconds before the planes impact each building respectively, according to the generally agreed impact times by the 9/11 Commission report. So what does that say to us? We've got the seismic spikes, but they're taking place before the planes actually hit the building. i'm not a geologist, i'm a journalist, what does that tell me?
Meigs: My suspicion here is that the geologic time is more accurate than any other source, but to be honest with you, I don't know. What would be the alternate explanation be?
Solomon: I guess, one of the theories is that there was an explosion in the basement, we've heard testimony from people like Rodriguez, the janitor person, and other police and firemen that the New York Times has quoted, who said they heard loud explosions - 'boom, boom, boom' - and there's lots of testimony about that, and some have suggested that there was a preliminary explosion somewhere in the bottom of the Twin Towers, and that these are what the Lamont-Doherty lab is catching on its seismic graphs.
Meigs: Pretty complicated conspiracy, isn't it? That their timing off, that they were 15 seconds early with their explosions, is that what you're saying?
Solomon: I'm asking you, Idon't know, Iguess what I'm saying is that I've been presented with this data. They're 15 seconds before the planes are generally agreed to have hit the buildings. I don't know how to explain it, I'm asking you, how do you guys explain it? i don't know.
Meigs: I don't explain it. I think that what you see in the real world is lots of tiny, minor, and usually irrelevant discrepancies between different versions of an event. As a journalist, you know that five reporters go and cover an event, there are going to be tiny, tiny differences between their accounts. That doesn't mean the accounts are wrong, and these differences are usually trivial, but you know, records don't always totally agree.
To take a tiny discrepancy between what somebody on the ground, who, you know, perhaps, you know, called 911, or one of the first 911 calls, and somebody said 'a plane just hit the building', or whatever the.. whatever sort of time record people are using to determine when the planes hit the building, and what the geological record said - to take that and just blow it up into an idea that these carefully timed explosions were going off here and there - again, where is the evidence for other explosions?
Let's roll back the tape a little bit. Two planes, with 10,000 gallons of jet fuel hit modern skyscrapers, They sprayed jet fuel throughout those floors, and they also penetrated the internal cores of the buildings where the stairwells and elevator shafts were. We have lots of indications that jet fuel poured down the elevator shafts, they set up secondary fires, secondary explosions. We talked to Vincent Dunne, the former deputy fire chief of New York, he told us that, in any major fire, you have stuff going off all the time. Aerosol cans will explode; rooms that have fuel vapour in them, if they're suddenly exposed to oxygen, will suddenly explode, what they call a backtrack explosion.
Sure, it's not at all inconceivable that there were all kinds of sounds went off in the building, and don't forget, both buildings had just been struck by large aircraft, flying at extremely high speed. They sustained dramatic damage from that event, they swayed dramatically, they broke windows, caused portions of the structure to fail all over the building, so is it really surprising that people would hear all kinds of noises that would be connected to that event? I think that makes total sense.
[...]
Solomon: That's right, now, one thing, when I looked at those, there were two seismic spikes that were recorded at 8:46:26, and 9:02:54. Now, those were about 15 seconds before the planes impact each building respectively, according to the generally agreed impact times by the 9/11 Commission report. So what does that say to us? We've got the seismic spikes, but they're taking place before the planes actually hit the building. i'm not a geologist, i'm a journalist, what does that tell me?
Meigs: My suspicion here is that the geologic time is more accurate than any other source, but to be honest with you, I don't know. What would be the alternate explanation be?
Solomon: I guess, one of the theories is that there was an explosion in the basement, we've heard testimony from people like Rodriguez, the janitor person, and other police and firemen that the New York Times has quoted, who said they heard loud explosions - 'boom, boom, boom' - and there's lots of testimony about that, and some have suggested that there was a preliminary explosion somewhere in the bottom of the Twin Towers, and that these are what the Lamont-Doherty lab is catching on its seismic graphs.
Meigs: Pretty complicated conspiracy, isn't it? That their timing off, that they were 15 seconds early with their explosions, is that what you're saying?
Solomon: I'm asking you, Idon't know, Iguess what I'm saying is that I've been presented with this data. They're 15 seconds before the planes are generally agreed to have hit the buildings. I don't know how to explain it, I'm asking you, how do you guys explain it? i don't know.
Meigs: I don't explain it. I think that what you see in the real world is lots of tiny, minor, and usually irrelevant discrepancies between different versions of an event. As a journalist, you know that five reporters go and cover an event, there are going to be tiny, tiny differences between their accounts. That doesn't mean the accounts are wrong, and these differences are usually trivial, but you know, records don't always totally agree.
To take a tiny discrepancy between what somebody on the ground, who, you know, perhaps, you know, called 911, or one of the first 911 calls, and somebody said 'a plane just hit the building', or whatever the.. whatever sort of time record people are using to determine when the planes hit the building, and what the geological record said - to take that and just blow it up into an idea that these carefully timed explosions were going off here and there - again, where is the evidence for other explosions?
Let's roll back the tape a little bit. Two planes, with 10,000 gallons of jet fuel hit modern skyscrapers, They sprayed jet fuel throughout those floors, and they also penetrated the internal cores of the buildings where the stairwells and elevator shafts were. We have lots of indications that jet fuel poured down the elevator shafts, they set up secondary fires, secondary explosions. We talked to Vincent Dunne, the former deputy fire chief of New York, he told us that, in any major fire, you have stuff going off all the time. Aerosol cans will explode; rooms that have fuel vapour in them, if they're suddenly exposed to oxygen, will suddenly explode, what they call a backtrack explosion.
Sure, it's not at all inconceivable that there were all kinds of sounds went off in the building, and don't forget, both buildings had just been struck by large aircraft, flying at extremely high speed. They sustained dramatic damage from that event, they swayed dramatically, they broke windows, caused portions of the structure to fail all over the building, so is it really surprising that people would hear all kinds of noises that would be connected to that event? I think that makes total sense.
[...]

I missed many points because I didn't want to make it too long, but you can read the full interview, the link's on top.

Sicka than aidZ
09-13-2006, 09:11 PM
Thats Alot To Read. But Yo Man Why Ask Here? These Fuckin Fagz Only Care About One Thing In Ktl, Gettin Back At The Whiteman For 400 Years Of Slavery.

Good Thread, Wrong Forum. Peace

RePz
09-15-2006, 01:04 AM
Theres the video loose change... go to youtube an search out loose change video...